FREE ONLINE BOOKS

Exercitations upon St. Matthew

A Chorographical Century
[chorography: the art of describing or mapping a region or district.
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary]

Exercitations upon St. Mark
Dedication

A Chorographical Decad;
searching into some places of the Land of Israel;
those especially whereof mention is made in St. Mark.

Exercitations upon St. Luke
Dedication

A Few Chorographical Notes
upon the places mentioned in St. Luke.

 Exercitations upon St. John
Dedication

A Chorographical Inquiry
into some places of the Land of Israel,
particularly those which we find mentioned in the Evangelist St. John.

To His Dear Friends, the Students of Catharine-Hall, Health.

____________________

Those very arguments which, first and chiefly, moved me to turn over the Talmudical writings, moved me also to this present work: so that, from the same reasons whence that reading first proceeded, from them proceed also this fruit and benefit of it.

For, first, when all the books of the New Testament were written by Jews, and among Jews, and unto them; and when all the discourses made there, were made in like manner by Jews, and to Jews, and among them; I was always fully persuaded, as of a thing past all doubting, that that Testament could not but everywhere taste of and retain the Jews' style, idiom, form, and rule of speaking.

And hence, in the second place, I concluded as assuredly that, in the obscurer places of that Testament (which are very many), the best and most natural method of searching out the sense is, to inquire how, and in what sense, those phrases and manners of speech were understood, according to the vulgar and common dialect and opinion of that nation; and how they took them, by whom they were spoken, and by whom they were heard. For it is no matter what we can beat out concerning those manners of speech on the anvil of our own conceit, but what they signified among them, in their ordinary sense and speech. And since this could be found out no other way than by consulting Talmudic authors, who both speak in the vulgar dialect of the Jews, and also handle and reveal all Jewish matters; being induced by these reasons, I applied myself chiefly to the reading these books. I knew, indeed, well enough, that I must certainly wrestle with infinite difficulties, and such as were hardly to be overcome; yet I undervalued them all, and armed myself with a firm purpose, that, if it were possible, I might arrive to a fuller and more deep knowledge and understanding of the style and dialect of the New Testament.

The ill report of those authors, whom all do so very much speak against, may, at first, discourage him that sets upon the reading of their books. The Jews themselves stink in Marcellinus, and their writings stink as much amongst all; and they labour under this I know not what singular misfortune, that, being not read, they displease; and that they are sufficiently reproached by those that have read them, but undergo much more infamy by those that have not.

The almost unconquerable difficulty of the style, the frightful roughness of the language, and the amazing emptiness and sophistry of the matters handled, do torture, vex, and tire him that reads them. They do everywhere abound with trifles in that manner, as though they had no mind to be read; with obscurities and difficulties, as though they had no mind to be understood: so that the reader hath need of patience all along, to enable him to bear both trifling in sense and roughness in expression.

I, indeed, propounded three things to myself while I turned them over, that I might, as much as I could, either under-value those vexations of reading, or soften them, or recreate myself with them, and that I might reap and enjoy fruit from them, if I could, and as much as I could.

I. I resolved with myself to observe those things which seemed to yield some light to the holy Scriptures, but especially either to the phrases, or sentences, or history of the New Testament.

II. To set down such things in my note-books, which carried some mention of certain places in the land of Israel, or afforded some light into the chorography of that land.

III. To note those things which referred to the history of the Jews, whether ecclesiastical, or scholastic, or civil; or which referred to the Christian history, or the history of the rest of the world.

And now, after having viewed and observed the nature, art, matter, and marrow of these authors with as much intention as we could, I cannot paint out, in little, a true and lively character of them better than in these paradoxes and riddles: There are no authors do more affright and vex the reader; and yet there are none who do more entice and delight him. In no writers is greater or equal trifling; and yet in none is greater or so great benefit. The doctrine of the gospel hath no more bitter enemies than they; and yet the text of the gospel hath no more plain interpreters. To say all in a word, to the Jews, their countrymen, they recommend nothing but toys, and destruction, and poison; but Christians, by their skill and industry, may render them most usefully serviceable to their studies, and most eminently tending to the interpretation of the New Testament.

We here offer some specimen of this our reading and our choice, for the reader's sake, if so it may find acceptance with the reader. We know how exposed to suspicion it is to produce new things; how exposed to hatred the Talmudic writings are; how exposed to both, and to sharp censure also, to produce them in holy things. Therefore, this our more unusual manner of explaining Scripture cannot, upon that very account, but look for a more unusual censure, and become subject to a severer examination. But when the lot is cast, it is too late at this time to desire to avoid the sequel of it; and too much in vain in this place to attempt a defence. If the work and book itself does not carry something with it which may plead its cause, and obtain the reader's pardon and favour; our oration, or begging Epistle, will little avail to do it. The present work, therefore, is to be exposed and delivered over to its fate and fortune, whatsoever it be. Some there are, we hope, who will give it a milder and more gentle reception; for this very thing, dealing favourably and kindly with us, that we have been intent upon our studies; that we have been intent upon the gospel; and that we have endeavoured after truth: they will show us favour that we followed after it, and, if we have not attained it, they will pity us. But as for the wrinkled forehead, and the stern brow, we are prepared to bear them with all patience, being armed and satisfied with this inward patronage, that "we have endeavoured to profit."

But this work, whatever it be, and whatever fortune it is like to meet with, we would dedicate to you, my very dear Catharine-Hall men, both as a debt, and as a desire. For by this most close bond and tie wherewith we are united, to you is due all that we study, all that we can do; if so be that all is any thing at all. And when we desire to profit all (if we could) which becomes both a student and a Christian to do; by that bond and your own merits, you are the very centre and rest of those desires and wishes. We are sufficiently conscious to ourselves how little or nothing we can do either for the public benefit, or for yours; yet we would make a public profession, before all the world, of our desire and study; and, before you, of our inward and cordial affection.

Let this pledge, therefore, of our love and endearment be laid up by you; and, while we endeavour to give others an account of our hours, let this give you an assurance of our affections. And may it last in Catharine-Hall, even to future ages, as a testimony of service, a monument of love, and a memorial both of me and you!

From my Study,
The Calends of June, 1658.

Chapter 1

1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

[The book of the generation of Jesus Christ.] Ten stocks came out of Babylon: 1. Priests. 2. Levites. 3. Israelites. 4. Common persons, as to the priesthood: such whose fathers, indeed, were sprung from priests, but their mothers unfit to be admitted to the priests' marriage-bed. 5. Proselytes. 6. Liberti, or servants set free. 7. Nothi: such as were born in wedlock; but that which was unlawful. 8. Nethinims. 9. Bastards: such as came of a certain mother, but of an uncertain father. 10. Such as were gathered up out of the streets, whose fathers and mothers were uncertain.

A defiled generation indeed! and, therefore, brought up out of Babylon in this common sink, according to the opinion of the Hebrews, that the whole Jewish seed still remaining there might not be polluted by it. For Ezra went not up out of Babylon, until he had rendered it pure as flour. They are the words of the Babylonian Gemara, which the Gloss explains thus; "He left not any there that were illegitimate in any respect, but the priests and Levites only, and Israelites of a pure and undefiled stock. Therefore, he brought up with him these ten kinds of pedigrees, that these might not be mingled with those, when there remained now no more a Sanhedrim there, which might take care of that matter. Therefore he brought them to Jerusalem, where care might be taken by the Sanhedrim fixed there, that the legitimate might not marry with the illegitimate."

Let us think of these things a little while we are upon our entrance into the Gospel-history:

I. How great a cloud of obscurity could not but arise to the people concerning the original of Christ, even from the very return out of Babylon, when they either certainly saw, or certainly believed that they saw, a purer spring of Jewish blood there than in the land of Israel itself!

II. How great a care ought there to be in the families of pure blood, to preserve themselves untouched and clean from this impure sink; and to lay up among themselves genealogical scrolls from generation to generation as faithful witnesses and lasting monuments of their legitimate stock and free blood!

Hear a complaint and a story in this case: "R. Jochanan said, By the Temple, it is in our hand to discover who are not of pure blood in the land of Israel: but what shall I do, when the chief men of this generation lie hid?" (that is, when they are not of pure blood, and yet we must not declare so much openly concerning them). "He was of the same opinion with R. Isaac, who said, A family (of the polluted blood) that lies hid, let it lie hid. Abai also saith, We have learned this also by tradition, That there was a certain family called the family of Beth-zeripha, beyond Jordan, and a son of Zion removed it away." (The Gloss is, Some eminent man, by a public proclamation, declared it impure.) "But he caused another which was such" [that is, impure] "to come near. and there was another which the wise men would not manifest."

III. When it especially lay upon the Sanhedrim, settled at Jerusalem to preserve pure families, as much as in them lay, pure still; and when they prescribed canons of preserving the legitimation of the people (which you may see in those things that follow at the place alleged), there was some necessity to lay up public records of pedigrees with them: whence it might be known what family was pure, and what defiled. Hence that of Simon Ben Azzai deserves our notice: "I saw (saith he) a genealogical scroll in Jerusalem, in which it was thus written; 'N., a bastard of a strange wife.'" Observe, that even a bastard was written in their public books of genealogy, that he might be known to be a bastard, and that the purer families might take heed of the defilement of his seed. Let that also be noted: "They found a book of genealogy at Jerusalem, in which it was thus written; 'Hillel was sprung from David. Ben Jatsaph from Asaph. Ben Tsitsith Hacceseth from Abner. Ben Cobisin from Achab,'" &c. And the records of the genealogies smell of those things which are mentioned in the text of the Misna concerning 'wood-carrying': "The priests' and people's times of wood-carrying were nine: on the first day of the month Nisan, for the sons of Erach, the sons of Judah: the twentieth day of Tammuz, for the sons of David, the son of Judah: the fifth day of Ab, for the sons of Parosh, the son of Judah: the seventh of the same month for the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab: the tenth of the same for the sons of Senaah, the son of Benjamin," &c.

It is, therefore, easy to guess whence Matthew took the last fourteen generations of this genealogy, and Luke the first forty names of his; namely, from the genealogical scrolls at that time well enough known, and laid up in the public repositories, and in the private also. And it was necessary, indeed, in so noble and sublime a subject, and a thing that would be so much inquired into by the Jewish people as the lineage of the Messiah would be, that the evangelists should deliver a truth, not only that could not be gainsaid, but also that might be proved and established from certain and undoubted rolls of ancestors.

[Of Jesus Christ.] That the name of Jesus is so often added to the name of Christ in the New Testament, is not only that thereby Christ might be pointed out for the Saviour, which the name Jesus signifies; but also, that Jesus might be pointed out for true Christ: against the unbelief of the Jews, who though they acknowledged a certain Messiah, or Christ, yet they stiffly denied that Jesus of Nazareth was he. This observation takes place in numberless places of the New Testament; Acts 2:36, 8:35; 1 Corinthians 16:22; 1 John 2:22, 4:15, &c.

[The Son of David.] That is, "the true Messias." For by no more ordinary and more proper name did the Jewish nation point out the Messiah than by The Son of David. See Matthew 12:23, 21:9, 22:42; Luke 18:38; and everywhere in the Talmudic writings, but especially in Bab. Sanhedrim: where it is also discussed, What kind of times those should be when the Son of David should come.

The things which are devised by the Jews concerning Messiah Ben Joseph (which the Targum upon Canticles 4:5 calls 'Messiah Ben Ephraim') are therefore devised, to comply with their giddiness and loss of judgment in their opinion of the Messiah. For, since they despised the true Messiah, who came in the time fore-allotted by the prophets, and crucified him; they still expect I know not what chimerical one, concerning whom they have no certain opinion: whether he shall be one, or two; whether he shall arise from among the living, or from the dead; whether he shall come in the clouds of heaven, or sitting upon an ass, &c.: they expect a Son of David; but they know not whom, they know not when.

2. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

[Judas.] In Hebrew, Jehudah. Which word not only the Greeks, for want of the letter "h" in the middle of a word, but the Jews themselves, do contract into Judah: which occurs infinite times in the Jerusalem Talmud. The same person who is called R. Jose Bi R. Jehudah, in the next line is called R. Jose Bi R. Judah...

5. And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

[Booz of Rachab.] So far the Jewish writers agree with Matthew, that they confess Rachab was married to some prince of Israel, but mistaking concerning the person: whether they do this out of ignorance, or wilfully, let themselves look to that. Concerning this matter, the Babylonian Gemara hath these words: "Eight prophets and those priests sprung from Rachab, and they are these, Neriah, Baruch, Seraiah, Maaseiah, Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Hanameel, and Shallum. R. Judah saith, Huldah also was of the posterity of Rachab." And a little after, "There is a tradition, that she, being made a proselytess, was married to Joshua": which Kimchi also produceth in Joshua 6. Here the Gloss casts in a scruple: "It sounds somewhat harshly (saith it), that Joshua married one that was made a proselyte, when it was not lawful to contract marriage with the Canaanites, though they became proselytes. Therefore we must say that she was not of the seven nations of the Canaanites, but of some other nation, and sojourned there. But others say that that prohibition took not place before the entrance into the promised land," &c.

8. And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

[And Joram begat Ozias.] The names of Ahazias, Joash, and Amazias, are struck out. See the history in the books of the Kings, and 1 Chronicles 3:11, 12.

I. The promise that "the throne of David should not be empty," passed over, after a manner, for some time into the family of Jehu, the overthrower of Joram's family. For when he had razed the house of Ahab, and had slain Ahaziah, sprung, on the mother's side, of the family of Ahab, the Lord promiseth him that his sons should reign unto the fourth generation, 2 Kings 10:30. Therefore however the mean time the throne of David was not empty, and that Joash and Amazias sat during the space between, yet their names are not unfitly omitted by our evangelist, both because they were sometimes not very unlike Joram in their manners; and because their kingdom was very much eclipsed by the kingdom of Israel, when Ahazias was slain by Jehu, and his cousin Amazias taken and basely subdued by his cousin Joash, 2 Chronicles 25:23.

II. "The seed of the wicked shall be cut off," Psalm 37:28. Let the studious reader observe that, in the original, in this very place, the letter Ain, which is the last letter of wicked, and of seed, is cut off, and is not expressed; when, by the rule of acrostic verse (according to which this Psalm is composed), that letter ought to begin the next following verse.

III. "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, &c. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation," (Exodus 20:5.

Joram walked in the idolatrous ways of the kings of Israel, according to the manner of the family of Ahab, 2 Kings 8:18. Which horrid violation of the second command God visits upon his posterity, according to the threatening of that command; and therefore the names of his sons are dashed out unto the fourth generation.

IV. The Old Testament also stigmatizeth that idolatry of Joram in a way not unlike this of the New; and shows that family unworthy to be numbered among David's progeny, 2 Chronicles 22:2: Ahazias, the son of two and forty years: that is, not of his age (for he was not above two-and-twenty, 2 Kings 8:26), but of the duration of the family of Omri, of which stock Ahazias was, on the mother's side; as will sufficiently appear to him that computes the years. A fatal thing surely! that the years of a king of Judah should be reckoned by the account of the house of Omri.

V. Let a genealogical style not much different be observed, 1 Chronicles 4:1; where Shobal, born in the fifth or sixth generation from Judah, is reckoned as if he were an immediate son of Judah. Compare chapter 2:50.

In the like manner, Ezra 7, in the genealogy of Ezra, five or six generations are erased.

11. And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

[And Josias begat Jechonias.] The sons of Josias were these: the first-born, Jochanan; the second, Joachim; the third, Zedekiah; the fourth, Shallum, 1 Chronicles 3:15. Who this Shallum was, the Jerusalem Talmudists do dispute: "R. Jochanan saith, Jochanan and Jehoachaz were the same. And when it is written, Jochanan the first-born, it means this; that he was the first-born to the kingdom: that is, he first reigned. And R. Jochanan saith, Shallum and Zedekias are the same. And when it is written, Zedekias the third Shallum the fourth; he was the third in birth, but he reigned fourth." The same things are produced in the tract Sotah. But R. Kimchi much more correctly: "Shallum (saith he) is Jechonias, who had two names, and was reckoned for the son of Josias, when he was his grandchild" (or the son of his son); "For the sons of sons are reputed for sons." Compare Jeremiah 22:11 with 24; and the thing itself speaks it. And that which the Gemarists now quoted say, Zedekiah was also called Shallum, because in his days 'Shalmah,' 'an end was put to' the kingdom of the family of David: this also agrees very fitly to Jechonias, Jeremiah 22:28-30.

12. And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

[Jechonias begat Salathiel.] That is, "a son of the kingdom," or successor in that dignity of the house of David, whatsoever it was, which was altogether withered in the rest of the sons of Josiah, but did somewhat flourish again in him, 2 Kings 25:27. And hence it is, that of all the posterity of Josiah, Jechonias only is named by St. Matthew.

Jechonias, in truth, was without children, Jeremiah 22:30; and Salathiel, properly speaking, was the son of Neri, Luke 3:27: but yet Jechonias is said to beget him; not that he was truly his father, but that the other was his successor; not, indeed, in his kingly dignity, for that was now perished, but in that which now was the chief dignity among the Jews. So 1 Chronicles 3:16, Zedekias is called the son, either of Jehoiakim, whose brother indeed he was, or of Jechonias, whose uncle he was; because he succeeded him in the kingly dignity.

The Lord had declared, and that not without an oath, that Jechonias should be without children. The Talmudists do so interpret "R. Judah saith, All they of whom it is said, These shall be without children; they shall have no children. And those of whom it is said, They shall die without children; they bury their children." [Lev 20:2021.]

So Kimchi also upon the place; "The word (saith he) means this; That his sons shall die in his life, if he shall now have sons: but if he shall not now have sons, he never shall. But our Rabbins of blessed memory say, That he repented in prison. And they say moreover, Oh! how much doth repentance avail, which evacuates a penal edict! for it is said, 'Write ye this man childless': but, he repenting, this edict turned to his good," &c. "R. Jochanan saith, His carrying away expiated. For when it is said, 'Write this man childless,' after the carrying away it is said, 'The sons of Coniah, Assir his son, Shealtiel his son.'" These things are in Babyl. Sanhedrim, where these words are added, "Assir his son, because his mother conceived him in prison."

But the words in the original (1 Chron 3:17) are these...Now the sons of Jechonias bound [or imprisoned] were Shealtiel his son. Which version both the accents and the order of the words confirm...

16. And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

[And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary.] The mother's family is not to be called a family. Hence the reason may very easily be given, why Matthew brings down the generation to Joseph, Mary's husband; but Luke to Eli, Mary's father. These two frame the genealogy two ways, according to the double notion of the promise of Christ. For he is promised, as the 'seed of the woman,' and as the 'Son of David'; that, as a man, this, as a king. It was therefore needful, in setting down his genealogy, that satisfaction should be given concerning both. Therefore Luke declareth him the promised seed of the woman, deducing his mother's stock, from whence man was born, from Adam; Matthew exhibits his royal original, deriving his pedigree along through the royal family of David to Joseph, his (reputed) father.

17. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

[Fourteen generations.] Although all things do not square exactly in this threefold number of fourteen generations, yet there is no reason why this should be charged as a fault upon Matthew, when in the Jewish schools themselves it obtained for a custom, yea, almost for an axiom, to reduce things and numbers to the very same, when they were near alike. The thing will be plain by an example or two, when a hundred almost might be produced.

Five calamitous things are ascribed to the same day, that is, to the ninth day of the month Ab. "For that day (say they) it was decreed, That the people should not go into the promised land: the same day, the first Temple was laid waste, and the second also: the city Bitter was destroyed, and the city Jerusalem ploughed up." Not that they believed all these things fell out precisely the same day of the month; but, as the Babylonian Gemara notes upon it, That they might reduce a fortunate thing to a holy day, and an unfortunate to an unlucky day.

The Jerusalem Gemara, in the same tract, examines the reason why the daily prayers consist of the number of eighteen, and among other things hath these words; "The daily prayers are eighteen, according to the number of the eighteen Psalms, from the beginning of the Book of Psalms to that Psalm whose beginning is, 'The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble,'" [which Psalm, indeed, is the twentieth Psalm]. "But if any object, that nineteen Psalms reach thither, you may answer, The Psalm which begins, 'Why did the heathen rage,' is not of them," a distinct Psalm. Behold, with what liberty they fit numbers to their own case.

Inquiry is made, whence the number of the thirty-nine more principal servile works, to be avoided on the sabbath-day, may be proved. Among other, we meet with these words; "R. Chaninah of Zippor saith, in the name of R. Abhu, Aleph denotes one,Lamed thirty, He five, Dabar one, Debarim two. Hence are the forty works, save one, concerning which it is written in the law. The Rabbins of Caesarea say, Not any thing is wanting out of his place: Aleph one, Lamed thirty, Cheth eight: our profound doctors do not distinguish between He and Cheth": that they may fit number to their case...

"R. Joshua Ben Levi saith, In all my whole life I have not looked into the [mystical] book of Agada but once; and then I looked into it, and found it thus written, A hundred and seventy-five sections of the law; where it is written, He spake, he said, he commanded, they are for the number of the years of our father Abraham." And a little after; "A hundred and forty and seven Psalms, which are written in the Book of the Psalms [note this number], are for the number of the years of our father Jacob. Whence this is hinted, that all the praises wherewith the Israelites praise God are according to the years of Jacob. Those hundred and twenty and three times, wherein the Israelites answer Hallelujah, are according to the number of the years of Aaron," &c.

They do so very much delight in such kind of concents, that they oftentimes screw up the strings beyond the due measure, and stretch them till they crack. So that if a Jew carps at thee, O divine Matthew, for the unevenness of thy fourteens, out of their own schools and writings thou hast that, not only whereby thou mayest defend thyself, but retort upon them.

18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

[When as his mother was espoused] No woman of Israel was married, unless she had been first espoused. "Before the giving of the law (saith Maimonides), if the man and the woman had agreed about marriage, he brought her into his house, and privately married her. But after the giving of the law, the Israelites were commanded, that, if any were minded to take a woman for his wife, he should receive her, first, before witnesses; and thenceforth let her be to him a wife, as it is written, If any one take a wife. This taking is one of the affirmative precepts of the law, and is called espousing." Of the manner and form of espousing, you may read till you are weary, in that tractate, and in the Talmudic tract, Kiddushin.

[Before they came together.] "In many places the man espouseth the woman; but doth not bring her home to him, but after some space of time." So the Gloss upon Maimonides.

Distinction is made by the Jewish canons, and that justly and openly, between private society or discourse between the espouser and the espoused, and the bringing of the espoused into the husband's house. Of either of the two may those words be understood, before they came together, or, rather, of them both. He had not only not brought her home to him, but he had no manner of society with her alone, beyond the canonical limits of discourse, that were allowed to unmarried persons; and yet she was found with child.

[She was found with child.] Namely, after the space of three months from her conception, when she was now returned home from her cousin Elizabeth. See Luke 1:56, and compare Genesis 38:24.

The masters of the traditions assign this space to discover a thing of that nature. "A woman (say they) who is either put away from her husband, or become a widow, neither marrieth, nor is espoused, but after ninety days: namely, that it may be known, whether she be big with child or no; and that distinction may be made between the offspring of the first husband and of the second. In like manner, a husband and wife, being made proselytes, are parted from one another for ninety days, that judgment may be made between children begotten in holiness," (that is, within the true religion; see 1 Cor 7:14) "And children begotten out of holiness."

19. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

[But Joseph, being a just man, &c.] There is no need to rack the word just, to fetch out thence the sense of gentleness or mercy, which many do; for, construing the clauses of the verse separately, the sense will appear clear and soft enough, Joseph, being a just man, could not, would not, endure an adulteress: but yet not willing to make her a public example, being a merciful man, and loving his wife, was minded to put her away privily.

[To make her a public example.] This doth not imply death, but rather public disgrace, to make her public. For it may, not without reason, be inquired, whether she would have been brought to capital punishment, if it had been true that she had conceived by adultery. For although there was a law promulged of punishing adultery with death, Leviticus 10:10, Deuteronomy 22:22, and, in this case, she that was espoused, would be dealt withal after the same manner as it was with her who was become a wife; yet so far was that law modified, that I say not weakened, by the law of giving a bill of divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1, &c., that the husband might not only pardon his adulterous wife, and not compel her to appear before the Sanhedrim, but scarcely could, if he would, put her to death. For why otherwise was the bill of divorce indulged?

Joseph, therefore, endeavours to do nothing here, but what he might, with the full consent both of the law and nation. The adulteress might be put away; she that was espoused could not be put away without a bill of divorce; concerning which thus the Jewish laws: "A woman is espoused three ways; by money, or by a writing, or by being lain with. And being thus espoused, though she were not yet married, nor conducted into the man's house, yet she is his wife. And if any shall lie with her beside him, he is to be punished with death by the Sanhedrim. And if he himself will put her away, he must have a bill of divorce."

[Put her away privily.] Let the Talmudic tract 'Gittin' be looked upon, where they are treating of the manner of delivering a bill of divorce to a wife to be put away: among other things, it might be given privately, if the husband so pleased, either into the woman's hand or bosom, two witnesses only present.

23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

[Behold, a virgin shall be with child.] That the word virgin, in the prophet, denotes an untouched virgin, sufficiently appears from the sense of the place, Isaiah 7:14. King Ahaz there was afraid, lest the enemies that were now upon him might destroy Jerusalem, and utterly consume the house of David. The Lord meets this fear by a signal and most remarkable promise, namely, 'that sooner should a pure virgin bring forth a child, than the family of David perish.' And the promise yields a double comfort: namely, of Christ hereafter to be born of a virgin; and of their security from the imminent danger of the city and house of David. So that, although that prophecy, of a virgin's bringing forth a son, should not be fulfilled till many hundreds of years after, yet, at that present time, when the prophecy was made, Ahaz had a certain and notable sign, that the house of David should be safe and secure from the danger that hung over it. As much as if the prophet had said, "Be no so troubled, O Ahaz; does it not seem an impossible thing to thee, and that never will happen, that a pure virgin should become a mother? But I tell thee, a pure virgin shall bring forth a son, before the house of David perish."

Hear this, O unbelieving Jew! and shew us now some remainders of the house of David: or confess this prophecy fulfilled in the Virgin's bringing forth: or deny that a sign was given, when a sign is given.

In what language Matthew wrote his Gospel.

[Which is, being interpreted.] I. All confess that the Syriac language was the mother-tongue to the Jewish nation dwelling in Judea; and that the Hebrew was not at all understood by the common people may especially appear from two things:

1. That, in the synagogues, when the law and the prophets were read in the original Hebrew, an interpreter was always present to the reader, who rendered into the mother-tongue that which was read, that it might be understood by the common people. Hence those rules of the office of an interpreter, and of some places which were not to be rendered into the mother-tongue.

2. That Jonathan the son of Uzziel, a scholar of Hillel, about the time of Christ's birth, rendered all the prophets (that is, as the Jews number them, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Books of the Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve lesser prophets) into the Chaldee language; that is, into a language much more known to the people than the Hebrew, and more acceptable than the mother-tongue. For if it be asked why he translated them at all, and why he translated not rather into the mother-tongue, which was known to all? and if it be objected concerning St. Matthew and St. Paul, that, writing to the Jews, one his Gospel, the other his Epistle (to the Hebrews), they must have written in the Syriac tongue (if so be they wrote not in Hebrew), that they might be understood by all:--we answer,

First, It was not without reason that the paraphrast Jonathan translated out of the Hebrew original into the Chaldee tongue, because this tongue was much more known and familiar to all the people than the Hebrew. The holy text had need of an interpreter into a more known tongue, because it was now in a tongue not known at all to the vulgar. For none knew the Hebrew but such as learned it by study. However, therefore, all the Jews inhabiting the land of Canaan, did not so readily understand the Chaldee language as the Syriac, which was their mother-language, yet they much more readily understood that than the Hebrew, which, to the unlearned, was not known at all. Hence it was not without necessity that the prophets were turned into the Chaldee language by Jonathan, and the law, not much after, by Onkelos, that they might a little be understood by the common people, by whom the Hebrew original was not understood at all. We read also that the Book of Job had its Targum in the time of Gamaliel the Elder; that is, Paul's master.

Secondly, it is no impertinent question, Why Jonathan and Onkelos did not rather translate into the Syriac language, which was the mother-language to all the people, when both they themselves were in Judea, while they were employed about this work, and laboured in it for the use of the Jews that dwelt there? To which we give this double answer; 1. That, by turning it into the Chaldee language, they did a thing that might be of use to both them that dwelt in Judea, and in Babylon also. 2. The Syriac language was not so grateful unto the Jews, who used it for their mother-tongue, as the Chaldee was; as being a language more neat and polite, and the mother-tongue to the brethren in Babylon, and which they that came up out of Babylon, carried thence with them into Judea. You may wonder, reader, when you hear that canon which permits a single man "to say his prayers in any language, when he asks those things that are needful for him, except only the Syriac: While he asketh necessaries for himself, let him use any language but the Syriac." But you will laugh when you hear the reason: "Therefore, by all means, because the angels do not understand the Syriac language."

Whether they distinguish the Syriac language here from the pure Chaldee, is not of great moment solicitously to inquire: we shall only produce these things of the Glosser upon Beracoth, which make to our purpose:--"There are some (saith he) who say, that that prayer which begins 'sermon,' is therefore to be made in the Syriac language, because it is a noble prayer, and that deserves the highest praise; and therefore it is framed in the Targumistical language, that the angels may not understand it, and envy it to us," &c. And a little after; "It was the custom to recite that prayer after sermon: and the common people were there present, who understood not the Hebrew language at all; and therefore they appointed it to be framed in the Targumistical language, that it might be understood by all; for this is their tongue."

Mark, the Hebrew was altogether unknown to the common people: no wonder, therefore, if the evangelists and apostles wrote not in Hebrew when there were none who understood things so written, but learned men only.

