after these patriarchs were dead, the relation denoted by the word God still subsisted between them; for which reason, they were not annihilated, as the Sadducees pre· tended, when they affirmed that they were dead, but were still in being, God's subjects, and covenanted people.

Perceiving that the Sadducees were thus silenced, one of the scribes inquired of Christ, [Mat. xxii. 36..40.] saying, Master, which is the great commardment in the law? Jesus said unto him, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind: this is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Mark informs us that the scribe declared his full approbation to this answer. [Mark xii. 32..34.] And the scribe said unto him, well, Master, thou hast said the truth; for there is one God, and there is none other but he. And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

The Pharisees having, in the course of our Lord's ministry, proposed many difficult questions to him with a view to try his prophetical gifts, he, in his turn, now that a body of them was gathered together, thought fit to make trial of their skill in the sacred writings. For this purpose, he publicly asked their opinion of a difficulty concerning Messiah's pedigree, arising from the hundred and tenth Psalm. [Mat. xxii. 41.] While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, what think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, the son of David. [Mark'xii. 35.] And Jesus answered and said while he taught in the temple, how say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? The words in Mark being a reply to the Pharisees' answer recorded by Matthew, their meaning is, I know your doctors tell you that Christ is the Son of David; but how can they support their opinion, and render it consistent with David's words in the hundred and tenth Psalm? [Mark xii. 36.] For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, the Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. [Mat. xxii. 45.] If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? The doctors, it seems, did not look for any thing in their Messiah more excellent than the most exalted perfections of human nature; for though they called him the Son of God, they had no notion that he was God, and so could offer no solution of the difficulty. Yet the latter question might have shewed them their error: for if Messiah was to be only a secular prince, as they supposed, ruling the men of his own time, he never could have been called Lord by persons who died before he was born; far less would so mighty a king as David, who also was his progenitor, have called him Lord. Wherefore, since he rules over, not the yulgar dead only of former ages, but even over the kings, from whom he was himself descended; and his kingdom comprehends the men of all countries and times, past, present, and to come; the doctors, if they had thought accurately upon the subject, should have expected in their Messiah a king different from all other kings whatever. Besides, he is to sit at God's right hand, till his enemies are made the footstool of his feet," made thoroughly subject unto him. Numbers of Christ's enemies are subjected to him in this life; and they who will not how to him willingly, shall, like the rebellious subjects of other kingdoms, be reduced by punishment. Being constituted universal judge, all, whether friends or enemies, shall appear before his tribunal, where, by the highest exercise of kingly power, he shall doom each to his unchangeable state.

The disputations and conversations which Jesus had with the literati afforded great entertainment to all the common people who happened to be present in the temple. [Mark xii. 37.] And the common people heard him gladly: they heard him with great attention and pleasure. For the clear and solid answers which he returned to the ensnaring questions of his foes gave them an high opinion of his wisdom, and shewed them how far he was superior to their most renowned Rabbies, whose arguments to prove their opinions, and answers to the objections that were raised against them, were, generally speaking, but mean and trifling in comparison of his. [Mat. xxii. 46. And no man was able to answer him a word: none of them could propose the least shadow of a solution to the difficulty which he had proposed; neither durst any man, from that day forth, ask him any more questions. The repeated proofs which they had received of the prodigious depth of his understanding, impressed them with such an opinion of his wisdom, that they judged it impossible to entangle him in his talk: for which reason they left off attempting it and from that day forth troubled him no more with their insidious questions.

Thus did our Lord silence his most virulent opposers; and following up his blow, solemnly admonished the people to beware of the scribes and Pharisees, to practise indeed whatever duty they proved from the law, but by no means to take their coNduct as an example for imitation. He charged these hypocrites, especially, with doing every thing to be seen of men; and, for this purpose, making broad their phylacteries, (certain slips of parchment containing portions of the law, which they wore upon their foreheads and their arms,) and enlarging the borders of their garments, (or, as Michaelis renders it, the tassels which hung at the four corners of their mantle) in pretended conformity to Deut. xxii. 12, with loving the uppermost rooms at feasts, the chief seats in the synagogue, and the high sounding titles of Rabbi and master. Concerning these titles, which the disciples of Jesus were exhorted to avoid, Dr. Campbell makes the following pertinent observations.

" I propose now to make a few observations on the word teacher, and some other titles of respect current in Judea in the days of our Saviour. After the Babylonish captivity, when Jerusalem and the temple were rebuilt, and the people restored to their antient possessions, care was taken, under the conduct of Ezra, and those who succeeded him in the administration of affairs, to prevent their relapsing into idolatry, which had brought such accumulated calamities on their country. It was justly considered as one of the first expedients for answering this end, as we learn partly from scripture, and partly from Jewish writers, to promote amongst all ranks the knowledge of God and of his law, and to excite the whole people throughout the land to join regularly in the public worship of the only true God. For their accommodation, synagogues came, in process of time, to be erected in every city and village, where a sufficient number of people could be found to make a congregation. Every synagogue had its stated governors and president, that the service might be decently conducted, and that the people might be instructed in the sacred writings both of the law and the prophets. The synagogues were fitted for answering among them the like purposes with parish churches amongst us Christians: but this was not all. That the synagogues might be provided with knowing pastors and wise rulers, it was necessary that there should also be public seminaries or schools, wherein those who were destined to teach others were to be taught themselves. And so great was their veneration for these schools or colleges, that they accounted them more sacred than even synagogues, and next, in this respect, to the temple. They maintained, that a synagogue might lawfully be converted into a school, but not a school into a sinagogue.

