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 Psalm xcv. 11. which words he makes the Psalmist speak of the Jerusalem that is above; and this also is acknowledged by Maimonides de Pœn. c. 8.

This remark ought to be made particularly on the mystical signification which Philo the Jew gives to 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 Melchizedek 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 looked 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 a person without comparison more august, in whom the promise should be perfectly completed.

It may be asked, 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, chap. vii. and chap. 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 for this a reason; 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, Isa. 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. i. 21. yet that the Saadia Ga- unction here spoken of, Isaiah lxi. 1. did not benoth c. 18. long to him, but to the Messias, is acknowledged et D. Kim-by the Jewish writers, and seems to have been so

on Emu

chi in

.משח

understood by those that heard our Saviour apply this prophecy to himself, Luke 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 53d 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 the Baptist, Elias ?

Not to trouble the reader with any more than a mention of that fancy of some of the Jews that held the transmigration of souls; and say particularly, that the soul of Adam went into David, and the soul of David was the same with that of the Messias; I say, to pass by that, the true reason of such use of the names of David and Elias is this; because David was an excellent type of the Messias that was to come out of his loins, Acts ii. 30, 31. And for John the Baptist, he came in the spirit and power of Elias, Luke i. 17; that is, he was inspired with the same spirit of zeal and holy courage that Elias was formerly acted with, and employed it, as Elias did, in bringing his people to repentance and reformation.

5. We ought to do the Jews that justice as to acknowledge, that from them it is, that we know the true sense of all the prophecies concerning the Messias in the Old Testament. Which sense some critics seem not to be satisfied with, seeking for a first accomplishment in other persons than in the Messias. The Jews' meaning and their applying those prophecies to the Messias in a mystical or spiritual sense, is founded upon a reason that offers itself to the mind of those that study the Scripture with attention.

Before Jacob's prophecy, there was no time fixed for the coming of the Messias; but after the delivery of that prophecy, Gen. xlix. 10. there was no possibility of being deceived in the sense of those prophecies which God gave from time to time, full of the characters of the Messias. It was necessary, 1. That the kingdom should be in Judah, and not cease till the time about which they expected the coming of the Messias. 2. That the lesser authority, called here the lawgiver, should be also established in Judah, and destroyed before the coming of the Messias, which we knew came to pass under and by the reign of Herod the Great, and some

years before the death of our Saviour. And indeed the Talmudists say, that forty years before the desolation of the house of the sanctuary, judgments of blood were taken away from Israel. Talm. Jerus. 1. Sanhedr. c. dine. mammonoth. et Talm. Bab. C. Sanhedr. c. Hajou Bodekim. And Raymondus Martini, who writ this Pugio at the end of the thirteenth century, quotes Part III. Dist. 3. c. 16. §. 46. One R. Rachmon, who says, that when this happened, they put on sackcloth, and pulled off their hair, and said, Wo unto us, the sceptre is departed from Israel, and yet the Messias is not

come.

And therefore they who had this prophecy before them, could not mistake David, nor Solomon, nor Hezekiah, for the Messias: nor could they deceive themselves so far as to think this title was applicable to Zorobabel, or any of his successors.

In short, there appeared not any one among the Jews before the times of our blessed Saviour, that dared assume this title of Messias; although the name of Anointed, which the word Messias signifies, had been given to several of their kings; as to David in particular. But since Jesus Christ's coming, many have pretended to it. These things being so, it is clear, that the prophecies which had not, and could not have their accomplishment in those, upon whose occasion they were first delivered, were to receive their accomplishment in the Messias, and consequently those prophecies ought necessarily to be referred to him.

We ought by all means to be persuaded of this. For we cannot think the Jews were so void of judgment as to imagine that the Apostles, or any one else in the world, had a right to produce the simple words of the Old Testament, and to urge them in any other sense, than what was intended by the writer, directed by the Holy Ghost: it must be his sense, as well as his words, that should be offered

for proof to convince reasonable men. But we see that the Jews did yield to such proofs out of Scripture concerning the Messias, in which some critics do not see the force of those arguments that were convincing to the Jews. They must then have believed that the true sense of such places was the literal sense in regard of the Messias, whom God had then in view at his inditing of these books; and that it was not literal in respect of him, who seems at first sight to have been intended by the prophecy.

And now I leave it to the consideration of any unprejudiced reader that is able to judge, whether, if these principles and maxims I have treated of were unknown to the Jews, the Apostles could have made any use of the books of the Old Testament for their conviction, either as to the coming of the Messias, or the marks by which he was distinguishable from all others, or as to the several parts of his ministry. But this is a matter of so great an importance, that it deserves more pains to shew that Jesus Christ and his Apostles did build upon such maxims as I have mentioned: and therefore all those that call themselves Christians, should take heed how they deny the force and authority of that way of traditional interpretation, which has been anciently received in the Jewish Church.