That also must not be passed over, which, at first sight, seems to hint that the Syriac language was not understood even by learned men. "Samuel the Little, at the point of death, said, Simeon and Ismael to the sword; and all the other people to the spoil: and there shall be very great calamities." And because he spoke these things in the Syriac language, they understood not what he had said. This story you have repeated in the Babylonian Gemara, where the words of the dying man are thus related; Let the Glosser upon the place be the interpreter: "Simeon and Ismael to the sword [that is, Rabban Simeon the prince, and R. Ismael Ben Elisha the high-priest, were slain with the sword], and his fellows to slaughter [that is, R. Akibah and R. Chananiah Ben Teradion were slain by other deaths; namely R. Akibah by iron teeth, and R. Chananiah by burning alive before idols]; and the other people for a prey: and very many calamities shall fall upon the world."

Now where it is said that, "They understood not what he said, because he spake in the Syrian tongue," we also do not easily understand. What! for the Jerusalem doctors not to understand the Chaldee language! For Samuel the Little died before the destruction of the city; and he spake of the death of Rabban Simeon, who perished in the siege of the city; and he spake these things when some of the learnedest Rabbins were by: and yet that they understood not these words, which even a smatterer in the oriental tongues would very easily understand!

Therefore, perhaps, you may beat out the sense of the matter from the words of the author of Juchasin, who saith, He prophesied in the Syriac language, But now, when prophecies were spoken only in the Hebrew language, however they understood the sense of the words, yet they reputed it not for a prophecy, because it was not uttered in the language that was proper for prophetical predictions. But we tarry not here. That which we would have is this, that Matthew wrote not in Hebrew (which is proved sufficiently by what is spoken before), if so be we suppose him to have written in a language vulgarly known and understood; which, certainly, we ought to suppose: not that he, or the other writers of the New Testament, wrote in the Syriac language, unless we suppose them to have written in the ungrateful language of an ungrateful nation, which, certainly, we ought not to suppose. For when the Jewish people were now to be cast off, and to be doomed to eternal cursing, it was very improper, certainly, to extol their language, whether it were the Syriac mother-tongue, or the Chaldee, its cousin language, unto that degree of honour; that it should be the original language of the New Testament. Improper, certainly, it was, to write the Gospel in their tongue, who, above all the inhabitants of the world, most despised and opposed it.

II. Since, therefore, the Gentiles were to be called to the faith, and to embrace the Gospel by the preaching of it, the New Testament was written very congruously in the Gentile language, and in that which, among the Gentile languages, was the most noble; viz. the Greek. Let us see what the Jews say of this language, envious enough against all languages besides their own.

"Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel saith, Even concerning the holy books, the wise men permitted not that they should be written in any other language than Greek. R. Abhu saith that R. Jochanan said, The tradition is according to Rabban Simeon; that R. Jochanan said, moreover, Whence is that of Rabban Simeon proved? From thence, that the Scripture saith, 'The Lord shall persuade Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Sem': the words of Japhet shall be in the tents of Sem": and a little after, God shall persuade Japhet; i.e. The grace of Japhet shall be in the tents of Sem." Where the Gloss speaks thus; "'The grace of Japhet' is the Greek language; the fairest of those tongues which belonged to the sons of Japhet."

"Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel saith, Even concerning the sacred books, they permitted not that they should be written in any other language than Greek. They searched seriously, and found, that the law could not be translated according to what was needful for it, but in Greek." You have this latter clause cut off in Massecheth Sopherim, where this story also is added: "The five elders wrote the law in Greek for Ptolemy the king: and that day was bitter to Israel, as the day wherein the golden calf was made, because the law could not be translated according to what was needful for it." This story of the 'five interpreters' of the law is worthy of consideration, which you find seldom mentioned, or scarce anywhere else. The tradition next following after this, in the place cited, recites the story of the Seventy. Look at it.

When, therefore, the common use of the Hebrew language had perished, and when the mother Syriac or Chaldee tongue of a cursed nation could not be blessed, our very enemies being judges, no other language could be found, which might be fit to write the (new) divine law, besides the Greek tongue. That this language was scattered, and in use among all the eastern nations almost, and was in a manner the mother tongue, and that it was planted every where by the conquests of Alexander, and the empire of the Greeks, we need not many words to prove; since it is every where to be seen in the historians. The Jews do well near acknowledge it for their mother-tongue even in Judea.

"R. Jochanan of Beth Gubrin said, There are four noble languages which the world useth; the mother-tongue, for singing; the Roman, for war; the Syriac, for mourning; and the Hebrew, for elocution: and there are some who say, the Assyrian for writing." What is that which he calls the mother-tongue? It is very easily answered, the Greek, from those encomiums added to it, mentioned before: and that may more confidently be affirmed from the words of Midras Tillin, respecting this saying of R. Jochanan, and mentioning the Greek language by name. "R. Jochanan said, There are three languages; the Roman, for war; the Greek, for speech; the Assyrian, for prayer." To this also belongs that, that occurs once and again in Bab. Megillah, In the Greek mother tongue. You have an instance of the thing; "R. Levi, coming to Caesarea, heard some reciting the phylacteries in the Hellenistical language." This is worthy to be marked. At Caesarea flourished the famous schools of the Rabbins. The Rabbins of Caesarea are mentioned in both Talmuds most frequently, and with great praise, but especially in that of Jerusalem. But yet among these, the Greek is used as the mother-tongue, and that in reciting the phylacteries, which, you may well think, above all other things, in Judea were to be said in Hebrew.

In that very Caesarea, Jerome mentions the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, to be laid up in the library of Pamphilus, in these words: "Matthew, who was also called Levi, from a publican made an apostle, first of all in Judea composed the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words, for their sakes, who were of the circumcision and believed. Which Gospel, who he was that afterward translated it into Greek, it is not sufficiently know. Moreover, that very Hebrew Gospel is reserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which Pamphilus the martyr, with much care, collected. I also had leave given me by the Nazarenes, who use this book in Berea, a city of Syria, to write it out."

It is not at all to be doubted, that this Gospel was found in Hebrew; but that which deceived the good man was not the very handwriting of Matthew, nor, indeed, did Matthew write the Gospel in that language: but it was turned by somebody out of the original Greek into Hebrew, that so, if possible, the learned Jews might read it. For since they had little kindness for foreign books, that is, heathen books, or such as were written in a language different from their own, which might be illustrated from various canons, concerning this matter; some person converted to the gospel, excited with a good zeal, seems to have translated this Gospel of St. Matthew out of the Greek original into the Hebrew language, that learned men among the Jews, who as yet believed not, might perhaps read it, being now published in their language: which was rejected by them while it remained in a foreign speech. Thus, I suppose, this gospel was written in Greek by St. Matthew, for the sake of those that believed in Judea, and turned into Hebrew by somebody else, for the sake of those that did not believe.

The same is to be resolved concerning the original language of the Epistle to the Hebrews. That Epistle was written to the Jews inhabiting Judea, to whom the Syriac was the mother-tongue; but yet it was writ in Greek, for the reasons above named. For the same reasons, also, the same apostle writ in Greek to the Romans, although in that church there were Romans, to whom it might seem more agreeable to have written in Latin; and there were Jews, to whom it might seem more proepr to have written in Syriac.

Chapter 2

A calculation of the times when Christ was born.

1. Now when Jesus was born in Beth-lehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.

[Now when Jesus was born.] We thus lay down a scheme of the times when Christ was born:

I. He was born in the year of the world 3928.

For from the creation of the world to the deluge are commonly reckoned 1656 years.

From the deluge to Abraham's promise are 427 years. This being supposed, that Abraham was born the 130th year of Terah: which must be supposed.

From the promise given, to the going out of Egypt, 430 years, Exodus 12:40; Galatians 3:17.

From the going out of Egypt to the laying the foundations of the Temple are 480 years, 1 Kings 6:1.

The Temple was building 7 years, 1 Kings 6:38.

Casting up, therefore, all these together, viz. 1656 + 427 + 430 + 480 + 7 = The sum of years amounts to 3000.

And it is clear, the building of the Temple was finished and completed in the year of the world 3000.

The Temple was finished in the eleventh year of Solomon, 1 Kings 6:38: and thence to the revolting of the ten tribes, in the first year of Rehoboam, were 30 years. Therefore, that revolt was in the year of the world 3030.

From the revolt of the ten tribes to the destruction of Jerusalem under Zedekiah were three hundred and ninety years: which appears sufficiently from the chronical computation of the parallel times of the kings of Judah and Israel: and which is implied by Ezekiel 4:4-6: "Thou shalt sleep upon thy left side, and shalt put the iniquities of the house of Israel upon it, &c. according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days. And when thou shalt have accomplished them, thou shalt sleep upon thy right side the second time, and shalt take upon thee the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days." Concerning the computation of these years, it is doubted, whether those forty years are to be numbered together within the three hundred and ninety years, or by themselves, as following after those three hundred and ninety years. We, not without cause, embrace the former opinion, and suppose those forty years to be included within the sum of three hundred and ninety; but mentioned by themselves particularly, for a particular reason. For by the space of forty years before the destruction of the city by the Chaldeans, did Jeremiah prophesy daily, namely, from the third year of Josias to the sacking of the city: whom the people not hearkening to, they are marked for that peculiar iniquity with this note.

Therefore, these three hundred and ninety years being added to the year of the world, 3030, when the ten tribes fell off from the house of David, the age of the world when Jerusalem perished, arose to the year 3420.

At that time there remained fifty years of the Babylonian captivity to be completed. For those remarkable seventy years took their beginning from the third year of Jehoiakim, Daniel 1:1, whose fourth year begins the Babylonian monarchy, Jeremiah 25:1. And, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, the Temple was destroyed, 2 Kings 25:8, when now the twentieth year of the captivity passed; and other fifty remained: which fifty being added to the year of the world 3420, a year fatal to the Temple, the years of the world amount, in the first year of Cyrus, unto 3470.

From the first of Cyrus to the death of Christ are seventy weeks of years, or four hundred and ninety years, Daniel 9:24. Add these to the three thousand four hundred and seventy, and you observe Christ crucified in the year of the world 3960. When, therefore, you have subtracted thirty-two years and a half, wherein Christ lived upon the earth, you will find him born in the year of the world 3928.

II. He was born in the one-and-thirtieth year of Augustus Caesar, the computation of his monarchy beginning from the victory at Actium. Of which matter thus Dion Cassius writes: "This their sea-fight was on the second of September: and this I speak upon no other account (for I am not wont to do it), but because then Caesar first obtained the whole power: so that the computation of the years of his monarchy must be precisely reckoned from that very day." We confirm this our computation, by drawing down a chronological table from this year of Augustus to the fifteenth year of Tiberius, when Christ, having now completed the nine-and-twentieth year of his age, and entering just upon his thirtieth, was baptized. Now this table, adding the consuls of every year, we thus frame:

A.M.	A.U.C.	Augustus	A.D.	CONSULS.
3928	754	31	1	Caes. Aug. XIV. and L. Aemil. Paulus.
3929	755	32	2	Publius Vinicius and Pub. Alfenus Varus.
3930	756	33	3	L. Aelius Lamia, and M. Servilius.
3931	757	34	4	Sext. Aemilius Carus, and C. Sentius Saturninus.
3932	758	35	5	L. Valerius Messala, and Cn. Corn. Cinna Magn.
3933	759	36	6	M. Aemil. Lepidus, and L. Aruntius.
3934	760	37	7	A. Licin. Nerv. Silanus, and Q. Caecil. Metell. Cret.
3935	761	38	8	Furius Camillus, and Sext. Nonius quintilianus.
3936	762	39	9	Q. Sulpit. Camarin, and C. Poppaeus Sabinus.
3937	763	40	10	Pub. Corn. Dolabella, and C. Junius Silanus.
3938	764	41	11	M. Aemil. Lepid. and T. Statilius Taurus.
3939	765	42	12	Germanicus Caes. and C. Fonteius Capito.
3940	766	43	13	L. Munatius Plancus, and C. Silius Caecina.
3941	767	44	14	Sext. Pomp. Sexti F. and Sext. Apuleius Sexti F.

 

[A.M Latin anno mundi = in the year of the world.
A.U.C. Latin ab urbe condita = from the year of the founding of the city (of Rome).]

Augustus Caesar died the 19th day of August: on which day he had formerly entered upon the first consulship. He lived seventy-five years, ten months, and twenty-six days. He bore the empire alone, from the victory at Actium, forty-four years, wanting only thirteen days.

"Tiberius held the empire in great slothfulness, with grievous cruelty, wicked covetousness, and filthy lust."

A.M.	A.U.C.	Tiberius	A.D.	CONSULS.
3942	768	1	15	Drusus Caes. and C. Norbanus Flaccus.
3943	769	2	16	C. Statil. Sisenna Taurus, and Scribonius Libo.
3944	770	3	17	C. Caecil. Rufus, and L. Pomponianus Flaccus.
3945	771	4	18	Tiber. Caes. Augu. III. and Germanicus Caes. II.
3946	772	5	19	M. Julius Silanus, and L. Norban Flac. vel Balbus.
3947	773	6	20	M. Valerius Messala, and M. Aurel. Cotta.
3948	774	7	21	Tiber. Caes. Aug. IV. and Drusus Caes. II.
3949	775	8	22	D. Haterius Agrippa, and C. Sulpitius Galba.
3950	776	9	23	C. Asinius Pollio, and C. Antistius Veter.
3951	777	10	24	Sext. Cornel. Cethegus, and Visellius Varro.
3952	778	11	25	M. Asinius Agrippa, and Cossus Cornel Lentulus.
3953	779	12	26	Cn. Lentulus Getulicus, and C. Calvisius Sabinus.
3954	780	13	27	M. Licinius Crassus, and P. L. Calphurnius Piso.
3955	781	14	28	Appius Jul. Silanus, and P. Silvius Nerva.
3956	782	15	29	C. Rubellius Geminus, and C. Fusius Geminus.

 

In the early spring of this year came John baptizing. In the month Tisri Christ is baptized, when he had now accomplished the nine-and-twentieth year of his age, and had now newly entered upon his thirtieth. The thirtieth of Christ is to be reckoned with the sixteenth of Tiberius.

Of Augustus, now entering upon his one-and-thirtieth year, wherein Christ was born, Dion Cassius hath moreover these words: "Having now completed thrice ten years, being compelled, indeed, to it, he continued his government, and entered upon a fourth ten of years: being now more easy and slothful by reason of age." In this very year was the taxation under Cyrenius, of which Luke speaks, chapter 2. So that if it be asked when the fifth monarchy of the Romans arose, after the dissolution of those four mentioned by Daniel, an easy answer may be fetched from St. Luke, who relates that in that very year wherein Christ was born, Augustus laid a tax upon the whole world.

III. Christ was born in the thirty-fifth year of the reign of Herod: which we gather from the observation of these things: 1. Herod reigned, from that time he was first declared king by the Romans, seven-and-thirty years. 2. Between the death of Herod and the death of Augustus there was this space of time:

1. The ten years current of the reign of Archelaus.

2. Coponius succeeds him, banished to Vienna in the presidentship of Judea.

3. Marcus Ambibuchus [Ambivius] succeeds Coponius.

4. Annius Rufus succeeds Ambibuchus [Ambivius], during whose presidentship Augustus dies.

Since, therefore, only fourteen years passed from the nativity of Christ to the death of Augustus, out of which sum when you shall have reckoned the ten years current of Archelaus, and the times of the three presidents, we must reckon that Christ was not born but in the last years of Herod. Thus we conjecture:

In his thirty-fifth Christ was born.

In his thirty-seventh, now newly begun, the wise men came: presently after this was the slaying of the infants; and, after a few months, the death of Herod.

IV. Christ was born about the twenty-seventh year of the presidentship of Hillel in the Sanhedrim.

The rise of the family of Hillel took its beginning at the decease of the Asmonean family (Herod, indeed, succeeded in the kingly government); a family sprung from Babylon, and, as was believed, of the stock of David. For "a book of genealogy was found at Jerusalem" (which we mentioned before), "in which it was written, that Hillel was sprung from the stock of David, by his wife Abital." Now Hillel went up out of Babylon to Jerusalem, to inquire of the wise men concerning some things, when now, after the death of Shemaia and Abtalion, the two sons of Betira held the chief seats. And when he who had resorted thither to learn something, had taught them some things of the Passover rites, which they had forgot, they put him into the chair. You have the full story of it in the Jerusalem Talmud. We mention it chapter 26:1.

Now Hillel went up to Jerusalem and took the chair a hundred years before the destruction of the city: "Hillel and his son Simeon, and his son Gamaliel, and his son Simeon, bare the government for a hundred years before the laying waste of the Temple." Of those hundred years if you take away two-and-thirty and a half of the life of Christ, and forty years (as it is commonly deputed) coming between the death of Christ and the destruction of the city, there remain the twenty-seven years of Hillel before the birth of our Saviour.

Hillel held the government forty years: so that his death happened about the twelfth or thirteenth year of Christ. his son also held it after him, and his grandsons, in a long succession, even to R. Judah the Holy. The splendour and pomp of this family of Hillel had so obscured the rest of the families of David's stock, that perhaps they believed or expected the less, that the Messias should spring from any of them. Yea, one in the Babylonian Gemara was almost persuaded, that "Rabbi Judah the Holy, of the Hillelian family, was the Messias. Rabh said, If Messiah be among the living, our Holy Rabbi is such: if among the dead, Daniel was he."

V. Christ was born in the month of Tisri; somewhat answering to our September. This we conclude, omitting other things, by computing backwards from his death. For if he died in his two-and-thirtieth year and a half, at the feast of the Passover, in the month Nisan, you must necessarily lay the time of his birth in the month Tisri. But that he died at that age, not to make any delay by mentioning more things, appears hence, that he was baptized now beginning his thirtieth year, and that he lived after his baptism three years and a half; as the space of his public ministry is determined by the angel Gabriel, Daniel 9; "In the half of a week" (that is, three years and a half), "he shall make the sacrifice to cease," &c. But of this hereafter.

This month was ennobled in former times, 1. For the creation of the world. Weigh well Exodus 23:15; Joel 2:23. 2. For the nativity of the first fathers; which the Jews assert not without reason. 3. For the repairing the tables of the law. For Moses, after the third fast of forty days, comes down from the mountain, a messenger of good things, the tenth day of this month, which was from hence appointed for the feast of Expiation to following ages. 4. For the dedication of the Temple, 1 Kings 8:2. And, 5. For three solemn feasts, namely, that of the Beginning of the Year, that of Expiation, and that of Tabernacles. From this month also was the beginning of the Jubilee.

VI. It is probable Christ was born at the feast of Tabernacles.

1. So it ariseth exactly to three-and-thirty years and a half, when he died at the feast of the Passover.

2. He fulfilled the typical equity of the Passover and Pentecost, when, at the Passover, he offered himself for a passover, at Pentecost he bestowed the Holy Ghost from heaven, as at that time the law had been given from heaven. At that time the first-fruits of the Spirit were given by him (Rom 8:23), when the first-fruits of corn had been wont to be given, Leviticus 23:17. It had been a wonder if he had honoured the third solemnity, namely, the feast of Tabernacles, with no antitype.

3. The institution of the feast of Tabernacles agrees excellently with the time of Christ's birth. For when Moses went down from the mount on the tenth day of the month Tisri, declaring that God was appeased, that the people was pardoned, and that the building of the holy tabernacle was forthwith to be gone in hand with (hitherto hindered by and because of the golden calf), seeing that God now would dwell among them, and forsake them no more; the Israelites immediately pitch their tents, knowing they were not to depart from that place before the divine tabernacle was finished, and they set upon this work with all their strength. Whence the tenth day of that month, wherein Moses came down and brought this good news with him, was appointed for the feast of Expiation; and the fifteenth day, and seven days after, for the feast of Tabernacles, in memory of their dwelling in tents in the wilderness, when God dwelt in the midst of them: which things with how aptly typical an aspect they respect the incarnation, when God dwelt among men in human flesh, is plain enough.

4. Weigh Zechariah 14:16, 17: "And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up, from year to year, to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of Tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem, to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no more rain."

[In Beth-lehem.] It will not be improper here to produce the Gemarists themselves, openly confessing that the Messias was born now a good while ago before their times. For so they write: "After this the children of Israel shall be converted, and shall inquire after the Lord their God, and David their king, Hosea 3:5. Our Rabbins say, That is king Messias: if he be among the living, his name is David; or if dead, David is his name. R. Ranchum said, Thus I prove it: 'He showeth mercy to David his Messiah' (Psa 18:50). R. Joshua Ben Levi saith, His name is A branch (Zech 3:8). R. Judan Bar Aibu saith, His name is Menahem [that is, the comforter]. And that which happened to a certain Jew, as he was ploughing, agreeth with this business:--A certain Arabian travelling, and hearing the ox bellow, said to the Jew at plough, 'O Jew, loose thy oxen, and loose thy ploughs: for behold! the Temple is laid waste.' The ox bellowed the second time; the Arabian said to him, O Jew, Jew, yoke thy oxen and fit thy ploughs, for behold! King Messiah is born. But, saith the Jew, 'What is his name?' 'Menahem,' saith he. 'And what is the name of his father?' 'Hezekiah,' saith the Arabian. To whom the Jew, 'But whence is he?' The other answered, 'From the palace of the king of Beth-lehem Judah.' Away he went, and sold his oxen and his ploughs, and became a seller of infants' swaddling-clothes, going about from town to town. When he came to that city [Beth-lehem], all the women bought of him, but the mother of Menahem bought nothing. He heard the voice of the women saying, 'O thou mother of Menahem, thou mother of Menahem, carry thy son the things that are here sold.' But she replied, 'May the enemies of Israel be strangled, because on the day that he was born the Temple was laid waste!' To whom he said, 'But we hoped, that as it was laid waste at his feet, so at his feet it would be built again.' She saith, 'I have no money.' To whom he replied, 'But why should this be prejudicial to him? Carry him what you buy here; and if you have no money to-day, after some days I will come back and receive it.' After some days he returns to that city, and saith to her, 'How does the little infant?' And she said, 'From the time you saw me last, spirits and tempests came, and snatched him away out of my hands.' R. Bon saith, What need have we to learn from an Arabian? Is it not plainly written, 'And Lebanon shall fall before the powerful one?' (Isa 10:34). And what follows after? 'A branch shall come out of the root of Jesse'" (Isa 11:1).

The Babylonian doctors yield us a confession not very unlike the former: "R. Chaninah saith, After four hundred years are past from the destruction of the Temple, if any one shall say to you, 'Take to thyself for one penny a field worth a thousand pence,' do not take it." And again; "After four thousand two hundred thirty-and-one years from the creation of the world, if any shall say to you, 'Take for a penny a field worth a thousand pence,' take it not." The Gloss is, "For that is the time of redemption; and you shall be brought back to the holy mountain, to the inheritance of your fathers: why, therefore, should you misspend your penny?"

You may fetch the reason of this calculation, if you are at leisure, out of the tract Sanhedrim: "The tradition of the school of Elias, The world is to last six thousand years," &c. And a little after; "Elias said to Rabh Judah, 'The world shall last not less than eighty-five jubilees; and in the last jubilee shall the Son of David come.' He saith to him, 'Whether in the beginning of it, or in the end?' He answered him, 'I know not.' 'Whether is this whole time to be finished first, or not?' He answered him, 'I know not.' But Rabh Asher asserts that he answered thus, 'Until then expect him not, but from thence expect him.'" Hear your own countrymen, O Jew, how many centuries of years are past by and gone from the eighty-fifth jubilee of the world, that is, the year 4250, and yet the Messias of your expectation is not yet come.

Daniel's weeks had so clearly defined the time of the true Messias's coming, that the minds of the whole nation were raised into the expectation of him. Hence it was doubted of the Baptist whether he were not the Messias, Luke 3:15. Hence it was that the Jews are gathered together from all countries unto Jerusalem [Acts 2], expecting, and coming to see, because at that time the term of revealing the Messias, that had been prefixed by Daniel, was come. Hence it was that there was so great a number of false Christs, Matthew 24:5, &c., taking the occasion of their impostures hence, that now the time of that great expectation was at hand, and fulfilled: and in one word, "They thought the kingdom of God should presently appear"; Luke 19:11.

But when those times of expectation were past, nor did such a Messias appear as they expected (for when they saw the true Messias, they would not see him), they first broke out into various and those wild conjectures of the time; and at length all those conjectures coming to nothing, all ended in this curse (the just cause of their eternal blindness), May their soul be confounded who compute the times!

[Wise men from the east.] Magi, that is, wizards, or such as practised ill arts: for in this sense alone this word occurs in holy writ.

From the east. This more generally denotes as much as, 'Out of the land of the heathen,' in the same sense as 'the queen of the south' is taken, Matthew 12:42; that is, 'a heathen queen.' Consider this passage in the Talmud, "From Rekam to the east, and Rekam is as the east: from Ascalon to the south, and Ascalon is as the south: from Acon to the north, and Acon is as the north." These words R. Nissim quotes from R. Judah, and illustrates it with this Gloss, "From Rekam to the furthest bounds of the land eastward is heathen land; and Rekam itself is reckoned for the east of the world, and not for the land of Israel. So also from Ascalon onwards to the south is the heathen country, and Ascalon itself is reckoned for the south": that is, for heathen land.

Those countries where the sons of Abraham by his wife Keturah were dispersed, are more particularly called the 'eastern' countries, Genesis 25:6, Judges 6:3, and elsewhere often. And hence came these first-fruits of the Gentiles: whence it is not unlikely that Jethro also came, the first proselyte to the law. And that which is spoken by the Gemara concerning the Arabian, the first pointer-out of the Messias born, is perhaps some shadow of this story of the magicians' coming out of Arabia, and who first publicly declared him to be born.

2. Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

[For we have seen his star in the east.] We, being in the east, have seen his star:--that heavenly light, which in that very night wherein the Saviour was born shone round about the shepherds of Beth-lehem, perhaps was seen by these magicians, being then a great distance off, resembling a star hanging over Judea; whence they might the more easily guess that the happy sign belonged to the Jews.

4. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

[And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together.] That is, he assembled the Sanhedrim. Herod is said by very many authors to have slain the Sanhedrim, but this is neither to be understood of the whole Sanhedrim, nor, if it were to be understood of the whole, would it denote the total subversion of the Sanhedrim. The Babylonian Gemarists do thus relate the story: "Herod was a servant of the Asmonean family. He cast his eyes upon a young maid [of that family]. On a certain day he heard the Bath Kol [a voice from heaven] saying, Whatsoever servant shall now rebel shall prosper. He arose up against his masters, and slew them all." And a little after; "Herod said, Who is there that interprets these words, 'Thou shalt set a king over thee out of the midst of thy brethren?' (Deut 17:15). The Rabbins [interpreted the words]. He rose up and slew all the Rabbins, leaving only Bava Ben Buta, with whom he consulted."

Herod was to overcome two difficulties, that he might, with the peace and favour of the Jews, become their king. For, although he had been raised unto the kingdom by the Romans, nevertheless, that he might establish his throne, the people remaining quiet and accepting him, first it seemed necessary to him that the Asmonean family should be removed out of the way, which, formerly governing the people, they had some affection and love for, and which still remaining, he suspected he could scarce be secure. Secondly, that law of setting no king over them but of their brethren debarred him, since he himself was of the stock of Edom. Therefore he took away all those Rabbins, who, adhering stiffly to this law, opposed, what they could, his coming to the kingdom. "But all the Rabbins indeed he slew not (saith the Gloss upon the place alleged); for the sons of Betira were left alive, who held the chair when Hillel came out of Babylon."

Therefore he slew not all the elders of the Sanhedrim, but those only who, taking occasion from that law, opposed his access to the kingdom. Out of that slaughter the two sons of Betira escaped, who held the first places in the Sanhedrim after the death of Shemaiah and Abtalion. Shammai also escaped, who, according as Josephus relates, foretold this slaughter. Hillel escaped likewise, if he were then present; and Menahem, who certainly was there, and who thenceforth sat second in the chair. Bava Ben Buta escaped also, as the Gemara relates, who afterward persuaded Herod that he should repair the Temple to expiate this bloody impiety. And others escaped.

[The chief priests.] When the Sanhedrim consisted of priests, Levites, and Israelites (as Maimonides teacheth), under the word chief priests, are comprehended the two former; namely, whosoever of the clergy were members of the Sanhedrim; and under the scribes of the people are comprehended all those of the Sanhedrim who were not of the clergy.

Among the priests were divers differences:

I. Of the priests some were called, as if you would say the plebeian priests; namely, such who indeed were not of the common people, but wanted school education, and were not reckoned among the learned, nor among such as were devoted to religion. For seeing the whole seed of Aaron was sacerdotal, and priests were not so much made as born, no wonder if some ignorant and poor were found among them. Hence is that distinction, The poor Israelites and the poor priests are gatherers. A Votary priest, and a Plebeian priest. And caution is given, That the oblation be not given to a Plebeian priest. And the reason of it is added, "Because whosoever giveth an oblation to a Plebeian priest doth all one as if he should give it to a lion; of which it may be doubted whether he will treat it under his feet and eat it or not. So it may be doubted of a Plebeian priest, whether he will eat it in cleanness or in uncleanness." However ignorant and illiterate these were, yet they had their courses at the altar according to their lot, being instructed at that time by certain rules for the performing their office, appointed them by lot. You would stand amazed to read those things which are supposed concerning the ignorance and rudeness even of the high-priest himself.

II. There were others who were called Idiot, or private, priests; who although they both were learned, and performed the public office at the altar, yet were called private, because they were priests of a lower, and not of a worthier, order.

III. The worthier degree of priests was fourfold, besides the degree of the high-priest, and of the sagan his substitute. For, 1. There were the heads of the Ephemeries, or courses; in number twenty-four. 2. There were the heads of the families in every course. Of both, see the Jerusalem Talmud. 3. The presidents over the various offices in the Temple. Of them, see Shekalim. 4. Any priests or Levites, indeed, (although not of these orders), that were chosen into the chief Sanhedrim. Chief priests, therefore, here and elsewhere, where the discourse is of the Sanhedrim, were they who, being of the priestly or Levitical stock, were chosen into that chief senate.

