Works

§ In Cana of Galilee.

Expositors even generally do speak here of a Cana the great, and Cana the less, the greater near Sidon; the less, they agree not where: the one, as Maldonado tells us, called, Cana Sidoniorum, or, Cana of the Sido ians; and the other, Cana of Galilee. I cannot track this distinction further back, than to Jerome in locis Hebraicis: and withal I cannot see why it should be so currently and generally entertained as it is, unless he had given better grounds for it than I find any. It is true indeed, that the Scripture speaketh of a double Cana, one in the tribe of Asher, Josh. 19. 28. and the other in the tribe of Ephraim, Josh. 16. 8. & 17. 9. That in the tribe of Asher is mentioned indeed with great Sidon, not with any inference that it lay so very near it, but that the lines of Ashers coast went up towards Sidon, for of that, and not of Cana's being near Sidon, is that place to be understood: Now this Cana was certainly in Galilee past denial [for Asher was in Galilee; ] and where to find another Cana in Galilee, I believe it will be impossible to tell: This therefore I cannot but conclude to be the place, and that it is called Cana of Galilee, to distinguish it from the other Cana in the tribe of Ephraim which was Cana of Samaria: And thus supposing this our▪ Cana to be in the tribe of Asher, as the Scripture showeth it us, those words of Jacob may not unfitly be applied to this present occurrence there, that now Asher yieldeth royal dainties indeed, Gen. 49. 20. when Christ turneth water into wine.

Joseph once resided in this Town, as he testifieth himself, In vita sua, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I was at that time in the town of Galilee called Cana; and he relateth, that having a sudden occasion to go from thence to Tiberias, he marched all night, and came thither early in the morning.

§ And the mother of Jesus was there.

His Father Joseph, it is like, was now dead, for there is no mention of him anymore in the Gospel; and when Christ died, then it is apparent that Mary was a widow, for he commendeth her to his Disciple John, and he taketh her to his own house, Joh. 19. 26. &c.

Now Mary had very near kindred in this town of Cana, namely, Mary the wife of Alpheas, or Cleopas, and all that family by that relation. For 1. Mary the wife of Cleopas is called her sister, Joh. 19. 25. and that same Mary is called the mother of James and Joses, Matth. 27. 56. which were undoubtedly the sons of Alpheus, Mark 3. 18. So that Alpheus and Cleopas were but one and the same name, and Mary his wife was very near allied to the Virgin Mary. 2. Alpheus and his family lived in Cana, as may be collected by this, that one of his sons, namely, Simon, is called a Canaanite, to distinguish him from Simon Peter, Mark 3. 18. & 6. 3. And he is called a Canaanite, as meaning and importing that he was a man of Cana.

That this marriage therefore was in Alpheus his house, may be supposed upon this; That 1. Mary and Jesus their near kindred are invited, and all Jesus Disciples for his sake. 2. That Mary the mother of Jesus is so careful about the wine, lest the feast should be spoiled, and the Bridegroom and his family should be disgraced by it. And 3. in that the Evangelist presently after the story of this feast, speaketh of brethren of Jesus, that is, his kinsmen, that went with him to Capernaum, ver. 12. whereas he had no kinsmen in his company before this feast at all: Now these kinsmen or brethren were James, and Judas, and Simon, and Joses, Mark 6. 3.

As it is apparent by the very frame of these words, that the Virgin looked after a miracle; so it is something strange, upon what ground she doth expect it. Had she seen any miracle done by him heretofore? Some conceive she had; as that, in the poor and indigent estate of Joseph, he had sometimes supplied necessaries by miracle when he lived there as a private man: but this hath not such certainty in itself, or ground in Scripture, as to be a sufficient resolution that this was the ground upon which his mother now desires a miracle. But this is undoubted, that she knew him to be the Messias, and the Son of God; this she had had so many evidences and assurances of, that that was past all denial with her, and it may be that was it that she built upon, when she proposeth to him, to povide wine in a miraculous way. It is true, no question, that her eye was upon that, and upon that power that was lodged in his being the Son of God, as knowing that he was able to do such a thing if it pleased him; but what warrant had she to urge the acting of that power, since for ought we find, she had never seen him do any miracle before; nay, where, or whence had she intimation of his doing any miracle at all? Yes, she had intimation of such a thing, and of such a thing to be begun ere long, from those words of Christ spoken but the day before: From henceforth ye shall see the Heavens opened, and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. From those very words I conceive she took the rise of her demanding a miracle from her son. For in them he had plainly told his Disciples then present with him, (and there is very good ground to suppose her then to be in the company too) that they should see, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from that time, some divine and heavenly manifestation of him, though he were the Son of man, yet to be the Son of God; and that now he would begin to show himself in his actings and working of wonders, agreeable and suitable to one that had Heaven and Angels at his will and attendance: Upon this it is that she builds her request and proposal at this time, and her words are words of faith, for she believeth what Christ had spoken, and therefore she speaketh; and although she receiveth some check in Christ's answer to her, for her going about to limit and determine the hic & nunc of those his miraculous actions, yet was the proposal itself a fruit of her faith, and Christ seeth so much in her, and refuseth her not.

There is exceeding much ado among the Romish party, to mince and to qualify these words, that they may not be a reprehension; for they cannot endure that any one should think, that the Virgin Mary ever did anything worthy of reproof. The Rhemists gloss upon the words, shall serve to show their industry in this matter, to spare the alleging of more, which might be done exceeding abundantly, and (when all is alleged) but to little satisfaction. Christ then may mean here, say they, What is that woman to me and thee being but strangers, that they want wine; as some intepret it: or (which is the more proper use of that kind of speech in holy Writ) what have I to do with thee? that is, why should I have respect to thy desire in this case? In matters touching my charge, and the commission of my Father for preaching, working miracles, and other graces, I must not be tied to flesh and blood. Which was not a reprehension of our Lady, or signification that he would not hear her in this or other things pertaining to God's glory, or the good of men, for the event showeth the contrary; but it was a lesson to the company that heard it, and namely to his Disciples, that respect of kindred should not draw them to do anything against reason, or be the principal motion, why they do their duties, but God's glory. And a little after, Our Lady knew it was no check to her, but a doctrine to others. Now quorsum hoc? Why do these men, and generally all the Expositors of the same school keep such ado to clear this from a reprehension? why, because the Virgin Mary must have no check by no means: but if it had been any woman in the world but she, or any man in the world but Peter, it is a question whether we should have had all this ado to carry these words out of a reprehension.

