so well satisfied of the truth of what I advance that he thought fit to Comment those very Apocryphal Books and to shew that they followed almost always the Ideas and the very words of the Authors of the Old Testament But as he was a Man of a deep sense seeing that they might be turned against the Socinian cause which he favoured too much he did things which he judged fit to make their authority useless against the Socinians And first he advanced without any proof that those things which were so like to the Ideas of the New Testament had been inserted in those Books by Christians according to their notions and not according to the notions of the Synagogue 2ly He endeavoured to give another sense to the places which some Fathers in the second and third Century had quoted from these Books to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of our Saviour Now since the Socinian Authors have employed against the authority of these Apocryphal Books the very Solutions which Grotius made use of to lessen their authority it is necessary being resolved to quote them for the settling of the Jewish Tradition to shew how much Grotius whose steps the Socinians trod in was out in his Judgment 1. Then I suppose with Grotius that those Apocryphal Books were written by several Jewish Authors many years before Jesus Christ appeared The third Book of the Macchabees which is indeed the first hath been written by a Jew of Egypt under Ptolomaeus Philopater that is about two hundred years before the Birth of our Saviour It contains the History of the Persecution of the Jews in Egypt and was cited by Josephus in his Book de Macchabaeis The first Book of Macchabees as we call it now hath been written in Judea by a Jew and originally in Hebrew which is lost many Centuries ago We have the translation of it which hath been quoted by Josephus who gives often the same acccount of things as we have in that Book It hath been written probably 150. years before the Birth of our Saviour The second Book of Macchabees hath originally been written in Greek in Egypt and is but an extract of the four Books of Jason the Grecian a Jew of Egypt who had writ the History of the Persecutions which the Jews of Palestina suffered under the Reign of Antiochus Epiphanés and his Successors The Book of Ecclesiasticus hath been written Originally in Hebrew by Jesus the Son of Syrac about the time of Ptolomy Philadelphus that is about 280. years before Jesus Christ and was Translated in Greek by the Grandson of Jesus the Son of Syrac under Ptolomy Euergetes Some dispute if that Ptolomy is the first or the second which is not very material since there is but a difference of 100. years R. Azaria de Rubeis in his Book Meor Enaiim ch 22. witnesseth that Ecclesiasticus is not rejected now by the Jews but is received among them with an unanimous consent and David Ganz saith that they put it in old times among the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Hagiographes So in his Tsemac David ad A. 3448. The Book of Wisdom according to Grotius his Judgment is more ancient having been written in Hebrew under Simon the High-Priest who flourished under Ptolomeus Lagus Grotius thinks that the Greek Translation we have of that Book was made by some Christian who hath foisted into that Book many things which belong more to a Christian Writer than a Jew He raises such an accusation against the Translator of Ecclesiasticus But it is very easie to confute such a bold Conjecture First because that Book was in Chaldaick among the Jews till the Thirteenth Century as we see by Ramban in his Preface upon the Pentateuch and they never objected such an Interpolation but lookt upon it as a Book that was worthy of Salomon and probably his Works It was the Judgment of R. Azarias de Rubeis in the last Century Imre bina ch 57. The Epistle of Baruch and of Jeremy seem to Grotius the Writings of a Pious Jew who had a mind to exhort his People to avoid Idolatry And 't is very probable that it was Penned under the Persecutions of Antiochus when it was not sure to any to write in favour of the Jewish Religion under his own name The Book of Tobith seems to have been writ originally in Chaldaick and was among the Jews in St. Jerom's time who knowing not the Chaldaick Tongue called for a Jew to his assistance to render it into Hebrew that so he might render it in Latin as he saith in his Preface to Chromatius and Heliodorus Grotius supposes the Book to be very ancient Others believe but without any ground that it was Translated into Greek by the Seventy So that it would have been writ more than 250. years before Jesus Christ Whatsoever Conjecture we may form upon the Antiquity of it it is certain it was in great esteem among Christians in the second Century since we see that Clemens Alexandrinus and Irenaeus have followed his fancy of seven created Angels about the Throne of God and took that Doctrine for a Truth although we see no such Idea among the Jews who have the Translation of that Book but do not now consider it very much Grotius thinks that the Book of Judith contains not a true History but an Ingenious Comment of the Author who lived under Antiochus Epiphanés before the Profanation of the Temple by that Tyrant to exhort the Jewish Nation to expect a wonderful Deliverance from such a Tyranny which they groaned under And we see no reason to discard such a Conjecture although R. Azarias thinks Imre bina ch 51. that this History was alluded to in the Book of Esdras ch 4.15 He judges the same of the Additions to the Book of Daniel viz. the Prayer of Azaria the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace and of the History of Susanna he looks upon them as written by some Hellenist Jew So the Additions to the Book of Esther he judges to be the work of some Hellenist who invented the Story which were afterwards admitted among the Holy Writings because they were Pious and had nothing which could be lookt upon as contrary to the Jewish Religion Grotius saith nothing of the third and fourth of Esdras and hath not judged them fit to be Commented probably because they are not accounted in the Canon of the Church of Rome And indeed the fourth is only extant in Latin But after all a Man must have viewed the third with very little judgment who cannot perceive first that it is certainly the work of an ancient Jew before Jesus Christ his time 2ly That it was among the Jews as a Book of great Authority Josephus p. 362. follows the Authority of that third Book of Esdras in the History of Zorobabel We have not ancienter Writers than Clemens Alexandrinus St. Cyprian and St. Ambrose who have quoted the 4th Book of
Eusebius took upon hear-say from he knew not whom or from an Author whom he did not think fit to name for fear it should give no credit to his Story The first Proposition namely That these Pieces were written by one that was a Jew by Religion this one cannot doubt of if he considers these following things 1. That in all these Pieces of Philo where-ever he has occasion to make use of Authority he fetches it only out of the Jewish Scriptures And those are the only Scriptures that he takes upon him to explain He quotes Moses whom he usually calls the Law-giver as we do the Sayings of our Lord Jesus Christ And sometimes tho very rarely he quotes other Writings of the Old Testament But I dare affirm that in all his Treatises he cites not one passage from the New Testament which thing alone is sufficient to prove that he was no Christian For the first Christians used to cite the New Testament with as much care and even affection as the Jews did the Old But Secondly one had need have an Imagination as strong as Mr. N. to fancy that a Christian Author in the end of the Second Century could write as Philo does upon most part of the Books of Moses without mixing some touches at least at the Christian Religion And yet there is no such thing in all Philo's Works He takes it for his business to make the Jews understand their Law according to their Midrashim in an Allegorical way and to teach the Heathens that their prejudices against the Law of Moses were unjust and that they ought to acknowledg the Divinity of this Law which he explained to them This is the end or design of this Author in all his Works 3dly It appears that he according to the opinion of the Jewish Nation did expect the Messias as a great Temporal King yet to come as is evident from the Interpretation he gives of Balaam's Prophecy touching the Messias in his Book de Praemiis p. 716. 