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. (Book 11)

VERS. IV.

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

Praying or prophesying having his head covered.

IT was the custom of the Jews, that they prayed not, unless first their head were vailed; and that for this reason, that by this rite they might shew themselves reve∣rent, and ashamed before God, and unworthy with an open face to behold him.

a 1.1 Let not the wise Men, nor the Scholars of the wise Men pray, unless they be covered. And the Gloss upon Schabbath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b 1.2 Let him vail himself out of re∣verence towards God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c 1.3 The Priests vail themselves, when they go up into the pulpit. d 1.4 Nicodemus went into the School, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And vailed himself, and prayed: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 e 1.5 A child, when he knows how to vail himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is bound to fringes upon the borders of his garment. f 1.6 Moses, in Mount Sinai, saw God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 As an Angel of the Church vailed.

You may fetch a double reason of this vailing out of these words of the Rabbins. g 1.7 When one goes in to visit a sick person, let him not sit upon the bed, nor in a chair 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but let him vail himself, and sit before him; for God is upon the pillow of the sick person.

Where the Gloss is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He vails himself by reason of the terror of God (or, reverence towards God) like a man that sits 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in fear, and looks not on this or that side of him. And, h 1.8 The Scholars of the wise Men (in solemn fasts) vail themselves, and ••it, as mourners and persons excommunicate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 As those that are reproved by God: Namely, as being ashamed by reason of that reproof. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that was reproved by some great Rabbin, kept himself at home, as one that was ashamed, nor did he stand before him, who made him ashamed, with his head uncovered.

We may observe Onkelos renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 With an high hand by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 With an un∣covered head. As in Exod. XIV. 8. The Israelites went out of Egypt with an uncovered head; that is, confidently, not fearfully, or as men ashamed. And Numb. XV. 30. The soul which committeth any sin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with an uncovered head; that is, boldly, and im∣pudently. So Jonathan also in Judg. V. 1. The wise Men returned to sit in the Syna∣gogues 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 With an uncovered head; that is, not fearing their enemies, nor shamed by them.

Men therefore vailed themselves, when they prayed, partly for a sign of reverence to∣wards God, partly to shew themselves ashamed before God, and unworthy to look up∣on him. In which thing that these Corinthians did yet Judaize, although now converted to Christianity, appears sufficiently from the correction of the Apostle.

Of the manner of vailing. See the Treatise Moed Katon i 1.9: and the Aruch l.

VERS. V.

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

But every woman.

I. IT was the custom of the women, and that prescribed them under severe Canons, that they should not go abroad but with their face vailed.

If m 1.10 a woman do these things, she transgresseth the Jewish Law: if she go out into the street, or into an open Porch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and there be not a vail upon her, as upon all women, although her hair be rolled up under a hood. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What n 1.11 is the Jew∣ish Law? Let not a woman go with her head uncovered. This is founded in the Law; for it is said (of the suspected wife) The Priest shall uncover her head (Numb. V. 18.) And the tradition of the School of Ismael is, that the Daughters of Israel are admonished hence, not to go forth with their heads not vailed. And, o 1.12 Modest women colour one Eye with paint. The Gloss there is. Modest woman went vailed, and uncovered but one Eye, that they might see, and that Eye they coloured. p 1.13 One made bare a womons head in the street: she came to complain before R. Akiba, and he fined the man four hundred Zuzees.

II. But however women were vailed in the streets, yet when they resorted unto holy Service, they took off their vails, and exposed their naked faces; and that not out of lightness, but out of religion. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 q 1.14 The three feasts are the Scabs of the year. The Gloss is, The three feasts (Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles) are the break∣ings out of the year by the reason of the association of men and women, and because of trans∣gressions. Because in the days of those feasts men and women assembled together, to hear Ser∣mons, and cast their Eyes upon one another. And some say, that for this cause they were wont to fast after Passover and Pentecost.

From whence it may readily be gathered, that men and women should not so promis∣cuously and confusedly meet and sit together, nor that they should so look upon one another, as in the Courts of the Temple, and at Jerusalem, when such innumerable mul∣titudes flocked to the Feasts: but that women should sit by themselves, divided from the men, where they might hear and see what is done in the Synagogue, yet they themselves remain out of sight. Which custom, Baronius proves at large, and not amiss, that those first Churches of the Christians retained.

When the women therefore did thus meet apart, it is no wonder, if they took off the vails from their faces, when they were now out of the sight of men, and the cause of their vailing being removed, which indeed was, that they might not be seen by men. The Apostle therefore does not at all chide this making bare the face absolutely conside∣red, but there lies something else within. For,

III. This warning of the Apostle respects not only publick religious meetings, but be∣longs to those things, which were done by men and women in their houses, and inner chambers: for there also, they used these rites, when they prayed and handled holy things privately, as well as in the publick assemblies. r 1.15 Rabban Gamaliel journying, and being asked by one that met him concerning a certain vow, he light off his horse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and vailed himself, and sat down, and loosed the vow. So R. Judah Bar Allai, on the Sabbath Eve, when he composed himself in his house, to meet and receive the Sabbath, they brought him warm water, and he washed his face and hands, and feet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And vailing himself with his linnin cloth of divers colours, he sat down, and was like the An∣gel

of the Lord of Hosts. So in the example of Nicodemus, lately produced, He went into his School alone privately, and vailed himself, and prayed. So did men privately, and women also on the contrary baring their faces privately. A reason is given of the former, namely, that the men were vailed for reverence towards God, and as being ashamed before God: but why the women were not vailed also, the reason is more obscure.