The manner of the expression they cannot deny to be of a reprehensive nature, the common use of it in Scripture is so apparent, Judge. 11. 12. 2 Sam. 16. 10. Ezr. 4. 3. Matth. 8. 29. and divers of the most ancient Fathers have understood it here in such a sense; as Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Augustine, Athanasius, produced by Beza upon the place. It is more pertinent, and to the purpose therefore, to examine the reason why our Savior giveth his mother such a check, than to seek evasions and arguments to discharge it from being such a thing.

There be that have conceived that our Savior that knew all hearts, did perceive a little pride and vain-glory breathing in these words of his mother, as if she sought for, and was tickled with some desire of esteem and glory, which would redound to her upon these actions of her son: But upon what ground they have built so uncharitable a gloss as this is far from apparency. Although we hold not the Virgin Mary free from sin, as the Papists do, (for upon Mark 3. 31. we cannot but lay a very foul sin to her charge) yet do I not know any cause for which to charge her with pride, especially here where the respect and care of her kinsmans credit in whose house she now was, did move her to propose this to her son, rather than any respect of her own. But others more charitably somewhat have construed it so, as if Christ should check her for going about to keep him still under her maternal correction and commands, when he was now come to so full an age, as that he might very well be guide of his own actions, and accordingly they have read the latter clause by way of question, What is not mine hour yet come? that I may be at mine own disposal, but still must be at the mothers command? but besides the quaintness of this interrogative reading, hardly warranted by any Copy extant, it may very well he supposed that there was something more that our Savior looked after in the matter, than his own privilege and immunity from his mothers command, or else as the former exposition laid some aspersion of pride upon the mother, this doth very nearly do it upon the Son: The mind of Christ therefore in the uttering of these words, may best be understood by those that he speaketh with them, Mine hour is not yet come, as he being the best Expositor of himself, if we can rightly expound those.

§ Mine hour is not yet come.

Not to trouble myself and the Reader to show that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an hour, in Scripture is not always taken in that strict sense, as an hour properly is taken with us, but that it very commonly and often is used to signify time in general, and of an undefined measure; these words of Christ seem to have this aim. He had told the day before, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , From thenceforth they should see the Heavens opened, &c. that is, that now he began to be revealed, and from henceforward he must declare himself in his Public Ministry and in power. Mary taketh occasion of her proposal to him for this miracle from his own words, as was observed before; But Christ says no, upon this reason, because his working miracles was to confirm his doctrine, and therefore it were fit he should first preach and show his first miracle rather upon a Sermon than upon a feast: And that this is his mind in this clause, may be concluded by his condescension, and in that he doth accomplish what the Virgin his mother doth desire, although he seem to deny her desire: He first gives her a mild reprehension, for that she will be meddling so with his Ministerial actings, as that when he hath but told that he must do miracles, she will offer to prescribe the time and occasion. This he doth in those words, Woman, what have I to do with thee? He then rectifies her in the doctrine concerning his miracles, namely, that they were not to be acted upon all offers and occasions, but to confirm his Doctrine among those uncredulous ones, that unless they saw a sign or wonder would not believe: This he doth in this clause, Mine hour is not yet come: And then he acts the miracle that she did desire, because he knew it would have the fruit here that his miracles aimed and looked after, namely, belief in those that saw it; and so it had, for his Disciples that he had chosen before in the former Chapter, believed on him; ver. 11. and there were new ones added, of his own kindred: So that though the former part of Christ's speech in this verse be a flat reprehension of his mother, yet is not the latter part a flat denial of her request, but an exposition of the most proper meaning of his former words. Now if it be questioned when that hour came of which he speaketh, it is answered by some when John the Baptist was laid up in his prison, for that then it is said, Jesus began to preach, &c. but it is more than apparent that Jesus both preached very much, and did miracles very many before that time, and therefore those words, From that time Jesus began to preach, are to be construed in another sense, than in an antithesis to what he had done before, as shall be shown when we come there. And this hour that he speaketh of here, is to be understood of the first time of his public Ministry and Miracles after this; which the text at the furthest gives account to have been at Jerusalem at the Passover, ver. 23. For Jerusalem was the chief City, and the place where Messias was especially looked for, and therefore the Evangelist doth properly refer us thither for the miracles after this; and to observe his hour there come.

The strangeness of Christ's seeming to deny to do this miracle, and yet doing it, hath put some upon this manner of reconciling of the matter, namely, that while there was any wine remaining, he refused to do it, lest the miracle should not be apparent enough, but some suspicion might have been that there was some remnant of, or some mixture with the old wine; but when that was all gone, then he wrought the miracle, and then it was undeniable, and accordingly they understand the tense in the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not when the wine was clean gone, but when it was in failing. But besides that the Greek word will not make this out, the same cavil might have been now, if they would have cavilled, as before: for the cross-grain'd unbelievers that would have said before, that there was some mixture of the water with the wine that remained; might say now as well, that there was some mixture of the water with some wine that was concealed.

Here is a scruple, that Mary should be denied as she was in the verse before, and yet be so confident of the thing to be done, as she is in this. Divers answers are given to it, as 1. That she doubted not but that he would begin to work miracles the sooner for her sake. 2. That she was assured of his power, and of his benignity towards all. 3. By her familiarity with him, and acquaintance with all his manner of speeches, she knew it was no repulse. 4. The strength of her Faith would not suffer her to doubt. 5. It may be after his check given her for instruction, he shown some evidence that he would do this thing, either by word or gesture, which the Evangelist hath concealed. 6. There is negatio probationis, sometimes used in Scripture, as Gen. 19. 2. the Angels say unto Lot, Nay, but we will lodge in the streets, and Mat. 15. 26. It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to dogs. Not that the Angels were fixedly resolved to lie in the streets all night, but that they would try and put on Lots importunity: Nor that Christ was determinately resolvedly not to help the woman of Canaan, but that he would try and exercise her faith: So may we understand the denial here, and so did Mary understand it. Not that he did hereby totally and irreversibly gainsay her desire and proposal, [the sequel shows the contrary] but that he would instruct her and inform her understanding, and prove and strain her Faith, to see how it would act upon such a denial. And it acted strongly, and as she asked in faith, so she goes on in Faith, and according to her faith it was done unto her.

