Works

VERS. I.

THE War proclaimed of old in Eden between the Serpent, and the seed of the Serpent, and the seed of the Woman, Gen. III. 15. now takes place: when that promised seed of the Woman comes forth into the field (being initiated by Baptism, and anointed by the Holy Ghost, unto the public office of his ministry) to fight with that old Serpent, and at last to bruise his head. And, since the Devil was always a most impudent spirit, now he takes upon him a more hardened boldness than ever, even of waging war with him, whom he knew to be the Son of God, because from that ancient proclamation of this war he knew well enough, that he should bruise his heel.

The first scene or field of the Combat, was the Desert of Judea, which Luke intimates, when he saith, that Jesus returned from Jordan, and that he was led by the Spirit into the wilderness; that is, from the same coast, or region of Jordan, in which he had been baptized.

The time of his temptations was from the middle of the month Tisri to the end of forty days, that is, from the beginning of our month of October to the middle of November, or thereabouts: so that he conflicted with cold, as well as want, and Satan.

The manner of his temptations was twofold. First, Invisibly, as the Devil is wont to tempt sinners; and this for forty days: while the Tempter endeavored with all his industry to throw in his suggestions, if possible, into the mind of Christ, as he does to mortal men. Which when he could not compass, because he found nothing in him, in which such a temptation might fix itself; Joh. XIV. 30. he attempted another way, namely, by appearing to him in a visible shape, and conversing with him, and that in the form of an Angel of light. Let the Evangelists be compared. Mark, saith, he was tempted forty days: so also doth Luke. But Matthew, that the Tempter came to him, after forty days; that is, in a visible form.

The matter of his Temptations was very like the Temptations of Eve. She fell, by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the Eye, and the pride of Life: which are the heads of all sins, 1 Joh. II. 16.

By the lust of the Eyes: for she saw the fruit, that it was pleasant to the sight.

By the lust of the flesh; she lusted for it, because it was desirable to be eaten.

By the pride of life; not contented with the state of perfection, wherein she was created, affected an higher; and she took of the fruit, and did eat, that she might become wiser by it.

The same tempter set upon our Savior with the same stratagems.

• I. As Eve was deceived by mistaking his person, supposing a good Angel discoursed with her, when it was a bad: So the Devil in like manner puts on the good Angel here, clothed with light, and feigned glory.
• II. He endeavors to ensnare Christ by the lust of the flesh, Command, that these stones be made bread: by the lust of the Eye, All these things will I give thee, and the Glory of them: by the pride of life, Throw thyself down, and fly in the air, and be held up by Angels.

VERS. V.

WHether he placed him upon the Temple itself, or upon some building within the holy circuit, it is in vain to seek, because it cannot be found. If it were upon the Temple itself, I should reflect upon the top of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Porch of the Temple: if upon some other building, I should reflect upon the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Royal Gallery. The Priests were wont sometimes to go up to the top of the Temple, stairs being made for this purpose, and described in the Talmudic book intitled, Middoth; and they are said to have ascended hither, When fire was first put to the Temple, and to have thrown up the keys of the chambers of the Temple towards Heaven, with these words, O thou eternal Lord, because we are not worthy to keep these keys, to thee they are delivered. And there came as it were the form of a hand out of Heaven, and took them from them: and they leaped down, and fell into the fire.

Above all other parts of the Temple the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Porch of the Temple, yea the whole 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , space before it, may not unfitly be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the wing of the Temple, because like wings it extended its self in breadth on each side, far beyond the breadth of the Temple: which we take notice of elsewhere.

If therefore the Devil had placed Christ in the very precipice of this part of the Temple, he may well be said to have placed him upon the wing of the Temple, both because this part was like a wing to the Temple itself, and that that precipice was the wing of this part.

But if you suppose him placed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , upon the Royal Gallery, look upon it thus painted out by Josephus: On the South part (of the Court of the Gentiles) was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Kings Gallery, that deserves to be mentioned among the most magnificent things under the Sun: for upon an huge depth of a valley, scarcely to be fathomed by the Eye of him that stands above, Herod erected a Gallery of a vast height; from the top of which, if any looked down, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he would grow dizzy, his Eyes not being able to reach to so vast a depth.

VERS. VIII.

THAT is, Rome with her Empire and State. For 1. That Empire is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , All the World, (which word Luke useth in this story) both in sacred and profane Writers. 2. At this time all Cities were of little account in comparison of Rome, nor did any part of the Earth bear any vogue, without that Empire. 3. Rome was the seat of Satan, Rev. XIII. 2. and he granted to the beast of that City both it, and the Dominion. 4. This therefore seems to be that, whereby he attempts to ensnare our Savior in this object, namely, that he promiseth to give him the pomp and power of Caesar, and to deliver into his hand the highest Empire of the World, that is, the Roman. This Antichrist afterwards obtained.

VERS. XIII.

WHY he left Nazareth, after he had passed six or seven and twenty years there, the reason appears, Luke IV. 28. &c. We do not read, that he returned thither, again, and so, unhappy Nazareth, thou perishest by thine own folly and perverseness. Whether his father Joseph had any inheritance at Capernaum, which he possessed as his heir, or rather dwelt there in some hired house, we dispute not. This is certainly called his City, Matth. IX. 1, &c. and here as a Citizen, he paid the half Shekel, Matth. XVII. 24. Where it is worthy marking, what is said by the Jews. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 How long does a man dwell in some City before he be as one of the Citizens? Twelve months. The same is recited again elsewhere. The Jerusalem Gemara thus explains it, If he tarry in the City thirty days, he becomes as one of the Citizens, in respect of the Alms-chest; if six months, he becomes a Citizen, in respect of clothing: if twelve months, in respect of tributes, and taxes. The Babylonian adds, if nine months, in respect of burial. That is, if any abide in a City thirty days, they require of him Alms for the poor; if six months, he is bound, with the other Citizens, to cloth the poor; if nine months, to bury the dead poor: if twelve months, he is bound to undergo all other taxes with the rest of the Citizens. See the Gloss.

VERS. XV.

IT is needful, that the words of Isaiah be considered, whence these words are taken. He had been discoursing, in the eighth Chapter towards the end, concerning the straits and miseries, that compassed the Transgressors of the Law and the Testimony. To the Law and to the Testimony, &c. verse. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if a man transgress against it (that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Law and the Testimony) it will redound to his hardship, and he shall suffer hunger, &c. verse. 21. And he shall look to the Earth, and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish, and he shall be driven to darkness, verse. 22. And then it follows, Chap. IX. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For the dimness shall not be like to that, wherein it was ill with him, at what time the former (afflicter) lightly touched the land of Zebulon, and the land of Naphtali, and the latter grievously afflicted, &c. That people, who sat in darkness saw a great light, &c.

That which the Prophet means here, is this. 1. That the Contemners of Immanuel and his Testimony, that is, the Gospel, should undergo far greater calamities, than those places had undergone, either under their first Conqueror Benhadad, 1 King. XV. 20. or under the second, the King of Assyria, 2 King. XV. 29. For those places saw light at last restored to them, when the Messias preached the Gospel there. But the contemners of the Gospel are driven into eternal darkness. 2. He foretells the morning of liberty, and of Evangelical light, to arise there, where the first darkness and the calamities of their captivity had arisen. S. Matthew citing these words, that he might show the Prophesy to be fulfilled, of that light that should arise there, omits those words, which speak of their former misery, that is, the first clause of the verse, and produceth those words only, and that very fitly too, which make to his purpose, and which aim directly thither, by the Prophets intention. The Prophet Hosea affords us an instance of curtailing a sentence after that manner, Chap. I. 11. & II. 1. When he proclaims Israel and Judah miserable, he calls them Lo-Ammi, and Lo-Ruchamah; when happy, Ammi, and Ruchamah.

Not by Jordan, but beyond Jordan. For the latter Afflicter, the King of Assyria, had carried away that Country also into banishment and bonds. 1 Chron. V. 26. Here is an Ellipsis of the conjunction And.

VERS. XVIII.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fishing in the Sea of Tiberias, in Talmudic speech. There the fathers of the Traditions dream, that Joshua the son of Nun, gave ten Laws to the Israelites, concerning having some things in common, as lawful, and to be allowed of: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Our Rabbins have a tradition, that Joshua ordained ten conditions: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That Cattle graze in common in woody places. : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And that a man gather wood in common in his neighbors field, &c. Among others, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And that any in common spread his nets for fishing in the Sea of Tiberias. But yet under this caution : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That none set up a wall, which may be any stop to ships. The Gloss is, It is the manner of fisher men, to fasten stakes in the water, and to make fences of canes or reeds, in which the fish may be taken: but this is not permitted, because it is an impediment to the ships. However therefore the Sea of Tiberias belonged to the Tribe of Naphtali, yet it was free for any Israelite to fish in it, so it were under the condition mentioned.

VERS. XIX.

THIS phrase is something agreeable with that of Maimonides upon the Talmud, : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Fisher of the Law.

VERS. XXI.

WE meet with a certain Rabbin of this very same name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Jacob the son of Zabdi.

VERS. XXIII.

SINCE we meet with very frequent mention of Synagogues everywhere in the books of the Gospel, it may be needful to know something more clearly, what the customs and institutions of the Synagogues were, for the better understanding very many things, which have some reference thereunto in the New Testament: let us here dispatch the history of them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as briefly as we may, now when the mention of Synagogues first occurs.

§ Of the Synagogues.

• I. A Synagogue was not formed anywhere, but where there were ten Learned Men, professedly Students of the Law. 1. Let that of the Talmud be observed. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What is a great City? : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That, in which were ten men of leisure. : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If there be less than this number, behold it is a Village. 2. Observe that of Maimonides; Wheresoever there be ten of Israel, there a house must needs be built, to which they may resort to prayers in the time of prayer, and this house is called a Synagogue. Not that any ten of Israel made a Synagogue; but wheresoever were ten Learned Men, and studious of the Law; these were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Batlanin. Men of leisure, who were not to be esteemed for lazy and idle persons, but : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 such who (not being encumbered with worldly things) were at leisure only to take care of the affairs of the Synagogues, and to give themselves to the study of the Law.

  The reason of the number of ten, though lean and empty enough, is given in the Talmud, and it is this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Congregation consists of Ten: which they prove hence, because it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 How long shall I bear with this evil Congregation, &c. ( Numb. XIV. 27.) Take away Joshua and Caleb, and there remain only ten; namely, of the spies of the land.

• II. Of these Ten Men,
  • 1. Three bare the Magistracy, and were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Bench of three. Whose office it was, to decide the differences arising between the members of the Synagogue, and to take care about other matters of the Synagogue. These judged concerning money matters, thefts, losses, restitutions, of ravishing a Virgin, of a man enticing a Virgin, of the admission of Proselytes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , laying on of hands, and divers other things▪ of which see the Tract Sanhedrin. These were properly, and with good reason called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rulers of the Synagogue, because on them laid the chief care of things, and the chief Power.
  • 2. Besides these there was the public Minister of the Synagogue, who prayed publicly, and took care about the reading of the Law, and sometimes preached, if there were not some other, to discharge this office. This person was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Angel of the Church, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Chazan or Bishop of the Congregation. The Aruch gives the reason of the name: The Chazan, saith he, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Angel of the Church, (or, the public Minister,) and the Targum renders the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 One that oversees, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For it is incumbent on him to oversee, how the Reader reads, and whom he may call out to read in the Law. The public Minister of the Synagogue himself read not the Law publicly, but every Sabbath he called out seven of the Synagogue (on other days fewer) whom he judged fit to read. He stood by him that read, with great care observing, that he read nothing either falsely, or improperly, and calling him back, and correcting him, if he had failed in anything. And hence he was called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Overseer. Certainly, the signification of the word Bishop, and Angel of the Church, had been determined with less noise, if recourse had been made to the proper fountains, and men had not vainly disputed about the signification of words, taken I know not whence. The service and worship of the Temple being abolished, as being ceremonial, God transplanted the worship, and public adoration of God used in the Synagogues, which was moral, into the Christian Church; to wit, the public Ministry, public Prayers, reading God's Word, and Preaching, &c. Hence the names of the Ministers of the Gospel were the very same, The Angel of the Church, and The Bishop, which belonged to the Ministers in the Synagogues.

