But when another spake of the many years during which the temple had been a‐building, Jesus answered that, even though the temple were destroyed to‐ day, the Lord could raise up the true temple in three days. Now whether by “three days,” he meant three days exactly, or “two or three days,” according to the common phrase, concerning this matter, it has been disputed sufficiently above. But when he spake of the true temple, assuredly he meant, not the temple of Herod, but that invisible temple set upon a rock, whereof he had before spoken to Simon Peter; and this temple seemed to him at all times one with himself: therefore said he that the true temple would be raised up, meaning the Son of man, and, in himself, the Church or Congregation of mankind. But all this was hid from us at that time, save that we understood Jesus to set no store by the temple of Herod, in that he discerned the fire of God’s wrath impending over it. And to us, as I remember, yea even to us that had daily converse with Jesus, it seemed strange that he should so set at naught that same temple which he had himself cleansed. For throughout all the land of Israel, the temple, being but one (and not many, as in Gentile countries), and very full of most ancient memories, because it presented and signified to us the former temple of Solomon and the tabernacle of Moses, this temple, I say, albeit Herod the Idumæan had built it, nevertheless seemed to us, in Israel, very holy, and well nigh one with Israel itself. And for this cause Xanthias blameth the saying of Jesus touching the temple, how that it should be thrown down: for saith Xanthias, the casting down of the temple must needs have seemed to the common folk in Israel all one with the casting down of Israel itself even as the Romans took it ill when, in after days, Gaius Cæsar desired of his gods that the Roman people might have had but one neck that he might have destroyed it at a blow. Wherefore Xanthias findeth fault with this saying of Jesus, as not politic, nor discreet.