Works

VERS. I.

A Virgin marries 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on the fourth day of the week, and a widow on the fifth. This custom came not in but from the decree of Ezra, and so onward, for the Sanhedrin doth not sit, but on the second and the fifth day; and by the decree of Ezra when the Sanhedrin assembled every day, then was it lawful to take a wife on any day. There is a twofold reason given for this restraint.

I. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Virgin was to be marry'd on the fourth day of the week, because the Assembly of the Twenty three met on the fifth; so that if the husband should find his wife to be no virgin, but already violated, he might have recourse to the Consistory in the heat of his displeasure, and procure just punishment for her according to Law. But why then might they not as well marry on the first day of the week, seeing the Beth din met on the second as well as the fifth.

II. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lest the Sabbath should be polluted by preparations for the Nuptials, for the first, second, and third day of the week are allowed for those kind of preparations. And the reason why the widow was to be marry'd on the fifth day was, that her husband might rejoice with her for three days together, viz. fifth, sixth, and the Sabbath-day.

If therefore our bride in this place was a virgin, then the Nuptials were celebrated on the fourth day of the week, which is our Wednesday. If she was a widow then she was marry'd on the fifth day of the week, which is our Thursday. Let us therefore number the days according to our Evangelist, and let it be but granted that that was the Sabbath in which it is said, They abode with him all that day, Cap. I. v. 39. Then on the first day of the week Christ went into Galilee and met with Nathanael. So that the third day from thence is the fourth day of the week; but as to that let everyone reckon as he himself shall think fit.

Amongst the Talmudists it is sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all which denotes matter of pomp and gladness.

• I. The Virgin to be marry'd cometh forth from her Fathers house, to that of her husbands. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in some veil, but with her hair dishevel'd, or her head uncover'd.
• II. If any person meets her upon that day, he gives her the way, which once was done by King Agrippa himself.
• III. They carry before her a cup of wine which they were wont to call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the cup of Trumah, which denoted that she for her unspotted virginity might have married a Priest, and eaten of the Trumah.
• IV. Skipping and dancing they were wont to sing the praises of the Bride. In Palestine they used these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 she needs no paint nor stibium, no plaiting of the hair, or any such thing, for she is of herself most beautiful.
• V. They scattered some kind of grain or corn amongst the children, that they if occasion should serve might bear witness hereafter that they saw that woman a marry'd virgin.
• VI. They sprinkled also or sowed barley before them, by that ceremony denoting their fruitfulness . Whether these sports were used at the wedding where our Savior was present, let others inquire.
• VII. In Sotah there is mention of Crowns which the bride and bridegroom wore, a • also what fashion they were of, and of what materials they were made.
• VIII. Because of the mirth that was expected at Nuptial solemnities▪ they forbad all weddings celebrating within the feasts of the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, Because there were great rejoicings at Nuptials, and they must not intermingle one joy with another; that is, the joy of Nuptials with the joy of a festival .
• IX. The Nuptial festivity was continued for the whole seven days which we also see of old, Judge. XIX. 12.

The mother of Jesus was there, not invited (as it should seem) with Christ and his Disciples, but had been there before the invitation made to them.

You may conceive who were the usual nuptial guests by those words of Maimon . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The bridegroom and his companions, the children of the bridechamber are not bound to make a Tabernacle.

I. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a more general sense denotes a friend or companion, Judge. XIV. 2. II Sam. XIII. 3. but it is more particularly applied to those friends that are the nuptial guests.

II. But in a most strict sense to those two mentioned , Of old they appointed two Shoshbenin, one for the bridegroom, the other for the bride, that they should minister to them, especially at their entry into the bridal chamber. They were especially instituted for this end, that they should take care and provide that there should be no fraud nor deceit as to the tokens of the bride's virginity. So Gloss. upon the place . The Rabbins very ridiculously (as they almost always do) tell a trifling story, that Michael and Gabriel were the two Shoshbenin at Adam and Eves wedding .

But as to the signification of this nuptial term in a more large sense, we may see further. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If any amongst the brethren make a Shoshbenuth, while the father is yet alive, when the Sheshbenuth returns, that also is returned too; for the Shoshbenuth is required even before the Beth Din; but if any one send to his friend any measures of wine, those are not required before the Beth Din, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for this was a deed of gift, or work of charity.

The words are very obscure, but they seem to bear this sense, viz. This was the manner of the Shoshbenuth. Some Bachelor or single person, for joy of his friends marriage, takes something along with him to eat and be merry with the Bridegroom; when it comes to the turn of this single person to marry, this Bridegroom to whom he had brought this portion, is bound to return the same kindness again. Nay, if the father should make a wedding for his Son, and his friends should bring gifts along with them in honor of the nuptials, and give them to his Son [the Bridegroom] the father was bound to return the same kindness when ever any of those friends should think fit to marry themselves. But if any one should send the Bridegroom to congratulate his nuptials, either wine or oil, or any such gift, and not come himself to eat and make merry with them, this was not of the nature of the Shoshbenuth, nor could be required back again before the Tribunal, because that was a free gift.

IV. Christ therefore and five of his Disciples were not of these voluntary Shoshbenim at this wedding, for they were invited guests, and so of the number of those that were called the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 children of the bride-chamber distinguished from the Shoshbenim. But whether our Savior's mother was to be accounted either the one or the other, is a vain and needless question. Perhaps she had the care of preparing and managing the necessaries for the wedding, as having some relation either with the Bridegroom or the Bride.

VERS. VI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gloss. If any one have water fit to drink, and that water by chance contract any uncleanness, let him fill the stone vessel with it.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where the Commentators do indeed grant that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be understood marble vessels, although they admit of another rendering, but as to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there is no controversy.

The number of the six water-pots, I suppose needs not be ascribed to any custom of the Nation, but rather to the multitude then present. It is true indeed, that at nuptials and other feasts there were water-pots always set, for the guests to wash their hands at; but the number of the vessels, and the quantity of the water, was always proportioned according to the number of the guests; for both the hands and vessels, and perhaps the feet of some of them, were wont to be washed.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mashicala mashi culla, the greater vessel out of which all wash 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Maschilta mashia callatha, the lesser vessel in which the bride washes, and (saith the Gloss) the better sort of the guests.

The Greek Version expresseth the measure of a Bath by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2 Chron. IV. 5. so Hag. II. 16. where the same measure of a Bath is to be understood. Now if everyone of these water-pots in our story contained two or three Baths apiece, how great a quantity of wine must that be, which all that water was changed into.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The water-pots of Lydda and Bethlehem; where the Gloss, They were wont to make pots in Lydda from the measure of the Seah to that of the Log, and in Bethlehem, from the measure of two Seas to that of one. How big were these pots that contained six or nine Seahs, for every Bath contained three Seahs.

