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. XXIII.

VERS. II.

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

Ananias the High Priest.

IT is a question among some Expositors whether this Ananias be the same Ananias that Josephus mentions, that was High Priest. And I ask again, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place, be to be necessarily rendred High Priest.

I. That Ananias the High Priest whom Josephus mentions t 1.1, was sent bound to Rome, by Quadratus the Governour of Syria, to render an account of his actions to Claudius Cesar, and that, before Felix entred upon the procuratorship of Judea; but whether he ever returned to Jerusalem again, is uncertain: still more uncertain whether ever re∣stored to his place of High Priest: and most uncertain of all, whether he filled the Chair at that time when Paul pleaded his cause, which was some years after Felix had been set∣tled in the Government, Acts XXIV. 10.

II. About this time there was one Ananias, a man very much celebrated indeed, but not the High Priest, only the Sagan of the Priests, concerning whom the Talmudic Writers re∣cord these passages: u 1.2 There were thirteen Corban Chests, thirteen Tables, thirteen Adorati∣ons in the Temple: But to them that were of the House of Rabban Gamaliel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and to those that were of the House of R. Ananias, Sagan of the Priests, there were fourteen, &c. w 1.3 R. Ananias Sagan of the Priests saith, &c. Ananias Sagan of the Priests was slain in the time of the destruction (of Jerusalem) with Rabban Simeon the Son of Gamaliel. x 1.4 R. Ananias the Sagan, is said to be slain on the five and twentieth day of the month Sivan, together with Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel, and R. Ismael. y 1.5

If we cannot reconcile the Ananias in Josephus, with this in St. Luke; let Ananias the Sagan be the Ananias mentioned in this place, who may very well be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or High Priest, as may be evident from those titles given to Annas and Caiaphas; Luk. III. 2. Nor doth any thing hinder but that we may easily suppose that Ananias the Sagan was in the possession of his Saganship at this very time.

VERS. V.

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

I wist not Brethren, that he was the High Priest.

I. SUppose he might not know that man to have been the High Priest, or the Sagan (which is hardly probable) yet he could not be ignorant, from the rank he held, and the seat he possessed, that he must be at least one of the Fathers of the Sanhedrin, and Rulers of the people, and so in reviling him, he transgressed that precept, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people, as well as if he had reviled the High Priest.

II. It is very little to the credit of the Apostle to think, that when he said, God shall smite thee thou whited wall, &c. That he uttered it rashly and unadvisedly, or carried away in an heat of passion and indignation, or that he did not know whom he thus threatned, or what degree and office he held. But he spoke it soberly, and as became an Apostle, by the Authority and guidance of the Holy Ghost. Nor did he, nor had he any need, to retract those words, or make apology for his rashness, but they are of the very same tenor with the rest, that he uttered.

III. If this Ananias was that Sagan of the Priests that perished in the destruction of Je∣rusalem, as hath been already said, I would conceive his death was foretold prophetically by the Apostle, rather than that he rashly poured out words, that he afterwards retract∣ed. Let me therefore paraphrase upon the words before us,

I know it is not lawful to speak evil of the Ruler of the people, nor would I have said these things to him which I have, if I had owned such an one, but I did not own him so, for he is not worthy the name of an High Priest.

IV. The President of the Sanhedrin at this time was Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel: his Father Gamaliel, having been dead about two or three years before. Paul knew Simeon, and Simeon very well knew him, having been fellow Disciples, and both sate together at the feet of Gamaliel; nor indeed could he be ignorant of any of the Rulers of the peo∣ple, if they were of any age, because he had been so long educated and conversed in

Jerusalem. So that it is very improbable he should not know either Ananias the High Priest, if he were now present, or Ananias the Sagan, or indeed any of the Fathers of the Sanhedrin if they had any years upon their backs.

Indeed not a few years had passed since he had left Jerusalem: But seeing formerly he had spent so many years there, and had been of that Degree and Order, that he was an Officer of the Sanhedrin, and had a Patent from them; he could not have so slippery and treacherous a memory, but that upon his return, he could readily know and di∣stinguish their faces and persons. And whereas it is said in the Verse immediately follow∣ing, That Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, &c. If it should be asked whence he came to distinguish so well concerning their persons; it may be answered, That (if he had no other ways to know them) he might understand that by his former know∣ledge of them; He had known them from the time that he himself had been a Pharisee, and conversed among them. See Chap. XXII. 5.

