Creature But his Disciples building upon this firm Maxim of Scripture that God alone is to be adored justly concluded against him that he was not to be adored since strictly speaking he was but a Creature and no God This Division was plainly occasioned by the strength of Scripture-proofs which on the one hand clearly shew that none can be a Christian without adoring Christ and on the other positively affirm that none but the True God ought to be adored Thus these two opposite Parties did unwillingly do the business of the true Church which ever opposed to the Enemies of the Trinity and of the Godhead of Christ the Authority of the Holy Scripture which teaches that Christ ought to be adored and withal convinces the Arians of Idolatry who adored Christ without owning him to be the true God though they bestowed on him a kind of a Godhead inferior to that of the Father I cannot but admire that they who within these few years have in this Kingdom embraced Socinus his Opinions should consider no better how little success they have had elsewhere against the truth and that upon the score of their Divisions which will unavoidably follow till they can agree in unanimously rejecting the Authority of Scripture Neither doth it avail them any thing to use Quibbles and Evasions and weak Conjectures since they are often unanswerably confuted even by some of their Brethren who are more dextrous than they in expounding of Scriptures But being resolved by all means to defend their Tenents some Chief men amongst them have undertaken to set aside the Authority of Scriptures which is so troublesome to them And the Author of a late Book intitled Considerations maintains that the Gospels have been corrupted by the Orthodox Party and suspects that of St. John to be the work of Cerinthus It is no very easy Task to dispute against men whose Principles are so uncertain and who in a manner have no regard to the Authority of Scripture It was much less difficult to undertake Socinus himself because he owned however the Authority of Scripture and that it had not been corrupted But one knows not how to deal with his Disciples who in their Opinion seem to be so contrary to him and one another They do now affirm the adoration which is paid to Christ is Idolatrous thus renouncing Socinus his Principles who lookt upon it as an essential piece of Christianity So that they can no longer be called Socinians and themselves affect the name of Unitarians And as their chief business seems to be to accuse the sincerity of Scripture-writers so the main work of them who undertake to confute them must be the establishing both the Sincerity and Authority of it which is no very hard task For even Mahometans though they take some of the same Objections that the Socinians are so full of against the Divinity of Christ yet are so far from accusing Christians of having corrupted the Scripture that they furnish us with Weapons against the Unitarians of this Kingdom as the Reader will find at the end of this following Book And although there be but small hopes of bringing to right again Men of so strange Dispositions and Notions yet they ought by no means to be left to themselves They have been often confuted by them that argued from the bare Principles of Christianity that is the Authority of Scriptures of the Old and New Testament which are the very Word of God And it has been plainly shewed them that what Alterations soever they have made in Socinus's Opinions yet their new Conceits are neither more Rational than his nor more agreeable to Divine Revelation I say that their Opinions are not more agreeable than his to right Reason For when all is done to affirm That Christ received from God an Infinite Power to govern the World without being essentially God is to affirm a downright Contradiction viz. that without partaking of the Divine Essence he received one of the Attributes which are Essential to God It is true some Popish Divines allow the Soul of Christ to be all-knowing by reason of its immediate Vnion to the Divine Nature wherein they do much service to the Socinians in holding as they do that a Creature is capable of receiving such Attributes But Protestant Divines reject this Notion as altogether false as false as many of the Schoolmens Speculations even the absurdest of them that are exploded by the Socinians They have been also further refuted as to what they aver that Justin Martyr was the first that taught the Doctrines of the Trinity of Christ's Eternal Godhead and of his Incarnation And at last that Learned Divine Dr. Bull having observed that the Jewish Tradition was favourable to those Doctrines of which the Socinians make Justin to have been the first Broacher Howsoever M. N. treats him for this neither like a Scholar nor a Christian I shall venture his displeasure in making out this Observation without meddling at all with his Arguments drawn from the Fathers to shew clearly that the like Exceptions of M. N. against Philo as being a Platonick and against the Ancient Jews and their Tradition can help him no way in the Cause he has taken in hand The Doctrine of our Church being the same which was taught by Christ and his Apostles it will be an easy matter to prove it by the same places of Scripture by which Christ and his Apostles converted the Jews and the Gentiles over to the Christian Faith and by which the Hereticks were confuted who followed or renewed the Errors which the Jews have fallen into since Christianity begun But I will go farther and prove that the Ancient Jewish Church yield the same Principles which Jesus Christ and his Apostles builded upon and by this Method it will plainly appear That the Socinians or the Unitarians let them call themselves what they please must either absolutely renounce the Authority of Scripture and turn downright Deists or they must own those Doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ as being taught us by God himself in the Holy Scriptures and acknowledged by the Ancient Jewish Church THE TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS THE Preface Chap. I. The Design of this Book and what Matters it Treats of Page 1. Chap. II. That in the times of Jesus Christ Our Blessed Saviour the Jews had among them a common Explication of the Scriptures of the Old Testament grounded on the Tradition of their Fathers which was in many things approved by Christ and his Apostles Page 11. Chap. III. That the Jews had certain Traditional Maxims and Rules for the understanding of the Scripture Page 32. Chap. IV. That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of the Christian Doctrine by his 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
have to do with do very confidently affirm any thing that comes into their heads be it never so little probable so they may thereby give any plausible Solutions of the Difficulties in which they find themselves entangled and perplext and they are much given to vaunt of their unanswerable Arguments so they call them which are many times but weak Objections such as Men of Learning and Wit should be ashamed of For this reason I thought it necessary to prevent as far as it was possible all that they can object against my Position of the Opinions the Old Jews held concerning those Doctrines which were exactly followed and fully declared by the Apostles and first Christians And because I foresee some Objections may arise I will shew that nothing can be more absurd than to imagine that the Jews or the first Christians borrowed their Notions about the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ from Plato's Disciples whereas Plato hath in truth followed the Jewish Notions of those things After this I shall make it appear that however some of the Modern Jews have changed their Opinions in these Articles yet the Socinians can make no advantage thereof because the Jews have in reality much alter'd their belief since Christ's time and are guilty of great Disingenuity as is common to all those who are obstinately set upon the maintaining of erroneous Doctrines In fine I shall plainly shew that the Socinians to defend themselves against the Orthodox have been forced to imitate those Modern Jews and have much out done them in changing and shifting their Opinions when they dispute with Christians I hope to manage this Controversy with the Socinians so plainly and fully as to satisfy the Reader That as on the one side they most falsly accuse the Church of having corrupted the New Testament to favour the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ's Godhead So they cannot on the other side get any ground upon the Jews in their Disputes with them though they fancy they got a great way towards their Conversion by rejecting those Doctrines In a word both the Ancient and Modern Jews do so far agree in those things which make on the Church's side against the Socinians that if they appeal to the Jews they are sure to lose their Cause which when they have better considered they will find it their best way for the maintaining of their Opinions to abandon the Jews altogether as Men that understood not their own Scriptures viz. the Old Testament and to reject both as they have gone a great way towards it in rejecting that traditional sense of the Old Testament for which it was quoted in the New and without which it would have signified little or nothing to those purposes for which it was quoted And so it will appear that for all their brags of the Aptness and even Necessity of their way for the Conversion of the Jews they have taken the direct way to harden them by giving up that sense of the Old Testament Scriptures which Christ and his Apostles made use of for the converting of their Forefathers But we have the less reason to complain of them for this when we see how apt they are to question the Authority of the Books of the New Testament as oft as they find them so clearly opposite to their Doctrines that they cannot obscure