As to the washing of the hands we have this in Jadaim, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They allot a fourth part of a Log for the washing of one persons hands, it may be of two, half a Log for three or four; an whole Log to five or ten, nay to an hundred; with this provision, saith R. Jose, that the last that washeth hath no less than a fourth part of a Log for himself.

VERS. VII.

I. IT is probable that the discourse betwixt Jesus and his Mother was not public and before the whole company, but privately and betwixt themselves; which if we suppose, the words of the Son toward the Mother, Woman what have I to do with thee, will not seem so harsh as we might apprehend them if spoken in the hearing of all the guests. And although the Son did seem by his first answer to give a plain denial to what was propounded to him, yet perhaps by something which he afterwards said to her (though not expressed by the Evangelist) or some other token, the Mother understood his mind, so far, that when they came into company again she could intimate to them, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

II. He answered his Mother, My hour is not yet come; for it might be justly expected that the first miracle he would exert should be done in Jerusalem, the Metropolis of that Nation.

VERS. VIII.

THIS Governor of the Feast I would understand to have been in the place of Chaplain to give thanks, and pronounce blessings in such kind of Feasts as these were. There was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Bridegrooms blessing recited every day for the whole space of the seven days, besides other benedictions during the whole Festival time, requisite upon a cup of wine [for over a cup of wine there used to be a blessing pronounced] especially that which was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the cup of good news, when the virginity of the Bride is declared and certify'd. He therefore who gave the blessing for the whole company, I presume, might be called the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Governor of the Feast. Hence to him it is that our Savior directs the wine that was made of water, as he who after some blessing pronounced over the cup, should first drink of it to the whole company, and after him the guests pledging and partaking of it.

As to what is contained in the 14, 15, 16 verses of this Chapter, I have already discust that in Mat. XXI. 12.

VERS. XVIII.

NOah , Hezekiah, &c. require a sign, much more the wicked and ungodly.

Since there had been so many, no less than four hundred years past, from the time that the Holy Spirit had departed from that Nation, and Prophecies had ceased, in which space there had not appeared any one person that pretended to the gift either of Prophesying or working miracles, it is no wonder if they were suspicious of one that now claimed the character, and required a sign of him.

VERS. XIX.

I. CHrist showeth them no sign, that was mere sign, Mat. XII. 39. The turning of Moses his Rod into a Serpent, and returning the Serpent into a Rod again; the hand becoming leprous, and restored to its proper temperament again, these were mere signs; those wonders which Moses afterward wrought in Egypt were not mere signs, but miraculous judgments; and those stupendous things which our Savior wrought were not mere signs, but beneficent miracles, and whoever would not believe upon those infinite miracles which he wrought, would much less have believed upon mere signs. And indeed it was unbecoming our Blessed Lord so far to indulge to their obstinate incredulity, to be showing new signs still at every beck of theirs, who would not believe upon those infinite numbers he put forth upon every proper occasion.

II. Mat. XII. 39, 40. when they had required a sign, Christ remits them to the sign of the Prophet Jonah; and he points at the very same sense in these words, Destroy this Temple, &c. That is, my Resurrection from the dead will be a sign beyond all denial, proving and affirming that what I do I act upon Divine authority, and that I am he who is to come. ( Rom. I. 4.) further than this, you must expect no other sign from me. If you believe me not while I do such works, at least believe me when I arise from the dead.

He acted here whiles he is purging the Temple under that notion, as he was the authorized Messiah, Mal. III. 1, 3. and expressly calls it his fathers house, v. 16. Shew us therefore some sign (say the Jews ) by which it may appear that thou art the Messiah the Son of God, at least that thou art a Prophet. I will show you a sufficient sign, saith Christ: Destroy this Temple, viz. of my body, and I will raise it from the dead again, a thing which was never yet done, nor could be done by any of the Prophets.

VERS. XX.

I. THAT this was spoken of the Temple as beautify'd and repaired by Herod, not as built by Zerubbabel, these reasons seem to sway with me.

I. That these things were done and discoursed betwixt Christ and the Jews in Herod's Temple.

II. That the account if meant of the Temple of Zerubbabel, will not fall in either with the years of the Kings of Persia; or those seven weeks mentioned Dan. IX. 26. in which Jerusalem was to be built, even in troublous times. For whoever reckons by the Kings of Persia, he must necessarily attribute at least thirty years to Cyrus, which they willingly do that are fond of this account; which thirty years too, if they do not reckon to him, after the time that he had taken Babylon, and subverted that Monarchy, they prove nothing as to this computation at all.

Cyrus destroyed the Empire of the Medes, and reigned over Persia, having overthrown Astyages the King of the Medes. And from thence he reckons to Cyrus thirty years. But by what authority he ascribes the Jews being set at liberty from their captivity, to that very same year, I cannot tell. For Cyrus could not release the Jews from their captivity in Babylon, before he had conquered Babylon for himself; and this was a great while after he had subdued the Medes, as appears from all that have treated upon the subversion of that Empire, which how they agree with Xenophon, I shall not inquire at this time; content at present with this, that it doth not appear amongst any Historians that have committed the acts of Cyrus to memory, that they have given thirty or twenty, no not ten years to him, after he had taken Babylon. Leunclavius in his Chronolog. Xenoph. gives him but eight years, and Xenophon himself seems to have given him but seven. So that this account of forty and six years falls plainly to the ground, as not being able to stand, but with the whole thirty years of Cyrus included into the number.

Their opinion is more probable who make these forty and six years parallel with the seven weeks in Dan. IX. 26. But the building of the Temple ceased for more years than wherein it was built; and in truth if we compute the times wherein any work was done upon the Temple, it was really built within the space of ten years.

II. This number of forty six years fits well enough with Herod's Temple; for Josephus tells us that Herod began the work in the eighteenth year of his reign; nor does he contradict himself when he tells us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , In the fifteenth year of his reign he repaired the Temple; because the fifteenth year of his reign alone after he had conquered Antigonus, was the eighteenth year from the time wherein he had been declared King by the Romans. Now Herod (as the same Josephus relates) lived thirty seven years from the time that the Romans had declared him King; and in his thirty fifth year Christ was born; and he was now thirty years old when he had this discourse with the Jews. So that between the eighteenth of Herod, and the thirtieth of Christ exclusively, there were just forty six years complete.

III. The words of our Evangelist therefore may be thus rendered in English, Forty and six years hath this Temple been in building; and this Version seems warranted by Josephus , who beginning the History of G. Florus the Procurator of Judea about the 11th. of Nero▪ hath this passage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . From that time particularly our City began to languish, all things growing worse and worse. He tells us further that Albinus when he went off from his Government, set open all the Goals and dismissed the Prisoners, and so filled the whole Province with Thieves and Robberies: withal, that King Agrippa, permitted the Levite singing men, to go about as they pleased in their Linnen Garments: and at length concludes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And now was the Temple finished [as may be observed] wherefore the people seeing the workmen, to the number of eighteen thousand, were at a stand, having nothing to do—besought the King that he would repair the Porch upon the East, &c. If therefore the Temple was not finished till that time, then, much less was it so, when Christ was in it. Whence we may properly enough render those words of the Jews into such a kind of sense as this:

VERS. XXI.

