If any should further object that in some places in this Discourse there is too much weight laid upon Rabbinical ⟨image ?⟩observations, &c. To that I would say; far be from u• to give heed unto Jewish Fables; And since the Jews (†)ceased to be the Church of God▪ and so have been forsaken of his Spirit, their writing (especially where they speak of Christ) are of far less worth than before that; yet I add, that there is a multitude of places in the New Testament (and in the old too) which no one can clearly understand, except he be acquainted with the notions, customs, phrases, &c. which were formerly in use amongst the Jews. Many terms are found in the New Testament, which are not in the old, but are in the Jewish writing• being in use amongst the Jewish Doctors whilst there was a Jewish Church, and from them (being consonant to the mind and meaning of the spirit) borrowed by the Apostles. So are the terms of Paradise, the (essential) word of God, the kingdom of Heaven, the kingdom of God, the second death, the day of judgment, the world to come, &c. And therefore these things cannot be clearly understood, except recourse be had unto those writings, to see what they meant by them. Why should we for the sake of the •ares, reject the wheat also? of Jewish Interpreters it hath been observed (as is also said of Origen, ubi bene nemo melius, ubi male nemo pejus) that as when they do ill, they are the worst, so when they do well, they are the best expositors. In a word, we may find in some humane Scripts of the Jews, not only the same phrases, proverbs, parabolical notions, and expressions, but also the very same arguments made use of, for the very same end, which is to be seen in the blessed Scriptures of the New Testament. Therefore ⟨image ?⟩surely a good and profitable use is to be made of those writings, and solid Criticisms may be gathered from them. They that are acquainted with the learned works of Drufius, Amama, Buxtorf, Jac. Capellus, with his learned Brother Lud. Capellus, Lud de Dieu, Mede, Ainsworth, Hottinger, Heinsius, (†)Chr. Cartwright, &c. know full well the truth of this; let not any unlearned judge rashly, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. If these things satisfy not, I know no other way, but we must be content to be called Judaizers:
If any should further object that in some places in this Discourse there is too much weight laid upon Rabbinical ⟨image ?⟩observations, &c. To that I would say; far be from u• to give heed unto Jewish Fables; And since the Jews (†)ceased to be the Church of God▪ and so have been forsaken of his Spirit, their writing (especially where they speak of Christ) are of far less worth than before that; yet I add, that there is a multitude of places in the New Testament (and in the old too) which no one can clearly understand, except he be acquainted with the notions, customs, phrases, &c. which were formerly in use amongst the Iews. Many terms are found in the New Testament, which are not in the old, but are in the Iewish writing• being in use amongst the Iewish Doctors whilst there was a Iewish Church, and from them (being consonant to the mind and meaning of the spirit) borrowed by the Apostles. So are the terms of Paradise, the (essential) word of God, the kingdom of Heaven, the kindgom of God, the second death, the day of judgment, the world to come, &c. And therefore these things cannot be clearly understood, except recourse be had unto those writings, to see what they meant by them. Why should we for the sake of the •ares, reject the wheat also? of Iewish Interpreters it hath been observed (as is also said of Origen, ubi bene nemo melius, ubi male nemo pejus) that as when they do ill, they are the worst, so when they do well, they are the best expositors. In a word, we may find in some humane Scripts of the Iews, not only the same phrases, proverbs, parabolical notions, and expressions, but also the very same arguments made use of, for the very same end, which is to be seen in the blessed Scriptures of the New Testament. Therefore ⟨image ?⟩surely a good and profitable use is to be made of those writings, and solid Criticisms may be gathered from them. They that are acquainted with the learned works of Drufius, Amama, Buxtorf, Iac. Capellus, with his learned Brother Lud. Capellus, Lud de Dieu, Mede, Ainsworth, Hottinger, Heinsius, (†)Chr. Cartwright, &c. know full well the truth of this; let not any unlearned judge rashly, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. If these things satisfie not, I know no other way, but we must be content to be called Iudaizers:
- (†)Lege Owen de Nat. & studio Theol. Hist. Quod aliqui de veteribus in Ecclesia Christiana doctoribus affirmarunt idem de Judaeis dici potest Scriptoribus. Quo Seniores eo saniores, quo juniores eo jejuniores. Consul Scripta Fagii aliorumque hac de re dicentium.Lege Owen de Nat. & studio Theol. Hist. Quod aliqui de veteribus in Ecclesia Christiana doctoribus affirmarunt idem de Iudaeis dici potest Scriptoribus. Quo Seniores eo saniores, quo juniores eo jejuniores. Consule Scripta Fagii aliorumque hac de re dicentium.
- (†)Vide si libet ejus Praefat. ad Annot. in Genes. ubi Pontificios, qui dicunt Protestantes nimium Rabbinorum scriptis indulgere, refutavit. Lege etiam Authores quos citat ante Annot. in Exod.
