The works of the Reverend and learned John Lightfoot D. D., late Master of Katherine Hall in Cambridge such as were, and such as never before were printed : in two volumes : with the authors life and large and useful tables to each volume : also three maps : one of the temple drawn by the author himself, the others of Jervsalem and the Holy Land drawn according to the author's chorography, with a description collected out of his writings.

CHAP. XI.

VERS. I.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Teach us to pray us Iohn also taught his Disciples.

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

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

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

a 1.1 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Perhaps a man begs for necessaries for himself, and afterward prayeth. This is that which is spoken by Solomon when he saith, b 1.2 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To the prayer, and to the supplication. I omit the Versions, because the Ge∣marists interpret it themselves. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rinna is Tephillah, and Te∣phillah is Bakkashah. Their meaning is this: the first word of Solomon's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rinnah sig∣nifies Prayer (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••s the Gloss hath it) i. e. Prayer with Praise, or Doxo∣logy. The latter word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tephillah, signifies Petition, or Supplication, [Gloss, beg∣ing for things necessary.]

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

2. It may be reasonably supposed that the Baptist taught his Disciples a Form of Prayer different from what the Jewish Forms were: It stands with reason that he that was to

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

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

It was in use amongst the Jews, when they fasted to use a peculiar sort of Prayer, joyned with what were daily, terming it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Prayer of the fast. This we have mentioned in Taanith c 1.3 where it is disputed whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 those that fast∣ed for certain hours only, and not for the whole day, ought to repeat that Prayer of the Fast: As also, in what order and place that Prayer is to be inserted amongst the daily ones. Now if it should be granted that John had taught his Disciples any such form that might be particularly adapted to their fastings, it is not very likely this Disciple had any particular reference to that, because the Disciples of Christ did not Fast, as the Disciples of John did. It rather respected the whole frame of their Prayers which he had instructed them in, which consisted chiefly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Petitions and Supplications.

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

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

VERS. IV.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And lead us not into temptation.

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

The Doxology For thine is the Kingdom, &c. is le•••• out, because it was our Savi∣ours intention in this place to deliver to them a Form of Prayer merely petitionary, for which very same reason also Amen is omitted too. d 1.4 For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He shall say Amen at thy giving of thanks. And indeed they commonly ended all their Prayers, even those that consisted most of Petition, with Thanksgiving and Benediction; concluding in this manner, Blessed be them O Lord who hast thus done, or thus commanded, or the like, and then was it answered by all, Amen. This we may observe in those Psalms that conclude any portion of that Book, and end with Amen e 1.5, upon what sub∣ject soever the Psalmist is ingaged, either throughout the whole Psalm, or immediately before the bringing ••orth of Amen, still he never doth mention Amen, without some fore∣going

Doxology and Benediction, Blessed be the Lord God, &c. Amen and Amen. In St. Matthew therefore we find Amen, because there is the Doxology: In St. Luke it is wanting because the Doxology is so too. You may see more of this in Notes upon Matth. VI.

VERS. XV.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Through Beelzebub the chief of the Devils.

I. AS to this name of Beelzebub I have f 1.6 elsewhere discoursed, and do still assert the reading of it with the letter l in the end of it, viz. Beelzebul, against the Syr••ack, Persiam, Vulgar, and other Translations which read it Beelzebub. The Italian cautiously indeed but not purely, Beelzebu, that he might not strike upon either the one or the other reading; but in the mean time I will not answer for the faithfulness and candor of the Interpreter.

II. Amongst the Jews we may observe three Devils called the chief, or Prince of the Devils: 1. The Angel of Death: who is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 g 1.7 Prince of all the Satans. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Devil Ashmodeus. Of him afterwards. 3. Beelzebul in this place. Now as to vindicating the writing of it by l in the end of the word, and not b.

III. It is a question whether there were such a thing as Beelzebub in rerum naturâ. Why should not the deity of the place take his farewel, when Ekron, the place of this Deity was wholly obliterated? When there was no more an Idol, nor Oracle at Ekron, did not the Demon cease to be Beelzebub any longer, although it did not cease to be a Demon? Wherever therefore Ekron was under the second Temple, or the place where it had been under the first, you can hardly perswade me there was any Idol or Oracle of Beelzebub, and so not Beelzebub himself. I will not here dispute whether A••hor the Cyrenians tutelar God against flyes h 1.8 hath any relation or affinity with the name of Ekron. Let it be granted that Beelzebub might change his soil upon some occasion, and remove from Ekron to Cyrene; but then how should he come to be the Prince of the Devils, when all his business, and power was only among flies?