[The scribes of the people.] A scribe, denotes more generally any man learned, and is opposed to the word rude, or clownish. "Two, who ate together, are bound to give thanks each by themselves, when both of them are scribes: But if one be a scribe, and the other ignorant [or a clown], let the scribe give thanks, and thence satisfaction is made for the duty of the ignorant, or unlearned person." So we read of The scribes of the Samaritans; that is, the learned among the Samaritans: for among them there were no traditionarians.

More particularly, scribes, denote such, who, being learned, and of scholastic education, addicted themselves especially to handling the pen, and to writing. Such were the public notaries in the Sanhedrim, registrars in the synagogues, amanuenses who employed themselves in transcribing the law, phylacteries, short sentences to be fixed upon the door-posts, bills of contracts, or divorce, &c. And in this sense a scribe, and a Talmudic doctor, are sometimes opposed; although he was not Tanna, a Talmudic doctor, who was not Sophra, a scribe, in the sense above mentioned. In the Babylonian Talmud it is disputed (a passage not unworthy our reading), what disagreement in calculation may be borne with between an expounder out of the chair, or the pulpits, and a writer of contracts, or bills of divorce, or a register, &c., in reckoning up the year of the Temple, of the Greek empire, &c. Concerning which matter, this, among other things, is concluded on, that a scribe computes more briefly, a doctor more largely. It will not repent one to read the place; nor that whole tract called The tract of the scribes; which dictates to the scribes of that sort of which we are now speaking, concerning writing out the law, the phylacteries, &c.

But, above all others, the fathers of the traditions are called scribes (who were, indeed, the elders of the Sanhedrim): which is clear enough in these and such-like expressions: The words of the scribes are more lovely than the words of the law; that is, traditions are better than the written law: This is of the words of the scribes: that is, 'this is from the traditionary decrees.'

These, therefore, whom Matthew calls the scribes of the people, were those elders of the Sanhedrim, who were not sprung from the sacerdotal or Levitical stock, but of other tribes: the elders of the Sanhedrim, sprung of the blood of the priests, were the scribes of the clergy, the rest were the scribes of the people.

We may therefore guess, and that no improbable conjecture, that, in this assembly, called together by Herod, these were present, among others:--1. Hillel, the president. 2. Shammai, vice-president. 3. The sons of Betira, Judah, and Joshua. 4. Bava Ben Buta. 5. Jonathan the son of Uzziel, the Chaldee paraphrast. 6. Simeon, the son of Hillel.

6. And thou Beth-lehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

[Art not the least.] These words do not at all disagree with the words of the prophet whence they are taken, Micah 5:2, which I thus render, "But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrata, it is a small thing that thou art" [or, art reckoned] "among the thousands of Israel"; for thou art to be crowned with higher dignity; "for from thee shall go forth a ruler," &c. And in effect to this sense, unless I mistake, does the Chaldee paraphrast plainly render it, whom I suspect to be present at this very council, "Thou art within a little to become chief." See the same sense of the word in the Targum upon Psalm 73:2, Hosea 1:4, &c.

9. When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

[The star, which they saw in the east, went before them.] It is probable the star had shone in the very birthnight: and thence-forward to this very time it had disappeared. The wise men had no need of the star to be their guide when they were going to Jerusalem, a city well known; but going forward thence to Beth-lehem, and that, as it seems, by night, it was their guide.

14. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt.

[Departed into Egypt.] Egypt was now replenished with Jews above measure, and that, partly by reason of them that travelled thither under Jochanan, the son of Kareah, Jeremiah 43; partly with them that flocked thither, more latewardly, to the temple of Onias, of which Josephus writes, and both Talmuds: "When Simeon the Just said, 'I shall die this year,' they said to him, 'Whom, therefore, shall we put in thy place?' He answered, 'Behold! my son Onias is before you.' They made Onias therefore high-priest. But his brother Simeon envied him. Onias, therefore, fled, first into the Royal Mountain, and then into Egypt, and built there an altar, repeating that of the prophet, 'In that day there shall be an altar to the Lord in the midst of Egypt.'"

"He that hath not seen the cathedral church of Alexandria hath never seen the glory of Israel. It was after the manner of a court-walk, double cloistered. There were sometimes there so many as doubly exceeded the number of those that went out of Egypt. There were seventy golden chairs set with gems, according to the number of the seventy elders. A wooden pulpit also placed in the middle, in which the bishop of the synagogue stood. And when the law was read, after every benediction, a sign being given by a private person waving a handkerchief, they all answered 'Amen.' But they sat not confusedly and mixedly together; but every artificer with the professors of the same art: so that if a stranger came, he might mingle himself with the workmen of the same trade, &c. These did wicked Trajan destroy," &c.

The Babylonian Gemara repeats almost the same things, alleging these last matters after this manner: "They sat not confusedly, but the artificers by themselves, the silversmiths by themselves, the braziers by themselves, the weavers by themselves, &c.; so that if a poor stranger came in, he might know his own fellow-workmen, and betake himself to them, and thence receive sustenance for himself and family."

So provision was made for the poverty of Joseph and Mary, while they sojourned in Egypt (at Alexandria, probably), partly by selling the presents of the wise men for food and provision by the way; and partly by a supply of victuals from their country-folks in Egypt when they had need.

There are some footsteps in the Talmudists of this journey of our Saviour into Egypt, but so corrupted with venomous malice and blasphemy (as all their writings are), that they seem only to have confessed the truth, that they might have matter the more liberally to reproach him; for so they speak: "When Jannai the king slew the Rabbins, R. Josua Ben Perachiah, and Jesus, went away unto Alexandria in Egypt. Simeon Ben Shetah sent thither, speaking thus, 'From me Jerusalem the holy city, to thee, O Alexandria in Egypt, my sister, health. My husband dwells with thee, while I, in the mean time, sit alone. Therefore he rose up, and went.'" And a little after; "He brought forth four hundred trumpets, and anathematized" [Jesus]. And a little before that; "Elisaeus turned away Gehazi with both his hands, and R. Josua Ben Perachiah thrust away Jesus with both his hands."

"Did not Ben Satda bring enchantments out of Egypt in the cutting which was in his flesh?" Under the name of Ben Satda they wound our Jesus with their reproaches, although the Glosser upon the place, form the authority of R. Tam, denies it: for thus he; R. Tam saith, This was not Jesus of Nazareth, because they say here, Ben Satda was in the days of Paphus, the son of Judah, who was in the days of R. Akiba: but Jesus was in the days of R. Josua, the son of Perachiah, &c.

16. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.

[From two years old, and under.] It was now two years ago, or thereabouts, since the star had shone, and Christ was born. The reason of the tarrying of Joseph and Mary in Beth-lehem was this; that they believed that the Messias, who, according to the prophet was born there, should have been brought up nowhere but there also; nor dared they to carry him elsewhere, before they had leave to do so by an angel from heaven.

The Jewish nation are very purblind, how and whence the Messias shall arise; and "Nemo novit, no man knows whence the Son of man is," John 7:27; that is, from what original. It was doubted whether he should come from the living or from the dead. Only it was confessed by all without controversy, that he should first make some show of himself from Beth-lehem, which the priests and scribes of the people assert, verse 4. Hence you have Christ now in his second year at Beth-lehem, whither Joseph and Mary had again betaken themselves with him, when they had now presented him in the Temple, according to the law, being forty days old, Luke 2:22. And they had taken care for his education in this place, and not elsewhere, until he himself, going forth from hence, might show himself openly the Messias, if they had not been sent away somewhere else by permission from heaven.

23. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

[He shall be called a Nazarene.] Those things which are brought from Isaiah 11:1 concerning Netzer, the Branch; and those things also produced concerning Samson the Nazarite, a most noble type of Christ, have their weight, by no means to be despised. We add, that Matthew may be understood concerning the outward, humble, and mean condition of our Saviour. And that by the word, Nazarene, he hints his separation and estrangement from other men, as a despicable person, and unworthy of the society of men.

I. Let it be observed, that the evangelist does not cite some one of the prophets, but all: "spoken by the prophets." But now all the prophets, in a manner, do preach the vile and abject condition of Christ; none, that his original should be out of Nazareth.

II. David, in his person, speaks thus; I was a stranger to my brethren, Psalm 69:9.

III. If you derive the word Nazarene, which not a few do, from Nazir, a Nazirean, that word denotes not only a separation, dedicated to God, such as that of the Nazarenes was; but it signifies also the separation of a man from others, as being unworthy of their society; Genesis 49:26, "They shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren."

Therefore, let us digest the sense of the evangelist by this paraphrase: Joseph was to depart with Christ to Beth-lehem, the city of David, or to Jerusalem, the royal city, had not the fear of Archelaus hindered him. Therefore, by the signification of an angel, he is sent away into Galilee, a very contemptible country, and into the city Nazareth, a place of no account: whence, from this very place, and the name of it, you may observe that fulfilled to a tittle which is so often declared by the prophets, that the Messias should be Nazor, a stranger, or separate from men, as if he were a very vile person, and not worthy of their company.

Chapter 3

 

1. In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,

[John The Baptist preaching in the wilderness of Judea.] That John was born in Hebron, one may not unfitly conjecture by comparing Luke 1:39 with Joshua 21:11; and that he was born about the feast of the Passover, namely, half a year before the nativity of our Saviour, Luke 1:36. So the conceptions and births of the Baptist and our Saviour ennobled the four famous tekuphas [revolutions] of the year: one being conceived at the summer solstice, the other at the winter; one born at the vernal equinox, the other at the autumnal.

"John lived in the deserts, until he made himself known unto Israel," Luke 1:80. That is, if the pope's school may be interpreter, he led the life of a hermit. But,

I. Be ashamed, O papist, to be so ignorant of the sense of the word wilderness, or desert; which in the common dialect sounds all one as if it had been said, "He lived in the country, not in the city; his education was more coarse and plain in the country, without the breeding of the university, or court at Jerusalem." An oblation for thanksgiving consists of five Jerusalem seahs, which were in value six seahs of the wilderness; that is, six country seahs.

"A Jerusalem seah exceeds a seah of the wilderness by a sixth part."

"The trees of the wilderness are those which are common, and not appropriate to one master": that is, trees in groves and common meadows.

So 2 Corinthians 11:26: "in perils in the city, and in perils in the country."

II. The wildernesses of the land of Canaan were not without towns and cities; nor was he presently to be called an Eremite who dwelt in the wilderness. The hill-country of Judea, John's native soil, is called by the Talmudists, The royal mountain, or hill; and by the Psalmist, The desert hill-country, Psalm 75:6; and yet "in the royal mountain were a myriad of cities."

III. David passed much of his youth in the wilderness, 1 Samuel 17:28: but yet, who will call him an eremite? In the like sense I conceive John living in the deserts, not only spending his time in leisure and contemplation, but employing himself in some work, or studies. For when I read, that the youth of our Saviour was taken up in the carpenter's trade, I scarcely believe his forerunner employed his youth in no calling at all.

Beginning now the thirtieth year of his age, when, according to the custom of the priests, he ought to have come to the chief Sanhedrim to undergo their examination, and to be entered into the priesthood by them, "the word of God coming unto him," Luke 3:2, as it had done before to the prophets, he is diverted to another ministry.

2. And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

[Repent ye.] A doctrine most fit for the gospel, and most suitable to the time, and the word or the phrase as agreeable to the doctrine.

I. A nation leavened with the error of the Pharisees, concerning justification by the works of the law, was necessarily to be called off to the contrary doctrine of repentance. No receiving of the gospel was otherwise to be expected.

II. However the schools of the Pharisees had illy defined repentance, which we observe presently, yet they asserted that repentance itself was necessary to the reception of the Messias. Concerning this matter the Babylonian Gemarists do dispute: whom Kimchi also upon Isaiah 54:19 cites, and determines the question: "From the words of our Rabbins (saith he) it is plain there arose a doubt among them concerning this matter, namely, whether Israel were to be redeemed with repentance or without repentance. And it sprang from this occasion, that some texts of Scripture seemed to go against them: such as those; 'He saw, and there was no man, and he wondered, that there was none to intercede; therefore, his own arm brought salvation.' And also, 'Not for your sake, O Israel, do I this.' And again, 'I will remember for them my old covenant,' &c. And these places, on the other hand, make for repentance: 'Thou shalt return to the Lord thy God, and shalt hearken to his voice.' And again; 'And thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, and shalt find him, if thou seekest him with all thy heart,' &c. But these may be reconciled after this manner; namely, that many of Israel shall repent, when they shall see the signs of redemption. And hence is that which is said, 'And he saw that there was no man,' because they will not repent until they see the beginning of redemption."

"If Israel shall repent but one day, forthwith the Redeemer cometh" (Taanith).

Therefore, it is very fitly argued by the Baptist, and by our Saviour after him, Matthew 4:17, from the approach of the kingdom of heaven to repentance, since they themselves to whom this is preached do acknowledge that thus the kingdom of heaven, or the manifestation of the Messias, is to be brought in. For however the Gemarists who dispute of this were of a later age, yet for the most part they do but speak the sense of their fathers.

III. The word repentance as it does very well express the sense of true repentance, so among the Jews it was necessary that it should be so expressed, among whom repentance, for the most part, was thought to consist in the confession of the mouth only.

"Whosoever, out of error or presumption, shall transgress the precepts of the law, whether they be those that command or those that forbid, when he repents and returns from his sins, he is bound to make confession. Whosoever brings an offering for a sin, committed either out of ignorance or presumption, his sin is not expiated by the offering, until he makes an oral confession. Or whosoever is guilty of death, or of scourging by the Sanhedrim, his sin is not taken away by his death, or by his scourging, if he do not repent and make confession. And because the scape-goat is the expiation for all Israel, therefore the high priest makes confession over him for all Israel."

It is worthy observing, that, when John urgeth those that came to his baptism to repent, it is said, that they were baptized, "confessing their sins": which was a sign of repentance highly requisite among the Jews, and necessary for those that were then brought in to the profession of the Gospel; that hereby they might openly profess that they renounced the doctrine of justification by the works of the law.

It is worthy of observing also, that John said not, "Repent, and believe the gospel," which our Saviour did, Matthew 4:17, (and yet John preached the gospel, Mark 1:1,2; John 1:7); for his office, chiefly, was to make Christ known, who when he should come was to be the great preacher of the gospel.

Therefore the Baptist doth very properly urge repentance upon those that looked for the Messias; and the text of the Gospel used a very proper word to express true and lively repentance.

[For the kingdom of heaven is at hand.] I. The kingdom of heaven, in Matthew, is the kingdom of God, for the most part, in the other evangelists. Compare these places:

 

	"The poor in spirit, theirs is the kingdom of heaven," Matthew 5:3.
	"The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," Matthew 13:11.
	"The kingdom of God is at hand," Mark 1:15.
	"The least in the kingdom of God," Luke 7:28.
	"Little children, of such is the kingdom of God," Mark 10:14.

And so we have it elsewhere very often, For Heaven is very usually, in the Jewish dialect, taken for God, Daniel 4:23; Matthew 21:25; Luke 15:21; John 3:27. And, in these and such-like speeches, scattered in the Talmudists: Death by the hand of heaven: The name of heaven is profaned: The worship of heaven: by the help of heaven, &c. "For they called God by the name of Heaven, because his habitation is in heaven" (Tishbi).

The story of the Jews is related, groaning out under their persecution these words, O Heavens! that is, as the Gloss renders it, Ah! Jehovah!

II. This manner of speech, the kingdom of heaven, is taken from Daniel, chapter 7:13, 14; where, after the description of the four earthly and tyrannical monarchies, that is, the Babylonian, Mede-Persian, Grecian, and Syro-Grecian, and the destruction of them at last; the entrance and nature of the reign of Christ is described, as it is universal over the whole world, and eternal throughout all ages: "under whom the rule, and dominion, and authority of kingdoms under the whole heaven is given to the people of the saints of the Most High," verse 27: that is, "Whereas, before, the rule had been in the hands of heathen kings, under the reign of Christ there should be Christian kings." Unto which that of the apostle hath respect, 1 Corinthians 6:2; "know ye not that the saints shall judge the world?"

Truly I admire that the fulfilling of that vision and prophecy in Daniel should be lengthened out still into I know not what long and late expectation, not to receive its completion before Rome and antichrist shall fall; since the books of the Gospel afford us a commentary clearer than the sun, that that kingdom of heaven took its beginning immediately upon the preaching of the Gospel. When both the Baptist and Christ published the approach of the kingdom of heaven from their very first preaching; certainly, for any to think that the fulfilling of those things in Daniel did not then begin, for my part, I think it is to grope in the dark, either through wilfulness or ignorance.

III. The kingdom of heaven implies, 1. The exhibition and manifestation of the Messias, Matthew 12:28; "But if I, by the finger of God, cast out devils, the kingdom of God is come upon you": that is, 'Hence is the manifestation of the Messias.' See John 3:3, 12:13, &c. 2. The resurrection of Christ; death, hell, Satan, being conquered: whence is a most evident manifestation that he is that 'eternal King,' &c.: see Matthew 26:29; Romans 1:4. 3. His vengeance upon the Jewish nation, his most implacable enemies: this is another, and most eminent manifestation of him: see Matthew 16:28, 19:28. 4. His dominion by the sceptre of the gospel among the Gentiles, Matthew 21:43. In this place which is before us it points out the exhibition and revelation of the Messias.

IV. The phrase the kingdom of heaven very frequently occurs in the Jewish writers. We will produce some places; let the reader gather the sense of them:

"R. Joshua Ben Korcha saith, In reciting the phylacteries, why is Hear, O Israel, [Deut 6:4, &c.] recited before that passage And it shall come to pass, if you shall hearken [Deut 11:13], &c. To wit, that a man first take upon himself the kingdom of heaven, and then the yoke of the precept." So the Jerusalem Misna hath it; but the Babylonian thus: "That a man first take upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, and then the yoke of the precept."

"Rabh said to Rabbi Chaijah, We never saw Rabbi [Judah] taking upon himself the kingdom of heaven. Bar Pahti answered, At that time when he put his hands to his face, he took upon himself the kingdom of heaven." Where the Gloss speaks thus: "We saw not that he took upon himself the kingdom of heaven; for until the time came of reciting the phylacteries, he instructed his scholars; and when that time was come, I saw him not interposing any space."

"Doth any ease nature? Let him wash his hands, put on his phylacteries, repeat them, and pray, and this is the kingdom of heaven fulfilled." "If thou shalt have explained Shaddai, and divided the letters of the kingdom of heaven, thou shalt make the shadow of death to be cool to thee"; that is, "If, in the repeating of that passage of the phylacteries [Deut 6:4], 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord,' &c., you shall pronounce the letters distinctly and deliberately, so that you shall have sounded out the names of God rightly, 'thou shalt make cool the shades of death.'" For the same Gloss had said, The repeating of that passage, 'Hear, O Israel,' &c., is the taking of the kingdom of heaven upon thee. But the repeating of that place, 'And it shall be, if thou shalt hearken,' &c. [Deut 19:13] is the taking of the yoke of the precept upon thee.

"Rabban Gamaliel recited his phylacterical prayers on the very night of his nuptials. And when his scholars said unto him, 'Hast thou not taught us, O our master, that a bridegroom is freed from the reciting of his phylacteries the first night?' he answered, 'I will not hearken to you, nor will I lay aside the kingdom of heaven from me, no, not for an hour.'"

"What is the yoke of the kingdom of heaven? In like manner as they lay the yoke upon an ox, that he may be serviceable; and if he bear not the yoke, he becomes unprofitable: so it becomes a man first to take the yoke upon himself, and to serve in all things with it: but if he casts it off, he is unprofitable: as it is said, 'Serve the Lord in fear.' What means, 'in fear?' the same that is written, 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.' And this is the kingdom of heaven."

"The scholars of Jochanan Ben Zaccai asked, Why a servant was to be bored through the ear, rather than through some other part of the body? He answered, When he heard with the ear those words from mount Sinai, 'Thou shalt have no other Lord before my face,' he broke the yoke of the kingdom of heaven from him, and took upon himself the yoke of flesh and blood."

If by the kingdom of heaven, in these and other such-like places, which it would be too much to heap together, they mean the inward love and fear of God, which indeed they seem to do; so far they agree with our gospel sense, which asserts the inward and spiritual kingdom of Christ especially. And if the words of our Saviour, "Behold, the kingdom of God is within you," Luke 17:21, be suited to this sense of the nation concerning the kingdom of heaven, there is nothing sounds hard or rough in them: for it is as much as if he had said "Do you think the kingdom of heaven shall come with some remarkable observation, or with much show? Your very schools teach that the kingdom of God is within a man."

But, however they most ordinarily applied this manner of speech hither, yet they used it also for the exhibition and revelation of the Messiah in the like manner as the evangelical history doth. Hence are these expressions, and the like to them, in sacred writers: "The Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God should come." "They thought that the kingdom of God should presently be manifested." "Josephus of Arimathea waited for the kingdom of God."

And these words in the Chaldee paraphrast, "Say ye to the cities of Judah, The kingdom of your God is revealed," Isaiah 40:9: "They shall see the kingdom of their Messiah," Isaiah 53:11.

The Baptist, therefore, by his preaching, stirs up the minds of his hearers to meet the coming of the Messiah, now presently to be manifested, with that repentance and preparation as is meet.

4. And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

[His food was locusts.] He that by vow tieth himself from flesh, is forbidden the flesh of fish and of locusts. See the Babylonian Talmud (Cholin) concerning locusts fit for food.

5. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan.

[The region round about Jordan.] The word the region round about, is used by the Jerusalem Gemara: "From Beth-horon to the sea is one region round about," or, one circumjacent region. Perhaps, both in the Talmudist and in the evangelist, is one and the same thing with a coast, or a country along a coast, in Pliny: "The country (saith he) along the coast is Samaria": that is, the sea-coast, and the country further, lying along by that coast: which may be said also concerning the region round about Jordan. Strabo, concerning the plain bordering on Jordan, hath these words; "It is a place of a hundred furlongs, all well watered and full of dwellings."

A few things concerning Baptism.

6. And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

[And were baptized.] It is no unfit or unprofitable question, whence it came to pass that there was so great a conflux of men to the Baptist, and so ready a reception of his baptism?

I. The first reason is, Because the manifestation of the Messias was then expected, the weeks of Daniel being now spent to the last four years. Let us consult a little his text:--

Daniel 9:24. "Seventy weeks [of years] are decreed concerning thy people," &c. That is, four hundred and ninety years, from the first of Cyrus to the death of Christ. These years are divided into three parts, and they very unequal.

1. Into seven weeks, or forty-nine years, from the giving of Cyrus' patent for the rebuilding Jerusalem, to the finishing the rebuilding of it by Nehemiah.

2. Into sixty-two weeks, or four hundred thirty-four years,--namely, from the finishing the building of the city to the beginning of the last week of the seventy. In which space of time, the times of the Persian empire (which remained after Nehemiah, if indeed there was any time now remaining), and the times of the Grecian empire, and of the Syro-Grecian, were all run out, and those times also, wherein the Romans ruled over the Jews.

3. The holy text divides the last week, or the last seven years, into two equal parts, verse 27; which I thus render; "And he shall strengthen, or confirm, the covenant with many in that one week: and the half of that week shall make the sacrifice and oblation to cease: or, in the half of that week he shall make to cease," &c. Not in the middle of that week, but in the latter half, that is, the latter three years and a half of the seven.

First, seven weeks having been reckoned up before, and then sixty-two weeks, verse 25,--now there remained one only of the seventy; and in reference to that, in the middle of it the Messias shall begin his ministry; which being finished in three years and a half (the latter halved part of that week), "he shall make the sacrifice and oblation to cease," &c.

The nation could not but know, could not but take great notice of, the times so exactly set out by the angel Gabriel. Since, therefore, the coming of the Messias was the great wish and desire of all,--and since the time of his appearing was so clearly decreed by the angel that nothing could be more,--and when the latter half of the last seven years, chiefly to be observed, was now, within a very little, come:--it is no wonder if the people, hearing from this venerable preacher that the kingdom of heaven was now come, should be stirred up beyond measure to meet him, and should flock to him. For, as we observed before, "They thought that the kingdom of God would immediately be manifested," Luke 19:11.

II. Another reason of it was this,--the institution of baptism, for an evangelical sacrament, was first in the hand of the Baptist, who, "the word of the Lord coming to him," (Luke 3:2) went forth, backed with the same authority as the chiefest prophets had in times past. But yet the first use of baptism was not exhibited at that time. For baptism, very many centuries of years backwards, had been both known and received in most frequent use among the Jews,--and for the very same end as it now obtains among Christians,--namely, that by it proselytes might be admitted into the church; and hence it was called Baptism for proselytism: and was distinct from Baptism [or washing] from uncleanness. See the Babylonian Talmud in Jevamoth.

I. I ascribe the first use of it, for this end, to the patriarch Jacob, when he chose into his family and church the young women of Sychem, and other heathens who then lived with him. "Jacob said to his family, and to all who were with him, Put away from you the strange gods, and be ye clean, and change your garments," &c. Genesis 35:2. What that words means, and be ye clean, Aben Ezra does very well interpret to be the washing of the body, or baptism; which reason itself also persuades us to believe.

II. All the nation of Israel do assert, as it were with one mouth, that all the nation of Israel were brought into the covenant, among other things, by baptism. "Israel (saith Maimonides, the great interpreter of the Jewish law) was admitted into the covenant by three things,--namely, by circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt; as it is said, 'None uncircumcised shall eat of the passover.' Baptism was in the wilderness before the giving of the law; as it is said, 'Thou shalt sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments.'"

III. They assert, that that infinite number of proselytes in the day of David and Solomon were admitted by baptism: "The Sanhedrims received not proselytes in the days of David and Solomon: not in the days of David, lest they should betake themselves to proselytism out of a fear of the kingdom of Israel: not in the days of Solomon, lest they might do the same by reason of the glory of the kingdom. And yet abundance of proselytes were made in the days of David and Solomon before private men; and the great Sanhedrim was full of care about this business: for they would not cast them out of the church, because they were baptized," &c.

IV. "Whensoever any heathen will betake himself, and be joined to the covenant of Israel, and place himself under the wings of the divine Majesty, and take the yoke of the law upon him, voluntary circumcision, baptism, and oblation, are required: but if it be a woman, baptism and oblation."

That was a common axiom No man is a proselyte until he be circumcised and baptized. It is disputed by the Babylonian Gemara, "A proselyte, that is circumcised and not baptized, what of him? R. Eliezer saith Behold, he is a proselyte: for so we find concerning our fathers, that they were circumcised, but not baptized. One is baptized, but not circumcised; what of him? R. Joshua saith, Behold, he is a proselyte: for so we find concerning the maidservants, who were baptized, but not circumcised. But the wise men say, Is he baptized, and not circumcised? Or, Is he circumcised, and not baptized? He is not a proselyte, until he be circumcised and baptized."

But baptism was sufficient for women so far forth as this held good, "One baptizeth a heathen woman in the name of a woman, we can assert that for a deed rightly done." Where the Gloss is this; "To be baptized in the name of a woman, was to be baptized with the washing of a woman polluted, and not with the baptism to proselytism. But we may, nevertheless, assert her, who is so baptized, for a complete proselytess; because that baptism of washing for uncleanness serves for proselytism to her; for a heathen woman is not baptized [or washed] for uncleanness."

V. They baptized also young children (for the most part with their parents). They baptize a little proselyte according to the judgment of the Sanhedrim: that is, as the Gloss renders it, "If he be deprived of his father, and his mother brings him to be made a proselyte, they baptize him [because none becomes a proselyte without circumcision and baptism] according to the judgment [or right] of the Sanhedrim; that is, that three men be present at the baptism, who are now instead of a father to him."

And the Gemara a little after; If with a proselyte his sons and his daughters are made proselytes also, that which is done by their father redounds to their good. R. Joseph saith, When they grow into years, they may retract. Where the Gloss writes thus; "This is to be understood of little children, who are made proselytes together with their father."

"A heathen woman, if she is made a proselytess, when she is now big with child,--the child needs not baptism: for the baptism of his mother serves him for baptism." Otherwise, he were to be baptized.

"If an Israelite take a Gentile child, or find a Gentile infant, and baptizeth him in the name of a proselyte,--behold, he is a proselyte."

We cannot also pass over that, which indeed is worthy to be remembered: "Any one's servant is to be circumcised, though he be unwilling; but any one's son is not to be circumcised, if he be unwilling. R. Jochanan inquired, Behold a little son; do you circumcise him by force? Yea, although he be as the son of Urcan. R. Hezekiah saith, Behold, a man finds an infant cast out, and he baptizeth him in the name of a servant: in the name of a freeman, do you also circumcise him in the name of a freeman."

We have therefore alleged these things the more largely, not only that you may receive satisfaction concerning the people flocked, in so universal a concourse, to John's baptism (because baptism was no strange thing to the Jews); but that some other things may be observed hence, which afford some light to certain places of Scripture, and will help to clear some knotty questions about baptism.

First, You see baptism inseparably joined to the circumcision of proselytes. There was, indeed, some little distance of time; for "they were not baptized till the pain of circumcision was healed, because water might be injurious to the wound." But certainly baptism ever followed. We acknowledge, indeed, that circumcision was plainly of divine institution; but by whom baptism, that was inseparable from it, was instituted, is doubtful. And yet it is worthy of observation, our Saviour rejected circumcision, and retained the appendix to it: and when all the Gentiles were now to be introduced into the true religion, he preferred this 'proselytical introductory' (pardon the expression) unto the sacrament of entrance into the gospel.

One might observe the same almost in the eucharist. The lamb in the Passover was of divine institution, and so indeed was the bread. But whence was the wine? But yet, rejecting the lamb, Christ instituted the sacrament in the bread and wine.