the Light of them by any tolerable Exposition To shew that I do not say this without cause I shall show some instances in the last Chapter of this Book CHAP. II. That in the times of Jesus Christ our Blessed Saviour the Jews had among them a common Explication of the Scriptures of the Old Testament grounded on the Tradition of their Fathers which was in many things approved by Christ and his Apostles THE Jews have to this day a certain kind of Tradition received from their Forefathers which contain many precepts of things to be done or avoided on the account of their Religion This they call their Oral Law by which name they distinguish it from the written Law which God gave them by Moses They make five Orders of such a Tradition which are explained by Moses de Trano in his Kiriat Sepher Printed at Venice Anno 1551. The first is of the things which they infer from Moses and the Prophets by a clear consequence and they are certainly of the same Authority as the rest of the Revelation although they call it a Tradition We are not such Enemies to Names as not to like such a sort of Tradition and we receive it with all imaginable reverence we like very well the Judgment of Maimonides who leaves as uncertain whatsoever the Jewish Doctors speak upon many things as being without ground when their Tradition is not gathered from Texts of Scripture de Regib c. 12. The second Order is of the Ceremonies and Rites which they keep as coming from Mount Sinai but of which there is not a word in the Law The third Order is of the Judiciary Laws upon which the two Schools of Hillel and Shammai were divided The fourth is of some Constitutions of the Ancients which they look upon as an hedge to the Law The last is of their Customs which are various in several places of their dispersion Tho' in many things they cannot but see that those last four Orders of Tradition do not agree with the Law of Moses or are quite unknown in it yet they seem to like it never the worse Nay their Rabbins professedly ascribe a much greater Authority to this Oral Law than to the Law of Moses They say in the Talmud Avoda zara c. 1. fol. 17. Col. 2. that a Man who studies in the Law alone without these Traditions is a Man which is without God according to the Prophecy of Azariah 2 Chr. 15.3 Of this sort were all the Traditions which were condemned by our Lord Jesus Christ He plainly calls them the Commandments of Men Mat. XV. 9. and has purposely directed several of his Discourses against them because even where their observing these Traditions would not consist with their Obedience to God as particularly in the case of Corban Mat. XV. 3. yet they gave Tradition the preference and so as our Saviour there tells them Ver. 9. They made the Commandments of God of no effect by their Tradition The Author of these Traditions or new Laws as one may term them did almost all of them live since the time that the Jews were under the power of the Seleucidae and they were the Leaders of those several Sects that corrupted their Religion by adding to it a great number of Observations which were perfectly new We have therefore no reason to look upon this sort of Tradition as the fountain from whence the Jews in Christ's time took their measures of the sense and meaning of the Writings of the Old Testament But for the Interpreting of their Scriptures the Jews in Christ's time had some other kinds of Traditions much different from
thus 1. we find in many places the connexion of one History with another which is very often the imagination of a Rabbin who fancied what he pleased and fathered it upon Moses 2. We find Explications in these later Targums different from the former ones yet added to the former with an impudence not to be endured and this in several places 3. We there find long Narrations which have no other foundation than their method of explaining Scripture by the way of Notarikon as they call it as where we read of the five Sins of Esau which he committed on the same day in which he sold his birthright to Jacob and in pursuance of their manner of explaining Scripture by Gematria of which Rittangel on Jetzira has given some examples p. 31 32 33. But all this makes nothing against the authority of those places in the Paraphrase where they do little more than render the Text out of Hebrew into Chaldee In them there was no occasion to shew any more than the sense of the words such as the Paraphrasts had received by Tradition from their Forefathers Whereas the Authors of those Additions thereby made a shew of Learning out of the common road and gave themselves the pleasure to see their own fictions come into such credit that they were received as the Oracles of God But beyond that we must take notice that as on one hand those Targums have been enlarged by so many Additions so on the other hand they have been altered in many places and new Ideas substituted to the old To shew the alteration which was made in those Targums by Modern Jews we can remark a thing which hath been often taken notice of by Buxtorf in his Lexicon Talmud viz. that there are many places cited from those Targums 500 years ago by the Author of Aroule that are not to be found in them as they are now in Print So we can prove clearly that new Ideas have been put in instead of the old chiefly upon the points controverted between Jews and Christians For in many places where St. Jerome in his Comments upon the Prophets brings the common explication of the Jews as agreeing with the explication of Christians we find the Targum brings an explication quite different from what it was to be according to St. Jerome's account It appears by this the Jews have done in their Books the same thing which Papists have done in the Books of the Fathers They have added many things to help their Cause and they have cut out many places which might have done great service to Truth As for the Additions then I will scarce cite any of them but when it is evident that they speak the sense of the Ancients and truly whatever one may say of the Corruptions of these Jewish Paraphrases I will maintain that it is as easie for an attentive Reader to distinguish these Corruptions from the ancient Text which it seems Arias Montanus had a design to do in a particular Treatise as it is for one that looks on an old Pot or Kettle to tell where the Tinker has been at work and to distinguish his Clouts from the Original metal The ancient pieces have a sort of simplicity that makes them to be valued and which easily shews their antiquity The Additions are the rambling fancies of bold Commentators which they devised in later times as occasion required and thrust them upon the ancient Paraphrasts who lived in those times when there was no such occasion nor could they foresee that there would be any such in after-times As for example we do not find that the Jews before Christ's time ever spoke of two Messias the one the Son of David who was to reign gloriously the other a suffering Messias the Son of Joseph of the Tribe of Ephraim The reason is plain for they had no occasion for that fancy of a suffering Messias That arose upon their Disputes with the Christians who proved that the Sufferings of Christ were no other than what the Messias was to suffer according to the Prophecies of Scripture At first the Jews tried other ways to avoid the force of these Prophecies but when no other would do they came to this to devise another Messias the Son of Joseph and to give him the Sufferings which the Scripture attributes to the Messias the Son of David In a word all these Conceits of which the greatest part of these Additions do consist do so evidently demonstrate their Novelty that when one is acquainted with a little of the History of the World as well as that of the Jews it is scarce possible that he should take them for the Text of Jonathan or of the ancient Paraphrasts Besides all this in the Modern Paraphrases themselves we find very often these words Another Targum and sometimes yet Another Targum which shews that the following words are not the ancient Targum but are the Additions of some Modern Authors whom the Copyers of the Paraphrasts have joyned as a new light to the ancient Whether the Jews's inserting such things into their Paraphrases has been out of fondness of these Discoveries which appeared to them new or whether they have found it turn to account to insert these Additions in the Body of their ancient Paraphrases thereby to enhance the value of them or whether they thought by publishing them under the Names of those ancient Commentators whose Authority is so venerable to wrest from the Christians all the advantages they might draw from any thing in their Paraphrases the things that they added being oftentimes contrary to what the Ancients did teach is a secret among the Jews but a secret little worth since the Providence of God has preserved the Apocryphal Books and the Books of Philo which can give us so much light into the knowledg of what is ancient and what is modern in these Paraphrases I will add nothing upon this matter but this that we see in the most ancient Books of the Jews as in the Books call'd Rabboth Mechista and in their old Midrashim almost all composed before the 7th Century and in the Talmud of Babylon the same Ideas and the same Doctrine which we meet in the Apocryphal Books and in Philo's Writings And those Ideas have been constantly followed by the most considerable part of the Jews those very Men who have their name from their constant sticking to the old Tradition of their Forefathers CHAP. VIII That the Authors of the Apocryphal Books did acknowledg a Plurality and a Trinity in the Divine Nature HAving finished our General Reflexions on the Traditional Sense of the Scriptures which was receiv'd among the Jews before the time of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Books wherein we can find such a Tradition it is time we should come to the chief matter we designed to treat of The Question is Whether the Jews before Christ's time had any notion of a Trinity For the Socinians would make us believe that Justin
