This remark is of great moment to confound the boldness of some critics, 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 the Christians in those books, when to the contrary they might have seen 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.

P

It was from hence that our blessed Saviour in the same chapter, Matt. xi. shewed the multitude, that John the Baptist was the messenger promised by God in Malachi iii. 1. as he that should be the forerunner 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 success 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 Psalm 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 six thousand years; and understands the sabbath, or rest, of the times after; founding their exposition on the words of the xcth 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. i. c. 4.
Concil. q. 30. in Genes. et de

See Manasseh Ben Is.
Creat. Problem xi.

Another example of this thing 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. and 1 Cor. 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, chap. 32.

This method of explaining the Scriptures ought to be carefully considered, because it gives us to understand the reasons why the Jews have looked upon 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 chap. i. 18. and 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 apostatized, and brought a force upon others, by which many were driven to

idolatry. But some chose rather to die than to yield to it, 1 Mac. i. 62, 63. ii. 29, 30, 37, 38. Which is an argument, that the rebukes of the Prophets had made great impression on their minds, and raised a great concern in them for their religion, and for the study of the Scripture, which contained the precepts of it. But it was impossible that in reading the writings of the Prophets, and hearing them explained by their Doctors, they should give no attention to the great promises of the Messias, whose coming was spoken of by some of the Prophets, as being very near at hand. See Dan. ix. Hag. ii. Mal. iii.

The second is, that their zeal for the Scriptures, and their religion, was really much quickened by the cruel persecution which they suffered from Antiochus Epiphanes; whose tyrannical fury did particularly extend to the holy Scriptures, 1 Mac. i. 56, 57. and to whatever else did contribute to the maintenance of their religion.

The third is, that it appears from history, that there were more writers of their nation since the captivity, than we read of at any time before: so saith Josephus, lib. i. contr. Apion. Especially since they came under the power of the Ptolemies and the Seleucida, who, being princes of a Greek original, were great lovers of learning, and did much for the improving of good letters.

The fourth is, that learned men among the Jews, applying themselves to this business, did write, either at Jerusalem, at Babylon, or at Alexandria, several extracts of ancient books of morality for the instruction of their people. Such were the Books of Baruch and Esdras, which seem to have been written in Chaldee; and those of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which were written in Greek.

The fifth is, that the great business of the Jews in their synagogues, and in their schools, hath been ever since to understand the Books of the Prophets, and to explain them in a language intelligible

to the people; the knowledge of the Hebrew being in a great measure lost during the time of the Babylonian captivity.

The sixth is, that it does indeed appear, that this was the proper time in which the Jewish paraphrases began first to be formed. They were began and carried on insensibly; one adding some Chaldee words in the margin of his book, opposite to the text, which the people did not understand so well: another adding to these some notes in another place; till at length Jonathan and Onkelos, or some other Doctor of Jerusalem, gathered together all these observations, and made thence those paraphrases which we have under their name.

For the confirmation of this conjecture, consider, 1. That we find in these paraphrases very many explications, which can by no means agree with the ideas that the Jews have framed to themselves since the propagation of Christianity. For since their disputes with the Christians, they found themselves obliged in many particulars to reject the opinions and refute the confessions of their ancestors. 2. We see the very same thing has happened among the Christians, and among the Greeks, that set themselves to write scholia, or notes on the Scriptures which are only abstracts of authors who have written or preached more at large on these books. The same thing, I say, happened among Christians in the eighth century, and the following ages, when most of their learning was reduced within this compass; to compile glosses, and to collect the opinion of those that went before them, upon difficult places; and after that, to form out of all these glosses one continued paraphrase upon the whole book, as if it had been the judgment and work of one and the same author. It is the character of all the books which they call Catene upon Scripture.

I know that some critics call in question the

antiquity of these paraphrases; and have remarked how ridiculous the miracles are which the Jews say were wrought in favour of Jonathan the son of Uzziel. But what does this make for their doubting the antiquity of these pieces? Do we question whether there was a Greek version of the Old Testament before Christ's time, because we can hardly believe Aristæas's history to be true, or because we cannot say that the Greek version is delivered down to us in the same purity as it was at first written? Ought we to suspect St. Chrysostom's homilies on St. Paul's Epistles, or those of Pope Gregory the First; because the Greeks have storied that St. Paul came to inspire St. Chrysostom with the sense of his Epistles, while he was meditating an exposition of them; and because the Latins do relate the like fable in favour of Gregory the First?

After all, the authority of these paraphrases does still further appear, in that the works themselves are spread almost as far as there are Jews in the world, and are highly esteemed in all the places of their dispersion.

Some may perhaps imagine, that the Jews being fallen into great corruptions about the time of our blessed Saviour's coming into the world, must necessarily at that time have lost much of that light, which their ancestors received of the Prophets, and of those that succeeded the Prophets. They may think, it may be, that their nation being become subject to the Greeks, did by insensible degrees change their principles, and alter their expositions of the Scripture, as they adopted the ideas of the Greek philosophers, whose opinions they then began to borrow. In short, it may be conceived by some, that the several sects, which arose among the Jews long before Christ's time, did considerably alter the opinions of the synagogue, and did corrupt their tradition, and the notions they had from the most ancient doctors of their schools.