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

IV. I have already shewn in notes upon Matth. XII. that the Jewish Doctors (and such were these who contended with our Saviour) did give Idolatrous worship the de∣nomination of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zebul, or Dung, for the ignominy of the thing; and so was the Nation generally taught by these Rabbins. I gave some instances for the proof of it, which I shall not here repeat, but add one more. i 1.9 It is said of Joseph (when his Mi∣stress would have tempted him to Adultery) that he came into the house to do his business. R. Judah saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It was a day of fooling, and of dunging, it was a day of theatres. Where the Gloss upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zebul, Stercoration, saith thus: It is a word of contempt, and so it is expounded by R. Solomon in the Treatise Avodah Zarah, and Tosaphoth, viz. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to Sacrifice (that is, to Idols) and they prove it out of Jerusalem Beracoth, where it is said, he that seeth a place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where they dung, (that is, offer sacrifice to an Idol) let him say, whoso offereth Sacrifice to strange Gods, let him be accursed. Which words we have also alledged out of the Jerusalem Talmud.

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

VI. They give the like title to the Devil Asmodeus. k 1.10 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Asmodeus the King of the Devils. l 1.11 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Devil, the prince of the spirits. Which elsewhere is expounded, d 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Devil Ashmodeus. For in both places we have this ridiculous tale: There was a certain Woman brought forth a son in the* 1.12 night time, and said to her son, (a child newly born you must know) go and light me a Candle that I may cut thy Navel; As he was going, the Devil Asmodeus meeting him, said to him, go and tell thy Mother, that if the Cock had not crowed, I would have killed thee, &c.

The very name points at Apostacy, not so much that the Devil was an Apostate, as that this Devil provoked and entised people to apostatize: Beelzebul amongst the Gentiles,

and Asmodeus amongst the Jews, the first Authors of their apostacy. Whether both the Name and Demon were not found out by the Jews to affright the Samaritans. See the place above quoted n 1.13 Whenas Noah went to plant a Vineyard 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Demon Asmodeus met him and said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let me partake with thee, &c. So that it seems they suppose Asmodeus had an hand in Noah's drunkenness. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when he (that is, Solomon) sinned, Asmodeus drove him to it. &c. They call the Angel of death by the name of Prince of all Satans; because he destroys all mankind by death, none excepted.

VERS. XXXI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

The Queen of the South, &c.

I. I Cannot but wonder what should be the meaning of that passage in o 1.14 Bava bathra, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whoever saith that the Queen of Sheba was a Woman, doth no other than mistake. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What then is the Queen of Sheba? The Kingdom of Sheba. He would have the whole Kingdom of the Sabeans to have come to Solomon: perhaps what is said, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 came 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with an exceeding great Army, (for so is that clause rendred by some) might seem to sound something of this nature in his ears. But, if there was any kind of am∣biguity in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as indeed there is none; or if Interpreters doubted at all about it, as indeed none had done, the great Oracle of truth hath here taught us that the Queen did come to Solomon: but why doth he term her the Queen of the South, and not the Queen of Sheba?

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

Whereas it is said that the Queen of the South came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, is it worth the patience of the Reader, to hear a little the folly of the Jews about this matter. Because it is said that she came to make a proof of his wisdom by dark say∣ings and hard questions, these Doctors will be telling us what kind of riddles and hard questions she put to him. p 1.15 She saith unto him, if I ask thee any thing, wilt thou answer▪ me? He said, it is the Lord that giveth wisdom. She saith, what is this then? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 There are seven things go out and nine enter. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Two mingle (or prepare) the cup, and one drinks of it. He saith, there are seven days for a Womans separation, that go out, and nine months for her bringing forth, that come in. Two breasts do mingle, or prepare the cup, and one sucks it. Again saith she, I will ask thee one thing more, what is this? A Woman saith unto her Son, thy Father was my Father; thy Grand∣father was my Husband; thou art my Son and I am thy Sister. To whom he answered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Surely they were Lot's Daughters. There is much more of this kind, but thus much may suffice for riddles.

VERS. XXXIII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

No man when he hath lighted a Candle, &c.

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

VERS. XXXVI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The whole shall be full of light.