V. Forasmuch therefore as he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I wist not, I do not see how it can argue so much an ignorance of his person (with whom he might have had some former transacti∣ons, in obtaining that accursed commission against the followers of Christ) but that it must relate to his affection rather than his understanding. So that the sense is, I knew not that there was any High Priest at all: or, I do not acknowledge this person for such an one. It was safer to inveigh against the person, than the office: But if he had said concerning the very office, I do not know that there is any High Priest at all; I question not but he had uttered his mind: being well assured, that that High Priesthood was now antiqua∣ted, by the death of our great High Priest, Jesus.

For let us lay down this Problem: Although the Apostle, as to other things, had owned the service of the Temple (for he was purified in it.) Yet, as to the High Priest∣hood, he did not own the peculiar ministry of that; doth it not carry truth with it? seeing God by an irrefragrable token, viz. the rending of the Veil of the Temple from the top to the bottom, had shewn the end and abolishing of that office.

But suppose the words of the Apostle relate to the person and not the office, and that they were spoken in reference to the man himself, I do not own him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, High Priest, that he is not worthy of that title: Perhaps St. Paul knew of old how wicked a person he had been; or from his present injustice, or rash severity, had reason enough to make such a reply. To know, instead of to own and acknowledge, is not unusual in Scripture stile; that is a sad and dreadful instance enough, I know you not, depart from me, ye work∣ers of iniquity. And in the Jewish Writings, when R. Judah being angry with Bar Kaphrah, only said to him, I know thee not, he went away as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one rebuked, and took 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the rebuke to himself. The story is this: z 1.6 When bar Kaphrah came to visit him, he said unto him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 O Bar Kaphrah, I never knew thee; He under∣stood what he meant: Therefore he took the rebuke unto himself for the space of thirty days.

VERS. VIII.

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

The Sadducees say there is no Resurrection.

WHAT therefore is the Religion of a Sadducee? He Prays, he Fasts, he offers Sa∣crifice, he observes the Law, and yet doth not expect a Resurrection, or life Eternal. To what end is this Religion? It is that he may obtain Temporal good things, observing only the promise of them, made in the Law, and he seeks for nothing beyond the meer letter. That the Sadducees took their denomination from one Sadoc, a Disciple of Antigonus Socheus, is commonly received, and that not without reason. In the mean time it may not be amiss to enquire whether Sadoc did himself deny the resur∣rection; and whether he rejected all the Books of the Holy Scripture excepting the five Books of Moses, which the Sadducees in some measure did.

I. The Jewish writers do relate his story with so much variety, that as some represent him, we might think he denies the resurrection and future rewards; but as others, that he did not. For so say some, a 1.7 Sadoc and Baithus, were the heads of the Hereticks, for they erred concerning the words of their Master, &c. b 1.8 Sadoc and Baithus hearing this passage from their Master, be ye not as Servants that serve their Master for hire and reward sake, &c. they said among themselves, our Master teaches us, that there is neither reward nor pu∣nishment, &c. Therefore they departed from the rule, and forsook the Law, &c.

Others say otherwise; c 1.9 Antigonus Socheus had two disciples, who delivered his doctrine to their Disciples, and their Disciples again to their Disciples; They stood forth, and taught after them, and said, what did our Fathers see that they should say, It is possible for a labou∣rer to perform all his work for the whole day, and yet not receive his wages in the Evening? Surely, if our Fathers had thought there was another world, and the resurrection of the dead, they would not have said thus, &c. d 1.10 Antigonus Socheus had two Disciples, their

names Sadoc and Baithus: He taught them saying, be ye not as hirelings that serve their Masters only that they may receive their pay, &c. They went and taught this to their Dis∣ciples, and to the Disciples of their Disciples 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but they did not expound his sense. [Mark that] There arose up after them that said, if our Fathers had known that there were a resurrection, and a recompence for the just in the world to come, they had not said this. So they arose up and separated from the Law, &c.—And from thence sprung those two evil Sects, the Sadducees and Baithusians. Let us but add that of Ramban, mentioned before, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sadoc and Baithus did not understand the sense of their Master, in those words, Be ye not as Servants, who serve their Master for the rewards sake, &c.

