their Disciples and the Object of David's and all other Prophet's Longings and Desires Reuchl Ib. p. 634. They maintain that David did not think himself to be the Messias because he prays for his Coming Psal xliii 3. Send out thy Light i. e. the Messias as R. Salomon interprets it And from hence they conclude that he speaks also of the Messias in Psal lxxxix 15. They did think Isaiah spake of him ch ix 6. So R. Jose Galilaeus praefat in Eccha Rabbati as it is to be seen in Devarim Rabba Paras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the end of it and in Jalk in Is § 284. And indeed what he there saith could not be meant of Hezekiah who was born 10 years before nor was his Kingdom so extensive nor so lasting as is there foretold the Messias's should be but was confined to a small part of Palestine and ended in Sedecias his Successor not many Generations afterwards And it is the general and constant Opinion of the Jews that Malachi the last of the Prophets spake of him ch 4. under the Name of the Son of Righteousness for this see Kimchi 4. It ought to be well considered that we owe the Knowledge of the Principles on which the Holy Ghost has founded the Doctrine of Types to the Jews who are so devoted to the Traditions of their Ancestors which Types however they who read the Scripture cursorily do ordinarily pass by as things light and insignificant yet it is true what St. Paul hath said 1 Cor. x. 11. That all things happened to the Fathers in Types and were written for their instruction upon whom the ends of the World are come or who live in the last Times as the Oeconomy of the Gospel is called and the last days by Jacob Gen. xlix 1. That is acknowledged by the Wisemen of the Nation in Shemoth Rabba Parasha 1 and by Menasseh ben Israel q. 6. in Isaiah p. 23. Indeed the Jews besides the literal sense of the ancient Scriptures did acknowledge a mystical or spiritual Sense which St. Paul lays down for a Maxim 1 Cor. x. 1 2 3 c. Where he applies to things of the New Testament all these following Types namely the Coming of Israel out of Egypt their passage through the Red Sea the History of the Manna and of the Rock that followed them by its Water We see in Philo the figurative sense which the Jews gave to a great part of the ancient History He remarks exactly and often with too much subtilty perhaps the many Divine and Moral Notions which the common prophetical Figures do suggest to us We see that they turned almost all their History into Allegory It plainly appears from St. Paul's way of arguing Gal. iv 22 c. which could be of no force otherwise Wee see that they reduced to an Anagogical sense all the Temporal Promises of Canaan of Jerusalem of the Temple in which St. Paul also followed them Heb. iv 4 9. quoting these words If they shall enter into my rest from Ps xcv 11. which words he makes the Psalmist speak of the Jerusalem that is above and this also is acknowledged by Maimonides de poen c. 8. This Remark ought to be made particularly on the mystical Signification which Philo the Jew gives of several Parts of the Temple of which the Apostle St. Paul makes so great use in his Epistle to the Hebrews Josephus in those few words which he has concerning the Signification of the Tabernacle Antiq. iii. 9. gives us reason enough to believe that if he had lived to finish his design of explaining the Law according to the Jewish Midrashim he would have abundantly justified this way of Explication followed by St. Paul with respect to the Tabernacle of the Covenant It is hard to conceive how the Apostles could speak of things which came to pass in Old time as Types of what should be accomplished in the Person of the Messias without any other proof than their simple affirmation As for instance that St. Peter should represent Christ as a New Noah 1 Pet. iii. 21. and that St. Paul should propose Melchisedeck as a Type of the Messias in respect to his Sacerdotal Office Heb. vi vii unless the Jews did allow this for a Maxim which flows naturally from the Principle we have been establishing namely that these Great Men were look'd on as the Persons in whom God would fulfil his first Promise but that not being completely fulfilled in them it was necessary for them that would understand it aright to carry their View much farther to a Time and Person without comparison more august in whom the Promise should be perfectly completed It may be demanded why the Prophecies seem sometime so applied to Persons then living that one would think he should not need to look any farther to see the fulfilling of them as namely the prophetical Prayer as in behalf of Solomon which is in Psalm lxxii as the Birth of a Son promised to Isaiah ch vii and ch ix 6. and where Isaiah seems to speak of himself when he saith Isa lxi 1. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me and the like But it is not hard to give a reason for this with which the ancient Jews were not unacquainted And it is this That though all these Predictions had been directed to those persons yet they had by no means their accomplishment in them nor these persons were in any degree intended and meant in the Prophecy To be particular Solomon was in Wars during the latter part of his Life and so he could not be that King of Peace spoken of in the Prophecy and his Kingdom was rent in his Son's time the smaller part of it falling to his share as the greater was seized by Jeroboam so far was the Kingdom of Solomon from being universal or everlasting Isai vii 14. The Son born to Isaiah neither had the Name of Emanuel nor could he be the Person intended by it as neither was his Mother a Virgin as the word in that Prophecy signifies And for the Prophet himself though the Spirit of the Lord was upon him and spoke by him as did it by all the other Prophets 2 Pet. 1.21 Yet that the Unction here spoken of Saadia Gaon Emunoth c. 18 D. Kimchi in rad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isaiah lxi 1. did not belong to him but to the Messias is acknowledged by the Jewish Writers and seems to have been so understood by those that heard our Saviour apply this Prophecy to himself Luk. iv 22. So that nothing was more judiciously done and more agreeable to the known Principles of the Synagogue than the Question proposed to Philip by the Eunuch who reading the liii of Isaiah asked from him Of whom did he speak of himself or of another Again It may be asked Why the Prophets called the Messias David and John Baptist Elias Not to trouble the Reader with any more than a mention of that fancy of