A more general may easily be rendred, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That a woman was loosed, or free from the precept, that is, from very many rites, to which men were subject; as from the carrying of Fringes, and Phylacteries, from these or the other forms and oc∣casions of prayers, and from very many Ceremonies and Laws, to which men were bound. s 1.16 R. Meir saith, Every man is bound to these three benedictions every day: Blessed be God, that he hath not made me a Heathen: that he hath not made me a woman; that he hath not made me 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 stupid, or unlearned. But Rabb Acha bar Jacob, when he heard his Son say∣ing, Blessed be God, that he hath not made me 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unlearned, stuck at it; and upon this reason, as the Gloss interprets, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because a Heathen and a wo∣man are not capable of the precept: but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a rude or unlearned man is capable. Deservedly therefore God is blessed, that God made him not a Heathen, or a woman.

By this Canon that a woman was loosed from the precept, they were exempted from cove∣ring the face during Religious Worship, when that precept respected men, and not wo∣men. But if you require a more particular reason of this exemption, what reason will you find for it? It is almost an even lay, whether the Canonists exempted women from vailing, because they valued them much, or because they valued them little. In some things, they place women below the dignity, and without the necessity of observing those or the other rites; and whether in this thing they were of the same opinion; or that on the contrary, they attributed more to the beauty of the faces of women, than of men, is a just question. But whether the thing bend this way or the other, the correcti∣on and warning of the Apostle doth excellently sute to this, or to that, as it will appear in what follows.

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

Dishonoureth her head.

Dishonoureth her head? What head? That which she carries upon her shoulders? Or that, to which she is subjected? As the man to Christ, the woman to the man. That the Apostle is to be understood especially of the later, appears from the verse before, and in∣deed from the whole context. For to what end are those words produced, vers. 3. I would have you know, that the head of the woman is the man, &c. unless that they be apply∣ed, and make to the Apostles business im the verses following.

Nor yet is the subjection of the woman, and the superiority of the man, all that by, and because of which the Apostle concludes, that a woman must not pray, but vailed, and a man the contrary. For if it were so argued by him, Let not a woman pray but with her head covered, because she is subject to her husband: it might be argued in like manner; Let not a man pray, but with his head covered, because he is subject to Christ.

I fear, lest that interpretation, which supposeth the vailing of women in this place, as a sign of the womans subjection to her husband, should more obscure the sense of this place, obscure enough indeed of it self. So one writes, t 1.17 A woman ought to have a cove∣ring, that she may shew her self humble, and to be subject to her husband. And another, u 1.18 Now the reason of the vailing of women is, because they are subject to men, &c. x 1.19 Take a covering, by which is signified, that the wise is in the power of the husband. And lastly, y 1.20 A vail, whereby is signified, that she is subject to the power of another. And very many to the same sense. But let me ask,

I. Where, I beseech you, is a vail propounded as a sign of such subjection? It is put indeed as a sign of true modesty, Gen. XXIV. 65. and of dissembled modesty, Gen. XXXVIII. 14. but where is it used as a sign of subjection?

II. Hair was given to our grandmother Eve for a Covering (as the Apostle clearly asserts in this place) from the first moment of her creation, before she was subjected to a husband, and heard that, He shall rule over thee; yea, before she was married to Adam.

III. The Apostle treats not of wives alone, but of women in general, whether they were Wives, Virgins or Widdows.

IV. The obligation of subjection towards the husband follows the woman ever and every where; ought she ever and every where to carry a vail with her, as a sign of that subjection? Must she necessarily be vailed, while she is about the affairs of her family? Must she be vailed in the garden, in the fields, walking alone, or with her family? It is clear enough, the Apostle speaks of vailing only, when they were employed in Religious Worship; and that regard is had to something that belongs to the woman in respect of

God, rather than in respect of her husband. And although we should not deny the vailing of the woman was some sign of her subjection towards her husband; yet we do deny, that the vailing, concerning which the Apostle here speaks, hath any regard to it.

V. The Jews assign shame as the reason of the womans vailing. z 1.21 Why does a man go abroad with his head not covered, but women with their heads covered? R. Josua saith, It is as when one transgresseth, and is made ashamed: she therefore goes with her head vailed. Behold a vail, a sign indeed of shame, but not of subjection. And they fetch the shame of the woman thence, that she first brought sin into the world.

Therefore the Apostle requires the vailing of the woman in Religious Worship, by the same notion and reason, as men vailed themselves, namely for reverence towards God. But certainly it may be enquired, whether he so much urgeth the vailing of women, as reproves the vailing of men. However, by this most fit argument, he well chastiseth that contrary custom, and foolishness of men: as though he had said, Do ye not con∣sider, that the man is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Glory of God, but the woman is only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Glory of the Man; that woman was made for man; that man is the head of the woman: and then how ridiculous is it, that men should use a vail, when they pray, out of reverence and shame before God, and women not use it, whose glory is less? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The woman is the glory of the man: So R. Solomon a 1.22, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Like the glory of the man, that is, saith he, Like the woman, who is the glory of the husband. See also the Targum.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dishonoureth her head. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The lightness of the head, among the Talmudists is Levity or irreverence: and if you should render the Greek ex∣pression in the same sense, as though it were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He vili••ies his head, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 She vili••ies her head, one should not much stray either from Grammar, or from truth. But the sense ariseth higher: a man praying covered, as ashamed of his face be∣fore God, disgraceth his head, Christ, who himself carried the like face of a man: espe∣cially, he disgraceth the office of Christ, by whom we have access to God with confidence. And a woman praying not vailed, as if she were not ashamed of her face, disgraceth man, her head, while she would seem so beautiful beyond him, when she is only the glo∣ry of the man: but the man is the glory of God.