IF we consider how much the second Temple, came behind that of the first, it will the easilier appear, why our blessed Savior should call his body the Temple.

In the second Temple, there wanted the fire from Heaven, the Ark with the Propitiatory, Cherubims, Urim and Thummim, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Divine Glory, the Holy Ghost, and the Anointing Oil.

These things were all in Solomon 's Temple, which therefore was accounted a full and plenary type of the Messiah. But so long as the second Temple had them not, it wanted what more particularly shadowed and represented him.

I. There was indeed in the second Temple, a certain Ark in the Holy of Holies, but this was neither Moses 's Ark, nor the Ark of the Covenant : which may not unfitly come to mind when we read that passage Revel. XI. 19. The Temple of God was opened in Heaven, and there was seen in his Temple the Ark of his testament. It was not seen, nor indeed was it at all in the second Temple.

The Jews have a Tradition that Josiah hid the Ark, before the Babylonish Captivity, lest it should fall into the hands of the Enemy, as once it did amongst the Philistines . But there is no mention that it was ever found and restored again.

II. In Moses his Tabernacle, and Solomon 's Temple, the Divine presence sat visibly over the Ark, in the propitiatory, in a Cloud of Glory: But when the destruction of that Temple drew near, it went up from the Propitiatory, Ezek. X. 4. and never returned into the second Temple, where neither the Ark nor the Propitiatory was ever restored.

III. The High Priest indeed ministered in the second Temple, as in the first, in eight several Garments . Amongst these was the Pectoral, or Breast-plate, wherein the precious stones were put, (out of which the Jasper chanced to fall and was lost :) but the Oracle by Urim and Thummim, was never restored. See Ezra II. 63. and Nehem. VII. 63. if not restored in the days of Ezra, or Nehemiah, much less certainly in the ages following, when the Spirit of Prophecy had forsaken and taken leave of that people. For that is a great truth amongst the Talmudists Things are not asked or inquired after now [by Urim and Thummim] by the High Priest, because he doth not speak by the Holy Ghost, nor does there any divine Afflatus breath on him.

This, to omit other things, was the state of Zerubbabel 's Temple, with respect to those things which were the peculiar glory of it. And these things being wanting, how much inferior must this needs be to that of Solomon 's?

But there was one thing more that degraded Herod 's Temple still lower; and that was the person of Herod himself to whom it is ascribed. It was not without scruple, even amongst the Jews themselves, that it was built and repaired by such an one (and who knew not what Herod was?) They dispute whether by right such a person ought to have meddled with it, and are fain to pump for arguments for their own satisfaction, as to the lawfulness of the thing.

They object first, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 'It is not permitted to any one to demolish one Synagogue till he hath built another. Much less to demolish the Temple. But Herod demolished the Temple before he had built another. Ergo,

They answer, Baba ben Buta gave Herod that counsel that he should pull it down. Now this Baba was reckoned amongst the great wise men, and he did not rashly move Herod to such a work. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He saw such clefts and breaches in the Temple that threatened its ruin.

They object secondly, concerning the person of Herod, that he was a Servant to the Asmonean Family, that he rose up against his Masters, and killed them, and had killed the Sanhedrin.

They answer, We were under his power, and could not resist it. And if those hands, stained with blood would be building, it was not in their power to hinder it.

These and other things they apologize for their Temple; adding this invention for the greater honor of the thing; that all that space of time wherein it was a building, it never once rained by day, that the work might not be interrupted .

The Rabbins take a great deal of pains, but to no purpose, upon those words, Hagg. II. 9. The glory of this latter House shall be greater than the former. R. Jochanan, and R. Eliezer say; one, that it was greater for the Fabric; the other, that it was greater for the duration▪ As if the glory of the Temple consisted in any Mathematical reasons of space, dimension, or duration; as if it lay in walls, gilding, or ornament. The glory of the first Temple was the Ark, the divine cloud over the Ark, the Urim and the Thummim, &c. Now where or in what can consist the greater glory of the second Temple, when these are gone?

Herein it is indeed, that the Lord of the Temple, was himself present in his Temple; he himself was present 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, Coloss. II. 9. as the divine glory of old was over the Ark 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , typically or by way of shadow only.

This is the glory, when he himself is present, who is the great High Priest and the Prophet, who, answerably to the Urim and Thummim of old, reveals the counsels and will of God; He who is the true and living Temple, whom that Temple shadowed out.

CHAP. III.

VERS. I.

THE Talmudists frequently mention 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which by the Learned is not without reason, rendered Nicodemus; now the Jews derive this name, not from the Greek original, but from this Story.

Upon a certain time, all Israel ascended up to Jerusalem to the Feast, and there wanted water for them. Nicodemus ben Gorion, comes to a great man, and prays him, saying, lend me twelve Wells of Water, for the use of those that are to come up to the Feast, and I will give you back twelve wells again, or else engage to pay you twelve talents of silver: and they appointed a day. When the day of payment came, and it had not yet rained, Nicodemus went to a little Oratory, and covered himself and prayed, and of a sudden the Clouds gathered, and a plentiful rain descended, so that twelve Wells were filled, and a great deal over. The great man cavilled, that the day was past, for the Sun was set: Nicodemus goes into his Oratory again, covers himself and prays, and the Clouds dispersing themselves, the Sun breaks out again. Hence that name given him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nicodemus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or as it is elsewhere written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : because the Sun shone out for him.

If there be anything of truth in this part of the Story, it should seem Nicodemus was a Priest, and that kind of Officer, whose title was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a digger of Wells, under whose peculiar care and charge was the provision of Water for those that should come up to the Feast . His proper name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was not Nicodemus, but Bonai, as Taanith in the place above quoted. Now in Sanhedrin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bonai is reckoned amongst the Disciples of Jesus, and accounted one of the three richest men amongst the Jews at that time when, Titus besieged Jerusalem. There were three the most wealthy men in Jerusalem, Nicodemus ben Gorion, Calba Sabua, and Zizith Hakkesoth. But in Echah Rabbathi There were then in Jerusalem four 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Counselors, Ben Zizith, Ben Gorion, Ben Nicodemon, and Ben Calba Sabua; men of very great wealth, &c.

There is mention also of a Daughter of Nicodemus ben Gorion, the furniture of whose Bed was twelve thousand deniers . But so miserably was she and the whole Family empoverished, that Rabban Jochanan ben Zacchai saw her gathering Barley corns out of the dung of the Arabs Cattle: Saith he to her, who art thou, my Daughter? I am, saith she, the Daughter of Nicodemus ben Gorion. What then (saith he) is become of all thy Father's wealth? &c.