From all which compared together, as we find the Jewish writers varying from one another somewhat, in relating this story; so from the later passages compared, one would believe that Sadoc was not a Sadducee, nor Baithus a Baithusian; that is, that nei∣ther of them were leavened with that heresie that denied the resurrection, &c. There was an occasion taken from the words of Antigonus misunderstood and depraved, to raise such an heresy, but it was not by Sadoc, or Baithus, for they did not understand the sense of them, saith Ramban; and as it appears out of the Aruch, they propounded the naked words to their Disciples without any Gloss at all upon them, and their Disciples again to the Disciples that followed them. So that the name, sect and heresie of the Sadducees does not seem to have sprung up till the second or third generation after Sadoc himself: which, if I mistake not, is not unworthy our remark, as to the Story and Chronology. There was a time when I believed (and who believes it not?) being led to it by the Author of Juchasin, and Maimonides, that Sadoc himself was the first Author of the Sect and Heterodoxy of the Sadducees; but weighing a little more strictly this matter from the allegations I have newly made out of R. Nathan and Aruch, it seems to me more probable, that that sect did not spring up till many years after the death of Sadoc. Let us compare the times.

The Talmudists themselves own that story that Josephus tells us of Jaddua, whom Alexander the great met, and worshipped: but they alter the name, and say it was Si∣meon the just. Let those endeavour to reconcile Josephus with the Talmudists about the person and the name, who believe any thing of the story and thing it self, but let Simeon the just and Jaddua be one and the same person, as some would have it e 1.11 So then the times of Simeon the just, and Alexander the great are coincident. Let Anti∣gonus Socheus, who took the chair after him, be contemporary with Ptolomeus Lagu••. Let Sadoc and Baithus, both his Disciples be of the same age with Ptolomeus Philadelphus. And so the times of at least one generation (if not a second) of the Disciples of Sadoc may have run out, before the name of Sadducees took place.

If there be any truth or probability in these things, we shall do well to consider them, when we come to enquire upon what reasons the Sadducees received not the rest of the Books of the sacred Volume with the same authority they did those of the five Books of Moses. I ask therefore first, whether this was done before the Greek Ver∣sion was writ? You will hardly say Antigonus, or indeed Sadoc his Disciple was toucht with this error. He would have been a monster of a president of the Sanhedrin, that should not acknowledg that distinction of the Law, the Prophets and Holy writings. And it would be strange if Sadoc should from his Master renounce all the other books, excepting the Pentateuch.

The Sadducees might learn indeed from the Scribes and Pharisees themselves to give a greater share of honour to the Pentateuch, than the other Books, for even they did so: but that they should reject them, so at least as not to read them in their Syna∣gogues, there was some other thing that must have moved them to it.

When I take notice of this passage, f 1.12 that five of the Elders translated the Law into Greek for Ptolomy; and that in Josephus g 1.13 that the Law only was translated, and both these before so much as the name or sect of the Sadducees were known in the world, I begin to suspect the Sadducees, especially the Samaritans, might have drawn something from this example. At least if that be true that is related by Aristeas, that he was under an Anathema, that should add any thing to, or alter any thing in that Version. When the Sadducees therefore would be separating into a Sect, having imbibed that heresie, that there is no resurrection, and wrested the words of Antigonus into such a sense, it is less wonder if they would admit of none but the Books of Moses only, because there was nothing plainly occured in them, that contradicted their error; and fur∣ther because those antients of great name, having rendred those five Books only into Greek, seem to have consigned no other, for Books of a divine stamp, I do not at all think that all the Sadducees did follow that Version; but I suspect, that the Samaritans took something from thence into their own text. It is said by some in defence of the Greek Version, that in many things it agrees with the Hebrew Text of the

Samaritans, as if that Text were purer than our Hebrew, and that the Greek Interpreters followed that Text. They do indeed agree often; but if I should say that the Samaritan Text in those places, or in some of them hath followed the Greek Version, and not the Greek Version the Samaritan Text, I presume, I should not be easily con∣suted.