By purifying here, is not meant those sprinklings and washings that were commanded by the Law for the cleansing of the unclean, [for that uncleanness lasted till even, and what to do with those washings at a feast?] but those traditional and Pharasaical washings of the hands, mentioned Matth. 15. 2. which the Jews used before they ate bread, and of Tables, and cups, and platters, mentioned Mar. 7. Now there is a special tract in the Talmud, concerning this washing of their hands, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jadaim, which may give some light to this matter in hand. There is discoursed, first, concerning the quantity of water necessary for one man's hands, or the minimum quod sic, the least measure that may be used, and such as if there be less, the washing is not right; their rule for that is this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, they allow the fourth part of a Log of water to the hands of one man, yea, of two, half a Log to three or four, a whole Log to five, or to ten, or to an hundred: Now this measure called a Log, mentioned Lev. 14. 12. we shall consider of by and by.

Then they discourse concerning the vessels in which water is to be put for this purpose, and that matter they determine thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That water for the hands may be put in any vessel, yea, even in a vessel of ox dung. [for so the Hebrew gloss upon the place explaineth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] or, in a vessel of stone, [such were those vessels we have in mention here] or, in a vessel of Earth: Then they speak of the manner of washing, that it is by pouring of water upon the hands out of a vessel, and they dispute what water this must be, which will be more proper to consider of upon Matth. 15. if the Lord bring us thither: And there also may be produced the prayer they made when they washed their hands.

But for our present purpose, it appeareth by the rule they give about washing the hands, that these vessels mentioned here by the Evangelist, were not the vessels out of which they poured water upon their hands when they washed, for these were too heavy for such a purpose, but they stood here with water in them, to take out from thence either into the vessels that they poured out of upon their hands, or for washing of their cups and tables as occasion served. Now the number of six was not either the set and constant number of such vessels at such occasions, nor is there any mystical business in it, but the number of vessels was now suited to the company of guests, and occasion of much washing; and their number is mentioned for the setting forth of the miracle the more, when not only so much water was made wine in an Instant, but also in so many several vessels.

§ Containing two or three firkins apiece.

In searching after the quantity and contents of these vessels, we may very fitly preface the words that Camerarius useth upon them, De mensuris atque nummis cum non potuerint a diversorum populorum & temporum hominibus, nisi diversa tradi, consequence est esse incerta de his rebus nobis omnia; Diversity of coins and measures, in divers times and places, must needs breed an ambiguity, if not an impossibility of punctually determining and deciding what any measure or value of coin was of old, almost in any place that can be named.

The present difference of the names of measures, and of measures themselves in our own Land, may be evidence and argument enough for one of these, and we need go no further. And therefore we shall not be so bold as to go about absolutely to tell the Reader what a Metreta was, which is the measure here spoken of, but only to present him with some conjectures and opinions about this matter, and leave him to his own choice and judgment.

The Syriac expoundeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fourth parts: but of what, it is uncertain: unless he allude to the measure alleged even now out of the Talmud, the fourth part of a Log, which was the least measure that might be used in washing of their hands. The Arabic hath almost reserved the very Greek word, and so he helpeth nothing to the understanding of it.

We observed before, that the LXX use it to express 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by: Now if these two were of the same quantity and capacity, we might here take a rise to aim at what a Metreta was; but they were not so. Certain it is that a Bath and an Ephah, were one and the same measure. The Ephah for dry things, and the Bath for liquid. This is plain, Ezek. 45. 11. The Ephah and the Bath shall be of one measure, that the Bath may contain the tenth part of an Homer, and the Ephah the tenth part of an Homer. But Seah was but the third part of a Bath; and so the Talmud in Erubhim saith, that a Bath containeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 three Seahs: and so the Chaldee Paraphrast on that place of Ezekiel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Ephah and the Bath shall be of one measure, to contain three Seahs. And Rabbi Solomon on that place speaketh the very same sense, when he saith, an Homer containeth thirty Seahs; for then a Bath and Ephah which are the tenth part of it, contain three. And this both the Chaldee and the Septuagint mean, when they render an Ephah, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Exod. 16. 36. & Isaiah 5. 10. And this he helpeth to construe that phrase, Gen. 18. 6. Make ready three measures of meal; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 three Seahs, that is, an Ephah; and Matth. 13. 33. A woman hid leaven in three measures of meal, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in three Seahs, that is an Ephah. By which difference of measure, and yet the Septuagint's using but one and the same word to express both, we see that they use the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a general sense, for this or that measure, and they settle us but little in the determination of what certain and fixed measure a Metreta was.

I will not trouble the Reader with curiosity to examine what measure this was among the Greeks, or among the Romans, for there is mention of it as being in use among both those Nations, but as the story we have in hand lieth among the Jews, so will it be not only the easiest and plainest for the Reader, but also the likeliest and nearest way for resolution of the thing, to look for this measure only among the measures of the Jews, by which they measured liquid things, for of such things is the measure here in story.

For the best discovery of which thing that we seek for, it will not be impertinent to such a purpose, [certainly, it will not be unprofitable to the Reader] that we go by these two steps: 1. To reckon up in brief what measures were in use amongst the Jews, especially those that were to measure liquid things. 2. To choose and pick out of all them as near as we can, which was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is here intended.

First therefore to take a note of the Jewish measure in use among them:

• 1. The greatest of all was the Homer, mentioned Levite. 27. 16. Numb. 11. 37. Isaiah 5. 10. Hos. 3. 2. Ezek. 45. 11. derived either from Hamor, which signifieth an Ass. as being an Ass-load, or rather meaning an heap, for so the word signifieth, Exod. 8. 14. Heb. 3. 15. as containing so much as would make a good heap.

  This measure is also called Corus, 2 Chron. 2. 10. Ezra 7. 22. 1 King. 5. 11. For that an Homer and a Cor were all one, is not only apparent by the LXX who translate Homer by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Levite. 27. 16. Numb. 11. 32. &c. And by the Chaldee Paraphrast, who doth the like, Ezek. 45. 11. and by the consent of the Jews, but also by the express text of Scripture itself, Ezek. 45. 14. Ye shall offer the tenth part of a Bath out of the Cor, which is an Homer of ten Baths, &c.