some of the Jews that held the Transmigration of Souls and say particularly That the Soul of Adam went into David and the Soul of David was the same with that of the Messias I say to pass by that the true Reason of such use of the Names of David and Elias is this because David was an excellent Type of the Messias that was to come out of his Loins Act. ii 30 31. And for John Baptist he came in the Spirit and Power of Elias Luk. 1.17 That is he was inspired with the same Spirit of Zeal and holy Courage that Elias was formerly acted with and employ'd it as Elias did in bringing his People to Repentance and Reformation 5. We ought to do the Jews that Justice as to acknowledge that from them it is that we know the true sense of all the Prophecies concerning the Messias in the Old Testament Which sense some Criticks seem not to be satisfied with seeking for a first accomplishment in other persons than in the Messias The Jews meaning and applying those Prophecies to the Messias in a mystical or a spiritual sense is founded upon a Reason that offers it self to the Mind of those that study Scripture with attention Before Jacob's Prophecy there was no time fixed for the Coming of the Messias but after the giving of that Prophecy Gen. xlix 10. there was no possibility of being deceived in the sense of those Prophecies which God gave from time to time full of the Characters of the Messias It was necessary 1. That the Kingdom should be in Judah and not cease till the time about which they expected the Coming of the Messias 2. That the lesser Authority called here the Law-giver should be also established in Judah and destroyed before the Coming of the Messias which we knew came to pass by the Reign of Herod the Great and some years before the Death of our Saviour And indeed the Talmudist say that forty years before the Desolation of the House of the Sanctuary Judgments of Blood were taken away from Israel Talm. Jerus l. Sanhedr c. dine mammonoth Talm. Bab. C. Sanhedr c. Hajou Bodekim And Raymondus Martini who writ this Pugio at the end of the XIIIth Century quotes Part III. Dist 3. c. 16. § 46. One R. Rachmon who says that when this happened they put on sackcloth and pull'd off their hair and said Wo unto us the Scepter is departed from Israel and yet the Messias is not come And therefore they who had this Prophecy before them could not mistake David nor Solomon nor Hezekiah for the Messias Nor could they deceive themselves so far as to think this Title was applicable to Zorobabel or any of his Successors In short there appeared not any one among the Jews before the Times of our Blessed Saviour that dared assume this Title of Messias although the Name of Anointed which the word Messias signifies had been given to several of their Kings as to David in particular But since Jesus Christ's coming many have pretended to it These things being so it is clear that the Prophecies which had not and could not have their accomplishment in those upon whose occasion they were first delivered were to receive their accomplishment in the Messias and consequently those Prophecies ought necessarily to be referred to him We ought by all means to be perswaded of this For we cannot think the Jews were so void of Judgment as to imagine that the Apostles or any one else in the World had a right to produce the simple words of the Old Testament and to urge them in any other sense than what was intended by the Writer directed by the Holy Ghost It must be his Sense as well as his Words that should be offered for proof to convince reasonable Men. But we see that the Jews did yield to such Proofs out of Scripture concerning the Messias in which some Criticks do not see the force of those Arguments that were convincing to the Jews They must then have believed that the true sense of such places was the literal sense in regard of the Messias whom God had then in view at his inditing of these Books and that it was not literal in respect of him who seems at first-sight to have been intended by the Prophecy And now I leave it to the Consideration of any unprejudiced Reader that is able to judge Whether if these Principles and Maxims I have treated of were unknown to the Jews the Apostles could have made any use of the Books of the Old Testament for their Conviction either as to the Coming of the Messias or the Marks by which he was distinguishable from all others or as to the several parts of his Ministry But this is a matter of so great importance as to deserve more pains to shew that Jesus Christ and his Apostles did build upon such Maxims as I have mentioned And therefore any that call themselves Christians should take heed how they deny the force and authority of that way of Traditional interpretation which has been anciently received in the Jewish Church CHAP. IV. That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of the Christian Doctrine by this common Traditional Exposition received among the Jews