ander the Great that they might be exempted from paying tribute that year; because they could neither reap, till, nor fow (b). St. Chryfoftom, who might poffibly have received it from tradition, fays, in his xxxth homily on St. John, that in procefs of time the Samaritans forfook idolatry, and ferved the true God. But it is plain from history that their worship was far from being entirely free from idolatry (c). Their temple was dedicated to Jupiter of Greece in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. And even, if we may believe Jofephus, they folemnly abjured their religion, in a letter which they wrote to that king in order to avert from themfelves the terrible calamities which were by him brought on the Jews, pretending they were originally Sidonians, and that they looked upon the obfervance of the Mojaick law. as a crime, moreover ftiling Antiochus a God. But it may be queftioned whether Jofephus is abfolutely to be depended upon in this matter; at leaft if we judge of him by other Jewish authors, who have, upon all occafions, made it their business to cry down the Samaritans, as a pack of idolaters. However this be, as the perfecution of Antiochus did not continue long, they might repent of this their fhameful diffembling, and return to the worship of the true God. Nevertheless one would be apt to conclude from these words of our Saviour to the woman of Samaria, ye worship ye know not what (d), that the faith of the Samaritans was neither grounded upon clear evidence, nor their worfhip fo pure as it ought to have been. The which would be no wonder at all, confidering the ftrange mixture before obferved; but in the comment on this place it will be made appear, that our Saviour's words will admit of another fenfe. In the mean time, thefe four things may be inferred from this paffage in St. John's gofpel concerning the Samaritans. 1. That the Samaritans did at that time call themselves the posterity of Jacob (e); which inclines one to entertain a favourable opinion of their religion and worship. 2. That they profeiled to be in expectation of the Meffiah (f); which was one of the chief Articles of the Jewish faith. 3. That Jefus Chrift fouur them well difpofed to embrace Chriftianity, before it appears he had wrought any miracles among them, which, had they been idolaters, would fcarce have happened (g). Befides, our Saviour's fojourning with them fo long as he did, is a good argument that they were not fuch. 4. That they looked upon the temple of Gerizim as the only place where men ought to worship. If the Samaritans had known or received all the books of the Old Teftament, they could not poffibly have been ignorant that Jerufalem was the only place God had chofen and appointed for the performance of his worthip. Perhaps, the reafon why they rejected all the facred writings, except the five books of Mofes, and it may be thofe of Jofhua and Judges, was, that they found therein all their pretenfions, which they alledged in favour of their temple on mount Gerizim, abfolutely condemned and overthrown. Though their hatred and averfion to the (b) Id. ibid. (c) Id. l. xii. c. 7. Jews Jews was the true caufe of their adhering fo obftinately to Gerizim, yet they alledged fome fpecious pretences for what they did. They pleaded, in their defence, the bleffings that were pronounced on mount Gerizim on the faithful obfervers of the law. Moreover they found in their Pentateuch, that Joshua built an altar on the fame mount after the bleffings were pronounced, whereas in the Hebrew the altar is faid to be erected on mount Ebal (b). This fuppofed altar of Joshua, they pretend, was afterwards converted into a temple; and fo by a fabulous tradition they have afcribed to their temple on mount Gerizim a much greater antiquity than that of Solomon's; which Jeroboam had induced then to forfake, by erecting an altar at Dan, and another at Bethel, the latter of which places was apt to create reverence not only by its name, which fignifies the boufe of God, but efpecially upon account of the vifion which Jacob was there honoured with (i). The Samaritans, not fatisfied with afferting their temple to have been built by Joshua, endea voured to render mount Gerizim ftill more venerable, by affirming that the twelve patriarchs were buried there (k), and that Abraham was met there by Melchifedech (/); applying to it what the Jews say of Jerufalem. The contefts and difputes between the Jews and Samaritans about their temples rofe to the greateft degree imaginable. Jofephus relates that they came to that height at Alexandria (m), that Ptolemy Philometor king of Egypt was forced to take the matter into his own cognizance, who accordingly appointed advocates on both fides, the one to speak in defence of the temple of Jerufalem, and the others of that of Samaria. The king was prevailed upon to decide the cafe in favour of Jerufalem, and the Samaritan advocates were condemned to death for having fo wretchedly defended their cause. (2) The difference between the Jews and Samaritans in point of religion may be reduced to these three heads: (For we are not to believe all the fcandalous ftories, which are by the Jews laid upon them in this pect ;) 1. That they looked upon the temple of Gerizim as the only place which God was pleased to be worfhipped in, and as the center of true religion. 