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
the first that held the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity and by consequence that of the Trinity without which the other cannot be defended he found it necessary to assert 1st That since the Jews by Trypho's Testimony did own the Messias to be nothing more than meer Man therefore the Jewish Authors quoted by Dr. Bull against the Socinian Opinions must have lived after the Preaching of the Gospel 2dly That the Books that are quoted against them were written by Christians in Masquerade that lived since Justin Martyr's time And this he applies in particular to the Works of Philo the Jew and to the Book of Wisdom 3dy That since the Jewish Authors could not possibly mention any thing like the Doctrines of the Trinity and of the Messias his being God too to which they were such perfect Strangers whatsoever occurrs in any of the ancient Jewish Books that favours those Doctrines must needs have been foisted in by Christians after Justin Martyr's time Lastly he supposes That if any thing either in the Scripture or Jewish Authors sounds that way it probably came from the Platonics of whom both Jews and Christians borrowed many Notions and mixed them with Christian Doctrines to perswade the Heathens the more easily to embrace the Christian Religion Now though it seems unnecessary to dispute any further against him having already clearly shewn in my Discussion of Mr. N's Judgment of the Fathers that Justin Martyr was not the Broacher of those Doctrines as Mr. N. pretends yet I am willing to give a more full satisfaction to the World about it by examining what either Mr. N. or any others have said or can say on this Subject and shewing that the bold Answers to Dr. Bull 's Proofs concerning the Opinion of the Jews before Christ about those Doctrines are no better than Mr. N's supposition that Justin Martyr was the first that maintained those Doctrines I was particularly induced to undertake this task in hopes that by examining this matter to the bottom I might set these Controversies in their true Light shewing how little credit some Divines do deserve who playing the Criticks have favoured the new Jews and the Socinians with all their Might and abuse those who upon such ungrounded Authority too rashly believe that these Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity came from the School of Plato when on the contrary it is certain that Plato himself by conversing with the Jews in Egypt borrowed of them his best Notions of God To do this in the best method I can I will first of all consider in general what the Jewish Tradition was before Christ Let the Reader give me leave to use that word as the Fathers commonly use it not for a Doctrine unknown in Scripture but for a Doctrine drawn from Scripture and acknowledged for the Common Faith of the Church and I shall shew That both before Christ and in his time the Jews had a current way of expounding the Old Testament which they had received from their Fathers and that Christ and his Apostles used and approved this way of expounding their Scriptures in many particulars 2dly I will examine the Grounds the Jews went upon to come to the understanding of the Old Testament particularly of that part which contains the Promises of the Messias as they had it in Christ's time and still have it to this day 3dly I will shew by some Examples That Christ and his Apostles did prove many Articles of the Christian Doctrine by this Exposition commonly received among the Jews which they would hardly have done had they had nothing else of their side but only the Letter of those places which they quoted This being premised in general as a necessary Foundation I shall particularly examine the Authority of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament and of the Books of Philo the Jew that are extant and of the Targum or the Caldaick Paraphrases on the Books of the Old Testament these being the chief Helps by which we may find out the traditional sense of the Old Testament as it was received in the Synagogue before Christ's time This is absolutely necessary to be done for without proving the Authority of those Apocryphal Books of Philo and of those Paraphrases we cannot with any force and weight use their Testimony in this Controversy as I intend to do This being dispatcht I shall prove clearly That the Jews before Christ's time according to the received Expositions of the Old Testament derived from their Fathers had a Notion of a Plurality of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence And that this Plurality was a Trinity And further That contrary to what Mr. N. has imagined the most learned amongst them have constantly retained those Notions though perhaps they were divided in their Opinions about the Messias his Godhead and the Doctrine of the Trinity as we do apprehend it And because if it be granted that the Word was a Person that goes a great way toward proving the Doctrine of the Trinity And the Socinians affirm that it was not the uncreated Word but a created Angel that appeared to Men under the Old Testament-dispensation and was adored as being God's Representative I shall enquire what was the Opinion of the Old Jews concerning these Matters and shew that they owned the Word to be a Divine Person and that it was that Word that appeared in the Old Testament and consequently that nothing is more false than what some Socinians teach after Grotius upon the Book of Wisdom ch 18.15 grounding it upon his Opinion of an Angel's appearing and being adored That therefore it was lawful for the Jews under the Old Testament to worship Angels but it was first forbidden to Christians under the New as namely by St. Paul Colos 11.18 And that the Socinians may have nothing left them to reply against this I shall descend to particulars and shew at large That according to the Doctrine of the Old Synagogue the Jews apprehended the Word as a true and proper Person and held that that Word was the Son of God That he was the true God That he was to be in the Messias and that the Messias was promised under the Old Testament as Jehovah and accordingly the Old Synagogue expected that he should be Jehovah indeed It is of great moment to satisfy the World of these Truths and to make the Socinians sensible that they can't truly profess the Christian Religion without owning those Doctrines to which yet they seem to be so averse Therefore I will go farther and distinctly shew that the whole Gospel is grounded on those very Notions which the Jews before Christ entertained That the first Christians after the Apostles exactly followed them And that the Jews themselves following generally those very Notions upon the chief Texts of the Old Testament which Christians quote in those Controversies bear witness that they were the undoubted Doctrines both of them and of the Christians before Justin Martyr's time The Men that we
those which Christ so severely condemned And these I shall explain more particularly giving some examples of their use and also of their Authority 1. They had by Tradition the knowledge of some Matters of fact which are not recorded in their Scriptures and of other things they had more perfect and minute accounts than are recorded in the Writings of Moses and the Prophets Particularly Philo the Jew writing of the Life of Moses declares that what he had to say of him was taken partly out of Scripture and partly received by Tradition from their Forefathers * De vita Mosis pag. 468. Edit Genev. Ib. p 470. F. Of this latter sort was the long account he there gives of Moses being brought up in all the Learning of the Egyptians for there is nothing of this in the Old Testament Therefore when St. Stephen says the same thing Act. VII 22. we know that he also had it not from Scripture but from Tradition Hence also it is that St. Paul has gathered the names of Jannes and Jambres Magicians that resisted Moses and the Truth 2 Tim. iv 8. for their names are no where in Scripture but they are in Jonathan's Targum on Exod. i. 15. vii 11. from whence also they are taken into Talmud Sanhedrin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 9. Hence also St. Paul knew that the Pot wherein Moses laid up the Manna was made of Gold Heb. ix 4. which also the Seventy and Philo the Jew de congr quaer er gr pag. 375. Ed. Gen. do assure us of Mechil fol. 20. Col. 1. Tanchumah fol. 29. Col. 4. And tho' the Modern Jews deny this and say the Pot was of Earth yet it is acknowledg'd by the Samaritans that is was Golden This must have been from Tradition because there is no such thing said in Scripture It was from hence that the Apostle had that saying of Moses when he saw the dreadful appearance of God upon Mount Sinai Heb. xii 21. So terrible was the sight that Moses said I exceedingly fear and quake And another that writ soon after Paul's death namely Clemens Bishop of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians cap. 17. has other like words that Moses said I am the Steam upon the Pot. Both these sayings being no where in Scripture they could not have known them otherwise than from the Jewish Tradition From hence also St. Jude ver 9. had that passage of the dispute that Michael the Arch-Angel had with the Devil about the Body of Moses Which Body as Josephus probably says Ant. iv 8. if any Relick of it had been kept would have drawn the people into Idolatry That passage we are told by some of the Fathers was taken out of an Apocryphal Book call'd the Analepsis of Moses Clem. Alex. in Jud. Origen peri Archon iii. 2. Grotius tells us the Jews have the like things in their Midrash on Deut. in the Aboth of R. Nathan and in other of their Books It was from hence that St. Paul understood that some of the Prophets were sawn asunder Origen Respons