Shall I give you one or two agreements in the very beginning of the Pentateuch? In Gen. II. 2. the Hebrew Text is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For God ended his work on the Seventh day. But the Greek hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God finished his work on the sixth day. The Samaritan Text agrees with this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He finisht his work on the sixth day, &c. You will say the Greek Version translated ac∣cording to the Samaritan Text. I say the Samaritan Text was framed according to this Greek Version. Who shall determine this matter between us? That which goes current amongst the Jews makes for me, viz. that this alteration was made by the Se∣venty two. h 1.14 But be it all one, which followeth the other in this agreement we next produce, in the same Chapter, Gen. II. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Lord God had formed out of the ground. The Greek words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Lord God formed as yet out of the ground. The Samaritan Text agrees 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 We will not enquire here which follows which, but we rather complain of the boldness of both, the one to add the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as yet; which seems to perswade us, that God, after he had created Adam and Eve, did over and above create something anew; which as yet to me, is a thing unheard of: and to whom is it not?

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

That there is no resurrection.

In my notes upon Matth. III. 9. I take notice out of the Gloss upon Bab. Bera∣coth, (if he be of any credit) that there were Hereticks even in the days of Ezra, who said that there is no world but this; which indeed falls in with Sadducism, though the name of Sadducee was not known then, nor a long time after. But as to their Heresie, when they first sprung up, they seem principally and in the first place to have denyed the immortality of the Soul, and so by consequence the resurrection of the body.

I know that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Jewish Writers is taken infinite times for the Re∣surrection from the dead, but it is very often taken also for the life of the dead. So as, the one denotes the resurrection of the body, the other, the immortality of the Soul.

In the beginning of the Talmudick Chapter Helec, where there is a discourse on pur∣pose concerning the life of the world to come, they collect several arguments to prove 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the life of the dead, out of the Law, for so let me render it here, rather than the resurrection of the dead. And the reason of it we may judge from that one agrument which they bring, instead of many others; viz. i 1.15 Some do say that it is pro∣ved out of this Scripture. He saith unto them, But ye did cleave unto the Lord your God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are alive every one of you this day, Deut. IV. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is plain that you are now alive, when Moses speaks these things; but he means this, that in the day wherein all the world is dead ye shall live. That is, ye also though dead, shall live; which rather speaks out the immortality of the Soul after death, than the re∣surrection of the body. So our Saviours answer to the Sadducees, Matth. XXII. 31, 32. from those words, I am the God of Abraham, &c. is fitted directly to confute their opi∣nion against the immortality of the Soul; but it little, either plainly or directly so proves the resurrection of the body, but that the Sadducees might cavil at that way of proof.

And in that saying of the Sadducees themselves, concerning the labourer working all the day, and not receiving his wages at night, there is a plain intimation that they especi∣ally considered of the state of the Soul after death, and the non-resurrection of the body by consequence. Let the words therefore be taken in this sense, The Sadducees say, Souls are not immortal, and that there are neither Angels nor Spirits, and then the two∣fold branch which our sacred Historian speaks of, will the more clearly appear, when he saith, but the Pharisees confess both.

It is doubtful from the words of Josephus, whether the Essenes acknowledge the re∣surrection of the body, when in the mean time they did most heartily own the immorta∣lity of the Soul. k 1.16 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ This opinion prevails amongst them, that the body indeed is corruptible, and the matter of it doth not endure, but Souls endure for ever immortal. So that the question chiefly is concerned about the Souls Imortality.

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

Neither Angel, nor Spirit.

They deny that the soul is immortal, and they deny any spirits (in the mean time per∣haps not denying God to be a Spirit, and that there is a Spirit of God mentioned, Gen. I. 2.) And it is a question whether they took not the occasion of their opinion from that deep silence they observe in Moses concerning the Creation of Angels or Spirits, or from something else.

