ing them with the Sadducees, have accufed them of denying the refur rection of the dead and the immortality of the foul (0), but this accufa tion is fo 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 still in being, and profefs to be more strict and exact obfervers of the law of Moles than the Jews themfelves. Some of them are to be found in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and other parts of the Eaft. What their religious tenets and notions are, may be feen in feveral letters which they have wrote to fome 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, amongst those whom his foul abhorred, and reckons them among the nations which were moft deteftable to the Jets (r): If the Jews hated the Samaritans, the Samaritans were even with them, as is plain from the gofpel. Jefus Chrift going one day through a village or 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 emperor 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 parenthefis, 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 thefe 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 ufe of one another's utensils; but not to all manner of civil intercourfe. 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 afking or giving one another a glass of water. The words may likewife 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. (4) 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.

(t) Jofeph. Antiq. 1. xx. c. 5.

(s) Luke ix. 52, 53•.
() John iv. 9.

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, fhould in reality have humbled and covered them with confufion, fince this was brought upon them as a juft punishment for their manifold iniquities. And lastly, 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 againft the Samaritans was very much increafed by the oppofition thefe laft made against 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 (c), 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 refentment 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 thefe have often been known to breed an irreconcilable hatred between two nations.

(x) John viii. 48.

() Matt. x. 5. Luke x. 33.

(z) Jerem. xiii. 11, 12. xxiii. 13. (a) Jerem. xxxi. 20. Hofea xi. 8. (b) Ezra iv. (c) Jofeph. Antiq. 1. xi. 2. 4. (e) Id. I. xviii.

(d) Id. 1. xiii. 18.

Of

Of the Jewish ceremonies in general.

proper to take a view of their religion. As the Jewish church was a type of the Chriftian, it is worth while to have a thorough knowledge of its ceremonies. When any one confiders the ceremonial law in itself, 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 especially by the help of that light which the gospel affords, it will appear, on the one hand, to have been fo excellently adapted to the neceffities of those for whom it was inftituted, and on the other, to be fuch an exact reprefentation of things future, that the wisdom 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 reft 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 strong 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 legislator 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 extenfive, and more worthy of the Supreme Being: it teaches us that the law was a Shadow of things to come, a school-mafter 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 against it. Whoever hath read the New Teftament, cannot deny, but that befides the plain and literal fenfe, this law admitted alfo of a myftical or allegorical one, which was reckoned much more fublime than the literal. Though therefore.thefe words of our Saviour, I am not come to defroy the law, but to fulfil 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,

fulfil, we ought to understand the whole body of the law both moral and ceremonial, and the prophecies relating to the Meffiah. Thus likewife, when fpeaking of himself, he said to the Jews Destroy this temple (e), he thereby intimated to them that he was the true temple of God, of which theirs was only a figure; that he was the only true expiatory facrifice, without which there could be no remiffion of fin, and confequently that he was the Meffiah whom they expected. For this reafon it was, that St. John faid, The law was given by Mofes, but grace and truth came by Jefus Chrift (f); that is, our bleffed Redeemer was the reality and subftance of what the ceremonial law was only a fhadow and faint representation.

This typical way of reasoning is moftly used by St. Paul in his epiftles, and especially in that to the Hebrews. And it may very reafonably be fuppofed that the method he hath followed in applying the Jewith ceremonies to Jefus Chrift and the Chriftian religion was familiar to the Jews, fince he takes it for granted and argues from them, as from truths generally owned and received; though fome paffages in the epifle to the Hebrews may now feem to be very hard and obfcure to us that are not accustomed to fuch a way of reafoning, it is very probable that they were plain and intelligible to those whom it was at firft directed to. Upon the whole, it is certain, that whoever rejects and condemns abfolutely all typical reasoning, doth manifeftly depart from the end and defign of the law, and contradicts Chrift and his Apoftles.