ad African Heb. xi 37. though he spoke in the Plural he meant it only of one saith Origen namely of the Prophet Esay who was Sawed asunder by the Command of Manasses according to the Jewish Tradition Which also is mentioned by Justin Martyr as a thing out of dispute between him and Tryphon the Jew and it is taken notice of in the Gemara tr Jevamot Ch. iv It was from hence that Christ took what he said of the Martyrdom of Zechary the Son of Berachiah who was killed between the Temple and the Altar Orig. Ib. p. 232 c. Mat. xxiii 35. which Origen there also mentions as a Jewish Tradition tho' he says they supprest it as being not for the Honour of their Nation I do not deny but that there might be some ancient Authors besides the Canonical Writers to keep up the memory of these names of Persons and other matters of fact As for example Joseph Ans. l. 10. c. â—â— that there were eighteen High Priests who Officiated in the first Temple although they are not all mention'd in Scripture But if there were any such Authors it is very probable that they were lost in the Captivity or in the bloody Persecutions of the Jewish Church long before the time of our Blessed Saviour and his Holy Apostles Josephus who lived in that Age and writ the History of the Jews makes no mention of them and gives a very lame account of the things which passed under several Kings of Persia 2. Besides the Canonical Books they had Writings of a less Authority wherein were inserted by the great Men of their Nation several Doctrines that came from the Prophets which were in very high esteem and veneration though not regarded as of equal Authority with the Writings of the Prophets It is not improbable that St. Matthew had respect to some Book of this nature when he quoted that which is not found in express words in any of the Writings of the Prophets That the Messias should be called a Nazarene Mat. ii 23. if he doth not allude to the Idea of the Jews who referred to the Messias the Netzer or Branch spoken of by Isa xi 1. So Christ himself may seem to have alluded to a passage in one of these Books Joh. vii 38. where he saith He that believeth on me as saith the Scripture out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water for there is nothing perfectly like this in any of the Canonical Books that are come to our hands St. Paul the Apostle as Jerom in Ephes v. 14. observes has cited divers such Apocryphal Books accommodating himself no doubt to the Jews who gave much deference to their Authority Thus he did Rom. ix 21. and perhaps in some other places of his Epistles from the Book of Wisdom which is still extant in our Bibles Elsewhere he has Quotations out of Books that are lost as 1 Cor. ii 9. out of an Apocryphal Book that went under the name of the Prophet Elias and Ephes v. 14. out of an Apocryphal piece of the Prophet Jeremy as we are told by Georgius Syncellus in his Chron. p. 27. A. But the most express Quotation of this kind is that which is alledged by St. James iv 5 6. For these words The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to Envy are not in any Books of the Old Testament nor are the following words God resisteth the proud but giveth grace to the humble And yet both these sayings are quoted as Scripture by the Holy Apostle Of the first he saith plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture saith Then he goes on to the other and of that he saith also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any Nominative Case but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before mentioned which implies that the Scripture saith this also Now what Scripture could he mean for it is certain that neither of these
sayings is any where else in our Scriptures He must therefore mean it of one or other of the Apocryphal Books And one of the Fathers that was born within a hundred years after his death gives us a very probable guess at the Book that he intended It is Clement of Alexandria who saith of the latter Quotation These are the words of Moses Strom. iv p. 376. meaning in all likelihood of the Analepsis of Moses which Book is mentioned by the same Clement elsewhere on Jude v. 9. as a Book well known in those times in which he lived Therefore in all likelihood the words also of the former Quotation were taken from the Analepsis of Moses and it was that Apocryphal Book that S. James quoted and called it Scripture This can be no strange thing to him that considers what was intimated before that the Jews had probably these Books join'd to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hagiographa and therefore they might well be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any addition The Apocryphal Books that are in our Bibles were commonly call'd so by the Primitive Fathers Thus Clement before mention'd Strom. v. p. 431. B. quotes the words that we read in Wisdom vii 24. from Sophia in the Scriptures And the Book of Ecclesiasticus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven or eight times in his writings Paed. i. 10. ii 5. ver 8 vis 10 vis iii. 3. 11. So it is quoted by Origen with the same Title Orig. in Jerem. Hom. 16. p. 155. D. There are many the like Instances to be found in the writings of the Ancientest Fathers They familiarly called such Books The Scriptures and sometimes The Holy Scriptures and yet they never attributed the same Authority to them as to the Books that were received into the Canon of the Old Testament which as the Apostle saith were written by Divine Inspiration 2 Tim. 3.16 The same is to be said of the Prophecy of Enoch out of which St. Jude brings a Quotation in his Epistle vers 14 15. Grotius in his Annotations on the place saith This Prophecy was extant in the Apostles times in a Book that went under the name of the Revelation of Enoch and was a Book of great credit among the Jews for it is cited in their Zohar and was not unknown to Celsus the Heathen Philosopher for he also cited is as appears by Origen's Answer to him Orig. in Cels lib. V. Grotius also shews that this Book is often cited by the Primitive Fathers and he takes notice of a large piece of it that is preserved by Georg. Syncellus in his Chronicon And whereas in this piece there are many fabulous things he very well judges that they might be foisted in as many such things have been thrust into very Ancient Books But whether his Conjecture in this be true or no it is certain that the piece which is quoted by St. Jude was truly the Prophecy of Enoch because we have the Apostle's Authority to assure us of the Historical truth of it 3. It is clear that the Jews had very good and authentic Traditions concerning the Authors the Use and the Sence of divers parts of the Old Testament For Example St. Mat. Chap. xxvii 9. quotes Jeremy for the Author of a passage which he there transcribes and which we find in Zechary xi 12. How could this be but that it was a thing known among the Jews that the four last Chapters of the Book of Zechary were written by Jeremy Medes Works p. 709. and 963. and 1022. as Mr. Mede has proved by many Arguments It is by the help of this Tradition that the Ancient Interpreters have added to the Psalms such Titles as express their design and their usage in the Synagogue Certainly these Titles which shew the design of many of the Psalms contribute much to make us understand the sense of those Psalms which a man that knows the occasion of their Composing will apprehend more perfectly than he can do that reads the Psalms without these Assistances And for the Titles of several Psalms in the Septuagint and other of the Ancient Translations which shew on what days they were sung in the publick Worship of the Jews as Ps xxiv 48 81 82 93 94 c. tho' these Titles are not in the Hebrew and therefore are not part of the Jews Scripture yet that they had the knowledge of this by Tradition we find by Maimonides who tho' a stranger to those Translations De cultu divino tract de sacrificiis jugibus c. 6. Sect. 9. yet affirms that those several Psalms were sung on such and such days and he names the very days that are prefixt to them in the said Titles It is from the same Tradition that they have these Rules concerning the Psalms I. This Rule to know the Authors of them namely that all Psalms that are not inscribed with some other name are David's Psalms although they bear not his name a Maxim owned by Aben-Ezra Praefat. in Psalmos and David Kimchi and we see an Instance of this Rule in that Quotation of Ps xcv 7. which is ascribed to David in Heb. iv 7. II. From hence they have learnt also another Rule by which they distinguish between the Psalms spoken by David in his own name Tehillim Rabbat in Ps 24. Fol. 22. col 2. and as King of Israel and those which he spoke in the name of the Synagogue without any particular respect to his own time but in a prospect of the remotest future times Tehillim Rab. Ib. From thence they have learned to distinguish between the Psalms in which the Holy Ghost spoke of the present times and those in which he speaks of the times to come viz. of the time of the Messias So R. David Kimchi and others agree that the Psalms 93 94. till the Psalm 101. speak of the days of the Messias So they remark upon Ps 92. whose Title is for the Sabbath-day that it is for the time to come which shall be all Sabbath Manasseh Ben. Is in Exod. q. 102. By the help of Tradition also they clear the Text Ex. xii 40. where it is said That the sojourning of the Children of Israel who dwelt in Aegypt was 430 years It would be a great mistake of these words to think the meaning of them should be that the Children of Israel dwelled in Aegypt 430 years For in truth they dwelled there but half the time as the Jews themselves reckon and all Learned men do agree to it But the Jews understand by these words that the sojourning of the Children of Israel all the while they dwelled in Aegypt and in the Land of Canaan they and their Fathers was 430 years Thus all the Rabbins do understand it and thus it was anciently explained by putting in words to this sense in the Samaritan Text and in the Alexandrian LXX That they were in the right we see by the Apostle's reckoning