Secondly, Observing from these things which have been spoken, how very known and frequent the use of baptism was among the Jews, the reason appears very easy why the Sanhedrim, by their messengers, inquired not of John concerning the reason of baptism, but concerning the authority of the baptizer; not what baptism meant, but whence he had a license so to baptize, John 1:25.

Thirdly, Hence also the reason appears why the New Testament doth not prescribe, by some more accurate rule, who the persons are to be baptized. The Anabaptists object, 'It is not commanded to baptize infants,--therefore they are not to be baptized.' To whom I answer, 'It is not forbidden to baptize infants,--therefore they are to be baptized.' And the reason is plain. For when Paedobaptism in the Jewish church was so known, usual, and frequent, in the admission of proselytes, that nothing almost was more known, usual, and frequent,--

1. There was no need to strengthen it with any precept, when baptism was now passed into an evangelical sacrament. For Christ took baptism into his hands, and into evangelical use, as he found it; this only added, that he might promote it to a worthier end and a larger use. The whole nation knew well enough that little children used to be baptized: there was no need of a precept for that which had ever, by common use, prevailed. If a royal proclamation should now issue forth in these words, "Let every one resort, on the Lord's day, to the public assembly in the church"; certainly he would be mad, who, in times to come, should argue hence that prayers, sermons, singing of psalms, were not to be celebrated on the Lord's day in the public assemblies, because there is no mention of them in the proclamation. For the proclamation provided for the celebration of the Lord's day in the public assemblies in general: but there was no need to make mention of the particular kinds of the divine worship to be celebrated there, when they were always, and every where, well known and in daily use before the publishing of the proclamation, and when it was published. The case is the very same in baptism. Christ instituted it for an evangelical sacrament, whereby all should be admitted into the possession of the gospel, as heretofore it was used for admission into proselytism to the Jewish religion. The particulars belonging to it,--as, the manner of baptizing, the age, the sex to be baptized, &c.--had no need of a rule and definition; because these were, by the common use of them, sufficiently known even to mechanics and the most ignorant men.

2. On the other hand, therefore, there was need of a plain and open prohibition that infants and little children should not be baptized, if our Saviour would not have had them baptized. For, since it was most common, in all ages foregoing, that little children should be baptized, if Christ had been minded to have that custom abolished, he would have openly forbidden it. Therefore his silence, and the silence of the Scripture in this matter, confirms Paedobaptism, and continueth it unto all ages.

Fourthly, It is clear enough, by what hath been already said, in what sense that is to be taken in the New Testament which we sometimes meet with,--namely, that the master of the family was baptized with his whole family, Acts 16:15, 33, &c. Nor is it of any strength which the Anti-paedobaptists contend for, that it cannot be proved there were infants in those families; for the inquiry is not so proper, whether there were infants in those families, as it is concluded truly and deservedly,--if there were, they had all been to be baptized. Nor do I believe this people, that flocked to John's baptism, were so forgetful of the manner and custom of the nation, that they brought not their little children also with them to be baptized.

Some things are now to be spoken of the manner and form which John used.

First, In some things he seems to have followed the manner whereby proselytes were baptized; in other things, not to have followed them. Concerning it the Talmudic Canons have these sayings:--

I. They do not baptize a proselyte by night. Nor, indeed, "were the unclean to be washed but in the day-time." Maimonides adds, "They baptized not a proselyte on the sabbath, nor on a holy-day, nor by night."

II. A proselyte hath need of three: that is, it is required, that three men, who are scholars of the wise men, be present at the baptism of a proselyte; who may take care that the business be rightly performed, and may briefly instruct the catechumen [the person to be baptized], and may judge of the matter itself. For the admission of a proselyte was reckoned no light matter; Proselytes are dangerous to Israel, like the itch, was an axiom. For they, either tenacious of their former customs, or ignorant of the law of Israel, have corrupted others with their example; or, being mingled with Israel, were the cause that the divine glory did rest the less upon them; because it resteth not on any but upon families of a nobler pedigree. These reasons the Glossers give. When, therefore, the admission of proselytes was of so great moment, they were not to be admitted but by the judicial consistory of three.

III. They baptize a proselyte in such a confluence of waters as was fit for the washing of a menstruous woman. Of such a confluence of waters the lawyers have these words: "A man that hath the gonorrhea is cleansed nowhere but in a fountain: but a menstruous woman, as also all other unclean persons, were washed in some confluence of waters; in which so much water ought to be as may serve to wash the whole body at one dipping. Our wise men have esteemed this proportion to be a cubit square, and three cubits depth: and this measure contains forty seahs of water."

When it is said, that "he that hath the gonorrhea is to wash in a spring [or a stream]; but a menstruous woman, and all other unclean persons, in some confluence of waters,"--it forbids not a menstruous woman, and other unclean persons, to wash in streams, where they might: but it permits, where they might not, to wash in some confluence of water; which was not lawful for a man that had the gonorrhea to do. The same is to be understood concerning the baptism of a proselyte, who was allowed to wash himself in streams: and was allowed also, where there were no streams, to wash in a confluence of waters.

IV. When a proselyte was to be circumcised, they first asked him concerning the sincerity of his conversion to Judaism: whether he offered not himself to proselytism for the obtaining riches, for fear, or for love to some Israelite woman, &c. And when they saw that he came out of love of the law, they instructed him concerning the various articles of the law, of one God, of the evil of idolatry, of the reward of obedience, of the world to come, of the privileges of Israel, &c. All which, if he professed that he embraced them he is forthwith circumcised.

"As soon as he grows whole of the wound of circumcision, they bring him to baptism; and being placed in the water, they again instruct him in some weightier and in some lighter commands of the law. Which being heard, he plunges himself, and comes up, and behold, he is as an Israelite in all things. The women place a woman in the waters up to the neck; and two disciples of the wise men, standing without, instruct her about some lighter precepts of the law and some weightier, while she, in the meantime, stands in the waters. And then she plungeth herself; and they, turning away their faces, go out, while she comes up out of the water."

In the baptizing of a proselyte, this is not to be passed over, but let it be observed, namely, that others baptized him, and that he baptized himself, or dipped, or plunged himself in the waters. Now, what that plunging was, you may understand from those things which Maimonides speaks in Mikvaoth in the place before cited. "Every person baptized" [or dipped, whether he were washed from pollution, or baptized into proselytism], "must dip his whole body, now stripped and made naked, at one dipping. And wheresoever in the law washing of the body or garments is mentioned, it means nothing else than the washing of the whole body. For if any wash himself all over, except the very top of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness. And if any hath much hair, he must wash all the hair of his head, for that also was reckoned for the body. But if any should enter into the water with their clothes on, yet their washing holds good; because the water would pass through their clothes, and their garments would not hinder it."

And now, a little to compare the baptism of John with that proselytical baptism, and ours with both, these things are to be considered:--

I. If you compare the washing of polluted persons, prescribed by the law, with the baptism of proselytes,--both that and this imply uncleanness, however something different, that implies legal uncleanness,--this, heathen,--but both polluting. But a proselyte was baptized not only into the washing-off of that Gentile pollution, nor only thereby to be transplanted into the religion of the Jews; but that by the most accurate rite of translation that could possibly be, he might so pass into an Israelite, that, being married to an Israelite woman, he might produce a free and legitimate seed, and an undefiled offspring. Hence, servants that were taken into a family were baptized,--and servants also that were to be made free: not so much because they were defiled with heathen uncleanness, as that, by that rite becoming Israelites in all respects, they might be more fit to match with Israelites, and their children be accounted as Israelites. And hence the sons of proselytes, in following generations, were circumcised indeed, but not baptized. They were circumcised, that they might take upon themselves the obligation of the law; but they needed not baptism, because they were already Israelites. From these things it is plain that there was some difference as to the end, between the Mosaical washings of unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes; and some between the baptism of proselytes and John's baptism: not as though they concurred not in some parallel end; but because other ends were added over and above to this or that, or some ends were withdrawn.

II. The baptism of proselytes was the bringing over of Gentiles into the Jewish religion; the baptism of John was the bringing over of Jews into another religion. And hence it is the more to be wondered at, that the people so readily flocked to him, when he introduced a baptism so different from the known proselytical baptism. The reason of which is to be fetched from hence,--that at the coming of the Messias they thought, not without cause, that the state of things was plainly to be changed; and that, from the oracles of the prophets, who, with one mouth, described the times of the Messias for a new world. Hence was that received opinion, That God, at that time, would renew the world for a thousand years...And that also, that they used the world to come by a form of speech very common among them, for the times of the Messias; which we observe more largely elsewhere.

III. The baptism of proselytes was an obligation to perform the law; that of John was an obligation to repentance. For although proselytical baptism admitted of some ends,--and circumcision of others,--yet a traditional and erroneous doctrine at that time had joined this to both, that the proselytes covenanted in both, and obliged himself to perform the law; to which that of the apostle relates, Galatians 5:3, "I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law."

But the baptism of John was a 'baptism of repentance'; Mark 1:4: which being undertaken, they who were baptized professed to renounce their own legal righteousness; and, on the contrary, acknowledged themselves to be obliged to repentance and faith in the Messias to come. How much the Pharisaical doctrine of justification differed from the evangelical, so much the obligation undertaken in the baptism of proselytes differed from the obligation undertaken in the baptism of John: which obligation also holds amongst Christians to the end of the world.

IV. That the baptism of John was by plunging the body (after the same manner as the washing of unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes was), seems to appear from those things which are related of him; namely, that he "baptized in Jordan"; that he baptized "in Aenon, because there was much water there"; and that Christ, being baptized, "came up out of the water": to which that seems to be parallel, Acts 8:38, "Philip and the eunuch went down into the water," &c. Some complain, that this rite is not retained in the Christian church, as though it something derogated from the truth of baptism; or as though it were to be called an innovation, when the sprinkling of water is used instead of plunging. This is no place to dispute of these things. Let us return these three things only for a present answer:--

1. That the notion of washing in John's baptism differs from ours, in that he baptized none who were not brought over from one religion, and that an irreligious one too,--into another, and that a true one. But there is no place for this among us who are born Christians: the condition, therefore, being varied, the rite is not only lawfully, but deservedly, varied also. Our baptism argues defilement, indeed, and uncleanness; and demonstrates this doctrinally,--that we, being polluted, have need of washing: but this is to be understood of our natural and sinful stain, to be washed away by the blood of Christ and the grace of God: with which stain, indeed, they were defiled who were baptized by John. But to denote this washing by a sacramental sign, the sprinkling of water is as sufficient as the dipping into water,--when, in truth, this argues washing and purification as well as that. But those who were baptized by John were blemished with another stain, and that an outward one, and after a manner visible; that is, a polluted religion,--namely, Judaism or heathenism; from which, if, according to the custom of the nation, they passed by a deeper and severer washing,--they neither underwent it without reason; nor with any reason may it be laid upon us, whose condition is different from theirs.

2. Since dipping was a rite used only in the Jewish nation and proper to it, it were something hard, if all nations should be subjected under it; but especially, when it is neither necessarily to be esteemed of the essence of baptism, and is moreover so harsh and dangerous, that, in regard of these things, it scarcely gave place to circumcision. We read that some, leavened with Judaism to the highest degree, yet wished that dipping in purification might be taken away, because it was accompanied with so much severity. "In the days of R. Joshua Ben Levi, some endeavoured to abolish this dipping, for the sake of the women of Galilee; because, by reason of the cold, they became barren. R. Joshua Ben Levi said unto them, Do ye go about to take away that which hedges in Israel from transgression?" Surely it is hard to lay this yoke upon the neck of all nations, which seemed too rough to the Jews themselves, and not to be borne by them, men too much given to such kind of severer rites. And if it be demanded of them who went about to take away that dipping, Would you have no purification at all by water? it is probable that they would have allowed of the sprinkling of water, which is less harsh, and not less agreeable to the thing itself.

3. The following ages, with good reason, and by divine prescript, administered a baptism differing in a greater matter from the baptism of John; and therefore it was less to differ in a less matter. The application of water was necessarily of the essence of baptism; but the application of it in this or that manner speaks but a circumstance: the adding also of the word was of the nature of a sacrament; but the changing of the word into this or that form, would you not call this a circumstance also? And yet we read the form of baptism so changed, that you may observe it to have been threefold in the history of the New Testament.

Secondly, In reference to the form of John's baptism [which thing we have propounded to consider in the second place], it is not at all to be doubted but he baptized "in the name of the Messias now ready to come": and it may be gathered from his words, and from his story. As yet he knew not that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias; which he confesseth himself, John 1:31: yet he knew well enough, that the Messias was coming; therefore, he baptized those that came to him in his name, instructing them in the doctrine of the gospel, concerning faith in the Messias, and repentance; that they might be the readier to receive the Messias when he should manifest himself. Consider well Malachi 3:1, Luke 1:17, John 1:7,31, &c. The apostles, baptizing the Jews, baptized them "in the name of Jesus"; because Jesus of Nazareth had now been revealed for the Messias; and that they did, when it had been before commanded them by Christ, "Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." So you must understand that which is spoken, John 3:23, 4:2, concerning the disciples of Christ baptizing; namely, that they baptized in 'the name of Jesus,' that thence it might be known that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias, in the name of whom, suddenly to come, John had baptized. That of St. Peter is plain, Acts 2:38; "Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ": and that, Acts 8:16, "They were baptized in the name of Jesus."

But the apostles baptized the Gentiles, according to the precept of our Lord, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," Matthew 28:19. For since it was very much controverted among the Jews about the true Messias, and that unbelieving nation denied, stiffly and without ceasing, that Jesus of Nazareth was he (under which virulent spirit they labour even to this day), it was not without cause, yea, nor without necessity, that they baptized in the name of Jesus; that by that seal might be confirmed this most principal truth in the gospel, and that those that were baptized might profess it; that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messias. But among the Gentiles, the controversy was not concerning the true Messias, but concerning the true God: among them, therefore, it was needful that baptism should be conferred in the name of the true God, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

We suppose, therefore, that men, women, and children came to John's baptism, according to the manner of the nation in the reception of proselytes; namely, that they standing in Jordan were taught by John that they were baptized into the name of the Messias, that was now immediately to come; and into the profession of the doctrine of the gospel concerning faith and repentance; that they plunged themselves into the river, and so came out. And that which is said of them, that they were baptized by him "confessing their sins," is to be understood according to the tenour of the Baptist's preaching; not that they did this man by man, or by some auricular confession made to John, or by openly declaring some particular sins; but when the doctrine of John exhorted them to repentance and to faith in the Messias, they renounced and disowned the doctrine and opinion of justification by their works, wherewith they had been beforetime leavened, and acknowledged and confessed themselves sinners.

[In Jordan.] John could not baptize in any part of Jordan, so it were within the bounds of Judea (which the evangelists assert), which had not been dried up, and had afforded a passage to the Israelites when they came out of Egypt, and were now entering into the promised land.

Some few remarks concerning the Pharisees and Sadducees.

7. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

[And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees.] To attempt a history of the Pharisees and Sadducees, after so many very learned men, who have treated of their original, manners, and institutions, would be next to madness: we will briefly touch at a few things, and those, perhaps, less obvious.

1. That the Pharisees do not derive their name (as some would have it) from the word which signifies to expound is sufficiently evinced by this, that there were women-Pharisees as well as men. "R. Joshua saith, A religious man foolish, a wicked man crafty, a woman-Pharisee, and the dashing of the Pharisees [against the stones], destroy the world." Those things are worthy observing, which are spoke by the Babylonian Gemarists on that clause, A woman-Pharisee. "The Rabbins teach. A praying [procax] maid, a gadding widow, and a boy whose months are not fulfilled, these corrupt the world. But R. Jochanan saith, We learn the shunning of sin from a maid, and the receiving of a reward from a widow. 'The shunning of sin from a maid'; for R. Jochanan heard a certain maid prostrate on her face thus praying; Eternal Lord, thou hast created Paradise, thou hast created hell also, thou hast created the righteous, and thou hast created the wicked: let it be thy good pleasure that I be not a scandal to men. 'The receiving of a reward from a widow'; for there was a certain widow, who, when there were synagogues nearer everywhere, she always resorted to the school of R. Jochanan to pray: to whom R. Jochanan said, O my daughter, are there not synagogues at hand round about you? But she answered, Will there not be a reward for my steps [or, for my journey hither]? for [the tradition] saith, These destroy the world, as Joanna, the daughter of Retib."

...[O]ne Gloss [says] a maid given to prayer, or a maid of many prayers. By another it is rendered, a maid given to fasting: losing her virginity by fasting.

A gadding widow they call her, "who always goes about from place to place to visit her neighbours"; they are the words of the Gloss. "And these corrupt the world, because they are no other but bawds and sorceresses, and yet they pretend sanctity."

"Joanna the daughter of Retib [the Gloss also being witness] was a certain sorceress widow, who, when the time of any child's birth drew near, shut up the womb of the child-bearing woman with magic arts, that she could not be delivered. And when the poor woman had endured long and great torments, she would say, 'I will go and pray for you; perhaps my prayers will be heard': when she was gone, she would dissolve the enchantments, and presently the infant would be born. On a certain day as a hired man wrought in her house, she being gone to a woman's labour, he heard the charms tinkling in a pan; and, taking off the cover, the charms presently came out, and strait the infant is born; and hence it was known that she was a witch."

I have therefore cited these passages, not only that it may be shown that there were women-Pharisees, and so that the name is not take from interpreting or expounding, but that it may be observed also what kind of women, for the most part, embrace Pharisaism; namely, widows and maids, under the veil of sanctity and devotion, hiding and practising all manner of wickedness. And so much we gain of the history of the Pharisees, while we are tracing the etymology of the word.

II. That the Pharisees therefore were so called from the word signifying separation, is more commonly asserted, and more truly; and the thing itself, as well as the word, speaks it. So that by a word more known to us, you might rightly call the Pharisees, Separatists; but in what sense, has need of more narrow inquiry. The differences of the Jewish people are to be disposed here into diverse ranks: and, first, we will begin with the women.

1. It were an infinite task to search particularly, how their canons indulged (shall I say?) or prescribed the woman a freedom from very many rites, in which a great part of the Jewish religion was placed. How numberless are the times that that occurs in the Talmudic pandect, "Women, servants, and children, are not bound to these things. Women, servants, and children, are not bound to recite their phylacteries, nor to wear them. The Passovers of women are at their own will." And, not to dwell upon things that are obvious, let this one serve instead of many: "A certain matron asked R. Eleazar, Why, when Aaron sinned in making the golden calf, the people are punished with a threefold death? He answered, Let not a woman be learned beyond her distaff. Hircanus his son said unto him, Because no answer is given her in one word out of the law, she will withdraw from us three hundred tenth cori yearly. To whom he replied, Let them rather go and be burnt, than the words of the law be delivered to women."

From hence it appears that the women that embraced Pharisaism did it of their own free will and vow, not by command: which the men-Pharisees also did.

2. Pass we from the women to the men; and, first, to the lowest degrees of men in the distinction relating to religion; namely, to them whom they ordinarily called illiterate, and the people of the earth, or the plebeians. Of them, thus the Gemara in Sotah newly cited: "One reads the Scriptures, and recites the Misna, and yet he waits not upon the scholars of the wise men; what of him? R. Eleazar said, This is one of the people of the earth. R. Samuel Bar Nachmani saith, Behold, this is an illiterate man. R. Jannai saith, 'Behold, this is a Cuthean.' R. Achabar saith, 'Behold, this is a magician.'" And a little after, "Who is the people of the earth? R. Meith saith, 'He that recites not his phylacteries morning and evening with his prayers.' But the wise men say, 'He, whosoever he be, that lays not up his phylacteries.' Ben Azzai saith, 'He who hath not a fringe on his garment.' R. Jochanan Ben Joseph saith, 'He that instructs not his sons in the doctrine of the law.' Others say, 'He who, although he read the Scriptures, and repeats the traditions, yet attends not on the scholars of the wise men, this is, the people of the earth [or the plebeians]. Does he read the Scriptures, and not repeat the tradition? Behold, this man is illiterate.'" The Gloss upon the place speaks thus, "The people of the earth are they of whom there is suspicion of tenths and cleanness": that is, lest they tithe not rightly, nor take care aright concerning cleansings. And the illiterate person is "more vile than, or inferior to, the people of the earth." Compare that, John 7:49, "this people that knoweth not the law is cursed."

The colleagues or associates, and scholars of the wise men, were opposed to these vulgar persons. Under the title of scholars of the wise men are comprehended all that were learned and studious: under the title of religious, as well learned as unlearned. There were some of the learned whom they commonly called colleagues of the Rabbins; who as yet were candidates, and not preferred to the public office of teaching or judging. The thing may be illustrated by one example: "Do the colleagues enter in to appoint the new moon? R. Hoshaia said, When I was a colleague, R. Samuel Ben R. Isaac led me in to the appointment of the new moon, but I knew not whether I were of the number or no." And a little later; "Do the colleagues [or fellows] go in to intercalate the year? Let us learn this from the example of Rabban Gamaliel, who said, Let the seven seniors meet me in the chamber. But eight entered, 'Who came in hither,' saith he, 'without leave?' 'I,' answered Samuel the Little."

In this sense the word a colleague, differs nothing from a scholar of a wise man, in that both signify a student and a learned man. But the word a colleague, hath a wider sense, denoting all such who have more professedly devoted themselves to religion, and have professed a more devout life and rule than the common people, whether they were learned or unlearned, whether of the sect of the Pharisees, or of the Sadducees, or some other. Hence you have mention of a religious Samaritan, and of a religious baker. And the phrase seems to be drawn from Psalm 119:63; "I am a companion of all those that fear thee": They take upon them the habit of religion. See the Babylonian Talmud in Avodah Zarah in the Gloss. That distinction also is worthy of consideration, of The greater and the less religious.

Yet the word seems sometimes to be appropriated to the Pharisees, as being men who, above all others, put on a splendidly cloaked religion, which appears enough from the history of the Gospel. So, perhaps, is that to be understood, The religious Galileans purify: that is, as the Gloss explains it, "They cleanse their wine and their oil for a drink-offering, if perhaps the Temple may be built in their days." Which, nevertheless, the Aruch citing, thus explains them, The religious eat their common food in cleanness. By which very thing the Gloss defines Pharisees; To the Pharisees; that is, to them that eat their common food in cleanness. Behold, how the word religious, and Pharisees, are convertible terms; and how this was the proper notion whereby a Pharisee was defined, "That he ate his common food in cleanness": that is, that he washed his hands when he ate.

III. We must not think that Pharisaism arose altogether and at once, but it was long a-conceiving, and of not fixed form when it was brought forth. The same may, in a manner, be said of this, which is of the traditions: both these and that were the issue of many years. The traditionarians do refer the first conception of the Traditions to the times of Ezra. But how many centuries of years passed before the birth of this whole monster was full ripe? In like manner, the first seeds of Pharisaism were cast long before its birth; and being now brought forth, was a long time growing, before it came to maturity; if so be any can define what its maturity was.

We observe presently, that the foundations of Sadduceeism were laid in the days of Ezra, before there were any Sadducees: in his days also, I suspect, the foundations of Pharisaism were laid long before there were any Pharisees. For, since the Pharisees were marked with that title because they separated themselves from other men, as more profane; and since, in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, it was the great care, and that a holy care too, to separate the seed of Israel from the heathen inhabitants of the land, to wit, the Samaritans, the Ashdodites, the Moabites, &c., not much after; some men, arrogating too much for themselves, took occasion hence of separating themselves from the men of the Israelitic seed, as too profane, and very unfit (alas!) for their communion. Which very thing we experience in our present Separatists. For when the Scripture commands Christians that they communicate not "with unbelievers, with those who are without," &c., that is, with heathens; some do hence make a pretence of withdrawing themselves from the assemblies of Christians: by what right, by what foundation, let themselves look to it.

We shall not trace the time wherein the name of Pharisee first arose; this is done by learneder men: and therefore let it be enough to have observed that only. After once this pretence of religion was received, "that it was a pious matter to separate a man's self from the common people," superstition increased every day, which served for a stay and patronage to this sect and separation. For when they had espoused a religion so supercilious, that they commonly said, "Stand off, I am holier than thou" (which was also foretold by the prophet with an execration, Isaiah 65:5), and that they place the highest sanctimony in this, to withdraw themselves from the common people, as profane; it was certainly necessary to circumscribe, and to put themselves under a more austere rule and discipline, that they might retain the name and fame of religious person in other things besides that separation, that argued so much pride and arrogancy. Hence the troubles about tithings and washings arose, and increased age after age: hence sprang the frequent fasting and prayers, the cares of the phylacteries, fringes, and other matters without number: so that (a thing fatal to Separatists) this sect, at last, was crumbled into sects, and a Pharisee was, in a manner, the same to a Pharisee, that the people of the earth was to a Pharisee.

Both Talmuds reckon seven sects of Pharisees, and so does the Aruch: which it will not be irksome to describe with their pencil, that the reader may see to what a degree of madness this sect was come, as well as to what a degree of hypocrisy. The Pharisees are seven:

1. A Shechemite Pharisee. This [Pharisee] does as Shechem Where the Gloss is, "Who is circumcised, but not for the honour of God." He carrieth his precepts upon his shoulders: that is, as the Aruch explains it, "wood to make a booth [in the feast of Tabernacles], or something of that nature."

2. A Pharisee struck or dashing. Who dasheth his feet. The Gloss is, "He who walketh in humility, the heel of one foot touching the great toe of the other: nor did he lift up his feet from the earth, so that his toes were dashed against the stones." The Aruch writes, "Who withdrew himself a great way off, that he might not press upon men in the ways, and dashed his feet against the stones." Strike me (or surround me), and yet I will perform the command.

3. A Pharisee that lets out his blood. "He strikes out his blood against the walls." The Gloss is; "He shows himself such a one as if his eyes were hoodwinked, that he might not look upon a woman; and hereupon dashed his head against the walls, and let out his blood." The Aruch writes, "He so pressed up himself against the walls, that he might not touch those that passed by, that by the dashing he fetched blood of himself."--"He performed one precept, and one duty, and struck out blood at each."

4. A Pharisee of the mortar. The Aruch thus describes him; "He went in a loose coat, resembling a mortar with the mouth turned downwards. So he, with his loose garment, was straiter above and broader below." In the Jerusalem Talmud he is called "who saith, I withdraw whatsoever is mine and fulfil the command."

5. "The Pharisee which saith, Let me know what my duty is, and I will do it." "I have done my duty, that the command may be performed according to it." The Aruch thus; "As though he should say, There is no man can show me wherein I have transgressed."

6. A Pharisee of fear: such was Job.

7. A Pharisee of love: Among all these, none is worthy to be loved but the Pharisee of love: as Abraham.

Whether Pharisaism ran out into any of these sects in the days of the Baptist, we dispute not. Let it be granted, that the best and the most modest of that order came to his baptism: the best of the Pharisees certainly were the worst of men. And it is so much the more to be wondered at that these men should receive his baptism after that manner as they did; when it was highly contrary to the rule of the Pharisees to converse among the common people, of whom there was so great a concourse to John; and highly contrary to the doctrine of the Pharisees, so much as to dream of any righteousness, besides that which was of the works of the law, which the doctrine of John diametrically contradicted.

The original of the Sadducees, learned men as well Jews as Christians, do, for the most part, refer to one Zadoc, a scholar of Antigonus Socheus; which Antigonus took the chief seat in the Sanhedrim after the death of Simeon the Just. Of him thus speaks the tract Avoth: "Antigonus of Socho received traditions of Simeon the Just. He said, Be not as servants, who wait upon their master for the sake of the reward; but be ye like servants who wait upon their master not for the sake of the reward: but let the fear of the Lord rule you."

"This wise man (saith Rambam upon the place) had two scholars, Zadoc and Baithus; who, when they heard this from their master, said among themselves, when they were gone away. Our master in his exposition teacheth us that there is neither reward nor punishment, nor any expectation at all [for the future]: for they understood not what he meant: therefore, they mutually strengthened one another, and departed from the rule, and forsook the law: and some company adhered to both. The wise men, therefore, called them Sadducees and Baithusees." And a little after; "But in these countries, namely in Egypt, they call them Karaites, but Sadducees and Baithusees are their names among the wise men." See also the Avoth of R. Nathan.

Yet that raiseth a scruple here: "At the conclusion of all prayers in the Temple they said, for ever. But when the heretics brake in and said, There was no age but one, it was appointed to be said, for ever and ever, or from age to age." Upon these words thus the Gloss; "In the first Temple they said only, 'Blessed be the Lord God of Israel for ever.' But when the heretics brake in and said there was no age but this, Ezra and his consistory appointed that it should be said, for ever and ever, or from age to age, to imply there is a double world [this, and one to come], to root out of the heart the opinion of those that deny the resurrection of the dead."

Take notice, reader, that "there were some who denied the resurrection of the dead in the days of Ezra," when as yet Zadoc, the father of the Sadducees, was not born. After Ezra, and his great synagogue (which endured many a year after Ezra was dead), sat Simeon the Just, performing the office of the high-priest, for the space of forty years: and Antigonus Socheus, the master of Zadoc, succeeded him in the chair of the Sanhedrim. So that although the Sadducees, with good reason, do bear an ill report for denying the resurrection, and that was their principal heresy; yet that heresy was, when as yet there were no heretics, called by the name of Sadducees. To which, perhaps, those words do agree (which sufficiently taste of such a heresy), "Ye have said, It is in vain to serve God," &c., Malachi 3:14.