I leave it with the Reader to determine with himself whether the Nicodemus mentioned amongst them, be the same with this of ours or no. It is not much for the reputation of that Nicodemus, (whatever may be supposed in the affirmative) that these Authors should all along make so honorable a mention of him. However some passages look as if it might be the same man, viz. the name Bonai, by which he went for a Disciple of Jesus; the impoverishment of his Family, which may be conceived to fall upon them in the persecution of Christianity, &c. but it is not tanti, that we should labor at all, in a thing so very perplexed, and perhaps no less unprofitable.

VERS. II.

IT may be a question, whether Nicodemus using the plural number, [ we know ] does by that seem to own that the whole Sanhedrin (of which himself was a member) acknowledge the same thing. I am apt to think, the Fathers of the Sanhedrin could not well tell how indeed to deny it: which will be more largely discussed upon Chap. XI. 48. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may either be the plural for the singular, which in the first person, is most commonly used in all languages, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [which I question not Nicodemus promiscuously used] may be indifferently taken, for either number, singular or plural. Or else, we know, may signify as much as, it is commonly owned and acknowledged.

Nicodemus seems to have reference to the long cessation of Prophecy, which had not been known in that Nation, for above four hundred years now past; in which space of time there had been no Masters or Teachers of the people instituted but by men, and the imposition of hands; nor had there in that appeared any one person, that would pretend to teach them by a spirit of Prophecy. But we see that thou art a Teacher sent from God.

VERS. III.

SHould we ask how this answer suits with the question that Nicodemus put: it may appear very apposite, upon this account. You seem, O Nicodemus, to see some sign of the approaching Kingdom of Heaven, in these miracles that are done by me. Verily I say unto thee, no one can see the Kingdom of God as he ought, if he be not born 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from above.

By what word our Savior expressed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Jewish language, it is not easy determining: whether by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which I indeed suppose he might, or by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the Syriac, or by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which bears the signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , again, as almost all Expositors have conceived. The subject of the question well considered, may afford us some light in the solution of it.

I. We must not suppose it a set discourse, merely and on purpose directed upon the subject of Regeneration, though the doctrine of the new birth may be well enough asserted and explained from hence: but the question is about the aptitude and capacity of the man, qualified to be a partaker of the Kingdom of God, or of Heaven, or of the times or benefits of the Messiah: For that the Kingdom of God or of Heaven, are terms convertible in the Evangelist, is obvious to everyone that will take the pains to compare them: and that by the Kingdom of God or of Heaven is meant the Kingdom and times of the Messiah is so plain that it needs no argument to prove it.

When therefore there was so vehement and universal an expectation of the coming and reign of the Messiah amongst the Jews: and when some token and indication of these times, might appear to Nicodemus, in the miracles that Christ had wrought; our Savior instructs him, by what way and means he may be made apt and capable for seeing and entering into this Kingdom, and enjoying the benefits and advantages of Messiah 's days. For,

II. The Jews had conceited that it was enough for them to have been of the seed of Abraham, or the stock of Israel, to make them fit subjects for the Kingdom of Heaven, and the happiness that should accrue to them from the days of the Messiah. Hence that passage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 There is a part allotted to all Israel in the world to come. That is, in the participation of the Messiah. But whence comes it that universal Israel claim such a part? merely because they are Israelites; i. e. Meerly because they come of the stock and lineage of Israel. Our Savior sets himself against this error of theirs, and teacheth, that it is not enough for them to be the Children of Abraham, or the Stock of Israel, to give them any title to or interest in the Messiah; but they must further be born 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from above; they must claim it by an Heavenly, not an Earthly birth. These words of his, seem to fall in and bear the same kind of sense with those of John the Baptist, Think not to say we have Abraham for our Father.

III. The Jews acknowledged, in order to Proselytisme, some kind of regeneration or new-birth absolutely necessary; but then, this was very slightly, and easily attainable. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If any one become a Proselyte he is like a Child new born. But in what sense is he so?

The Gentile that is made a Proselyte, and the servant that is made free, behold he is like a Child new born. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And all those relations he had whiles either Gentile or Servant, they now cease from being so.—By the Law it is lawful for a Gentile to marry his Mother, or the Sister of his Mother, if they are Proselyted to the Jewish Religion. But the wise men have forbidden this, lest it should be said, we go downward, from a greater degree of sanctity to a less; and that which was forbidden yesterday, is allowable today. Compare this with 1 Cor. V. 1.

Christ teaches another kind of new birth, requisite for those that partake of the Kingdom of the Messiah, beyond what they have either as Israelites, or Proselytes, viz. that they should be born from above, or by a celestial generation, which only makes them capable of the Kingdom of Heaven.

VERS. IV.

THE common opinion of the Jews about the qualification of an Israelite, qua Israelite, still sticks in the mind of this Pharisee; and although our Savior useth that term which in the Jewish Language plainly enough intimates the necessity of being born from Heaven; yet cannot he easily get off from his first prejudice about the Israelitish Generation.

He knew and acknowledged, as we have already said, that there must be a sort of a new-birth in those that come over to the Jewish Religion, but he never dreamt of any new proselytism requisite in one that had been born an Israelite. He could not therefore conceive the manner of a new birth, that he should be made an Israelite anew, unless it were by entering into the Mother's Womb a second time, which to him seemed an impossible thing.

VERS. V.

HE tells him that the Jew himself cannot be admitted into the Kingdom of the Messiah, unless he first strip himself of his Judaism by Baptism, and then put off his carnal, and put on a spiritual state. That by water here, is meant Baptism, I make no doubt: nor do I much less question, but our Savior goes on from thence to the second Article of the Evangelical Doctrine. And as he had taught, that toward the participation of the benefits to be had by the Messiah, it is of little or of no value, for a man to be born of the seed of Abraham, or to be originally an Israelite, unless he was also born 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or from above; so he now further teacheth him, that this admission is not to be obtained, but by an absolute renunciation of Judaism, and being Baptized into the profession of the Gospel. For the tenor of Christian Baptism, runs point blank against Judaism. The Jewish Religion taught justification by works; but Evangelical Baptism obliged to Repentance, and alarm'd the sinner to look elsewhere for remission of sins; so that, to a Jew, Baptism was indispensibly necessary, in order to his admission into the Kingdom of the Messiah, that by that Baptism of his, he might wholly divest himself of his Jewish state.

VERS. X.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Art thou a wise man in Israel? It was the answer of a Boy to R. Joshua, when he asked him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Which is the shortest way to the City? The Boy answered, this is the shortest way, though it is the longest: and that is the longest way though it is the shortest. R. Joshua took that way which was the shortest though the longest: When he came very near the City he found Gardens and places of pleasure hedged in, so that he could go no further. He returned therefore to the Boy, and said to him, my Son, is this the shortest way to the City? The Boy answered, art thou a wise man in Israel? did I not thus say to thee? That is the shortest way though the longest, &c.