VERS. VI.

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

Let her also be shorn.

IF she be not vailed, let her be shorn. Yea rather, you will say, let her go with her hair loose, for it was given her for a Covering by nature. Will the Apostle suffer this, or any civilized Nation? By no means. He saith, the hair of women was given them for a Covering, and yet requires another Covering; calling to mind the primitive reason, why the Covering of hair is given by nature to a woman, viz. to be a sign of her reverence, humiliation, and shame before God. The Apostle permits women to ga∣ther and bind up their hair into knots by hairlaces; a thing done in all Nations, that were not fierce and wild; yea he would scarce suffer the contrary. But if any woman was so unmindful or forgetful, why the vail of her hair was granted her by nature, and so much assured of her beauty, and her face, as when she prays, to take off her vail, the sign of her reverence towards God; let her take off also, saith he, that natural sign of reverence, the vail of her hair.

VERS. X.

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

For this cause ought the woman to have power, &c.

THAT which commonly here obtains is, that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Power, is understood A vail. a sign of power above her, or of her subjection. But it is to be enquired, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to have power, does not properly, yea, always denote to have power in ones own hand, not a power above one: as Matth. VII. 29. Joh. XIX. 10. 1 Cor. VII. 37. and IX. 4. and elsewhere a thousand times.

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

Because of the Angels.

Because of the Angels? Whom? Whether because of good Angels? or because of bad? Or, because of the Ministers? The Reader knows what is said for this sense, and for that, and for the other, which we will not repeat.

I. Truly, if I would understand A vail by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Power, by Angels I would under∣stand Devils, which are called Angels in this very Epistle, Chap. V••. 3 A•••• i•• I were of opinion, that the Apostle treated here of publick Assemblies only, I would render his words to this sense: A woman in the publick Assembly of the Church ought to hav•• her face vailed because of the Devils: namely, that they ensnare not men by the appearance of the beauty of womens faces, and provoke them to gaze upon their faces, and to be∣hold them with lascivious eyes, while they ought rather to look up to Heaven, and to be intent upon divine things.

II. Or if by Angels are to be understood Ministers, our Interpretation, doth suit very well, which makes a vail a sign of shame and reverence before God, not of subjection to∣wards the husband. For certainly this sounds more Logically, women are to be vailed in Religious Worship, as being ashamed before God; therefore let them be vailed before those, who are the Ministers of God; than that, women are to be vailed in Religious Worship, because they are subject to their husbands, therefore they are to be vailed be∣fore Ministers.

III. If we take Angels in the most proper sense, that is, for good Angels, and attri∣bute its most proper sense to the expression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To have power, that is, to have power in ones own hand, then we might interpret the place after this manner; A woman hath not the power of her own head in her own hand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in respect of God, but is to be vailed in reverence towards God: but she hath the power of her head in her own hand, of not vailing her self 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in respect of the Angels; for she oweth not such a Religious reverence to them.

IV. But I suppose the Apostle looks another way: And,

I. That he does not here speak in his own sense, but cites something usual among the Jews: not so much to dictate some rule for Christian women, as to produce a Jewish custom, in confirmation of those things, which he had said immediately before.

II. He had said, That the woman is the glory of the man, that she was of the man, that she was made for the man, &c. And this may testifie that which is said among the Jews, The woman ought to have in her own hand power of her head because of the Angels.

III. But now there was among them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angels, or messengers of Espousals: who were deputed by this or that man, to espouse a wife for him that deputed him. Con∣cerning which Angels the Masters here and there discourse largely: but especially see Kid∣dushin b 1.23. Where it begins thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A man espouseth a wife to himself either by himself, or by his Angel, or Deputy.

IV. But now although the Canons of the Masters required, and the custom of the Na∣tion approved the vailing of womens faces in the streets: yet it was permitted women to bare their faces, to adorn them, to beautifie them in order to honest marriage: which reason it self, and the custom of the Nation confirms, and the Rabbins teach.

V. Hither the reasoning of the Apostle in this place seems to refer, Woman was created for man, vers. 9. Which is proved, O ye Jews, by your own consent; when ye decree, that a woman hath power, and ought to have it, in her own hand, over her own head because of the Angels of Espousals. Let her bare her face, if she will, that she may ap∣pear beautiful; let her vail it, if she will, that she may appear modest. She hath free power in her own hands, to promote her own Espousal, and Marriage, that she may be for a man, since she was created for man.

VI. It is true indeed, that especially obtained, which immediately almost followeth after the words newly alledged, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is commanded, that a man espouse a woman by himself, rather than by his Deputy: and that which presently follows, Let no man espouse a woman, before he see her c 1.24. But it was very frequently done, that af∣ter one had seen a woman, he betrothed her to himself by his Angels or Deputies, either out of his own modesty, or some necessity compelling him.