4thly In all his Works there is nothing peculiar to Christ that Mr. N. can alledg except in what is written of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very thing in dispute between us and him but even that doth not hinder but that the Jews themselves finding every thing in Philo so agreeable to the Notions that their Ancestors had in his Age do own them to be the Writings of a Jew and of Philo in particular As we see in Manasseh ben Israel who in many places alledges his Authority In Exod. p. 137. and shews that his Opinions do generally agree with those of their most ancient Authors The second thing I have to shew is that it appears from the Books themselves and other wise that many of them were composed before Jesus Christ began to Preach the Gospel Christ's Preaching began in Palestine in the year of the Building of Rome 783. But the Author of the Book Quod omnis probus sit Liber which has always been accounted undoubtely Philo's does note that the obstinate resistance of those of Xanthus in Lycia against M. Brutus was an affair fresh in memory as having happened 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not much before the writing of that Book Now this which he tells us of the Xanthians happened not long after the death of Julius Caesar who was killed on the 13th of March in the year of Rome 709 for Brutus himself was kill'd at the time of the Battel of Philippi which was in Autumn in the year 712. Therefore Philo could not say it happened not long since if he writ so long after as in the year Urb. Con. 783. when Christ began to Preach for according to the common manner of speaking no man could say a thing happened not long since that happened before the remembrance of any man then living But if that Book was writ before Christ began to preach the Gospel much more were all those Books which we make use of against the Unitarians for according to the Order in which these Books are rankt by Eusebius this Book Quod omnis probus est Liber was one of the last that Philo writ The first that Eusebius names were the Three Books of Allegories after which he goes on to the Books of Questions and Answers upon Genesis and upon Exodus he tells us besides That Philo took pains to examine particular difficulties which might arise from several Histories in those Books and names the several Books that Philo writ of this sort This Order of his Books was observed in the Manuscripts which Eusebius hath exactly followed and it is agreeable enough to the Jewish Method of handling the Scripture by way of Questions and Answers which is still the Title of many Jewish Books of this Nature We may gather the same truth from another part of Philo which tells us expresly that he studi'd the Scriptures Primâ aetate when he was young and he complains of being called afterwards to publick business and that he had not now leisure to attend to the study of the Scriptures as formerly Lib. de Leg. spec p. 599. Therefore all his Books before were written in his younger days and especially his Three Books of Allegories which Eusebius placeth first before any of the rest Josephus in his Antiq. Lib. xviii c. 10. assures us That Philo was the Chief and most considerable of the Jews employed by those of Alexandria in the Embassy to Caligula This man saith he eminent among those of his Nation appeared before Caligula his Death which was A. U. C. 793. That is to say in the 40th year of our Lord. Now Philo in the History of his Legation to Caligula says of himself That he was at that time all grey with Age that is 70 years old according to the Jewish Notion of a man with grey hair Pirke Avoth c. 5. Suppose then that he was 70 years old when he appeared before Caligula it follows that he was born in the year of Rome 723. Suppose also that he began to write at 30 years old it will fall in with the year of Rome 793. That is to say 30 years before Christ preach'd in Judaea For Jesus Christ began not to preach till the year of Rome 783. The Third Assertion is as easy to be justified For though Baronius makes much of that fancy of Eusebius who to prove the Antiquity of Monastic Life held that Philo's Therapeutae were Christians and who was herein followed by St. Hierom without Examination yet others of the most Learned Papists as particularly Lucas Holstenius and Hen. Valesius have confest that herein Eusebius was mistaken Indeed one need only read the Book de Therapeutis it self or even the first period of it to be convinced that those whom Philo there describes were the Jews of the Essen Sect and the Essens were as Josephus plainly shews in the account he gives of them as much Jews by Religion as the Pharisees were Photius who was a better
that is to say he lived in the reign of Herod the Great about thirty years before the Birth of our Lord. And some Criticks believe our Saviour does cite his Chaldee Paraphrase Luc. iv 18. in quoting the Text Isa lx 2. Thus much may at least be said for it that all that which is there cited does agree better with his Targum than with the Original Text. Onkelos a Proselyte was he according to their common account who turned the five Books of Moses into Chaldee This Work is rather a pure simple Translation than a Paraphrase notwithstanding it must be allowed that in divers places he does not endeavour so much to give us the Text word for word as to clear up the sense of certain places which otherwise could not well be understood by the people This Onkelos according to the common opinion of the Jews saw Jonathan and lived in the time of that ancient Gamaliel who was Master of the Apostle St. Paul as some would have it We find in Megillah c. 1. that he Composed his Targum under the Conduct of R. Eliezer and of R. Josua after the year of our Lord 70 and that he died in the year of our Lord 108 and that his Targum was immediately received into the publick use of the Jews what other Targums there were on the five Books of Moses having almost wholly lost their credit and their authority As to the other Sacred Books which the Jews call Cetouvim or Hagiographes they ascribe the Targums of the Psalms the Proverbs and Job to R. Joseph Caeeus and affirm that he lived a long time after Onkelos And for the Targums of the other Books they look on them as works of Anonymous Authors However the most part of these Targums have been Printed under the name of Jonathan as if he had been Author of them all There are moreover some scraps of a Paraphrase upon the five Books of Moses which is called the Jerusalem Targum and there is another that bears the name of Jonathan upon the Pentateuch and which some Learned Jews have said to be his As doth R. Azaria Imrebinah c. 25. and the Author of the Chain of Tradition p. 28. after R. Menahem de Rekanati who cites it under the name of Jonathan following some Ancient MSS. These Targums ordinarily exceed the bounds of a Paraphrase and enter into Explications some of which are strange enough and appear to be the work of divers Commentators who among some good things have very often mixed their own idle Fancies and Dreams Beckius nineteen years ago published a Paraphrase on the two Books of Chronicles of which also there is a MSS. at Cambridge This deserves almost the same Character with these Paraphrases I spoke of last For the Author of this as well as those before mentioned does often intermingle such Explications as taste of the Commentator with those which appear to have been taken from the Ancient Perushim or Explications of the most Eminent Authors of the Synagogue A Man must be mighty credulous if he gives credit to all the fables which the Jews bring in their Talmud to extoll the authority of Jonathan his Targum and he must have read these Pieces with very little attention or judgment who should maintain that they are entirely and throughout the Works of the Authors whose names they bear or that they are of the same antiquity in respect of all their parts Onkelos is so simple that it seems nothing or very little has been added to him and he has been in so great esteem among the Jews that they have commonly inserted his Version after the Text of Moses verse for verse in the Ancient Manuscripts of the Pentateuch And from thence we may judge if there is any ground for the Conjecture of some Jews who would persuade us that it is only an Abridgment of the Targum of Jonathan upon the Pentateuch Certainly Jonathan his Targum upon the Pentateuch must be of a very dubious origin since we see that the Zohar cites from it the first words which are not to be found in it but in the Targum of Jerusalem fol. 79. col 1. l. 17. It is uncertain if the Targum of Jerusalem hath been a continued Targum or only the Notes of some Learned Jew upon the Margent of the Pentateuch or an abridgment of Onkelos for it hath a mixture of Chaldaick Greek Latin and Persian words which sheweth it hath been written in latter times according to the judgment of R. Elias Levita Jonathan who explained the former and the latter Prophets has not been so happy as Onkelos for it seems those that Copied his Targum have added many things to it some of which discover their Authors to have lived more than 700 years after him one may also see there a medly of different Targum of which the Targum on Isai xlix is a plain instance As to the Targums on all the other Holy Books which the Jews call the first Prophets it is visible that all their parts are not equally ancient Those which we have on Joshua and Judges are simple enough and Literal That on Ruth is full of Talmudical Ideas The same judgment may be made of those on the two Books of Samuel Those which we have on the two Books of Kings are a little freer from additions But that on Esther is rather a Commentary that collects several Opinions upon difficult places than a Paraphrase In that on Job attributed to R. Joseph in the Jews Edition at Venice in Folio Anno 1515. there are divers Targums cited in express Terms as there are also in the Targum on the Psalms which bears the name of R. Joseph in the aforesaid Edition of Venice One may also observe many Additions in the Targums on the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes but especially in that upon the Canticles all which have been published under the name of R. Joseph I have said almost as much of that on the two Books of Chronicles which Beckius published about eighteen or nineteen years ago This being so one may very well ask with what justice do you ascribe these Books to those who as the Jews now say were the Authors of them when by their own confession Onkelos on the five Books of Moses is perhaps the only Translator in whom you find none of these marks of corruption which you acknowledg in the other Targums you quote For the other Targums it may be said that we ought to leave them out of the Dispute unless we would impose the new Sentiments of the Jews that lived long after Christ's time under the pretence of producing the opinions of the ancient Synagogue before Jesus Christ One may insist upon it that we are to quote the Books of Onkelos only and lay the other aside as Books of no authority since we do confess that they are full of Additions in which there are many Fables and Visions borrowed from the Talmudical Jews I might hope to satisfie any