VERS. XIV.

THE Jews dote horribly about this noble mystery. There are those in Bemidbar rabba , that think that the Brazen Serpent, was not affixed to a pole, but thrown up into the Air by Moses, and there to have settled without any other support.

Moses put up the Serpent for 〈…〉 sign, as he that chastiseth his Son, sticks up the rod in some eminent place, where the Child may see it, and remember.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thou shalt remove the mischief, by that which did the mischief, and thou shalt heal the Disease, by that which made thee sick. The same hath R. Bechai, and both confess that it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a miracle within a miracle. But it is not for a Jew to understand the mystery; this is the Christian's attainment only.

VERS. XVII.

IN what sense (beside that which is most common and proper) the Jewish Schools use the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] we may see from these and such like instances.

I. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The whole world hath forsaken the Mishna, and followed the Gemara. Where something may be noted in the Story as well as in the Grammar of it.

So Joh. XII. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ Behold the world is gone after him. In Jerusalem Language 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 We very often meet with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 All the world confesseth, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The whole world doth not dissent, &c. By which kind of phrase, both amongst them, and all other languages is meant a very great number, or multitude.

II. When they distinguish, as frequently they do betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the poor of their own City, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the poor of the world: it is easy to discern, that by the poor of the world are meant those poor that come from any other parts.

III. R. Ulla requires, not only that every great man should be worthy of belief 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but that the man of the world should be so too. It is easy to conceive that by the man of the world is meant any person, of any kind or degree.

IV. But it is principally worthy our observation that they distinguish the whole world into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Israel, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Nations of the world. The Israelites, and the Gentiles. This distinction, by which they call the Gentiles the Nations of the world, occurs almost in every leaf, so that I need not bring instances of this nature. Compare Luke XII. 30. with Matth. VI. 32. and that may suffice.

V. They further teach us, that the Nations of the World, are not only not to be redeemed, but to be wasted, destroyed, and trodden underfoot. This seems to me to be the sense. The rod of the exactor, shall not depart from Judah, until his Son shall come: to whom belongs the subduing and breaking of the people, for he shall vanquish them all with the edge of his Sword. So saith Rambam upon that passage in Gen. XLIX.

The Morning cometh, and also the Night, Isai. XXI. 12. It will be the Morning to Israel [when the Messiah shall come] but it will be Night to the Nations of the World.

R. Abin saith, that the Holy blessed God, will make the Elders of Israel, sit down in a semicircle, himself sitting President, as the Father of the Sanhedrin; and shall judge the Nations of the world.

Then comes the threshing; the Straw they throw into the fire, the Chaff into the wind, but the Weat they keep upon the floor; so the Nations of the World shall be as the burning of a Furnace, but Israel alone shall be preserved.

I could be endless in passages of this nature out of these Authors: but that which is very observable in all of them is this; that all those curses and dreadful judgments, which God in his Holy Writ threatens against wicked men, they post it off wholly from themselves and their own Nation, as if not at all belonging to them, devolving all upon the Gentiles and the Nations of the World. So that it was not without great reason that the Apostle asserteth, Rom. III. 19. whatsoever things the Law saith, it saith to them which are under the Law. Which yet, they will by no means endure.

Christ therefore by this kind of phrase or scheme of speech well enough known to Nicodemus, teacheth him (contrary to a vulgar opinion, which he also could not be ignorant of) that the Messiah should as well become a redeemer and propitiation to the Gentiles, as to the Jews. They had taught amongst themselves that God had no regard to the Nations of the World; they were odious to him, and the Messiah when he come, would destroy and condemn them: but the truth saith, God so loved the world, that he hath sent his Son not to condemn, but to save the world. This very Evangelist himself is the best Commentator upon this expression, 1 Epist. John II. 2. He is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world; i. e. not for us Jews only, but for the Nations of the World.

VERS. XXV.

I. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syriac, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which calls to mind that which is so perpetually in use amongst the Talmudic Authors, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. N. inquired of R. N. whence that also, as familiarly used, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If you ask, I will tell you. If the word in this place, be taken according to this Scholastic use of it, as it may very well be, then we may expound this passage thus:

The Disciples of John having heard, that Jesus did Baptize also, they with the Jews inquire, what sort of purifying resulted from the Baptism of Christ; whether that purified more than the Baptism of John. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , probably doth not oppose one party against the other, but joins them together in one enquiry. They inquire jointly, doeth Jesus superinduce a Baptism, upon the Baptism of John? and John his, upon the Baptisms or washings of the Jews? Whether will this purifying at last tend, and what virtue hath this of Jesus 's beyond that of John 's?

II. Or if you will, suppose we that this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might be a dispute betwixt the Disciples of St. John and the Jews, about their legal Purifications and the Baptism now introduced, there is no doubt but both parties contended to the uttermost of their power.

VERS. XXVII.

THE rendering of this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , receive, may be a little questioned. The Syriac hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to receive. Perhaps it might be fitlier translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to perceive, or apprehend. For the Baptist seems, in these words, to rebuke the incredulity and stupidity of these men. q. d.

VERS. XXIX.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of which we have already spoken in our Notes upon Chap. II.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his friend, that is, his Shoshebin. Where the Gloss hath this passage, which at first sight the Reader may a little wonder at.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The friend of the Bridegroom is not allowed him all the days of the nuptials. The sense is; he is not admitted to be a Judge or witness for him, all that time wherein for certain days of the Nuptials, he is his Shoshebin, or the friend of the Bridegroom.

VERS. XXXI.

MArk but the Antithesis, and you will not suspect any Tautology.

1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that is of the Earth, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He that cometh from Heaven. Where the Antithesis is not so much between Christ and John, as betwixt Christ and all mankind.

2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He is of the Earth, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He is above all. He that is of the Earth, is only of earthly degree, or rank: and he that is from Heaven is above all degree.

3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He speaks of the Earth, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , what he hath seen and heard that he testifieth. He that is of the Earth speaketh earthly things, and what he hath learnt upon the Earth; but he that is from Heaven, speaketh those things which he learnt in Heaven, viz. those things which he hath seen and heard from God. The Baptist seems to allude to the manner of bearing witness, and teaching in matter of fact there was need of an eye-witness: in matter of doctrine, they delivered what they had heard from their Master.

CHAP. IV.

VERS. IV.

JOsephus tells us , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ It was the custom for the Galileans, in their journeying to Jerusalem, to their Feasts, to go through Samaria.