There is frequent mention in him of the apparitions of Angels, and what can the Sad∣ducee say to this? Think you the Samaritans were Sadducees? If so, it is very observable that the Samaritan Interpreter doth once and again render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angels. So Gen. III. 5. Ye shall be as Elohim. Samar. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ye shall be as Angels. Chap. V. 1. In the similitude of God. Samar. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the similitude of Angels. So also Chap. IX. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the similitude of Angels. And whereever there is men∣tion of Angels in the Hebrew Text, the Samaritan Text retains the word Angels too.

Did not the Sadducees believe there were Angels once, but their very being was for ever vanisht? that they vanisht with Moses and were no more. Did they believe that the soul of Moses was mortal, and perisht with his body? and that the Angels died with him? otherwise I know not by what art or wit they could evade what they meet with in the Books of Moses concerning Angels, that especially in Gen. XXXII. 1.

You will say perhaps that by Angels might be meant good motions and affections of the mind. The Pharisees themselves do sometimes call evil affections by the name of Devils. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an evil affection is Satan. But they do not call good affections Angels; nor can ye your selves apply that passage so. The Angels of God met him, and he called the name of that place Mahanaim, i. e. two Camps, or two hosts. One of those Camps consisted of the multitude of his own family, and will you have the other to consist of good affections?

If the Sadducees should grant that Angels were ever created (Moses not mentioning their Creation in his History) I should think they acknowledged the being of Angels in the same sense that we do in the whole story of the Pentateuch; but that they conceived that after the History of the Pentateuch was compleated, those Angels were annihilated, and that after Moses there was neither Angel nor spirit, nor Prophesie.

I have in another place taken notice that the Jews commonly distinguisht between An∣gels and spirits, and Devils. Where by spirits they understood either the Ghosts of dead persons, or Spirits in humane shape, but not so dreadful and terrible as the Angels; and what need is there any more (will the Sadducee say) either of Angel or Spirit, when God before Moses died had made known his whole will by his writings, had given his eternal Law, compleatly constituted his Church?

It is an innocent and blameless ignorance not to understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the depths of Satan, and the secrets of Hereticks; and if in learning their Doctrines we mistake, and perhaps not a little, the shame is not much. It is venial to err concerning them, to err with them, is mortal. Let the Reader therefore pardon my ignorance, if I confess I am wholly ignorant where lay the difference between the Sadducee and Baithusian, whether they agreed in one, or whether they disagreed in some things. The Holy Scriptures make no mention of the Baithusians; the Jewish writings talk much of them, and in some things they seem to be distinguished from the Sadducees, but in what it is somewhat ob∣scure.

We have the Sadducees disputing with the Pharisees l 1.17, and we have the Baithuseans dis∣puting with a Pharisee m 1.18, and a Baithusean interrogating something of R. Joshua n 1.19, and frequent mention of them up and down in the Jewish writings. But particularly I cannot let pass one thing I have met with o 1.20, Of old they received a testimony of the New Moon from any person whatsoever, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but after that the Hereticks began to deal deceitfully, &c. So the Jerusalem Misna reads it. But the Babylonian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after that the Baithuseans began to deal deceitfully, or lightly. And the Misna publisht by its self at Am∣sterdam hath it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when the Epicureans dealt lightly, &c. Where both the Gemara's tell us, The Baithuseans endeavoured to lead the wise men into an error, and hired for the sum of four hundred Zuzees, one of our own, and one of theirs, to give in a false testi∣mony as to the New Moons, &c. The Glosses give this reason of it, The thirtieth day of the Month Adar fell upon a Sabbath, and the New Moon did not appear in its time. And the Bai∣thuseans were desirous that the first day of the Passover should fall upon the Sabbath, that the sheaf-offering might fall upon the first day of the week, and so the day of Pentecost upon the first day of the week also.

Who now should these Baithusians be? Sadducees or Samaritans, or Christians, or some fourth Sect? The Christians indeed would have the day of Pentecost on the first day of the week, but whether they mean them in this particular let others judg. In other things* 1.21 otherwise. p Wherefore do they adjure the High Priest? [viz. that he rightly perform the

service of the day of Expiation] Because of the Baithuseans, who say, let him burn incense without, and bring it within; there is a story of a certain person that burnt incense without, and brought it within—concerning whom one said, I should wonder if he should live very long; they say that he died in a very little time after. You would believe this was an High Priest, and a Baithusean.