VII. Hence the Apostle seems to make mention of those Angels, rather than of the men, that deputed them to that business, and that the more strongly to confirm and prove the thing, which he treats of. As if he should say, The woman hath not only power of her head, to bare her face before him, who is to be her husband, but before them, who are sent, and deputed by him, to betroth her: and from this very thing, saith he, it is clear, that the woman was created for the man, seeing she, that she might be for the man, hath such a power of uncovering her face before those Angels, who come to espouse her, when otherwise by the custom of the Nation it were not lawful. The Apostle con∣ceals the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Espousals, and saith only Because of the Angels, not, Because of the Angels of Espousals: for by the very scope of his discourse that is easily understood; when in the words immediately going before, he saith, The woman is created for the man. So also the Talmudists very frequently use the single word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angels, when once it is known, that they are speaking of Espousals.

VERS. XIV.

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

That if a man have long hair, &c.

WHether the Apostle reproves mens long hair, by occasion offered from his discourse of womens long hair; or (which is not improbable) that these Judaizing Co∣rinthians as yet retained Nazarite-ship, and for that cause let their hair grow; that which he saith, That nature it self teacheth, that it is a disgrace for a man to have long hair, is suf∣ficiently confirmed from hence, that it is womanish. There were indeed divers Nations which wore long hair, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The long haired Acheans, in Homer; Gallia Comata, Gaul whose Inhabitants wore long hair, in the Historians, &c. But whether in this they followed the light of nature, or rather did it out of their barbarous breeding, or that they might appear more terrible to their enemies, is upon good reason in∣quired.

You will say then, whence comes it to pass that the Nazarites let their hair grow, and that by divine command? I answer, it was a sign of humiliation, and self-denyal, as abstaining from Wine and Grapes also was. It made a shew of a certain religious sloven∣liness, and contempt of a mans self.

They are therefore very much deceived, who think that Absalom let his hair grow out of pride, when he did so indeed by reason of a vow (at least a feigned vow) of Na∣zarite-ship. The Jerusalem Talmudists say very truly; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 d 1.25 Absalom, say they, was a perpetual Nazarite. Very truly, I say, in this, that they assert he was a Nazarite: but of the perpetuity of his vow we will not here dispute. See 2 Sam. XV. 7, 8.

There is, in Tacitus, a wicked Votary not unlike him, Civilis by name; of whom thus he speaks, e 1.26 Civilis, barbaro Voto, post coepta adversus Romanos arma, propexum rutila∣tum{que} crinem, &c. Civilis by a barbarous vow, after armes taken up against the Romans, laid down his long red hair, the slaughter of the Legions being at last executed.

The Jews, if they were not bound by the vow of a Nazarite, cut their hair very of∣ten: and however they did it at other times, certainly always before a Feast, and that in honour of the Feast, that was approaching. Whence a greater suspicion may here arise, that these Corinthians by their long hair professed themselves Nazarites.

These f 1.27 cut their hair in the feast it self: He that comes from a Heathen place, and he that comes out of prison, and the excommunicate person, who is loosed from his excommunication. The sense of the Tradition is this, Those, who were detained by some necessity before the Feast, that they could not cut their hair, might cut it in the Feast it self. But if no such necessity hindred, they cut their hair before the Feast, and commonly on the very Eves of the Feast: g 1.28 When any man cuts not his hair on the Eves of the Festival day, but three days before, it appears, that he cut not his hair in honour of the Feast.

We cannot here omit this story. h 1.29 A certain Travailer, who was a Barbar, and an Astro∣loger, saw by his Astrology, that the Jews would shed his blood (which was to be understood of his Proselytism, namely, when they circumcised him) when a certain Jew therefore came to him, to have his hair cut, he cut his throat. And how many throats did he cut? R. Lazar ben Jose saith, Eighty. R. Jose ben R. Bon saith. Three hundred.

VERS. XV.

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

Her hair is given her for a Covering.

THE daughter of Nicodemus being reduced to miserable poverty, going to Rabban Jochanan to speak to him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i 1.30 vailed her self with her hair, and stood before him. The poor woman had no other vail, therefore she used that which was gi∣ven her by nature: and she used it (shall I say, as a sign? Or) as an Instrument, and mark of modesty, and shamefacedness.

VERS. XXI.

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

Every one taketh before other his own supper.

I. I Wonder the Agapae, The love Feasts, of which S. Jude speaks, vers. 12. should among Interpreters receive their exposition hence. In those Feasts, saith Beza, which they call Agapae, that they used to take the holy Supper of the Lord, appears from, 1 Cor. XI. Of which thing discourse is had in Tertullians Apologetick, Chap. XXXIX. and in other writings of the Ancients. So he also speaks at Act. II. 42. And upon this place,

The Apostle, saith he, passeth to another Head of this Discourse, namely, the administration of the Lords Supper, to which the Love-feasts were joyned, &c. And upon the following verse, The Love-feasts, although they had been used a long while in the Church, and com∣mendably too, the Apostles themselves being the Authors of them, yet the Apostle judgeth them to be taken away because of their abuse.