• 2. Their second measure was Lethech, mentioned Hos. 3. 2. and not elsewhere; this was half the Homer, or Cor, as the Greek and Hebrew interpreters there do generally agree, and as the very sense of the place itself doth enforce to construe it. For the Prophet in that place is plainly describing the value of all the ages of the males of Israel, as they were rated, Lev. 27. and this verse expounded and construed by that Chapter, doth of itself tell, that a Lethech of barley was half an Homer, as our English hath well rendered it.
• 3. Their third measure was the Bath and Ephah, the one for liquid things, and the other for dry, as was said before; and either of them was the tenth part of an Homer, or a Cor, Ezek. 45. 11. The Jews on 1 King. 7. 26. apply the Bath in one kind, to measure dry things, for whereas it is said there that the brazen Sea contained 2000 Baths, and in 2 Chron. 4. 5. that it contained 3000 Baths: they generally reconcile it thus, that it held only 2000 Baths of liquid things, but 3000 of dry, because those might be heaped above the brims, even to the quantity as to make up a third part; see the Chaldee. Paraph. R. Sol. R. Lev. & Kimchi there.
• 4. Their fourth measure was Seah, which was the third part of an Ephah, of which before. And a fifth measure in use among them for liquid things, was the Hin, of which is mention, Exod. 29. 40. & 30. 24. Numb. 5. 4, 5. &c. This Ibn Ezra on Exod. 29. holdeth to be an Egyptian measure, and his fellow Jews conclude that it contained 12 Logs; so Kimch. in Michal, and to the same sense R. Sol. on Exod. 29. when he expoundeth the fourth part of a Hin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 three Logs: The proportion that we read of betwixt flour and liquid things in their offerings, helps us but little to understand the quantity of this measure, when a Hin is proportioned to an Ephah, Ezek. 45. 24. and half a Hin to three tenth deals, which was not fully the third part of an Ephah, Numb. 28. 12, 14.
• 5. A fifth measure in use among them was Log, named instantly before, and mentioned Lev. 14. 12. and nowhere else, and there translated by the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Cotylam.
• 6. There was also the Omer mentioned Exod. 16. 36. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Omer was the tenth part of an Ephah, as an Ephah was the tenth part of an Homer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This is called therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a tenth part, as our English expresseth it, a tenth deal, Numb: 15. 6. & 28. 13, 14. because it was the tenth part of an Ephah.
• 7. There is also mention of a Kab, 2 King. 6. 25. in that sad and strange story of the famine in Samaria, when the fourth part of a Kab of Doves dung was sold for five pieces of Silver.
• 8. There is also mention of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Mark. 7. 4. or Sextarius, as it is well translated by Beza, and that translation backed out of Galen, and the sense, as it seemeth, consented to by the Syriac, who retaineth the very Greek word: but since this was plainly a Roman measure, we shall not insist upon it.

And now if we come to the second thing that was proposed, that is, to pick and choose out of all this number of Jewish measures the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that our Evangelist mentioneth here, I should as soon fix upon the Bath to be it, as any other whatsoever, and that upon this reason: Because the Bath was the very standard of all liquid measures, as the Ephah also was of the dry: The Homer and the Cor was measured out by the Bath and the Ephah, as our Quarter is by the Bushel, Ezek. 45. 14. and all inferior measures were fitted in their several proportions to the Bath and Ephah, Ezek. 45. 10, 11. And therefore the Evangelist mentioning a Metreta, or the Measure, as the very word signifieth with a kind of Emphasis; I see not to what measure possibly it can be applied so properly as to this standing measure and standard measure of the Bath. It is true indeed, that the Hin is made a standard measure with the Ephah, Lev. 19. 36. but the reason is, because it was so indeed for holy things, as for oil or wine that were to be offered, and with other things than holy we never read it mentioned: but for things measured for common use, the Bath was the standard for liquids, which there and in some other places is concluded under the word Ephah, with which it was equal: and therefore as amongst us in England, where our Bushel is the standard measure for dry things, [and by which our Quarter is measured, and to which our half Bushel and Peck are proportioned] we commonly by the word Measure understand a Bushel, and when we ask, How is Corn sold a measure? we are readily apprehended so to mean: So was the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used both in Greece, where it was native, and in other places where the word was borrowed: and it was understood in those places of that measure that was most standing and indeed a measure to other measures, as the Bath was among the Jews to all liquid measures, and therefore I cannot but understand the Bath by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here.

Now to give account of the contents, and quantity of this and of the other measures mentioned before, as it is not a thing of facility, so shall we not be too curious in it, and as it is not a matter for this time and place, so shall not much time be spent upon it, but the Reader left to the perusal of those Authors that have purposely set themselves to such a work. Only these few particulars let him take up for the present.

First, the Jews themselves upon their own measures mentioned, set these gages.

• 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Quadrans, or, the Fourth part: which they sometimes mention without anymore addition, but which meaneth, the fourth part of a Log, containeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one egg-shell full and an half; so the Hebrew comment on Mishneh. Jadajim perek. 1. thus much water was enough for the washing of two men's hands if there were no more water.
• 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Log containeth four Quadrants, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And it is the measure of six egg-shells full, Kimch. in Michal.
• 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Kab is four Logs; it containeth 24 egg-shells full, Alphes. de Pasc. cap. 5.
• 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Hin is twelve Logs, or three Kabs, containing 72 egg-shells full. Idem.
• 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Satum, is 2 Hins, 6 Kabs, 24 Logs, 144 Eggs; Idem. & Kimch. ubi supra.
• 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Ephah and Bath, is three Seahs or Sata, 6 Hins, 18 Kabs, 72 Logs, and 432 eggs-shells full, Idem.

Secondly, now upon these accounts which are generally current among the Jews, the measure of these Water-pots will fall exceeding short of that gage that some give them, as that every Metreta should contain a hundred weight of wine: and that Christ by this miracle afforded two Tun of Wine within 200 weight: The Jewish Bath was far from so great a reception, as if there were no other argument to prove it, might be cleared by this, that an Ephah, which was the same measure with it, was such a quantity of Corn as would serve about ten men for bread for one day, and was little or nothing more. This appeareth by Exod. 16. where the constant proportion of Manna for a man a day was an Omer, which was the tenth part of an Ephah: And by the Chaldee Paraphrasts supposal upon Ruth 3. 15. where according to his traslation, which seems to be very proper, Ruth carrieth two Ephahs, or six Seahs of barley in her skirt. And certainly in the Septuagint's account the Bath was not of so vast a measure as to hold 100 pound weight of water, when they translate it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one Pitcher-full, Isaiah. 5. 10, where these words, Ten acres of vineyard shall yield one Bath, and the seed of an Homer shall yield an Ephah, are thus translated by them: Where ten yoke of oxen work, it shall yield one Pitcherfull, and he that soweth six Artabae, shall have three Measures, meaning three Seahs: Where, and in other places of them, I cannot but observe that they call the Seah, which was an exceeding common measure, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the measure, and I cannot but conceive that the Bath an Ephah which were the standard to it, are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the measures. Their exact receipt I will not go about to determine, that requires a set and intentional discourse, but I shall leave the matter for the Reader to conjecture at, by what hath been spoken.