2. That they received none other fcriptures but the Pentateuch, that is, the five books of Mofes, rejecting all the other books of the Old Testament, excepting perhaps the books of Jofhua and Judges, which they also acknowledged, but would not allow to be of the fame authority as the Pentateuch. 3. That their worship had fome tincture of paganism, and of the opinions of the nations with whom they converfed. But it is very probable it was reformed in the time of Jefus Chrift. The Jews indeed and fome ancient Chriftian writers, confound ing (b) Deut. xxvii. 4.To reconcile the greater veneration to mount Gerizim and their place of worship thereon, they have been guilty of a very great prevarication in corrupting the text (here quoted) for they have made à facrilegious change in it, and instead of mount Ebal have put mount Gerizim, the better to serve their caufe by it. Dr. Prideaux, Connect. Part 1. Book 6. ad Ann. 409. (i) Gen. xxviii. 16, 17. (*) Epift. Samar. ad Scalig. p. 126. ing them with the Sadducees, have accufed them of denying the refur rection of the dead and the immortality of the foul (o), but this accufa tion is so far from being proved, that it plainly appears by their chronicle thefe doctrines were firmly held and certainly believed among them, as learned criticks have obferved (p). The Samaritans are ftill in being, and profefs to be more ftrict and exact obfervers of the law of Mofes than the Jews themselves. Some of them are to be found in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and other parts of the East. What their religious tenets and notions are, may be feen in feveral letters which they have wrote to some learned men in Europe, and which have been collected in one volume (9). There is no neceffity of aggravating or multiplying the errors of the Samaritans, to account for the extreme averfion which the Jews had for them. That it actually was fo, is undeniably manifeft from hiftory. The fon of Sirach ranks the foolish inhabitants of Sichem, that is, the Samaritans, amongft those whom his foul abhorred, and reckons them among the nations which were most deteftable to the Jews (r): If the Jews hated the Samaritans, the Samaritans were even with them, as is plain from the gospel. Jefus Chrift going one day through a village of Samaria, the inhabitants would not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerufalem (s). The way from Galilee to Judea being through the country of the Samaritans, they often exercised acts of hoftility against the Galileans, and offered them feveral affronts and injuries, when they were going up to the folemn feafts at Jerufalem. Of which there is a very remarkable inftance in Jofephus, viz. That in the time of the em peror Claudius, the Samaritans made a great flaughter of the Galileans, as they were travelling to Jerufalem, through one of the villages of Samaria (t). The fame thing is alfo evident from what the woman of Samaria, or rather St. John, in a parenthesis, fays; to wit, That the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans (u). Commentators are not indeed agreed about the nature and extent of the dealings, or communication here mentioned. Some think that these words contain only an exaggeration, which, as they imagine, ought to be restrained to their not joining together in religious performances; not intermarrying; avoiding eating and drinking together; never making use of one another's utenfils; but not to all manner of civil intercourte. Others, on the contrary, find in them a diminution, or meiofis ; as if by them it had been intended to exprefs the greatest averfion imaginable, even to the not asking or giving one another a glass of water. The words may likewise be looked upon as an ironical faying; as if the woman, out of an ill-natured joy and fatisfaction to find a Jew forced to beg a little water of her, fhould have infulted over him for acting inconfiftently in this refpect, with the hatred which his countrymen had for the Samaritans. Whatever fenfe (p) Reland ubi fupra, p. 30. you (0) See Dr. Prideaux, ibid. (2) Under the title of Antiquitat. Ecclef. Orient. Londini 1682. 8°. See alfo Bafnage, Hiftoire des Juifs, Tom. v. Pritii Introduct. in Lect. N. Teftam. (r) Ecclus. L. 26. () Jofeph. Antiq. 1. xx. c. 5. (s) Luke ix. 52, 53. () John iv. 9. 