dered supper. They are both mentioned, Luke xiv. 12. "When thou makest a dinner, or a supper." Their ariston, however, corresponded as nearly to what we call breakfast, as to what we call dinner. The word literally signifies, "the first meat." Josephus says* that the legal hour of the ariston, on the Sabbath, was the sixth hour; that is, twelve o'clock at noon, according to our way of reckoning: and, though he does not mention the usual hour on other days, it was probably much the same. Speaking of his brethren,† Joseph said, in Egypt: "These men shall dine," or eat "with me at noon." Their deipnon, which is rendered supper," was their chief meal. But, though the hour of it, no doubt, varied, it was by no means so late as our word supper might suggest, being eaten early in the evening, or after the heat of the day.

66

While our Lord was speaking, the Pharisee besought him to dine with him, it being the usual hour of dinner. Whatever may have been the motive which led the Pharisee to give the invitation, whether it proceeded from true hospitality and a real regard for Christ, or (as appears more probable when we consider the way in which our Lord conducted himself), from a desire to watch and ensnare him, our Lord accepted the invitation; probably, both that he might get that bodily refreshment of which he, at the time, stood in need, and that he might have an opportunity of being useful: and it was the Pharisee's own fault, if the visit, with which he was honoured, did not issue in his spiritual benefit. Jesus "went in," and immediately "sat down to meat," without washing his hands, according to the custom of the Pharisees-for which, no doubt, every convenience was provided.

"And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner." He wondered inwardly, if he did not express his wonder in words, that a ceremony, which he considered so essential, was neglected by one who bore so high a reputation for religion. Due attention to cleanliness in every respect is very agreeable and commendable, and ought by no means to be neglected. But the Pharisees carried the custom of washing much farther than was necessary for the purpose of cleanliness, looking on it as a religious ceremony, and practising it with superstitious frequency. The most particular account of their practice in this respect, in Scripture, is thus given in the beginning of * Life, sect. 54. Gen. xliii. 16.

the 7th chapter of Mark: "Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with unwashen) hands," without washing their hands immediately before," they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft," or, as some think the meaning is, with the fist, or up to the wrist, and with great care, 66 eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables," or couches, even though they be perfectly clean. "Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread" (take their food)" with unwashen hands?" Ablution was, indeed, prescribed by the law of Moses, for doing away ceremonial uncleanness in certain cases; but that law contained no such injunctions as those here referred to. The Pharisees, therefore, and other Jews who followed them, rested the custom on the authority, not of the written law of Moses, but of the tradition of the elders. It was pretended that, at the same time when the written law was given by Moses, many other things additional and explanatory were revealed to him, which he did not commit to writing, but delivered orally to the elders, who handed them down, in the same way, from one generation to another. It was not till long after the time of Christ, that these traditions were committed to writing. At last, however, in order to prevent them from being lost in the dispersion of the nation, they were collected in what is called the Talmud. There are two works that bear this name-the Talmud of Jerusalem, and the Talmud of Babylon. Each consists of two parts-the one called the Mishna, which is the text; and the other the Gemara, which is the commentary on the text. The Jewish rabbies made the Talmud more a study than the sacred books; and dared to pronounce it of equal, nay, of superior authority. "The words of the scribes," said they, are lovely above the words of the law, and more weighty than the words of the law, or the prophets."* A similar misplaced regard was given to the unwritten traditions, in the days of our Lord. He accused them, as we read in * Lightfoot and Whitby. The Talmud was printed at Amsterdam in twelve volumes folio.

66

the 15th chapter of Matthew and the 7th chapter of Mark, of "transgressing the commandment of God," and "making it of none effect" by their traditions-of " rejecting the commandment of God, that they might keep their own traditions." And he gives a striking example of this, in that, while the law of God required. children to reverence and assist their parents, and denounced the punishment of death on every child that should curse his father or mother, the absurd and wicked principle of the Jewish tradition relating to the positive obligation of all vows, secured the culprit in this way from punishment, and relieved him from all obligation to assist his destitute parents, if he had bound up his substance by a vow.