There is mention among the Heathen Authors of the Symposiarchus, the Governor or Moderator in their Feasts, of which Plutarch discourseth largely in Sympos. lib. 1. quaest. 4. out of whom it may not be impertinent to character him a little; that so we may the better skan and try whether our Architriclinus here, and their Symposiarchus there, were the same, yea or no.

He was one chosen among the guests, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : that was most festivous of all the company, and that▪ would not be drunk, and yet that would drink freely. He was to rule the company, and to prohibit their being disorderly, yet not prohibiting their being merry. He was to observe the temper of the guests, and how the wine wrought upon them, and how everyone could bear his wine, and accordingly to apply himself to them, to keep them all in a harmony, and an equilibrial composure, that there might be no disquiet nor disorder. For the effecting of this, he used these two ways, first to proclaim liberty to everyone to drink what he thought good. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I am Symposiarchus, said he, and I license everyone to drink at this time as they will. And secondly, upon observing who among the guests was most ready to be touched and distempered with wine, to mingle the more water with his wine thereby to keep him in an equal pace of sobriety with the other: And so the work and office of this Symposiarchus, or governor of the Feast, was especially double, to take care that none should be forced to drink, and to take care that none should be drunk though unforced. Of such another office might the Architriclinus be conceived here; namely, someone that was specially appointed to give entertainment, and that had special employment about the distributing and disposing of the wine. And this might seem to appear the rather, because our Savior directeth the Servitors to bring the miraculous wine to be tasted first by him: But I should understand rather by Architriclinus here, the chief guest at the feast, than such a Symposiarchus, which it may be some question, whether he were in use among the Jews, or no: For, [not to go about to give account of their manner of sitting at their Feasts, in this place▪ [it will be more proper elsewhere] though from thence might be shown something toward the proof of this my supposal] let it but be considered, that the Architriclinus in mention, was a mere stranger to the business of the wine, and knew not how it went. Had Plu • archs Symposiarchus been here, he would readily have known what quantity of wine, and what variety there was in the house, he would have well known that all the wine was gone, and that they were at a loss for more, for the Yeomanry of the wine was his office at that time, above all other things, and above all other men: but this Architriclinus knew none of these things; but thought the Bridegroom had used a friendly deceit to reserve the best wine to make up their mouths, whereas others used to reserve the worst: And he speaks as a guest, and not as a Yeoman of the Feast: And our Savior sends the wine to him, as to the chiefest man at the Table, and as the fittest from whom the taste of the wine, and the taste of the miracle wrought might be distributed and dispersed throughout all the company of the Feast.

Capernaum was his own City, as was said before, and his return is still thither; as Samuel after his circuit, his return was still to Ramah, for that was his own City, 1 Sam. 7. 17. see Matth. 4. 14. & 8. 5. Matth. 9. 1. compared with Mark 2. 1. Matth. 17. 24. John 6. 17. &c. Now his stay was but a little there, because the Passover calls him up to Jerusalem. And thus when the Passover comes, there is half a year passed since he was baptized; forty days of which he spent in the Wilderness in his fast before the Tempter came to him, beside what time was spent in the threefold temptation, and in his going to, and coming from the Wilderness. Three days you have account of him, at Jorclan, and going into Galilee, John 1. ver. 29, 35, 43. and the next day after he is at Cana at a Feast; this was the fourth day from his first appearing from the Wilderness, but the third from his saving and entertaining any Disciples. So that we have but the account of six weeks, or thereabouts upon record, of all the time he spent betwixt his Baptism and his first Passover. The rest is concealed, and much of it was spent in his peragration and preaching through Galilee, to which he addresseth himself, John 1. 43.

There are none other of the Evangelists that mention any Passover at all after Christ's Baptism, but that at which he suffered: but John reckoneth not only that, but three before; and so still amongst all the four Evangelists the story is made up and completed, that there is nothing wanting. Three of his Passovers John nameth plainly and expressly by name, viz. this here; and another, Chap. 6. 4. and his last, Chap. 18. 39. but a fourth he hath not so openly named, but meaneth it in Chap. 5. 1. as shall be cleared by God's permission when we come there: And now hath Christ three years to his death, and he hath had half a year since his Baptism, and so is his time from his anointing by the Spirit for the work of the Gospel, till his offering up upon his Cross, three years and an half; see the notes on Luke 3. 21.

Now whereas the Evangelist calleth the Passover, the Passover of the Jews; Jansen is of opinion that he doth it for distinction of it from the Easter of the Christians, which saith he, was observed by them throughout all Asia, when John wrote his Gospel, And Baronius yet goes further, and would prove it from John's calling the Christian Sabbath, the Lord's day, Rev. 1. Annal. ad annum 159. It is not worth the labor, at least not in this place, to look after the antiquity and original of the celebration of Easter amongst the Christians in the Primitive times: the quarrel about the day between the Eastern and Western Churches is famous in Ecclesiastical Stories; but that this is not the intention of the Evangelist in this place, we need to go no further to prove, than to his own expression of the same thing in another, where he calleth it, The Passover, a Feast of the Jews, Chap. 6. 4. and so showeth that in this short Phrase, The Jews Passover, he meaneth not so much to distinguish it from any festival of the Christians, as to show what it was to Jews, and to distinguish it from other festivals of theirs.

§ And Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

1. In obedience to the Law, of the males appearing before the Lord, Exod. 23. 17. from which none were excepted, but for some infirmity or incapacity. All are bound to appear, but only the deaf, fools, little ones, the man that is bruised in his genitals, Hermophrodites, women, servants that were not set free, the lame, blind, sick and old; thus the Tradition in the Talmud, Hagigah, per. 1.

Christ came no doubt to the Passover every year before this all the while he lived a private man, though only one of his journeys then is mentioned, Luke 2. but now he comes upon some reason and cause, besides that that brought him then: He came then in observance of the Passover only, and of that institution that did ordain it, and so he doth likewise now, but he doth it not only upon that reason. But 2. he cometh now up to the Passover also, that he might take the opportunity of the concourse of the people to show himself, and to work his miracles. This was the first Festival that came since he was baptized, [the Feast of Dedication we reckon not with the great solemnities] and this was the greatest Festival of all the three, and now was the greatest concourse of people there to be expected, and therefore this was the fittest time for Christ to begin to show himself, when he would show himself in the most public manner, and this had been enough to have brought him up thither, had not the religiousness of the Feast obliged him, and he owned the obligation.