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

VERS. XXXVIII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

That he had not first washed before dinner.

HAD the Pharisee himself washed before dinner in that sense wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sig∣nifies the washing of the whole body; it is hardly credible, when there was nei∣ther need, nor was it the custom to wash the whole body before meat, but the hands on∣ly. This we have spoken larglier upon elswhere q 1.16; from whence it will be necessary for us to repeat these things; that there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a washing of the hands, and there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a dipping of the hands. This clause we are upon, refers to this latter. The Pharisee wonders that Christ had not washt his hands, nay that he had not dipped them all over in the water when he was newly come, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 29. from the people that were gather'd thick together.

Of how great esteem this washing their hands before meat was amongst them, besides what I have alledg'd elswhere, take this one instance more: r 1.17 It is story'd of R. Akibah, that he was bound in prison, and R. Joshua ministred unto him as his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or reader. He daily brought him water by measure; one day the keeper of the prison met him, and said unto him, thou hast too much water to day.—He pour'd out half and gave him half. When he came to R. Akibah, he told him the whole matter. R. Akibah saith unto him, give me some water to wash my hands; the other saith unto him, there is not enough for thee to drink, and how then shouldst thou have any to wash thine hands? to whom he, What shall I do in a matter wherein there is the guilt of death? It is better I should die (that is by thirst) than that I should transgress the mind of my colleagues: Who had thus prescrib'd about washing of hands.

And a little after, Samuel saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 At that time wherein Solomon instituted the Erubhin and washing of the hands, there came forth Bath-kol, and said, my Son, if thy heart be wise, even mine shall rejoyce. Observe here (at least if you will believe it) that Solomon was the first author of this washing of hands. s 1.18 Whosoever blesseth immediately after the washing of hands, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Satan doth not accuse him for that time of his repast.

VERS. XXXIX.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter, &c.

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

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

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

III. It is hardly probable that the Pharisees should wash the outside of the cup or plat∣ter, and not the inside too; take but these two passages out of this kind of Authors them∣selves: t 1.19 Those dishes which any person eats out of over night, they wash them that he may eat in

them in the morning. In the morning: they wash them that he may eat in them at noon. At noon: that he may eat in them at the Mincha; after the Mincha he doth not wash them again, but the cups, and jugs, and bottles he doth wash, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so it goes through∣out the whole day, &c. I will not give my self nor Reader the trouble to examine the mean∣ing of the words, it suffices only that here is mention of washing, and that the whole vessel, not of this or that part only; and the washing of such vessels was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by dipping them in water. u 1.20

x 1.21 All vessels 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that have an outside and an inside, if the inside be de∣fil'd, the outside is also, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 if the outside be defil'd the inside is not defil'd; one would think this was to our purpose, and asserted the very literal sense of the words we have in hand, viz. that the cups and the platters, although they were un∣clean on the outside, yet in the inside they might be clean; and it was sufficient to the Pharisee if he cleans'd them on the outside only, but the vessels here mention'd (if the Gloss may be our interpreter) are such 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which they might use both the outside and the inside indifferently: Some of them are recited by the Gemarists, viz. sacks, wallets, night-caps, pillowbears, &c.

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

VERS. XL.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Ye fools.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a word very common to the Nation: y 1.22 Rabban Johanan ben Zacchai said to the Baithusians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ye fools, how prove you this? x 1.23 Esau said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cain was a fool. Pharaoh said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Esau was a fool.—Haman said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pharaoh was a fool—Gog and Magog will say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they were all fools that are gone before us. Hence that common phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 O thou most foolish thing in all the world.

VERS. XLI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

But rather give alms of such things as you have.

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

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

II. However, grant that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 denotes that which is over and above, or that which you have; for I will not be very tenacious in this: yet is it hardly probable that our Savi∣our utters this as his own, but rather as the words and opinion of the Pharisees; nor do I think that he speaks these things directly, or by way of direction to them, but that he cites their tenets in meer scoff and displeasure. For indeed this principle was the spawn of their own Schools, that giving of alms had a value in it, that serv'd for attonement, ju∣stification, salvation, every thing. Hence that common term that reacht so comprehen∣sively 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 righteousness; and hence is it that in those numberless places in the Holy Scrip∣tures where the praises of justice and righteousness are celebrated, and all the blessings of it pronounc'd, they apply it all to the giving of alms. Take one instance for all. a 1.24 Rabh Asai saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Alms is equivalent to all the other commandments. b 1.25 R. Judah saith, Giving of Alms is a great thing, for it hastens our redemption. It is writ∣ten 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 righteousness (i. e. giving of Alms) delivers from death.—Alms giving delivereth from sudden death, and from the judgment of Hell. R. Meir saith, If any wicked man should make this objection, that if God love the poor, why doth he not seed them: do thou make this answer, It is that we by them might be deliver'd from the judgment of Hell.