thus 1. we find in many places the connexion of one History with another which is very often the imagination of a Rabbin who fancied what he pleased and fathered it upon Moses 2. We find Explications in these later Targums different from the former ones yet added to the former with an impudence not to be endured and this in several places 3. We there find long Narrations which have no other foundation than their method of explaining Scripture by the way of Notarikon as they call it as where we read of the five Sins of Esau which he committed on the same day in which he sold his birthright to Jacob and in pursuance of their manner of explaining Scripture by Gematria of which Rittangel on Jetzira has given some examples p. 31 32 33. But all this makes nothing against the authority of those places in the Paraphrase where they do little more than render the Text out of Hebrew into Chaldee In them there was no occasion to shew any more than the sense of the words such as the Paraphrasts had received by Tradition from their Forefathers Whereas the Authors of those Additions thereby made a shew of Learning out of the common road and gave themselves the pleasure to see their own fictions come into such credit that they were received as the Oracles of God But beyond that we must take notice that as on one hand those Targums have been enlarged by so many Additions so on the other hand they have been altered in many places and new Ideas substituted to the old To shew the alteration which was made in those Targums by Modern Jews we can remark a thing which hath been often taken notice of by Buxtorf in his Lexicon Talmud viz. that there are many places cited from those Targums 500 years ago by the Author of Aroule that are not to be found in them as they are now in Print So we can prove clearly that new Ideas have been put in instead of the old chiefly upon the points controverted between Jews and Christians For in many places where St. Jerome in his Comments upon the Prophets brings the common explication of the Jews as agreeing with the explication of Christians we find the Targum brings an explication quite different from what it was to be according to St. Jerome's account It appears by this the Jews have done in their Books the same thing which Papists have done in the Books of the Fathers They have added many things to help their Cause and they have cut out many places which might have done great service to Truth As for the Additions then I will scarce cite any of them but when it is evident that they speak the sense of the Ancients and truly whatever one may say of the Corruptions of these Jewish Paraphrases I will maintain that it is as easie for an attentive Reader to distinguish these Corruptions from the ancient Text which it seems Arias Montanus had a design to do in a particular Treatise as it is for one that looks on an old Pot or Kettle to tell where the Tinker has been at work and to distinguish his Clouts from the Original metal The ancient pieces have a sort of simplicity that makes them to be valued and which easily shews their antiquity The Additions are the rambling fancies of bold Commentators which they devised in later times as occasion required and thrust them upon the ancient Paraphrasts who lived in those times when there was no such occasion nor could they foresee that there would be any such in after-times As for example we do not find that the Jews before Christ's time ever spoke of two Messias the one the Son of David who was to reign gloriously the other a suffering Messias the Son of Joseph of the Tribe of Ephraim The reason is plain for they had no occasion for that fancy of a suffering Messias That arose upon their Disputes with the Christians who proved that the Sufferings of Christ were no other than what the Messias was to suffer according to the Prophecies of Scripture At first the Jews tried other ways to avoid the force of these Prophecies but when no other would do they came to this to devise another Messias the Son of Joseph and to give him the Sufferings which the Scripture attributes to the Messias the Son of David In a word all these Conceits of which the greatest part of these Additions do consist do so evidently demonstrate their Novelty that when one is acquainted with a little of the History of the World as well as that of the Jews it is scarce possible that he should take them for the Text of Jonathan or of the ancient Paraphrasts Besides all this in the Modern Paraphrases themselves we find very often these words Another Targum and sometimes yet Another Targum which shews that the following words are not the ancient Targum but are the Additions of some Modern Authors whom the Copyers of the Paraphrasts have joyned as a new light to the ancient Whether the Jews's inserting such things into their Paraphrases has been out of fondness of these Discoveries which appeared to them new or whether they have found it turn to account to insert these Additions in the Body of their ancient Paraphrases thereby to enhance the value of them or whether they thought by publishing them under the Names of those ancient Commentators whose Authority is so venerable to wrest from the Christians all the advantages they might draw from any thing in their Paraphrases the things that they added being oftentimes contrary to what the Ancients did teach is a secret among the Jews but a secret little worth since the Providence of God has preserved the Apocryphal Books and the Books of Philo which can give us so much light into the knowledg of what is ancient and what is modern in these Paraphrases I will add nothing upon this matter but this that we see in the most ancient Books of the Jews as in the Books call'd Rabboth Mechista and in their old Midrashim almost all composed before the 7th Century and in the Talmud of Babylon the same Ideas and the same Doctrine which we meet in the Apocryphal Books and in Philo's Writings And those Ideas have been constantly followed by the most considerable part of the Jews those very Men who have their name from their constant sticking to the old Tradition of their Forefathers CHAP. VIII That the Authors of the Apocryphal Books did acknowledg a Plurality and a Trinity in the Divine Nature HAving finished our General Reflexions on the Traditional Sense of the Scriptures which was receiv'd among the Jews before the time of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Books wherein we can find such a Tradition it is time we should come to the chief matter we designed to treat of The Question is Whether the Jews before Christ's time had any notion of a Trinity For the Socinians would make us believe that Justin
Gentiles by the Messias as we see in Sepher Chasidim § 961. and to the abode of the Sekinah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is explained by R. Joseph de Carnisol Saare Isider fol. 3. col 4. fol. 4. col 1. And so St. Peter supposes it to be spoken of the Messias Act. iii. 25. We may reflect in like manner on the promise God made 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 Act. 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 other Law was to be lookt upon as meer Vanity So Coheleth Rabba in c. ii and in c. xi It is not without some surprize that we read the Application St. Mat. ii 15. has made of these words in Hos xi 1. Out of Egypt have I called my son which seem only to be spoken of the Children of Israel and not of the Messias And yet in the Book Midrash Tehillim Rabba on Ps ii we may see the Jews referred to the Messias what is written of the People of Israel Exod. iv 22. Which is an argument that St. Matthew cited this passage from Hosea according to the sense the Jews gave it with respect to the Messias The Actions of the Messias are related in the Law in the Prophets and in the Books called Hagiographa or in the Psalms In the Law Exod. iv 22. Israel is my first-born In the Prophets Isai lii 13. Behold my servant shall deal prudently In the Psalms as it is written The Lord said to my Lord Psal cx i. St. Matth. viii 17. referrs the words of Isai liii 4. to the miraculous Cures that Christ wrought And he follows herein the ancient Tradition of the Jews which taught that the Messias spoken of in this Chapter of Isaiah should pardon Sins and consequently heal their distempers which were the effects and punishments of their Sins From hence it follows that according to their Tradition the Messias should be God even as Jesus Christ did then suppose when he healed the Paralytick Man by his own power Matth. ix 6. and proves that he did not blaspheme in forgiving Sins which the Jews thought belonged only to God St. Matth. i. 23. applies the words of Isai vii 14. to Christ's being born of a Virgin Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son c. This he did likewise according to the ancient Idea of the Jews which was not quite lost in the time of Adrian the Emperor For R. Akiba who lived and died under his Reign makes the following Reflection on this Prophecy He had considered that Isaiah in the beginning of the following Chapter received Order from God to take to him two Witnesses Uriah the Priest who lived in his time and Zechary the Son of Berachiah who lived not as he thought till under the second Temple Upon which he saith that God commanded the Prophet to do thus to shew that as what he had foretold concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz was true by the Witness of Uriah who saw it accomplish'd so what he had foretold concerning the Conception and Delivery of a Virgin must be accomplished under the second Temple by the Witness of Zechary who lived then See Gemara tit Maccoth c. 3. fol. 24. 3. We see that Jesus Christ Joh. iv 21 c. alludes tacitly to the Prophecy of Mal. i. 11. concerning the Sacrifices of the New Testament This is a matter at present controverted between Christians and Jews But Christ deliver'd the sense of the Synagogue as it is evident from the Targum on those words of Malachy which applies them to the Times of the Messias 4. One would think it were only by way of Similitude that Christ applied to himself the History of the Brazen Serpent in saying Joh. iii. 14. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wilderness so must the Son of Man be lifted up But there appears to be more in it than so The ancient Jews lookt upon the Brazen Serpent as a Type of the Messias so we find by their Targum on Numb xxi 8. which expounds this Serpent which Moses lifted up by the Word of the Lord who is also called God Wisd xvi 7. compared with chap. xv 1. Although Philo while he hunts for Allegories gives another Idea of it de Agric. p. 157. 5. It may also seem to be only by way of Allusion that Christ calls himself the Bread that came down from Heaven alluding to the Manna which came down from Heaven as we read Exod. xvi But he that looks into the ancient Jewish Writers shall find that herein also our Saviour followed the common Jewish Idea For Philo who writ in Egypt before Jesus Christ began to preach tells us positively that the Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Manna Lib. quòd Deter pot insid p. 137. St. Paul Heb. 1.5 cites God's Words to David concerning one that should come out of his Loins 2 Sam. vii 14. I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son as if they respected the Messias How could he do thus When on the one hand he calleth Jesus Christ holy undefiled harmless separate from Sinners and on the other hand in that Promise to David God takes it for granted that that Son of his might be a Sinner and thereupon threatens in the very next words 2 Sam. vii 14. If he commit iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of men which suits well with Solomon but not at all with the Messias The reason is St. Paul followed the sense of this place which was commonly received among the Jews who as they refer to the Messias the Psal lxxii cx and cxxxii where the same Ideas occur so they must have referred to the Messias whatever is great in this Prophecy and to others whatever therein denotes humane infirmities And Indeed it was not very hard to give to that Oracle a further prospect viz. to the Messias 1st Because Solomon was made King in the Life of his Father whereas the Son which God speaks of was to be born after David's Death 2dly Because it is spoken of a Seed not born from David but from David's Children 3dly Because the Mercy of God was to make the Kingdom of David last for ever whereas the Kingdom of Solomon was divided soon after his Death and but two parts of twelve were left to Rehoboam his Son St. Paul Gal. iv 29. alludes to the History in Gen. xxi 9. as a Type of the Persecutions which the Jews should exercise on the Christians Whereon does he build this First having proved it his way that the Christian Church was typified in Isaac
reasonable Reader that sticks at this difficulty by telling him First in few words that I will scarce ever cite any of these Targums but when they say the same thing that Onkelos doth And secondly that these as well as Onkelos are owned by the Jews And it cannot with any colour of reason be imagined that the Jews since Christ's time have adopted Books contrary to their Religion and used them in their common reading as true Versions of the Law and the Prophets It is certain that the Jews many Centuries ago have taken them for such And therefore these Books in whatsoever time they were written are sufficient testimonies of the Opinions of the Synagogue But I have something more considerable to offer for the establishing of the Authority of these Paraphrases as well as of that of Onkelos in our dispute with our Unitarians against whom we shall have occasion to make use of the Testimony of these Paraphrases For this one needs only examine these Paraphrases with an ordinary attention I pray therefore the Reader to consider 1. That whatsoever has been said in general for the necessity that there was for the making of these Chaldee Paraphrases the same does also confirm the antiquity of all these Paraphrases if not as to every part of them yet at least as to the main of these Paraphrases such as we now have them almost on every Book of the Old Testament 2ly We see in the Misna a clear mention made of some Targums upon the Law and the first Prophets Megillah cap. 4. Sect. 9 10. which must be Onkelos and Jonathan 3ly We read in the Gemarah of Sabbath cap. 16. fol. 115. col 1. an account of the Targum upon Job which Raban Gamaliel the Grand-father to R. Judah who compiled the Misna had read Now if the Paraphrase on the Books of Job was in common use so anciently who can doubt but that they had the like Versions also on the Books of Moses and on the Prophets Nay we see that Jesus Christ upon the Cross cites the xxii Psalm according to the Chaldee Paraphrase and not according to the Hebrew This he did that he might be understood by them that were present at that time from whence it follows that the Jews in Judea had a Paraphrase of the Book of Psalms and that that Paraphrase was already received among them before the time of our Blessed Saviour I know some Criticks will not allow the Misnah which speaks of the Targums to be so ancient as I do Their great reason is that this Book is cited by none of the Fathers who lived just after it was written and that it is mentioned by no body before Justinian the Emperour his time But this Objection proceeds only from an oversight of these Criticks who have not observed that although I should grant what they suppose to be true it would not weaken the Authority of the Misnah when the Author of the Misnah does witness the antiquity of the Targums because the Misnah is not a Book of a common form but a collection of many old Decisions as the Book of Justinian which is called Digestum which is not Justinian his work but his Collection or as the Book of Gratian which is called Decretum which is nothing but the Compilation of Canons or Decisions of Fathers who lived six or seven hundred years before Gratian. That hath been judiciously remark'd by Paul Archbishop of Burgos in the Preface to his Scrutinium and in this judgment he follows Maymonides in his Preface upon his Jad Kazaka And indeed we must observe that almost all the famous Rabins which are mentioned in the Misnah are the very Men which are mentioned by St. Com. on Isa 8.14 Jerome as the great Authors of the Judaick Traditions If the Learned Men do not like the Conjecture of R. Elias Levita upon the Targum of Jerusalem but would have it to be the rest of an entire work upon the Pentateuch Let them examine how it came to pass that the Jerusalem Paraphrase on the Pentateuch is almost all lost So that there remain only some few bits of it here and there on some Texts and then they will find that perhaps it is not lost but that it subsists in great measure in that which is under Jonathan his name on the Pentateuch Whence it is probably that in some MSS. it bears the name of the Targum of Jerusalem and in other 's the name of Jonathan's Targum It is easie to judge how this came to pass The Jerusalem Targum differed from that of Jonathan but in some places or perhaps it was the very Targum of Jonathan which was augmented from time to time by divers Explications Then when the Jews came to make their Paraphrase no longer than their Text that they might have the Text and the Paraphrase both together in their Bibles they did not give themselves the trouble to transcribe the Jerusalem Paraphrase all at length But they contented themselves with transcribing those parts where it appeared to have some difference from that of Jonathan and this they did after so scrupulous a manner that they transcribed the Passages of the Jerusalem Targum that agree in the sense and differ only in the words as well as those that have a different sense from that of Jonathan I know very well that the Jews speak of several Paraphrases besides that of Jonathan on the Prophets and that of Onkelos on the Books of Moses As for instance they speak of a Targum of R. Joseph who they say has translated the Books of the Prophets But as to this it ought to be considered 1. That it was the Jews Custom to teach their Scholars these Paraphrases not from a Book but from their memory and by heart and so the Scholars might very well ascribe to their Masters that which they had learnt from their mouths and their verbal instructions as well as if it had been delivered to them in writing 2. That the same places which are quoted from the Paraphrase of R. Joseph on some Books of the Prophets are to be found in express terms in Jonathan's Paraphrase which the Jews esteem more ancient than Onkelos who writ on the Law 3. R. Joseph whom they quote does himself cite the Chaldee Paraphrase as being of Authority in his time and therefore it was not his work And this appears from his Confession that he could never have understood the words of Isai viii 6. without the help of the Chaldee Paraphrase Gemara ch xi tit Sanbedr fol. 95. But notwithstanding the antiquity of these Paraphrases I own they contain Additions very new which shew that after they were written they were in such places enlarged with the Glosses of Doctors that applied themselves to the Study of the Law and took pains to shew how one part of it depended upon another of which we find nothing in Onkelos which is almost a verbal translation of the Hebrew Text into Chaldee And