the time to have been 430 years from the promise made to Abraham at his coming into Canaan till the giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai which was but 50 days after their coming up out of Aegypt In like manner from Tradition they filled up that place Gen. IV. 8. where it is said that Cain talkt with Abel his Brother by adding the words which he spoke Let us go into the field This Insertion is not only in the Alexandrian LXX but the Samaritans have it in their Bibles and they had it there in S. Hierom's time It is also extant in the Jerusalem Targum Lib. qd. det p. 120 124 125. Philo the Jew Philosophises on these words much after the same manner as doth the Targum 4. It is certain that they have had very common among them the knowledge of the most illustrious Prophecies of the Messias This we may see in the Answer of the Samaritan Woman to our Blessed Saviour Joh. iv 25. where she saith I know that when the Messias is come he will tell us all things For though it is no where plainly said yet the Samaritans knew full well that the Messias should explain all things according to the Traditional sense of that Prophecy in Deut. xviii 15 18 19. which hath been so constantly referr'd to the Messiah that we find till this day in the Midrash upon Ecclesiast c. 1.9 that the last Redeemer shall be like the first that is Moses And in consequence of this knowledge commonly received among the Jews Joh. xii 34. did they of Christ's time hold for certain that the Messiah should remain for ever which their Posterity not knowing how to reconcile with their Notion of the Messias they fancied that the Messias should dye after a long Reign and leave his Crown to his Children from Generation to Generation Hence it was that the Sanhedrin answered Herod without delay Mat. ii 5 6. that the Messiah should be born at Bethlehem according to Micah's Prophecy though it is not plainly said in the Text of that Prophecy Micah v. 2. Hence also it was that John Baptist Mat. iii. 5 6. found the people of the Jews so disposed to repentance that they might escape God's Judgments threatned on the Nation at the coming of the Messiah according to Joel's prediction recited Act. ii 26. and that other Prophecy in Malach. iv 5. Hence it was that when John the Baptist sent his Disciples to our Saviour to ask him Whether he were the Messias or no our Saviour gave them this Answer Mat. xi 4. Go and tell John the things which you hear and see The Blind receive their sight the Lame walk the Lepers are cleansed the Deaf hear the Dead are raised and the poor have the Gospel preached to them This is commonly taken to be a Quotation from Isaiah xxxv 1. There some indeed of these Characters do point out the Messiah But our Saviour did not content himself with those but added others that are not in that Text nor in any other but such as no doubt the Jews had at that time in their common Tradition This Remark is of great moment to confound the boldness of some Criticks as Grotius who suppose that some places in the Apocryphal Books which shew that they were exactly acquainted with the Ideas of the Prophets upon the Divinity and the Glory of the Messias such as we see in the Book of Wisdom in Ecclesiasticus and in Baruch have been foisted in by Christians in those Books when to the contrary they were to judge that the Jews have laid aside these Books for that very reason viz. Because they were a strong proof that the Apostles did apply the Prophecies of the Old Testament according to the sense of the Synagogue before Jesus Christ It was from hence that our Blessed Saviour in the same Chapter Mat. xi shew'd the multitude that John Baptist was the Messenger promised by God in Malach. iii. 1. as he that should be the fore-runner of the Messiah and that should prepare his way by exhorting the People to Repentance and he proves that John the Baptist was so by the great Effect of his Preaching in the Conversion of those that seemed the most corrupt of the Nation 5. It is as certain that they had by Tradition sundry Explications of the Scripture grounded upon Allegories Philo affirms this positively lib. de Therapeutis p. 691. St. Paul gives us several Examples of it We have one in Heb. iv 9. where St. Paul thus argues from the Words of David in Psal xcv 11. There remains therefore a Rest for the people of God His Argument depends upon the Jewish Exposition of the six days of the Creation as foreshewing that the Age of the World should be 6000 years and understands the Sabbath or Rest of the times after founding their Exposition on the Words of the 90th Psalm A thousand years in thy sight are as but one day That is to be seen in R. Abraham bar Hiya Hannashi Megillat ha Megillat Saar 2. in Ramban upon Gen. ii 2. in Abarbanel Miphaloth Eloh lib. 1. c. 4. See Menasseh Ben Is Concil q. 30. in Genes de Creat Problem XI Another Example we have in the same St. Paul Galat. iv 24. drawn from Sarah and Hagar as being Types of the two Covenants Philo the Jew de Cherub p. 83. found a Mystery there before St. Paul as we see in a Book of his that was much more ancient than that Epistle A third Example may be found in the same St. Paul who uses it Rom. v. 14. 1 Corin. xv 47. in comparing the first Adam with Jesus Christ whom he calls the second Adam The Jews have the same Idea of the Messias as of the second Adam who shall raise all his Followers from the Sepulchre as we see in Pirke Eliezer ch 32. This method of explaining Scripture ought to be carefully considered because it gives us to understand the Reasons why the Jews have regarded the Song of Songs as a part of Canonical Scripture and have referred it to the Messias as we see they do in their Targum in Cant. i. 8. iv 5. vii 14. viii 1 4. The same reflection may be made on their acknowledging of the Divine Authority of the Book of Ruth wherein their Targum mentions the Messias chap. iii. 15. And the like may be said of Ecclesiastes certain Texts of which as ch i. 18. and ch viii 25. they refer to the Messias which otherwise seem not to have much relation to him In truth one cannot well deny that the Jews had this common knowledge of great Truths of their Religion and a Traditional Exposition of great Prophecies from their Ancestors to clear their Ideas thereof if he considers attentively these following Remarks First That since their return from the Babylonian Captivity they were never guilty of Idolatry Except for a little while in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes when some wicked men apostatiz'd and
Prince to conquer and to avenge them of their Enemies They removed from their thoughts the accounts of his Death as contrary to those Glorious descriptions which suited better with their minds They expected the Messias should come to restore presently the Kingdom unto Israel and in a word following their own Desires and Imaginations they confounded Christ's first coming with his second and then confirmed themselves in this mistake partly because the Prophets seemed to describe the Kingdom of the Messias very carnally partly because they knew not what to think of a Coelestial or Spiritual Kingdom such as his should be who was to sit on the Throne of God And these false conceits of theirs joined with the worldly Interests of their Leaders brought them to reject the true Messias at his Coming But after all it is certain 1. That the contrary opinions concerning the Spiritual sense of the Prophecies was the constant ancient Doctrine of their Nation 2. That those Jews that were converted to Christianity by the Ministry of Jesus Christ and his Apostles were converted upon these Maxims which were then the Maxims of the wisest and the Religiousest part of their Nation 3. That the Apostles in their Writings as well as Christ Jesus in his Discourses cited the Texts of the Old Testament according to the commonly received sense of the Synagogue And in truth the authority of these proofs in that received sense did not a little contribute to the Conversion of both Jews and Gentiles In order to make the Reader of my mind I intreat him to take in good part my entring a little further into the examination of what the most studious Jews in the Holy Scriptures do commonly propose under the name of Tradition Let them be lookt upon by some Men as dreaming Authors that busie themselves in Enquiries altogether vain and fruitless yet it is no hard task to vindicate them from this hard Imputation 1. I have this to say for them That that which appears so phantastical because not understood by most of those which have been accustomed to the Greek Methods of Teaching ought not therefore to be despised and wholly rejected None but Fools will think this a sufficient reason why all Pythagoras his Doctrines ought to be contemned because that he having been a Scholar of Pherecydes the Syrian and other learned Men in Egypt and Chaldea did borrow thence his way of teaching Theology by Symbols which is attainable only by few and those of no common Capacity 2. I observe that most of the true Jewish Doctors that followed the Tradition of their Schools had this design principally in their eye to make Men fully understand the Secrets of God's Conduct for the Restoration of fallen Mankind To this in particular they bend their Thoughts and in this they endeavour'd to instruct their Readers explaining to them according to this sense some places of Scripture which at first sight seem not immediately to regard so important a Subject 3. I observe that oftentimes where they attribute these Interpretations of Scripture to a Tradition delivered down to them from their Fathers it is only in order to render their Reflections on the Scriptures so much the more venerable to their Hearers For it is plain enough