  • 3. There were also three Deacons, or Almoners, on whom was the care of the poor; and these were called Parnasim, or Pastors. And these seven perhaps were reputed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The seven good men of the City, of whom there is frequent remembrance in the Talmudists.

    Of these Parnasim we shall only produce these things. There were two, who demanded alms of the Towns men; and they were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The two collectors of Alms. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To whom was added a third to distribute it.

    R. Chelbo in the name of R. Ba Bar Zabda saith, They do not make fewer than three Parnasin. For I see the judgments about many matters to be managed by three, therefore much more these, which concern life. R. Josi in the name of R. Jochanan saith, They do not make two brethren Parnasim. R. Josi went to Chephar, intending there to set Parnasim over them, but they received him not. He went away, after he had said these words before them, Ben Bebai was only set over the threeded (linen of the Lamps) and yet he was reckoned worthy to be numbered with the eminent men of that age. (See Shekalim Chap. 5.) Ye who are set over the lives of men, how much more are ye so? R. Chaggai, when he appointed the Parnasin, argued to them out of the Law, all dominion that is given, is given from the Law. By me Kings reign. R. Chaiia bar Ba 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 set 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rulers over them, that is, he appointed Parnasin. R. Lazar was a Parnas.

    This perhaps holds out a light to those words of the Aposte, 1 Tim. III. 13. They that have performed the office of a Deacon well, have obtained to themselves a good degree: that is, being faithful in their care, and provision for the poor, as to their corporal life, they may well be Probationers for the care of Souls. For when those Parnasin, as also all the Ten, were learned and studious, they might with good reason be preferred from the care of Bodies to that of Souls. The Apostles Deacons are to be reckoned also of the same Learned and Studious rank. And now let us turn our Eyes a little from the Synagogues to Christian Churches in the history of the New Testament. When the Romans permitted the Jewish Synagogues to use their own laws, and proper government▪ why, I pray, should there not be the same toleration allowed to the Apostolical Churches? The Roman censure had as yet made no difference between the Judaizing Synagogues of the Jews, and the Christian Synagogues or Churches of Jews; nor did it permit them to live af • er their own Laws, and forbid these. I am not therefore af • raid to assert, that the Churches of that first age were wanting to themselves, if they took not up the same liberty of government, as the Romans allowed the Jewish Synagogues to use. And I do not think that was said by the Apostle, 1 Cor. VI. 2, 3, &c. without this foundation. Therefore this power of their own government being allowed them, if so be they were minded to enjoy what they might, how easily may those words of the Apostle be understood, which have so wracked Learned Men (shall I say?) or which have been so wracked by them, 1 Tim. V. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Let the Elders that rule well, &c.

  • 4. We may reckon the eighth man of these Ten to be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, the Interpreter in the Synagogue, who being skilled in the Tongues, and standing by him that read in the Law, rendered in the Mother Tongue verse by verse those things, that were read out of the Hebrew Text. The Duty of this Interpreter, and the Rules of his duty you may read at large in the Talmud.

    The use of such an Interpreter, they think, was drawn down to them from the times of Ezra, and not without good reason. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And they read in the book of the Law. That was the Text. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Explaining. That was the Targum. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And added the meaning. They are the accents. : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And they understood the Text. That was the Masoreth. See Nehem. VIII. 8. see also Buxtorph's Tiberias, Chap. VIII.

  • 5. We do not readily know who to name for the ninth and tenth of this last Three. Let us suppose them to be the Master of the Divinity School, and his Interpreter: of whom we shall have a fuller occasion of enquiry. And thus much concerning the heads of the Synagogue, that learned Decemvirate, which was also the representative body of the Synagogue.
• III. The days, wherein they met together in the Synagogue, were the Sabbath, and the second day, and the fifth of every week. Of the Sabbath there is no question. They refer the appointment of the second and fifth days to Ezra. Ezra, say they, decreed ten decrees, He appointed the public reading of the Law in the second and fifth days of the week. Also on the Sabbath at the time of the sacrifice. He appointed washing to those that had the Gonorrhea. He appointed the Session of the Judges in Cities on the second and fifth days of the week, &c. Hence perhaps it will appear, in what sense that is to be understood, Act. XIII. 42. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Gentiles besought, that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath, or, the Sabbath between: that is, on the days of that intervening week, wherein they met together in the Synagogue.

• IV. Synagogues were anciently built in fields. To the evening recital of the Phylacteries, are to be added two Prayers going before, and two following after. Where the Gloss thus; The Rabbins instituted that prayer, [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] that they might retain their colleagues in the Synagogue. And this certainly respected their Synagogues at that time, because they were situated in the fields, where they might be in danger. And so Rabbenu Asher upon the same Tract; Antiently their Synagogues were in fields: therefore they were afraid to tarry there until the Evening prayers were ended. It was therefore appointed, that they should recite some verses, in which a short▪ sum of all the eighteen prayers had been compacted; after which that prayer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was to be recited.

  But the following times brought back their Synagogues for the most part into the Cities; and provision was made by sharp Canons, that a Synagogue should be built in the highest place of the City, and that no house should be built higher than it.

• V. The like Provision was made, that everyone, at the stated times of prayer, should frequent the Synagogue. God does not refuse the prayers, although sinners are mingled there. Therefore it is necessary, that a man associate himself with the Congregation, and that he pray not alone, when an opportunity is given of praying with the Congregation. Let everyone therefore come Morning and Evening to the Synagogue. And It is forbidden to pass by the Synagogue in the time of prayer, unless a man carry some burden upon his back: or unless there be more Synagogues in the same City; for then it may be judged, that he goes to another; or unless there be two doors in the Synagogue, for it may be judged, that he passed by one to go in at another. But if he carry his Phylacteries upon his head, then it is allowed him to pass by, because they bear him witness, that he is not unmindful of the Law. These things are taken out of the u Babylonian Talmud. Where these are also added. The Holy Blessed One saith, whosoever employeth himself in the study of the Law, and in the returning of mercy, and whosoever prays with the Synagogue, I account concerning him, as if he redeemed me and my sons from the Nations of the World. And whosoever prays not with the Synagogue is called an ill Neighbor, as it is said, Thus saith the Lord of all my evil neighbors, &c. Jer. XII. 14.

• VI. When they were met together in the Synagogue, on the Sabbath day (for this being observed, there is no need to speak anything of the other days) the service being begun, the Minister of the Church calls out seven, whomsoever he pleases to call out, to read the Law in their order. First, A Priest, then a Levite, if they were present, and after these five Israelites. Hence it is, O young student in Hebrew learning, that in some editions of the Hebrew Bible you see marked in the margin of the Pentateuch, 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Priest. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Levite. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The third. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The fourth. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The fifth. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The sixth. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The seventh. Denoting by these words the order of the Readers, and measuring out hereby the portion read by each one. Thus I suppose Christ was called out by the Angel of the Church of Nazareth, IV. Luke 16. and reading according to the custom, as a member of that Synagogue.

  There is no need to mention, that prayers were made publicly by the Angel of the Church for the whole Congregation, and that the Congregation answered Amen • o every prayer: and it would be too much particularly to enumerate what those prayers were, and to recite them. It is known enough to all, that Prayers, and reading of the Law and the Prophets was the chief business in the Synagogue, and that both were under the care of the Angel of the Synagogue.

But did not he, or somebody else make Sermons in the Synagogue?

• I. There seemed to have been Catechizing of boys in the Synagogue. Consider what that means, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What is the privilege of Women? : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This, that their sons read in the Synagogue. : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That their husbands recite in the School of the Doctors. Where the Gloss thus, The boys, that were Scholars were wont to be instructed, (or, to learn) before their Master in the Synagogue.
• II. The Targumist, or Interpreter, who stood by him that read in the Law, and rendered what was read out of the Hebrew original into the Mother Tongue, sometimes used a liberty of enlarging himself in paraphrase. Examples of this we meet with in the Talmud, and also in the Chaldee Paraphrast himself.
• III. Observe that of the Glosser, : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Women and the common people were wont to meet together to hear the Exposition or the Sermon. But of what place is this better to be understood than of the Synagouge? That especially being well weighed, which immediately followeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And they had need of Expounders (or Preachers) to affect their hearts: which is not much unlike that, which is said▪ Act. XIII. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . If we have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.
• IV. Service being done in the Synagogue, they went to dinner. And after dinner to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the School, or the Church, or a Lecture of Divinity: call it by what name you will. It is called also not seldom by the Talmudists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Synagogue. In this sense it may be, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the upper Synagogue to be taken, mentioned in the Talmud; if it be not to be taken of the Sanhedrin. In this place a Doctor read to his auditors some Traditional matter, and expounded it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Beth Midrash they taught Traditions, and their exposition.

There are three things to be taken notice of concerning the rites used in this place.

• 1. He that read to the Auditors, spake not out with an audible voice, but muttered it with a small whisper in some bodies ear; and he pronounced it aloud to all the people. So that here the Doctor had his Interpreter in this sense, as well as the Reader of the Law his in the Synagogue. Rabh went to the place of R. Shilla, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and there was no Interpreter, to stand by R. Shilla, Rabh therefore stood by him. Where the Gloss hath these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He had no speaker, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He had no Interpreter present, who stood before the Doctor when he was reading the Lecture. : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And the Doctor whispered him in the ear in Hebrew, and he rendered it in the Mother Tongue to the people. Hither that of our Savior hath respect, Matth. X. 27. What ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house tops. Consult the same place.
• 2. It was customary in this place, and in these exercises, to propound questions. In that remarkable story of removing Rabban Gamaliel of Jafne from his Presidentship, which we meet with in divers places of both Talmuds: when they met together in the Beth Midrash 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The questionist stood forth and asked, The Evening Prayer is it observed by way of Duty, or of free Will? And after a few lines, the mention of an Interpreter occurs: The whole multitude murmured against it, and said to Hotspith the Interpreter, Hold your peace, and he held his peace, &c.
• 3. While the Interpreter preached from the mouth of the Doctor, the people sat upon the Earth. Let not a Judge go upon the heads of the holy people. The Gloss is, While the Interpreter preached, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Synagogue (or, the whole Congregation) sat on the ground, and whosoever walked through the middle of them to take his place, seemed as if he walked upon their Heads.

One may safely be of opinion, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Synagogue, was used sometimes in the New Testament in this sense, and that Christ sometimes preached in these Divinity Schools, as well as in the Synagogues.

But by what right was Christ permitted by the Rulers of the Synagogue to preach, being the son of a Carpenter, and of no learned education? Was it allowed any illiterate person, or mechanic to preach in the Synagogues, if he had the confidence himself to do it? By no means. For it was permitted to none to teach there, but those that were learned. But there were two things especially, that gave Christ admission to preach in every Synagogue, namely, the fame of his miracles, and that he gave out himself the Head of a religious Sect. For however the religion of Christ and his Disciples was both scorned and hated by the Scribes and Pharisees, yet they accounted them among the Religious, in the same sense as they did the Sadducees; that is distinguished from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the common people, or the Seculars, who took little care of religion. When therefore Christ was reckoned among the Religious, and grew so famous by the rumour of his miracles, and the shining rays of his Doctrine, no wonder if he raised among the people an earnest desire of hearing him, and obtained among the Governors of the Synagogues a liberty of preaching.

VERS. III, IV, V, &c.