in another reading of the Text which I take to be the true reading for we find it not only in the now vulgar Latin but also in Irenaeus i. 20. which sheweth it was the current reading in his time and we find it also in several Manuscripts some of which are of the highest esteem with Learned Men as namely the Alexandrian in the King's Library and the ancient Manuscript of Lions in the Cambridge Library In all these the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This person is the power of God which is called the great power For their calling him the power of God what that means we cannot better learn than from Origen who speaking of Simon and such others as would make themselves like our Lord Jesus Christ saith they called themselves Sons of God or the Power of God which he makes to be two Titles of one and the same signification Orig. cont Celsum lib. 1. p. 44. And both these Titles are given to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Philo in more places than we can number For their calling him the Great Power of God which implies that there was another power besides this also perfectly agrees with the Notions of Philo who so often speaks of the two Powers of God describing them as true and proper Persons We have a farther proof of the Samaritans having these Notions in the account which their Country-man Justin Martyr hath given us of the honour they had for Simon Magus in his time which was about eighty years after the writing of the Acts of the Apostles It may seem very strange that when the charms of that Magus wherewith he had bewitched that poor people were so intirely dissolved by Philip's Preaching and Miracles that not only they but the Impostor himself had embraced the Christian Religion yet after this he could so far bewitch them a second time as to raise himself in their opinion from being the great power of God as they called him before to be in their new style the God above all power whatsoever Yet that was the Title they gave him in Justin's time as he sheweth in his Dialogue with Tryphon Justin Dial. cum Tryph. p. 349. G. elswhere Justin saith Apol. 11. p. 69. E. of Simon they confess him as the first God and as such they worship him This Notion of a first God is manifestly the same with that of Philo who called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second God Euseb Prep Evang. vii 13. p. 323. But if the Samaritans in the Apostles time took Simon to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or second God as I have shewn it more than probable that they meant it by calling him the Great power of God Who should be the second God now since Simon was so advanced in their opinion that now they accounted him to be the First Justin sheweth in the place before mentioned p. 69. E. that in his time as they called Simon the first God so they called his Companion Helen the second God His words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is that one may easily guess for certainly the first emanation from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so according to Justin himself the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies For in the same Book he interprets it of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apol. 11. p. 97. b. So that as the second God was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Philo's account so was Simon 's Companion the same in the opinion of the Samaritans This poor bewitched people were almost Singular in this opinion in Justin's time for he saith then there were but few of their way in other Nations And Origen who wrote within sixty years after saith That when he wrote there were of Simon 's Sect scarce thirty at Samaria and none any where else in the World Orig. cont Cels 1. p. 44. Possibly there might remain some of them till those times when other Writers give other accounts of their Opinions and possibly their Opinions might vary so that those later accounts are not to be much heeded we can't be certain of any thing concerning them but what we have from Justin Martyr who lived when they were at the highest and writing as he did to the Emperour an Apology for the Christians and acquainting him with the Errors of his Country-men at Samaria which as he more than intimates was not without some hazard of his being torn in pieces by the Mobb Just Dial. cum Tryphon p. 340. we may be very sure he would write nothing of them but what was so evidently true that it could not be denied by any that lived in those days But from the account that Justin Martyr gives of them together with what we read in the Acts of the Apostles I think it is sufficiently proved that the Samaritans held a Plurality in the Divine Nature which not a little confirms that which I undertook to prove of the Jews having these Notions in the times of Christ and his Apostles I shall not insist longer on the Arguments which confirm a Plurality in the Divine Nature because I shall touch on some of them again in the Sequel of this Discourse where I shall shew that those places of the Old Testament that speak of the Angel of the Lord are to be understood not of a created Angel but of a person that is truly Jehova and that this has been acknowledged by the ancient Jews which alone is proof enough of this Notion's being sufficiently known by that Nation to which God committed his Sacred Oracles Rom. ix 6. Pass we now to the second Article that the Jews did so acknowledg a Plurality in God as that at the same time they held that this Plurality was a Trinity CHAP. X. That the Jews did acknowledge the Foundations of the Belief of a Trinity in the Divine Nature and that they had the Notion of it IN pursuance of the Method laid down in the foregoing Chapter I am now to shew these two things 1. That there are in the Scriptures of the Old Testament so many and so plain Intimations of a Trinity in the Divine Nature as might very well move the Jews to take them for a sufficient ground for the Belief of this Doctrine 2. That these Intimations had that real effect on the Jews that as they found in their Scriptures a Plurality in the One Infinite Being of God so they found these Scriptures to restrain this Plurality to a Trinity of which they had though much more darkly and confusedly the same Notions that are now among Christians 1. To shew that there is ground for this Doctrine in the Scriptures of the Old Testament I might shew this oftentimes in these Scriptures where God is spoken of there is some kind of intimation given of Three in the Divine Nature But of this I shall only touch upon it my intention being chiefly to shew That there are Three that are called God
shall bring him witnesses to establish them I know that they pretend commonly the name of Elohim which is Plural is given to God to express his several Virtues But beyond that they maintain that Scripture hath affected this style of Plurality because of those two the Cochma or Wisdom and the Bina or understanding which are spoken Prov. 3.19 where Solomon reflects upon the Author of the Creation and they alledg upon this Subject the place of Ecclesiastes ch xii 1. where Creators are mentioned Bachaje in Pentat fol. 4. col 2. col 4. R. Joseph de Karnitol in Saare Tsedec fol. 7. col 2. As they study in a special manner the History of the Creation and consider very nicely every expression thereof they take notice that the Jerusalem Targum hath translated those words in the beginning Bereshit God created Heaven and Earth by these God created by his Wisdom which is call'd the beginning Prov. viii and so that Onkelos hath not translated the word Bereschit by the word Kadmita which signifies the beginning of time but by the word Bekadmin which signifies the ancient or the first which is the Title they give to Wisdom according to the same place of Solomon which I have quoted This is the Notion of the Book Habbahir of the Zohar of the Rabboth whose words are related at large by R. Menachem de Rekanati in Pentat fol. 1. col 1 2. of the Venice Edit by Bombergue They maintain the Wisdom which is spoken of by Solomon to be the cause by which all particular Beings have been formed and they call it the second number which proceeds from the first as from his spring and brings from it the influx of all blessings This is the Doctrine of R. Nechouniah ben Cana and of the Author of Rabboth which R. Menachem quotes at large Ibid. fol. 1. col 1. They teach that because God hath created by his Wisdom as the Soul acts by her Body they cannot say there was not an absolute and perfect unity in the work of the Creation This is the Doctrine of the Zohar followed by R. Menachem de Rekanat Ibid. col 2. And indeed they acknowledg not only that Wisdom to have been the efficient cause of the Word but they acknowledg also the Bina as such an efficient cause with God from hence they pretend that God hath founded the World by his two Hands as it is said by Isa ch xlviii 13. so Bachaje in Gen. fol. 3. col 2. And this Notion agreeth exactly with what is said by Moses that the Spirit of God moved it self upon the face of the Abyss For it was not of a created wind but of a Divine and Increated Being which Moses speaks there and which is spoken of by David Psal xxxiii 6. as it is acknowledged by Leo Hebraeus Dial. de Amore and by Menasseh ben Israel Concil in Gen. Q. 2. § 7. and by many others It is to be noted as the first Christians make use of the word Number when they speak of the Divine Wisdom acknowledging that it differs in Number but not in Substance from the Eternal Father So Justin doth against Tryphon and do acknowledge some degrees between the Three Persons So doth Tertullian in some places and afterwards they have made use of the word Person So the Ancient Jews have among them the same Terms which shews they had the same Ideas They speak of the Sephiroth that is of the Numbers in the Godhead they speak of the several Madregoth which is Degrees they speak of Prosopin which is Persons as I have shewn before They cannot express their mind more distinctly than when they distinguish 1. He and Thou which is the Characteristical distinction of Persons and when they apply these Pronouns to the Persons which they conceive in the Godhead So they say that Thou belongs to Wisdom and He to the God which is absconded R. Menach Ibid. fol. 22. col 2. fol. 45. col 1. They give to them their Characteristical Names so they make the name Anochi to belong to God absconded they refer the name of any to the Shekinah or Memra which is the same to them as I shall shew afterwards See R. Menach in Pent. fol. 149. col 4. They refer to these Persons the Consultations and Speeches of God as directed to many as Let us make man which contains a deep Mystery as says Bachaje but which others would elude by maintaining that God speaks to Angels So doth R. Menach de Rek fol. 35. col 4. So they conceive that when it is