The former was ascending, the latter descending. Both were devoted to

the service of God; but the synagogue, say they, is for the spiritual nourishment of the sheep, the school, for that of the shepherds.

"Now their schools were properly what we should call divinity colleges; for in them they were instructed in the sacred language, the antient Hebrew not being then the language of the country; in the law, and the traditions; the writings of the prophets; the holy ceremonies; the statutes, customs, and procedure of their judicatories in a word, in whatever concerned the civil constitution and religion of their country. I make this distinction of civil and religious more in conformity to modern and Christian notions, than in reference to antient and Jewish. In that polity these were so interwoven, or rather blended, as to be inseparable. Their law was their religion, and their religion was their law; insomuch that with them there was a perfect coincidence in the professions of lawyer and divine. But as to their mode of education, that they had some kind of schools long before the time a bove-mentioned, even from the beginning of their establishment under Joshua in the land of Canaan, or, at least, from the time of Samuel, can hardly be made a question. A certain progress in letters had been made very early by this people, and regularly transmitted from one generation to another. But this seems evidently to have been without such fixed seminaries as were erected and endowed afterwards; else it is impossible there should be so little notice of them in so long a tract of time, of which, as far as religion is concerned, we have a history pretty particular. All that appears before the captivity on this subject is, that numbers of young men were wont, for the sake of instruction, to attend the most eminent prophets, and were therefore called the sons, that is, the disciples of the prophets; and that, in this manner, were constituted a sort of ambulatory schools for communicating the knowledge of letters and of the law. In these were, probably, taught the elements of the Hebrew music and versification. We are informed, also, that Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, sent priests, Levites, and others, to teach in all the cities of Judah. But this appears to have been merely a temporary measure, adapted, by that pious monarch, for the instruction of the people in his own time, and not an establishment which secured a succession and continuance. Now this is quite different from the erection that obtained afterwards, in their cities, of a sort of permanent academies, for the education of the youth destined for the upper stations in society.

"Those who belonged to the school were divided into three classes or orders. The lowest was that of the disciples, or learners; the second, that of the fellows, or companions, those who, having made considerable progress in learning, were occasionally employed, by the masters, in teaching the younger students. The highest was that of the preceptors, or teachers, to whom they appropriated the respectful title of doctor, or rabbi, which differs from rab only by the addition of the aflix pronoun of the first person. All belonging to the school were accounted honourable in a certain degree. Even the lowest, the name disciple, was considered as redounding to the honour of those youths who were selected from the multitude, had the advantage of a learned education, and, by their diligence and progress, gave hopes that they would one day fill with credit the most important stations. The title companion, fellow, or associate, was considered as very honourable to the young graduate who obtained it, being a public testimony of the proficiency he made in his studies. And the title rabbi was their highest academical honour.

"Hence we may discover the reason why our Lord, when warning his disciples against imitating the ostentation and presumption of the scribes and Pharisees, in affecting to be denominated rabbi, father, guide, or conductor, does not once mention kyrios, sir, though of all titles of respect the most common. It is manifest, that his view

was not to prohibit them from giving or receiving the common marks of civility, but to clicck them from arrogating what might seem to imply a superiority in wisdom and understanding over others, and a title to dictate to their fellows a species of arrogance which appeared but too plainly in the scribes and learired men of those days. As to the title kyrios, he knew well that, from their worldly situation and circumstances, (which, in this matter, were the only rule) they could expect it from none but those in the lowest ranks, who would as readily give it to an artisan or a peasant, and that therefore there could be no danger or vanity from this quarter. But the case was different with titles, expressive, not of fleeting relations. but of these important qualifications which denote a fitness for being the lights and conductors of the human race. The title of father, in the spiritual or metaphorical sense, the most respectful of all, he prohibits his disciples from either assuming or giving, chusing that it should be appropriated to God; and, at the same time, claims the title of guide and spiritual instructor to himself."

