Apostle. Of the first he saith plainly, гpapǹ λéyes, the Scripture saith. Then he goes on to the other, and of that he saith also Aéye, without any nominative case but гpap 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 one' or other of the apocryphal books. And one of the Fathers, that was born within a hundred years after St. James's death, gives 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 ver. 9. as a book well known in those times in which he lived. Therefore it is very probable that the words also of the former quotation were taken from the Analepsis of Moses, and it was that apocryphal book that St. 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 joined to their , or Hagiographa; and therefore they might well be called Ipapai, without any addition. The apocryphal books that are in our Bibles were commonly called so by the primitive Fathers. Thus Clement before mentioned, 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 Tpap seven or eight times in his writings, [Pad. i. 1o. ii. 5, et ver. 8vis. et 10mis. iii. 3, 11.] So it is quoted by Origen with the same title, Orig. in Jerem. Hom. xvi. p. 155. D. There are many of the like instances to be found in the writings of the ancientest Fathers. They usually 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. iii. 16.

The same is to be said of the prophecy of Enoch, out of which St. Jude brings a quotation in his Epistle, ver. 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 it, as appears by Origen's answer to him, [Origen. 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 sense of divers parts of the Old Testament. For example, St. Matthew, 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, as Mr. Mede has proved by many arguments. It is by the Mede's help of these traditions, that the ancient interpreters 709, 963, have added to the Psalms such titles as express 1022. their design, and their usage in the synagogue. Certainly these titles, which shew the design of

Works, p.

Divino,

Jugibus, c.

6. sect. 9.

very

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 public worship of the Jews; as Ps. xxiv. xlviii. lxxxi. lxxxii. xçiii. xciv. &c. though these titles are not in the Hebrew, and therefore are not part of the Jewish Scriptures; yet that they had the knowledge of this by tradition we find by Maimonides, who though a stranger to those transDe Cultu lations, yet affirms that those several Psalms were Tract de sung on such and such days; and he names the Sacrificiis days that are prefixed 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; Præfat. in a maxim, owned by Aben-Ezra, and David Kimchi; Psalmos. 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, 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 Tehillim times. 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 xciii. xciv. till the Psalm ci. speak of the days of the Messias. So they remark upon Ps. xcii. 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.

Tehillim Ps. 24. fol. 22. col. 2.

Rabbat. in

Rab. ib.

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 Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. It would be a great mistake of these words, to think the meaning of them should be, that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt four hundred and thirty years: for in the truth they dwelt 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 dwelt in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, they and their fathers, was four hundred and thirty 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 four hundred and thirty years, from the promise made to Abraham at his coming into Canaan, till the giving of the Law upon mount Sinai, which was but fifty days after their coming up out of Egypt.

In like manner from tradition they filled up that place, Gen. iv. 8. where it is said, that Cain talked 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 St. Hierom's time. It is also extant in the Jerusalem Targum. Philo the Jew philoso- Lib. q. phizes on these words much after the same man- det. p. 120, ner as the Targum doth.

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, John 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 so, yet the

C

124, 125.

Samaritans knew full well, that the Messias would explain all things, according to the traditional sense of that prophecy in Deut. xviii. 15, 18, 19. which hath been so constantly referred to the Messiah, that we find till this day in the Midrash upon Ecclesiast. ch. i. 9. that the last Redeemer shall be like the first, that is, Moses. And in consequence of this knowledge commonly received among the John xii. Jews, 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 die after a long reign, and leave his crown to his children from generation to generation.

34.

Hence it was that the Sanhedrin answered Herod without delay, Matt. ii. 5, 6. that the Messiah should be born at Bethlehem, according to Micah's prophecy, though it is not plainly said so in the text of that prophecy, Micah v. 2. Hence also it was that John the Baptist, Matt. iii. 5, 6. found the people of the Jews so well disposed for repentance, that they might escape God's judgments threatened on the nation at the coming of the Messiah, according to Joel's prediction recited Acts ii. 16. and that other prophecy in Malachi 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, Matt. 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.