which they could not have done at least not so well had there been only such a Literal Sense of those Texts which they alledged as we can find without the help of such Exposition IF we make some reflections which do not require a great deal of Meditation it is clear that Jesus Christ was to prove to the Jews that he was the Messias which they did expect many Ages ago and whose Coming they look'd on as very near He could not have done so if they had not been acquainted with their Prophetical Books and with those several Oracles which were contained in them Perhaps there might have been some difference amongst them concerning some of those Oracles because there were in many of them some Ideas which seem contrary one to another And that was almost unavoidable because the Holy Ghost was to represent the Messias in a deep humiliation and great suffering and in a great height of Glory But after all the method of calling the Jews was quite different from the method of calling the Gentiles They had the distinct knowledge of the chief Articles of Religion which the Heathen had not They had all preparations necessary for the deciding this great question Whether Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias or not They had the Sacred Books of the Old Testament they were acquainted with the Oracles as well as with the Law They longed after the coming of the Messias They had been educated all along and trained up in the expectation of him They had not only those Sacred Books in which the Messias was spoken of but many among them had gathered the Ideas of the Prophets upon that subject as we see by the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus And indeed we see that Jesus
Gentiles by the Messias as we see in Sepher Chasidim § 961. and to the abode of the Sekinah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is explained by R. Joseph de Carnisol Saare Isider fol. 3. col 4. fol. 4. col 1. And so St. Peter supposes it to be spoken of the Messias Act. iii. 25. We may reflect in like manner on the promise God made the People Deut. xviii 15. To raise them up a Prophet like unto Moses St. Peter makes use of it as being spoken of the Messias that he should give a new Law Act. iii. 22. But the Modern Jews do all they can to evade this Application Nevertheless it appears to have been the Idea of the ancient Synagogue because we read that they speak of the Law which was to be given by the Messias as of a Law in comparison to which all other Law was to be lookt upon as meer Vanity So Coheleth Rabba in c. ii and in c. xi It is not without some surprize that we read the Application St. Mat. ii 15. has made of these words in Hos xi 1. Out of Egypt have I called my son which seem only to be spoken of the Children of Israel and not of the Messias And yet in the Book Midrash Tehillim Rabba on Ps ii we may see the Jews referred to the Messias what is written of the People of Israel Exod. iv 22. Which is an argument that St. Matthew cited this passage from Hosea according to the sense the Jews gave it with respect to the Messias The Actions of the Messias are related in the Law in the Prophets and in the Books called Hagiographa or in the Psalms In the Law Exod. iv 22. Israel is my first-born In the Prophets Isai lii 13. Behold my servant shall deal prudently In the Psalms as it is written The Lord said to my Lord Psal cx i. St. Matth. viii 17. referrs the words of Isai liii 4. to the miraculous Cures that Christ wrought And he follows herein the ancient Tradition of the Jews which taught that the Messias spoken of in this Chapter of Isaiah should pardon Sins and consequently heal their distempers which were the effects and punishments of their Sins From hence it follows that according to their Tradition the Messias should be God even as Jesus Christ did then suppose when he healed the Paralytick Man by his own power Matth. ix 6. and proves that he did not blaspheme in forgiving Sins which the Jews thought belonged only to God St. Matth. i. 23. applies the words of Isai vii 14. to Christ's being born of a Virgin Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son c. This he did likewise according to the ancient Idea of the Jews which was not quite lost in the time of Adrian the Emperor For R. Akiba who lived and died under his Reign makes the following Reflection on this Prophecy He had considered that Isaiah in the beginning of the following Chapter received Order from God to take to him two Witnesses Uriah the Priest who lived in his time and Zechary the Son of Berachiah who lived not as he thought till under the second Temple Upon which he saith that God commanded the Prophet to do thus to shew that as what he had foretold concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz was true by the Witness of Uriah who saw it accomplish'd so what he had foretold concerning the Conception and Delivery of a Virgin must be accomplished under the second Temple by the Witness of Zechary who lived then See Gemara tit Maccoth c. 3. fol. 24. 3. We see that Jesus Christ Joh. iv 21 c. alludes tacitly to the Prophecy of Mal. i. 11. concerning the Sacrifices of the New Testament This is a matter at present controverted between Christians and Jews But Christ deliver'd the sense of the Synagogue as it is evident from the Targum on those words of Malachy which applies them to the Times of the Messias 4. One would think it were only by way of Similitude that Christ applied to himself the History of the Brazen Serpent in saying Joh. iii. 14. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wilderness so must the Son of Man be lifted up But there appears to be more in it than so The ancient Jews lookt upon the Brazen Serpent as a Type of the Messias so we find by their Targum on Numb xxi 8. which expounds this Serpent which Moses lifted up by the Word of the Lord who is also called God Wisd xvi 7. compared with chap. xv 1. Although Philo while he hunts for Allegories gives another Idea of it de Agric. p. 157. 5. It may also seem to be only by way of Allusion that Christ calls himself the Bread that came down from Heaven alluding to the Manna which came down from Heaven as we read Exod. xvi But he that looks into the ancient Jewish Writers shall find that herein also our Saviour followed the common Jewish Idea For Philo who writ in Egypt before Jesus Christ began to preach tells us positively that the Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Manna Lib. quòd Deter pot insid p. 137. St. Paul Heb. 1.5 cites God's Words to David concerning one that should come out of his Loins 2 Sam. vii 14. I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son as if they respected the Messias How could he do thus When on the one hand he calleth Jesus Christ holy undefiled harmless separate from Sinners and on the other hand in that Promise to David God takes it for granted that that Son of his might be a Sinner and thereupon threatens in the very next words 2 Sam. vii 14. If he commit iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of men which suits well with Solomon but not at all with the Messias The reason is St. Paul followed the sense of this place which was commonly received among the Jews who as they refer to the Messias the Psal lxxii cx and cxxxii where the same Ideas occur so they must have referred to the Messias whatever is great in this Prophecy and to others whatever therein denotes humane infirmities And Indeed it was not very hard to give to that Oracle a further prospect viz. to the Messias 1st Because Solomon was made King in the Life of his Father whereas the Son which God speaks of was to be born after David's Death 2dly Because it is spoken of a Seed not born from David but from David's Children 3dly Because the Mercy of God was to make the Kingdom of David last for ever whereas the Kingdom of Solomon was divided soon after his Death and but two parts of twelve were left to Rehoboam his Son St. Paul Gal. iv 29. alludes to the History in Gen. xxi 9. as a Type of the Persecutions which the Jews should exercise on the Christians Whereon does he build this First having proved it his way that the Christian Church was typified in Isaac
Veritatis Besides it is so palpable that the ancient Jews particularly Philo have given the Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being a Divine Person that Maimonides his answer can be no other than an Evasion Nay it is observable that the word Davar which in Hebrew signifies Word is sometimes explained by that which is a true Person in the Books of the Old Jewish Authors who lived since Christ even in those whose authority Maimonides does acknowledge One of their ancient Books namely R. Akiba's Letters has these words on the Letter Gimel God said Thy Word is setled for ever in Heaven and this Word signifies nothing else but the healing Angel as it is written Psal cvii. 20. He sent his Word and he healed them He must needs mean a Person namely an Angel though perhaps he might mistake him for a created Angel Lastly The Notion which Maimonides does suggest can never be applied to Psal cx 1. which is thus rendred by the Paraphrast The Lord said to his Word where the Word does manifestly denote the Messias as the ancient Jews did fairly acknowledge It is true that in the common Edition that place of the Targum is rendered thus The Lord said in his Word or by his Word but it is a poor shift For in his Word does certainly signifie to his Word or of his Word the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Chaldeans having naturally that double signification as appears from many places Thus it signifies concerning or of Deut. vi 7. Jer. xxxi 20. Cant. viii 8. Job xix 18. Psal l. 20. It signifies to in Hos i. 2. Hab. ii 1. Zech. i. 4 9 13 14. Numb xii 2 6. 1 Sam. xxv 39. You may to this observation about Psal cx 1. add that of the Text of Jonathan's Targum on Isa xxviii 5. where the Messias is named in the room of the Lord of Hosts The second Evasion used by Moses Maimonides is More Nevoch pag. 1. c. 23. where he tells us in what sense Isaiah said that God comes out of his place namely that God does manifest his Word which before was hidden from us For says he all that is created by God is said to be created by his Word as Psal xxxiii By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the breath of his mouth By a comparison taken from Kings who do what they have a mind to by their word as by an Instrument For God needs no Instrument to work by but he works by his bare Will neither has he any Word properly so called Thus far Maimonides But it is not true as I shewed before that the Word in the Chaldee Paraphrase signifies no more than the manifestation of the Will of God I have quoted so many places out of the Apocryphal Books out of Philo and out of the Paraphrase it self which shew the contrary that Maimonides is not to be believed upon his bare word against so many formal proofs It is not true neither that Psal xxxiii 6. expresses only the bare act of the Will of God as Maimonides does suppose I shewed before that the great Authors of the Jewish Traditions which Maimonides was to follow when he writ his More Nevochim give another sense to those words and do acknowledge that they do establish the Personality of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Holy Ghost which they do express by the second and third Sephira or Emanation in the Divine Essence That which made Maimonides stumble was that he believed that Christians made the