With regard to the traditionary custom of the needless, ceremonial washing before meat, the Pharisees considered it as a necessary and very efficacious rite, the neglect of which was most criminal. The Talmud declares that to eat bread with unwashen hands, is as bad as to break the seventh commandment. There is an account of one rabbi being excommunicated by the Sanhedrim, because he contemned this custom: and of another rabbi, who, "being in prison, and not having water enough both to drink and to wash his hands, chose to do the latter, saying, It is better to die with thirst, than transgress the tradition of the elders." In fact, too many of the Jews placed the observance of this and some other ceremonies, which were either entirely of human invention, or perverted from the purpose for which they were divinely appointed, in the room of pardon through the Messiah, regeneration by the Spirit, and true holiness of heart and life, and thought that nothing more than these ceremonies was necessary to salvation. It is said that they were taught, and believed, as follows:-"Whosoever hath his seat in the land of Israel, and eateth his common food in cleanness, and recites his phylacteries morning and evening, let him be confident that he shall obtain the life of the world to come." ."* You see, then, the hurtful effects of such a ceremony as this, when put in the place of true religion, and when enforced as binding on the conscience, though of mere human invention. Had this been a harmless custom, and left to be observed or not, as men pleased, our Lord might not have seen it proper to be in any way singular with regard to it: but when it usurped the place of a divine institution, and was put instead of deliverance from the * Whitby on Mark vii.

guilt and pollution of sin, he would not countenance any such superstition.

66

Nay, he not only refused to comply with it himself, but administered a sharp rebuke to those who did. Not prevented by mistaken complaisance, he said to his host, with all faithfulness, "Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter, but your inward part is full of ravening and uncleanness." He would not be reckoned a cleanly servant who should attend to the outside of the cup his master drinks out of, and of the plate he eats his meat out of, but neglect to cleanse their inside: as little could they be reckoned spiritually clean, who attended merely to washings of hands and outward ceremonies, while they neglected the state of their hearts, continued under the guilt and pollution of sin, more particularly, were guilty of ravening," or rapaciousness, or extortion, "and wickedness," or malice, for which vices many of the Pharisees were notorious. In the similar passage in Matt. xxiii. 25, our Lord said that they were "full of extortion and excess.' They were careful to wash their hands before their meat, and to eat and drink out of newly cleaned vessels; but they made no scruple of seizing with guilty hands what procured their meat and drink, and then using them to excess. They contrived to maintain some reputation for sanctity, and to avoid gross sins in the sight of men; but they indulged inward iniquity, which rendered them abominable in the sight of God. In opposition to this mode of procedure, our Lord, according to Matthew, gave this direction, "Thou blind Pharisee! cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also;" that is, as applied in the figurative sense, men ought to begin with purification of heart; for, if the heart be renewed and sanctified by grace, and brought under the regulation of proper principles, the life will be reformed of course. Out of the heart are the issues of life. When the fountain is pure, so are the streams. And, when the state and the motives are good, the outward actions are not only apparently good, but really good, and acceptable to God.

But, to proceed with the exposition of the passage immediately before us: "Ye fools!" (for how inconsiderate and foolish were they in this!)-" did not he that made that which is without," or the body, "make that which is within also," or the soul? He formed man's body out of the dust of the ground, and also breathed into his nostrils the breath

of life, so that he became a living soul. God is called the "Father of our spirits," "the Lord who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him." Now, from the fact of his being the Creator of the whole man, the Pharisees should have inferred, and remembered, that he knew all that was in man. "Understand, ye brutish among the people," says the Psalmist; "and, ye fools, when will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?"" The Lord seeth not as man seeth, for man looketh on the outward appearance" only, "but the Lord looketh on the heart." Whatever fair appearances, therefore, these Pharisees might have presented, the Lord could not but be much displeased, when he beheld the secret abominations of heart which they cherished. Hence, they should have concluded that, if they wished to be accepted of him, it was necessary for them to undergo an inward purification, and to cultivate the various graces, and discharge the various duties, of true religion and morality.

One of these duties our Lord particularly mentions, namely, that of charity. "But rather give alms of such things as ye have."* He had just been accusing them of ravening, or extortion; of oppressing the poor, to enrich themselves; and now, rather than that, or instead of that, he inculcates kindness to the poor by alms-giving. Immediate and direct restitution would be their duty in all cases where the extortion they had practised could be particularly ascertained; and where that could not be, the best way of disposing of their ill-gotten gain was to give it to the poor. But, however justly property may come to a man,

66

* Πλην τα ένοντα δοτε ἐλεημοσυνην. Τα ένοντα, 66 quæ insunt-those things which are in, or within." Raphelius, adhering very rigidly to the literal idea, has an elaborate note to show that this is an injunction to give of the drink and food which are in the cup and platter; and it is possible that this may be the exact meaning: yet even on this interpretation, this would amount to an expression, in a limited way, of what our English version expresses in a general way. Others are for rendering the phrase, "quod superest," or, quæ supersunt-those things which are over, or remain," after what is necessary for yourselves. Some (among whom are Bos, Schleusner, and Doddridge) think that ra ivovta is for xara ra vevra, according to such things as are present, or as you have; in other words, in proportion to your substance; ra ivovra being, as they think, the same with τα παροντα, or, τα παρέχοντα. On the whole, our version seems a good one-" Such things as you have," or, as are in your power.