It is not, therefore, to be denied that the Sadducee-heretics were so named from Zadoc; but that the heresy of the Sadducees, concerning the resurrection, was older than that name, one may suppose not without reason; nor that that cursed doctrine first arose from the words of Antigonus, illy understood by Zadoc and Baithus, but was of an ancienter original, when as yet the prophets Zecharias, Malachi, and Ezra himself, were alive, if that Ezra were not the same with Malachi, as the Jews suppose. Therefore I do rather think that heresy sprang from the misunderstanding of the words of Ezekiel, chapter 37; which some understanding according to the letter, and, together with it, seeing no resurrection, dreamt that there would be none afterward. And this doctrine increased, and exalted itself into a sect; when, at length, Zadoc and Baithus asserted that it was so determined out of the chair by their master Antigonus, the president of the Sanhedrim.

When I fetch the rise of the Sadducees not much after the death of Simeon the Just, that does not unseasonably come into my mind, which is mentioned by the Talmudists, that the state of things became worse after his death. "All the days of Simeon the Just, the scape-goat had scarce come to the middle of the precipice of the mountain [whence he was cast down], but he was broken into pieces: but, when Simeon the Just was dead, he fled away [alive] into the desert, and was eaten by Saracens. While Simeon the Just lived, the lot of God [in the day of expiation] went forth always to the right hand: Simeon the Just being dead, it went forth sometimes to the right hand and sometimes to the left. All the days of Simeon the Just, the little scarlet tongue looked always white; but when Simeon the Just was dead, it sometimes looked white and sometimes red. All the days of Simeon the Just, the west light always burnt; but when he was dead, it sometimes burnt and sometimes went out. All the days of Simeon the Just, the fire upon the altar burnt clear and bright; and, after two pieces of wood laid on in the morning, they laid on nothing else the whole day: but when he was dead, the force of the fire languished in that manner that they were compelled to supply it all the day. All the days of Simeon the Just, a blessing was sent upon the two loaves and the show-bread, so that a portion came to every priest, to the quantity of an olive at least; and there were some others to whom something remained after they had eaten their fill: but when Simeon the Just was dead, that blessing was withdrawn, and so little remained to each, that those that were modest withdrew their hands, and those that were greedy still stretched them out."

[Generation of vipers.] I. Serpents,, chapter 23:33. Not so much "the seed of Abraham," which ye boast of, as "the seed of the serpent," "O, the Antichrist, the Opposer, 2 Thessalonians 2:4. A nation and offspring diametrically opposite, and an enemy to that seed of the woman, and which was to bruise his heel."

II. Hence, not without ground, it is concluded that that nation was rejected and given over to a reprobate sense, even before the coming of Christ. They were not only a generation, but an offspring of vipers, serpents sprung from serpents. Nor is it wonder that they were rejected by God, when they had long since rejected God, and God's word, by their traditions. See that Matthew 13:13-15, 1 Peter 2:10, "Ye were not a people."

There was, indeed, a certain remnant among them to be gathered by Christ: and when that was gathered, the rest of the nation as delivered over to everlasting perdition. This is that remnant of the apostle, Romans 11:5, which then was, when he writ those things; which then as to be gathered, before the destruction of that nation.

[To fly from the wrath to come.] These words respect the very last words of the Old Testament, "lest I smite the earth with a curse," Malachi 4; and denote the most miserable destruction of the nation, and now almost ready to fall upon them.

The receiving of John's baptism signed and fenced those that received it from the ruin that was just coming. To this belongs that of St. Peter, Epistle 1, chapter 3:20, 21: in that manner as Noah and his sons were by water delivered from the flood, "so also baptism now, the antitype of that type, saveth us" from the deluge of divine indignation, which in a short time is to overflow the Jewish nation. Think here, if those that came to baptism brought not their little ones with them to baptism: when, by the plain words of the Baptist, those that are baptized are said to "fly from the wrath to come?" that is, 'the wrath of God,' that was not long hence to destroy the nation by a most sad overthrow.

9. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

[Think not to say.] A Jerusalem phrase, to be met with everywhere in the Talmud: To think a word, or to be of that opinion.

10. And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

[The axe is laid to the root.] These words seem to be taken from Isaiah 5:33,34. The destruction of the nation was to proceed from the Romans, who had now a great while held them under the yoke. That axe, now laid to the root of the tree, shall certainly cut it down, if from this last dressing by the gospel it bears not fruit. In the Talmud, those words of Isaiah are applied to the destruction of the city; and thence it is argued, that the Messias should be born not much after the time of that destruction, because presently after the threatening of that ruin follows, "A Branch shall arise out of the stock of Jesse," Isaiah 11:1.

11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

[Whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.] In Luke it is to unloose the latchet of his shoes: which comes to the same thing: both sound to the same import, as if he had said, 'Whose servant I am not worthy to be.'

"A Canaanite servant is like a farm, in respect of buying: for he is bought with money, or with a writing, or by some service done as a pledge or pawn. And what is such a pawning in the buying of servants? Namely, that he looseth the shoe of him [who buys], or binds on his shoe, or carries to the bath such things as be necessary for him," &c. These things Maimonides produceth out of the Talmud, where these words are, "How is a servant bought by service? He looseneth the buyer's shoe; he carrieth such things after him as are necessary for the bath; he unclothes him; washes, anoints, rubs, dresses him; puts on his shoes, and lifts him up from the earth," &c. See also the Tosaphta.

This, by the way, is to be noted, which the Gloss intimates, that all servants, of what heathen nation soever, bought by the Jews, were called 'Canaanite servants,' because it is said of Canaan, "Canaan a servant of servants."

[Thus it becomes us to fulfil all righteousness.] That is, 'that we fulfil every thing that is just.' Now in the baptism of Christ there were these two just things especially:--I. That this great priest, being initiated into his ministerial office, should answer the type of the admission of the Levitical priests, who were initiated by washing and anointing; so was he by baptism, and the Holy Ghost. II. When, by the institution of Christ, those that entered into the profession of the gospel were to be introduced by baptism, it was just, yea, necessary, that Christ, being to enter into the same profession, and to preach it too, should be admitted by baptism.

16. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

[And Jesus being baptized.] I. That Christ conversed upon earth two-and-thirty years and a half (as many years as David lived at Jerusalem; compare 2 Samuel 5:5), is proved hence:--1. That he was baptized when he had now completed his twenty-ninth year, and had newly begun his thirtieth. That the words of Luke imply, He began to be about thirty years old. Which words, although they are applied by some Christians to I know not what large latitude,--yet in the Jewish schools, and among that nation, they would not admit, certainly, of another sense than we produce. For there this axiom holds, The first day of the year is reckoned for that year. And, questionless, Luke speaks with the vulgar. For let it be supposed that the evangelist uttered these words in some Jewish school, "N. was baptized beginning to be about thirty years old": how could it be understood by them of the thirtieth complete (much less of the thirty-first, or thirty-second, as some wrest it)? when the words beginning to be about, do so harmoniously agree with the said axiom, as scarcely any thing can do more clearly. 2. That, from his baptism to his cross, he lived three years and a half. This is intimated by the angel Gabriel, Daniel 9:27; "In the half of a week" (that is, in three years and a half) "he shall make the sacrifice and oblation to cease"; and it is confirmed from the computation in the evangelists, but especially in John, who clearly mentioneth four Passovers (chap 2:13, 5:1, 6:4, and 13:1) after his forty days' fast, and not a little time spent in Galilee.

II. Therefore, we suppose Christ was baptized about the feast of Tabernacles, in the month Tisri, at which time we suppose him born; and that John was born about the feast of the Passover, and at that time began to baptize. For when Christ lived two-and-thirty years and a half, and died at the feast of the Passover, you must necessarily reduce his birth to the month Tisri, and about the time of the feast of Tabernacles: and when John the Baptist was elder than he by half a year, you must necessarily suppose him born about the feast of the Passover. But of these things we have said something already.

17. And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

[And behold, a voice from heaven.] Christ was honoured with a threefold testimony, pronounced by a voice from heaven, according to his threefold office. See what we say at chapter 17:2.

You find not a voice sent from heaven between the giving of the law and the baptism of Christ. What things the Jews relate of Bath Kol, they must pardon me if I esteem them, partly, for Jewish fables,--partly, for devilish witchcrafts. They hold it for a tradition: "After the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel [which was most true] but they used thenceforth the Bath Kol." "The Bath Kol was this: When a voice (or thunder) came out of heaven, another voice came out from it."

But why, I pray, was prophecy withdrawn, if heavenly oracles were to be continued? Why, also, was Urim and Thummim taken away? Or rather, why was it not restored after the Babylonian captivity? For "Five things (say they) were wanting under the second Temple, which were under the first; namely, the fire from heaven, the ark, Urim and Thummim, the oil of anointing, and the Holy Spirit." It would certainly be a wonder, if God, taking away from his people his ordinary oracles, should bestow upon them a nobler oracle, or as noble; and that when the nation had degenerated, and were sunk into all kind of impiety, superstition, heresy. When the last prophets, Haggai and the rest, were dead, the Sadducean heresy, concerning the resurrection crept in, and the Pharisaical heresy also, weakening all Scripture, and making it of none effect by vain traditions. And shall I believe that God should so indulge his people, when they were guilty of so grievous apostasy, as to vouchsafe to talk familiarly with them from heaven, and to afford them oracles so sublime, so frequent, as the prophets themselves had not the like? If I may speak plainly what I think, I should reduce those numberless stories of the Bath Kol which occur everywhere under these two heads; namely, that very many are mere fables, invented for this purpose, that hence the worth of this or that Rabbin or story may be illustrated: the rest are mere magical and diabolical delusions.

When I read these and such-like passages, that the Bath Kol in Jericho gave witness to Hillel, that he was worthy to have the Holy Ghost abide upon him; that the Bath Kol in Jabneh yielded the same testimony to Samuel the Little; that the Bath Kol again in Jabneh determined the controversies between the schools of Shammai and Hillel, for those of Hillel; and innumerable other stories of that kind, I cannot but either suspect these to be tales, or that these voices were framed by art magic for the honour of the Rabbins.

It is remarkable what is related in the Jerusalem Talmud; R. Eliezer saith, They follow the hearing of Bath Kol. And a little after; "R. Jochanan, and R. Simeon Ben Lachish, desired to see the face of Samuel [the Babylonian Doctor]; Let us follow, say they, the hearing of Bath Kol. Travelling therefore, near a school, they heard a boy's voice reading [in 1 Samuel 25:1] And Samuel died. They observed this, and so it came to pass, for Samuel of Babylon was dead."

"R. Jonah and R. Josah went to visit R. Acha lying sick: Let us follow, say they, the hearing of Bath Kol. They heard the voice of a certain woman speaking to her neighbour, 'The light is put out.' To whom she said, 'Let it not be put out, nor let the light of Israel be quenched.'"

Behold! reader, a people very well contented to be deceived with a new kind of Bath Kol. Compare these things with Virgil's lots, of which the Roman historians speak frequently. Not to be more tedious therefore in this matter, let two things only be observed: 1. That the nation, under the second Temple was given to magical arts beyond measure. And, 2. That it was given to an easiness of believing all manner of delusions beyond measure. And one may safely suspect, that those voices which they thought to be from heaven, and noted with the name of Bath Kol, were either formed by the devil in the air to deceive the people, or by magicians by devilish art to promote their own affairs. Hence the apostle Peter saith with good reason, that "the word of prophecy was surer than a voice from heaven"; 2 Peter 1:19.

The very same which I judge of the Bath Kol, is my opinion also of the frequent appearances of Elias, with which the leaves of the Talmud do every where abound; namely, that in very many places the stories are false, and, in the rest, the apparitions of him were diabolical. See the notes upon the tenth verse of the seventeenth chapter.

 

Chapter 4

1. Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

[He was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted, &c.] The war, proclaimed of old in Eden between the serpent, and the seed of the serpent, and the seed of the woman, Genesis 3:15, now takes place; when that promised seed of the woman comes forth into the field (being initiated by baptism, and anointed by the Holy Ghost, unto the public office of his ministry) to fight with that old serpent, and at last to bruise his head. And, since the devil was always a most impudent spirit, now he takes upon him a more hardened boldness than ever, even of waging war with him whom he knew to be the Son of God, because from that ancient proclamation of this war he knew well enough that he should bruise his heel.

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

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

The manner of his temptations was twofold. First, invisibly, as the devil is wont to tempt sinners; and this for forty days: while the tempter endeavoured with all his industry to throw in his suggestions, if possible, into the mind of Christ, as he does to mortal men. Which when he could not compass, because he found 'nothing in him' in which such a temptation might fix itself, John 14:30, he attempted another way, namely, by appearing to him in a visible shape, and conversing with him, and that in the form of an angel of light. Let the evangelists be compared. Mark saith, "he was tempted forty days": so also doth Luke: but Matthew, that "the tempter came to him after forty days"; that is, in a visible form.

The matter of his temptations was very like the temptations of Eve. She fell by the "lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life": which are the heads of all sins, 1 John 2:16.

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

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

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

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

I. As Eve was deceived by mistaking his person, supposing a good angel discoursed with her when it was a bad, so the devil in like manner puts on the good angel here, clothed with light and feigned glory.

II. He endeavours to ensnare Christ by "the lust of the flesh"; "Command that these stones be made bread": by "the lust of the eye"; "All these things will I give thee, and the glory of them": by "the pride of life"; "'Throw thyself down,' and fly in the air, and be held up by angels."

5. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple.

[Upon the pinnacle of the Temple.] Whether he placed him upon the Temple itself, or upon some building within the holy circuit, it is in vain to seek, because it cannot be found. If it were upon the Temple itself, I should reflect upon the top of the porch of the Temple: if upon some other building, I should reflect upon the royal gallery. The priests were wont sometimes to go up to the top of the Temple, stairs being made for this purpose, and described in the Talmudic book entitled Middoth; and they are said to have ascended hither, "When fire was first put to the Temple, and to have thrown up the keys of the chambers of the Temple towards heaven, with these words; 'O thou eternal Lord, because we are not worthy to keep these keys, to thee they are delivered.' And there came, as it were, the form of a hand out of heaven, and took them from them: and they leaped down, and fell into the fire."

Above all other parts of the Temple the porch of the Temple, yea, the whole space before it, may not unfitly be called the wing of the Temple, because, like wings, it extended itself in breadth on each side, far beyond the breadth of the Temple: which we take notice of elsewhere.

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

But if you suppose him placed upon the royal gallery, look upon it thus painted out by Josephus: "On the south part [of the court of the Gentiles] was the king's gallery, that deserves to be mentioned among the most magnificent things under the sun: for upon a huge depth of a valley, scarcely to be fathomed by the eye of him that stands above, Herod erected a gallery of a vast height; from the top of which if any looked down, he would grow dizzy, his eyes not being able to reach to so vast a depth."

8. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

[Showed him all the kingdoms of the world, &c.] That is, Rome with her empire and state. For, 1. That empire is called all the world, (which word Luke useth in this story), both in sacred and profane writers. 2. At this time all cities were of little account in comparison of Rome, nor did any part of the earth bear any vogue without that empire. 3. Rome was 'the seat of Satan,' Revelation 13:2; and he granted to the beast of that city both it and the dominion. 4. This therefore seems to be that whereby he attempts to ensnare our Saviour in this object, namely, that he promiseth to give him the pomp and power of Caesar, and to deliver into his hand the highest empire of the world, that is, the Roman. This, antichrist afterward obtained.

13. And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:

[And, leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt at Capernaum.] Why he left Nazareth after he had passed six or seven-and-twenty years there, the reason appears, Luke 4:28, &c. We do not read that he returned thither again; and so, unhappy Nazareth, thou perishest by thine own folly and perverseness. Whether his father Joseph had any inheritance at Capernaum, which he possessed as his heir, or rather dwelt there in some hired house, we dispute not. This is certainly called his city, Matthew 9:1, &c.; and here, as a citizen, he paid the half-shekel, Matthew 17:24. Where it is worthy marking what is said by the Jews: How long does a man dwell in some city before he be as one of the citizens? Twelve months. The same is recited again elsewhere. The Jerusalem Gemara thus explains it; "If he tarry in the city thirty days, he becomes as one of the citizens in respect of the alms-chest; if six months, he becomes a citizen in respect of clothing; if twelve months, in respect of tributes and taxes." The Babylonian adds, "if nine months, in respect of burial." That is, if any abide in a city thirty days, they require of him alms for the poor; if six months, he is bound, with the other citizens, to clothe the poor; if nine months, to bury the dead poor; if twelve months, he is bound to undergo all other taxes with the rest of the citizens.

15. The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;

[The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthali.] It is needful that the words of Isaiah be considered, whence these words are taken. He had been discoursing, in the eighth chapter towards the end, concerning the straits and miseries that compassed the transgressors of the law and the testimony. "To the law and to the testimony," &c., verse 20. "But if a man transgress against it [that is, the law and the testimony], it will redound to his hardship, and he shall suffer hunger," &c., verse 21. "And he shall look to the earth, and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish, and he shall be driven to darkness," verse 22. And then it follows, chapter 9:1, "For the dimness shall not be like to that wherein it was ill with him, at what time the former [afflicter] lightly touched the land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthali, and the latter grievously afflicted," &c. "That people who sat in darkness, saw a great light," &c.

That which the prophet means here is this: 1. That the contemners of Emanuel and his testimony, that is, the gospel, should undergo far greater calamities than those places had undergone, either under their first conqueror Ben-hadad, or under the second, the king of Assyria. For those places saw light at last restored to them, when the Messias preached the gospel there: but the contemners of the gospel are driven into eternal darkness. 2. He foretells the morning of liberty, and of evangelical light, to arise there, where the first darkness and the calamities of their captivity had arisen. St. Matthew citing these words, that he might show the prophecy to be fulfilled, of that light that should arise there, omits those words which speak of their former misery, that is, the first clause of the verse; and produceth those words only, and that very fitly too, which make to his purpose, and which aim directly thither by the prophet's intention. The prophet Hosea affords us an instance of curtailing a sentence after that manner, chapter 1:11, 2:1; when he proclaims Israel and Judah miserable, he calls them 'Lo-Ammi,' and 'Lo-Ruchamah'; when happy, 'Ammi,' and 'Ruchamah.'

[Beyond Jordan.] Not by Jordan, but beyond Jordan. For the latter afflicter, the king of Assyria, had carried away that country also into banishment and bonds, 1 Chronicles 5:26. Here is an ellipsis of the conjunction and.

18. And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.

[Casting a net into the sea.] Fishing in the sea of Tiberias, in Talmudic speech. There the fathers of the traditions dream that Joshua the son of Nun gave ten laws to the Israelites concerning having some things in common, as lawful, and to be allowed of: Our Rabbins have a tradition that Joshua ordained ten conditions: That cattle graze in common in woody places. And that a man gather wood in common in his neighbour's field, &c. Among others, And that any, in common, spread his nets for fishing in the sea of Tiberias. But yet under this caution, That none set up a wall, which may be any stop to ships. The Gloss is, "It is the manner of fishermen to fasten stakes in the water, and to make fences of canes or reeds, in which the fish may be taken: but this is not permitted, because it is an impediment to the ships." However therefore the sea of Tiberias belonged to the tribe of Nephthali, yet it was free for any Israelite to fish in it, so it were under the condition mentioned.

19. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

[Fishers of men.] This phrase is something agreeable with that of Maimonides upon the Talmud, A fisher of the law.

21. And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.

[James the son of Zebedee.] We meet with a certain Rabbin of this very same name, R. Jacob the son of Zabdi.

23. And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

[Teaching in their synagogues.] Since we meet with very frequent mention of synagogues every where in the books of the Gospel, it may be needful to know something more clearly what the customs and institutions of the synagogues were, for the better understanding very many things which have some reference thereunto in the New Testament; let us here despatch the history of them as briefly as we may, now when the mention of synagogues first occurs.

Of the Synagogues.

I. A synagogue was not formed anywhere but where there were ten learned men professedly students of the law. 1. Let that of the Talmud be observed. "What is a great city? That in which were ten men of leisure. If there be less than this number, behold, it is a village." 2. Observe that of Maimonides; "Wheresoever there be ten of Israel, there a house must needs be built, to which they may resort to prayers in the time of prayer, and this house is called a synagogue." Not that any ten of Israel made a synagogue; but wheresoever were ten learned men, and studious of the law, these were called Batlanin, men of leisure; "who were not to be esteemed for lazy and idle persons, but such who," not being encumbered with worldly things, "were at leisure only to take care of the affairs of the synagogues, and to give themselves to the study of the law."

The reason of the number of ten, though lean and empty enough, is given in the Talmud: and it is this; A congregation consists of ten: which they prove hence, because it is said, "How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, &c. (Num 14:27). Take away Joshua and Caleb, and there remain only ten"; namely, of the spies of the land.

II. Of these ten men:

1. Three bear the magistracy, and were called The bench of three: whose office it was to decide the differences arising between the members of the synagogue, and to take care about other matters of the synagogue. These judged concerning money-matters, thefts, losses, restitutions, ravishing a virgin, of a man enticing a virgin, of the admission of proselytes, laying on of hands, and divers other things, of which see the tract Sanhedrim. These were properly, and with good reason, called rulers of the synagogue, because on them laid the chief care of things, and the chief power.

2. Besides these there was 'the public minister of the synagogue,' who prayed publicly, and took care about the reading of the law, and sometimes preached, if there were not some other to discharge this office. This person was called the angel of the church, and the Chazan or bishop of the congregation. The Aruch gives the reason of the name: "The Chazan (saith he) is the angel of the church (or the public minister), and the Targum renders...[it as] one that oversees; for it is incumbent on him to oversee how the reader reads, and whom he may call out to read in the law." The public minister of the synagogue himself read not the law publicly; but, every sabbath, he called out seven of the synagogue (on other days, fewer) whom he judged fit to read. He stood by him that read, with great care observing that he read nothing either falsely or improperly; and calling him back and correcting him if he had failed in any thing...Certainly the signification of the word bishop, and angel of the church, had been determined with less noise, if recourse had been made to the proper fountains, and men had not vainly disputed about the signification of words, taken I know not whence. The service and worship of the Temple being abolished, as being ceremonial, God transplanted the worship and public adoration of God used in the synagogues, which was moral, into the Christian church; to wit, the public ministry, public prayers, reading God's word, and preaching, &c. Hence the names of the ministers of the Gospel were the very same, the angel of the church, and the bishop; which belonged to the ministers in the synagogues.

3. There were also three deacons, or almoners, on whom was the care of the poor; and these were called Parnasin, or Pastors. And these seven perhaps were reputed the seven good men of the city; of whom there is frequent remembrance in the Talmudists.

Of these Parnasin we shall only produce these things. There were two, who demanded alms of the townsmen; and they were called, the two collectors of alms. To whom was added a third to distribute it.

"R. Chelbo in the name of R. Ba Bar Zabda saith, They do not make fewer than three Parnasin. For I see the judgments about many matters to be managed by three: therefore much more these which concern life. R. Josi in the name of R. Jochanan saith, They do not make two brethren Parnasin. R. Josi went to Cephar, intending there to set Parnasin over them, but they received him not. He went away, after he had said these words before them, Ben Bebai was only set over the threaded [linen of the lamps], and yet he was reckoned worthy to be numbered with the eminent men of that age. Ye who are set over the lives of men, how much more are ye so! R. Chaggai, when he appointed the Parnasin, argued to them out of the law, all dominion that is given is given from the law. By me kings reign. R. Chaiia Bar Ba set rulers, over them, that is, he appointed Parnasin. R. Lazar was a Parnas."

This perhaps holds out a light to those words of the apostle, 1 Timothy 3:13, "They that have performed the office of a deacon well have obtained to themselves a good degree": that is, being faithful in their care and provision for the poor, as to their corporal life, they may well be probationers for the care of souls. For when those Parnasin, as also all the ten, were learned and studious, they might with good reason be preferred from the care of bodies to that of souls. The apostles' deacons are to be reckoned also of the same learned and studious rank. And now let us turn our eyes a little from the synagogues to Christian churches, in the history of the New Testament. When the Romans permitted the Jewish synagogues to use their own laws and proper government, why, I pray, should there not be the same toleration allowed to the apostolical churches? The Roman censure had as yet made no difference between the Judaizing synagogues of the Jews, and the Christian synagogues or churches of Jews; nor did it permit them to live after their own laws, and forbid these. I am not, therefore, afraid to assert, that the churches of that first age were wanting to themselves, if they took not up the same liberty of government as the Romans allowed the Jewish synagogues to use. And I do not think that was said by the apostle, 1 Corinthians 6:2, 3, &c. without this foundation. Therefore, this power of their own government being allowed them, if so be they were minded to enjoy what they might, how easily may those words of the apostle be understood, which have so racked learned men (shall I say?), or which have been so racked by them, 1 Timothy 5:17: "Let the elders that rule well," &c.

4. We may reckon the eighth man of these ten to be the interpreter in the synagogue; who, being skilled in the tongues, and standing by him that read in the law, rendered in the mother-tongue, verse by verse, those things that were read out of the Hebrew text. The duty of this interpreter, and the rules of his duty, you may read at large in the Talmud.

The use of such an interpreter, they think, was drawn down to them from the times of Ezra, and not without good reason. "And they read in the book of the law: that was the text. Explaining: that was the Targum. And added the meaning: they are the accents: and they understood the text: that was the Masoreth." See Nehemiah 8:8; see also Buxtorf's Tiberias, chapter 8.

5. We do not readily known whom to name for the ninth and tenth of this last three. Let us suppose them to be the master of the divinity-school, and his interpreter: of whom we shall have a fuller occasion of inquiry. And thus much concerning the head of the synagogue, that learned Decemvirate, which was also the representative body of the synagogue.

III. The days wherein they met together in the synagogue were the sabbath, and the second day and the fifth of every week. Of the sabbath there is no question. They refer the appointment of the second and fifth days to Ezra. "Ezra (say they) decreed ten decrees. He appointed the public reading of the law in the second and fifth days of the week. Also on the sabbath at the time of the sacrifice. He appointed washing to those that had the gonorrhea. He appointed the session of the judges in cities on the second and fifth days of the week," &c. Hence, perhaps, it will appear in what sense that is to be understood, Acts 13:42. "The Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath, or the sabbath between"; that is, on the days of that intervening week, wherein they met together in the synagogue.

IV. Synagogues were anciently builded in fields. "To the evening recital of the phylacteries are to be added two prayers going before, and two following after." Where the Gloss thus; "The Rabbins instituted that prayer that they might retain their colleagues in the synagogue. And this certainly respected their synagogues at that time; because they were situated in the fields, where they might be in danger." And so Rabbenu Asher upon the same tract; "Anciently their synagogues were in fields: therefore they were afraid to tarry there, until the evening prayers were ended. It was therefore appointed that they should recite some verses, in which a short sum of all the eighteen prayers had been compacted"...

But the following times brought back their synagogues for the most part into the cities; and provision was made by sharp canons, that a synagogue should be built in the highest place of the city, and that no house should be built higher than it.

V. The like provision was made, that every one at the stated times of prayer should frequent the synagogue. "God does not refuse the prayers, although sinners are mingled there. Therefore it is necessary that a man associate himself with the congregation, and that he pray not alone when an opportunity is given of praying with the congregation. Let every one therefore come morning and evening to the synagogue." And "It is forbidden to pass by the synagogue in the time of prayer, unless a man carry some burden upon his back: or unless there be more synagogues in the same city; for then it may be judged that he goes to another; or unless there be two doors in the synagogue; for it may be judged that he passed by one to go in at another. But if he carry his phylacteries upon his head, then it is allowed him to pass by, because they bear him witness that he is not unmindful of the law." These things are taken out of the Babylonian Talmud: where these are also added: "The holy blessed one saith, Whosoever employeth himself in the study of the law, and in the returning of mercy, and whosoever prays with the synagogue, I account concerning him, as if he redeemed me and my sons from the nations of the world. And whosoever prays not with the synagogue is called an 'ill neighbour,' as it is said, 'Thus saith the Lord of all my evil neighbours,'" &c. Jeremiah 12:14.

VI. When they were met together in the synagogue on the sabbath-day (for this being observed, there is no need to speak any thing of the other days), the service being begun, the minister of the church calls out seven, whomsoever he pleases to call out, to read the law in their order. First, a priest, then a Levite, if they were present; and after these five Israelites. Hence it is, O young student in Hebrew learning, that in some editions of the Hebrew Bible you see marked in the margin of the Pentateuch, 1. The priest. 2. The Levite. 3. The third. 4. The fourth. 5. The fifth. 6. The sixth. 7. The seventh:--denoting by these words the order of the readers, and measuring out hereby the portion read by each one. Thus, I suppose, Christ was called out by the angel of the church of Nazareth, Luke 4:16, and reading according to the custom as a member of that synagogue.

There is no need to mention that prayers were made publicly by the angel of the church for the whole congregation, and that the congregation answered Amen to every prayer: and it would be too much particularly to enumerate what those prayers were, and to recite them. It is known enough to all that prayers, and reading of the law and the prophets, was the chief business in the synagogue, and that both were under the care of the angel of the synagogue.

I. There seemed to have been catechizing of boys in the synagogue. Consider what that means, "What is the privilege of women? This, that their sons read in the synagogue. That their husbands recite in the school of the doctors." Where the Gloss thus, "The boys that were scholars were wont to be instructed [or to learn] before their master in the synagogue."

II. The Targumist, or Interpreter, who stood by him that read in the law, and rendered what was read out of the Hebrew original into the mother-tongue,--sometimes used a liberty of enlarging himself in paraphrase. Examples of this we meet with in the Talmud, and also in the Chaldee paraphrast himself.

III. Observe that of the Glosser, Women and the common people were wont to meet together to hear the exposition or the sermon. But of what place is this better to be understood than of the synagogue? That especially being well weighed which immediately followeth, And they had need of expounders [or preachers] to affect their hearts: which is not much unlike that which is said Acts 13:13, If ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

IV. Service being done in the synagogue, they went to dinner. And after dinner to the school, or the church, or a lecture of divinity; call it by what name you will. It is called also not seldom by the Talmudists The synagogue. In this sense, it may be, is upper synagogue to be taken, mentioned in the Talmud; if it be not to be taken of the Sanhedrim. In this place a doctor read to his auditors some traditional matter, and expounded it. In the Beth Midrash they taught traditions, and their exposition.