IT is commanded, Deut. XXVII. that upon the entrance of the people into the promised land, Blessings and Curses should be denounced from the Mounts Gerizim and Ebal: the Curses being particularly reckoned up, but the Blessings not so. Which seems not to be without a mystery, since the Law brought the Curse with it: but Christ, who should bring the Blessing, was yet to come a great while hence. Now he is present pronouncing the blessings, and that in a mountain. The Jewish Writers do thus relate that matter.

Six Tribes went up to the top of Mount Gerizim, and six to the top of Mount Ebal. But the Priests and the Levites stood below with the ark of the Covenant. The Priests compassed the ark; the Levites compassed the Priests, and the whole people of Israel stood on one side, and on the other: as it is said, All Israel and the Elders, &c. ( Jos. VIII. 33.) Turning their faces to Mount Gerizim, they began with the blessing, Blessed is the man, that shall make no Idol, or molten Image, &c. And both the one and the other answered, Amen. Turning their faces to Mount Ebal, they pronounced the curse, Cursed is the man who shall make an Idol, or molten Image: and both the one and the other answered, Amen. And so of the rest. And at last, Turning their faces to Gerizim, they began with the blessing, Blessed is the man, who shall continue in all the words of the Law, and the Answer on both sides is, Amen. Turning their faces to Ebal, they pronounce the curse, Cursed is everyone, that shall not continue in all the words of the Law, and the answer from both sides is, Amen, &c.

In like manner Christ here having begun with blessings, Blessed, Blessed, thundereth out curses, Woe, Woe, Luke VI. 24, 25, 26.

That which many do Comment concerning the octonary number of Beatitudes, hath too much curiosity, and little benefit. It hath that which is like it among the Jews: For thus they write, There is a Tradition from the School of R. Isaiah ben Korcha, that twenty blessings are pronounced in the book of the Psalms, and in like manner twenty Woes in the book of Isaiah. But I say, saith Rabbi, that there are two and twenty blessings, according to the number of the two and twenty letters.

Abraham was blessed with seven blessings.

These six are blessed, everyone with six blessings, David, Daniel and his three companions, and King Messias.

VERS. VIII.

HArken, O Pharisee, all whose praise lies in outward cleanness. How foolish is this boasting of a Jew! Come and see, saith R. Simeon ben Eleazar, how far the purity of Israel extends itself: when it is not only appointed, that a clean man eat not with an unclean woman: but (that an unclean man eat not with an unclean man) that a Pharisee that hath the Gonorrhea, eat not with a common person that hath the Gonorrhea.

VERS. IX.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Making peace between neighbors is numbered among those things, which bring forth good fruit in this life, and benefit in the life to come.

VERS. XVII.

I. IT was the opinion of the Nation concerning the Messias, that he would bring in a new Law, but not at all to the prejudice, or damage of Moses and the Prophets: But that he would advance the Mosaic Law to the very highest pitch, and would fulfil those things that were foretold by the Prophets; and that according to the Letter, even to the greatest pomp.

II. The Scribes and Pharisees therefore snatch an occasion of cavilling against Christ, and readily objected that he was not the true Messias, because he abolished the Doctrines of the Traditions, which they obtruded upon the people for Moses and the Prophets.

III. He meets with this prejudice here, and so onwards, by many arguments, as namely, 1. That he abolished not the Law, when he abolished Traditions, for therefore he came, that he might fulfil the Law. 2. That he asserts, that not one Jota should perish from the Law. 3. That he brought in an observation of the Law, much more pure and excellent than the Pharisaical observation of it was: which he confirms even to the end of the Chapter, explaining the Law according to its genuine and spiritual sense.

VERS. XVIII.

I. SUCH an asseveration was usual to the Nation, though the syllables were something changed. A certain Matron said to R. Judah bar Allai, Thy face is like to a Swineherd, or an Usurer. To whom he answered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In truth both is forbidden me. The Gloss there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In truth, is a manner of speech used in swearing.

II. But our Savior useth this phrase by the highest divine right. 1. Because he is Amen, the faithful witness, Rev. II. 14. 2 Cor. I. 20. See also Esa. LXV. 16. and Kimchi there. 2. Because he published the Gospel, the highest truth, Joh. XVIII 37, &c. 3. By this asseveration he doth well oppose his divine oracles against the insolent madness of the Traditional Doctors, who did often vent their blasphemous and frivolous tales under this seal, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They speak in truth: and wheresoever this is said, say they, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Tradition of Moses from Sinai.

The Jerusalem Gemarists speak almost to the same sense. The book of Deuteronomy came, and prostrated itself before God, and said, O Lord of the Universe, Thou hast wrote in me thy Law, but now a Testament defective in some part is defective in all. Behold, Solomon endeavors to root the letter Jod out of me (to wit in this Text 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He shall not multiply wives, Deut. XVII. 5.) The holy blessed God answered, Solomon and a thousand such as he shall perish, but the least word shall not perish out of thee. R. Honna said in the name of R. Acha, the letter Jod, which God took out of the name of Sarai • ur Mother, was given half to Sara, and half to Abraham. A Tradition of R. Hoshaia, the letter Jod came and prostrated itself before God, and said, O eternal Lord, Thou hast rooted me out of the name of that holy woman. The Blessed God answered, Hitherto thou hast been in the name of a woman, and that in the end, (Viz. in Sarai) but henceforward thou shalt be in the name of a man, and that in the beginning. Hence is that which is written, And Moses called the name of Hoshea, Jehoshua. The Babylonians also do relate this translation of the letter Jod out of the name of Sarai to the name of Joshua after this manner: The letter Jod, saith God, which I took out of the name of Sarai, stood and cried to me for very many years, how long will it be ere Joshua arise, to whose name I have added it.

You have an Example of the eternal duration of this very little letter Jod, in Deut. XXXII. 18. where in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is written even less than itself, and yet it stands immortal in that its diminutive state unto this very day, and so shall forever.

There is a certain little City mentioned by name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Derokreth, which by reason of the smallness of it was called Jod in the Gloss. And there was a Rabbin, named Rabh Jod. Of the letter Jod. See Midrash Tillin upon the CXIV. Psalm.

It seems to denote the little heads, or dashes of letters, whereby the difference is made between letters of a form almost alike. The matter may be illustrated by these examples 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If it were Daleth, and a man should have formed it into Resh (on the Sabbath) or should have formed Resh into Daleth, he is guilty.

It is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ye shall not profane my holy Name: whosoever shall change 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheth into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He, destroys the World (for then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 written with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He makes this sense, Ye shall not praise my holy Name.) It is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let every spirit praise the Lord. Whosoever changeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheth destroys the World. It is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They lied against the Lord: whosoever changeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Caph destroys the World. It is written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 There is none holy as the Lord: whosoever changeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheth into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth, destroys the World. It is written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Lord our God is one Lord: he that changeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Daleth into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Resh, destroys the World.

But that our Savior by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Jot and Tittle, did not only understand the bare letters, or the little marks that distinguished them, appears sufficiently from verse. 19. where he renders it, one of these least commands: in which sense is that also in the Jerusalem Gemara, of Solomon's rooting out Jod, that is, eva • uating that precept 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He shall not multiply Wives. And yet it appears enough hence, that our Savior also so far asserts the uncorrupt immortality and purity of the holy Text, that no particle of the sacred sense should perish, from the beginning of the Law to the end of it.

To him, that diligently considers these words of our Savior their Opinion offers itself, who suppose, that the whole Alphabet of the Law, or rather the original character of it is perished; namely, the Samaritan, in which they think the Law was first given and written; and that that Hebrew, wherein we now read the Bible, was substituted in its stead. We shall not expatiate in the question; but let me, with the Readers good leave, produce and consider some passages of the Talmud, whence, if I be not mistaken, Christians seem first to have taken up this opinion.

The Jerusalem Talmud treats of this matter in these words. R. Jochanan de Beth Gubrin saith, There are four noble Tongues, which the World useth: The Mother Tongue for Singing, the Roman for War, the Syriac for Mourning, the Hebrew for Elocution: and there are some which add, the Assyrian for Writing. The Assyrian hath writing (that is, letters or characters) but a language it hath not. The Hebrew hath a language, but writing it hath not. They chose to themselves the Hebrew language in the Assyrian character. But why is it called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Assyrian? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because it is blessed (or direct) in its writing. R. Levi saith, Because it came up into their hands out of Assyria.

A Tradition, R. Josi saith, Ezra was fit, by whose hands the Law might have been given, but that the age of Moses prevented. But although the Law was not given by his hand, yet writing (that is, the forms of the letters) and the language were given by his hand. And the writing of the Epistle was writ in Syriac, and rendered in Syriac, (Ezr. IV. 7.) And they could not read the writing, ( Dan. V. 8.) From whence is shewn, that the writing (that is, the form of the characters and letters) was given that very same day. R. Nathan saith, the Law was given in breaking (that is, in letters more rude, and more disjoined) And the matter is, as R. Josi saith. Rabbi (Judah Haccodesh) saith, the Law was given in the Assyrian language, and when they sinned, it was turned into breaking. And when they were worthy in the days of Ezra, it was turned for them again into the Assyrian. I show today, that I will render to you 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mishneh, the doubled, or, as if he should say, the seconded ( Zech. IX. 12.) And he shall write for himself the Mishneh (the doubled) of this Law in a book; ( Deut. XVII. 18.) namely in a writing, that was to be changed. R. Simeon ben Eleazar saith, in the name of R. Eleazar ben Parta, and he in the name of R. Lazar, the Hammodaean, the Law was given in Assyrian writing. Whence is that proved? From those words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Exod. XXVII. 10.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vau in the Law is like a pillar. So the Jerusalem Talmudists.

Discourse is had of the same business in the Babylonian Talmud, and almost in the same words, these being added over. The Law was given to Israel in Hebrew writing, and in the holy Language. And it was given to them again in the days of Ezra in Assyrian writing, and the Syriac Language. The Israelites chose to themselves the Assyrian writing, and the holy Language. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And left the Hebrew writing, and the Syriac Language to ignorant persons. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But who are those Idiots (or ignorant persons?) R. Chasda saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Samaritans. And what is the Hebrew writing? R. Chasda saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, (according to the Gloss) Great letters, such as those are, which are writ in charms, and upon door posts.

That we may a little apprehend the meaning of the Rabbins, let it be observed,

I. That by the Mother Tongue (the Hebrew, Syriac, Roman being named particularly) no other certainly can be understood than the Greek, we have shewn at the three and twentieth verse of the first Chapter.

II. That that writing, which the Gemarists call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and which we have interpreted by a very known word, Hebrew writing, is not therefore called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because this was proper to the Israelites, or because it was the ancient writing, but (as the Gloss very aptly) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because the writing, or character was in use among them that dwelt beyond Euphrates. In the same sense, as some would have Abraham called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hebrew, signifying, on the other side, that is, beyond, or on the other side of Amana.

Many Nations were united into one Language, that is, the old Syriac, namely, the Chaldeans, the Mesopotamians, the Assyrians, the Syrians. Of these some were the sons of Sem, and some of Cham. Though all had the same Language; it is no wonder, if all had not the same letters. The Assyrians and Israelites refer their original to Sem: these had the Assyrian writing: the sons of Cham, that inhabited beyond Euphrates, had another; perhaps, that, which is now called by us, the Samaritan, which it may be the sons of Cham, the Canaanites, used.

III. That the Law was given by Moses in Assyrian letters, is the opinion (as you see) of some Talmudists; and that indeed the sounder by much. For to think that the Divine Law was writ in characters proper to the cursed seed of Cham, it agreeable neither to the dignity of the Law, nor indeed to reason itself. They that assert the Mother writing was Assyrian, do indeed confess that the characters of the Law were changed, but this was done by reason of the sin of the people, and through negligence. For when under the first Temple the Israelites degenerated into Canaanitish manners, perhaps they used the letters of the Canaanites, which were the same with those of the Inhabitants beyond Euphrates. These words of theirs put the matter out of doubt: The Law was given to Israel in the Assyrian writing in the days of Moses: but when they sinned under the first Temple, and contemned the Law, it was changed into breaking to them.