said in Scripture that God speaks with his Heart then God speaks with his Shekinah 'T is their Remark upon Gen. xi Let us come down R. Men. fol. 27. col 2. fol. 28. col 2. So they acknowledge distinctly in these words Gen. xix 24. And Jehovah rained upon Sodom from Jehovah that those Two Jehovah are Two Persons which they call expresly Two Prosopin R. Menach fol. 11. col 1. fol. 63. col 4. So in the History of the Tower of Babel Ibid. fol. 28. col 3. They distinguish exactly the Characteristical Actions which belong to these Persons So they attribute to the God absconded to have acted in the Creation by his Wisdom and by his Understanding R. Menach fol. 1. from Breschit Rabba and that according to Solomon Prov. iii. and to David Psal xxxiii 6. They say that this Wisdom is called the Beginning although she is but the second Sephira because beyond her they can know nothing the first Sephira being unknown to all Creatures 'T is the Doctrine of the Book Jetzira and of the Zohar related by R. Men. fol. 1. col 3. They maintain that 't is the Shekinah or Wisdom which rules the World according to Solomon's words Prov. viii R. Men. fol. 35. col 1. I shall shew in one of the next Chapters that they refer to the Shekinah or Memra almost all the Appearances of God which are mentioned in Scripture according to the Ideas of the Targum That can be seen in the Comments of Ramban and of Bachaje upon the Pentateuch I quote here only R. Menachem because he brings the very Words of the Authors who lived before him so that his Authority is not alone but upheld by the Consent of old Authors Now he and his Authors teach constantly That 't was the Shekinah which appeared to Adam after his Sin and made him some Cloaths fol. 59. col 4. That it appeared to Abraham fol. 35. col 2. That it appeared to Jacob at Night fol. 36. col 2. And to the same upon the Ladder fol. 41 42. That it appeared to Moses Exod. iii. fol. 55. col 2. And to the People upon Mount Sina fol. 56. col 2. That it spake to Moses and gave the Law to the People fol. 57. col 2 3. fol. 58. col 1. fol. 84. col 1. col 2. There are many other special Acts which they refer constantly
and the same thing is to be found in their Manuscripts which are more rare because the Jews have not yet Printed them Of this sort is Iggereth Hassodoth cited by Galatinus whose Authority is vindicated by Plantavitius Bibl. Rabb p. 549. Of this sort also is the Manuscript called Sod Mercava Eliona quoted by Ritt p. 35. where are mentioned the three Modes of Existence in God Notwithstanding which they are all unanimous that the Lord is one and his Name is one If you would know on what foundations it was that the Cabalists built this Doctrine you need but look over the Texts on which they have reflected and you 'l find them almost all the same with those that were quoted to the same purpose by the Apostles and Apostolical Men in their Writings Particularly if you would know their opinion to whom it was that God did speak at the Creation Gen. i. 26. R. Juda will tell you God spoke to his Word If you would know of them who is the Spirit of whom we read Gen. i. 2. that he moved on the face of the Waters Moses Botril will inform you it is the Holy Spirit If you would learn of them to whom it was that God spoke Gen. i. 26. saying Let Us make Man Moses Botril tells us that these words are directed to the Wisdom of God If you would know what Spirit it was that is spoken of Job xxviii 12. Again Moses Botril will tell you it is the Holy Spirit If you would know of whom they understand those words in Psal xxxvi 6. They say plainly that they are spoken of that very Trinity If you would know what they think of that Wisdom Psal civ 24. R. Moses Botril describes it to you as a Person and not an Attribute If you would know to whom that is to be referr'd which we read of Isa xl 14. R. Abraham ben David will tell you to the Three Sephiroth All this is to be found in their several Comments on the Book Jetzira which were printed at Mantua in the last Century A. D. 1562. 1592. and have been quoted in Latin by Rittangelius But it may be said That the Jews have adopted this Doctrine inconsiderately without reflecting upon the Absurdity of it For how is it possible to conceive such Emanations in God who is Immutable and Eternal and such an Idea of Plurality and of Trinity in God who is over and above all Ideas of Composition But I answer 1. All these they have considered and yet have owned this Distinction in the Divine Essence as a Truth not to be contested But assert these Three Sephiroth which they call sometimes Spirits to be Eternal and Essential in God which they say we ought not to deny because we can't easily conceive it For the Divine Nature is Incomprehensible far exceeding the Limits of our narrow Understandings And the Revelation God hath given us does no more put us in a capacity to judge of the nature of the things revealed than the borrowed Light of the Moon which is all that the Owls can behold does render them able to judge of the Sun 's far more glorious Light Such are the Thoughts of R. Sabtay in Rit on Jetz p. 78 79 80. Such are the Reflections of R. Menach who cites Job xxviii 7. to this purpose and the Caution of the Jewish Doctors who forbid to undertake the Examination of things that are incomprehensible 2. They have expressed their Notions of this matter much after the same manner as the Thomists have done theirs The Book Jetzira chap. 1. distinguishes in God Sopher Sepher and Sippour which R. Abraham explaining says they answer to Him that understands to the Act of Understanding and to the Thing understood All this is still the more remarkable 1. Because the common Jews have well nigh quite lost the Notion of the Messias being God and they generally expect no other than a mere common Man for their Redeemer 2. Because the main Body of the Jews are such zealous Asserters of the Unity of God that they repeat every day the words of Deut. vi 4. The Lord our God is One Lord. It is a Practice which though now they have turn'd against the Christians yet doubtless was taken up first in opposition to the Gentiles whose Polytheism was renounced in this short Confession of the Jewish Faith And hence it is that they do so much celebrate R. Akiba's Faith who died in Torments with the last Syllables of the word Echad in his Mouth which signifies the Unity of God 3. Because the Jews at the same time dispute against the Christians Doctrine of the Trinity as doth R. Saadia for instance in his Book entituled Sepher Emunah chap. 2. 4. Because from the beginning of Christianity some Rabbins have applied themselves to find out other Senses of those Passages which the Christians urge against them This we see in Gem. of Sanhedr chap. 4. sect 2. And yet notwithstanding all this opposition the Cabalists have past and do still pass for Divines among the Jews and the Targumists for Inspired Men. Nor is it to be imagined that these Notions of the Cabalistical Jews are new things which they pick'd up since their more frequent Converse with the Christians For we find them in the Book Zohar the Author of which is reputed one of the chief Jewish Martyrs Jebhamoth tr 1. fol. 5. col 2. and to have lived in the Second Century I know some have suspected that this Book is a counterfeit and falsly fathered on R. Simeon whose Name it bears The Zohar was not known say they till about the time of R. Moses Bar Nachman So saith the Book Juchazin p. 42. R. D. Ganz in Tzemach David p. 106. But we find these Notions in the beginning of the Rabboth which Books they will have to be more Ancient than the Talmud Furthermore we see in the Gemara of Sabbath that R. Simeon was dispensed with the necessity of his being present at Prayers in the Synagogue because he and his Scholars were at work upon the Study of the Laws which supposes that he was writing some such Comments as we have now although 't is probable that they have been increased in following Ages Besides who can imagine that in all places the Jews should have adopted Opinions unknown to their Religion and in effect destructive of those Points for which they then zealously contended if they had not been convinced of the Truth of such a Doctrine And now give me leave to propose one Argument to the Unitarians which I believe they will not be able to answer and adhere to their new-advanced Position That the Nazarenes were the true Primitive Christians and the only Depositaries of the Apostolick Doctrine It is a Passage taken from the Gospel of the Nazarenes as cited by St. Jerome on Ezek. xvi Where after noting that the word Ruach Spirit in the Hebrew Tongue is Feminine he adds In Evangelio quoque Hebraeorum quod