Our Country-man Biddulph describes the way which he himself travelled from Galilee, to Jerusalem, Anno Dom. 1601. out of whom, for the Reader's sake, I will borrow a a few passages. He tells us, That on March XXIV. they rode near the Sea of Galilee, and gives the computation of that Sea, to be in length about eight leagues, and in breadth, five. Now a league is three miles. After they had gone about seven miles having the Sea of Galilee on their left hands, they went up an Hill not very steep but very pleasant; which he saith is said to be the Hill mentioned Joh. VI. 3. [Although here indeed either I am mistaken, or his guides deceived him, because that Mountain was on the other side the Sea.]

However he tells us, That from the top of this Hill, they discerned Saphetta, the Jews University. All the way they went was infinitely pleasant, the Hills and Dales all very fruitful. And that about two a Clock in the Afternoon, they came to a certain Village called by the Arabians Inel Tiger, i. e. The Merchants Eye. When they had taken some food and sleep, their mind leaped within them to go up Mount Tabor, which was not far off. [I fear his guides deceived him here also concerning this Mount.]

On the twenty fifth of March they spent the whole day in traversing the pleasant fields of Basan near the Hill of Basan. In the way they saw some rubbish of the Tower of Gehazi, 2 Kings V. 24. and came to a Town commonly called, Jenine, of old Engannim▪ Josh. XV. 34. [more truly, Good man, Josh. XIX. 21.] distant from Tabor two and twenty miles, a place of Gardens, and waters and places of pleasure. There they stayed all the next day, upon the occasion of a Turkish Feast called Byram. Mar. XXVII. Riding by Engannim they were twice in danger: once by Thieves dwelling hard by; another time by the Arabs in a Wood about twelve miles thence. That night they came to Sychar a City of Samaria mentioned Joh. IV. distant from Engannim seven and twenty miles. They stayed there the next day. It is now called Napolis; Jacob 's Well is near it, the waters of it sweet as milk.

March XXIX. they went from Sychar toward Jerusalem, the nearer to which place they came the more barren and unpleasant they found the soil. At length coming to a large Grove or Wilderness full of Trees and Hills [perhaps this was Mount Ephraim ] From the top of the Hill, they saw the Sea on the right hand, and little Vessels upon it, passing to Joppa. About three or four in the Afternoon they came to a ruinous Town called Beer, of old (as was reported to them) Beersheba, a great City: but more probably Beeroth, mentioned Jos. XVIII. 25. It is said that was the place where Christ's Parents first mist him in their journey, Luke II. 44. They would have lodged there that night, being weary and hungry, and having spent their Provision, but they could have nothing fit for themselves or their Horses, and being from Jerusalem but ten miles they went on, and after having travelled five or six miles had a view of the City. Thus our Countryman, a Clergy-man tells us in his Book.

This interposition of Samaria between Galilee and Judea must be remembered when we read the borders and portions of the Tribes set out, Ezek. XLVIII. where Manasseh and Ephraim (the Country of Samaria ) are bounded and set out as formerly, but must not be reckoned und •• the notion of Samaria as they had been.

Necessity itself found or made a way betwixt Judea and Galilee through Samaria, because indeed there was no other way they could go, unless a long way about, through the Country beyond Jordan. Nor was there any reason why they should make any difficulty of going through Samaria, unless the hostility of the Country. For,

For the Country of the Cuthites is clean. (So that without scruple they might gather of the fruits and products of it.) The gatherings of their waters are clean. (So that a Jew might drink, or wash himself in them.) Their dwellings are clean. (So that he might enter thereinto, eat, or lodge there.) Their roads are clean. (So that the dust of them did not defile a Jew's feet.)

The method of the Story in this place, by compairing it with other Evangelist may be thus put together. Herod had imprisoned John the Baptist, under pretence of his growing too popular, and that the multitude of his followers increasing, tended to innovate Our Savior understanding this, and withal that the Sanhedrin, had heard something of the increase of his Disciples too, withdrew from Judea into Galilee, that he might be more remote from that kind of thunder-bolt that St. John had been struck with.

VERS. V.

GEN. XLVIII. 22. Jacob had bought a piece of Land of the Children of Hamor for an hundred Lambs, Gen. XXXIII. 19. But, after the Daughter of the Shechemites, he with his Family being forced to retire to places more remote, viz. to Bethel, Bethlehem, and Hebron; the Amorites thrust themselves into possession, and he • ain to regain it with his Sword and Bow.

VERS. VI.

OF this Well doth Jacob seem to speak, in those last words of his about Joseph, Gen. XLIX. 22. Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a Well. For Joseph 's Off-spring inceased to a Kingdom in Jeroboam, and that in Shechem hard by Jacob's Well. He adds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where if you will render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Enemy (as it is Psal. XCII. 11. and perhaps Psal. XVIII. 29.) for it is from the Chaldee only, that it signifies a wall; as Buxtorf tell us,] then, the words might be interpreted as a Prophecy concerning those Daughters of Joseph at Shiloh, who passing over to the Enemy restored the hostile Tribe of Benjamin, that otherwise were likely to have perished for want of issue, Judge. XXI. 19, &c. I would render the words, the Daughters go over to the Enemy: and so in the verse are foretold two very signal events that should make the offspring of Joseph more peculiarly illustrious; partly that hard by that Well it should increase into a Kingdom, and that the daughters of that Tribe should restore and rebuild a Tribe that had almost perished in its hostility against them.

The Greek Interpreters and Samaritan both Text and Version instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , my youngest Son; whether on purpose, or through carelessness, I know not; so the Greeks instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 read as it should seem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Turn thou unto me.

VERS. VI.

HE sat thus, as one weary'd. The Evangelist would let u • know that Christ did not seemingly, or for fashion sake, beg water of the Samaritan woman, but in good earnest, being urged to it by thirst and weariness. So 1 King. II. 7. Shew kindness to the Sons of Barzillai, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for so, that is, in a great deal of kindness, they came to me. Act. VII. 8. He gave him the Covenant of Circumcision, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and so being circumcised, he begat Isaac.

VERS. VIII.

IF the Disciples were gone into the City to buy food, how agrees this with v. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans? and with that rule of the Jews, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let no Israelite eat one mouthful of anything that is a Samaritans, for if he eat but a little mouthful, he is as if he eat swine's flesh. A mouthful, that is, of nothing over which a blessing must be pronounced.

But Hierosol. Avodah Zara tells us,

VERS. IX.

I. THAT translation, The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans, which the French and English follow, seems to stretch the sense of the word beyond what it will well bear: For, 1. granting the Samaritans were mere Heathens, (which some of the Rabbins have affirmed) yet did not this forbid the Jews having any kind of dealings with them, for they did not refuse Merchandising with any of the Gentile Nations whatever. See Nehem. XIII. 16, &c. 2. But if the Samaritans were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 true proselytes, as R. Akibah asserts, or as the Israelites in all things, as Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel saith of them then much more might the Jews have dealing with them.

