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.

In answer to all this. It is certain that the corruption that reigned among the Jews was principally in their morals; for which, though they had very good precepts in their Law; yet the true meaning of them was spoiled and corrupted with glosses, which were devised, as I have shewed, in later times; and with these, being stampt with the name of tradition, they evaded the force of the laws. There were then but very few that had not an aversion to the Greek learning, and those few applied themselves to it, while they were in Judæa, with great caution and secrecy, lest they should be looked upon as heathens. Josephus witnesseth of that, Antiq. 1. 20. c. ult. As to what is inferred from the many sects among the Jews, the quite contrary is clear. For the opposition of one sect to the other, hindered any one of them from becoming masters of the people and their faith in so general a manner, as to be able to corrupt absolutely their traditional notions of religion.

Moreover, these sects, all but the Sadducees, who were abhorred by the people, knew no other way to distinguish themselves and be esteemed, but by a strict observation of the Law and its ceremonies, to which they pretended that the rules they gave their disciples did very much contribute; whence they called their traditions the hedge and the rampier of the Law.

To conclude, we ought carefully to take notice, 1. That St. John the Baptist did not find it needful to correct the errors in opinions that reigned among the people; but only exhorted them to repentance for their sins and immoral actions. 2. That one of the chief concerns of our Lord Jesus Christ in his discourses with the Jews, was to purge them of all that corruption which their loose casuists had introduced into their morals; with which he charges the Scribes and Pharisees in particular. 3. That the doctrine of the Sadducees, which he refutes on

some occasions, had but a few followers. 4. That the Essens and their party, who applied themselves altogether to piety, and the study of the Law, had a great authority with all lovers of religion. This we may learn from Philo in some pieces of his works, especially lib. quod omnis probus sit liber, p. 678. 5. That the Jews, though they have entertained very gross ideas concerning a temporal kingdom of the Messias; and though to support these ideas, they have confounded the sense of divers prophecies, in endeavouring to reconcile them to their carnal notions, and in bringing in new explications of the Old Testament; yet have they not been able quite to extinguish their ancienter ideas and principles: their new ideas passing for no more at the best than the opinions of their celebrated doctors, which another doctor may oppose if he will, especially when he is backed with those that are ancienter and of a greater authority.

CHAP. III.

That the Jews had certain traditional maxims and rules for the understanding of the holy Scripture.

WHAT I have now said concerning the traditions of the synagogue, will, I believe, be scarcely disputed by any learned man; I am sure he will have less reason to oppose it, that considers the rules, which, as appears to us, were followed by the Jews in explaining the prophecies concerning their promised Messias.

1. It is certain that the Jews held this as a maxim, that all the prophets did speak of the Messias, and were raised up by God for this very end. This Beracoth. we find more than once in their Talmud; and that Sanhed.

c. 1. fol. 3.

c. 11.

it was a common tenet among them in Christ's time, we see it in many places of the Gospel. No doubt what they did in settling this rule, was not without a due and serious examination of it first. And here we cannot but deplore the rashness of some critics among Christians, who instead of making use of the confessions of the ancient Jews upon places of the Old Testament, which they referred constantly to the Messias; whereas some of the modern Jews endeavour to wrest them in another sense, not only follow these modern, but give occasion by these means to despise prophecies, and the clearest of them, as things quite insignificant. This is the absurdity Grotius fell into, who in the 53d of Isaiah, by the servant who is spoken of there absolutely, understands Jeremy the Prophet; whereas the ancient Jews refer that chapter directly to the Messias, as you can see in the old Midrash Chonen, in the Targum, in the Talmud Sanhed. fol. 98. c. 2. and that is acknowledged by R. Alshek. in h. 1. to be the sense of the ancient Jews. And indeed they hold as a maxim, that whensoever it is spoken absolutely of the servant, the place must be understood of the Messias, Zohar in Exod. fol. 225. and consequently they explained that prophecy of Isaiah as concerning the Messias. I can say the same upon another maxim of the ancient Jews, which is of great use, that wheresoever it is spoken of the King absolutely, the place must be understood of the Messias, Zohar in Gen. fol. 235. If Grotius had known it, he never would have referred the lxiid Psalm, and some others, to Solomon in his literal sense as he hath done, but would have referred it, as it must be, directly to the Messias. Certainly that shews us, that many of the ancient Jews understood the Prophets much better than, to their shame, such critics now do. I wonder many times at divines, who confess they cannot give any tolerable account of the Song of Songs, and look