Therefore according to these men's opinion, the Assyrian writing was the Original of the Law, and endured, and obtained unto the degenerate age under the first Temple. Then, they think, it was changed into the writing used beyond Euphrates, or the Samaritan; or, if you will, the Canaanitish (if so be, these were not one and the same:) but by Ezra it was at last restored into the original Assyrian.

Truly I wonder that Learned Men should attribute so much to this tradition, (for whence else they have received their Opinion, I do not understand) that they should think that the primitive writing of the Law was in Samaritan: seeing that which the Gemarists assert concerning the changing of the characters, rests upon so brittle and tottering a foundation, that it is much more probable, that there was no change at all (but that the Law was first writ in Assyrian by Moses, and in the Assyrian also by Ezra ) because the change cannot be built and established upon stronger arguments.

A second question might follow concerning Keri, and Chethib: and a suspicion might also arise, that the Text of the Law was not preserved perfect to one Jot and one Tittle, when so many various readings do so frequently occur. Concerning this business we will offer these few things only, that so we may return to our task.

1. These things are delivered by Tradition: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They found three books in the Court, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Meoni, The book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zaatuti, and the book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hi. In one they found written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The eternal God is thy refuge: but in the two other they found it written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ( Deut. XXXIII. 27.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They approved (or, confirmed those two, but rejected that one. In one they found written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But in two it was written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And he sent young men of the children of Israel. (Exod. XXIV. 5.) Those two they confirmed, but that one they rejected. In one they found written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 She was nine: but in the two was written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 She was eleven: those two they confirmed, and that one they rejected.

I do much suspect, that these three books, laid up in the Court, answered to the threefold Congregation of the Jews, namely in Judea, Babylon, and Egypt, whence these copies might be particularly taken. For however that Nation was scattered abroad almost throughout the whole World, yet by number and companies scarcely to be numbered, it more plentifully increased in these three Countries, than anywhere else: In Judea by those that returned from Babylon, in Babylon by those that returned not; and in Egypt by the Temple of Onias. The two Copies that agreed, I judge, to be out of Judea and Babylon, that that differed to be out of Egypt: and this last I suspect by this, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zaatuti smells of the seventy Interpreters whom the Jews of Egypt might be judged by the very sake of the place to favor more, than any elsewhere. For it is asserted by the Jewish Writers, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was one of those changes, which the Septuagint brought into the sacred Text.

II. It is therefore very probable that the Keri and Chethib was compacted from the comparing of the two Copies of the greatest authority, that is, the Jewish and the Babylonian: which when they differed from one another in so many places in certain little dashes of writing, but little or nothing at all as to the sense, by very sound counsel they provided, that both should be reserved, so that both Copies might have their worth preserved, and the sacred Text its purity and fullness, whilst not one jot, nor one tittle of it perished.

VERS. XXI.

THAT is, ye have received it by Tradition, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If they hav • heard, that is, learned by tradition, they speak to them. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They learned by hearing, that is, by Tradition, a saying very frequent in Maimonides.

That is, It is an old Tradition. For the particular passages of the Law, which are here cited by our Savior, are not produced as the bare words of Moses, but as clothed in the Glosses of the Scribes; which most plainly appears above the rest, verse. 43. and sufficiently in this first allegation; where those words, Whosoever shall kill shall be guilty of the judgment, do hold out the false paint of Tradition, and as we observe in the following verses, such as misrepresents the Law, and makes it of none effect. If it be asked, why Christ makes mention of those of old time? It may be answered, that the memory of the antienter Fathers of the Traditions was venerable among the people. Reverend was the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the first good men, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first wise men. Therefore Christ chose to confute their Doctrines and Glosses, that he might more clearly prove the vanity of Traditions, when he reproved their most famous men. But the sense, which we have produced, is plain, and without any difficulty; as if he should say, It is an old Tradition, which hath obtained for many ages.

VERS. XXII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But I say, the words of one that refutes, or determines a question, very frequently to be met with in the Hebrew Writers. To this you may lay that of Isaiah, Chap. II. verse. 3, And he will teach us of his ways, &c. When Kimchi writes thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This Teacher is King Messias. And that of Zacharias, Chap. XI. verse. 8. Where this great shepherd destroys three evil shepherds, namely the Pharisee, and the Sadu • ee, and the Essene.

First let us treat of the Words, and then of the Sentences.

With his Brother ] The Jewish Schools do thus distinguish between a Brother and a Neighbor; that a Brother signifies an Israelite by nation and blood; a Neighbor an Israelite in religion and worship, that is, a Proselyte. The Author of Aruch in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Son of the Covenant writes thus, The Sons of the Covenant, these are Israel. And when the Scripture saith, If any ones Ox gore the Ox of his Neighbor, it excludes all the Heathen, in that it saith, of his Neighbor. Maimonides writes thus; It is all one to kill an Israelite, and a Canaanite Servant: for both the punishment is death, But an Israelite, who shall kill 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A stranger inhabitant, shall not be punished with death, because it is said, Whosoever shall proudly rise up against his Neighbor to kill him ( Ex. XXI. 14.) And it is needless to say, he shall not be punished with death for killing a Heathen. Where this is to be noted, that Heathens and stranger Inhabitants, who were not admitted to perfect and complete Proselytism, were not qualified with the title of Neighbor, nor with any privileges.

But under the Gospel, where there is no distinction of Nations, or Tribes, Brother is taken in the same latitude, as among the Jews, both Brother and Neighbor was; that is, for all professing the Gospel, and is contradistinguished to the Heathen. 1 Cor. V. 11. If any one, who is called a Brother. And Mat. XVIII. 15. If thy Brother sin against thee &c. ver. 17. If he hear not the Church, let him be a Heathen.

But Neighbor is extended to all, even such as are strangers to our religion. Luk. X. 29, 30, &c.

He shall be guilty ] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 words signifying guilt or debt, to be met with a thousand times in the Talmudists. Es. XXIV. v. 23. They shall be gathered together as Captives are gathered into prison. Where R. Solomon speaks thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Guilty of Hell unto Hell: which agrees with the last clause of this verse.

Of the Council ] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the Sanhedrin: that is, of the Judgment, or Tribunal of the Magistrate. For that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Judgment, in the clause before is to be referred to the Judgment of God, will appear by what follows.

Raka, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .] A word used by one that despiseth another in the highest scorn: very usual in the Hebrew Writers, and very common in the mouth of the Nation.

One returned to repentance: his wife said to him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Raka, if it be appointed you to repent, the very girdle wherewith you gird yourself, shall not be your own.

A Heathen said to an Israelite, Very suitable food is made ready for you at my house. What is it? saith the other. To whom he replied, swine's-flesh. Raka, (saith the Jew) I must not eat of clean beasts with you.

A Kings daughter was married to a certain dirty fellow, He commands her to stand by him as a mean Servant, and to be his Butler. To whom she said, Raka, I am a Kings daughter.

One of the Scholars of R. Jochanan made sport with the teaching of his Master: but returning at last to a sober mind, Teach thou, saith he, O Master, for thou art worthy to teach: for I have found, and seen that which thou hast taught. To whom he replied, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Raka, thou hadst not believed, unless thou hadst seen.

A certain Captain saluted a religious man praying in the way, but he saluted him not again, He waited till he had done his prayer, and saith to him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Raka, It is written in your Law, &c.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Into Hell fire.] The Jews do very usually express Hell, or the place of the damned by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gehinnom, which might be shewn in infinite examples; The manner of speech being taken from the valley of Hinnom, a place infamous for foul Idolatry committed there, for the howlings of Infants, roasted to Molech, filth carried out thither, and for a fire that always was burning, and so most fit to represent the horror of Hell.

There are three doors of Gehenna; one in the Wilderness, as it is written, They went down, and all that belonged to them alive into Hell, ( Num. XVI. 33.) Another in the Sea, as it is written, Out of the belly of Hell have I called, thou hast heard my voice, ( Jon. II. 2.) The Third in Jerusalem, as it is written, Thus saith the Lord, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem, (Isaiah. XXXI. 9.) The Tradition of the School of R. Ishmael, Whose fire is in Zion, this is the Gate of Gehenna.

The Chaldee Paraphrast upon Isaiah. ch. XXXIII. ver. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gehenna, eternal fire, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Gehenna of eternal fire.

We come now to the sentences and sense of the Verse. A threefoid punishment is adjudged to a threefold wickedness. Judgment to him that is angry 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, without cause. Judgment also, and that by the Sanhedrin, that calls Raka. Judgment of Hell to him that calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Fool.

That which is here produced of the threefold Sanhedrin among the Jews pleases, me not, because, passing over other reasons, mention of the Sanhedrin is made only in the middle clause.

How the Judgment in the first clause is to be distinguished from the Judgment of the Sanhedrin in the second, will very easily appear from this Gloss and Commentary of the Talmudists, Of not killing. He is a manslayer, Whosoever shall strike his Neighbor with a stone or iron, or thrust him into the water or fire, whence he cannot come out, so that he die, he is guilty. But if he shall thrust another into the water or fire, whence he might come out, if he dy, he is guiltless. A man sets a dog or serpent on another, he is guiltless. See also the Babylonian Gemara there. Whosoever shall slay his Neighbor with his own hand, striking him with his sword, or with a stone, so that he kills him; or shall strangle, or burn him, so that he die, in any manner whatsoever killing him in his own person; behold, such an one is to be, put to death by the Sanhedrin. But he, that hires another by a reward, to kill his neighbor, or who sends his servants, and they kill him, or he that thrusts him violently upon a Lion, or upon some other beast, and the beast kill him, or he that kills himself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Everyone of these is a shedder of blood, and the iniquity of mansla • ghter is in his hand, and he is liable to death 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by hand of God, but he is not to be punished with death by the Sanhedrin.

Behold a double manslayer! Behold a double judgment! Now let the words of our Savior be applied to this Gloss of the ancients upon the Law of Murder. Do ye hear, saith he what is said by the ancients, Whosoever shall kill, after what manner soever a man shall kill, whether by the hand of one that he hath hired, or by his Servants, or by setting a beast on him, he is guilty of the Judgment of God, though not of the Judgment of the Sanh • drin: and whosoever shall kill his Neighbor by himself, none other interposing, this man is liable to the Judgment of the Sanhedrin: but I say unto you, that whosoever is rashly angry with his Brother, this man is liable to the Judgment of God, and whosoever shall say to his Brother, Raka, he is liable to the Sanhedrin.

These words of our Savior perhaps we shall more truly understand by comparing some more phrases and doctrines very usual in the Jewish Schools. Such as these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Absolved from the Judgment of men, but guilty in the Judgment of Heaven, that is, of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Death by the Sanhedrin, and death by the hand of Heaven.

And in a word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cutting off, speaks vengeance by the hand of God. They are very much deceived, who understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cutting off, of which there is very frequent mention in the holy Bible, concerning the cutting off from the public assembly by Ecclesiastical censure, when as it mea • s nothing else, than cutting off by divine Vengeance. There is nothing more usual and common among the Hebrew Canonists, than to adjudge very many transgressions to cutting off, in that worn phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If he shall do this out of presumption he is guilty of cutting off, but if he shall do it out of ignorance, he is bound to a sacrifice for sin. When they adjudge a thing or a guilty person to cutting off, they deliver and leave him to the Judgment of God, nevertheless a censure and punishment from the Sanhedrin sometimes is added, and sometimes not. Which might be illustrated by infinite examples, but we are afraid of being tedious. Let these two be enough on both sides.