in some places that an attentive Meditation on the Words might have discover'd the same things which they refer to Tradition For Example They remark that God said concerning Adam See Reuchlin Cabalae l. 1. p. 628. Gen. iii. 22. And now lest he stretch out his hand and eat of the tree of life and live for ever therefore God as it follows drove him out Paradise From hence they infer that God gave Adam hopes of becoming one day immortal by eating of the Tree of Life which they thought should be obtained for him by the Messias Now it appears that our Blessed Saviour did allude to this common Opinion of the Jews which was then esteemed as a Tradition Rev. ii 7. To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the Tree that is in the Paradise of God And this Notion is repeated Rev. xxii 2 14. Again they remark that God said Behold Adam is become like one of us Gen. iii. 22. And they maintain that he speaks not this to the Angels who had no common likeness to the Unity or Essence of God but to him who was the Celestial Adam who is one with God As Jonathan has also observed in his Targum on these words of Genesis calling him the only-begotten in Heaven Now it is plain that St. Paul has described Jesus Christ as this Heavenly Adam 1 Cor. xv They assert that the first Prophecy Gen. iii. 15. was understood by Adam and Eve of the Saviour of the World and that Eve in prospect of this being delivered of her first Son Gen. iv 1. Reuchl Ibid. p. 629. she called him Cain saying I have got a man or this man from the Lord believing that he was the Promised Messias They tell us farther that Eve being deceived in this expectation as also in her hopes from Abel asked another Son of God who gave her Seth of whom it is said that Adam begot another Son after his own Image another with respect to Abel that was killed not to his Posterity by Cain for they bear the Image of the Devil rather than that of God They maintain the Name of Enos to have been given Seth's Son upon the same account Reuchl Ibid. p. 630 631. because they thought him that excellent man whom God had promised They make the like Remarks on Enoch Noa and Sem and Noah's Blessing of Sem they look'd on as an Earnest Wish that God in his Person would give them the Redeemer of Mankind They affirm that Abraham had not been so ready to offer up his Son Isaac a Sacrifice Reuchl Ibid. p. 632. but that he hoped God would save the World from Sin by that Means and that Isaac had not suffered himself to be bound had he not been of the same belief And they observe that it was said to Abraham and afterwards to Isaac on purpose to shew them the mistake of this Opinion In thy Seed shall all the nations of the Earth be blessed A plain Argument that the Jews anciently thought that these words did relate to the Messias as did also St. Paul Gal. iii. 16. They maintain Reuchl Ib. p. 633. that Jacob believed that God would fulfil to him the first Promise made to Adam till God undeceived him by inspiring him with a Prophecy concerning Judah Gen. xlix 10. and by signifying to him which also Jacob tells his Sons that the Messias should not come but in the last days v. 1. when the Scepter was departed from Judah and the Law-giver from between his Feet v. 10. Reuchl Ib. p. 633. They declare that ever since this Prophecy the Coming of the Messias for the Redemption of Mankind has been the Entertainment of all the Prophets to
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
so well satisfied of the truth of what I advance that he thought fit to Comment those very Apocryphal Books and to shew that they followed almost always the Ideas and the very words of the Authors of the Old Testament But as he was a Man of a deep sense seeing that they might be turned against the Socinian cause which he favoured too much he did things which he judged fit to make their authority useless against the Socinians And first he advanced without any proof that those things which were so like to the Ideas of the New Testament had been inserted in those Books by Christians according to their notions and not according to the notions of the Synagogue 2ly He endeavoured to give another sense to the places which some Fathers in the second and third Century had quoted from these Books to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of our Saviour Now since the Socinian Authors have employed against the authority of these Apocryphal Books the very Solutions which Grotius made use of to lessen their authority it is necessary being resolved to quote them for the settling of the Jewish Tradition to shew how much Grotius whose steps the Socinians trod in was out in his Judgment 1. Then I suppose with Grotius that those Apocryphal Books were written by several Jewish Authors many years before Jesus Christ appeared The third Book of the Macchabees which is indeed the first hath been written by a Jew of Egypt under Ptolomaeus Philopater that is about two hundred years before the Birth of our Saviour It contains the History of the Persecution of the Jews in Egypt and was cited by Josephus in his Book de Macchabaeis The first Book of Macchabees as we call it now hath been written in Judea by a Jew and originally in Hebrew which is lost many Centuries ago We have the translation of it which hath been quoted by Josephus who gives often the same acccount of things as we have in that Book It hath been written probably 150. years before the Birth of our Saviour The second Book of Macchabees hath originally been written in Greek in Egypt and is but an extract of the four Books of Jason the Grecian a Jew of Egypt who had writ the History of the Persecutions which the Jews of Palestina suffered under the Reign of Antiochus Epiphanés and his Successors The Book of Ecclesiasticus hath been written Originally in Hebrew by Jesus the Son of Syrac about the time of Ptolomy Philadelphus that is about 280. years before Jesus Christ and was Translated in Greek by the Grandson of Jesus the Son of Syrac under Ptolomy Euergetes Some dispute if that Ptolomy is the first or the second which is not very material since there is but a difference of 100. years R. Azaria de Rubeis in his Book Meor Enaiim ch 22. witnesseth that Ecclesiasticus is not rejected now by the Jews but is received among them with an unanimous consent and David Ganz saith that they put it in old times among the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Hagiographes So in his Tsemac David ad A. 3448. The Book of Wisdom according to Grotius his Judgment is more ancient having been written in Hebrew under Simon the High-Priest who flourished under Ptolomeus Lagus Grotius thinks that the Greek Translation we have of that Book was made by some Christian who hath foisted into that Book many things which belong more to a Christian Writer than a Jew He raises such an accusation against the Translator of Ecclesiasticus But it is very easie to confute such a bold Conjecture First because that Book was in Chaldaick among the Jews till the Thirteenth Century as we see by Ramban in his Preface upon the Pentateuch and they never objected such an Interpolation but lookt upon it as a Book that was worthy of Salomon and probably his Works It was the Judgment of R. Azarias de Rubeis in the last Century Imre bina ch 57. The Epistle of Baruch and of Jeremy seem to Grotius the Writings of a Pious Jew who had a mind to exhort his People to avoid Idolatry And 't is very probable that it was Penned under the Persecutions of Antiochus when it was not sure to any to write in favour of the Jewish Religion under his own name The Book of Tobith seems to have been writ originally in Chaldaick and was among the Jews in St. Jerom's time who knowing not the Chaldaick Tongue called for a Jew to his assistance to render it into Hebrew that so he might render it in Latin as he saith in his Preface to Chromatius and Heliodorus Grotius supposes the Book to be very ancient Others believe but without any ground that it was Translated into Greek by the Seventy So that it would have been writ more than 250. years before Jesus Christ Whatsoever Conjecture we may form upon the Antiquity of it it is certain it was in great esteem among Christians in the second Century since we see that Clemens Alexandrinus and Irenaeus have followed his fancy of seven created Angels about the Throne of God and took that Doctrine for a Truth although we see no such Idea among the Jews who have the Translation of that Book but do not now consider it very much Grotius thinks that the Book of Judith contains not a true History but an Ingenious Comment of the Author who lived under Antiochus Epiphanés before the Profanation of the Temple by that Tyrant to exhort the Jewish Nation to expect a wonderful Deliverance from such a Tyranny which they groaned under And we see no reason to discard such a Conjecture although R. Azarias thinks Imre bina ch 51. that this History was alluded to in the Book of Esdras ch 4.15 He judges the same of the Additions to the Book of Daniel viz. the Prayer of Azaria the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace and of the History of Susanna he looks upon them as written by some Hellenist Jew So the Additions to the Book of Esther he judges to be the work of some Hellenist who invented the Story which were afterwards admitted among the Holy Writings because they were Pious and had nothing which could be lookt upon as contrary to the Jewish Religion Grotius saith nothing of the third and fourth of Esdras and hath not judged them fit to be Commented probably because they are not accounted in the Canon of the Church of Rome And indeed the fourth is only extant in Latin But after all a Man must have viewed the third with very little judgment who cannot perceive first that it is certainly the work of an ancient Jew before Jesus Christ his time 2ly That it was among the Jews as a Book of great Authority Josephus p. 362. follows the Authority of that third Book of Esdras in the History of Zorobabel We have not ancienter Writers than Clemens Alexandrinus St. Cyprian and St. Ambrose who have quoted the 4th Book of