Word to be an Instrument different from God which is very far from their opinion For they do as well as Philo apprehend the Word as a Person distinct from the Father but not of a different nature from his but having the same Will and Operation common to him and the Father and this they have by Divine Revelation A famous Socinian whom I mentioned already being hard put to it by the Authority of the Targums has endeavoured in a Tract which he writ and which has this Title Disceptatio de Verbo vel Sermone Dei cujus creberrima fit mentio apud Paraphrast as Chaldaeos Jonathan Onkelos Targum Hierosolymitanum to shake it off by boldly affirming that the Word of the Lord is barely used by them to express the following things The Decree of God His Commands His inward Deliberation His Promise His Covenant and his Oath to the Israelites His design to punish or to do good A Prophetick Revelation The Providence which protected good Men. In short the Word by which God does promise or threaten and declare what he is resolved to do Of which the said Author pretendeth to give many instances I have already proved how false this is what that Author so positively affirms that the term Word is never found to be used by the Paraphrasts to denote a Person The very place which I just now quoted out of R. Akiba's Alphabet were enough to confute him I need not repeat neither what I said that supposing all were true which he affirms of the use of the word Memra in the Paraphrasts yet he could not but acknowledge that Philo gives quite another Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely as of a real Person in which he visibly follows the Author of the Book of Wisdom The Unitarians of this Kingdom do for that reason reject Philo's Works as being Supposititious and written after our Saviour's time I say therefore that the sense which he puts upon the Targums is very far from the true meaning of the words which they use when they speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in many places I shall not examine whether in any place of the Targums the word Memra is used instead of that of Davar which in Hebrew signifies the Word or Command of God Rittangel positively denies it And the truth is that the Targums commonly render the word Davar by Pitgama and not by Memra To be fully satisfied of it one needs but take an Hebrew Concordance upon the word Davar and search whether the Paraphrasts ever rendered it by Memra But supposing Rittangel should deny the thing too positively however the Targumists do so exactly distinguish the Word when they mention him as a Divine Person that it is impossible to mistake him in all places by putting upon them those senses which the Socinian Author endeavours to affix to them that he may destroy the Notion which they give of the Word as being a Divine Person And though I have already alledged many proofs of it yet this being a matter of great moment I will again briefly speak to it to confute that Author and those who shall borrow his Arguments Let an impartial Reader judge whether any of the Socinian Author's senses can be applied to the word Memra in Onkelos his Targum Gen. iii. 8. They heard the voice of the Word of the Lord. And Gen. xv 1 5 9.
after his example to worship â— Brick by which they understood the figure of a Cross Sanhedrin fol. 107. Sota fol. 47. Lastly It may be observed that the many Heresies which arose in after-times among Christians concerning our Saviour's Person and Natures gave the Jews very great prejudices against the Gospel The Arians for two hundred years then the Nestorians and Eutychians but chiefly the Tritheists visibly taught Doctrines contrary to truth In particular the Writings of John Philoponus who was a Tritheist were much perused by the Mahometans and Jews because they begun to study Philosophy at which John Philoponus was very good as Maimonides tells us More Nevochim pag. 1. ch 71. Now this Heresie destroying the Unity of God which is the fundamental Article of the Jewish Religion could not but give the Jews just matter of horror and detestation for Christianity Besides the Jews themselves confess that in their dispersion they have lost the knowledge of many of the Mysteries of their Religion One cannot think how it could be otherwise if one considers 1. The long time they have been dispersed which confounds the most distinct and darkens the clearest matters 2. Their extreme misery in so long a captivity which subjected them to so many different Nations and many of them such as had a particular hatred both of their Nation and Religion 3. But chiefly if one considers that those Mysteries were communicated only to a few Learned Men and kept from the knowledge of the common people as Maimonides does acknowledg and proves by many Reflections worth considering in More Nevoch p. 1. ch 71. After this the Jews having still great aversion to Christians it ought not to seem strange that the Cabalists should be so few in number among them and that most of the Jewish Doctors should follow in their Disputes against Christians Explications and Notions contrary to Scripture about the Trinity and the Divinity of the Messias For even before Christ there were amongst them many Errors crept amongst some of them about those matters so that they that lived after Christ did easily follow the worst Explication and prefer it before the better in the heats of their Disputes against Christians Neither is it to be wondered at that the same Men should maintain contrary Propositions and defend them equally in their turns as they come ta have to do with different adversaries The Papists are a remarkable instance of this when they dispute and write against the Eutychians to prove the Truth of Christ's Human Nature one