VERS. IX.

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

The Scribes that were of the Pharisees part.

FOR there were also Scribes of the Sadducees part, and on both parts the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Scribes, must not be distinguisht either from the Pharisees, or from the Saddu∣cees that were now present in the Sanhedrin; but the meaning is, the Scribes that were of the Sect or profession of the Sadducees, or of the Pharisees; and by this twofold divi∣sion the whole Sanhedrin is to be understood. But if we would take the thing more strict∣ly, there were in the Sanhedrin some Scribes who took the part of the Pharisees against the Sadducees, who yet were not of the Sect of the Pharisees; I should believe the Sham∣means and Hillelites were all against the Sadducees, and yet I should hardly believe all of them of the Sect of the Pharisees. We find them frequently disputing and quarrelling one against the other in the Talmudick writings, and yet do not think that either the one or the other favoured the Sadducee, nor that all of them bore good will to Pharisaism. There is a bloody fight between them mentioned q 1.22, The Shammeans (who at that time were the greatest number) stood below and killed some of the Hillelites. This was done in the house of Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Garon, whom they came to visit, being sick. A friendly visit this indeed!

VERS. XI.

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

So must thou bear witness also at Rome.

HENCE the warrant and intimation given to St. Paul of appealing to Cesar; it was a rare thing for a Jew to appeal to any Heathenish Tribunal, and it favoured of venomous malice the Sanhedrin had against Jesus, that they delivered him over to an Heathen Judg. St. Paul therefore when he found no place or manner of escaping other∣wise, was directed by this Vision what to do.

VERS. XII.

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

Neither to eat nor drink, &c.

VVHAT will become of these Anathematized persons if their curse should be upon them and they cannot reach to murder Paul? (as indeed it happened they could not) must not these wretches helplesly die with hunger? Alas! they need not be very solicitous about that matter, they have their Casuist-Rabbins that can easily re∣lease them of that Vow r 1.23 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that hath made a Vow not to eat any thing, wo to him if he eat, and wo to him if he do not eat. If he eat he sin∣eth against his vow; if he do not eat he sinneth against his life. What must such a man do in this sense? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let him go to the wise men and they will loose his Vow, according as it is written, the tongue of the wise is health, Prov. XII. 18. It is no won∣der if they were prodigal and monstrous in their Vows when they could be so easily ab∣solved.

Notes

• t 1.1

  Antiqu. lib. 20. cap. 5. & De Excid. lib. 2. cap. 21.
• u 1.2

  Shekalim, cap. 6. hal. 1.
• w 1.3

  Pesachin, c. 1. hal. 6. & Misn. Hieros.
• x 1.4

  Tsemach, Da∣vid.
• y 1.5

  Juchasin, fol. 57. 1.
• z 1.6

  Moed. Katon. sol. 16. 1.
• a 1.7

  Yuchasin, fol. 15. 2.
• b 1.8

  Ramban in Avoth. cap. 1.
• c 1.9

  Avoth R. Na∣than, cap. 5.
• d 1.10

  Aruch in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• e 1.11

  Vide Juchas. fol. 14. 1.
• f 1.12

  Massech. Soph. cap. 1.
• g 1.13

  ••••tiqu. lib. 1. cap. ••.
• h 1.14

  Megill. fol. 9. 1. & Massech. Sopher. cap. 1.
• i 1.15

  Sanhedr. fol. 90. 2.
• k 1.16

  I••s. de excid•• lib. 2. c. 12.
• l 1.17

  Jadaim. cap. 4.
• m 1.18

  Menacoth. fol. 65. 1.
• n 1.19

  Schabb. fol. 108. 1.
• o 1.20

  Rosh hashana. cap. 2. hal. 1.
• * 1.21

  q Hieros. Joma. fol. 39. 1.
• q 1.22

  Hieros. Schab. fol. 3. 3.
• r 1.23

  Hieros. Avo∣dah Zarab, fol. 40. 1.