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

VERS. XLV.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Then answer'd one of the Lawyers.

HERE seems a little difficulty, that whereas in the foregoing verse it is said, Wo unto you Scribes and Pharisees, it is not subjoyn'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, then answered one of the Scribes, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one of the Lawyers; which scruple perhaps the vulgar observing, made him leave Scribes and Pharisees wholly out. Our Savior inveighs more peculiarly, and by name against the Pharisees, ver. 37, 42, 43. and at length joyns the Scribes with them, v. 44. Hence that Lawyer cavils and complains, either that he had nam'd the Scribes in terms, or that he had accus'd the Pharisees of nothing, but what the Scribes might be equally accus'd of. As to this very Scribe, did not he wash his hands before dinner as the Pharisees did? for it is said of all the Jews, c 1.26 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, except they wash their hands oft, eat not. Did not the Scribe tythe mint and rue as well as the Pharisee? when we find that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the tything of herbs was instituted by the Rabbins d 1.27. In a word, the Scribes and the Pharisees go hand in hand in that discourse of our Saviours, Mat. XXIII. where he blameth both the one and the other for the same things. So that it is plain enough why this man complains, but it is not so plain why he should be term'd one of the Lawyers, and not one of the Scribes.

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

e 1.28 The Rabbins have a tradition, Let no one say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I am a disciple, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I am not fit to be made a singular. The Gloss hath it, I am not fit to begin the fasts with the singulars. And the Gemara a little after, The Rabbins have a tradition, every one that would make himself a singular, let him not make himself so: but if any one would make him∣self a disciple, let him. And at length 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is not lawful for a disciple of the wise to continue in fastings 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because he diminisheth from the work of God: that is, he ceaseth from learning and teaching.

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

f 1.29 R. Johanan saith, who is a disciple of the wise? he whom they prefer to be Pastor of a Synagogue: He whom if they ask about any tradition in any place, hath wherewithal to answer. The difference between these, however confounded in this place was this: that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the disciple could answer doubts and questions, fetcht out of that place, or from that sub∣ject upon which he had taught or read; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the singular, could answer all doubts rais'd from any place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even out of the Treatise concerning marri∣ages. That mention of the Pastor and the Teacher, Eph. IV. 11. we seem to have some shadow of it here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the disciple is the teacher, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the singular, is the Pastor of the Synagogue; and perhaps if these things were observ'd, it might give some light into that place of the Apostle.

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

I. I conceive that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Lawyer and Teacher of the Law, may be oppos'd to the Sadducees, to whom the Pharisee is diametrically opposite, for they were contrary to them in their practise of the Traditional rites, as much as they could; and these again contrary to them in Traditional doctrines abundantly. The Sadducees had indeed their Scribes or their teachers as well as any other party: there is frequent men∣tion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Scribes of the Sadducees. And from this antithesis probably is Rabban Gamaliel term'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Doctor of Law g 1.30. For there was then an assembly of the Sect of the Sadducees, ver. 17. Now when Gamaliel who was of the other Sect, made his speech amongst them, it is easie to conceive why he is there term'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Doctor of Law. For the same reason we may suppose the person here before us, might be call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one of the Lawyers, and not a Scribe, because there were Scribes even amongst the Sadducees.

II. I conceive therefore that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were the Traditionary Do∣ctors of the Law. As to Gamaliel a Doctor of the Law, the thing is without dispute, and if there were any difference between the Lawyers and Doctors of the Law yet as to this matter I suppose there was none. Let us consider this following passage: h 1.31 It is a Tradi∣tion, R. Simeon ben Jochai saith, he that is conversant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Textual exposition of the Law, hath a measure which is not a measure. He that is conversant in Mishneh, hath a mea∣sure from whence they receive a reward; but if he be conversant in the Talmud, there is not a greater measure than this. Always betake your self to the Mishneh, rather than the Talmud. But R. Jose ben R. Bon saith, This which thou saist, obtain'd before the Rabbi had mixed with it manifold traditions, but from the time that he mixed with it manifold traditions, always have recourse to the Talmud, rather than to the Mishneh.