So also, Baronius: The use of a most commendable thing persevered as yet in the Church; that what Christ had done at his last Supper, and had admonished his Disciples to do in re∣membrance of him, that Christians meeting in the Church should sup together, and withal should receive the most holy Eucharist: Which nevertheless when the Corinthians fulfilled not as they ought, Paul doth deservedly reprove.

He that should deny such charitable Feasts to have been used in the Church toge∣ther with the Eucharist, certainly would contradict all antiquity: but whether those Feasts were these Agapae, of which the Apostle Jude speaks, whether those Feasts had Christ or his Apostles for their Authors; and whether these Corinthian Feasts were such; if any doubt, he doth it not without cause, nor doth he without probability believe the contrary. Of these Corinthian Feasts, here what Sedulius saith: Among the Corin∣thians, saith he, heretofore as some assert, prevailed an ill custom, to dishonour the Churches every where by Feasts, which they eat before the Lords Oblation. Which Supper they began a nights; and when the rich came drunk to the E••charist, the poor were vexed with hunger. But that custom, as they report, came from the Gentile Superstition, as yet among them. Mark that; I should say, From the Jewish Superstition. The very same is in Primasius.

II. If I may, with the good leave of Antiquity, speak freely that which I think con∣cerning the Agap••, of which the Apostle Jude speaks, take it in a few words.

Those Agapae, we suppose, were, when strangers were hospitably entertained in each Church, and that at the cost of the Church. And we are of opinion, that this lauda∣ble custom was derived from the Synagogues of the Jews. l 1.31 In the Synagogues they nei∣ther eat nor drink, &c. But there was a place near the Synagogue, in which Travellers were wont to sleep and eat. Hence that in Pesachin, m 1.32 where it is asked, why they conse∣crate the day (which was usual over a cup of wine) in the Synagogue? And it is answered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That Travellers also may do their duty, who eat, and drink and feast in the Synagogue. Here the Glosser enquires, whether it were lawful to eat and drink in the Synagogues, when it is forbid by an open Canon. n 1.33 And at length among other things he answereth thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Chambers which joyned to the Synagogue, are called Synagogues also, and from thence travellers heard the Consecration. There was therefore a certain Hospital, either near or joyning to the Synagogue, wherein travellers and pilgrims were received and entertained at the common cost of the Synagogue. Compare Act. XVIII. 7.

But now, that a custom of so great charity was translated into the Christian Church, there are many things which perswade: as also, that these entertainments of strangers were those Agapae, concerning which St. Jude speaks in terms, and Peter in the same sense, though not in terms, 2 Pet. II.

I. Since the Apostolic Churches imitated the laudable customs of the Synagogues in all things almost, which might more largely be demonstrated, if this were a place for it; it is by no means to be thought, that this so piouss, so Christian, so necessary a custom should be passed over by them, I say it again, so necessary. For

II. When the Apostles and Disciples travailed up and down preaching the Gospel, poor enough both by the iniquity of the times, and by the very command of our Sa∣viour: and when at that time not a few were banished from their own dwellings for the profession of the Gospel; the honor of the Gospel, the necessity of the thing, and Christian piety and charity required, that they should be sustained by some such re∣lief.

III. When Gaius is said to be the host of the whole Church, Rom. XVI. 23. You can scarce take this in another sense, than that he was deputed by the Church over the pub∣lic Hospital; where he discharged his office so laudably, that he carried away a testi∣mony of praise, (if he be the same Gaius, which it is probable he was) from St. John in his third Epistle, vers. 5.

IV. When mention is made of Widdows washing strangers feet, 1 Tim. V. 10. And when Phebe is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Servant of the Church at Kenchrea, Rom. XVI. 1. to omit other women, who are said to labour much in the Lord; you will scarcely fix a better sense upon these Charecters, than that they mi∣nistred in that public Hospital, of which we are speaking.

V. And this sense agrees excellently well, above all others, with the place of Jude alledged, as also with that of Peter, who treats of the same thing. For Jude speaks of Apostate Heretics, Seducers, the most wicked of all mortal men; whom, he saith, were

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Spots in their Agapae. And do you think these were of the same Church, where they so fasted? Were these admitted without any scruple to the Agapae, if they were appendages to the Lords Supper? For Jude saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 feeding themselves without fear, &c. How much more probable is it to think, that these strangers were unknown persons, under the form of believers, wandring up and down, and received in the common Hospital of the Church, and there scattering their errors; and that so much the more boldly, as they were themselves the more unknown. We are far from denying, that some Agapae, Love-feasts, were used as appendages of the Lords Supper, in more antient ages of the Church: but whether in the times of the Apostles, we ask, and whether Jude means such, we very much doubt, and that such are here pointed out by the Apostle, we do not at all believe. Those banquetings of the Corinthians before the Eucharist, unless we are very much mistaken, look far another way: and I fear, lest while some pursue this place concerning the Lords Supper with such Commentaries of dread and terror, that some being moved and terrified there∣by, do altogether avoid this Sacrament, as some deadly thing, and not to be medled with: I fear, I say, that they do hit upon the fault and error of the Corinthians in this business, and that they do not reduce that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Unworthily, to their proper crime.