• I. Of mere delivering over to the judgment of God, without any punishment inflicted by the Sanhedrin, those words speak, which were lately cited, He is absolved from the judgment of men, but liable to the judgment of Heaven.
• II. Of the Judgment of God and of the Sanhedrin joined together, these words in the same place speak. If he that is made guilty by the Sanhedrin be bound to make restitution, Heaven, (or God) doth not pardon him until he pay it. But he that bears a punishment laid on him by the Sanhedrin, is absolved from cutting off. All persons guilty of cutting off, when they are beaten, are absolved from their cutting off: as it is said, And thy Brother become vile in thy sight. When he shall be beaten, behold, he is thy brother.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , liable or guilty even to the Hell fire. He had said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 guilty of Judgment, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the Council, before; but now he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unto Hell, and that in a higher Emphasis; as if he should have said, Whosoever shall say to his brother, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Fool, shall be guilty of Judgment, even unto the Judgment of Hell.

But what was there more grievous in the word Fool, than in the word Raka? Let King Solomon be the Intepreter, who everywhere by a Fool understands a Wicked and Reprobate person, foolishness being opposed to spiritual wisdom. Raka denotes indeed morosity, and lightness of manners and life: but Fool judgeth bitterly of the spiritual and eternal state, and decreeth a man to certain destruction: Let the judgings and censures of the Scribes and Pharisees concerning the common people serve us instead of a Lexicon. They did not only suffer themselves to be styled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Wisemen, but also arrogated it to themselves as their merit, and due. But what do they say of the common people? This people, that knoweth not the Law, is cursed, Joh. VII. 49.

You have a form of speaking, not much unlike this which is now under our hands. He that calls his Neigbour, Servant, let him be in excommunication. The Gloss is, They therefore excommunicate him, because he vilified an Israelite: him therefore they vilify in like manner. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If he call him Bastard, let him be punished with forty stripes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If Wicked man, let it descend with him into his life: that is, according to the Gloss, Into misery and penury.

After this manner therefore our Savior suits a different punishment to different sins by a most just parity, and a very equal compensation: To unjust anger, the just anger and judgment of God; to public reproach a public Trial; and Hell fire to the censure that adjudgeth another thither.

VERS. XXIII.

THE Emphasis is chiefly in the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For that which the Jews restrained only to pecuniary damages, Christ extends to all offenses against our Brother.

He that offers an Oblation, not restoring that which he had unjustly taken away, does not do that which is his duty. And again, He that steals anything from his Neighbor, yea, though it be but a farthing, and swears falsely, is bound to restitution meeting the wronged party halfway. See also Baal Turim upon Levite. Ch. VI. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An oblation is not offered for a sin, unless that which is (wrongfully) taken away be first restored, either to the owner, or the Priest. In like manner, He that swears falsely, either of the Pruta (small money) or what the Pruta is worth, is bound to inquire after the owner, even as far as the Islands in the Sea, and to make restitution.

Observe, how provision is here made for pecuniary damages only, and bare restitution, which might be done without a charitable mind, and a brotherly heart. But Christ urgeth charity, reconciliation of mind, and a pure desire of reunion with our offended brother; and that not only in money matters, but in any other, and for what ever cause, wherein our Neighbor complains, that he is grieved.

VERS. XXIV.

THIS business was altogether unusual in gifts offered at the Altar in such a cause. We read indeed of the drink offering delayed after the sacrifice was offered. For the Wise men say, that a man is not held in his sin, when the drink offering is put off by some delay, because one may offer his sacrifice today, but his drink offering twenty days hence. We read also, that the oblation of a sacrifice presented even at the Altar, in some cases hath not only been delayed, but the sacrifice itself hath been rejected: that is, if in that instant discovery was made in sacrificing the beast either of a blemish, or of somewhat else, whereby it became an illegal sacrifice: or if some uncleanness, or other cause appeared in the Offerer; whereby he was rendered unfit for the present to offer a gift. Of which things causing the oblation of the sacrifice already presented at the Altar to be deferred, the Hebrew Lawyers speak much. But among those things, we do not meet at all with this, whereof our Savior is here speaking: so that he seems to enjoin some new matter, and not new alone, but seemingly impossible. For the offended Brother might perhaps be absent in the furthest parts of the land of Israel, so that he could not be spoke with, and his pardon asked in very many days after; and what shall become of the beast in the mean time, which is left at the Altar? It is a wonder indeed, that our Savior, treating of the worship at the Altar, should prescribe such a duty, which was both unusual (in such a case,) and next to impossible. But it is answered:

I. It was a custom and a law among the Jews, that the sacrifices of particular men, should not presently, as soon as they were due, be brought to the Altar, but that they should be reserved to the Feast next following, whatsoever that were, whether the Passover, or Pentecost, or Tabernacles, to be then offered. Teeming women▪ women that have the Gonorrhea, and men that have the Gonorrhea, reserve their pigeons, until they go up to the feast. The Oblations which were devoted before the Feast, shall be offered at the Feast: for it is said, These things shall ye do in their Solemnities, &c. But now all the Israelites were present at the Feasts, and any Brother, against whom one had sinned, was not then far off from the Altar. Unto which time, and custom of the Nation, it is equal to think Christ alluded.

II. He does silently chastise the curiosity used in deferring of a sacrifice brought about lesser matters, when this, that was greater, was unregarded. And he teacheth, that God is worshipped in vain without true charity to our brother. The same also in effect do the Gemarists confess.

VERS. XXV.

THAT is, while thou goest with him to the Magistrate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to the Magistrate, Luke XII. 58. Where there is a clear distinction between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Magistrate, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Judge: so that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Magistrate, or Ruler, one may understand the Judges in the lower Sanhedrins, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Judge, the Judges in the highest. That allusion is here made to contentions about many matters, sufficiently appears from the following words, verse. 26. Thou shalt by no means come out of prison till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. Now it was the business of the Bench that consisted of three men, to judge of such matters.

The words therefore of the verse have this sense. Does your Neighbor accuse you of some damage, or of money that is due to him? And are ye now going in the way to the Bench of Three, to commence the Suit? compound with your Adversary, lest he compel you to some higher Tribunal, where your danger will be greater. For if the Lender say to the Debtor, let us go, that judgment may be had of our case from the chief Sanhedrin, they force the Debtor to go up thence with him. In like manner, If any accuse another of something taken away from him, or of some damage done him, and he that is the accuser will have the higher Sanhedrin to judge of the Suite, they force the Debtor to go up thence with him. And so it is done in all other things of that nature.

Before, Christ had argued from piety, that men should seek to be reconciled, now he argues from prudence, and an honest care of a man's self.

A word answering to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Executioner, a Whipper, among the Rabbins. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judges and Offices shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, Deut. XVI. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are Vergers and scourge bearers (Executioners) who stand before the Judges. These go through the lanes and streets, and Inns, and take care about weights and measures: and scourge those that do amiss. But all their business is by the order of the Judges. Whosoever they see doing evil, they bring before the Judges, &c. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whosoever goes out into the street, let him reckon concerning himself, as if he were already delivered over to the Officer. That is, as the Gloss hath it, Contentions and contentio • s men will there be met with, Gentiles and Israelites: so that let him reckon concerning himself, as though he were already delivered over to the Officer, ready to lead him away before the Judges. The Gloss upon Bab. Joma writes thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Executioner of the Sanhedrin, whose office is to whip.

VERS. XXVI.

ACCORDING to the Jerusalem Talmud it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Kordiontes, according to the Babylonian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Kontrik. For thus they write:

That which is here said by the Jerusalem Talmud, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Two Prutahs make a Farthing, is the very same thing that is said, Mark XII. 42. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Two mi • es which make a farthing. A Prutah was the very least piece among coins. So Maimonides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That which is not worth a Prutah, is not to be reckoned among riches. Hence are those numberless passages in the Talmudic Pandects, relating to the Prutah. He that steals less than a Prutah, is not bound to pay five fold. No land is bought for a price less than a Prutah, that is, given in earnest.

You have the value of these Coins in the same Maimonides. Selaa, saith he, is in value four pence; a penny six Meahs. Now a Meah in the days of Moses our Master, was called a Gerah: It contains two Pondions: A Pondion two Assars: and a Prutah is the eighth part of an Assar. The weight of a Meah, which is also called a Gerah, is sixteen barley-corns. And the weight of an Assar is four barley-corns. And the weight of a Prutah is half a barley-corn.

Luke hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the last mite, Chap. XII. 59. that is, the last Prutah, which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was the eighth part of the Italian Assarius. Therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a farthing, was so called, not that it was the fourth part of a penny, but the fourth part of an Assar, which how very small a part of a penny it was, we may observe by those things that are said by both Gemara's, in the places before cited.

Let this be noted by the way, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Meah, which, as Maimonides before testifies, was anciently called a Gerah, was also commonly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zuz in the Talmudists. For as it is said here, : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Six Meahs of Silver make a Penny. So in Rambam, : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Penny contains six Zuzim.

The Prutah, as it was the least piece of money among the Jews, so it seems to have been a Coin merely Jewish, not Roman. For although the Jews being subjects to the Romans used Roman money, and thence, as our Savior argues, confessed their subjection to the Romans, yet they were permitted to use their own money, which appears by the common use of the shekels, and half shekels among them; with good reason therefore one may hold the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the farthing was the least Roman Coin, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Prutah the least Jewish. Whilst our Savior mentions both, he is not inconstant to his own speech, but speaks more to the capacity of all.

VERS. XXVII.

HE citeth not the Command, or Text of Moses, as barely delivered by Moses, but as deformed by those of old time with such a Gloss, as almost evacuated all the force of the Command; for they interpreted it of the act of adultery only, and that with a married woman. So the enumeration of the six hundred and thirteen precepts of the Law, at that Exod. XX. 14. Thou shalt not commit adultery, hath these words, This is the thirty fifth precept of the Law, namely, That that no man lie with another man's wife.

VERS. XXVIII.

HE that looketh upon a woman's heel is as if he looked upon her belly: and he that looks upon her belly is as if he laid with her. And yet, It was Rabban Gamaliel's custom 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to look upon women. And in the other Talmud, He that looks upon the little finger of a woman, is as if he looked upon her privy parts. And yet Rabh Gidal, and R. Jochanan were wont to sit at the place of dipping, where the women were washed; and when they were admonished by some of the danger of lasciviousness, R. Jochanan answered, I am of the seed of Joseph, over whom an evil affection could not rule.

VERS. XXX.

SEE here Rab. Niddah, fol. 13. quite through. Among other things R. Tarpho • saith, Whosoever brings his hand to his modest parts, let his hand be cut off unto his navel. And a little after, It is better that his belly should be cleft in two, than that he should descend into the well of corruption. The discourse is of moving the hand to the privy member, that by the handling it, it might be known whether the party had the Gonorrhea, or no, and yet they adjudg never so little handling it to cutting off the hand. Read the place if you have leisure.

VERS. XXXI.

NOtice is to be taken how our Savior passeth into these words, namely by using the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , But▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , But it hath been said. This particle hath this Emphasis in this place, that it whispers a silent objection, which is answered in the following verse. Christ had said, Whosoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery already. But the Jewish Lawyers said, If any one sees a woman, which he is delighted withal above his wife, let him dismiss his wife and marry her.

Among the Chapters of Talmudical Doctrine we meet with none, concerning which it is treated more largely, and more to a punctilio than of Divorces: and yet there the chief care is not so much of a just cause of it, as of the manner and form of doing it. To him that turns over the Book Gittim, as also indeed the whole Seder Nashim, that part of the Talmud that treats of women ) the diligence of the Masters about this matter will appear such, that they seem to have dwelt not without some complacency upon this article above all others.

