VERS. IX.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
Simon, who before time in the same City, used Sorcery.
IF this was in Sichem, you will say, what became then of the Sichemites faith which Christ himself had already planted amongst them? Joh. IV. It may be answered (though in so very obscure a thing I would not be positive) that it was some years since the time when Christ had conversed in that City, and when as he had done nothing that was miraculous there, Simon by his Magicks might obtain the easier reception amongst them. But however, grant, it was Sebaste, or any other City of Samaria, that was the scene of this story yet who did this Simon give out himself to be, when he said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he himself was some great one? And what sort of persons did the Samari∣tans account him, when they said of him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this man is the great power of God?
I. Did they take him for the Messiah? It is commonly presumed that Simon was a Sa∣maritan by birth; but should Messiah spring out of the Samaritans? It is no impertinent question, whether the Samaritans, when they looked for the Messiah, (Joh. IV. 25.) yet could expect he should be one of the Samaritan stock, when they admitted of no Article of Faith that had not its foundation in the Books of Moses? Could they not gather this from thence, that the Messiah should come of the Tribe of Judah? A Samaritan perhaps will deny this, and elude that passage in Gen. XLIX. 10. by some such way as this: It is true, the Scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; but then this does not argue that Shiloh must derive his Original from the Tribe of Judah; only that some Dominion should continue in Judah, till Shiloh should appear. Where, by the way, it is worth our observing that the Samaritan Text and In∣terpreter in that place, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without the Jod; and instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from between his feet, that Text reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from between his banners; and the Interpreter hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from between his Ranks, or Companies.
That figment concerning Messiah ben Joseph, or Messiah ben Ephraim (for he goes by both those names) whether it was first invented by the Jews, or by the Samaritans is not easily determined. The Jewish Writers make very frequent mention of him: but the thing it self makes so much for the Samaritans, that one might believe it was first hatcht amongst themselves; only that the story tells us that Messiah was at length slain, which the Samaritans would hardly ever have invented concerning him. And the Jews perhaps might be the Authors of it, that so they might the better evade those passages that speak of the death of the true Messiah.
II. However, it was impiety enough in Simon, if he gave out himself for a Prophet, when he knew so well what himself was; and if you expound his giving out himself to be some great one no higher than this, yet does it argue arrogance enough in the knave. I would not depress the sense of those words concerning John Baptist, Luke I. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He shall be great in the sight of the Lord: but if we take it in the highest degree, he shall be a Prophet before the Lord Christ; it carries both an excellent truth along with it, and also a most plain agreeableness with the office of John. And when Stephen expresseth Moses to have been a Prophet, in these terms 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He was mighty in words and deeds, perhaps it bears the same sense with what the Samaritans said and conceited concerning this Simon, that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the great power of God.