II. That Version, non utuntur Judaei Samaritis, as Beza; or non contuntur, as the Vulgar, hardly reacheth the sense of the word, or comes fully up to the truth of the thing .

It is lawful to eat the unleaven'd bread of the Samaritans, nor is there any suspicion as to their leavened bread neither. This is to be understood, if the Samaritan should knead it in the house of an Israelite. Now if the Samaritan may knead dough in an Israelites house, it is evident the Israelite might use the Samaritan.

An Israelite may circumcise a Cuthite, but a Cuthite may not circumcise an Israelite, because he is circumcised into the name of mount Gerizim.

R. Josah saith, let him circumcise him, and let him pass into the name of mount Gerizim till he departs this life. If therefore it was lawful for the Israelite to circumcise the Cuthite, or Samaritan, and the Samaritan the Israelite, then the Jews had dealings with, or did use the Samaritans.

What then must be the proper meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems to answer it; The Cuthites of Cesarea asked R. Abhu, saying, Your fathers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Our fathers, why then do not you the same to us? Let us gather the sense from something like it; it was a trite and common saying among the Jews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is a gift by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, as Mat. XV. 5. According to which form of speech I may say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let not the Samaritans be profitable to the Jews; and in this sense I would understand the words now in hand. The Jews have no such dealings with the Samaritans, as to be obliged to them for any courtesy or benefit received from them. They ask or receive nothing from them gratis, they borrow nothing of them, which is not forbidden them as to any other Nations.

For three days before the feasts of the Idolaters it is forbidden [the Jews] either to give to or receive from them, to ask, or lend, or borrow of them. But for any other parts of the year, it was not forbidden them. But as to the Samaritans it was not permitted the Jews to borrow or receive anything from them at any time gratis. Nor indeed can the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place intend anything else. For whereas it was lawful for the Jews to converse with the Samaritans, buy of them, use their labor, answer to their benedictions, Amen; as we find in Beracoth , lodge in their Towns, Luk. IX. 52. I would fain know in what sense after all this can it be said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; but in this only, that they would not be obliged to them for any kindness. Which may a little serve to illustrate that of Luk. X. 33, &c. and it does very well agree with the matter in hand.

For the words before seem to be what the woman speaks, and not what the Evangelist; and they spoken scoptically, or with sarcasm, Doest thou who art a Jew ask water of me who am a Samaritan? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for you Jews despise all courtesy of the Samaritans to receive the least kindness of them; and do you ask me for water?

The Greek Lexicons back this Exposition, who render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not only by commercium habeo, to have dealings, but also by mutuo accipio, utendum rogo, to borrow for use, &c.

VERS. XI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , living water: The woman mistakes our Savior's meaning, as if he intended only what was usually expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bubbling, or springing waters. So that when our Savior talks to her of a water that he had to give, which whosoever should drink of, should thirst no more; the woman laughs in her sleeve indeed, and with all the scorn that could be, saith, Sir, pray give me of this water, that I may never have any thirst, or give myself the trouble of coming hither to draw; for so we ought to conceive of her answer to be rather by way of scoff not supplication.

VERS. XVIII.

CHRIST stops her fleering mouth with the dung of her own unchaste conversation, charging her with that infamous sort of life she had hitherto lived. q. d. Thou for thy impudent adulteries hast suffered divorce from five husbands already, and that which thou now hast is not thy husband but an adulterer.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Cuthites do not understand the Law about betrothings and divorcings. They had their customs of affiancing and divorcing; and perhaps by how much the less accurate they were about their divorces (I mean with respect to the Jewish rules) the nearer they might come to the first institution of Moses, who allowed no divorces but in the cause of adultery. That this woman was dismissed from her husbands, for these infamous faults of hers seems evident partly from the extraordinary number of Husbands, partly that our Savior mentions her Husbands as well as him that then lived adulterously with her; as if he would intimate that she lived dishonestly under her Husbands, as well as with this man.

VERS. XX.

THE story of that Temple on Gerizim out of Josephus and others, is very well known. It was built in emulation and envy to that at Jerusalem, as of old were Dan and Bethel. Hence that irreconcilable hatred between the two Nations, and the apostasy of divers Jews. The Samaritans attributed a certain holiness to the mountain, even after the Temple had been destroyed; but for what reason they themselves could not well tell. However for the defense of it, the Samaritan Text hath notoriously falsified the words of Moses in Deut. XXVII. 4. For whereas the Hebrew hath it, Ye shall set up these stones which I command you this day 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in mount Ebal. The Samaritan Text and Version hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in mount Gerizim, as I have elsewhere observed.

R. Jochanan going to Jerusalem to pray 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he past by that mountain [Gerizim] a certain Samaritan seeing him, asked him, Whether goest thou? I am, saith he, going to Jerusalem to pray. To whom the Samaritan, Were it not better for thee to pray in this holy mountain, than in that cursed house? Whence comes this mountain to be so holy? saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because (saith the other) it was not over-flown by the waters of the deluge. A doughty reason indeed!

R. Ishmael the Son of R. Joseph going to Jerusalem to pray, past by that mountain, a certain Samaritan meeting him, asks where art thou going? I am going, saith he, to Jerusalem to pray. Saith the other, were it not better for thee to pray in this blessed mountain than in that cursed place. Saith the R. I will tell you what you are like, you are like a god greedy after carrion; so you when you know that Idols are hid under this mountain (as it is said, [Gen. XXXV. 4.] and Jacob hid them) you are acted with a greedy desire after them. They said amongst themselves, seeing he knows there are Idols hidden in this mountain, he will come in the night and steal them away. And they consulted together to have killed him, but he getting up in the night stole away.

Somewhat akin to this Temple on Gerizim was that built by Onias in Egypt, the story of which you have in Josephus, and the description of it . Of this Temple also the Gemarists discourse , from whom we will borrow a few things.

Simeon the Just dying, said, Onias my Son shall minister in my stead. For this his brother Shimei being older than he by two years and an half, grew very envious. He saith to his brother, Come hither and I will teach thee the rule and way of ministering: So he puts him on 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and girds him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [you shall have the meaning of the words by and by] and then setting him by the Altar, cries out to his brethren the Priests, see here what this man hath vowed, and does accordingly perform to his wife, viz. that whenever he minister'd in the High Priesthood, he would put on her Stomacher, and be girt about with her girdle. The Gloss upon the place saith that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was a leathern garment; but Aruch from Avodah Zarah 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; R. Abba saith it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the stomacher of the heart. What the word in this place should mean, is plain enough from the story itself. Shimei that he might render his brother both ridiculous and odious to the rest of the Priests, persuades him to perform his services with his wife's Stomacher instead of the Brest-plate of the High Priest, and her girdle instead of that curious one they were wont to be girt with, &c.