We believe the Jewish part of this Church, although converted to the Gospel, yet retained somewhat of their old Leaven: and as they Judaized in other things, so in this about the Eucharist: so grievously erring concerning the proper end of it, that they thought it only an appendage of the Passover; or some new or superadded form of the commemoration of the going out of Egypt. Into which error they might be the more apt to fall, they especially who were so inclinable to Judaism, both because it was instituted in bread and wine, which were in the Passove•••• and because they had drunk in this from their very cradles, That the Messiah when he should come, would ba∣nish or change nothing of the rites of Moses, but would promote and raise all unto a more splendid form and pomp. That this was the error of the Corinthians about the Eucha∣rist, these observations make evident, which the Apostle hints, both in this verse, and those that follow: of which in their order, as we meet with them. And first let us weigh this, that is under our hands.

I. It is clearer than the Sun, that the Apostle sharply reproves the Corinthians for these very Suppers: I say, for the very Suppers, and not only for an abuse happening in the Suppers. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his own Supper, he calls that, which was to be eaten at home, if any were so hungry before the Eucharist, that he could not abstain. He dishonoureth the Church with the Supper which was brought into it. Weigh these things and think, whether these Agapae were those that are supposed.

II. The Corinthians placed somewhat of Religion in these Suppers, when they brought them into the Church. But what was that? Thus doing they retained the shaddow, and memory of keeping the Passover, and very willingly they imitated the example of Christ in the Ante-supper, that they might the more freely serve their Judaism in so do∣ing: yea, they dreamt that the Eucharist was instituted for the same commemoration with the Passover. It was Epidemical among the Jews converted to the Gospel, that they embraced Christianity, but did not forgoe Judaism; yea, that they brought over the things of the Gospel, as much as could be, to the doctrins and practices of the Jews.

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

Another is drunken.

There is none, that we know, that applies not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, One is hungry, to the poor, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Another is drunken, to the rich: which we also once believed: but they seem rather to be applied to the different Nations. Drunken to the Jews, cele∣brating the Passover in their Ante suppers before the Eucharist; and Hungry to the Gentiles, not being hungry so much out of poverty, or necessity, as that they would not embrace such an Ante-supper, as savouring of Judaism.

We may interpret the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, another is drunk, more favourably, than to ex∣tend it to extream drunkenness. For all know what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 means, in Gen. XLIII. ult. They drunk largely with him; and Cantic. V. 1. Drink abundantly, O Beloved. Where the LXX read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They were drunk with him: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Be ye drunk, Brethren. But if you will attribute an ignominious sense to it, it does not much differ from that liberal pouring in of wine, which was allowed, and used by some in their celebrating the Passovers. But the Apostle seems to inveigh against the very use of the thing, namely, against the Suppers themselves, rather than against the abuse of them. For if the excess of those Suppers had been that, which is espe∣cially accused, he had bent the force of his reproof more directly against it; but of that there is not one Syllable, besides this word.

We therefore believe these two contrary expressions, One is hungry, and another is drunken, are thus to be understood. The Jewish part of the Church would by no means come to the Eucharist without a Paschal Ante-supper, and banquet, where they were treated, ate and drank deliciously, and plentifully, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and drank freely, and were filled, and raised to a pitch of chearfulness; when the Gentile party on the contrary abhorring this Judaizing, and avoyding such Ante-suppers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as yet were hungry, and approached to the Sacrament fasting, that is, not having supped. And this we suppose to be the true cause of that enormity, which the Apostle corrects, ver. 33. namely, that they would not tarry one for another: the Gentile party would not tarry, till the Jewish party had dispatched their own time, how much so ever it were, in eating their Suppers.

VERS. XXIII.

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

For I have received of the Lord.

WHAT need had the Apostle to recur to this? Did the Corinthians doubt of the institution of the Eucharist? Or, of the authority of the Apostle, who delivered unto them that institution? It was neither one, nor the other; for they came to the Eucharist, and that because it was delivered them by the Apostle. But he calls them back hither for this reason, that from the words of Christ, who had in∣stituted his own Supper, and from his words wherein he had delivered to them that in∣stitution, they might observe, that the scope and end of that institution was the com∣memoration of the death of Christ, not any Paschal commemoration.

I. Namely, that Christ had said, This is my body; This is my blood; to teach that the bread and wine now looked another way, than they had looked, when they were used in the Passover. In that the unleavened bread shewed their hasty deliverance out of Egypt, and the wine their joy for that deliverance. But in the Eucharist, the bread points out the body of our Lord broken, and the wine his blood poured out.

II. That he said also of the wine, that it is the New Testament in his blood: and what had it therefore to do with the Passover of the Old Testament?

III. That he said lastly upon both, Do this in commemoration of me. In commemo∣ration of me, not in commemoration of the Passover, or any thing else.

VERS. XXV.

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

This Cup.

THAT our Saviour speaks here figuratively hath been sufficiently proved for∣merly by very many. But let us observe this moreover. That cup, which Christ used was mixed with water, if so be he retained the ordinary custom of the Na∣tion in this matter, which is not in the least to be doubted. Of the custom of the Nation we have spoke at Mat. XXVI. 27. Now repeating this only thence: o 1.34 The Wise men gave their votes for R. Eleazar, that none must bless over the cup of blessing, un∣til water be mingled with it. This we note, that the harmony between the Sacramental Blood, as we may so call it, of the Old Testament, and this Sacramental Blood of the New may be demonstrated: and in like manner between this Sacramental Blood of the New Testament, and the very Blood of Christ.