Now I pray who is he that (according to this tradition) merits most the title of a Do∣ctor of Law, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; he that is conversant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the exposition and interpretation of the written Law, and the context of it? Alas! he doth but little, and for all the oyl and labour he hath spent, hath only a measure which is not a measure. But he that is conversant in the Mishneh and Talmud, in the Traditional doctrine or ex∣position of the Traditional Law, he bears away the bell, he hath some reward for his pains, and is dignify'd with the title of Doctor.

III. If there were any distinction betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which I hardly believe) we may suppose it might be this, either that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had his School and his disciples, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had none: or that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was conversant in the Mishneh, or the plain and literal exposition of Traditions, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Talmud, or a more profound and scholastick way of teaching.

However, be there this distinction betwixt them, or some other, or indeed none at all, yet I presume they were both Doctors of Traditions, and expounders of that which they call'd the Oral Law, in opposition to the Scribes, whether amongst the Jews or the Sad∣ducees, who employ'd themselves in the Textual exposition of the Law.

VERS. XLVI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And ye your selves touch not (the burdens) with one of your fingers.

THAT the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as we have already said) were the Doctors of Traditions, is a little confirm'd by this, that what our Saviour reproacheth them for, were meerly Traditionals: this particularly, that they laded men with such yokes of Traditions, and yet they themselves would not touch or move them with one of their fingers.

This exposition indeed vulgarly obtains, you lay grievous burdens upon others, which in the mean time you indulg your selves in, and will not undergo them by any means. This interpretation I cannot but admit, but yet must inquire whether there be not some∣thing more included in it. For whereas he that would prescribe light things to himself, and burdensome to others was commonly accounted and call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a wicked cunning fel∣low i 1.32. And whereas there is frequent mention of this or that Rabbin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who would lay this or that burden upon himself, which he would acquit others of; it may be a question whether this exposition so commonly receiv'd, doth indeed speak out the whole sense and meaning of these words.

I apprehend therefore our Saviour might not only rebuke the remisness and indulgence they gave themselves, but further their strictness and tenaciousness about their own de∣crees; they made light of the commandments of God at their own pleasure, but would never diminish the least tittle of their own. That they might remove or take away any part of the Divine Law they employ both hands, but as to their own Constitutions they will not move one finger.

VERS. XLIX.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Therefore also said the wisdom of God.

THIS form of speaking agreeth well enough with that so much in use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the rule of judgment saith; amongst numberless instances take that of the Tar∣gumist k 1.33, Is it fitting that the daughters of Israel should eat the fruit of their own womb? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the rule of judgment (retributive justice) answer'd and said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was it also sitting to kill a Priest and a Prophet in the Sanctuary of the Lord, as ye kill'd Zacharias, &c.

VERS. LI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Unto the blood of Zacharias.

IF our Saviour had not in the Evangelist St. Matthew added, the Son of Barachias, no one could have doubted that it refer'd to any other than Zacharias the Son of Jeho∣jadah, whose slaughter is recorded, II Chron. XXIV. It is certain, the Jews own no other Zacharias slain in the Temple but himself: and what they say of his slaughter I have al∣ready taken notice upon that place in St. Matthew out of both the Talmuds, we meet with the same things in Midras Echah l 1.34, and Midras Coheleth m 1.35; out of which last, give me leave briefly to transcribe these passages.

The blood of Zachary boil'd up CCLII years from the days of I••ash to the days of Zedekiah. What did they do? they swept into it all the dust (of the Court) and made an heap, yet it ceased not, but still boil'd and bubled up. The Holy Blessed God said to the blood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 behold the time is come that thou exact thy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (that was, let the Lord behold and require it at your hands) when Nebuzaradan came and enquir'd what this matter was? they answer'd that it was the blood of heifers and rams, and lambs which they had sacrific'd.—Afterward when he came to understand what the matter was, he slew eighty thou∣sand Priests, and yet the blood would not stanch, but broke out and flow'd as far as the Tomb of Zachary: he brought together therefore the Sanhedrin, both the great and less, and slew them over that blood, and yet it did not cease, &c.