The story goes on: His brethren the Priests upon this contrive his death, but he escaping their hands, fled into Alexandria of Egypt, and there building an Altar, offered Idolatrous sacrifices upon it. These are the words of R. Meir, but R. Judah tells him the thing was not so; for Onias did not own his brother Shimei to be two years and an half older than himself; but envying him, told him, come and I will teach thee the rule and method of thy Ministry. And so as R. Judah relates the matter, the Tables are turned, the whole scene altered, so that Onias persuades his brother Shimei to put on his wife's Stomacher, and gird himself with her girdle, and for that reason the Priests do plot the death of Shimei. But when he had declared the whole matter as it was indeed, then they design to kill Onias: He therefore flying into Alexandria in Egypt, builds there an Altar, and offered sacrifices upon it to the name of the Lord, according as it is said, In that day shall be an Altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt.

And now it is at the Readers choice to determine which of these two Temples, that in Egypt, or this upon Gerizim are built upon the best foundation, the one by a fugitive Priest under pretence of a Divine Prophesy; the other by a fugitive Priest too, under pretence that that Mount was the Mount upon which the blessings had been pronounced. Let the Jews speak for themselves whether they believed that Onias with pure regard to that Prophesy did build his Temple in Egypt; and let every wise man laugh at those that do thus persuade themselves. However this is certain, they had universally much more favorable thoughts of that in Egypt, than this upon Mount Gerizim; hence that passage in the place before quoted: If any one say, I devote an whole burnt-offering, let him offer it in the Temple at Jerusalem; for if he offer it in the Temple of Onias, he doth not perform his vow; but if any one say, I devote an whole burnt-offering for the Temple of Onias, though he ought to offer it in the Temple at Jerusalem, yet if he offer it in the Temple of Onias, he acquits himself. R. Simeon saith, it is no burnt-offering. Moreover, if any one shall say I vow myself to be a Nazarite, let him shave himself in the Temple at Jerusalem, for if he be shaven in the Temple of Onias, he doth not perform his vow; but if he should say, I vow myself a Nazarite, so that I may be shaven in the Temple of Onias, and he do shave himself there, he is a Nazarite.

What? did not the Samaritans themselves confess that Jerusalem was the place appointed by God himself for his Worship? No doubt, they could not be ignorant of the Temple which Solomon had built, nor did they believe but from the times of David and Solomon God had fixed his name and residence at Jerusalem. And as to their preferring their Temple on Gerizim before that in Jerusalem notwithstanding all this; it is probable their boldness and emulation might take its rise from hence, viz. they saw the second Temple falling so short of its ancient and primitive glory; they observed that the Divine presence over the Ark, the Ark itself, the Cherubims, the Urim and Thummim, the spirit of Prophesy, &c. were no more in that place.

VERS. XXXV.

IF the Samaritans rejected all the Books of the Old Testament, excepting the five Books of Moses, it may be a question whence this woman should know the name of Messias, for that it is not to be found throughout the whole Pentateuch. From whence also may further arise a twofold enquiry more; one, whether the Samaritans were of the same opinion with the Sadducees; the other, whether those Sadducees that lived amongst the Jews, rejected all the Books of the Old Testament, excepting those of Moses only. Perhaps they might so reject them as to forbid their being read in their Synagogues, in the same manner as the Jews rejected the Hagiographa; but the question is, whether they did not use them, read them, and believe them as the Jews did those holy writings.

They snatch all the sacred Books out of the fire (though on the Sabbath day) whether they read, or whether they read them not. The Gloss is, Whether they read them, that is, the Prophets; which they are wont to read in their Synagogues on the Sabbath-day, or whether they read them not, that is, the Hagiographa. It is likely that the Sadducees and Samaritans (I mean those Samaritans that lived about our Savior's time and before) might disown the Prophets and the Holy writings much after the same manner and no more. For is it at all probable that they were either ignorant of the Histories of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Kings, and the writings of the Prophets, or that they accounted them tales and of no value? There were some amongst the Samaritans, as Eulogius in Photios tells us, who had an opinion that Joshua the Son of Nun was that Prophet (of whom Moses spake) that God would raise up to them out of their brethren like to him. Do we think then that the History and Book of Joshua were unknown or disowned by them? However I cannot omit without some remarks, some few passages we meet with in Sanhedr.

The Sadducees asked Rabban Gamaliel, whence he could prove it that God would raise the dead, from the Law (saith he) and from the Prophets, and from the Holy Writings. And accordingly he alledgeth his proofs out of each Book, which I hope may not be very tedious to the Reader to take notice of in this place. I prove it out of the Law, where it is written, And the Lord said to Moses, Deut. XXXI. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers and rise again. They say probably it is meant, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This people will rise up and go a whoring. I prove it out of the Prophets according as it is written, thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise, awake and sing ye that dwell in the dust, Isa. XXVI. 19. But perhaps (say they) this may be meant of those dead which Ezekiel raised. I prove it out of the Hagiographa, according as it is writien, The roof of thy mouth is like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak, Cant. VII. 9. But perhaps (say they) it is meant they move their lips in the world. I add [ say they ] though it is not, I confess, in the Gemarists Text, because reason and sense makes it evident, that this ought to be added, and the Gloss confirms it.

Now it would have been a most absurd thing for Gamaliel to have offered any proofs of the Resurrection, either out of the Prophets, or the Hagiographae against the Sadducees, if those Books had been either not known, or of no authority amongst them. And we see that the Books themselves out of which these proofs were brought were not excepted against, but the places quoted had another sense put upon them, and pleaded for by them.

But further, the Book of Ezekiel is quoted by a Samaritan in this story:

That passage also is remarkable , They do not snatch 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Books and Volums of the Heretics from the flames, they may be burnt where they are. The Gloss is, The Books of Heretics, i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Idolaters (or those that use any strange worship) who wrote out the Law, the Prophets, and the Holy writings for their own use, in the Assyrian character and holy language. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 upon the place renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They snatch not away the Volums and Books of the Sadducees. If by Heretics the Sadducees are to be understood as the latter Gloss would have it, then comparing it with the former, they had the Law, Prophets, and the Holy writings writ in the Assyrian Character in the Holy language.

If by Heretics the Christians are understood, as in the former Gloss, (for as to the Gentiles there is no room to understand it of them in this place) then we see what Copies of the Old Testament the Hebrew -Christians anciently had in use.

It may be objected, that if the Sadducees admitted the Books of the Prophets, and the Holy writings, with this exception only, that they had them not read in their Synagogues, how came they to deny the Resurrection from the dead, when it is so plainly asserted in those Books?

To this may be answered that this argument might have something in it if it had not been one fundamental of the Sadducees Faith, that no article in Religion ought to be admitted, that cannot be made out plainly from the five Books of Moses. Compare this with that of the Pharisees , However any person may acknowledge the Resurrection from the dead, yet if he does not own that there is some indication of it in the Law, he denies a fundamental.