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

1. He that read to the auditors spake not out with an audible voice, but muttered it with a small whisper in somebody's ear; and he pronounced it aloud to all the people. So that here the doctor had his interpreter in this sense, as well as the reader of the law his in the synagogue. "Rabh went to the place of R. Shilla, and there was no interpreter to stand by R. Shilla; Rabh therefore stood by him." Where the Gloss hath these words, "He had no speaker, that is, he had no interpreter present, who stood before the doctor when he was reading the lecture. And the doctor whispered him in the ear in Hebrew, and he rendered it in the mother-tongue to the people." Hither that of our Saviour hath respect, Matthew 10:27; "What ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops." Consult the same place.

2. It was customary in this place, and in these exercises, to propound questions. In that remarkable story of removing Rabban Gamaliel of Jafne from his presidentship, which we meet with in divers places of both Talmuds: when they met together in the Beth Midrash, "The questioner stood forth and asked, The evening prayer, is it observed by way of duty, or of free will?" And after a few lines, the mention of an interpreter occurs: "The whole multitude murmured against it, and said to Hotspith the interpreter, 'Hold your peace'; and he held his peace," &c.

3. While the interpreter preached from the mouth of the doctor, the people sat upon the earth. "Let not a judge go upon the heads of the holy people." The Gloss is, "While the interpreter preached the synagogue [or the whole congregation] sat on the ground: and whosoever walked through the middle of them to take his place, seemed as if he walked upon their heads."

One may safely be of opinion that the word synagogue, was used sometimes in the New Testament in this sense; and that Christ sometimes preached in these divinity-schools, as well as in the synagogues.

But by what right was Christ permitted by the rulers of the synagogue to preach, being the son of a carpenter, and of no learned education? Was it allowed any illiterate person, or mechanic, to preach in the synagogues, if he had the confidence himself to it? By no means. For it was permitted to none to teach there but those that were learned. But there were two things especially that gave Christ admission to preach in every synagogue; namely, the fame of his miracles, and that he gave out himself the head of a religious sect. For however the religion of Christ and his disciples was both scorned and hated by the scribes and Pharisees, yet they accounted them among the religious in the same sense as they did the Sadducees; that is, distinguished from the common people, or the seculars, who took little care of religion. When, therefore, Christ was reckoned among the religious, and grew so famous by the rumour of his miracles, and the shining rays of his doctrine, no wonder if he raised among the people an earnest desire of hearing him, and obtained among the governors of the synagogues a liberty of preaching.

Chapter 5

 

3-5. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

[Blessed, blessed, &c.] It is commanded, Deuteronomy 27, that, upon the entrance of the people into the promised land, blessings and curses should be denounced from the mounts Gerizim and Ebal: the curses being particularly reckoned up, but the blessings not so. Which seems not to be without a mystery, since the law brought the curse with it; but Christ, who should bring the blessing, was yet to come a great while hence. Now he is present pronouncing the blessings, and that on a mountain. The Jewish writers do thus relate that matter:

"Six tribes went up to the top of mount Gerizim, and six to the top of mount Ebal. But the priests and the Levites stood below with the ark of the covenant. The priests compassed the ark; the Levites compassed the priests; and the whole people of Israel stood on one side and on that other: as it is said, 'All Israel and the elders,' &c. (Josh 8:33). Turning their faces to mouth Gerizim, they began with the blessing, 'Blessed is the man that shall make no idol, or molten image,' &c. And both the one and the other answered, Amen. Turning their faces to mount Ebal, they pronounced the curse, 'Cursed is the man who shall make an idol, or molten image': and both the one and the other answered, Amen. And so of the rest. And at last, turning their faces to Gerizim, they began with the blessing, 'Blessed is the man who shall continue in all the words of the law'; and the answer on both sides is, Amen. Turning their faces to Ebal, they pronounce the curse, 'Cursed is every one that shall not continue in all the words of the law': and the answer from both sides is, Amen," &c.

In like manner Christ here, having begun with blessings, "Blessed, blessed," thundereth out curses, "Woe, woe," Luke 6:24-26.

That which many do comment concerning the octonary number of beatitudes hath too much curiosity, and little benefit. It hath that which is like it among the Jews: for thus they write; "There is a tradition from the school of R. Esaiah Ben Korcha, that twenty blessings are pronounced in the Book of the Psalms, and in like manner twenty woes in the Book of Isaiah. 'But I say,' saith Rabbi, 'that there are two-and-twenty blessings, according to the number of the two-and-twenty letters.'"

"Abraham was blessed with seven blessings."

"These six are blessed, every one with six blessings, David, Daniel, and his three companions, and king Messias."

8. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

[Blessed are the pure in heart.] Hearken, O Pharisee, all whose praise lies in outward cleanness. How foolish is this boasting of a Jew! "Come and see, saith R. Simeon Ben Eleazar, how far the purity of Israel extends itself: when it is not only appointed, that a clean man eat not with an unclean woman; but [that an unclean man eat not with an unclean man] that a Pharisee that hath the gonorrhea eat not with a common person that hath the gonorrhea."

9. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

[Blessed are the peacemakers.] Making peace between neighbours is numbered among those things which bring forth good fruit in this life, and benefit in the life to come.

17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

[Think not that I am come to destroy the law, &c.] I. It was the opinion of the nation concerning the Messias, that he would bring in a new law, but not at all to the prejudice or damage of Moses and the prophets: but that he would advance the Mosaic law to the very highest pitch, and would fulfil those things that were foretold by the prophets, and that according to the letter, even to the greatest pomp.

II. The scribes and Pharisees, therefore, snatch an occasion of cavilling against Christ; and readily objected that he was not the true Messias, because he abolished the doctrines of the traditions which they obtruded upon the people for Moses and the prophets.

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

18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

[Verily, I say unto you.] I. Such an asseveration was usual to the nation, though the syllables were something changed, "A certain matron said to R. Judah Bar Allai, Thy face is like to a swineherd or a usurer. To whom he answered, In truth, both are forbidden me." The Gloss there, "In truth is a manner of speech used in swearing."

II. But our Saviour useth this phrase by the highest divine right. 1. Because he is "Amen, the faithful witness," Revelation 3:14, 2 Corinthians 1:20: see also Isaiah 65:16; and Kimchi there. 2. Because he published the gospel, the highest truth, John 18:37, &c. 3. By this asseveration he doth well oppose his divine oracles against the insolent madness of the traditional doctors, who did often vent their blasphemous and frivolous tales under this seal, They speak in truth: and "wheresoever this is said (say they), it is a tradition of Moses from Sinai."

[One jot.] The Jerusalem Gemarists speak almost to the same sense: "The Book of Deuteronomy came and prostrated itself before God, and said, 'O Lord of the universe, thou hast written in me thy law, but now a testament defective in some part is defective in all. Behold, Solomon endeavours to root the letter Jod out of me' [to wit, in this text, He shall not multiply wives, Deuteronomy 17:17]. The holy blessed God answered, 'Solomon and a thousand such as he shall perish, but the least word shall not perish out of thee.' R. Honna said in the name of R. Acha, The letter Jod which God took out of the name of Sarai our mother, was given half to Sara and half to Abraham. A tradition of R. Hoshaia: The letter Jod came and prostrated itself before God, and said, 'O eternal Lord, thou hast rooted me out of the name of that holy woman.' The blessed God answered, 'Hitherto thou hast been in the name of a woman, and that in the end [viz. in Sarai]; but henceforward thou shalt be in the name of a man, and that in the beginning.' Hence is that which is written, 'And Moses called the name of Hoshea, Jehoshua.'" The Babylonians also do relate this translation of the letter Jod out of the name of Sarai to the name of Joshua, after this manner: "The letter Jod, saith God, which I took out of the name of Sarai, stood and cried to me for very many years, How long will it be ere Joshua arise? to whose name I have added it"...

There is a certain little city mentioned by name Derokreth, which, by reason of the smallness of it, was called Jod in the Gloss. And there was a rabbin named Rabh Jod. Of the letter Jod, see Midrash Tillin upon the hundred and fourteenth Psalm.

[One tittle.] It seems to denote the little heads or dashes of letters, whereby the difference is made between letters of a form almost alike. The matter may be illustrated by these examples, If it were Daleth, and a man should have formed it into Resh [on the sabbath], or should have formed Resh into Daleth, he is guilty.

"It is written [Lev 22:32] Ye shall not profane my holy name: whosoever shall change Cheth into He, destroys the world...It is written [Psa 150:6], Let every spirit praise the Lord: whosoever changeth He into Cheth, destroys the world. It is written [Jer 5:12], They lied against the Lord: whosoever changeth Beth into Caph, destroys the world. It is written [1 Sam 2:2] There is none holy as the Lord: whosoever changeth Caph into Beth, destroys the world. It is written [Deut 6:4], The Lord our God is one Lord: he that changeth Daleth into Resh, destroys the world."

But that our Saviour, by jot and tittle, did not only understand the bare letters, or the little marks that distinguished them, appears sufficiently from verse 19, where he renders it, one of "these least commands": in which sense is that also in the Jerusalem Gemara of Solomon's rooting out Jod, that is, evacuating that precept He shall not multiply wives. And yet it appears enough hence, that our Saviour also so far asserts the uncorrupt immortality and purity of the holy text, that no particle of the sacred sense should perish, from the beginning of the law to the end of it.

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

The Jerusalem Talmud treats of this matter in these words: "R. Jochanan de Beth Gubrin saith, There are four noble tongues which the world useth: the mother-tongue, for singing; the Roman, for war; the Syriac, for mourning; the Hebrew, for elocution: and there are some which add the Assyrian, for writing. The Assyrian hath writing [that is, letters or characters], but a language it hath not. The Hebrew hath a language, but writing it hath not. They chose to themselves the Hebrew language in the Assyrian character. But why is it called the Assyrian? Because it is blessed (or direct) in its writing. R. Levi saith, Because it came up into their hands out of Assyria."

"A tradition. R. Josi saith, Ezra was fit, by whose hands the law might have been given, but that the age of Moses prevented. But although the law was not given by his hand, yet writing [that is, the forms of the letters] and the language were given by his hand. 'And the writing of the epistle was writ in Syriac, and rendered in Syriac,' Ezra 4:7. 'And they could not read the writing,' Daniel 5:8. From whence is shown that the writing [that is, the form of the characters and letters] was given that very same day. R. Nathan saith: The law was given in breaking [that is, in letters more rude and more disjoined]: and the matter is as R. Josi saith. Rabbi [Judah Haccodesh] saith, The law was given in the Assyrian language; and when they sinned it was turned into breaking. And when they were worthy in the days of Ezra, it was turned for them again into the Assyrian. I show to-day, that I will render to you Mishneh, the doubled, or, as if he should say the seconded (Zech 9:12). And he shall write for himself the Mishneh (the doubled) of this law in a book (Deut 17:18), namely, in a writing that was to be changed. R. Simeon Ben Eleazar saith, in the name of R. Eleazar Ben Parta, and he in the name of R. Lazar the Hammodean, The law was given in Assyrian writing..." So the Jerusalem Talmudists.

Discourse is had of the same business in the Babylonian Talmud, and almost in the same words, these being added over: The law was given to Israel in Hebrew writing, and in the holy language. And it was given to them again in the days of Ezra, in Assyrian writing, and the Syriac language. The Israelites chose to themselves the Assyrian writing, and the holy language; and left the Hebrew writing and the Syriac language to ignorant persons. But who are those idiots (or ignorant persons)? R. Chasda saith, The Samaritans. And what is the Hebrew writing? R. Chasda saith...according to the Gloss, "Great letters, such as those are which are writ in charms and upon doorposts."

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

I. That by 'the mother-tongue' (the Hebrew, Syriac, Roman, being named particularly) no other certainly can be understood than the Greek, we have shown at the three-and-twentieth verse of the first chapter...

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

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

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

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

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

I. These things are delivered by tradition; "They found three books in the court, the book Meoni, the book Zaatuti, and the book Hi. In one they found written, 'The eternal God is thy refuge': but in the two other they found it written, (Deut 33:27); They approved [or confirmed] those two, but rejected that one"...

I do much suspect that these three books laid up in the court answered to the threefold congregation of the Jews, namely, in Judea, Babylon, and Egypt, whence these copies might be particularly taken. For, however that nation was scattered abroad almost throughout the whole world, yet, by number and companies scarcely to be numbered, it more plentifully increased in these three countries than any where else: in Judea, by those that returned from Babylon; in Babylon, by those that returned not; and in Egypt, by the temple of Onias. The two copies that agreed, I judge to be out of Judea and Babylon; that that differed to be out of Egypt: and this last I suspect by this, that the word Zaatuti smells of the Seventy interpreters, whom the Jews of Egypt might be judged, for the very sake of the place, to favour more than any elsewhere. For it is asserted by the Jewish writers that Zaatuti was one of those changes which the Septuagint brought into the sacred text.

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

21. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

[Ye have heard.] That is, ye have received it by tradition. If they have heard [that is, learned by tradition], they speak to them. They learned by hearing, that is, by tradition; a saying very frequent in Maimonides.

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

22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

[But I say unto you.] But I say, the words of one that refutes or determines a question, very frequently to be met with in the Hebrew writers. To this you may lay that of Isaiah, chapter 2:3, "And he will teach us of his ways," &c. Where Kimchi writes thus, This teacher is king Messias. And that of Zechariah, chapter 11:8; where this great Shepherd destroys "three evil shepherds," namely, the Pharisee, and the Sadducee, and the Essene.

[That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, &c.] First let us treat of the words, and then of the sentences.

[With his brother:] The Jewish schools do thus distinguish between a brother and a neighbour; that a brother signifies an Israelite by nation and blood: a neighbour, an Israelite in religion and worship, that is, a proselyte. The author of Aruch, in the word A son of the covenant, writes thus; "The sons of the covenant, these are Israel. And when the Scripture saith, 'If any one's ox gore the ox of his neighbour,' it excludes all the heathen, in that it saith, 'of his neighbour.'" Maimonides writes thus: "It is all one to kill an Israelite and a Canaanite servant: for both, the punishment is death; but an Israelite who shall kill a stranger-inhabitant shall not be punished with death, because it is said, 'Whosoever shall proudly rise up against his neighbour to kill him' Exodus 21:14: and it is needless to say he shall not be punished with death for killing a heathen." Where this is to be noted, that heathens and stranger-in-habitants, who were not admitted to perfect and complete proselytism, were not qualified with the title of neighbour, nor with any privileges.

But under the Gospel, where there is no distinction of nations or tribes, brother is taken in the same latitude as among the Jews both brother and neighbour were; that is, for all professing the gospel: and is contradistinguished to the heathen, 1 Corinthians 5:11, "If any one who is called a brother": and Matthew 18:15, "If thy brother sin against thee," &c., verse 17, "If he hear not the church, let him be a heathen."

But neighbour is extended to all, even such as are strangers to our religion: Luke 10:29,30, &c.

[He shall be guilty:] [W]ords signifying guilt or debt [are] to be met with a thousand times in the Talmudists. Isaiah 24:23; "They shall be gathered together, as captives are gathered into prison." Where R. Solomon speaks thus, Guilty of hell unto hell: which agrees with the last clause of this verse.

[Of the council:] Of the Sanhedrim: that is, of the judgment, or tribunal of the magistrate. For that judgment, in the clause before, is to be referred to the judgment of God, will appear by what follows.

[Raca.] A word used by one that despiseth another in the highest scorn: very usual in the Hebrew writers, and very common in the mouth of the nation.

"One returned to repentance: his wife said to him, Raca, if it be appointed you to repent, the very girdle wherewith you gird yourself shall not be your own."

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

"A king's daughter was married to a certain dirty fellow. He commands her to stand by him as a mean servant, and to be his butler. To whom she said, Raca, I am a king's daughter."

"One of the scholars of R. Jochanan made sport with the teaching of his master: but returning at last to a sober mind, Teach thou, O master, saith he, for thou art worthy to teach: for I have found and seen that which thou hast taught. To whom he replied, Raca, thou hadst not believed, unless thou hadst seen."

"A certain captain saluted a religious man praying in the way, but he saluted him not again: he waited till he had done his prayer, and saith to him, Raca, it is written in your law," &c.

[Into hell-fire.] The Jews do very usually express hell, or the place of the damned, by the word Gehinnom, which might be shown in infinite examples; the manner of speech being taken from the valley of Hinnom, a place infamous for foul idolatry committed there; for the howlings of infants roasted to Moloch; filth carried out thither; and for a fire that always was burning, and so most fit to represent the horror of hell.

"There are three doors of Gehenna; one in the wilderness, as it is written, 'They went down, and all that belonged to them, alive into hell' (Num 16:33). Another in the sea, as it is written, 'Out of the belly of hell have I called; thou hast heard my voice' (Jonah 2:2). The third in Jerusalem, as it is written, 'Thus saith the Lord, whose fire is in Sion, and his furnace in Jerusalem,' Isaiah 31:9. The tradition of the school of R. Ismael; 'Whose fire is in Sion,' this is the gate of Gehenna."

The Chaldee paraphrast upon Isaiah, chapter 33:14, Gehenna, eternal fire, &c. The Gehenna of eternal fire.

We come now to the sentences and sense of the verse. A threefold punishment is adjudged to a threefold wickedness. Judgment to him that is angry...without cause. Judgment also, and that by the Sanhedrim, to him that calls Raca. Judgment of hell to him that calleth Fool.

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

How the judgment in the first clause is to be distinguished from the judgment of the Sanhedrim in the second, will very easily appear from this Gloss and commentary of the Talmudists, "Of not killing": "he is a manslayer, whosoever shall strike his neighbour with a stone or iron, or thrust him into the water, or fire, whence he cannot come out, so that he die, he is guilty. But if he shall thrust another into the water or fire, whence he might come out, if he die, he is guiltless. A man sets a dog or serpent on another, he is guiltless." See also the Babylonian Gemara there; "Whosoever shall slay his neighbour with his own hand, striking him with his sword, or with a stone, so that he kills him; or shall strangle or burn him so that he die, in any manner whatsoever killing him in his own person; behold, such a one is to be put to death by the Sanhedrim. But he that hires another by a reward to kill his neighbour, or who sends his servants, and they kill him; or he that thrusts him violently upon a lion, or upon some other beast, and the beast kill him; or he that kills himself, every one of these is a shedder of blood, and the iniquity of manslaughter is in his hand, and he is liable to death by the hand of God; but he is not to be punished with death by the Sanhedrim."

Behold a double manslayer! Behold a double judgment! Now let the words of our Saviour be applied to this Gloss of the ancients upon the law of murder: "Do ye hear," saith he, "What is said by the ancients, Whosoever shall kill, after what manner soever a man shall kill him, whether by the hand of one that he hath hired, or by his servants, or by setting a beast on him; he is guilty of the judgment of God, though not of the judgment of the Sanhedrim: and whosoever shall kill his neighbour by himself, none other interposing, this man is liable to the judgment of the Sanhedrim: but I say unto you, That whosoever is rashly angry with his brother, this man is liable to the judgment of God; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, he is liable to the Sanhedrim."

These words of our Saviour, perhaps, we shall more truly understand by comparing some more phrases and doctrines, very usual in the Jewish schools. Such as these, Absolved from the judgment of men, but guilty in the judgment of Heaven, that is, of God. Death by the Sanhedrim, and death by the hand of Heaven.

And in a word, cutting off, speaks vengeance by the hand of God. They are very much deceived who understand...cutting off, of which there is very frequent mention in the Holy Bible, concerning the cutting-off from the public assembly by ecclesiastical censure, when as it means nothing else than cutting off by divine vengeance. There is nothing more usual and common among the Hebrew canonists, than to adjudge very many transgressions to cutting off, in that worn phrase..."If he shall do this out of presumption, he is guilty of cutting off; but if he shall do it out of ignorance, he is bound for a sacrifice for sin." When they adjudge a thing or a guilty person to cutting off, they deliver and leaven him to the judgment of God; nevertheless, a censure and punishment from the Sanhedrim sometimes is added, and sometimes not. Which might be illustrated by infinite examples, but we are afraid of being tedious. Let these two be enough on both sides.

I. Of mere delivering over to the judgment of God, without any punishment inflicted by the Sanhedrim, those words speak, which were lately cited, "He is absolved from the judgment of men, but liable to the judgment of Heaven."

II. Of the judgment of God and of the Sanhedrim joined together, these words in the same place speak: "If he that is made guilty by the Sanhedrim be bound to make restitution, Heaven [or God] doth not pardon him until he pay it." But he that bears a punishment laid on him by the Sanhedrim is absolved from cutting off. "All persons guilty of cutting off, when they are beaten are absolved from their cutting off: as it is said, 'And thy brother become vile in thy sight.' When he shall be beaten, behold, he is thy brother."

Liable or guilty even to the hell-fire. He had said, guilty of judgment and of the council, before; but now he saith unto hell, and that in a higher emphasis; as if he should have said, "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Fool, shall be guilty of judgment, even unto the judgment of hell."

But what was there more grievous in the word fool, than in the word Raca? Let king Solomon be the interpreter, who everywhere by a fool understands a wicked and reprobate person; foolishness being opposed to spiritual wisdom. Raca denotes indeed morosity, and lightness of manners and life: but fool judgeth bitterly of the spiritual and eternal state, and decreeth a man to certain destruction. Let the judgings and censures of the scribes and Pharisees concerning the common people serve us instead of a lexicon. They did not only suffer themselves to be styled wise men, but also arrogated it to themselves, as their merit and due. But what do they say of the common people? "This people, that knoweth not the law, is cursed," John 7:49.

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

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

23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

[That thy brother hath ought against thee, &c.] ...that which the Jews restrained only to pecuniary damages, Christ extends to all offences against our brother.

"He that offers an oblation, not restoring that which he had unjustly taken away, does not do that which is his duty." And again; "He that steals any thing from his neighbour, yea, though it be but a farthing, and swears falsely, is bound to restitution, meeting the wronged party half way." See also Baal Turim upon Leviticus 6.

"An oblation is not offered for a sin, unless that which is [wrongfully] taken away, be first restored either to the owner or the priest." In like manner, "He that swears falsely, either of the Pruta [small money], or what the Pruta is worth, is bound to inquire after the owner, even as far as the islands in the sea, and to make restitution."

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

24. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

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

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

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

25. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

[Whilst thou art in the way with him.] That is, "while thou goest with him to the magistrate," Luke 12:58; where there is a clear distinction between the magistrate, and the judge: so that by magistrate, or ruler, one may understand the judges in the lower Sanhedrims; by judge, the judges in the highest. That allusion is here made to contentions about money matters, sufficiently appears from the following words, verse 26; "Thou shalt by no means come out of prison till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing." Now it was the business of the bench, that consisted of three men, to judge of such matters.

The words, therefore, of the verse have this sense: 'Does your neighbour accuse you of some damage, or of money that is due to him? and are ye now going in the way to the bench of three to commence the suit? compound with your adversary, lest he compel you to some higher tribunal, where your danger will be greater.' "For if the lender say to the debtor, 'Let us go, that judgment may be had of our case from the chief Sanhedrim,' they force the debtor to go up thence with him. In like manner, if any accuse another of something taken away from him, or of some damage done him, and he that is the accuser will have the higher Sanhedrim to judge of the suit; they force the debtor to go up thence with him. And so it is done with all other things of that nature."

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

[And the judge deliver thee to the officer.] A word answering to an executioner, a whipper, among the Rabbins. Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, Deuteronomy 16:18. ..."vergers and scourge-bearers [executioners] who stand before the judges. These go through the lanes and streets and inns, and take care about weights and measures; and scourge those that do amiss. But all their business is by the order of the judges. Whomsoever they see doing evil, they bring before the judges," &c. And Whosoever goes out into the street, let him reckon concerning himself, as if he were already delivered over to the officer; that is, as the Gloss hath it, "Contentions and contentious men will there be met with Gentiles and Israelites: so that let him reckon concerning himself, as though he were already delivered over to the officer, ready to lead him away before the judges." The Gloss upon Babyl. Joma writes thus; "is the executioner of the Sanhedrim, whose office is to whip."

26. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

[Farthing.] According to the Jerusalem Talmud, it is Kordiontes; according to the Babylonian, Kontrik. For thus they write:

"Two assars make a pondion.
Two semisses make an assar.
Two farthings a semissis.
Two prutahs a farthing.
A pondion is in value two assars.
An assar is two semisses.
A semissis is two farthings.
A kontric, or a farthing, is two prutahs."

That which is here said by the Jerusalem Talmud, Two prutahs make a farthing, is the very same thing that is said, Mark 12:42, Two mites, which make a farthing. A prutah was the very least piece among coins. So Maimonides, That which is not worth a prutah, is not to be reckoned among riches. Hence are those numberless passages in the Talmudic Pandects relating to the prutah: "He that steals less than a prutah is not bound to pay five-fold." "No land is bought for a price less than a prutah," that is, given as an earnest.

You have the value of these coins in the same Maimonides: "Selaa (saith he) is in value four-pence: a penny, six meahs. Now a meah, in the days of Moses our master, was called a gerah; it contains two pondions; a pondion, two assars; and a prutah is the eighth part of an assar. The weight of a meah, which is also called a gerah, is sixteen barleycorns. And the weight of an assar is four barleycorns. And the weight of a prutah is half a barleycorn."

Luke hath, the last mite, chapter 12:59; that is, the last prutah, which was the eighth part of the Italian assarius. Therefore, a farthing, was so called, not that it was the fourth part of a penny, but the fourth part of an assar; which how very small a part of a penny it was, we may observe by those things that are said by both Gemaras in the place before cited.

"Six silver meahs make a penny.
A meah is worth two pondions.
A pondion is worth two assars."

Let this be noted by the way; a meah, which, as Maimonides before testifies, was anciently called a gerah, was also commonly called zuz, in the Talmudists. For as it is said here, six meahs of silver make a penny, so in Rambam, a penny contains six zuzim.

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

27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

[Ye have heard, that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery.] He citeth not the command or text of Moses, as barely delivered by Moses, but as deformed by those of old time with such a gloss as almost evacuated all the force of the command; for they interpreted it of the act of adultery only, and that with a married woman. So the enumeration of the six hundred and thirteen precepts of the law, and that, Exodus 20:14, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' hath these words, "This is the thirty-fifth precept of the law, namely, That no man lie with another man's wife."

28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

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

30. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

[If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off.] See here Babyl. Niddah, fol. 13, quite through. Among other things, R. Tarphon saith, "Whosoever brings his hand to his modest parts, let his hand be cut off unto his navel." And a little after; "It is better that his belly should be cleft in two, than that he should descend into the well of corruption." The discourse is of moving the hand to the privy member, that, by the handling it, it might be known whether the party had the gonorrhea, or no: and yet they adjudge never so little handling it to cutting off the hand. Read the place, if you have leisure.

31. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

[Whosoever putteth away his wife, let him giver her a bill of divorcement] Notice is to be taken how our Saviour passeth into these words, namely, by using the particle but. "But it hath been said." This particle hath this emphasis in this place, that it whispers a silent objection, which is answered in the following verse. Christ had said, "Whosoever looks upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already": but the Jewish lawyers said, "If any one sees a woman which he is delighted withal above his wife, let him dismiss his wife and marry her."

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

God, indeed, granted to that nation a law concerning divorces, Deuteronomy 24:1, permitted only "for the hardness of their hearts," Matthew 19:8: in which permission, nevertheless, they boast, as though it were indulged them by mere privilege. When God had established that fatal law of punishing adultery by death (Deut 22), for the terror of the people, and for their avoiding of that sin; the same merciful God foreseeing also how hard (occasion being taken from this law) the issue of this might be to the women, by reason of the roughness of the men; lusting, perhaps, after other women, and loathing their own wives; he more graciously provided against such kind of wife-killing by a law, mitigating the former, and allowed the putting away a wife in the same case, concerning which that fatal law was given; namely, in the case of adultery. So that that law of divorce, in the exhibition of it, implied their hearts to be hard; and, in the use of it, they shewed them to be carnal. And yet hear them thus boasting of that law: "The Lord of Israel saith, That he hateth putting away, Malachi 2:16. Through the whole chapter, saith R. Chananiah in the name of R. Phineas, he is called the Lord of Hosts: but here, of Israel, that it might appear that God subscribed not his name to divorces, but only among the Israelites. As if he should say, 'To the Israelites I have granted the putting way of wives; to the Gentiles I have not granted it.' R. Chaijah Rabbah saith, Divorces are not granted to the nations of the world."

Some of them interpreted this law of Moses (as by right they ought to interpret it), of the case of adultery only. "The school of Shamaai said, A wife is not to be divorced, unless for filthiness [that is, adultery] only, because it is said, Because he hath found filthy nakedness in her," that is, adultery.

"Rabh Papa said, If he find not adultery in her, what then? Rabba answered, When the merciful God revealed concerning him that corrupted a maid, that it was not lawful for him to put her away in his whole life (Deut 22:29), you are thence taught concerning the matter propounded, that it is not lawful to put her away, if he shall not find filthiness in his wife."

With the like honesty have some commented upon those words cited out of the prophet, For he hateth putting away. "R. Jochanan saith, The putting away of a wife is odious." Which others also have granted, indeed, of the first wife, but not of those that a man took to himself over and above. For this is approved among them for a canon, "Let no man put away his first wife unless for adultery." And "R. Eliezer saith, For the divorcing of the first wife, even the altar itself sheds tears." Which Gloss they fetch from thence, where it is said, "Let no man deal treacherously towards the wife of his youth"; Malachi 2:15.

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

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

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

II. "If any man hate his wife, let him put her away": excepting only that wife that he first married. In like manner, R. Judah thus interprets that of the prophet, If he hate her, let him put her away. Which sense some versions, dangerously enough, have followed. R. Solomon expresses the sense of that place thus: "It is commanded to put away one's wife, if she obtain not favour in the eyes of her husband."