The Ceremonial Law of the Jews obliged them, either as single and particular men, or as members of the Congregation and people of Israel: The Passover and the other Festivals were of the latter form; for in them all the males of Israel were together, as imbodied into one society, and the meeting itself was to teach them so much: Now though our Savior did not so punctually set himself to perform the parts of the Ceremonial Law, that concerned men singly, and as particular men, for we do not find that he offered sacrifice, or that he was ever be-sprinkled with the water of Purification, or the like; yet was he constant in those things that referred to men, as joint members of the Church of Israel; especially in the Sacraments, Circumcision and the Passover, which aimed mainly at that communion. Let Separatists study upon this.

The whole mountain of the House, [as the Jews do commonly call it] was called the Temple, that is, all that space of ground, which with a wall about it, was distinguished 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the profane, or from the common ground, Ezek. 42. 20. This plot of ground thus enclosed, was 500 cubits long, and 500 cubits broad: Ezekiel in his dimensions that he giveth, retaineth this number of 500 and 500, though instead of a cubit he speaketh of a reed of six cubits and an hand breadth, Ezek. 42. 20.

Out of this space of ground were taken these several measures: 1. The Court of the women, which was 135 cubits long, and 135 cubits broad. 2. The Court of Israel, the Court of the Priests, and the place of the Temple, all which took up 187 cubits in length, and 135 in breadth; the length from East to West, the breadth from North to South: Now the length was thus distributed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Israel's treading was 11 cubits; the Priests treading 11 cubits; the compass of the Altar 32 cubits; betwixt the Altar and the Porch 12 cubits; the length of the Temple itself 100 cubits; and beyond the Oracle Westward 11 cubits, Thus doth the Talmud measure in Massecheth Middoth, perek. 2. & 4. 1. So that from the entrance of the Court of the women, to the wall that parted between the holy and profane at the West end of the Temple, were 322 cubits, and the breadth of all the Courts was the same, viz. 135 cubits. Now by this account the space that lay without these Courts, and yet within the great wall that parted 'twixt holy and profane, was 178 cubits broad at the East end, or before the Court of the women, and 365 cubits broad along by the sides of all the Courts, as they ran along from East to West; save what was taken up with the buildings which were at the corners of these several Courts, which took up forty cubits in this outward compass on either side. This outward compass by Christian Writers, is most commonly called Atrium Gentium, or the Court of the Gentiles, because into this the Gentiles might come to worship and bring their gifts: but the Jewish Writers do sometimes express it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The mountain of the House, when they spake of it in contradistinction to the Courts and Temple. This is called, The Court without the Temple, Rev. 11. 2. and yet commonly also called the Temple in Scripture, as the Temple, or the holy ground of it, is set in opposition to the City: This outward Court or space lay on every side the other Courts either more or less: And this the Talmud seemeth to aim at when it saith, The mountain of the House was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 five hundred cubits upon five hundred cubits, or 500 cubits square: And the greatest space of it was on the South, a second part of it on the East, a third part on the North, and the least on the West, and the place where was the greatest space there was the most service: This Court or Atrium Gentium, had five gates into it, two on the South-side called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The gates of Huldah, which served to go in and out at: One gate on the West called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cephunus, this was also to go in and out at; and one gate at the North, which served not for any use, which was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tadi; and one gate on the East, which had Shushan the Palace Pictured on it, Middoth, per. 1. For saith the Hebrew Gloss, When they came up out of Babel, the King of Persia commanded them to Portray the Picture of Sushan the Palace upon the gates of the House, that the fear of that Kingdom might be before them.

The entering into this Court was not at the East-gate, for at that only the High Priest went in and out to the burning of the red Cow, and they that assisted him in that work went in and out with him, but the coming in for all that came to worship was on the South-side, where the two gates were, where they went in at the one of them, and came out at the other. Into this outer Court, came not only the Heathens that were proselyted, but even Mourners, Lepers and Excommunicate Persons.

A mourner was prohibited to wash whilst he was in his mourning, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beracoth, per. 2, yet might a mourner come into this place to worship; and he discovered himself to be a mourner, by coming in and going out a different way from other people: And when it was questioned of him, why he did so, he answered, I am a mourner: And it was replied, Now he that dwelleth in this House comfort thee: Or he said, I am excommunicate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and it was replied, Now he that dwelleth in this House, put into their heart that they may fetch thee in again; or He that dwelleth in this House, put into thine heart, that thou mayst hearken to the words of thy fellows, and they draw near to thee again.

This Court was parted from the Court of the Women, with a wooden grate 13 hands breadth high. In the Northwest corner of which women's Court, namely, in the very angle of the Court of the Priests, was a parcel of building called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Chambers of the Lepers, who came thither, and were there as in a manner of an Hospital, while the Priests were about the trial of them. The Heathens, Mourners, Lepers, Excommunicate persons came to the public service of the Temple, and had the freedom of this outer Court; and hither were oxen and sheep now got also, for in this Court it was that Christ found these cattle and the Money-changers at this time.

§ Those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves.

These were sold for sacrifices, lambs for the Passover, and bullocks for the festival after, and doves for the offerings of those women, and those Lepers cleansed, that were not so rich as to reach to a Lamb, Lev. 12. 8. & 14. 21. And it may be sparrows were in this Market too for the cleansing of the Leper: and to that it may be our Savior alludeth, Matth. 10. 29. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and five for a half-penny? Luke 12. 6. The Jews have a tradition, That the burnt-offerings on festival days were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of common sheep, or oxen, but their peace-offerings were of the tithes, Chagigah per. 1. Now this tradition joined with the matter of conveniency against such times as there was like to be great store of sacrifices, caused a Market to be kept at Jerusalem, of beasts and fowls for that purpose; that those that came from far to the Passover, or to the other Festivals, as our Savior did at this time, and his company with him, might not be forced to bring their Passover lamb, or bullock, or sacrifice lamb or bullock along with them, but might have such things for ready money when they came to Jerusalem. And now too much love of convenience had brought this market into the Temple Court.

§ And the changers of money sitting.

There is the like story to this a little before Christ's last Passover, when he came riding • riumphantly to Jerusalem, Matth. 21. 12. Mark▪ 11. 15. Luke 19. 45. where he cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, as he did here, and it is like with the same course of whipping them, though it be not expressed, and with sharper words, for here he calls them but merchants, [this was the first admonition] but there he plainly calls them thieves.

