spirits, or how to conjure up demons--as these are indicated in the Talmud. Considering

the state of civilisation at the time, and the general prevalence of superstition, we should

perhaps have scarcely wondered at all this, had it not been for the claims which the

Rabbis set up to Divine authority, and the terrible contrast exhibited between their

teaching and that--we will not say of the New, but--of the Old Testament. In reference

to the "phylacteries," even the language of Josephus (Ant. iv, 212-213) savours of belief

in their magical efficacy; although in this matter also he is true to himself, showing us, at

the same time, that certain proverbial views of gratitude were already in vogue in his

time. For, writing of the phylacteries, which, he maintains, the Jews wore in remembrance

of their past deliverance, he observes, that this expression of their gratitude "served not

only by way of return for past, but also by way of invitation of future favours!" Many

instances of the magical ideas attaching to these "amulets" might be quoted; but the

following will suffice. It is said that, when a certain Rabbi left the audience of some king,

he had turned his back upon the monarch. Upon this, the courtiers would have killed the

Rabbi, but were deterred by seeing that the straps of his "tephillin" shone like bands of

fire about him; thus verifying the promise in Deuteronomy 28:10 (Jer. Ber. v. 1). Indeed,

we have it expressly stated in an ancient Jewish Targum (that on Cant 8:3), that the

"tephillin" prevented all hostile demons from doing injury to any Israelite.

What has been said will in some measure prepare the reader for investigating the history

and influence of the Pharisees at the time of Christ. Let it be borne in mind, that

patriotism and religion equally combined to raise them in popular esteem. What made

Palestine a land separate and distinct from the heathen nations around, among whom

the ruling families would fain have merged them, was that Jewish element which the

Pharisees represented. Their very origin as a party stretched back to the great national

struggle which had freed the soil of Palestine from Syrian domination. In turn, the

Pharisees had deserted those Maccabees whom formerly they had supported, and dared

persecution and death, when the descendants of the Maccabees declined into worldly

pomp and Grecian ways, and would combine the royal crown of David with the high-

priest's mitre. And now, whoever might fear Herod or his family, the Pharisees at least

would not compromise their principles. Again, were they not the representatives of the

Divine law--not only of that given to Israel on Mount Sinai, but also of those more

secret ordinances which were only verbally communicated to Moses, in explanation of,

and addition to the law? If they had made "a hedge" around the law, it was only for the

safety of Israel, and for their better separation from all that was impure, as well as from

the Gentiles. As for themselves, they were bound by vows and obligations of the

strictest kind. Their dealings with the world outside their fraternity, their occupations,

their practices, their bearing, their very dress and appearance among that motley

crowd --either careless, gay, and Grecianising, or self-condemned by a practice in sad

discord with their Jewish profession and principles --would gain for them the distinction

of uppermost rooms at feasts, and chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the

markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi ("my great one, my great one"), in which

their hearts so much delighted.

In very truth they mostly did represent, in some one or other degree o f their order, what

of earnestness and religious zeal there was in the land. Their name --probably in the first

instance not chosen by themselves --had become to some a byword, to others a party

title. And sadly they had declined from their original tendency--at least in most cases.

They were not necessarily "scribes," nor "lawyers," nor yet "teachers of the law." Nor

were they a sect, in the ordinary sense of the term. But they were a fraternity, which

consisted of various degrees, to which there was a regular novitiate, and which was

bound by special vows and obligations. This fraternity was, so to speak, hereditary; so

that St. Paul could in very truth speak of himself as "a Pharisee of the Pharisees"--"a

Pharisee the son of a Pharisee." That their general principles became dominant, and that

they gave its distinctiveness alike to the teaching and the practices of the Synagogue, is

sufficiently know. But what tremendous influence they must have wielded to attain this

position will best appear from the single fact, which has apparently been too much

overlooked, of their almost incredibly small numbers. According to Josephus (Ant. xvii,