would admire at the strength and soundness of their Arguments But when they are upon the manner of our Saviour's existence in the Sacrament as to his Flesh and Blood nothing can be more contrary to their former Positions than what they affirm on this occasion they destroy quite what they said before and one would think they had forgot themselves The Jews do perfectly like the Papists in this and having less knowledg and labouring under greater prejudices than they no wonder if they maintain contrary Principles one to another This may be seen in some of the old Hereticks which sprung from amongst the Jews and brought their Opinions into the Christian Religion the Cerinthians for instance who owned that the Word had dwelt in Christ but did imagin that it was but for a certain time And if the Patripassians and afterwards the Sabellians who had the clear Revelation of the Gospel yet for all this opposed the Doctrine of the Trinity as contrary to the Unity of God and affirmed that there was in God but one Person which had appeared under three differing Names It ought not to appear strange that the Jews blinded by their hatred against Christians should through their prejudices apprehend that what their old Masters taught about the three Sephiroth did not signifie three Persons in God but only the three different manners in which God works by one and the same Person I have already hinted that the Jews even about the end of the fourth Century had great offence given them by the Christians in their Worship of Saints and Relicks which being at last as Idolatrous as the Heathenish made the Jews look upon them as no other than Heathens This may be seen in many places of the Talmud which they pretend was finisht about five hundred years after Christ But especially in their Additions to those Books which they made when Idolatry was so ripe both in the East and the West One might make a Book of those too just Accusations of the Jews against the Christians which caused them to be Banisht out of many Kingdoms The Dominican Friers made a Collection of most of them in the Thirteenth Century when Christians going much into the Holy Land did something retrieve their lost knowledg of the Greek and other Eastern Languages Since that time the Jews transcribing their Talmud and their other ancient Books begun to use the words of Samaritans instead of those of Apostates and Hereticks which they used before in speaking of Christians against whom in the old Times they had made many Rules Besides the violent and Antichristian methods which some Christian Princes used against them by a false Principle of Religion to make them against their Will profess Christianity made them look upon Christians as no better than savage Beasts which besides their outward Form had nothing of Humanity and regarded neither Justice nor Religion For though their own Jewish Principles are persecuting enough yet they can't but condemn the same Principles when used against them nothing being more apt to make Men reject Truth than Persecution because Conscience ought to be instructed not inslaved as Experience in all Ages does abundantly confirm It cannot be denied but that the Jews Crucified Christ for affirming himself to be the Son of God Neither can it be supposed that he meant no more by it but that he was God's adoptive Son as the Jews were or some of their Kings For he spoke in an ordinary plain intelligible sense He meant therefore by it not only that he was the Messias but that the Word of God dwelt in him the same which the Jews acknowledged to be the Off-spring of God And for this the Jews Crucifyed him as he hints plainly enough in the Parable of the Husbandmen for he designs the Prophets by the name of meer Servants and himself he calls the Son in opposition to the Prophets and tells the Scribes and Pharisees that though they knew him to be such yet would they for all this put him to death So that by Crucifying him they did purpose to destroy a Person whom they knew to be the true Messias but by whom they were like to have lost their credit with the People He having called them a parcel of Hypocrites who made a Trade of Religion who in their hearts laught at it and only endeavoured to get by it This is the meaning of those words which Christ puts in their
one compare Job xxviii 20. Psal xxxiii 6. Prov. viii 12 22. with what is written Wisdom vi 24 22. and so on till Chap. viii 11. and he will find a great likeness if not the very same Notions and words 4. Through the same neglect they have quite lost the Works of other ancient and famous Jews as namely of Philo the Jew who was in such reputation amongst them as to be chosen the Agent or Deputy of the Alexandrian Jews in their Embassy to the Roman Emperour and of Aristobulus who lived in the time of the Ptolomees and Dedicated to one of them his Explication of the Law of which we have a fragment in Eusebius which shews that his Notions were the same with Philo's and that they did generally prevail in Egypt before Christ's Incarnation as well in the time of Philo. It is no hard matter to give some reasons of this neglect For 1. their first destruction by Titus and after by Hadrian involved with it a great part of their Books They thought then only of saving their Bibles with which it seems their Targum was joined and so this came to be preserved with the Scriptures This was by the great care of Josephus as he himself relates desiring of Titus this favour alone that he might preserve the Sacred Books 2. After their second destruction by Hadrian they applied themselves straight to gather their Traditions and Customs which now make the Body of their Misna or Second Law as they call it This spent them a deal of time For to compose such a work it was necessary to collect the several pieces in the hands of several men who had drawn certain Memoirs for the observation of every Law that did more immediately concern them 3. They then began to increase their hatred for the study of the Greek Tongue abandoning themselves wholly to the study of their Traditions This we see in the Misna Mas sota c. 9. § 14. 