I. In the striking of the old Covenant, Exod. XXIV. there was blood mixed with water, Heb. IX. 19. and in this Sanction of the new, there was wine also mixed with water.

II. Out of Christs side with blood flowed water, Joh. XIX. 34. Unusual, beside the course of Nature, and that it might answer the Type.

Matthew and Mark exhibit the words of Christ thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This is my blood of the New Testament: Paul and Pauls compa∣nion, Luke thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This cup is the New Covenant in my blood: to the same sense with the former; but more explained. And here again, let us compare the Sanction of the old Covenant, Exod. XXIV.

I. A figurative expression is used in that History: when it is said that Moses sprinkled the blood upon all the people; that is, upon the twelve pillars erected by him, to re∣present the twelve tribes, vers. 4. So also in this place, This is my blood, that is, The representation of my blood.

II. Of the blood then sprinkled it might be said, This is the blood of Christ, of the old, or first Testament. The very blood then, and from thence represented the blood of Christ: because under the Old Testament there was from time to time to be shedding of blood. But now wine is a representation of the blood of Christ: be∣cause thence forward the shedding of such kind of blood was to cease.

III. The old Covenant was not established in the blood of that Paschal Lamb in Egypt, but in the blood of Bulls and Goats in the wilderness. And the reason was, because when the Passover was instituted, the Laws and Articles, concerning which the Covenant was entred into, had not been promulgated: but when they were pub∣lished and written, then the Covenant was established. In like manner Christ in the institution of Baptism established not the New Covenant: Baptism was the beginning of the Gospel, Mark I. 1. But when he had delivered the doctrin and articles of the Gospel, then he established the New Testament.

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

The New Testament.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p 1.35 What is giving? Behold all my goods are given to N. from this time. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ a Covenant? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let mine be my own, and remain so, but when I dy, let N. have them. So the Apostle, Heb. IX. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Where a Testament is, there must of necessity be the death of the Testator, &c.

I. This Cup is not only a sign of the blood of Christ, nor only a Seal as a Sacra∣ment; but the very Sanction of the New Testament, that is, of the whole Evangelic administration, not only the Sanction of a Covenant, but the Sanction of the Cove∣nant under the Evangelic administration. From thenceforth was the cessation of Ju∣daism. So that blood, Exod. XXIV. was not only the Sanction of the Covenant of grace, and the Sanction of the Covenant of the peculiarity of the people of Israel, but the Sanction of these things under such an Oeconomy.

II. While therefore we receive this Sacrament, we profess and protest against all other dispensations and religions, besides that of the Gospel. Hence in the times imme∣diately following the ascention of Christ, the communication of the Eucharist was so frequent; viz. that they, who had been now newly converted from Judaism, by the use of this Sacrament, might shew, that they renounced their Judaism, and professed the Faith and Oeconomy of the Gospel.

III. Our Communion therefore in this Sacrament is not so much Spiritual, as External, and declarative of our common and joynt profession of the Christian Faith. We are far from denying, that the Saints have a Spiritual Communion with God, and among themselves in the use of the Eucharist; yea we assert there is a most close Communion between true believers and God. But what is that Spiritual Communion of Saints among themselves? Mutual love, one heart, prayers for one another, &c. But they may exercise the same Communion, and do exercise it, when they meet together to any other part of Divine Worship. They may and do act the same thing, when they are distant from one another. Therefore their Communion in this Sacrament, which is distinctly called the Communion of the Eucharist, is, that they meet together, and by this outward sign, openly and with joynt minds profess, that they are united in one sacred knot and bond of Christian Religion, renouncing all other Religions.

IV. When therefore we approach to the Eucharist in any Church, we do not only communicate with that congregation, with which we associate at that time, but with the whole Catholic Church in the profession of the true Evangelic Religion.

VERS. XXVI.

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

Ye do shew the Lords death.

IT is known, what the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Passover Supper was, namely, a Declaration of the great works of God in the deliverance of the people out of Egypt. The same, as it seems, would these Judaizing Corinthians retain in the Lords Supper; as if the Eucharist were instituted and superadded only for that commemoration. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does very well answer to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Declaration: and while the Apostle admonisheth them, that the death of Christ is that which is to be declared, it may be gathered, that they erred in this very thing, and looked some other way.

VERS. XXVII.

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

Unworthily.

THE Apostle explains himself vers. 29. Where we also will speak of this verse.

VERS. XXVIII.

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

Let a man examine himself, &c.

HE had said before verse 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That they which are approved may be made manifest. And in the same sense he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Let a man approve himself, in this place; not so much, Let him try, or examine himself, as Let him approve himself; that is, Let him shew himself approved by the Christian Faith and Doctrine. So Chap. XVI. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Whomsoever ye shall approve. We meet with the word in the same sense very often.

VERS. XXIX.

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

Not discerning the Lords body.

THIS is to be meant of the proper act of the understanding: viz. Of the true judgment concerning the nature and signification of the Sacrament. If it were said indeed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Not discerning the Lord, it might be rendred in the same sense, as He knew not the Lord, that is, he loves him not, he fears him not, he worships him not. But when it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Not discerning the body, it plainly speaks of the act of the understanding: He does not rightly distinguish of the body of the Lord. And this was a grievous error of these Judaizing Corinthians, who would see nothing of the body of Christ in the Eucharist, or of his death; their eyes being too intent upon the commemoration of the Passover. They retained the old Leaven of Judaism in this new Passover of the Eucharist. And this was their partaking of the Sacrament 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unworthily, as assigning it a scope and end much too unwor∣thy, much too mean.