But if it be a very great rafhnefs to cenfure and find fault with the allegorical interpretations which the facred writers of the New Teftament hath given of leveral parts of the Old, it is on the other hand of a pernicious confequence to give too much fcope to one's fancy in this particular, and to find types and allegories every where. Some authors have long ago complained of the exceffive liberty which fome of the fathers have taken in turning the whole Bible into allegory. St. Jerome, for inftance, who was himself a noted allegorift, accufed Origen of departing from the truth of feripture history, and of delivering his own inventions and witty conceits for facraments of the Church (g), i. e. for effential parts of the chriftian religion; and St. Bafil compared fuch as gave into the allegorical way, to thofe men that endeavour to make their own conceptions and whimfical dreams become fubfervient to their private interests or fyftems.

The defign of thefe allegorical writers was, as they pretended, to give mankind a more exalted notion of the holy fcriptures; but they did not confider that they brought in at the fame time a very bad precedent; for this way of reafoning proved afterwards a great differvice to true rcligion; the fchool-men, treading in the fteps of the fathers, had recourfe to allegories, in order to make out and confirm fome odd opinions, and unaccountable ceremonies, which were no way countenanced by the word of God. Our first reformers therefore, and after them feveral learned proteftant

(c) John ii. 19.

() John i. 17.

(g) Ingenium facit Ecclefice Sacramenta. Hieron (de Orig. Loqu.) Commentar. in Efai.

proteftant divines (b), have very juftly obferved what pernicious confequences fuch a method as this muft inevitably be attended with, fince it renders the only rule of chriftian faith equivocal and ambiguous; and makes it as capable of as many fenfes as the fruitful fancy and copious invention of fuperftitious men are able to frame. It must indeed be owned, that the immoderate ufe of allegories, which hath been in fafhion for a long time, and is not yet out of date in fome places, deftroys the very fubftance of all true religion, and found divinity. By means of them, holy fcriptures become a mere quibble, or at beft, a perpetual riddle, which will admit of as many different folutions and meanings, as there are perfons to read them this fhamefully betrays and exposes them to the fcorn and contempt of profane and unbelieving perfons, and to the reproaches and infults of hereticks. Morcover, fuppofing this allegorical way of expounding scripture to be the beft, or the only true one, then what occafion was there, that God (in order to adapt himself to the capacities of his rational creatures) fhould reveal his will by the miniftry of men, if quite another fenfe is to be put upon the facred writings, than what the words naturally convey to one's mind. Befides, it would be entirely needlefs to learn the original languages, in which the Old and New Teftament are written, or to get an infight into the customs and manners of the Hebrews; if, in order rightly to explain the holy fcriptures, nothing more was requifite, than a ftrong and lively imagination, and to fill one's head with airy and metaphyfical notions. There is, in fhert, no one thing in the world, though never fo out of the way, or fo contradictory in itfelf, but what may be reprefented as countenanced by the facred writings, with the help of forced and unnatural types; efpecially, if a maxim laid down by fome divines be true, That the words of fcripture mean every thing they are capable of fignifying. By this maxim, the glorious objects which the word of God fets before us, to exercise our faith and piety, will be banished, in order to make room for empty trifles, and vain fubtilties; which may indeed amuse and divert the mind, but can never afford any folid inftruction, or lafting fatisfaction. Moft of the facts, upon which the truth of our religion depends, will be converted into types and prophecies. The duties of morality will be allegorized into myfteries, which inethod the corrupted heart of man will readily clofe in with, as more reconcilable with its depraved appetites.

Hence it is evident there is a neceffity of fetting fome bounds to the myftical way of explaining fcripture; and of our being sparing and cautious in the ufe of allegories. For this reafon, it will not be improper to lay down here fome general rules and directions concerning this matter. First, then, we ought never to put a mystical or allegorical sense upon a plain paffage, whofe meaning is obvious and natural, unless it be evident from fome other part of fcripture, that the place is to be understood in a double fenfe. For instance, St. Paul teaches us that the law was a fhadow of things to come, that it was a school-mafter to bring men

to

(b) Luther, Calvin, Sixtinus Amama, Scaliger, Amyraldus, Dr. Hall, Dr. Mills.