God the Word that spoke this to the People the ancient Church could not doubt as we see in the Book of Deuteronomy where Jonathan tells us that thus Moses minded his People of what they had heard and seen at the giving of the Law Deut. iv 33. Is it possible that a People should have heard the voice of the Word of the Lord the Living God speak out of the middle of the fire as you have heard and yet live Again v. 36. Out of Heaven he hath made you hear the voice of his Word and ye have heard his words out of the midst of the fire Again he puts them in mind of the fright they were in Deut. v. 23. After ye had heard the voice of the Word out of the midst of the Darkness on the Mount burning with fire all the Chiefs of you came to me and said Behold the Word of the Lord our God has shewed us the Divine Majesty of his Glory and the Excellence of his Magnificence and we have heard the voice of his Word out of the midst of the fire why should we die as we must if we hear any more of the voice of the Word of the Lord our God for who is there living in flesh that hears the voice of the Word of the Living God speaking out of the middle of the fire as we do and yet live Again Deut. xviii 16. he minds them of the same thing in some of the same Words Many more such Quotations might be added but these are sufficient to prove that it was the undoubted Tradition of the ancient Jewish Church That their Law was given by the Word of God and that it was he that appeared to Moses for this purpose As the Word gave the Law it was he that made those many Appearances to Moses throughout his whole Conduct of the People of Israel through the Wilderness To begin with that Divine Appearance which was continually in sight of all the People of Israel for forty years together throughout their whole Travel in the Wilderness namely the Pillar which they saw in the Air day and night Where this Pillar is first spoken of namely at the coming of the People of Israel up out of Egypt there it is expresly said That the Lord went before them in the Pillar of Cloud by day and fire by night Exod. xiii 21. Afterward indeed he is called the Angel of God Exod. xiv 19. where we read that the People being come to the Red-Sea and being there in imminent danger of being overtaken by the Egyptians by whom they were closely pursued the Angel which had gone before the Camp of Israel all day removed at night and went behind them That this Angel was God it is certain not only because he is called God Exod. xiii 21. xiv 24. Numb xii 5. But also because he was Worshipped Exod. xxxiii 10. which was a sure Proof of his Divinity Being therefore God himself and yet the Messenger of God it must be that this was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word and that this was the Tradition of the ancient Church we are taught not only by Philo in the place above mentioned Quis rer Div. haeres p. 397. F.G. but also by the Jerusalem Targum on Exod. xiv 24. and Jonathan on Exod. xxxiii 9. and by Onkelos on Deut. i. 32 33. as has been mentioned When the Children of Israel after the first three days march found no other Waters but what were too bitter for them to drink at which they murmured Moses cried unto the Lord who thereupon shewed him a Tree which they threw into the Waters and thereby made them sweet Exod. xv 25. Here was a Divine Appearance and it was of the Word of the Lord according to the Jerusalem Targum A Month after their coming out of Egypt for want of Bread they murmured against Moses and Aaron at which God shewed himself so much concerned that he made his Glory appear to them in the Pillar of Cloud Exod. xvi 7 10 That according to the sense of the ancient Church this was the Shekinah of the Word has been newly shown both from Philo and from all the Targums and the same we find here in this place v. 8. where Moses tells them your murmurings are not against us but against the Word of the Lord according to Onkelos and Jonathan When Exod. xvii 8 c. the Amalekites came against this poor people that had never seen War and smote the hindmost of them God not only gave his people a Victory over them but also said unto Moses write this for a Memorial in a Book That I will utterly put out the Remembrance of Amalek from under Heaven Exod. xvii 14. See how Moses performs this v. 15. In the place where they had fought he set up an Altar inscribed Jehovah Nissi The Lord is my Standard meaning that it was the will of God they should be in perpetual War against Amalek and this reason for it he entreth in his Book v. 16. according to Jonathan for the Word of the Lord has sworn by his Glory that he will have war against Amalek for all Generations The next Divine Appearance we read of was at the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai whereof enough has been already said and we must avoid being too long For which reason we omit much more that might be said of the following Appearances in the Wilderness which are all ascribed to the Word in one or other of the Targums But I ought not to omit to take notice of some special things So for their places of Worship God promised according to the Jerusalem Targum Exod. xx 24. Wheresoever you shall mention my Holy Name my Word shall appear to you and shall bless you and the Temple is called the place which the Word of the Lord your God will chuse to place his Shekinah there according to Jonathan's and the Jerusalem Targums on Deut. xii 4. Especially at the Altar for Sacrifice which was before the Door of the Tabernacle God promised Moses both for himself and the People according to Onkelos and Jonathan on Exod. xxix 42. I will appoint my Word to speak with thee there and I will appoint my Word there for the Children of Israel Above all at the Mercy-seat where the Ark stood God promised to Moses according to those Targums on Exod. xxv 22. xxx 36. Numb xxvii 4. I will appoint my Word to speak with thee there And in sum of all the Precepts in Leviticus it is said at the end of that Book according to those Targums on Levit. xxvi 46. These are the Statutes and Judgments and Laws which the Lord made between his Word and the Children of Israel When they entred into Covenant with God obliging themselves to live according to his Laws Hereby they made the Word to be their King and themselves his Subjects So Moses tells them Deut. xxvi 17. according to the Jerusalem Targum You have
choice of Three Punishments either Three Years Famine or Three Months Destruction by Enemies or Three Days Pestilence throughout all the Coast of Israel This last being a Judgment from Heaven that falls as soon upon the Prince as the Peasant David made choice of it rather than either of the other saying withal Let me not fall into the hands of Man but into the hands of the Lord for great are his Mercies 1 Chron. xxi 13. Thereupon God sent a Pestilence upon all the Coasts of Israel by which there fell Seventy thousand Men 2 Sam. xxiv 15. And to represent to David's Bodily Eyes an extraordinary Instance as well of God's Justice in punishing Sinners as of his Mercy to them upon their Repentance and Prayer God made him see an Angel standing between the Earth and the Heaven having a drawn Sword in his hand stretch'd out over Jerusalem to destroy it 2 Sam. xxiv 16 17. And 1 Chron. xxi 16. And when at this Sight David fell upon his face and prayed as it followeth ver 17. God said to the destroying Angel It is enough stay now thy hand Then the Angel came down and stood by the Floor of Ornan the Jebusite on which Place God designed that Solomon should build his Temple and declared it to David upon this occasion There according to the Angel's Order by the Prophet Gad David now built an Altar and sacrificed thereon upon which the Lord commanded the Angel and he put up his Sword into his sheath 2 Sam. xxiv 17. This was no other than a Created Angel whom God that employ'd him in that Service appointed to appear in that manner for all those purposes before-mentioned What the Ancient Church thought of all this Passage of History we may easily guess by what has been already shewn of their ascribing all Rewards and Punishments to the Word that had the Conduct and Government over God's People And though it seems that Care has been taken to conceal this Notion of theirs as much as was possible in the Targums of the Books now before us yet here is a Passage that seems to have escaped the Correctors by which we may perceive the Church's Sense here was agreeable to what we find of it in all other places For in 2 Sam. xxiv 14. where we find in the Text that David said ver 6. Let us fall now into the â—â—nd of the Lord for his Mercies are great the Targum thus renders these words Let me be delivered into the hand of the Word of the Lord for great are his Mercies It was therefore the Word of the Lord into whose hands David fell It was his Angel by whom the Judgment was executed And it was also his Mercy by which the Judgment was suspended and revoked The Targum on this Text sufficiently shews that all this was the Sense of the Jewish Church In short the Ancient Church considered the Word as being their Sovereign Lord and King of the People of Israel All those Kings whose Acts are described in the Two Books of Kings they look'd upon as his Lieutenants or Deputies that held their Title from and under him by his Covenant with David their Father This Solomon declared in these words 1 Kings viii 15. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel who by his Word made a Covenant with David my Father Whatsoever God did for his People under their Government in protecting and delivering them from their Enemies they own'd that it was for his Word's sake and for his Servant David's sake 2 Kings xix 34. xx 6. When they had quite broken his Covenant then God removed them from before his Word and gave them up to be a Scorn to all Nations as he threatned he would 1 Kings ix 7. according to their Targum In these Books we read of no more but Two Divine Appearances in Solomon's time and both these were made to Solomon himself 1 Kings ix 2. The first was at Gibeon chap. iii. 5. where the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night and said to him Ask what I shall give thee He asked nothing but Wisdom which so pleased the Lord that he gave him not only that but also Riches and Honour above all the Kings then in the Word The Targum as it is come to our hands doth not say It was the Word of the Lord that appeared to him and that gave him all this But that it was so according to the Sense of their Church may be gathered from the Text which tells us ver 15. That as soon as Solomon was awake he went presently to Jerusalem which was about seven Miles distant and there he stood before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord which was there in the Tabernacle set up by David his Father and he offered up both Burnt-Offerings and Peace-Offerings and made a Feast to all his Servants The haste in which all this was done brings us presently to the Occasion of it for of all Peace-Offerings for Thanksgiving to God the same day that they were offered the Flesh must be eaten Lev. vii 15. the Breast and Right Shoulder by the Priests all the rest by the Offerer and those that he had to eat with him It is plain therefore that this was a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving to God But why