that is to say he lived in the reign of Herod the Great about thirty years before the Birth of our Lord. And some Criticks believe our Saviour does cite his Chaldee Paraphrase Luc. iv 18. in quoting the Text Isa lx 2. Thus much may at least be said for it that all that which is there cited does agree better with his Targum than with the Original Text. Onkelos a Proselyte was he according to their common account who turned the five Books of Moses into Chaldee This Work is rather a pure simple Translation than a Paraphrase notwithstanding it must be allowed that in divers places he does not endeavour so much to give us the Text word for word as to clear up the sense of certain places which otherwise could not well be understood by the people This Onkelos according to the common opinion of the Jews saw Jonathan and lived in the time of that ancient Gamaliel who was Master of the Apostle St. Paul as some would have it We find in Megillah c. 1. that he Composed his Targum under the Conduct of R. Eliezer and of R. Josua after the year of our Lord 70 and that he died in the year of our Lord 108 and that his Targum was immediately received into the publick use of the Jews what other Targums there were on the five Books of Moses having almost wholly lost their credit and their authority As to the other Sacred Books which the Jews call Cetouvim or Hagiographes they ascribe the Targums of the Psalms the Proverbs and Job to R. Joseph Caeeus and affirm that he lived a long time after Onkelos And for the Targums of the other Books they look on them as works of Anonymous Authors However the most part of these Targums have been Printed under the name of Jonathan as if he had been Author of them all There are moreover some scraps of a Paraphrase upon the five Books of Moses which is called the Jerusalem Targum and there is another that bears the name of Jonathan upon the Pentateuch and which some Learned Jews have said to be his As doth R. Azaria Imrebinah c. 25. and the Author of the Chain of Tradition p. 28. after R. Menahem de Rekanati who cites it under the name of Jonathan following some Ancient MSS. These Targums ordinarily exceed the bounds of a Paraphrase and enter into Explications some of which are strange enough and appear to be the work of divers Commentators who among some good things have very often mixed their own idle Fancies and Dreams Beckius nineteen years ago published a Paraphrase on the two Books of Chronicles of which also there is a MSS. at Cambridge This deserves almost the same Character with these Paraphrases I spoke of last For the Author of this as well as those before mentioned does often intermingle such Explications as taste of the Commentator with those which appear to have been taken from the Ancient Perushim or Explications of the most Eminent Authors of the Synagogue A Man must be mighty credulous if he gives credit to all the fables which the Jews bring in their Talmud to extoll the authority of Jonathan his Targum and he must have read these Pieces with very little attention or judgment who should maintain that they are entirely and throughout the Works of the Authors whose names they bear or that they are of the same antiquity in respect of all their parts Onkelos is so simple that it seems nothing or very little has been added to him and he has been in so great esteem among the Jews that they have commonly inserted his Version after the Text of Moses verse for verse in the Ancient Manuscripts of the Pentateuch And from thence we may judge if there is any ground for the Conjecture of some Jews who would persuade us that it is only an Abridgment of the Targum of Jonathan upon the Pentateuch Certainly Jonathan his Targum upon the Pentateuch must be of a very dubious origin since we see that the Zohar cites from it the first words which are not to be found in it but in the Targum of Jerusalem fol. 79. col 1. l. 17. It is uncertain if the Targum of Jerusalem hath been a continued Targum or only the Notes of some Learned Jew upon the Margent of the Pentateuch or an abridgment of Onkelos for it hath a mixture of Chaldaick Greek Latin and Persian words which sheweth it hath been written in latter times according to the judgment of R. Elias Levita Jonathan who explained the former and the latter Prophets has not been so happy as Onkelos for it seems those that Copied his Targum have added many things to it some of which discover their Authors to have lived more than 700 years after him one may also see there a medly of different Targum of which the Targum on Isai xlix is a plain instance As to the Targums on all the other Holy Books which the Jews call the first Prophets it is visible that all their parts are not equally ancient Those which we have on Joshua and Judges are simple enough and Literal That on Ruth is full of Talmudical Ideas The same judgment may be made of those on the two Books of Samuel Those which we have on the two Books of Kings are a little freer from additions But that on Esther is rather a Commentary that collects several Opinions upon difficult places than a Paraphrase In that on Job attributed to R. Joseph in the Jews Edition at Venice in Folio Anno 1515. there are divers Targums cited in express Terms as there are also in the Targum on the Psalms which bears the name of R. Joseph in the aforesaid Edition of Venice One may also observe many Additions in the Targums on the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes but especially in that upon the Canticles all which have been published under the name of R. Joseph I have said almost as much of that on the two Books of Chronicles which Beckius published about eighteen or nineteen years ago This being so one may very well ask with what justice do you ascribe these Books to those who as the Jews now say were the Authors of them when by their own confession Onkelos on the five Books of Moses is perhaps the only Translator in whom you find none of these marks of corruption which you acknowledg in the other Targums you quote For the other Targums it may be said that we ought to leave them out of the Dispute unless we would impose the new Sentiments of the Jews that lived long after Christ's time under the pretence of producing the opinions of the ancient Synagogue before Jesus Christ One may insist upon it that we are to quote the Books of Onkelos only and lay the other aside as Books of no authority since we do confess that they are full of Additions in which there are many Fables and Visions borrowed from the Talmudical Jews I might hope to satisfie any
lectitant Nazaraei Salvator inducitur lâ—quens Modo me arripuit Mater mea Spiritus Sanctus This Passage of the Nazarene's Gospel would never have been understood if we had not known that the Jews call the Holy Spirit Imma Mother as well as Binah Understanding as we see in Zohar and other Cabalists And perhaps from hence Philo de Temul calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of the World Nor are we to fancy that the Talmudists oppose the Cabalists herein No Maimonides who is a Talmudist agrees in this with the Cabalists as appears from his Book de fundament legis ch 2. Mor. Neb. p. 1. ch 68. Lastly Nor is it to be urged against what I have said that the Jews have formal Disputes against the Doctrine of the Trinity as Saadiah Sepher Emunoth ch 2. Maim Mor. Neb. p. 1. c. 71. For we may remember 1. That all their Disputes with the Christians are built on this wrong bottom That the Christians are Tritheists and deny the Unity of the Deity 2. That almost all those who dispute against the Christians on this Head contradict themselves in their Writings that are not Polemical but are drawn up in cool Blood out of the heat of dispute of which Saadiah Haggaen as I have shewed before is a Proof 3. The Study of their Rites having been the great business of the Jews for many Centuries it hath happen'd that their greatest Authors have applied themselves but little to the Study of the Traditions concerning their Doctrines In Maimonides one of the greatest Men the Jews ever had we have a plain Example of it He tells us That it was towards the declension of his Life before he could turn himself to study their Traditions and he laments his Misfortune in that he could not begin this Study sooner This is related by R. Elias Chaiim who saith he had it from a Letter of Maimonides to one of his Scholars I have said before that these Notions of the Cabalist Jews are received in all parts of the World where the Jews are found in any numbers And I say it not without good reason For 1. The Rabboth are Books received whereever there are Jews Now this Book begins with the Notion of a Second Person 2. For the Cabalists they are dispersed with the other Jews and in all places where Learning is cultivated and Study encouraged there they are to be found 3. We may well infer the Universality of this Tradition from the several different Authors that have written alike on this Subject without any Consent or Communication together that we know of R. Saadiah Hagaon writ in Babylon in the Tenth Century He was an Egyptian by Birth and the Translator of the Pentateuch into Arabick and wrote a bitter Book against the Christians which hath been printed at Thessalonica and since at Amsterdam where he disputes against the Christians Trinity yet he teaches not only the Unity but this distinction from everlasting in the Deity R. Moses Bar Nachman in the Thirteenth Century and R. Judas the Levite writ in Spain and yet we see how they agree in their Notions with the Cabalists which flourished other-where R. Aaron writ at Babylon and yet his Notions are as exactly like those of Spain as if he had trod in their Steps R. Moses Botril writ in France and he teaches the same things He that would see the Places at large may