There the Evangelists Matthew and Mark use the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for Money-changers; here the Evangelist John useth both that and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 too. The Syriac in all the places retaineth but one word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Arabic doth the like. Now what these argentarii and nummularii were, [for by both these expressions do Latin translators call them] requires some inquisition to find out: We find mention of such kind of men frequently among the Romans, and one famous instance may be produced to serve for many, and that is what Suetonins reports concerning Augustus, namely, that some reviled him with the baseness of his descent, as that he was Nepos nummularii, The grandchild of a Money-changer, the derision is this, in an Epistle of Cassius Parmensis; Materna tibi farina; siquidem ex crudissimo Ariciae pristino, han • finxit manibus collybo decoloratus Nerunolensis mensarius: Of such a meal art thou by thy mothers side; for Nerulonensis a Money-changer, having his fingers blackt with changing Money, did mold her in a poor Mill at Aricia, Suet in Augusto cap. 4. for Augustus was said to be a Millers grandchild: Here is mention of Collybus, from whence cometh the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Text before us; and the Collybista, or Money-changer, is called Mensarius, a man of the Table; because their profession was practiced telling money upon a table: As the same Suetonius giveth us another famous example in the life of Galba, Chap. 9. Nummulario non ex • ide versanti pecunias, manus amputavit mensae{que} ejus affixit: He cut off (saith he) the hands of a Money-changer for cheating, and nailed them to his Table. A man of this trade was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shulchani among the Jews, Mensarius, or a man of the Table; for in the tract Kiddushin, or concerning espousals, Per. 3. this case is determined; A man saith to a woman, I will show thee two hundred Zuzim, (this was the common sum of money undertaken by the Bridegroom upon espousal) if thou wilt be espoused to me; if he show it her, the espousal is made, but if he show it upon the Table, she is not espoused: And the Glossary upon the place gives this reason 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It may be he is Mensarius, a Monychanger, and changeth the money of other men's, and shows her none of his own. And so it is apparent, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Table, is not to be understood for a common or ordinary table in every man's house, but the table of this trade 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Evangelists calls it, The Table of the Money-changers.

Now it is hard to tell what was the mystery of this trade, whether change or brokage: It is generally held, that they sat there to change great Money into lesser coin, with some profit upon the change: and so the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , doth more properly intimate; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendered by the Greek Etymoligists to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , change of Money, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Money changer; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth properly signify small Money, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the smallest value.

Camerarius out of a nameless Greek Author gives this account of this matter; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. A pound containeth twelve ounces: But the Hebrews dividing the ounce have called it by other names. Far half an Ounce they call a Sta • er, because half an Ounce being put in either scale, the scales stood even. Now a Stater, or the half Ounce containeth two Shekels; and the Shekel which is half the Stater, and the fourth part of an Ounce, contained twenty Lepta, which some call Obolos, or half pence. Now one gave two half pence, and received for it bread, or some other thing for food; therefore there sat in the Temple at Jerusalem money-changers, which are called Collybistae, which changed the silver Coin that was stamped with the Emperors picture, into less money: For whereas that Coin [ it was called argenteus ] contained an hundred pence, and this was too high a rate for the buying of bread, pot-herbs, and such like things, it was brought to the Money-changers, and they gave less coin for it, namely, pence and half pence, and the like.

This action of our Savior at his first appearing in his own Temple, did fulfill that prophecy of Malachi, Chap. 3. 1, 2, 3. The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his Temple: but who may abide the day of his coming; and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like refiners fire, and like fullers sope. And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he shall purify the Sons of Levi, &c.

There was an Officer that used to walk up and down this Court, and the others to see that everyone stood to his charge, and did his duty. He was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The man of the mountain of the House. He went about from ward to ward, and • anales • ighted before him, and wheresoever any man stood not upon his charge, the man of the mountain of the House, said, Peace be upon thee, and if it proved that he was asleep, he struck him with his rod: and he had authority to set fire on his coat: and they said, What noise is that in the Court? Why, it is the noise of a son Levi that is beaten, and his clothes burnt, because he was asleep upon his guard, Massecheth middoth per. 1.

A greater than this man, nay, a greater than the Temple itself is now come; and Christ by this passage doth not only show his zeal most divine and fervent, but he acteth in the authority of a Prophet, and as one come from God, and so the Jews understand that he took upon him to do, when they propose to him as for the trial of a Prophet, that he would show a sign, and work a miracle. The cords of which he maketh his whip, it is like he found lying up and down the floor, which had tied some sacrifices, or some other things, and after that use of them were cast there: Now he useth a whip rather than a staff, because there were no staves brought into the Temple. A man may not come into the mountain of the House with his staff, nor with his shoes, with his purse, nor with the dust upon his feet; Massecheth Beracoth per. 9.

Our Savior seemeth to allude to this, when he bids his Disciples as they go to preach, To take neither staves, nor shoes, nor gold, nor silver, nor brass in their purses, and to shake off the dust of their feet. Mat. 10. 9. 10. No money in their girdles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gloss. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A hollow girdle in which travellers put their money. Compare this zealous action of our Savior, with Nehem. 13. 25.

He useth the same phrase in the same place, viz. in the Temple, when he was found there among the Doctors at twelve years old: Why sought you me? know you not where to find me? know you not that I must be in my Fathers House? Luke 2. 49.

And he cometh off thus openly and plainly with the Jews, as to call God, his Father, 1. To assert himself for the Messiah, and to distinguish him from other Prophets, who at the utmost could but call God, my God; There is no peace to the wicked, saith my God, Isaiah 57. 21. but he can, and doth call him Father, and doth so from his first appearing here in public, that he might reveal himself to the full, and leave the obstinate without excuse. 2. He seemeth to have special respect to that passage, 2 Sam. 7. 12, 13. where when God is promising to David, Christ to sit upon his Throne forever, and Solomon to sit upon his Throne for a while; he saith, He shall build an House for my Name, and I will establish the Throne of his Kingdom forever. I will be his Father.

