these words, while standing in the temple, and upon his being asked to give a sign of his jurisdiction over it, seemed to require, or at least to render appropriate, a sign of authority drawn from that very temple. The pronoun TOUTO would naturally denote the building in which he spoke. 2. If he used the epithet attributed to him by the false witnesses in St. Mark xiv. 58, τον ναον τουτον του χειροποίητον, "this temple built with hands," he can hardly be supposed to have alluded primarily to any thing but the real temple. St. Paul uses the negative of this word, as Christ himself is said to have done in St. Mark, for the temple of Heaven: but could he have possibly applied either epithet to his body, before and after the resurrection? Nor do I see any reason to suppose that the witnesses added this epithet, for it was by no means common, and, moreover, tended to weaken their own testimony, by rendering our Saviour's words more enigmatical and obscure.

*

It seems to me clear, that one of the following explanations, both of which differ from those of Forberg, Henke, Gurlitt, or Paulus, must be followed. 1. Our Redeemer spoke of the power wherewith he was invested of rebuilding the temple, should it be destroyed; but, at the same time, selected such words as would aptly denote another proof of equal power, which was really to be given.

*

ἀχειροποιητον, 2 Cor. v. 1. οὐ χειροποιητον, Heb. ix. 11.

The terms, ναος, τουτὸς, ἐγείρειν, ἐν τρισιν ἡμέραις, all suited most exactly this object. Even those who are opposed to the double sense of prophecy, for the proofs of which I must refer you to our course of hermeneutics, even they could hardly be offended at this prophetic speech, veiled under such appropriate and natural imagery. 2. Or we may, without violence, take the temple not made with hands, in the same sense as St. Paul does, and then the sense will be: Destroy this temple and religion, and I, in three days, by my resurrection, will restore a more perfect temple, not built with hands, that is, not of this creation,* by opening the spiritual temple of God in Heaven.

Another instance which, at first sight, seems at variance with the rule which I have given of our Lord's conduct, might be taken from Jo. iv. 10-15. Our Saviour there speaks of giving living waters, in a figurative sense, and the Samaritan women manifestly understands him literally; yet he gives no explanation.

To this instance I will briefly reply; 1. That, as in the last, our Saviour declines answering her difficulty at all, and therefore, the passage belongs to neither of the cases for which I have laid down a rule. 2. That, according to the opinion of the best commentators, the woman in v. 15, received our Saviour's words with irony and levity, and

Heb. ix. 11..

did not so much solicit an explanation, as ridicule his words.

3. But passing over these two important differences between this example and Jo. vi. the real motive of our Saviour's not explaining himself here appears manifest, if we consider his situation and his design. Upon perusing this interesting chapter, it has often struck me as one of the most beautiful instances on record, of his amiable ingenuity in doing good. He desired to make an opening for his religion among the Samaritans. But had he presented himself among them uncalled, had he commenced his preaching of his own accord, he could have only expected to be rejected, to be ill-treated as a Jew, and punished as a religious innovator. He wishes, therefore, to be invited by the Samaritans themselves, and he selects the most favourable moment and means, for effecting his purpose. He dismisses all his disciples to the city of Sichem, and seats himself at the well, where he was sure to find some of the inhabitants, and where the rules of hospitality in the east, would give him a right to enter into conversation. A female accordingly comes, and he uses this right by asking her for water. Nothing can be more beautifully natural than the dialogue which follows this request, every reply of our Saviour's, in particular, is most aptly directed to his great objeet, which was not to instruct, but to excite the woman's interest in his regard, to stimulate her curiosity

concerning him, (and her language at v. 11 showed that he had inspired her with respect,) and to make her his instrument for the consequences which followed. When he had wrought up these feelings to the highest point, till she asked (v. 15) at length, that he would give her the water whereof he spoke, he most ingeniously leads her to a still more interesting, and to her, intensely trying topic, by the natural suggestion that her husband ought to be present.* I am not giving you a commentary, and therefore must suppress many reflections, only to state that the knowledge which Jesus evinced. of her most private domestic affairs, convinced her that he was a prophet. (v. 19.) This leads the way to a controversial discussion on the difference of the two religions; she appeals to the Messiah for a decision, and thus gives him an opportunity of crowning her curiosity and astonishment, and of effecting all his wishes, by the concluding words, "I am he who am speaking with thee." (v. 26.) She acts exactly as he evidently desired; she runs into the city to communicate her curiosity to her fellow-citizens, they come out to invite him in, he tarries there two days, and many believe in him. (vv. 39-42.)

It seems plain that the woman fancied our Lord to insinuate that he could lead her to some running spring, which would save her the daily trouble of going so far, and drawing so deep. (v. 15.) She asks, therefore, was he greater than Jacob, who had been able to find no better well than that. (v. 12.)

It is evident, from this rapid sketch, that the object of our Saviour, in this conference, was not to satisfy, but to excite curiosity; not to instruct, but to provoke inquiry. Had he answered the woman's question, by saying that he spoke of grace and not of water, before he had made her confess, from her own conviction, that he was a prophet, she would most probably have left him in disappointment, and with ridicule or disgust; the great object for which he had sought and undertaken the interview, would have been frustrated, and the mission. to the Sichemites unaccomplished. Long before the end of the conference, certainly long before he left the city, the woman would know that he spoke not of earthly, but of spiritual waters. In fact, when she runs into the city, she does not say, "Come and see a man who has promised to give us a fountain of running water, more commodious and more perennial than even the well of Jacob;" though this would have been truly interesting motive to induce the citizens to invite him in; but, "Come and see a man who hath told me all things whatsoever I have done. Is not he the Christ ?" (v. 29.) The discovery that Jesus was the Messiah, had absorbed, as he desired, every other consideration.