God indeed granted to that Nation a Law concerning Divorces, Deut. XXIV. 1. permitted only for the hardness of their hearts, Mat. XIX. 8. In which permission nevertheless they boast as though it were indulged them by more privilege. When God had established that fatal Law of punishing Adultery by death, Deut. XXII. for the terror of the people, and for their avoiding of that sin; the same merciful God foreseeing also how hard (occasion being taken from this Law) the issue of this might be to the women, by reason of the roughness of the men, lusting perhaps after other women, and loathing their own wives, he more graciously provided against such kind of wife-killing by a Law, mitigating the former, and allowed the putting away a wife in the same case, concerning which that fatal Law was given, namely in the case of Adultery. So that that Law of Divorce in the exhibition of it implied their hearts to be hard, and in the use of it they shown them to be carnal. And yet hear them thus boasting of that Law. The Lord of Israel saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that he hateth putting away, (Mal. II. 16.) Through the whole Chapter, saith R. Chananiah in the name of R. Phin • has, he is called the Lord of Hosts: but here of Israel, that it might appear that God subscribed not his name to Divorces, but only among the Israelites. As if he should say, To the Israelites I have granted the putting away of wives, to the Gentiles I have not granted it. R. Chaijah Rabbah saith, Divorces are not granted to the Nations of the World.

Some of them interpreted this Law of Moses, (as by right they ought to interpret it) of the case of Adultery only. The School of Shammai said, a wife is not to be divorced, unless for filthiness, (that is, Adultery) only because it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because he hath found filthy nakedness in her, (that is, Adultery.)

Rabh Papa said, If he find not adultery in her, what then? Rabba answered, When the merciful God revealed concerning him that corrupted a maid, that it was not lawful for him to put her away in his whole life, (Deut. XXII. 29.) you are thence taught concerning the matter propounded, that it is not lawful to put her away; if he shall not find filthiness in his wi • e.

With the like honesty have some commented upon those words cited out of the Prophet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For he hateth putting away. R. Jochanan saith, The putting away of a wife is odious. Which others also have granted indeed of the first wife, but not of those that a man took to himself over and above. For this is approved among them for a Canon, Let no man put away his first wife, unless for adultery. And R. Eliezer saith, for the divorcing of the first wife, even the Altar itself sheds tears. Which Gloss they fetch from thence, where it is said, Let no man deal treacherously towards the wife of his youth, Mal. II. 15.

The Jews used Polygamy, and the divorcing of their wives with one and the same license; and this that they might have change, and all for the sake of lust. It is lawful (say they) to have many wives together, even as many as you will: but our wise men have decreed that no man have above four wives. But they restrained this, not so much out of some principles of chastity, as that least a man being burdened with many wives might not be able to afford them food and clothing, and due benevolence: for thus they comment concerning this bridle of Polygamy.

For what causes they put away their wives, there is no need to inquire; for this they did for any cause of their own free will.

I. It is commanded to divorce a wise that is not of good behavior, and who is not modest, as becomes a daughter of Israel. So they speak in Maimonides, and Gittin, in the place above specified. Where this also is added in the Gemarists. R. Meir saith, As men have their pleasures concerning their meat and their drink, so also concerning their wives. This man takes out a fly found in his cup, and yet will not drink: after such a manner did Papus ben Judah carry himself: who, as often as he went forth, bolted the doers and shut in his wife. Another takes out a fly found in his cup, and drinks up his cup: that he doth, who sees his wife talking freely with her neighbors and kinsfolks, and yet allows of it. And there is another, who, if he find a fly in his basket, eats it: and this is the part of an evil man, who sees his wife going out, without a veil upon her head, and with a bare neck, and sees her washing in the baths, where men are wont to wash, and yet cares not for it; whereas he is bound by the Law to put her away.

II. If any man hate his wife, let him put her away: excepting only that wife that he first married. In like manner R. Judah thus interprets that of the Prophet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If he hate her, let him put her away. Which sense some Versions, dangerously enough, have followed. R. Solomon expresses the sense of that place thus: It is commanded to put away ones wife, if she obtain not favor in the eyes of her husband.

III. The School of Hillel saith, If the Wife cook her husbands food illy by over salting or over roasting it, she is to be put away.

IV. Yea, If by any stroke from the hand of God, she become dumb, or sottish, &c.

V. But not to relate all the things, for which they pronounce a wife to be divorsed (among which they produce some things, that modesty allows not to be repeated) let it be enough to mention that of R. Akibah instead of all. R. Akibah said, If any man sees a woman handsomer than his won wife, he may put her away, because it is said, If she find not favor in his eyes.

And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , A Bill of Divorce, Mat. XIX. 7. and in the Septuagint, Deut. XXIV. 1. Of which Beza thus; This bill may seem to be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as much as, Departing away) not in respect of the wife put away; as of the husband departing away from his wife. Something hard and diametrically contrary to the Canonical doctrine of the Jews. For thus they write, It is written in the bill, Behold, thou art put away; Behold, thou art thrust away, &c. But if he writes, I am not thy husband, or I am not thy spouse, &c. it is not a just bill: for it is said He shall put her away, not, He shall put himself away.

This Bill is called by the Jews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Bill of cutting off, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Bill of expulsion, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Instrument, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Instrument of dismission, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Letters of forsaking, &c.

I. A Wife might not be put away, unless a bill of divorce were given. Therefore it is called (saith Baal Turimi ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A bill of cutting off, because there is nothing else, that cuts her off from the husband. For although a wife were obtained three ways (of which see the Talmud) yet there was no other way of dismissing her, besides a bill of divorce.

II. A wife was not put away, unless the husband were freely willing; for if he were unwilling, it was not a divorce: but whether the wife were willing or unwilling, she was to be divorsed, if her husband would.

III. A bill of divorce was written in twelve lines, neither more, nor less. R. Mordechai gives the reason of this number, in these words, Let him that writes a bill of divorse comprize it twelve lines according to the value of the number of the letters in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Get. But Rabh Saadias interprets, that the bill of divocre should be written with the same number of lines, wherein the books of the Law are separated. For four lines come between the book of Genesis, and the book of Exodus: four between the book of Exodus, and the book of Leviticus; four between the book Leviticus, and the book Numbers. But the four between the book of Numbers and Deuteronomy are not reckoned, because that book is only a repetition of the Law, &c.

IV. You have the Copy of a Bill of Divorce in c Alphesius upon Gittin in this form:

See also this form varied in some few words in Maimonides.

V. This bill, being confirmed with the husbands seal, and the subscription of witnesses, was to be delivered into the hand of the wife, either by the husband himself, or by some other deputed by him for this office: or the wife might depute somebody to receive it in her stead.

VI. It was not to be delivered to the wife, but in the presence of two, who might read the bill, both before it was given into the hand of the wife, and after: and when it was given, the husband, if present, said thus, Behold, this is a bill of Divorce to you.

VII. The wife thus dismissed might, if she pleased, bring this bill to the Sanhedrin, where it was enrolled among the Records, if she desired it, in memory of the thing. The dismissed person likewise might marry whom she would: if the husband had not put some stop in the bill, by some clause forbidding it.

VERS. XXXII.

1. OUR Savior does not abrogate Moses permission of Divorses, but tolerates it, yet keeping it within the Mosaic bounds, that is, in the case of adultery, condemning that liberty in the Jewish Canons, which allowed it for any cause.

II. Divorse was not commanded in the case of adultery, but permitted. Israelites were compelled sometimes even by Whipping, to put away their Wives, as appears in Maimonides. But our Savior, even in the case of adultery, does not impose a compulsion to divorse, but indulgeth a license to do it.

III. He that puts away his wife without the cause of Fornication, makes her commit adultery: that is, if she commits adultery: or, although she commit not adultery, in act, yet he is guilty of all the lustful motions of her that is put away, for he that lustfully desires is said to commit adultery, verse. 28.

VERS. XXXIII.

THE Law forbids perjury, Levite. XIX. 12. &c. To which the Fathers of the Traditions reduced the whole sin of swearing, little caring for a rash oath. In this Chapter of Oaths they doubly sinned.

I. That they were nothing at all solicitous about an Oath, so that what was sworn were not false. They do but little trouble themselves, What, How, How often, how rashly you swear, so that what you swear be true.

In the Talmudic Tract 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shevuoth, and in like manner in Maimonides, oaths are distributed into these four ranks.

First, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Promissory oath: when a man swore that he would do, or not do this or that, &c. And this was one of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 twofold Oaths, which were also fourfold, that is, a negative, or affirmative Oath; and again, a negative, or affirmative Oath concerning something past, or a negative or affirmative oath concerning something to come: namely, when any one swears, that he hath done this or that, or not done it; or, that he will do this or that or that he will not do it. Whosoever therefore swears any of these four ways, and the thing is not, as he swears (for example, That he hath not cast a stone into the Sea, when he hath cast it: that he hath cast it, when he hath not: that he will not eat, and yet eats: that he will eat, and yet eateth not.) behold, this is a false oath, or perjury.

Whosoever swears that he will not eat, and yet eats some things, which are not sufficiently fit to be eaten, this man is not guilty.

Secondly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A vain or a rash oath. This also is fourfold, but not in the same manner as the former: 1. When any asserted that with an oath, which was contrary to most known truth: as, If he should swear a man were a woman, a stone-pillar to be a pillar of gold, &c. or when any swore that was or was not, which was altogether impossible: as, that he saw a Camel flying in the air. 2. When one asserted that by an oath, concerning which there was no reason that any should doubt. For example, that Heaven is Heaven, a stone is a stone, &c. 3. When a man swore that he would do that which was altogether impossible; namely, that he would not sleep for three days and three nights: That he would taste nothing for a full week, &c. 4. When any swore that he would abstain from that which was commanded, as, that he would not wear Phylacteries, &c. These very examples are brought in the places alleged.

Thirdly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An oath concerning something left in trust: Namely, when any swore concerning something left in trust with him, that it was stolen or broke, or lost, and not embezzel'd by him, &c.

Fourthly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Testimonial Oath, before a Judge or Magistrate.

In three of these kinds of swearing care is only taken concerning the truth of the thing sworn, not of the vanity of swearing.

They seemed indeed to make some provision against a vain and rash oath: namely, 1. That he be beaten who so swears, and become cursed: which Maimonides hints in the twelfth Chapter of the Tract alleged: with whom the Jerusalem Gemarists do agree; He that swears two is two, let him be beaten for his vain oath. 2. They also added terror to it from fearful examples, such as that is in the very same place. : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 There were twenty four assemblies in the South, and they were all destroyed for a vain oath. And in the same Tract, a woman buried her Son for an oath, &c. yet they concluded vain oaths in so narrow a circle, that a man might swear an hundred thousand times, and yet not come within the limits of the caution concerning vain swearing.

II. It was customary and usual among them to swear by the Creatures, If any swear by Heaven, by Earth, by the Sun, &c. although the mind of the swearer be under these words to swear by him who created them, yet this is not an Oath. Or if any swear by some of the Prophets, or by some of the Books of the Scripture, although the sense of the swearer be to swear by him that sent that Prophet, or that gave that Book, nevertheless this is not an Oath.

If any adjure another by heaven or earth, he is not guilty.

They swore by Heaven. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 By heaven so it is.

They swore by the Temple. When Turtles and young Pigeons were sometime sold at Jerusalem for a penny of gold, Rabban Simeon, Ben Gamaliel said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 By this Habitation (that is, by this Temple) I will not rest this night, unless they be sold for a penny of silver.

R. Zechariah ben Ketsab said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 By this Temple, the hand of the woman departed not out of my hand. R. Jochanan said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 By the Temple it is in our hand, &c.

Bava ben Buta swore by the Temple, in the end of the tract Cherithuth, and Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel in the beginning; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And so was the custom in Israel. Note this, so was the custom.