The above discourse against the scribes and Pharisees was pronounced in the hearing of many of the order. They were, therefore, greatly incensed, and watched for an opportunity to destroy Jesus: but it was not a time for him now to be afraid of them. This being the last sermon he was ever to preach in public, it was necessary to use violent remedies, especially as gentle medicines had hitherto proved ineffectual. Wherefore, with a kind severity, he threatened them in the most awful and solemn manner, denouncing dreadful woes against them, not on account of the personal injuries they had done to him, although they were many, but on account of their excessive wickedness. They were public teachers of religion, who abused every mark and character of goodness to all the purposes of villany, than which a more atrocious sin in the sight of God cannot be perpetrated. Under the grimace of a severe sanctified air, they were malicious, implacable, lewd, covetous, and rapacious. In a word, instead of being reformers, they were corrupters of mankind; so that their wickedness being of the very worst sort, it deserved the sharpest rebuke that could be given. The woes are denounced against the scribes for the following reasons: 1. Because they shut up the kingdom of heaven from men, by taking away" the key of knowledge," as it is called in the parallel passage, [Luke xi. 52.] or the right interpretation of the antient prophecies concerning Messiah, by their example and authority; for they both rejected Jesus themselves, and excommunicated those who did not in short, by doing all they could to hinder the people from repenting of their sins and believing the gospel. 2. Because they committed the grossest iniquities, being covetous and rapacious; under a cloak of religion, they devoured widows' houses; and, at the same time, made long prayers in order to hide their villany. This, says Calvin, was as if pretending to kiss the feet of God, one should rise up and audaciously spit in he face. 3. Because they expressed the greatest zeal imaginable in making proselytes. compassing sea and land, that is, making long journeys and voyages, and leaving art unpractised for that end; while, at the same time, their intention in all this was not that the Gentiles might become better men through the knowledge of true religion, but more friendly to them, yielding them the direction of their purses as well as of their consciences. Accordingly, in the heathen countries, these worldlings accommodated religion to the humours of men, placing it, not in the eternal and immutable rules of righteousness, but in ceremonial observances; the effect of which was either that their proselytes became more superstitious, more immosal, and more presumptuous, than their teachers; or that, taking them for impostors, they relapsed again into their old state of heathenism; and, in both cases, became two-fold more the children of hell than even the Pharisees themselves, that is, inore openly and unlimitedly

wicked than they. 4. For their false doctrine. He mentioned particularly their doctrine concerning oaths, and declared, in opposition to their execrable tenets, that every oath is obligatory, the matter of which is lawful; because when men swear by the creature, if their oath has any meaning, it is an appeal to the Creator himself. In any other light, an oath by the creature is absolutely ridiculous, because the creature neither has knowledge with respect to the matter of the oath, nor power to punish the perjury. 5. For their superstition. They observed the ceremonial precepts of the law with all possible axactness, while they utterly neglected the eternal, immutable, indispensable, rules of righteousness. 6. For their hypocrisy. They were at great pains to appear virtuous, and to have a decent external conduct, while they neglected to beautify their inward man with goodress, which, in the sight of God, is an ornament of great price, and which renders men dear and valuable to all who know them. 7. For the success of their hypocrisy. By their care of external appearances, the Pharisees and scribes made a fair shew, and deceived the simple. Like fine whited scpulchres, they looked very beautiful without, but within were full of all uncleanness, and defiled every one that touched them. They were publicly decent, but privately dissolute; and under the appearance of religion, were, in reality, the worst of men. 8. Because, by the pains they took in adorning the sepulchres of the prophets, they pretended a great veneration for their memory; and, as often as they happened to be mentioned, condemned their fathers who had killed them, declaring that if they had lived in the days of their fathers, they would have opposed their wickedness; while, in the mean time, they still cherished the spirit of their fathers, persecuting the messengers of God, particularly his only Son, on whose destruction they were resolutely bent. Therefore they were threatened, that upon them should come all the temporal judgrents which were due in return for the righteous blood which had been shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, the son of Barachias, whom they slew between the temple and the altar. This passage is attended with difficulties, which a learned writer thus discusses and endeavours to remove.

66

Now it appears from 2 Chron. xxiv, 20..22, that Zacharias who was slain between the temple and the altar was the son, not of Barachias, but of Jehoiada; consequently if the account in the Chronicles be accurate, the reading Barachias at Mat. xxiii. 35. cannot be the true reading. Some commentators have had recourse to the supposition, that Jehoiada and Barachias were different names of the same person; but this assertion is wholly incapable of proof, and is in itself highly improbable. Wetstein conjectures that St. Matthew purposely avoided the use of the word Jehoiada, because it contained in it the abbreviated name of Jehovah, and therefore substituted Barachia. But this caution was confined only to the number fifteen, which, it is true, the Jews never noted by Jod He, though Jod is ten, and He is five. And even if this reverence extended to proper names, Wetstein's solution would be unsatisfactory; for, in the Hebrew, these two letters occur together in Barachia as well as in Jehoiada. That Zacharias, the cleventh of the minor prophets, who was the son of Barachias, was murdered, we read no where; and it is not probable that two different persons named Zacharias should both of them have been murdered under the very same circumstances. But if we admit that the cleventh of the minor prophets fell a sacrifice to the Jews as well as the son of Jehoiada, yet Christ would rather have instanced the son of Jehoiada, because the murder of this person was not only particularly known, but was supposed to call aloud for vengeance. The blood, therefore, of this Zacharias was more properly mentioned with the blood of Abel, than the blood of another Zacharias, whose murder, even if he did fall a victim, was unknown. Now at this passage Jerom relates that the Hebrew gospel of the Nazarenes read Zacharia