consult their Comment on the Book Jetzira It is now time to return to the Judgment of the Ancient Synagogue and to consider how it agrees or differs with us in the other Matters we have in hand CHAP. XII That the Jews had a distinct Notion of the Word as of a Person and of a Divine Person too A Great part of the Dispute we have with the Socinians depending on the true meaning of the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is spoken of as being he that created the World and was at length made Flesh and whom we Christians look upon as the promised Messias I think I can't do the Truth a greater service than in clearing this Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and shewing what thoughts the ancient Jews had concerning it Socinus confesses that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Person for he owns that St. John did describe the Man Christ Jesus by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and attributed to him the Creation of the Church which is according to him the new World But here in England the followers of Socinus will not stand by this Exposition but understand by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that virtue by which God created Heaven and Earth as Moses relates Gen. i. They obstinately deny this Virtue to be a Person i. e. an Intelligent Subsistence and rather look upon it as a Divine Attribute which they say was particularly discovered in the Mission of Jesus Christ for the Salvation of Mankind It cannot be denied us that St. John being one of the Circumcision did write with an especial respect to the Jews that they might understand him and receive benefit by it and therefore it cannot be doubted but that when he called Jesus Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he used a word that was commonly known among the Jews of those times in which he lived Otherwise if he had used this word in a sense not commonly known to the Jews he would have signified to them the new Idea he had affixed to it But he gives not the least intimation of any thing new in it though he uses the word so many times in the very beginning of his Gospel It is certain therefore that he used it in the sense wherein it was then commonly understood by the Jews Now the Idea the Jews had of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the same they had of a real and proper Person that is a living Intelligent free Principle of Action That this was their Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word we shall prove by the Works of Philo and the Chaldee Paraphrases To begin with Philo He conceives the Word to be a true and proper cause For he declares in about a hundred places that God created the World by his Word He conceived the Word to be an Intelligent Cause Because in him according to Philo are the Original Ideas of all things that are expressed in the Works of the Creation De Opif. p. 3. G. 4. C.D. He makes the Word a Cooperator with God in the Creation of Man and says that God spake those words to him Let Us make Man Gen. i. 26. It may be added that he calls the Word the Image of God and makes Man the Image of this Image * Lib. Quis rer Divin Haer. p. 400. E. F. These are some of the Characters that represent the Word as a true Person But there are others no less demonstrative of this Truth As 1. where Philo asserts that the 〈◊〉
thou Bethlehem Ephratah though thou be little among the thousands of Judah yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel whose goings forth have been from of old from everlasting The Jews can't deny this But then to evade what is there spoken of his Eternity they pretend it means no more than his descent from David as if the distance of time from David to Jesus Christ could be called Eternity This is the way Manasseh ben Israel q. 5. on Micah takes to get over this difficulty Before him others took another way and affirmed that God decreed before the Creation of the World to send the Messias and that in this respect it is said in Micah that his goings forth are from the days of eternity Jeremy ch xxiii 26. saith very expresly that the Messias shall be called the Jehovah our Righteousness and he repeats the same ch xxxiii 15 16. In those days and at that time will I cause the Branch of Righteousness to grow up unto David and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the Land In those days shall Judah be saved and Jerusalem shall dwell safely And this is the Name wherewith he shall be called The Lord our Righteousness R. David Kimchi owns it and quotes the Authority of two Eminent Rabbins for it namely R. Aba Bar Caana and R. Levi in Eccha Rabati But they will none of them own that this Name Jehovah belongs any otherwise to him than it doth to the Ark which is altogether impertinent for the Ark is never called Jehovah nor doth Menasseh prove that it is with all his talking q. 18. in Isaiah Jonathan as well as Philo ascribes to the Messias the Prophecies Zech. vi 12 13. And so Jonathan applies to the Messias what is said in the same Prophet But many of the Modern Jews among whom R. Salomon is one do refer them to Zorobabel These several places I have now mentioned may serve as a Sample of the confusion the Jews are in while they attempt to interpret the ancient Prophecies and I may confidently affirm that all those other places which I have omitted that intimate a Trinity or the Divinity of the Messias or the time when he should come into the World are in like manner explained so very triflingly and forcedly as that oftentimes their own Authors convinced by the Evidence of the Texts themselves have refuted them and given a new Interpretation of them Whence it comes to pass that their Reader can find no certain sense of those Texts to rest on but his understanding continues in an entire darkness and unsetledness This ill luck they have of Explications is not of yesterday as I have already observed Soon after Jesus Christ's time they set themselves to oppose what the Christians held of the two Comings of the Messias though so distinctly described one of them Zech. ix 9. and the other Dan. vii 13. And still to this day do they reject that Notion of his two Comings as may be seen in Menass on Zech. ix p. 185. But others of them who found it impossible to deny that the Scripture speaks of two Comings of the Messias whom they expected thought it better to make two Messias's than to acknowledg that the Messias whom they expected was to be a suffering Messias And thus they thought they removed the difficulties in the other opinion that made but one Coming of the Messias by owning the Messias the Son of Joseph should be a Man of sorrows but Messias the Son of David was to be a Glorious Deliverer As the Jews Disputes with the Christians encreased they advanced certain Characters of the Times of the Messias and all of them very miraculous which they inferred from some Allegorical Descriptions in the Prophets concerning the Times of the Messias These they run up to ten as we see in Shemoth Rabba Parascha 15. And they make a great use of those Miracles which they conceive should have been in the time of Jesus Christ if he had been the true Messias Notwithstanding all which Menasse q. 7. on Isaiah finds himself obliged to assure us that David Kimchi and Abarbanel and many Interpreters explain most of these passages as Allegorical Descriptions of the Times of the Messias And Maimonides is of this opinion that when the Messias comes there shall be no change in the Order of Nature Jad Chaz Lib. de Regibus And in that he follows the opinion of one Rabbi Samuel that is quoted in the Talmud Tit. Beracoth where he saith that there shall be not any difference between the Times of the Messias and the other Times of the World but the subduing of the Kingdoms by the Messias To conclude the Jews being so often deceived in their Expectations of the Messias and finding themselves abused by a great number of false pretenders to that Character have almost lost their hopes of his Coming And finding his Coming to be a thing uncertain few of them do regard the Promise of the Messias with that assurance with which the Ancients did expect it Indeed it is observable that though Maimonides professes to own the Messias and hath inserted the hope of it among the Articles of the Jewish Faith which he hath given us yet he otherwhere speaks very indifferently of it In one place he asserts the observation of Moses's Law and the recompenses annexed to it to be the chief end of the Jews enquiry and not the time of the Messias's appearance as we are informed by the Author of the Chain of the Cabala The same judgment may be made of Joseph Albo who writ with great bitterness against the Christians For 1. he maintains in his Book of the Principles that R. Hillel was no Apostate though he denied the coming of any other Messias but of Hezekiah who was already come And Albo gives this reason for it because the Coming of the Messias is no Fundamental Article of the Jewish Religion Orat. 1. chap. 1. Nothing can be more wretched than this excuse of his For if the Messias had come before the Babylonian Captivity as R. Hillel would have it in the Person of King Hezekiah and if no other was to be expected why did the Jewish Church take those Books into her Bible that were written by the Prophets that lived under the second Temple and why did not R. Hillel and his Followers declare against them as false Prophecies that spoke of the Messias as being yet to come namely Zechary Haggai and Malachy who did all Prophecy of the Messias as has been abundantly shewn with Proofs out of the Targums of those Books and the general consent of Jewish Writers 2. The same Albo is not afraid to assert That the Article of the Messias has no other foundation than the authority of Tradition For saith he there is not any Prophecy either in the Law or in the Prophets that foretells his Coming by any necessary Exposition of it with respect to