They swore by the City Jerusalem. R. Judah saith, He that saith, By Jerusalem, saith nothing, unless with an intent purpose he shall vow towards Jerusalem. Where also after two lines coming between those forms of swearing and vowing are added, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jerusalem, For Jerusalem, By Jerusalem. The Temple, For the Temple, By the Temple. The Altar, For the Altar, By the Altar. The Lamb, For the Lamb, By the Lamb. The Chambers of the Temple, For the Chambers of the Temple, By the Chambers of the Temple. The Word, For the Word, By the Word. The Sacrifices on fire, For the Sacrifices on fire, By the Sacrifices on fire. The Dishes, For the Dishes, By the Dishes. By all these things, that I will do this to you.

They swore by their own heads, One is bound to swear to his neighbor, and he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vow (or, swear) to me by the life of thy Head, &c.

VERS. XXXIV.

IN the Tract Demai are some rules prescribed to a religious man: among others, That he be not too much 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in swearing and laughing. Where the Gloss of R. Solomon is this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 means this, Be not much in oaths, although one should swear concerning things that are true: for in much swearing it is impossible not to profane. Our Savior with good reason binds his followers with a straiter bond, permitting no place at all for a voluntary and arbitrary oath. The sense of these words goes in the middle way, between the Jew, who allowed some place for an arbitrary oath, and the Anabaptist who allows none for a necessary one.

VERS. XXXVI.

That is, Thou canst not put on gray hairs, or lay them aside.

VERS. XXXVII.

IN Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Giving and receiving (that is, business) among the disciples of the wise men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let it be in Truth and Faith, by saying, Yes, yes, No, no: or according to the very words, concerning Yes, yes, concerning No, no.

If it be said to a Lunatick, shall we write a bill of Divorce for your wife? And he nod with his head, they try thrice; and if he answer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to No, no, and to Yes, yes, they write it and give it to his wife.

VERS. XXXVIII.

THIS Law he also cites, as clothed in the Gloss of the Scribes, and now received in the Jewish Schools. But they resolved the Law not into a just retaliation, but into a pecuniary compensation.

Does any cut off the hand or foot of his neighbor? They value this according to the example of selling a servant; computing at what price he would be sold before he was maimed, and for how much less, now he is maimed. And how much of the price is diminished, so much is to be paid to the maimed person, as it is said, An eye for an eye, &c. We have received by Tradition, that this is to be understood of pecuniary satisfaction. But whereas it is said in the Law, If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, the same shall be done to him ( Lev. XXIV. 19.) It means not that he should be maimed as he hath maimed another, but when he deserveth maiming, he deserveth to pay the damage to the person maimed. They seemed out of very great charity to soften that severe Law to themselves, when nevertheless in the mean time little care was taken of lively charity, and of the forgiving an offense, an open door being still left them to exaction and revenge, which will appear in what follows.

VERS. XXXIX.

THAT the Doctrine of Christ may here more clearly shine out, let the Jewish Doctrine be set against it; to which he opposeth his.

Does any one give his neighbor a box on the ear? let him give him a shilling. R. Judah in the name of R. Josi of Galilee saith, Let him give him a pound.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Does he give him a blow upon the cheek? Let him give him two hundred Zuzees: if with the other hand, let him give four hundred. Compare with this passage ver. 39. If any shall strike thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Does he twitch him by the ear, or does he pull off his hair; or does he spit, so that his spittle falls upon him; or does he take away his coat, (Note this also, and compare ver. 40. with it, He that will take away thy coat, &c.) or does he uncover a woman's head in public? Let him give four hundred Zuzees.

They fetch the reason of so severe a mulct chiefly, from the shame done him, that is thus injured, and from the disgrace of the thing itself, and moreover from the dignity of an Israelite: which is declared at large by the Gemarists upon the words cited, and by Maimonides.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Those mulcts (say they) are established and inflicted according to the dignity of the person injured. But R. Akibah said, Even the poorest Israelites are to be esteemed, as though they were persons of quality, divested of their estates; because they are the Sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Hence the entrance to our Savior's Doctrine lies easy. 1. He cites the Law of retaliation, that by laying one against the other, Christian charity and forgiveness might shine the clearer. 2. He mentions these particulars, which seemed to be the most unworthy, and not to be born by the high quality of a Jew, that he might the more preach up Evangelical humility, and patience, and self-denial. But why was the law of retaliation given, if at last it is melted down into this? On the same reason, as the Law of death was given concerning Adultery. Namely, for terror, and to demonstrate what the sin was. Both were to be softened by charity; this by forgiveness, that by a bill of divorce, or, if the husband so pleased, by forgiveness also.

VERS. XL.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , coat, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Talith, So in the words of the Talmud alleged 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He takes his Coat. Of this garment thus the Aruch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Talith is a cloak: And why is it called Talith? Because it is above all the garments, that is, because it is the outermost garment.

In this upper garment were woven in those fringes, that were to put them in mind of the law, of which there is mention, Numb. XV. 38. Hence is that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that takes care of his skirts, deserves a good coat. Hereupon the disgrace was increased together with the wrong, when that was taken away, concerning which they did not a little boast, nay and in which they placed no small religion: Mat. XXIII. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , An upper and an inward garment, to which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answer. If any give a poor man a penny to buy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an inward garment, let him not buy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a coat, nor an upper garment 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He lends him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , An inner garment, and a Coat.

VERS. XLI.

TO him that had some corporeal wrong done him, were these five mulcts to be paid, according to the reason and quality of the wrong; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A mulct for maiming, if so be the party were maimed: a mulct for pain, caused by the blow or wound given: a mulct for the cure of the wound or blow; a mulct for the reproach brought upon him: and a mulct for ceasing,, when being wounded, or beaten, he kept his bed, and could not follow his business.

To the first, the first words of our Savior, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That ye resist not evil, seem to relate: Do not so resist, or rise up against an injurious person, as to require the law of retaliation against him. The second and fourth the words following seem to respect, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Whosoever smiteth thee, so that it cause pain and shame: and those words also, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , him that will take away thy coat. To the last do these words under our hand refer, and to the second certainly, if some intolerable kind of service be propounded, which the famous Beza asserts.

The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 very usual among the Talmudists, whereby they denote accompanying him, that goes somewhere, out of honor and respect, reaches not the sense of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but is too soft and low for it. It is reckoned for a duty, to accompany a dead corps to the grave, and a Rabbi departing somewhere. Hence is that story Germani the Servant of R. Judah Nasi willing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) to conduct R. Illa going away, met a mad dog, &c. The footsteps of this civility we meet with among the Christians, Tit. III. 13. John Ep. III. ver. 6. Marks they were of respect, love and reverence: but that which was required by the Jewish Masters out of arrogance, and a supercilious authority, was to be done to a Rabbi, as a Rabbi.

But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to compel to go a mile, sounds harsher, and speaks not so much an impulse of duty, as a compulsion of violence: and the Talmudists retain that very word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angaria, and do show, by examples not a few, what it means. It is reported of R. Eliazar ben Harsum, that his Father bequeathed him a thousand Cities on the dry land, and a thousand Ships on the Sea: but yet he every day carrying along with him a bottle of meal upon his shoulder, travayled from City to City, and from Country to Country to learn the Law. On a certain day his Servants met him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & angariate, compel him. He saith to them, I beseech, you dismiss me, that I may go and learn the Law. They say to him, by the life of R. Eliazar ben Harsum, we will not dismiss you, &c. Where the Gloss is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angariah is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the service of the Governor of the City; and he was here to serve himself (for he was Lord of the City) But they knew him not, but thought him to belong to one of those his Cities: for it was incumbent on them to attend on their Master.

Again, R. Elizer saith, Why was Abraham our father punished, and why were his sons afflicted in Egypt two hundred and ten years? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because he angariavit, compelled the disciples of the Wise men to go with him: as it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He armed his Catechumens, or, his trained, or instructed, Gen. XIV. 14.

The same almost is said of King Asa. Rabba asked why was Asa punished (with the Gou • ?) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because he compelled the Disciples of the Wise men to go along with him: as it is said, And Asa gathered together all Judah, none excepted, &c. 1 King. XV. 22.

We meet with mention also of Angariating cattle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Ass is hired for a hilly journey, but he that hireth him travayls in the Valley; although both be of the like distance, that is, ten miles, if the Ass dies, he who hireth him is guilty, &c. But if the Ass were angariated, the Hirer saith to the Owner, Behold, Take your beast to yourself, &c. The Gloss is, If he were angariated, that is, if they take him for some work of the King, &c.

You see then, whither the exhortation of our Savior tends. 1. To patience under an open injury, and for which there is no pretence, verse. 39. 2. Under an injury, for which some right and equity in law is pretended, ver. 40. 3. Under an injury, compulsion, or violence, patronized by the authority of a King, or of those that are above us.

VERS. XLIV.

HERE those poisonous Canons might be produced, whereby they are trained up in eternal hatred against the Gentiles, and against Israelites themselves, who do not in every respect walk with them in the same traditions, and rites. Let this one example be instead of very many, which are to be met with everywhere. The Heretical Israelites, that is, they of Israel, that worship Idols, or who transgress, to provoke God: also Epicurean Israelites, that is, Israelites, who deny the Law and the Prophets, are by precept to be s • ain, if any can s • ay them, and that openly; but if not openly, you may compass their death secretly, and by subtlety. And a little after (O! ye extreme charity of the Jews towards the Gentiles!) But as to the Gentiles, with whom we have no war, and likewise to the shepherds of smaller cattle, and others of that sort, they do not so plot their death, but it is forbidden them to deliver them from death, if they are in danger of it. For instance, A Jew sees one of them fallen into the Sea, let him by no means lift him out thence: for it is written, Thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbor: but this is not thy neighbor. And further, An Israelite, who alone sees another Israelite transgressing, and admonisheth him, if he repents not, is bound to hate him.

VERS. XLVI.

HOW odious the Publicans were to the Jewish Nation, especially those that were sprung of that Nation, and how they reckoned them the very worst of all mankind, appears many ways in the Evangelists; and the very same is their character in their own Writers.

It is not lawful to use the riches of such men, of whom it is presumed that they were thieves; and of whom it is presumed, that all their wealth was gotten by rapine; and that all their business was the business of extortioners, such as Publicans and robbers are; nor is their money to be mingled with thine, because it is presumed to have been gotten by rapine.

Publicans are joined with cut-throats and robbers. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They swear to cut-throats, to robbers, and to Publicans, (invading their goods) This is an offering, &c. He is known by his companion.

Among those who were neither fit to judge, nor to give a testimony in judgment, are numbered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Collectors of Taxes, and the Publicans.

They were marked with such reproach, and that not without good reason, partly by reason of their rapine, partly that to the burden laid upon the Nation they themselves added another burden.

When are Publicans to be reckoned for thieves? when he is a Gentile: or when of himself he takes that office upon him, or when being deputed by the King, he doth not exact the set sum, but exacts according to his own will. Therefore the father of R. Zeira is to be reputed for a rare person, who, being a Publican for thirteen years, did not make the burdens of the taxes heavier, but rather eased them.

When the King laid a Tax, to be exacted of the Jews, of each according to his Estate: these Publicans being deputed to proportion the thing, became respecters of persons, burthening some, and indulging others, and so became Plunderers.

By how much the more grievous the Heathen yoke was to the Jewish people, boasting themselves a free Nation, so much the more hateful to them was this kind of men; who though sprung of Jewish blood, yet rendered their yoke much more heavy by these rapines.

VERS. III, IV, V, &c.

IT is commanded, Deut. XXVII. that upon the entrance of the people into the promised land, Blessings and Curses should be denounced from the Mounts Gerizim and Ebal: the Curses being particularly reckoned up, but the Blessings not so. Which seems not to be without a mystery, since the Law brought the Curse with it: but Christ, who should bring the Blessing, was yet to come a great while hence. Now he is present pronouncing the blessings, and that in a mountain. The Jewish Writers do thus relate that matter.