III. "The school of Hillel saith, If the wife cook her husband's food illy, by over-salting or over-roasting it, she is to be put away."

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

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

[Bill of divorce.] And, A bill of divorce, Matthew 19:7; and in the Septuagint, Deuteronomy 24:1. Of which Beza thus; "This bill may seem to be called a bill of divorce [as much as, departing away], not in respect of the wife put away, as of the husband departing away form his wife." Something hard, and diametrically contrary to the canonical doctrine of the Jews: for thus they write, "It is written in the bill, Behold, thou art put away; Behold, thou art thrust away, &c. But if he writes, I am not thy husband, or, I am not thy spouse, &c.; it is not a just bill: for it is said, He shall put her away, not, He shall put himself away."

This bill is called by the Jews a bill of cutting off, and a bill of expulsion, and an instrument, and an instrument of dismission, and letters of forsaking, &c.

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

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

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

IV. You have the copy of a bill of divorce in Alphesius upon Gittin, in this form:

A Bill of Divorce

"On the day of the week N., of the month of N., of the year of the world's creation N., according to the computation by which we are wont to reckon in the province N.; I, N., the son of N., and by what name soever I am called, of the city N., with the greatest consent of my mind, and without any compulsion urging me, have put away, dismissed, and expelled thee; thee, I say, N., the daughter of N., by what name soever thou art called, of the city N., who heretofore wert my wife. But now I have dismissed thee,--thee, I say, N., the daughter of N., by what name soever thou art called, of the city N. So that thou art free, and in thine own power to marry whosoever shall please thee; and let no man hinder thee, from this day forward even for ever. Thou art free, therefore, for any man. And let this be to thee a bill of rejection from me, letters of divorce, and a schedule of expulsion, according to the law of Moses and Israel.

REUBEN the son of Jacob witness.
ELIEZER the son of Gilead witness."

See also this form varied in some few words in Maimonides (Gerushin).

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

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

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

32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

[Whosoever shall put away his wife, &c.] I. Our Saviour does not abrogate Moses' permission of divorces, but tolerates it, yet keeping it within the Mosaic bounds, that is, in the case of adultery, condemning that liberty in the Jewish canons, which allowed it for any cause.

II. Divorce was not commanded in the case of adultery, but permitted. Israelites were compelled, sometimes even by whipping, to put away their wives, as appears in Maimonides (Gerushin). But our Saviour, even in the case of adultery, does not impose a compulsion to divorce, but indulgeth a license to do it.

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

33. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

[It hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, &c.] The law forbids perjury, Leviticus 19:12, &c. To which the Fathers of the Traditions reduced the whole sin of swearing, little caring for a rash oath. In this chapter of oaths they doubly sinned:

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

In the Talmudic tract Shevuoth, and in like manner in Maimonides, oaths are distributed into these four ranks:

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

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

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

Thirdly, An oath concerning something left in trust: namely, when any swore concerning something left in trust with him, that it was stolen or broke or lost, and not embezzled by him, &c.

Fourthly, A testimonial oath, before a judge or magistrate.

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

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

II. It was customary and usual among them to swear by the creatures; "If any swear by heaven, by earth, by the sun, &c. although the mind of the swearer be under these words to swear by Him who created them, yet this is not an oath. Or if any swear by some of the prophets, or by some of the books of the Scripture, although the sense of the swearer be to swear by Him that sent that prophet, or that gave that book, nevertheless this is not an oath."

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

They swore by Heaven. By Heaven so it is.

They swore by the Temple. "When turtles and young pigeons were sometimes sold at Jerusalem for a penny of gold, Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel said, By this habitation [that is, by this Temple] I will not rest this night, unless they be sold for a penny of silver."

"R. Zechariah Ben Ketsab said, By this Temple, the hand of the woman departed not out of my hand." "R. Jochanan said, By the Temple it is in our hand," &c.

"Bava Ben Buta swore by the Temple in the end of the tract Cherithuth, and Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel in the beginning; And so was the custom in Israel." Note this, "so was the custom."

They swore by the city Jerusalem. "R. Judah saith, He that saith, 'By Jerusalem,' saith nothing, unless with an intent purpose he shall vow towards Jerusalem." Where, also, after two lines coming between those forms of swearing and vowing are added, "Jerusalem, for Jerusalem, by Jerusalem. The Temple, for the Temple, by the Temple. The altar, for the altar, by the altar. The lamb, for the lamb, by the lamb. The chambers of the Temple, for the chambers of the Temple, by the chambers of the Temple. The wood, for the wood, by the wood. The sacrifices on fire, for the sacrifices on fire, by the sacrifices on fire. The dishes, for the dishes, by the dishes. By all these things, that I will do this to you."

They swore by their own heads. "One is bound to swear to his neighbour, and he saith, Vow (or swear) to me by the life of thy head," &c.

34. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

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

36. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

[Thou canst not make one hair white or black.] That is, Thou canst not put on gray hairs, or lay them aside.

37. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

[Let your communication be, Yea, yea; nay, nay.] In Hebrew, Giving and receiving [that is, business] among the disciples of the wise men, Let it be in truth and faith, by saying, Yes, yes; No, no: or, according to the very words, concerning Yes, yes; concerning No, no.

"If it be said to a lunatic, Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife? and he nod with his head, they try thrice; and if he answer to No, no; and to Yes, yes; they write it, and give it to his wife."

38. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

[Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, &c.] This law he also cites, as clothed in the Gloss of the scribes, and now received in the Jewish schools. But they resolved the law not into a just retaliation, but into a pecuniary compensation.

"Does any cut off the hand or foot of his neighbour? They value this according to the example of selling a servant; computing at what price he would be sold before he was maimed, and for how much less now he is maimed. And how much of the price is diminished, so much is to be paid to the maimed person, as it is said, 'An eye for an eye,' &c. We have received by tradition, that this is to be understood of pecuniary satisfaction. But whereas it is said in the law, 'If a man cause a blemish in his neighbour, the same shall be done to him' [Lev 24:19]; it means not that he should be maimed, as he hath maimed another; but when he deserveth maiming, he deserveth to pay the damage to the person maimed." They seemed, out of very great charity, to soften that severe law to themselves, when, nevertheless, in the mean time, little care was taken of lively charity, and of the forgiving an offence,--an open door being still left them to exaction and revenge, which will appear in what follows.

39. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek.] That the doctrine of Christ may here more clearly shine out, let the Jewish doctrine be set against it; to which he opposeth his.

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

"Does he give him a blow upon the cheek? Let him give him two hundred zuzes: if with the other hand, let him give four hundred." Compare with this passage verse 39: 'If any shall strike thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.'

"Does he twitch him by the ear; or does he pull off his hair; or does he spit, so that his spittle falls upon him; or does he take away his coat" [note this also, and compare verse 40 with it, 'He that will take away thy coat,' &c.]; "or does he uncover a woman's head in public? Let him give four hundred zuzees."

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

"Those mulcts [say they] are established and inflicted according to the dignity of the person injured. But R. Akibah said, 'Even the poorest Israelites are to be esteemed as though they were persons of quality divested of their estates, because they are the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.'"

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

40. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

[And if any will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, &c.] Coat, that is, Talith. So in the words of the Talmud alleged, he takes his coat Of this garment, thus the Rauch; Talith is a cloak: and why is it called Talith? Because it is above all the garments; that is, because it is the outermost garment.

In this upper garment were woven in those fringes that were to put them in mind of the law, of which there is mention Numbers 15:38. Hence is that, He that takes care of his skirts deserves a good coat. Hereupon the disgrace was increased together with the wrong, when that was taken away, concerning which they did not a little boast, nay, and in which they placed no small religion: Matthew 23:5, an upper and an inward garment... "If any give a poor man a penny to buy an inward garment, let him not buy a coat, nor an upper garment." He lends him an inner garment and a coat.

41. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

[And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, &c.] To him that had some corporeal wrong done him were these five mulcts to be paid, according to the reason and quality of the wrong: A mulct for maiming, if so be the party were maimed: a mulct for pain, caused by the blow or wound given: a mulct for the cure of the wound or blow; a mulct for the reproach brought upon him: and a mulct for ceasing, when, being wounded or beaten, he kept his bed, and could not follow his business.

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

The word very usual among the Talmudists, whereby they denote accompanying him that goes elsewhere, out of honour and respect, reaches not the sense of the word compel, but is too soft and low for it. It is reckoned for a duty to accompany a dead corpse to the grave, and a Rabbin departing somewhere. Hence is that story, "Germani, the servant of R. Judah Nasi, willing to conduct R. Illa going away, met a mad dog," &c. The footsteps of this civility we meet with among the Christians, Titus 3:13; John, Ep. 3 verse 6; they were marks of respect, love, and reverence: but that which was required by the Jewish masters, out of arrogance and a supercilious authority, was to be done to a Rabbin, as a Rabbin.

But to compel to go a mile, sounds harsher, and speaks not so much an impulse of duty, as a compulsion of violence: and the Talmudists retain that very word Angaria, and do show, by examples not a few, what it means. "It is reported of R. Eliazar Ben Harsum, that his father bequeathed him a thousand cities on the dry land, and a thousand ships on the sea: but yet he, every day carrying along with him a bottle of meal on his shoulder, travelled from city to city, and from country to country, to learn the law. On a certain day his servants met him, and angariate, compel him. He saith to them, 'I beseech you, dismiss me, that I may go and learn the law.' They say to him, 'By the life of R. Eliazar Ben Harsum, we will not dismiss you,'" &c. Where the Gloss is, "Angariah is the service of the governor of the city; and he was here to serve himself [for he was the lord of the city]. But they knew him not, but thought him to belong to one of those his cities: for its was incumbent on them to attend on their master."

Again; "R. Eliezer saith, 'Why was Abraham our father punished, and why were his sons afflicted in Egypt two hundred and ten years?' Because he 'angariavit,' 'compelled' the disciples of the wise men to go with him: as it is said he armed his catechumens, or his trained, or instructed," Genesis 14:14.

The same almost is said of King Asa: "Rabba asked, Why was Asa punished [with the gout]? Because he compelled the disciples of the wise men to go along with him: as it is said, 'And Asa gathered together all Judah, none excepted,'" &c., 1 Kings 15:22.

We meet with mention also of angariating cattle; "An ass is hired for a hilly journey; but he that hireth him travels in the valley: although both be of the like distance, that is, ten miles, if an ass dies, he who hired him is guilty, &c. But if the ass were angariated, the hirer saith to the owner, Behold, take your beast to yourself," &c. The Gooss is, "If he were angariated, that is, if they take him for some work of the king," &c.

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

43. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

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

46. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

[Do not even the publicans the same?] How odious the publicans were to the Jewish nation, especially those that were sprung of that nation, and how they reckoned them the very worst of all mankind, appears many ways in the evangelists; and the very same is their character in their own writers.

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

Among those who were neither fit to judge, nor to give a testimony in judgment, are numbered the collectors of taxes, and the publicans.

Publicans are joined with cut-throats and robbers. "They swear to cut-throats, to robbers and to publicans [invading their goods], This is an offering, &c. He is known by his companion."

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

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

"When the king laid a tax, to be exacted of the Jews, of each according to his estate, these publicans, being deputed to proportion the thing, became respecters of persons, burdening some and indulging others, and so became plunderers."

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

Chapter 6

<scripCom type="Commentary" passage="Matthew 6" parsed="|Matt|6|0|0|0" osisRef="Bible:Matt.6" />

1. Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

[Take heed, that ye do not your alms, &c.] It is questioned, whether Matthew writ alms, or righteousness. I answer;

I. That our Saviour certainly said righteousness...I make no doubt at all; but that that word could not be otherwise understood by the common people than of alms, there is as little doubt to be made. For although the word righteousness, according to the idiom of the Old Testament, signifies nothing else than righteousness; yet now, when our Saviour spoke those words, it signified nothing so much as alms.

II. Christ used also the same word righteousness in the three verses next following, and Matthew used the word alms: but by what right, I beseech you, should he call it righteousness, in the first verse, and alms in the following,--when Christ every where used one and the same word? Matthew might not change in Greek, where our Saviour had not changed in Syriac.

Therefore we must say, that the Lord Jesus used the word righteousness in these four first verses: but that, speaking in the dialect of common people, he was understood by the common people to speak of alms.

Now they called alms by the name of righteousness, in that the Fathers of the Traditions taught, and the common people believed, that alms conferred very much to justification. Hear the Jewish chair in this matter:

"For one farthing, given to a poor man in alms, a man is made partaker of the beatifical vision." Where it renders these words [Psa 17:15] 'I shall behold thy face in righteousness,' after this manner; 'I shall behold thy face because of alms.'

One saith, "This money goes for alms, that my sons may live, and that I may obtain the world to come."

"A man's table now expiates by alms, as heretofore the altar did by sacrifice."

"If you afford alms out of your purse, God will keep you from all damage and harm."

"Monobazes the king bestowed his goods liberally upon the poor, and had these words spoke to him by his kinsmen and friends, 'Your ancestors increased both their own riches and those that were left them by their fathers; but you waste both your own and those of your ancestors.' To whom he answered, 'My fathers laid up their wealth on earth; I lay up mine in heaven; as it is written, Truth shall flourish out of the earth, but righteousness shall look down from heaven. My fathers laid up treasure that bears no fruit; but I lay up such as bear fruit; as it is said, It shall be well with the just, for they shall be at the fruit of their works. My fathers treasured up where power was in their hands; but I where it is not; as it is said, Justice and judgment is the habitation of his throne. My fathers heaped up for others; I for myself; as it is said, And this shall be to thee for righteousness. They scraped together for this world; I for the world to come; as it is said, Righteousness shall deliver from death.'" These things are also recited in the Babylonian Talmud.

You see plainly in what sense he understands righteousness, namely, in the sense of alms: and that sense not so much framed in his own imagination, as in that of the whole nation, and which the royal catechumen had imbibed from the Pharisees his teachers.

Behold the justifying and saving virtue of alms from the very work done, according to the doctrine of the Pharisaical chair. And hence the opinion of this efficacy of alms so far prevailed with the deceived people, that they pointed out alms by no other name (confined within one single word) than righteousness. Perhaps those words of our Saviour are spoken in derision of this doctrine; "Yea, give those things which ye have in alms, and behold all things shall be clean to you," Luke 11:41. With good reason, indeed, exhorting them to give alms, but yet withal striking at the covetousness of the Pharisees, and confuting their vain opinion of being clean by the washing of their hands, from their own opinion of the efficacy of alms. As if he had said, "Ye assert that alms justifies and saves; and therefore ye call it by the name of righteousness: why, therefore, do ye affect cleanness by the washing of hands, and not rather by the performance of charity?" See the praises of alms, somewhat too high for it, in the Talmud.

"R. Jannai saw one giving money openly to a poor man; to whom he said, It is better you had not given at all, than so to have given."

[Otherwise ye have no reward.] He therefore seems the rather to speak of a reward, because they expected a reward for their alms-doing without all doubt; and that, as we said, for the mere work done.

"R. Lazar was the almoner of the synagogue. One day going into his house, he said, 'What news?' They answered, 'Some came hither, and ate and drank, and made prayers for thee.' 'Then,' saith he, 'there is no good reward.' Another time going into his house, he said, 'What news?' It was answered, 'Some others came, and ate and drank, and railed upon you.' 'Now,' saith he, 'there will be a good reward.'"

2. Therefore when thou doest thinealms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

[Do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues, and in the streets.] It is a just scruple, whether this sounding a trumpet be to be understood according to the letter, or in a borrowed sense. I have not found, although I have sought for it much and seriously, even the least mention of a trumpet in almsgiving. I would most willingly be taught this from the more learned.

You may divide the ordinary alms of the Jews into three parts:

I. The alms'-dish. They gave alms to the public dish or basket: Tamchui (according to the definition of the author of Aruch, and that out of Bava Bathra in the place lately cited) was a certain vessel, in which bread and food was gathered for the poor of the world. You may not improperly call it the alms-basket; he calls it a dish. By the poor of the world are to be understood any beggars, begging from door to door; yea, even heathen beggars. Hence the Jerusalem Talmud in the place above quoted, The alms-dish was for every man. And the Aruch moreover, This alms was gathered daily by three men, and distributed by three. It was gathered of the townsmen by collectors within their doors; which appears by that caution; The collection of alms may not separate themselves one from another, unless that one may go by himself to the gate, and another to the shop. That is, as the Gloss explains it, they might not gather this alms separately and by themselves; that no suspicion might arise, that they privily converted what was given to their own use and benefit. This only was allowed them; when they went to the gate, one might betake himself to the gate, and another to a shop near it, to ask of the dwellers in both places: yet with this proviso, that withal both were within sight of one another. So that at each door it might be seen that this alms was received by the collectors. And here was no probability at all of a trumpet, when this alms was of the lowest degree, being to be bestowed upon vagabond strangers, and they very often heathen.

II. The poor's-chest. They gave alms also in the public poor's-box: which was to be distributed to the poor only of that city. The alms'-dish is for the poor of the world, but the alms'-chest for the poor only of that city. This was collected of the townsmen by two Parnasin, of whom before, to whom also a third was added, for the distributing it. The Babylonian Gemarists give a reason of the number, not unworthy to be marked: "A tradition of the Rabbins. The alms'-chest is gathered by two, and distributed by three. It is gathered by two, because they do not constitute a superior office in the synagogue less than of two, and it is distributed by three, as pecuniary judgments are transacted by three."

This alms was collected in the synagogue, on the sabbath (compare 1 Corinthians 16:2), and it was distributed to the poor on the sabbath-eve. Hence is that, "The alms'-chest is from the sabbath-eve to the sabbath-eve; the alms'-dish, every day."

Whether, therefore, the trumpet sounded in the synagogue when alms were done, it again remains obscure, since the Jewish canonists do not openly mention it, while yet they treat of these alms very largely. Indeed, every synagogue had its trumpet. For,

1. They sounded with the trumpet in every city in which was a judiciary bench, at the coming in of the new year. But this was not used but after the destruction of the Temple.

2. They sounded with the trumpet when any was excommunicated. Hence among the utensils of a judge is numbered a trumpet. For the instruments of judges, as appears there, were a rod, a whip, a trumpet, and a sandal. "A trumpet (saith the Gloss) for excommunication and anathematizing: and a sandal for the taking off of the shoe of the husband's brother." And in the same place mention is made of the excommunicating of Jesus, four hundred trumpets being brought for that business.

3. The trumpet sounded six times at the coming in of every sabbath: that from thence, by that sign given, all people should cease from servile works. Of this matter discourse is had in the Babylonian Talmud, in the tract of the Sabbath.

Thus, there was a trumpet in every synagogue; but whether it were used while alms were done, I still inquire. That comes into my mind, "The collectors of alms do not proclaim on a feast-day, as they proclaim on a common day: but collect it privately, and put it up in their bosom." But whether this proclamation did publish what was giving by every one, or did admonish of not giving any thing, but what might rightly be given; let the more learned judge by looking upon the place.

III. They gave alms also out of the field, and that was especially fourfold: 1. The corner of the field not reaped. 2. Sheaves left in the field, either by forgetfulness, or voluntarily. 3. The gleaning of the vintage; of which see Leviticus 19:9,10, Deuteronomy 24:19. And, 4. The poor's tenth; of which the Talmudists largely in the tracts, Peah, Demai, and Maaseroth. To the gathering of these, the poor were called, "By three manifestations in the day; namely, in the morning, and at noon, and at Minchah," or 'the evening.' That is, the owner of the field openly shewed himself three times in the day, for this end, that then the poor should come and gather: in the morning, for the sake of nurses; because, in the mean time, while their young children slept, they might the more freely go forth for this purpose: at noon, for the sake of children, who also at that time were prepared to gather: at Minchah, for the sake of old men. So the Jerusalem Gemarists, and the Glossers upon the Babylonian Talmud.

There were the ordinary alms of the Jewish people: in the doing which, seeing as yet I cannot find so much as the least sound of a trumpet in their writers, I guess that either our Saviour here spoke metaphorically; or, if there were any trumpet used, that it was used in peculiar and extraordinary alms.

The Jews did very highly approve of alms done secretly; hence the treasury of the silent was of famed memory in the Temple; whither "some very religious men brought their alms in silence and privacy, when the poor children of good men were maintained." And hence is that proverb, He that doth alms in secret is greater than our master Moses himself. And yet they laboured under such an itch to make their alms public, lest they should not be seen by men, that they did them not without a trumpet; or, which was as good as a trumpet, with a proud desire of making them known: that they might the more be pointed at with the finger, and that it might be said of them, 'These are the men.'

3. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

[Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth.] He seems to speak according to the custom used in some other things; for in some actions, which pertained to religion, they admitted not the left hand to meet with the right. "The cup of wine which was used to sanctify the coming in of the sabbath, was to be taken with the right hand, without the assistance of the left." "Let not man receive into a vessel the blood of the sacrifice, bring it to the altar, or sprinkle it with his left hand." And in the same tract, it is related of Shammai, that he would feed himself only with one hand.

5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

[They love to pray standing in the synagogues, and in the corner of the streets.] 1. They prayed standing, Luke 18:11,13, Mark 11:25. "It is written, 'And Abraham rose early in the morning at the place where he had stood before the Lord.' But to stand was nothing else than to pray: as it is said, And Phineas stood and judged."

"One entereth into the synagogue, and found them standing in prayer." "Let scholar of the wise men look downwards, when he stands praying." And to name no more, the same Maimonides asserts these things are required in prayer; that he that prayeth, stand; that he turn his face towards Jerusalem; that he cover his head; and that he fix his eyes downwards.

II. They loved to pray in the synagogues. "He goes to the synagogue to pray."

"Why do they recite their phylacteries in the synagogue, when they are not bound to do it? R. Josi saith, They do not recite them in the synagogue for that end, that so the whole office of the phylacteries may be performed, but to persevere in prayer. For this recitation was to be said over again, when they came home."

Rabbenu Asher hath these words: "When any returns home in the evening from the field, let him not say, 'I will go into my house'; but first let him betake himself to the synagogue: and if he can read, let him read something; if he can recite the traditions, let him recite them. And then let him say over the phylacteries, and pray."

But that we be not too tedious, even from this very opinion, they were wont to betake themselves to the synagogues, because they were persuaded that the prayers of the synagogue were certainly heard.

III. They prayed in the streets. So Maimonides; "They prayed in the streets on the feasts and public fasts." "What are the rites of the fasts? They brought out the ark into the streets of the city, and sprinkled ashes upon the ark, and upon the head of the president of the Sanhedrim, and the vice-president; and every one put ashes upon his own head. One of the elders makes this exhortation; 'It is not said, O brethren, of the Ninevites, that God saw their sackcloth, or their fastings; but, that he saw their works,' &c. They stand praying, and they set some fit elder before the ark, and he prays four-and-twenty prayers before them."

But doth our Saviour condemn all prayers in the synagogue? By no means. For he himself prayed in and with the synagogue. Nor did he barely reprove those public prayers in the streets, made by the whole multitude in those great solemnities, but prayers everywhere, both in the synagogues, and the streets, that were made privately, but yet publicly also, and in the sight of all, that thereby he that prayed might get some name and reputation from those that saw him.

I. While public prayers were uttered in the synagogue, it was customary also for those that hunted after vainglory, to mutter private prayers, and such as were different from those of the synagogue, whereby the eyes of all might be the more fixed upon him that prayed.

"Hath not a man prayed his morning prayers? When he goes into the synagogue, does he find them praying the additionary prayer? If he is sure he shall begin and end, so that he may answer 'Amen' after the angel of the church, let him say his prayers."

II. They prayed also by themselves in the streets. "R. Jochanan said, I saw R. Jannai standing and praying in the streets of Tsippor, and going four cubits, and then praying the additionary prayer."

Two things especially shew their hypocrisy here:

1. That so much provision is made concerning reciting the phylacteries, and the prayers added (that it might be done within the just time), that wheresoever a man had been, when the set time was come, he presently betakes himself to prayers: "A workman, or he that is upon the top of a tree, he that rides on an ass, must immediately come down, and say his prayers," &c. These are the very instances that the canonists give, which, with more of them, you may find in the tract Beracoth. Hence, therefore, those vainglorious hypocrites got an occasion of boasting themselves. For the hour of the phylacterical prayers being come, their care and endeavour was, to be taken in the streets: whereby the canonical hour compelling them to their prayers in that place, they might be the more seen by all persons, and that the ordinary people might admire and applaud both their zeal and religion. To which hypocritical pride they often added this also, that they used very long pauses, both before they began their prayers, and after they had done them: so that very usually, for three hours together, they were seen in a praying habit and posture. See the Babylonian Talmud. So that the Canonists played the madmen with some reason, when they allowed the space, from the rising of the morning to the third hour of the day, for the phylacterical prayers; because those three-hour praying men scarcely despatched them within less space, pausing one hour before they began prayer, and as much after they were ended.

2. They addicted themselves to ejaculations, prayers, and blessings, upon the sight almost of any thing meeting them either in the streets or in the way. "When one saw a place, wherein some miracle was done for Israel; a place, from whence idolatry was rooted out; or a place, where an idol now was, a short prayer was to be used. When any saw a blackamoor, a dwarf, a crooked, a maimed person, &c. they were to bless. Let him that sees a fair tree, or a beautiful face, bless thus, Blessed be He, who created the beauty of the creature," &c.

7. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

[ROSARY, a chaplet of roses or beads used as an aid to memory in the repeating of prayers, as the Paternosters and Ave Marias. There are various patterns in use; one is a rosary of fifty-five beads, fifty small ones for the Ave Marias, separated into groups of ten by five large ones to mark Paternosters. Hindus, Mohammedans, and Buddhists all employ the rosary. The name is also given to a series of prayers ("Rosary of the Blessed Virgin") consisting of fifteen decades, comprising fifteen paternosters and doxologies, and 150 Ave Marias, divided into three parts.--Universal Standard Encyclopedia

ROSARY. Part of the ritual of the Roman Catholic Church is the rosary, fifteen groups or series of prayers, each series consisting of a Paternoster (Lord's Prayer), ten Aves (salutes to the Virgin Mary), and a Gloria. The string of beads used in counting the prayers is also called a rosary. It is symbolic, for the large beads stand for Paternosters (Our Father's) and Glorias, and the small beads for Aves (Hail Mary's), while the crucifix on the pendant symbolized the Apostles' Creed. The groups of beads are "decades"; generally only five decades are said at one time. Instead of a large bead at the end and at the beginning of each decade, only one bead is used to represent the Gloria and the Paternoster. During the telling of the beads in each decade, the worshiper meditates on one of the fifteen mysteries of the life and death of Christ.

In the Greek Church, the monks, and not the lay members of the congregation, recite their prayers with the rosary, which is composed of a hundred beads of equal size. In the Russian Church, the rosary consists of 103 beads which are divided into groups by four larger ones, representing the Evangelists. Rosaries are also used by Buddhists and Mohammedans.--The Wonderland of Knowledge Encyclopedia, 1965]

[Use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do] See the civil battology [vain repetitions] of the heathen in their supplications: "Let the parricide be dragged: we beseech thee. Augustus, let the parricide be dragged. This is the thing we ask, let the parricide be dragged. Hear us, Caesar. Let the false accusers be condemned to the lion. Hear us, Caesar. Let the false accusers be condemned to the lion. Hear us, Caesar," &c.

"Antoninus the pious, the gods keep thee. Antoninus the merciful, the gods keep thee. Antoninus the merciful, the gods keep thee." See also Capitolinus, in the Maximini.

Those words savour of vain repetition in prayer, 1 Kings 18:26; "The priest of Baal called upon the name of Baal from morning to noon, saying, O Baal, hear us."

After the same manner almost as the heathen mixed vain repetitions, in their prayers, did the Jews in their using divers words importing the same thing: not repeating, indeed, the same thing in varied phrases; which appears sufficiently to him that reads their liturgies through, as well the more ancient as those of a later date. And certainly the sin is equally the same in using different words of the same thing, as in a vain repetition of the same words; if so be there were the same deceit and hypocrisy in both; in words only multiplied, but the heart absent.

And in this matter the Jew sinned little less than the heathen. For this was an axiom with them, Every one that multiplies prayer is heard. Christ, therefore, does not so much condemn the bare saying over again the same petitions, either in the same words, or in words of the same import (for he himself spake the same things thrice, when he prayed in the garden), as a false opinion, as if there were some power, or zeal, or piety, in such kind of repetitions; and that they would be sooner heard, and more prevail with God. While he strikes the heathen, he strikes the Jews also, who laboured under the same phrensy: but there is mention only of the heathen, partly because this savoured rather of heathen blindness than of the profession of true religion, which the Jews boasted of; partly, and especially, that he might not condemn the public prayers of the Jews without cause, in which they sinned not at all by using synonymous expressions, if it were done out of a pious and sincere heart.

9. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

[After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father, &c.] Some things, which seem more difficult about this divine form of prayer, will perhaps pass into a softer sense, if certain things, very usual in the Jewish church and nation, be observed, to which the apostles could not but have regard when they clearly acknowledged here the highest conformity with them. For that it was customary with our Saviour, for the most part, to conform himself to the church and nation, both in religious and civil matters, so they were lawful, most evidently appears also in this form of prayer. Let these things, therefore, be observed:

I. That the stated prayers of the Jews, daily to be said at that time when Christ prescribed this form to his disciples, were eighteen in number, or in a quantity equalling it. Of this number of their prayers, the Gemarists of both Talmuds treat at large. Whom consult.