4. About this time being pressed with Arguments out of these Books by the Christians that disputed against them they thought best to reject the Works themselves And because the Christians used the LXX Version against them they invented several Lyes to discredit it as we see in the Gemara of Megilla and lest that should not do they made it their business to find out some that were able to make a new Version such as Aquila in the time of Hadrian and Symmachus and Theodotion who turn'd Jews toward the end of the Second Century These Three Interpreters were designed to change the Sense of those Texts which the Christians according to the Old Jewish Traditions did refer to the Messias Of this Justin Martyr has given some Instances in his Dialogue with Trypho R. Akiba's great Friend and we see that St. Jerom Ep. 89. complains of the same And now what wonder is it if the Jews in this humour did neglect or rather rejected those Apocryphal Books whose Authority in some points were set up against them by the Christians as were the Books of Baruch Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus As for Philo tho he wrote in a lofty Stile and after an Allegorical way and therefore we find in the Rabboth several Thoughts common to him and the Cabalists and other Allegorical Authors whose Notions are gathered in the Rabboth yet the Jews soon lost all esteem for his Works First Because he writ in Greek which was a Language most despised by them at this time they having establish'd it as a Maxim That he who brought up his Children in the Greek Tongue was cursed as he who fed Swine Bava kama fol. 82. col 1. Sota fol. 49. col 2. Secondly Because some Christians challenged him for their own For finding some of his Principles to be agreeable to those of the Christian Religion it came into their head tho it is a Fancy without any Foundation that he while he was at Rome was converted by St. Peter The same thing befel Josephus as soon as the Christians began to use his Authority against the Jews notwithstanding that the Jews have no better Historian than Josephus Thirdly Because the Jews had then almost forsaken the study of the Holy Scriptures and given themselves up entirely to the study of their Traditions or Second Law as they call it The Catalogue of their Ancient Commentators is very small Their first literal Commentator is R. Saadiah who writ his Comments on the Scripture in the beginning of the Tenth Century As for the others that were long before him as Zohar Siphre and Siphri Siphra Mechilta Tanchuma and the Rabboth they all make it their business to explain allegorically or to establish their Traditions As to the Targum we see how heat of Dispute hath carried the Jews to such strange extremities that now they reject no small part of those Interpretations that were Authentick with their Forefathers It may not be amiss to give some Proofs of this to shew that we do not accuse them without cause And in general there is not a more idle Romance than that which the Jews have devised touching two Messias's that are to come unto the World One must be of the Race of Joseph by Ephraim and called Nehemiah the Son of Husiel who as they will have it after a Reign of many Years at Jerusalem and after having sack'd Rome is at last to be killed himself at Jerusalem by a King of Persia The other Messias is to be Menahem the Son of Hammiel who is to appear for the delivery of the Jews being sent from God on that Errand according to Moses's Prayer Exod. iv 13. For the time of this second Messias's coming shall be when the Mother of the deceased Messias the Son of Joseph having gathered the Jews dispersed from Galilee to Jerusalem shall be there besieged by one Armillus the Son of Satan who is to proceed out of a Marble Statue in Rome and who in this close Siege shall be at the very point of destroying them Then they say Messias the Son of David shall come with seven Shepherds to wit the Three Patriarchs Moses David and Elias and eight of the principal Fathers or Prophets who are to rise before the rest They say That Moses at the head of them shall convert the Jews without working any Miracle and then all the Jews shall rise at the sound of a Trumpet passing under ground till they come to Mount Olivet which shall cleave in two to let them out Then the Jews shall come from all Quarters to form the Messias's Army and the Messias the Son of Joseph shall be raised from the dead to come in among the rest and so the two Messias's shall reign without jealousy of one another only the Son of David shall have the chief Power reigning from one end of the Earth to the other and that for Forty Years All this time the Jews shall continue in Feasting and Jollity using the other Nations as Slaves And then Gog the King of