1 You put upon them, it amounts to the fame; that is, to fhew that there was a mutual antipathy between the two nations. It appears from the eighth chapter of St. John's gofpel, that the moft opprobrious name the Jews thought they could give our Saviour, was, to call him a Samaritan (x). And it was undoubtedly for fear of creating in them a prejudice against his doctrine, that he ordered his difciples not to enter into any city of the Samaritans (y), till they had preached in Judea: For, in the main, that great lover of fouls had the falvation of the Samaritans as much at heart, as that of the Jews, and they were indeed equally deferving of that favour, as is manifeft from feveral places in the gospel. This inveterate hatred begun with the fchifm of Jeroboam. Though it was exceeding great, yet certainly it was very ill-grounded: for if they hated one another upon the account of their religion or morals, they were inexcufable, fince they were both alike very much corrupted; as may be inferred from the threatnings which the prophets denounced against them upon this account, and from Jeremiah in particular (z). Befides, the revolt of the ten tribes, inftead of creating fuch an extreme hatred and averfion for them in the tribe of Judah, as we find it did, should in reality have humbled and covered them with confufion, fince this was brought upon them as a juft punishment for their manifold iniquities. And iaftly, the extraordinary care God was pleafed to take of fending from time to time his prophets to the ten tribes (a), and the fatherly tenderness and affection which he expreffed in feveral places, when fpeaking of them, ought to have taught them to look upon one another as brethren. The hatred of the Jews against the Samaritans was very much increafed by the oppofition thefe laft made againft the former, on their return from the Babylonifh captivity, both in the rebuilding of the temple, and the repairing of the walls of Jerufalem (b). As on the other hand, the building of the temple on mount Gerizim ferved very much to fwell the Samaritans with arrogance and pride (e), and to raise the jealoufy of the Jews; fo that the feuds and animofities between them became fiercer than ever (d). Infomuch, that Hyrcanus, the grandfon of Mattathias, was prompted at laft utterly to deftroy Samaria and the temple of Gerizim, as has been already fhewn. The Samaritans, for their part, were likewife very induftrious in fhowing their anger and relentment upon all occafions. As they did once (for inftance) when a few years after the birth of Jefus Chrift, they ftrewed the temple of Jerufalem with dead men's bones, to defile and pollute it (e). Lefs plaufible pretences than these have often been known to breed an irreconcilable hatred between two nations. (r) John viii. 48. (y) Matt. x. 5. Luke x. 33. (z) Jerem. xii. 11, 12, xxiii. 13. (a) Jerem. xxxi. 20. Hofea xi. 8. (b) Ezra iv. (d) Id. I. xiii. 18. (Jofeph. Antiq. 1. xi. 2. 4. of HA Of the religious state of the Jews. Of the Jewish ceremonies in general. JAVING fpoken of the external and political state of the Jews, it will now be proper to take a view of their religion. As the Jewith church was a type of the Chriftian, it is worth while to have a thorough knowledge of its cer monies. When any one confiders the ceremonial law in itfelf, without reflecting upon the ftate and circumftances of the people for whom it was calculated, there is fomething in it that appears, at firft fight, fhocking and unaccountable to human reafon. But upon a clofer examination, and efpecially by the help of that light which the gofpel affords, it will appear, on the one hand, to have been fo excellently adapted to the neceffities of thofe for whom it was inftituted, and on the other, to be fuch an exact reprefentation of things future, that the wifdom of its author cannot be fufficiently admired. The ceremonial law may be faid to have had two objects, a nearer and a more remote one. The proximate or nearer object were the children of Ifrael, to whom God gave it, to diftinguifh them from the rest of the world, and make them his peculiar people (a). As they had been very prone to idolatry in Egypt, and had fince difcovered a very great hankering after it, there was need of a ftrong barrier to keep them off from fo pernicious a bent and difpofition. And accordingly this was the end of the ceremonial law, as might eafily be fhewn, if it was proper to do it here. It cannot be doubted but that each of thefe laws had fome other particular views; but it is certain that this was the chief defign and intention of the legiflator in giving them, as hath been proved by fome learned writers (b)... But befides this end and defign, which related directly to the people of Ifrael, the New Teftament lays before us a view more extenive, and more worthy of the Supreme Being: it teaches us that the law was a Shadow of things to come, a school-mefter to bring us unto Chrift (c), and that Jefus Chrift was the accomplishment, the fubftance, and the end of the law. So that chriftianity may be looked upon as the key of that law, and, as it were, an apology for the law-giver against the objections that may be advanced againft it. Whoever hath read the New Teftament, cannot deny, but that befides the plain and literal fenfe, this law admitted alfo of a mystical or allegorical one, which was reckoned much more fublime than the literal. Though therefore thefe words of our Saviour, I am not come to destroy the law, but to fufil it (d), ought chiefly to be understood of the moral law, which he was then fpeaking of, yet this is not the full and adequate meaning of them. For it is plain from the following verfe, that by that law which he faid he was come to (a) Joh. xxxiv. 14. Ezek. xxiii. 2. 8. 21. (b) Particularly by Dr. Spencer. (c) Rom. x. 4. Gal. iii. 24. Coloff. ii. 8. 17. Heb. x. 1. (d) Matth. v. 17. 7 fulfil |