Ther are, alas! among Christians, some who come to this Sacrament 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, un∣worthily; but whether this unworthily of the Corinthians, be fitly applied to them, I much doubt. How mean soever I am, let me speak this freely, with the leave of good and pious men, that I fear, that this discourse of the Apostle, which especially chasti∣zed Judaizers, be too severely applyed to Christians, that Judaize not at all: at least that it be not by very many Interpreters applied to the proper and intended scope of it.

Of these Corinthians receiving the Eucharist unworthily in the sense of which we spake, the Apostle speaks two dreadful things.

I. That they became 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, vers. 27. With this I compare that of the Apostle, Heb. X. 29. He hath trampled under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the Covenant, by which he, the Son of God, was sanctified, a common thing. And Heb. VI. 6. They crucify again to themselves the Son of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and put him to an open shame. Of whom is the discourse? Not of all Christians, that walked not exactly according to the Gospel rule (although they indeed esteem and treat Christ too ignominously) but of those that relapse and Apostatize from the Gos∣pel to Judaism, whether these Corinthians too much inclined, and are admonished sea∣sonably to take care of the same guilt: for when any professing the Gospel, so de∣clined to Judaism, that he put the blood of Christ in subordination to the Passover, and acknowledged nothing more in it, than was acknowledged in the blood of a Lamb, and other Sacrifices, namely, that they were a mere commemoration and nothing else, oh! how did he vilify that blood of the eternal Covenant: He is guilty of the blood of the Lord, who assents to the shedding of his blood, and, gives his vote to his death, as inflicted for a mere shaddow, and nothing else; which they did.

II. That they ate and drank 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Judgment to themselves. But what that judgment is, is declared vers. 30. Many are sick, &c. It is too sharp, when some turn 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by Damnation, when the Apostle saith most evidently vers. 32. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ When we are judged we are chastened, that we should not be condemned.

Thus as in the beginning of the Mosaical Dispensation, God vindicated the honour of the Sabbath, by the death of him that gathered sticks; and the honour of the worship in the Tabernacle, by the death of Nadab and Abihu; and the honour of his Name, by the stoning of the Blasphemer: so he set up like monuments of his vengeance in the be∣ginning of the Gospel Dispensation, in the dreadful destruction of Ananias and Sapphira, for the wrong and reproach offered to the Holy Ghost; in the delivery of some into the hands of Satan, for contempt of, and enmity against the Gospel; in this judgment, for the abuse of the Eucharist; in the destruction of some by the Plague for Nicolaitism Revel. II. 23, &c.

VERS. XXXIII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪

Tarry one for another.

NOT that he allowed those Ante-suppers of the Judaizers, and commands the Gen∣tile party of the Church to wait till the Jewish part eat those Suppers: but having before wholly condemned those Paschal Ante-suppers, he would take away all dividing into parties, and that all might resort to the Eucharist together with one accord, not separately, and in parts and contentions.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Maimon. in Tephil. cap. 5.
• b 1.2

  Fol. 12. 2.
• c 1.3

  Piskt Tosaph in Menacoth. numb. 150.
• d 1.4

  Avoth R. Nathan, cap. 6.
• e 1.5

  Erakin, fol. 2. 2.
• f 1.6

  Maimon. in Jesudei Torah. cap. 1.
• g 1.7

  Schabb. fol. 12. 1.
• h 1.8

  ••••••••ith, fol. 14▪ 2.
• i 1.9

  Fol. 15. 1. & 24. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• m 1.10

  Maimon. in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cap. 24
• n 1.11

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. fol. 72. 1.
• o 1.12

  Schab. ••. ••0. 1
• p 1.13

  Bava Kama, fol. 90. 2.
• q 1.14

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. fol. ••••. 1.
• r 1.15

  Hieros. Av••∣••ah Z••r••h. fol. 4••. 1.
• s 1.16

  In Menachoth, fol. 43. 2.
• t 1.17

  Primasius.
• u 1.18

  Carthus••an.
• x 1.19

  Beza.
• y 1.20

  Camerarius.
• z 1.21

  ••ereshith R ••••. §. 17.
• a 1.22

  In Esay XLIV. 13.
• b 1.23

  Cap. 2.
• c 1.24

  Kiddush. fol. 41. 9.
• d 1.25

  Nazir, fol. 51. 2.
• e 1.26

  Hist. lib. 4. cap. 14.
• f 1.27

  Moed Kat••n, cap. 3. hal. 1.
• g 1.28

  Piske Tosaph. at Moed Katon, Art. 78.
• h 1.29

  Hieros. Avo∣dah Zarab, fol. 41. 1.
• i 1.30

  Bab. Chetubb. fol. 66. 2.
• l 1.31

  Gloss in Bav•• Bathra. f. 3. 2.
• m 1.32

  Fol. 101. 1.
• n 1.33

  Megil. fol. 28. 1.
• o 1.34

  Bab. Beracoth, fol. 50. 2.
• p 1.35

  Hieros. Peah, fol. 17. 2.