Magog with the Kingdoms of the North shall come to attack the Jews in Palestine but he and they shall be destroyed by Rain and Hail after which the Land shall be purged of the dead Bodies and they shall build the Third Temple and then the Ten Tribes shall return and offer Sacrifices to God in the Temple and God shall pour out his Spirit on all Israel and make them Prophets as Joel hath foretold chap. xi 28. This is the Notion in short of the Two Messias's which R. Meyr Aldabi gives us in his Book Intituled Sevile Emuna ch 10. p. 123. But it is certain 1. the ancient Jews knew but of one Messias Trypho knew not of two as we see in Justin Martyr's Dialogue which is a clear proof that those passages of the Targum which speak of two Messias's are Additions to the ancient Text made since the Jews invented the conceit of a double Messias 2. It is certain the Talmudists did not believe firmly the Return of the Ten Tribes Tr. Sanh c. 10. § 3. Some did hope for it as doth also R. Eliezer Massech Sanh c. 30. § 3. But R. Akiba was of quite another opinion And yet their Posterity hath been so much inclined for R. Eliezer his opinion that one of their greatest Objections against Jesus being the Messias is this that if he had been the Messias he would have gathered the Ten Tribes 3. Their confining of the Messias's Reign to forty years is contrary to the opinion of their Fathers who held that the Messias should reign for ever Some afterward thought that he was to reign forty years others that he was to reign seventy years as you see in the Gemara of Sanhedrim ch 11. fol. 97. col 2. 4. They suppose now that the Messias shall build a third Temple Whereas Haggai describing the second Temple as that under which the Messias should appear expresly calls it the last Hag. ii 9. And this R. David Kimchi and R. Azariah and the Talmud of Jerusalem Megillah fol. 72. col 4. The Talmud of Babylon Tit. Baba batra fol. 3. col 1. and several others do acknowledg Though some few suppose Haggai's Prophecy to have reference to a third Temple See Abarbanel Men. ben Israel on Hagg. 5. It is the remark of one of the most celebrated Authors of the Talmud and received amongst the other Jews that all the times noted by the Prophets for the coming of the Messias are past Dixit Rav Omnes termini de adventu Messiae transierunt nec jam remanet nisi in conversione si Israel convertatur redimetur quod si non convertatur non redimetur Since that they have been forced to quit that miserable shift and now they maintain that all the Promises of the coming of the Messias were conditional and that he shall come when his People the Jews shall be by Repentance prepared to receive him Manas Ben. Isr q. 27. on Es And yet the Ancient in the same place before did affirm that the Messias must come in the most corrupt Age fol. 97. col 1. To be a little more particular the Jews did maintain that all the Prophets spoke of the Messias See Bethlem Juda in the word Goel At present they dispute almost every Text that we urge for the Messias so that instead of convincing them we can only shame them by laying before them the Authorities of their Fathers who understood these Texts in the same sense that the Apostles did The Modern Jews are very sensible of the Notion of a Plurality of Persons in the words Let us make Man after our Image Gen. i. Some of them therefore are for changing the reading and instead of Let Us make Man would have it Let Man be made though the Samaritan Text the Old Seventy Version and the Talmudists and all their Ancient and Modern Translations read as we do See Aben Ezra on the place and R. David Kimchi in Michlol p. 9. They will scarcely allow the Messias to be spoken of in Gen. iii. 15. Although Jonathan's Targum and that of Jerusalem do clearly understand it of the Messias The Old Jews affirmed that the Angel who appeared Gen. xix and in other places and who is called the Lord was as I have before shewed the Word of the Lord but many of their Disciples do say it was a created Angel as we learn from R. Shem Tov in his Book Emun Men. ben Israel q. 64. on Genesis Such a thing cannot be done but by an extream impudence since we see that they profess just the contrary in their own Prayers where you read in their Office of Pesach And he brought us out of Egypt Not say they by the hand of an Angel neither by the hand of a Seraphim nor by the hand of an Envoy but the Holy Blessed by his Glory and by himself as the Scripture saith Exod. xii 12. And so there they refer almost all the appearances of the Angel of the Lord to God himself exclusively to any created Angel And such are those Appearances Gen. xiv 15. Gen. xx 6. Gen. xxxi 24. Gen. xxxii 24. where they say that Israel wrestled with God Exod. xii 29 c. The present Jews are not for applying the Text Gen. xlix 10. to the Messias but some refer the words to Moses himself as R. Bechay others to David others to Ahijah the Shilonite and others to Nebuchadnezzar Notwithstanding both Jonathan's and the Jerusalem Targum note expresly this Prophecy to be spoken of the Messias And thus in the same Text the Scepter there spoken of was explained in the Old Talmudists by Power and Dominion which should not depart from Judah till the coming of the Messias Though now among some of the Modern Jews it signifies only Affliction and Calamities R. Joel aben Sueb At this day the Jews do obstinately deny any Promise to be made of the Messias Deut. xviii 18 19. And some of them will have it spoken of Joshua some of David So the Author of Midrash Tehil in Psal i. and some of Jeremy But it is visible that in and before the times of Jesus Christ they were of another opinion as may be gathered from 1 Mâ—c xiv 41. and is clear from what the multitude say Joh. vi 14. This is that Prophet who was to come into the world See also Luc. vii 16. Joh. i. 19. Mat. xxi It was not questioned in St. Paul's time whether the 2d Psalm did relate to the Messias else St. Paul could not have applied it to Christ as he doth Act. xiii 33. nor was it questioned for some Ages after the Talmudical Doctors agreeing to it You see that in the Gemara of Succoth c. 5. in Jalkuth in Psal ii in Midrash Tehillim But their new Expositors have done their utmost to make it belong to David only or to apply these words Thou art my Son Psal ii to the People of Israel So doth R. Mose Israel Mercadon upon that Psalm in his