Whether they were reduced to the precise number of eighteen, in the order that they afterward appeared in while Christ was upon earth, some scruple ariseth from some things which are said by the Babylonian Talmudists in the place alleged: but it might be plainly proved, if there were need, that little, or indeed nothing at all, wanted of the quantity and bulk of such a number. "The Rabbins have a tradition (say they), that Simeon Pekoli reduced into order the eighteen prayers according to their course, before Rabban Gamaliel in Jafne. Rabban Gamaliel said to the wise men, 'Is there any that knows to compose a prayer against the Sadducees?' Samuel the Little stood forth and constituted one," &c. That Rabban Gamaliel, which is here spoke of, was Paul's master. For, although Rabban Gamaliel (who was commonly styled 'Jafnensis,' of Jafne) was the nephew of Paul's master. Gamaliel, and this thing is mentioned to be done in Jafne; yet Paul's master also lived in Jafne: and that this was he of whom is the story before us, sufficiently appears hence, because his business is with Samuel the Little, who certainly died before the destruction of the city.

Under Gamaliel the elder, therefore, were those daily prayers reduced first into that order wherein they were received by the following ages. Which, however it was done after the death of our Saviour, in regard of their reducing into order, yet so many there were in daily use at that time when he conversed on earth. Now he condemned not those prayers altogether, nor esteemed them of no account; yea, on the contrary, he joined himself to the public liturgy in the synagogues, and in the Temple: and when he delivereth this form to his disciples, he extinguisheth not other forms.

II. When all could not readily repeat by heart those numerous prayers, they were reduced into a brief summary, in which the marrow of them all was comprised; and that provision was made for the memory, that they should have a short epitome of those prayers, whom the weakness of their memory, or sometime the unavoidable necessity of business, permitted not to repeat a longer prayer, or to be at leisure to do it. This summary they called a fountain. "Rabban Gamaliel saith, 'Let every one pray the eighteen prayers every day.' R. Joshua saith, Let him pray the summary of those eighteen. But R. Akibah saith, If prayer be free in his mouth, let him pray the eighteen; but if not, let him pray the summary of those eighteen." That our Saviour comprised the sum of all prayers in this form, is known to all Christians; and it is confessed that such is the perfection of this form, that it is the epitome of all things to be prayed for, as the Decalogue is the epitome of all things to be practised.

III. It was very usual with the doctors of the Jews,

1. To compose forms of short prayers, and to deliver them to their scholars (which is asserted also of John, Luke 11:1); whereof you will find some examples, and they not a few, in the Babylonian Gemara, in the tract Beracoth, and elsewhere. Not that by those forms they banished or destroyed the set and accustomed prayers of the nation; but they superadded their own to them, and suited them to proper and special occasions.

2. To the stated prayers, and others framed by themselves, it was very usual to add some short prayer over and above, which one may not amiss call 'the concluding prayer.' Take these examples of these prayers: "R. Eliezer, when he had finished his prayers, was wont to say thus, 'Let it be thy good pleasure, O Lord, that love and brotherhood dwell in our portion,' &c. R. Jochanan, when he had finished his prayers, was wont to say thus, 'Let it be thy good pleasure, O Lord, to take notice of our reproach, and to look upon our miseries,'" &c. In like manner,

1. Our Saviour, while he delivers this form to his disciples, does not weaken the set forms of the church; nor does he forbid his disciples not to use private prayers: but he delivers this most exact summary of all prayers, to be added, over and above, to our prayers; his most perfect to our most imperfect.

2. The apostles, sufficiently accustomed to the manners of the nation, could not judge otherwise of this form. In interpreting very many phrases and histories of the New Testament, it is not so much worth, what we think of them from notions of our own, feigned upon I know not what grounds, as in what sense these things were understood by the hearers and lookers on, according to the usual custom and vulgar dialect of the nation. Some inquire by what authority we do subjoin or superadd the Lord's Prayer to ours; and feign arguments to the contrary out of their own brain. But I ask, whether it was possible that the apostles and disciples, who from their very cradles had known and seen such forms instituted for common use, and added moreover to the set prayers and others, should judge otherwise of this form given by our Lord; which bore so great conformity with those, and with the most received rite and custom of the nation?

IV. That church held it for a just canon, and that indeed no discommendable one neither, He that prays ought always, when he prays, to join with the church. Which is not strictly to be understood only of his presence in the synagogue (that is elsewhere and otherwise commanded many times over), but wheresoever in the world he be placed, yea, when he is most alone, that he say his prayers in the plural number: for thus the Gloss explains it, Let none pray the short prayer (that is, one different from the set prayers) in the singular number, but in the plural. In which number our Saviour teacheth us also to pray in this form; and that upon very good reason, when, in whatsoever solitude or distance we are, yet we ought to acknowledge ourselves joined with the church, and to pray for her happiness as well as for our own.

[Our Father which art in heaven.] I. This epithet of God was very well known among the Jews, and very usual with them:

"Our Father which art in heaven, deal so with us as thou hast promised by the prophets." And in another place this is thrice recited; "Whom have we whereon to rely, besides our Father which is in heaven?" "Blessed are ye, O Israelites; who cleanseth you? Your Father, who is in heaven." "Ye gave not to your Father, who is in heaven, but to me the priest."

II. But in what sense did the Jews call God their Father in heaven, when they were altogether ignorant of the doctrine and mystery of adoption, besides that adoption whereby God had adopted them for a peculiar people? I answer, For that very cause they were taught by God himself so to call him, Exodus 4:22, Deuteronomy 32:6, &c. Nor was there any among them who not only might not do this, but also who ought not to do it. While the heathen said to his idol, 'Thou art my father,' Jeremiah 2:27, the Israelite was bound to say, Our Father which art in heaven, Isaiah 63:16, 64:8.

III. When Christ useth this manner of speech so very well known to the nation, does he not use it in a sense that was known to the nation also? Let them answer who would have the Lord's Prayer to be prayed and said by none but by those who are indeed believers, and who have partook of true adoption. In what sense was our Saviour, when he spake these words, understood of the hearers? They were thoroughly instructed, from their cradles, to call God the Father in heaven: they neither hear Christ changing the phrase, nor curtailing any thing from the latitude of the known and used sense. Therefore let them tell me, Did not Peter, John, and the rest of the apostles, think that it was as lawful for all Christians to say to God, Our Father which art in heaven, as it was lawful for all Jews? They called God Father, because he had called them into the profession of him, because he took care of them, and instructed them, &c. And what, I beseech you, hinders, but all Christians, obtaining the same privileges, may honour God with the same compellation? There is nothing in the words of Christ that hinders, and there is somewhat in the very phrase that permits it.

9,10. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

[Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.] This obtained for an axiom in the Jewish schools; That prayer, wherein there is not mention of the kingdom of God, is not a prayer. Where these words are also added: "Abai saith, Like to this is that of Rabh to be reckoned, that it is a tradition I have not transgressed thy precepts, nor have I forgotten them" (they are the words of him that offereth the first-fruits, Deuteronomy 26:13). "'I have not transgressed,' that is, by not giving thanks: 'And I have not forgotten them'; that is, I have not forgot to commemorate thy name, and thy kingdom."

[Thy will be done, as in heaven, &c.] "What is the short prayer? R. Eliezer saith, Do thy will in heaven, and give quietness of spirit to them that fear thee beneath," or in earth.

11. Give us this day our daily bread.

[Our daily bread.] That is, provide to-morrow's bread, and give it us to-day, that we be not solicitous for to-morrow...

"The necessities of thy people Israel are many, and their knowledge small, so that they know not how to disclose their necessities; let it be thy good pleasure to give to every man what sufficeth for food," &c.

13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

[Deliver us from evil.] "Rabbi [Judah] was wont thus to pray: 'Let it be thy good pleasure to deliver us from impudent men, and impudence; from an evil man, and from an evil chance; from an evil affection, from an evil companion, from an evil neighbour, from Satan the destroyer, from a hard judgment, and from a hard adversary,'" &c.

[For thine is the kingdom, &c.] I. In the public service in the Temple, the commemoration of the kingdom of God was the respond; instead of which the people answered Amen, when the priests ended their prayers. "For the tradition is, that they answered not 'Amen' in the house of the sanctuary. What said they then? Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever." Hence in the tract Joma (where the rubric of the day of Expiation is), after various prayers recited, which, on that day, the high priest makes, is added, "And the people answered, Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever." See the places of that tract noted in the margin. There a short prayer of the high priest is mentioned, in which he thus concludes; "Be ye clean before Jehovah"; and these words are added, "But the priests and people standing in the court, when they heard the name Jehovah pronounced out in its syllable, adoring, and falling prostrate upon their face, they said, Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever." See also the tract Taanith, where a reason is given of this doxology in the Gloss there.

II. This also they pronounced softly, and in a gentle whisper, while they were reciting the phylacteries. It is said of the men of Jericho, that they folded up the Schemah. It is disputed what this means; "And R. Judah saith, That they made some small pause after the reciting of this period, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord': but they said not, 'Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever.' But by what reason do we say so? R. Simeon Ben Levi explains the mystery, who saith, Our father Jacob called his sons, and said, 'Gather yourselves together, and I will declare unto you.' It was in his mind to reveal to them the end of days, and the Holy Spirit departed from him: he said, therefore, 'Perhaps there is something profane in my bed, (which God forbid!) as it was to Abraham, from whom proceeded Ishmael; and to Isaac, from whom proceeded Esau.' His sons said unto him, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord'; as, in thy heart, there is but one; so, in our hearts, there is but one. At that time our father Jacob began, and said, Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever. The Rabbins said, What shall we do? Shall we say this doxology? Our master Moses said it not. Shall we not say it? Our father Jacob said it. Therefore it was appointed to say it softly," &c.

You see how very public the use of this doxology was, and how very private too. Being a response, it was pronounced in the Temple by all with a loud voice; being an ejaculation, it was spoken in the phylacterical prayers, by every single man, in a very low voice. And you see how great an agreement it hath with the conclusion of the Lord's prayer, "For thine is the kingdom," &c.

III. As they answered Amen, not at all in the public prayers in the Temple, so they seldom joined it to the end of their private prayers. In the synagogue, indeed, the people answered Amen to the prayers made by the minister: and also at home, when the master of the family blessed or prayed; but seldom, or indeed never, any one praying privately joined this to the end of his prayers.

And now, to apply those things which have been said to the matter under our hands, consider the following things:

1. That this prayer was twice delivered by our Saviour: first, in this sermon in the mount, when he was not asked; and afterward, when he was asked, almost half a year after, Luke 11.

2. That this conclusion is added in St. Matthew, "For thine is the kingdom," &c.; but in St. Luke it is not. In St. Matthew is added moreover the word Amen; but in St. Luke it is wanting. Upon the whole matter, therefore, we infer,

I. That Christ, in exhibiting this form of prayer, followed a very usual rite and custom of the nation.

II. That the disciples also, receiving this form delivered to them, could not but receive it according to the manner and sense of the nation, used in such cases: since he introduced no exception at all from that general rule and custom.

III. That he scarcely could signify his mind, that this prayer should be universally and constantly used, by any marks or signs more clear than those which he made use of. For,

First, He commanded all, without any exception or distinction, "After this manner pray ye"; and, "When ye pray, say, Our Father," &c.

Secondly, As, according to the ordinary custom of the nation, forms of prayer, delivered by the masters to the scholars, were to be used, and were used by them all indifferently, and without distinction of persons; so also he neither suggested any thing concerning this his prayer, either besides the common custom, or contrary to it.

Thirdly, The form itself carries along with it certain characters, both of its public and private and constant use. It may certainly with good reason be asked, Why, since Christ had delivered this prayer in such plain words in his sermon upon the mount, this command moreover being added, "After this manner pray ye," it was desired again, that he would teach them to pray? What! had they forgotten that prayer that was given them there? Were they ignorant that it was given them for a form of prayer, and so to be used? But his seems rather the cause why they desired a second time a form of prayer, namely, because they might reckon that first for a public form of prayer; since this might easily be evinced, both by the addition of the conclusion so like the public response in the Temple, and especially by the addition of Amen used only in public assemblies: therefore, they beseech him again, that he would teach them to pray privately; and he repeats the same form, but omits the conclusion, and Amen, which savoured of public use. Therefore you have in the conclusion a sign of the public use, by the agreement of it to the response in the Temple; and of the private, by the agreement of it to the ejaculation in the phylacterical prayers. A sign of the public use was in the addition of Amen; a sign of the private use was in the absence of it: a sign of both in the conformity of the whole to the custom of the nation. Christ taught his disciples to pray, as John had taught his, Luke 11:1: John taught his, as the masters among the Jews had theirs, by yielding them a form to be used by all theirs daily, verbatim, and in terms.

16. Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

[They disfigure their faces.] That is, they disguised their faces with ashes; as he heretofore upon another cause, 1 Kings 20:38: "In the public fasts every one took ashes, and put upon his head. They say of R. Joshua Ben Ananiah, that, all the days of his life, his face was black by reason of is fastings. Why is his name called Ashur? (1 Chron 4:5). Because his face was black by fastings."

Here let that of Seneca come in; "This is against nature, to hate easy cleanliness, and to affect nastiness."

17. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;

[But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, &c.] For those that fasted neither anointed themselves nor washed. "On the day of Expiation it was forbidden to eat, to drink, to wash, to anoint themselves, to put on their sandals, to lie with their wives. But the king and the bride may wash their faces, and a midwife may put on her sandals." See the Babylonian Gemara here. See also the Babylonian Talmud in the tract Taanith, concerning other fasts, and the fasts of private men.

They were wont to anoint their bodies and heads upon a threefold reason:

I. For finer dress. "Anointing is permitted to be used on the sabbath, whether it be for ornament, or not for ornament. On the day of Expiation both are forbidden. On the ninth day of the month Ab, and in the public fasts, anointing for dress is forbid; anointing not for dress is allowed."

II. They anointed themselves often, not for excess, or bravery, or delight, but for the healing of some disease, or for the health of the body. He that is troubled with the head-ache, or on whom scabs arise, let him anoint himself with oil.

"A tradition of the Rabbins. It is forbidden [in fasts] to wash a part of the body, as well as the whole body. But if it be defiled with dirt or dung, let him wash according to the custom, and let him not be troubled. It is also forbidden to anoint a part of the body, as well as the whole body: but if a man be sick, or if a scab arise on his head, let him anoint himself according to the custom."

Hence, when the apostles are said "to anoint the sick with oil, and to heal them," Mark 6:13, they used an ordinary medicine, and obtained an extraordinary and infallible effect.

Hence that of St. James, chapter 5:14: "Let the sick man call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord": that is, to that ordinary medicine, namely, anointing for recovery of health, let the prayers of the ministers of the church be used.

III. They used sometimes a superstitious anointing of the head, and nothing differing from magical anointing: He that mutters, let him put oil upon his head, and mutter. this muttering is to be understood concerning the manner of saying a charm upon the wound, or some place of the body that feels pain; muttering over the wound; of which mention is made in the tract Sanhedrim. Mention also is made in the tract Schabbath now alleged, that some used this enchanting muttering in the name of Jesus: "One being sick, a certain person came to him, and muttered upon him in the name of Jesus of Pandira, and he was healed." And a little after; "R. Eliezer Ben Damah was bitten by a serpent. James of Capharsam came to heal him in the name of Jesus: but R. Ismael permitted him not," &c. See Acts 19:13.

If the words of James before alleged be compared with this cursed custom, they may well sound to this sense; 'It is customary for the unbelieving Jews to use anointing of the sick joined with a magical and enchanting muttering; but how infinitely better is it to join the pious prayers of the elders of the church to the anointing of the sick!'

20-24. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

[If thine eye be single. If thine eye be evil.] That the business here is about a covetous, or a not covetous mind, may be gathered,

I. From the context on either hand: for, verse 20, 21, the discourse is concerning treasures either earthly or heavenly, and, verse 24, concerning serving either God or Mammon.

II. From a very usual manner of speech of the nation. For a good eye, to the Jews, is the same with a bountiful mind; and an evil eye is the same with a covetous mind. "This is the measure of the Truma" (or, of the oblation yielded to the priests), A good eye yieldeth one out of forty; that is, the fortieth part. "The school of Shammai saith, One out of thirty. A middling eye, one out of fifty. And an evil eye, one out of sixty. He that gives a gift, let him give with a good eye: and he that dedicates any thing, let him dedicate it with a good eye." See Matthew 20:15. Hence covetousness is called the lust of the eyes, 1 John 2:16. Therefore our Saviour shows here with how great darkness the mind is clouded and dimmed by covetousness, and too much care of worldly things.

26. Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are you not much better than they?

[The fowls of the air, they sow not, &c.] "Have you ever seen beasts or fowls that had a workshop? And yet they are fed without trouble of mind," &c. See also Midras Tillin.

30. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

[O ye of little faith.] Small of faith, a phrase very frequent in the Talmudists. He that prayed with a loud voice, is to be numbered among those that are little of faith. The Israelites in the wilderness were of little faith. R. Abuhabh in the preface to Menorath hammaor; "R. Eliezer saith, 'Whosoever hath but a small morsel in his basket, and saith, What have I to eat to-morrow, behold, he is to be reckoned among those of little faith.'"

34. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

[Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof.] There is enough of trouble in the very moment.

Chapters 7,8,9

<scripCom type="Commentary" passage="Matthew 7, 8, 9" parsed="|Matt|7|0|0|0;|Matt|8|0|0|0;|Matt|9|0|0|0" osisRef="Bible:Matt.7 Bible:Matt.8 Bible:Matt.9" />

2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

[With what measure ye mete.] This is a very common proverb among the Jews: In the measure that a man measureth, others measure to him. See also the tract Sotah, where it is illustrated by various examples.

4. Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

[Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye, &c.] And this also was a known proverb among them: "It is written in the days when they judged the judges, that is, in the generation which judged their judges, When any [judge] said to another, Cast out the mote out of thine eye; he answered, Cast you out the beam out of your own eye," &c.

"R. Tarphon said, 'I wonder whether there be any in this age that will receive reproof: but if one saith to another, Cast out the mote out of thine eye, he will be ready to answer, Cast out the beam out of thine own eye.'" Where the Gloss writes thus; "Cast out the mote, that is, the small sin that is in thine hand; he may answer, But cast you out the great sin that is in yours. So that they could not reprove, because all were sinners."

9. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

[Will he give him a stone?] Here that of Seneca comes into my mind; "Verrucosus called a benefit roughly given from a hard man, panem lapidosum, 'stony bread.'"

12. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

[Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, &c.] A certain Gentile came to Shammai, and said, 'Make me a proselyte, that I may learn the whole law, standing upon one foot': Shammai beat him with the staff that was in his hand. He went to Hillel, and he made him a proselyte, and said, That which is odious to thyself, do it not to thy neighbour: for this is the whole law.

13. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

[Broad is the way.] In these words, concerning the broad and narrow way, our Saviour seems to allude to the rules of the Jews among their lawyers concerning the public and private ways. With whom, "a private way was four cubits in breadth; a public way was sixteen cubits." See the Gloss in Peah.

14. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

[Gate.] Under this phrase are very many things in religion expressed in the Holy Scripture, Genesis 28:17, Psalm 118:19,20, Matthew 16:18, &c.; and also in the Jewish writers. 'The gate of repentance' is mentioned by the Chaldee paraphrast upon Jeremiah 33:6; and 'the gate of prayers,' and 'the gate of tears.' "Since the Temple was laid waste, the gates of prayer were shut, but the gates of tears were not shut."

Strait gate, seems to be the Greek rendering of Pishpesh, a word very usual among the Talmudists: "With a key he opened the little door, and out of Beth-mokad" (the place of the fire-hearth) "he entereth into the court." Pishpesh, saith the Aruch, is a little door in the midst of a great door.

15. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

[In sheep's clothing.] Not so much in woolen garments as in the very skins of sheep: so that outwardly they might seem sheep, but "inwardly they were ravening wolves." Of the ravenousness of wolves among the Jews, take these two examples besides others. "The elders proclaimed a fast in their cities upon this occasion, because the wolves had devoured two little children beyond Jordan. More than three hundred sheep of the sons of Judah Ben Shamoe were torn by wolves."

16. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

[By their fruits ye shall know them.] That is a proverb not unlike it. A gourd, a gourd, is known by its branch.

29. For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

[As one having authority, and not as the scribes.] It is said with good reason, in the verse going before, that "the multitude were astonished at Christ's doctrine": for, besides his divine truth, depth, and convincing power, they had not before heard any discoursing with that authority, that he did. The scribes borrowed credit to their doctrine from traditions, and the fathers of them: and no sermon of any scribe had any authority or value, without The Rabbins have a tradition, or The wise men say; or some traditional oracle of that nature. Hillel the Great taught truly, and as the tradition was concerning a certain thing; "But, although he discoursed of that matter all day long, they received not his doctrine, until he said at last, So I heard from Shemaia and Abtalion."

Chapter 8

2. And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

[Thou canst make me clean.] The doctrine in the law concerning leprosy paints out very well the doctrine of sin.

I. It teacheth, that no creature is so unclean by a touch as man. Yea, it may with good reason be asked, whether any creature, while it lived, was unclean to the touch, beside man? That is often repeated in the Talmudists, that "he that takes a worm in his hand, all the waters of Jordan cannot wash him from his uncleanness"; that is, while the worm is as yet in his hand; or the worm being cast away, not until the time appointed for such purification be expired. But whether it is to be understood of a living or dead worm, it is doubted, not without cause, since the law, treating of this matter, speaketh only of those things that died of themselves. See Leviticus 11:31: "Whosoever shall touch them when they be dead," &c.: and verse 32, "Upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, shall fall," &c. But whether he speaks of a living worm, or a dead, uncleanness followed by the touch of it for that day only: for "he shall be unclean (saith the law) until the evening": but the carcase of a man being touched, a week's uncleanness followed. See Numbers 19.

II. Among all the uncleannesses of men, leprosy was the greatest, inasmuch as other uncleannesses separated the unclean person, or rendered him unclean, for a day, or a week, or a month; but the leprosy, perhaps, for ever.

III. When the leper was purified, the leprosy was not healed: but the poison of the disease being evaporated, and the danger of the contagion gone, the leper was restored to the public congregation. Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, was adjudged to perpetual leprosy; and yet he was cleansed, and conversed with the king (2 Kings 8:5); cleanse, not healed. Thus under justification and sanctification there remain still the seeds and filth of sin.

IV. He that was full of the leprosy was pronounced clean; he that was otherwise, was not. Leviticus 13:12; "If the leprosy shall cover the whole body from head to foot, thou shalt pronounce him clean," &c. A law certainly to be wondered at! Is he not clean, till the whole body be infected and covered with the leprosy? Nor shalt thou, O sinner, be made clean without the like condition. Either acknowledge thyself all over leprous, or thou shalt not be cleansed.

3. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

[Jesus touched him.] It was indeed a wonder, that when the leprosy was a creeping infection, the priest, when he judged of it, was not hurt with the infection. It cannot be passed over without observation, that Aaron, being bound under the same guilt with Miriam, bore not the same punishment: for she was touched with leprosy, he not, Numbers 12. And also that Uzziah should be confuted concerning his encroaching upon the priesthood no other way than by the plague of leprosy. In him God would magnify the priesthood, that was to judge of the leprosy; and he would shew the other was no priest, by his being touched with the leprosy. It can scarcely be denied, indeed, that the priests sometimes might be touched with that plague; but certainly they catched not the contagion while they were doing their office in judging of it. This is a noble doctrine of our High Priest, the Judge and Physician of our leprosy, while he remains wholly untouched by it. How much does he surpass that miracle of the Levitical priesthood! They were not touched by the contagion when they touched the leprous person; he, by his touch, heals him that hath the infection.

4. And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

[Go, shew thyself to the priest, &c.] I. Our Saviour would not have the extraordinary manner whereby he was healed discovered to the priest, that he might pay the ordinary duty of his cleansing. And surely it deserves no slight consideration, that he sends him to the priest. However now the priesthood was too degenerate both from its institution and its office, yet he would reserve to it its privileges, while he would reserve the priesthood itself. Corruption, indeed, defiles a divine institution, but extinguishes it not.

II. Those things which at that time were to be done in cleansing of the leprosy, according to the Rubric, were these: "Let him bring three beasts: that is, a sacrifice for sin, a sacrifice for transgression, and a burnt-offering. But a poor man brought a sacrifice for sin of birds, and a burnt-offering of birds. He stands by the sacrifice for transgression, and lays both his hands upon it, and slays it: and two priests receive the blood; the one in a vessel, the other in his hand. He who receives the blood in his hand goes to the leper in the chamber of the lepers": this was in the corner of the Court of the Women, looking north-west. "He placeth him in the gate of Nicanor," the east gate of the Court of Israel; "he stretcheth forth his head within the court, and puts blood upon the lowest part of his ear: he stretcheth out his hand also within the court, and he puts blood upon his thumb and his foot, and he puts blood also upon his great toe, &c. And the other adds oil to the same members in the same place," &c. The reason why, with his neck held out, he so thrust forth his head and ears into the court, you may learn from the Glosser: "The gate of Nicanor (saith he) was between the Court of the Women and the Court of Israel: but now it was not lawful for any to enter into the Court of Israel for whom there was not a perfect expiation: and, on the contrary, it was not lawful to carry the blood of the sacrifice for transgression out of the court." Hence was that invention, that the leper that was to be cleansed should stand without the court; and yet his ears, his thumbs, and his toes, to which the blood was to be applied, were within the court. We omit saying more; it is enough to have produced these things, whence it may be observed what things they were that our Saviour sent back this healed person to do.

The cure was done in Galilee, and thence he is sent away to Jerusalem; silence and sacrifice are enjoined him: See thou tell no man, &c.: and offer the gift, &c. And why all these things?

First, Christ makes trial of the obedience and gratitude of him that was cured, laying upon him the charge of a sacrifice and the labour of a journey.

Secondly, He would have him restored to the communion of the church (from which his leprosy had separated him), after the wonted and instituted manner. He provides that he himself give no scandal, and the person healed make no schism: and however both his words and gestures sufficiently argue that he believed in Christ, yet Christ will by no means draw him from the communion of the church, but restore him to it. Hence is that command of his to him; "See thou tell no man, but offer a gift for a testimony to them": that is, 'Do not boast the extraordinary manner of thy healing; think not thyself freed from the bond of the law, in case of a leper, because of it; thrust not thyself into the communion of the church before the rites of admission be duly performed: but, however you have no business with the priest in reference to the purification and cleansing, go to the priest nevertheless, and offer the gift that is due, for a testimony that you are again restored into communion with them.' This caution of our Saviour hath the same tendency with that, Matthew 17:27, "That we be not an offence to them," &c.

6. And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

[Lieth] Laid forth. Thus, A dead man laid forth, in order to his being carried out. The power and dominion of the disease is so expressed. The weak person lieth so, that he is moved only by others; he cannot move himself, but is, as it were, next door to carrying out. So, verse 14, of Peter's mother-in-law, was laid, and sick of a fever.

16. When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:

[When the even was come.] Mark adds, when the sun was now set, and the sabbath was now gone.

I. The sabbath was ended by the Jews at the supper, or the feast. In which they used a candle (as they did upon the entrance of the sabbath), and wine, and spices; and the form of a blessing over a cup of wine, and then over the candle, and then over the spices: "Does the sabbath end when he is now in the middle of his feast? He puts an end to his eating; washes his hands; and over a cup of wine he gives thanks for his food; and afterward over that cup he useth the form of prayer in the separation of the sabbath from a common day: if he be now drinking when the sabbath goes out, he ceaseth from drinking, and recites the form of separation, and then returns to his drinking."

II. The proper limits of the sabbath were from sun-set to sun-set. This is sufficiently intimated by St. Mark, when he saith, that when the sun was now set, they brought the sick to be healed: which they held unlawful to do while the sun was yet going down, and the sabbath yet present.

The Talmudic canons give a caution of some works, that they be not begun on the day before the sabbath, if they may not be ended and finished, while it is yet day: that is (as they explain it), while the sun is not yet set. He that lights a [sabbath] candle, let him light it while it is yet day, before sun-set. "On the sabbath-eve it is permitted to work until sun-set." The entrance of the sabbath was at sun-set, and so was the end of it.

III. After the setting of sun, a certain space was called Bin Hashmashuth: concerning which these things are disputed; "What is Bin Hashmashuth? R. Tanchuma saith, It is like a drop of blood put upon the very edge of a sword, which divides itself every where. What is Bin Hashmashuth? It is from that time when the sun sets, whilst one may walk half a mile. R. Josi saith, Bin Hashmashuth is like a wink of the eye," &c. Bin Hashmashuth properly signifies, between the suns: and the manner of speech seems to be drawn thence, that there are said to be two sun-sets. Concerning which, read the Glosser upon Maimonides. Where thus also Maimonides himself: "From the time that the sun sets till the three middle stars appear, it is called between the suns: and it is a doubt whether that time be part of the day or of the night. However, they every where judge of it to render the office heavy. Therefore, between that time they do not light the sabbatical candle: and whosoever shall do any servile work on the sabbath-eve, and in the going out of the sabbath, is bound to offer a sacrifice for sin." So also the Jerusalem Talmudists in the place last cited: "Does one star appear? Certainly, as yet it is day. Do two? It is doubted whether it be day. Do three? It is night without doubt." And a line after; "On the sabbath-eve, if any work after one star seen, he is clear: if after two, he is bound to a sacrifice for a transgression; if after three, he is bound to a sacrifice for sin. Likewise, in the going out of the sabbath, if he do any work after one star is seen, he is bound to a sacrifice for sin; if after two, to a sacrifice for transgression: if after three, he is clear."

Hence you may see at what time they brought persons here to Christ to be healed, namely, in the going out of the sabbath; if so be they took care of the canonical hour of the nation, which is not to be doubted of.

17. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

[Himself took our infirmities.] Divers names of the Messias are produced by the Talmudists, among others "The Rabbins say, His name is, 'The leper of the house of Rabbi': as it is said, Certainly he bare our infirmities," &c. And a little after, "Rabh saith, If Messias be among the living, Rabbenu Haccodesh is he." The Gloss is, "If Messias be of them that are now alive, certainly our holy Ra