CHAP. IV.

That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of the Christian doctrine by this common traditional exposition received among the Jews, which they could not have done, (at least, not so well,) had there been, in those texts which they alleged, such a literal sense only as we can find without the help of such an exposition.

IF

we make some reflections which do not require a great deal of meditation, it is clear that Jesus Christ was to prove to the Jews that he was the Messias whom they did expect many ages before, and whose coming they looked for, as very near. He could not have done so, if they had not been acquainted with their prophetical books, and with those several oracles which were contained in them. Perhaps there might have been some difference amongst them concerning some of those oracles, because there were in many of them some ideas which seem contrary one to another. And that was almost unavoidable, because the Holy Ghost was to represent the Messias both in a deep humiliation and great sufferings, and in a great height of glory. But after all, the method of calling the Jews was quite different from the method of calling the Gentiles. The first had a distinct knowledge of the chief articles of religion, which the heathens had not. They had all preparations necessary for the deciding this great question, whether Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias, or not. They had the sacred books of the Old Testament, they were acquainted with the oracles as well as with the Law. They longed after the coming of the Messias. They had been educated all along, and trained up in the expectation of him. They had not only those sacred books in which the Messias was spoken of, but many among them had gathered the ideas of

the Prophets upon that subject, as we see by the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. And indeed we see that Jesus Christ and his Apostles spake to the Jews according to the notions which were received among them. What I say will clearly appear, if we do examine some of the citations made by Christ and his Apostles from the Old Testament. For though Jesus Christ had in himself all the treasures of wisdom, and though his Apostles were divinely inspired, yet they ought to proportion what they said to the capacity of their hearers. Their miracles were to move and dispose them to the receiving of the truth, but their proofs and arguments were the properest means to convince their hearers of it.

1. The doctrines of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection from the dead being denied by the Sadducees, who required an express text of Moses for the proof of those doctrines, and affirmed that there was not any such to be found in the writings of Moses; our Saviour proves it against them by these words, which stopped their mouths, and raised the admiration of the multitude, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; but God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, Matt. xxii. 32. His proof was by a known and necessary consequence from that text out of the Law, which he inferred according to the received method among the Jews: for the Jews at this day do gather the same doctrines from the same words, Exod. iii. 6, 15, 16. which Jesus Christ al- Vide leged to prove them by. The astonishment of the Mede's people on this occasion did not proceed from the p. 801. newness of his argument, as if they had never heard the like before; for they gathered also the doctrine of the resurrection from Moses's song, as we see in Josephus de Macchab. p. 1012. but it arose from another cause, to wit, his giving them

Works,

not clogged with the difficulties drawn from that instance of a woman's marriage to more husbands than one, which the Sadducees justly urged against that gross idea of a resurrection that many of them had, wherein marriage and other actions of mortal life should have place.

2. Our blessed Saviour, in the same 22d chapter of St. Matthew, asked the Pharisees whose son the Messias was to be? They answered, The Son of David; i. e. the Scripture saith, he should descend from the line of David. Against which Christ raises this objection, How then does David in spirit, or inspired by the Spirit, call him Lord? And he alleges, to prove that David calls him Lord, the words of Psalm cx. 1. The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thy enemies thy footstool. If then David by the Spirit called him Lord, how is he then his son? It appears that Jesus Christ in making this objection, did take these three things as granted by the Jews at that time: 1. That Psalm cx. was the work of the Prophet David. 2. That this Psalm concerned the Messias. 3. That the name Adonai is in this place equivalent to the name Jehovah. There is not any one of these things which the Jews will not dispute at this day. But that their forefathers did hold that these words were spoken to the Messias, it appears by their Midrash on the Psalms, and Saadia Gaon on Dan. vii. 13. Indeed their Targum justifies all that our Saviour said in this place, not only in acknowledging that this Psalm was composed by David, but also that it was written for the Messias, who is therefore instead of Adonai called Memra, or the Word, according to Fagius's reading, which is most natural to the place. But that Memra, the Word, denotes the Messias, shall be shewed in the sequel of this discourse.

St. Paul has taken the same way, Acts xiii. 34. where he quotes these words from Isaiah lv. 3. I

will give you the sure mercies of David. He refers this passage to the sending of the Messias, though the text seem obscure enough for such a reference. But he does it in pursuance of the explication given of it by the ancient Jews, who understood this chapter of the Messias. So does R. David Kimchi upon this verse, and Aben Ezra and Sam. Laniado, and R. Meir Ararma and Abarvanel. Upon the same ground he applies to the Messias in the same chapter the words of Psalm xvi. 10. Thou wilt not leave thy Holy One to see corruption. He proves that they could not be understood of David, seeing that his sepulchre, the monument of his corruption, remained till that day. He ought first to have proved that this Psalm was spoken of the Messias, and then have proved that it could not belong to David. But this method was needless, since he went on this known maxim among the Jews, that whatever Psalm was not fulfilled in David ought to be understood of the Messias.

Let us proceed to another clear proof of this proposition: St. Paul, in Heb. i. 6. quotes a text from Moses's song, Deut. xxxii. 43. according to the LXX. version. It is commonly believed that the quotation is out of Ps. xcvii. 8. but the very words Let all the angels of God worship him, are not found in that Psalm. They are in the Greek of Moses's song without the least alteration, though it must be confessed they are not there in the Hebrew text. I will not dispute, whether the Jews have or have not lost out of their Bibles this part of the ancient text since St. Paul's time? They may in their own vindication shew, that neither have the Samaritans in their text this quotation, which is extant in the LXX. It seems therefore that this song of Moses was copied separately from the rest of the Pentateuch, for their convenience who were to learn it by heart; to which some pious persons added a few

subject. Which сору, with the additions, was translated by the LXX. because the people had generally committed this to their memory. What I conclude from hence is this, that St. Paul made no difficulty to quote words that were only in the LXX. version, because they contained things conformable to the ancient sentiments of the Jews: and following the genius and doctrine prevailing in his nation, he refers these words to the second appearance of the Messias, when all the angels of God shall pay him their adoration.

If we read St. Paul's citation, Gal. iii. 8. 16. of the promise God made to Abraham, that in his seed · all the nations of the earth should be blessed, which he understands of the promise of the Messias, we shall quickly judge that he followed herein the sense of the ancient synagogue. I know the greatest part of the modern Jews do understand it of Isaac; as if God had said, All the nations of the earth shall wish their friends the blessing which God gave to Isaac. But the ancients understood it otherwise, as we can judge by the Book of Ecclesiasticus, chap. xliv. 25. They referred it to the calling of Gentiles by the Messias, as we see in Sepher Chasidim, §. 961. and to the abode of the Sekinah or Aoyos, as it is explained by R. Joseph de Carnisol Saare Isider, fol. 3. col. 4. et fol. 4. col. 1. And so St. Peter supposes it to be spoken of the Messias, Acts iii. 25.

We may make the like consideration on the promise God made to the people, Deut. xviii. 15. to raise them up a Prophet like unto Moses: St. Peter makes use of it as being spoken of the Messias, that he should give a new law, Acts iii. 22. But the modern Jews do all they can to evade this application. Nevertheless, it appears to have been the idea of the ancient synagogue, because we read that they speak of the law which was to be given by the Messias, as of a law, in comparison to which all