I hardly indeed think that those that relate this matter did really believe it to have been actually so, but only would by such flowers of Rhetorick and strained Hyperboles paint out the horrible guilt of the murder of Zacharias, which by how much the more horrible it was, by so much the more did it agree with the guilt of the murder of our Blessed Lord.

And however a great part of it in these relations of theirs may be meer flourish, yet by the whole framing of the thing it must needs be observed that the slaughter of this Zacharias was so famous and rooted in the minds of that people generally, that when our Saviour speaks of one Zacharias slain between the Temple and the Altar, it cannot be imagin'd that they could understand him pointing at any other than this very man. As for his father being here call'd Barachias, and not Jehojadah, we have spoken to that matter elswhere n 1.36.

If any one hesitate about the changing of the name, let him say by what name he finds Jehojadah recited in that Catalogue of Priests set down in 1 Chron. VI. It must be either some other name, or else we must suppose him wholly lest out of that number. If by an∣other name, you will say (supposing he be also call'd Barachias) he was then a man of three names. This indeed is no unusual thing with that Nation for some to have more names than one; nay, if you will believe the Jewish Doctors, even Moses himself had no less than ten o 1.37.

VERS. LII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Ye have taken away the key of knowledg.

SHould we render it, ye have taken the key of knowledg (that is, to your selves); or, ye have taken it away: there is not much difference. They took the key of knowledg to themselves, when they arrogated to themselves only all profoundness of wisdom and learning, hereby indeed taking it away from the people, because they taught them no∣thing but trifling and idle stuff.

The word for key being in their language 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 brings to mind the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which was so very much in use amongst them for one that was teaching. Instances of this were endless, there are enough of it in that long preface prefixt to that Midras Thren, that hath for its title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the openings of the wise; where (as indeed almost every where

else) it is so frequently said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. such an one, open'd; for I cannot tell how better to render it. I know indeed that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 oftentimes signifies, he began: to which is oppos'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he ended. But here it is used when any Rabbin produceth any Text of Scripture, and either glosseth or discourseth upon it by way of Exposition, allusion or allegory. While he open'd to us the Scriptures p 1.38. There is no one that observes the places, but will easily suppose there is more signified by the expression than meer opening his mouth.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Beracoth, sol. 31. 1.
• b 1.2

  1 Kings VIII. 28.
• c 1.3

  Fol. 11.
• d 1.4

  1 Cor. XIV. 16.
• e 1.5

  ••••e Psalm XII, ••••. XXII, & IXXXIX, & ••••••.
• f 1.6

  Matth. XII.
• g 1.7

  Elleh Had••e••∣harim rab. fol. 302. 2.
• h 1.8

  Plin. lib. 10. 28.
• i 1.9

  Midras. Schir. fol. 2. 1.
• k 1.10

  Gittin, fol. 68. 1.
• l 1.11

  Vajicra rabb. fol. 70. 2.
• * 1.12

  m Beresh. rabb. fol 39. 3.
• n 1.13

  B••resh. rabb. col. 4.
• o 1.14

  Fol. 15. 2.
• p 1.15

  Midr. Mis. about the be∣ginning.
• q 1.16

  Vid. Notes upon M••t XV. & Mark VII.
• r 1.17

  Erubhin, fol. 21. 2.
• s 1.18

  Hieros. Bera∣coth. fol. 2. 4.
• t 1.19

  Schabb. fol. 118. 1.
• u 1.20

  Vid. Aruch in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• x 1.21

  Pesach. fol. 17. 2.
• y 1.22

  Menacoth, fol. 65. 1.
• x 1.23

  Va••icra rab. fol. 197. 3.
• a 1.24

  ••ava bathra, fol. 9. 1.
• b 1.25

  Ibid. fol. 10. 1.
• c 1.26

  Mark VII. 3.
• d 1.27

  Joma, fol. 83. 2.
• e 1.28

  Taanith, fol. 10. 2.
• f 1.29

  Schab. fol. 104. 1.
• g 1.30

  Act. V. 34.
• h 1.31

  Hieros. Schab. fol. 15. 3.
• i 1.32

  Sotah, cap▪ ••. hal. 4.
• k 1.33

  Turen. 2. c.
• l 1.34

  Fol. 79. 2, 3.
• m 1.35

  Fol. 93. 1.
• n 1.36

  Vid. Notes at Mat. XXIII.
• o 1.37

  Vajicra rabb. fol. 165. 3.
• p 1.38

  Luk. XXIV. 32.