The power of miracles had never been seen in the Land, since their return out of captivity, nay, nor the Spirit of Prophecy, since the death of Zacharias and Malachi, by their own Authors confession, and therefore the restoring of miracles and prophecy, was as the opening of heaven, and Angels ascending and descending. When they were ready to depart into Babylon, Habakkuk prayeth that God would keep alive his work of the power of miracles in that midst of years while they were in Babylon, and that they might not lose it now they went into a strange Land. And there he continued it among them in the hands of the three Children, as they are called, but more especially in the hands of Daniel: Daniel's tying up the mouths of the Lions, was the last miracle that had been done by man, till water was turned into wine at Cana in Galilee: They had Prophets indeed came with them out of their captivity, and these saw visions, and had strange things done to them by God, but none ever since they came up till now, had done any miracles or strange things from God. And after that first generation after their return, their Prophets were ceased and gone, and they had no more, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In Haggai, Zacharias, and Malachi Prophecy ceased, D. Kimch. on Zech. 5. And therefore besides the constant unbelief of the Jew that would be still requiring a sign, it is no wonder if they demand one of one that now appeared and acted under the notion of a Prophet, when signs and Prophets had been so long strangers amongst them: Nor was this all that strained this question from them, but it is like that his calling God in such singularity his Father, did move them to demand something from him as from a singular man, which thing might be suitable to such a relation as he owned: In John 5. 17. they are ready to fly in his face, because he calleth God his Father; for there was scandalum acceptum, an offense taken at him, though none was given: they were moved at him, for that he had broken the Sabbath, as they interpret it, and then they are ready to catch at every word that fell from him, for they had entertained prejudice against him: but as yet he hath done here nothing that should cause them to be offended, the driving of the market out of the Temple was a thing so reasonable, and so Religious, that they could not open their mouth against it: and his calling of God his Father, is yet without offense, if he can answer both his action and his word, by doing something agreeable to them.

• 1. Christ giveth them not a sign, otherwise then by telling them of that great sign, that he should once show, which would mightily declare him to be the Son of God, and that is the raising of his body from the dead; which very thing he also meaneth, though somewhat more be included in it, when he giveth them afterward the sign of Jonas, Matth. 12. 39. He did many miracles instantly at Jerusalem, as is apparent, ver. 23. yet would he not do one miracle for the satisfaction of this the Jews curiosity and quaere; partly because he would first give them some word of doctrine; and partly, because for his showing of miracles, he would take his own time and moving, and not theirs. In all the Gospel Christ doth no miracle, where some necessity went not along with it.
• 2. In these words, destroy this Temple, he commandeth them not to do the thing, but he foretelleth that they should do it, as Isaiah 8. 9, 10. John 13. 27. &c. yield examples of the like nature, Associate yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; take counsel together, and it shall come to naught. And what thou dost do quickly, &c.
• 3. His answer is very suitable to the present occasion: For as he had purged the Temple which they had defiled, for which they question his authority; so saith he, go yet further, and even destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it.
• 4. But he spake of the Temple of his body, verse. 21. Now he used not any such gesture or action as it seemeth, as that the Jews could perceive that he spake in that sense, but they make a double misconstruction of his words, namely, ignorant and willful. Ignorant, conceiving that he spake of the very material Temple; willful, in that whereas he only saith, do you destroy it, they accuse him for saying that he would destroy it himself, Mat. 26. 61.
• 5. Now he speaketh so closely to them, and to the matter or occasion before them, partly, because of the neareness of relation that is between the thing signifying, and the thing signified, as Mat. 26. 26. and partly because he would speak to them in parables and dark things, as Matth. 13. 34, 35.

§ This Temple.

Meaning the Temple of his body, as the Evangelist himself explaineth it; which may be understood, either because his body was the Temple of the Godhead, as Col. 2. 9. or because it was represented by the material Temple in which God dwelt presentially, as the Godhead did in Christ bodily. The Temple was a glorious figure of Christ, in God's dwelling there amongst men. In giving his Oracles there; in the services tendered and accepted there, &c. And therefore it was that wheresoever the Jews were in any part of the world, they were in all their prayers to turn their faces towards the Temple, 1 King. 8. 38, 42, 44, 48. Dan. 6. 10. And thereupon it was that when the Jews destroyed Christ's • ody, the Temple rent from the top to the bottom, in one of the choicest parts of it.

Although all that space of time and state of the Jews that passed betwixt the return out of Babylon, and the destruction of Jerusalem, be generally and indeed properly said to be under the second Temple, yet in exact strictness and reality there were two Temples in that space, namely, that that was built by Zorobable, and that that was built by Herod: Of the former we have the relation in Ezr. 3. & 6. Of the latter we have the story in Joseph. Antiq. lib. 15. cap, 14. Expositots upon this place, take no notice of this duplicity, because they account that Herod did not build, but only repair the Temple: and they generally understand this 46 years building, of the time and space that the Temple was getting up in the days of Zorobable, or instantly after the return from the Babylonian captivity: The parcels of which sum every several Expositor almost doth cast and reckon up by several counters. It were endless to allege, much more endless to examine them. I shall spare that labor, since I have given my thoughts concerning the reigns of the Persian Kings of those times in another place, and I cannot but hold still unto that account, as conceiving it to be the very account of Scripture: namely, that Cyrus reigned 3 years, Artaxerxes Ahasuerus after him 14 years, and Artaxerxes Darius 32 years, when Nehemiah went back to him, having finished Jerusalem street and wall: 49 years in all, or 7 weeks, as Dan. 9. 25. Out of these 49 years, if you seclude the two first of Cyrus, [for in his second the Temple was begun] and the thirty second of Darius, as years only current, you have exactly 46 complete years, from the beginning of the founding of Zorobables Temple, to the finishing of the city, and completing of the buildings and servicedisposal of the Temple with it.

And reckoning also after such a manner of reckoning, [namely, by casting out years that were only current] it was exactly 46 complete years since Herod began the building of the Temple, to this very time that Christ and the Jews have this discourse: For Herod fell upon that work in the eighteenth year of his reign, as Josephus relateth in the place fore-cited, and he reigned 37 years, even till Christ was two years old, as we have proved in the first part of the Harmony, at Sect. 7. or Matth. 2. And Christ at this time of his discourse was in the thirtieth year of his age, or just twenty nine years old and an half. All which sums if the Reader cast up, and count as we did in the account before, he will find how fitly [if one will so take it] these words may be applied to the Temple of Herod, forty and six years hath this Temple been built.

The Scriptures whatsoever had spoken of Christ's death and resurrection, the Disciples are said here to have believed after his resurrection. But did they not believe them before? It is undoubted they did, with a general historical belief, but after the resurrection they made use of those texts and words with a more special and peculiar application and experience.

It was the custom of the Nation to come to Jerusalem some space of time before the Festival, that they might purify themselves against the Festival came: Now Christ in this space was purifying the Temple, by casting out buyers and sellers, and driving out the cattle; and when he was then asked for a miracle, he would do none, but when the Feast was come, he beginneth to work miracles abundantly, and many believed on him. Now beginneth he most plainly and publicly to show himself being now in the chief City, in the general concourse of all the Nation, and in the greatest solemnity of all the year.

Some understand this of his not-committing and imparting the whole and full doctrine of the Gospel to them; but the very carriage of the Text showeth, that it is to be understood of not-trusting his person with them, because he knew their heart, and saw that there was mischief and rottenness in some of them against him.