Six Tribes went up to the top of Mount Gerizim, and six to the top of Mount Ebal. But the Priests and the Levites stood below with the ark of the Covenant. The Priests compassed the ark; the Levites compassed the Priests, and the whole people of Israel stood on one side, and on the other: as it is said, All Israel and the Elders, &c. ( Jos. VIII. 33.) Turning their faces to Mount Gerizim, they began with the blessing, Blessed is the man, that shall make no Idol, or molten Image, &c. And both the one and the other answered, Amen. Turning their faces to Mount Ebal, they pronounced the curse, Cursed is the man who shall make an Idol, or molten Image: and both the one and the other answered, Amen. And so of the rest. And at last, Turning their faces to Gerizim, they began with the blessing, Blessed is the man, who shall continue in all the words of the Law, and the Answer on both sides is, Amen. Turning their faces to Ebal, they pronounce the curse, Cursed is everyone, that shall not continue in all the words of the Law, and the answer from both sides is, Amen, &c.

In like manner Christ here having begun with blessings, Blessed, Blessed, thundereth out curses, Woe, Woe, Luke VI. 24, 25, 26.

That which many do Comment concerning the octonary number of Beatitudes, hath too much curiosity, and little benefit. It hath that which is like it among the Jews: For thus they write, There is a Tradition from the School of R. Isaiah ben Korcha, that twenty blessings are pronounced in the book of the Psalms, and in like manner twenty Woes in the book of Isaiah. But I say, saith Rabbi, that there are two and twenty blessings, according to the number of the two and twenty letters.

Abraham was blessed with seven blessings.

These six are blessed, everyone with six blessings, David, Daniel and his three companions, and King Messias.

VERS. VIII.

HArken, O Pharisee, all whose praise lies in outward cleanness. How foolish is this boasting of a Jew! Come and see, saith R. Simeon ben Eleazar, how far the purity of Israel extends itself: when it is not only appointed, that a clean man eat not with an unclean woman: but (that an unclean man eat not with an unclean man) that a Pharisee that hath the Gonorrhea, eat not with a common person that hath the Gonorrhea.

VERS. IX.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Making peace between neighbors is numbered among those things, which bring forth good fruit in this life, and benefit in the life to come.

VERS. XVII.

I. IT was the opinion of the Nation concerning the Messias, that he would bring in a new Law, but not at all to the prejudice, or damage of Moses and the Prophets: But that he would advance the Mosaic Law to the very highest pitch, and would fulfil those things that were foretold by the Prophets; and that according to the Letter, even to the greatest pomp.

II. The Scribes and Pharisees therefore snatch an occasion of cavilling against Christ, and readily objected that he was not the true Messias, because he abolished the Doctrines of the Traditions, which they obtruded upon the people for Moses and the Prophets.

III. He meets with this prejudice here, and so onwards, by many arguments, as namely, 1. That he abolished not the Law, when he abolished Traditions, for therefore he came, that he might fulfil the Law. 2. That he asserts, that not one Jota should perish from the Law. 3. That he brought in an observation of the Law, much more pure and excellent than the Pharisaical observation of it was: which he confirms even to the end of the Chapter, explaining the Law according to its genuine and spiritual sense.

VERS. XVIII.

I. SUCH an asseveration was usual to the Nation, though the syllables were something changed. A certain Matron said to R. Judah bar Allai, Thy face is like to a Swineherd, or an Usurer. To whom he answered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In truth both is forbidden me. The Gloss there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In truth, is a manner of speech used in swearing.

II. But our Savior useth this phrase by the highest divine right. 1. Because he is Amen, the faithful witness, Rev. II. 14. 2 Cor. I. 20. See also Esa. LXV. 16. and Kimchi there. 2. Because he published the Gospel, the highest truth, Joh. XVIII 37, &c. 3. By this asseveration he doth well oppose his divine oracles against the insolent madness of the Traditional Doctors, who did often vent their blasphemous and frivolous tales under this seal, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They speak in truth: and wheresoever this is said, say they, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Tradition of Moses from Sinai.

The Jerusalem Gemarists speak almost to the same sense. The book of Deuteronomy came, and prostrated itself before God, and said, O Lord of the Universe, Thou hast wrote in me thy Law, but now a Testament defective in some part is defective in all. Behold, Solomon endeavors to root the letter Jod out of me (to wit in this Text 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He shall not multiply wives, Deut. XVII. 5.) The holy blessed God answered, Solomon and a thousand such as he shall perish, but the least word shall not perish out of thee. R. Honna said in the name of R. Acha, the letter Jod, which God took out of the name of Sarai • ur Mother, was given half to Sara, and half to Abraham. A Tradition of R. Hoshaia, the letter Jod came and prostrated itself before God, and said, O eternal Lord, Thou hast rooted me out of the name of that holy woman. The Blessed God answered, Hitherto thou hast been in the name of a woman, and that in the end, (Viz. in Sarai) but henceforward thou shalt be in the name of a man, and that in the beginning. Hence is that which is written, And Moses called the name of Hoshea, Jehoshua. The Babylonians also do relate this translation of the letter Jod out of the name of Sarai to the name of Joshua after this manner: The letter Jod, saith God, which I took out of the name of Sarai, stood and cried to me for very many years, how long will it be ere Joshua arise, to whose name I have added it.

You have an Example of the eternal duration of this very little letter Jod, in Deut. XXXII. 18. where in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is written even less than itself, and yet it stands immortal in that its diminutive state unto this very day, and so shall forever.

There is a certain little City mentioned by name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Derokreth, which by reason of the smallness of it was called Jod in the Gloss. And there was a Rabbin, named Rabh Jod. Of the letter Jod. See Midrash Tillin upon the CXIV. Psalm.

It seems to denote the little heads, or dashes of letters, whereby the difference is made between letters of a form almost alike. The matter may be illustrated by these examples 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If it were Daleth, and a man should have formed it into Resh (on the Sabbath) or should have formed Resh into Daleth, he is guilty.

It is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ye shall not profane my holy Name: whosoever shall change 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheth into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He, destroys the World (for then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 written with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He makes this sense, Ye shall not praise my holy Name.) It is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let every spirit praise the Lord. Whosoever changeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheth destroys the World. It is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They lied against the Lord: whosoever changeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Caph destroys the World. It is written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 There is none holy as the Lord: whosoever changeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheth into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth, destroys the World. It is written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Lord our God is one Lord: he that changeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Daleth into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Resh, destroys the World.

But that our Savior by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Jot and Tittle, did not only understand the bare letters, or the little marks that distinguished them, appears sufficiently from verse. 19. where he renders it, one of these least commands: in which sense is that also in the Jerusalem Gemara, of Solomon's rooting out Jod, that is, eva • uating that precept 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He shall not multiply Wives. And yet it appears enough hence, that our Savior also so far asserts the uncorrupt immortality and purity of the holy Text, that no particle of the sacred sense should perish, from the beginning of the Law to the end of it.

To him, that diligently considers these words of our Savior their Opinion offers itself, who suppose, that the whole Alphabet of the Law, or rather the original character of it is perished; namely, the Samaritan, in which they think the Law was first given and written; and that that Hebrew, wherein we now read the Bible, was substituted in its stead. We shall not expatiate in the question; but let me, with the Readers good leave, produce and consider some passages of the Talmud, whence, if I be not mistaken, Christians seem first to have taken up this opinion.

The Jerusalem Talmud treats of this matter in these words. R. Jochanan de Beth Gubrin saith, There are four noble Tongues, which the World useth: The Mother Tongue for Singing, the Roman for War, the Syriac for Mourning, the Hebrew for Elocution: and there are some which add, the Assyrian for Writing. The Assyrian hath writing (that is, letters or characters) but a language it hath not. The Hebrew hath a language, but writing it hath not. They chose to themselves the Hebrew language in the Assyrian character. But why is it called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Assyrian? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because it is blessed (or direct) in its writing. R. Levi saith, Because it came up into their hands out of Assyria.

A Tradition, R. Josi saith, Ezra was fit, by whose hands the Law might have been given, but that the age of Moses prevented. But although the Law was not given by his hand, yet writing (that is, the forms of the letters) and the language were given by his hand. And the writing of the Epistle was writ in Syriac, and rendered in Syriac, (Ezr. IV. 7.) And they could not read the writing, ( Dan. V. 8.) From whence is shewn, that the writing (that is, the form of the characters and letters) was given that very same day. R. Nathan saith, the Law was given in breaking (that is, in letters more rude, and more disjoined) And the matter is, as R. Josi saith. Rabbi (Judah Haccodesh) saith, the Law was given in the Assyrian language, and when they sinned, it was turned into breaking. And when they were worthy in the days of Ezra, it was turned for them again into the Assyrian. I show today, that I will render to you 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mishneh, the doubled, or, as if he should say, the seconded ( Zech. IX. 12.) And he shall write for himself the Mishneh (the doubled) of this Law in a book; ( Deut. XVII. 18.) namely in a writing, that was to be changed. R. Simeon ben Eleazar saith, in the name of R. Eleazar ben Parta, and he in the name of R. Lazar, the Hammodaean, the Law was given in Assyrian writing. Whence is that proved? From those words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Exod. XXVII. 10.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vau in the Law is like a pillar. So the Jerusalem Talmudists.

Discourse is had of the same business in the Babylonian Talmud, and almost in the same words, these being added over. The Law was given to Israel in Hebrew writing, and in the holy Language. And it was given to them again in the days of Ezra in Assyrian writing, and the Syriac Language. The Israelites chose to themselves the Assyrian writing, and the holy Language. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And left the Hebrew writing, and the Syriac Language to ignorant persons. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But who are those Idiots (or ignorant persons?) R. Chasda saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Samaritans. And what is the Hebrew writing? R. Chasda saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, (according to the Gloss) Great letters, such as those are, which are writ in charms, and upon door posts.

That we may a little apprehend the meaning of the Rabbins, let it be observed,

I. That by the Mother Tongue (the Hebrew, Syriac, Roman being named particularly) no other certainly can be understood than the Greek, we have shewn at the three and twentieth verse of the first Chapter.

II. That that writing, which the Gemarists call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and which we have interpreted by a very known word, Hebrew writing, is not therefore called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because this was proper to the Israelites, or because it was the ancient writing, but (as the Gloss very aptly) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because the writing, or character was in use among them that dwelt beyond Euphrates. In the same sense, as some would have Abraham called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hebrew, signifying, on the other side, that is, beyond, or on the other side of Amana.

Many Nations were united into one Language, that is, the old Syriac, namely, the Chaldeans, the Mesopotamians, the Assyrians, the Syrians. Of these some were the sons of Sem, and some of Cham. Though all had the same Language; it is no wonder, if all had not the same letters. The Assyrians and Israelites refer their original to Sem: these had the Assyrian writing: the sons of Cham, that inhabited beyond Euphrates, had another; perhaps, that, which is now called by us, the Samaritan, which it may be the sons of Cham, the Canaanites, used.

III. That the Law was given by Moses in Assyrian letters, is the opinion (as you see) of some Talmudists; and that indeed the sounder by much. For to think that the Divine Law was writ in characters proper to the cursed seed of Cham, it agreeable neither to the dignity of the Law, nor indeed to reason itself. They that assert the Mother writing was Assyrian, do indeed confess that the characters of the Law were changed, but this was done by reason of the sin of the people, and through negligence. For when under the first Temple the Israelites degenerated into Canaanitish manners, perhaps they used the letters of the Canaanites, which were the same with those of the Inhabitants beyond Euphrates. These words of theirs put the matter out of doubt: The Law was given to Israel in the Assyrian writing in the days of Moses: but when they sinned under the first Temple, and contemned the Law, it was changed into breaking to them.

Therefore according to these men's opinion, the Assyrian writing was the Original of the Law, and endured, and obtained unto the degenerate age under the first Temple. Then, they think, it was changed into the writing used beyond Euphrates, or the Samaritan; or, if you will, the Canaanitish (if so be, these were not one and the same:) but by