should not Solomon have staid at Gibeon and there paid this Duty where he had received the Obligation Especially since there at Gibeon was the Tabernacle which Moses made by God's Command and there was the Brazen Altar which Bezaleel made 2 Chron. i. 2 3 4. and Solomon had come on purpose to Gibeon to sacrifice upon that Altar at that time The very day before this Appearance of God he had offered a thousand Burnt-Offerings upon it ver 6. and in that very night did God appear to him ver 7. Now Solomon having found that good Success of his sacrificing at Gibeon that presently God appeared to him and gave him so great a Boon would certainly have staid there to have paid his Thanksgiving in that Place but that he understood that he that appeared to him was the Word whose especial Presence was with the Ark at Jerusalem as we have abundantly proved To Him therefore he hasten'd immediately to pay his Burnt-Offerings and Peace-Offerings of Thanksgiving to the Word of the Lord. This we cannot doubt was the Sense of the Ancient Jewish Church though it doth not appear now in their Targums And if it was the Word that made that first Appearance to Solomon then it must be He that made the second also for both these Appearances were of the same Person So it is said expresly in the Text 1 Kings ix 2. The Lord appeared to Solomon the second time as he had appeared to him at Gibeon But of this second Appearance that it was of the Word of the Lord there is a clearer Proof than of the former as the Reader will certainly judge if he considers the Circumstances of this second Appearance and the
by what the Apostle saith Joh. xii 41. that this was no other than our Lord Jesus Christ For there the Apostle having quoted the words that Isaiah heard from the Lord that spoke to him Isai vi 9 10. tells us These things said Isaiah when he saw his Glory and spoke of him That the Apostle here speaks of the Word made flesh is clear enough from the Text. But besides it has been proved by our Writers beyond all contradiction See Plac. lib. ii Disput 1. In like manner that which the Prophet Ezekiel saw was an Appearance of God represented to him as a Man sitting on a Throne of Glory Ezek. i. 26 27 28. x. 1. Which Throne was then upon Wheels after the manner of a Sella Curulis They were living Wheels animated and supported by Cherubims i. 21. each of which had four Faces i. 6. such as were carved on the Walls of the Temple xli 19. In short that which Ezekiel saw though he was then in Chaldea was nothing else but the Appearance of God as yet dwelling in his Temple at Jerusalem but quite weary of it and now about to remove and to leave his dwelling-place to be destroyed by the Chaldeans To shew that this was the meaning of it he saw this Glorious Appearance of God first in his place iii. 12. i. e. on the Mercy-seat in the Temple ix 3. Next he saw him gone from his place to the Threshold of the House Judges use to give Judgment in the Gate so there over the Threshold of his House God gave Sentence against his rebellious people v. 5 6 7. Afterward from the Threshold of the House x. 4. the Prophet saw the Glory departed yet farther and mounted up from the Earth over the midst of the City x. 18 19. And lastly he saw it go from thence and stand upon the Mountain on the East-side of the City xi 23. That is on Mount Olivet which is before Jerusalem on the East Zech. xiv 4. and so the Targum has it on this place After this departure of the Divine Presence Ezekiel saw his forsaken Temple and City destroyed and his People carried away into Captivity xxxiii 21 c. After this he saw no more Appearance of God till his People's return from Captivity And then the Temple being rebuilt according to the measures given from God xl xli xlii the Prophet could not but expect that God would return to it as of old So he saw it come to pass in his Vision xliii 2. Behold the Glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the East where the Prophet saw it last at M. Olivet So again v. 4. The Glory of the Lord came into the House by the way of the Gate whose prospect is toward the East And v. 5. Behold the Glory of the Lord filled the House So again xliv 4. It filled the House now as it had done in Solomon's time 1 King viii 11. All along in this Prophecy of Ezekiel it was but one Person that appeared from the beginning to the end In the beginning of this Prophecy it was God that appeared in his Temple over the Cherubims and there we find him again in the end of this Prophecy But that it was no other but the Word that so appeared in the Temple according to the sense of the ancient Jewish Church has been proved so fully out of their Targums elswhere that we need not trouble our selves about that any farther though we cannot find it in the Targum on this Book In the Books of Chronicles there is nothing remarkable of this kind but what has been considered already in the account that we have given of the Divine Appearances in the Books of Kings And there is no mention of any such Appearance in any of the other Books that were written after the Babylonian Captivity except on the Books of Daniel and Zechariah Of Daniel the Jews have not given us any Targum therefore we have nothing to say of that Book They have given us a Targum such as it is of the Book of Zechariah which is the last we have to consider In this Book of Zechariah we read of three Angels that appeared to the Prophet The first appeared to him as a Man i. 8 -10. But is called an Angel v. 9. In Zechary's words The Angel that talked with me By which Title he is often distinguisht from all others in the same Book i. 13 14 19. ii 3. v. 5 6. vi 4. A second Angel appeared to him also as a Man with a Measuring Line in his hand ii 1. But whosoever compares this Text with Ezek. xl 3 4 5 c. will find that this who appeared as a Man was truly an Angel of God Next the first Angel going forth from the place where he appeared ii 3. Another Angel comes to meet him and bids him Run speak to this young man whether to the Angel Surveyor or whether to Zechary himself and tell him Jerusalem shall be inhabited c. ii 4. He that commands another should be his Superior And yet this Superior owns himself sent from God But he own'd it in such terms as shew'd that he was God himself This the Reader will see more than once in his speech which is continued from v. 4. to the end of the Chapter It appears especially in v. 8 9 11. of this Chapter First in v. 5. having declared what God would do for Jerusalem in these words according to the Targum The Lord hath said my Word shall be a wall of fire about her and my Glory will I place in the midst of her He goes on to v. 8. and there he delivers a Message from God to his People in these words Thus saith the Lord of Hosts After the Glory * After the Glory of his Shekinah being returned into the Temple when that was rebuilt they should soon after see Babylon it self taken and spotled by their ancient Servants the Persians hath he sent me to the Nations that spoiled you c. Here the sense is ambiguous for it seems strange that the Lord of Hosts should say another hath sent me But so it is again and much clearer exprest in v. 9. where he saith Behold I will shake my hand upon them and they shall be a spoil to their Servants This none but God could say But he addeth in the next words And ye shall know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me which words plainly shew that though he stiled himself God yet he came as a Messenger from God This is plainer yet v. 11. where he saith Many Nations shall be joyned to the Lord in that day and shall be my people and I will dwell in the midst of thee Thee Thou Thee are all Feminines in the Hebrew and therefore all three refer to Zion Thee Oh Zion v. 10. This again none but God could say And yet it followeth Thou Oh Zion shalt know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent
the Son of God in time Quod Deus sit immut p. 232. that his Word is his Image and his First-born De confus ling. p. 266. 267. B. that the Word is the Son of God before the Angels Quis rer div h. p. 397. F. G. that the Unity of God is not to be reduced to number that God is unus non unicus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Jews say in their Book of Prayers which are the very steps we take to shew that an Eternal Generation in the Divine Nature is no contradiction Nothing can be more express for to prove that there is a Son in the Godhead than what we read in the Targum of Jerusalem Gen. iii. 22. The Word of Jehovah said Here Adam whom I created is the only begotten Son in the World as I am the only begotten Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the high Heaven 3. The Prophets positively teach the Son of God who the Jews thought as under the former Head appears was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Eternal Wisdom of God to be the Messiah Thus David Psalm ii brings in God speaking of the Messiah Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee 6. V. 8. Kiss the son lest he be angry and lest you perish For thus it ought to be rendred according to Aben-Ezra and the Midrash on this Psalm and the Zohar in the place I have quoted just now which Expression is also used by Solomon Cant. i. 2. Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth which the old Jews refer to the Messias in Shir hashirim Rabba fol. 5. Col. 2 3. and in Midrash Tehillim ad Ps lxviii v. 4. I confess that we read in Tehillim Rabbathi upon this iid Psalm a kind of answer to this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he doth not say thou art a Son to me but thou art my Son and they pretend that God speaks to the Messias as a Master to his Servant The Inquisitors of Italy take great care to blot out that Answer in the Books which they give leave to the Jews to keep in their Houses But it is a ridiculous fear for the solution is so absurd that it is exploded as soon as you look upon the description of that Son which is in the Book of Proverbs Chap. xxx 4. I own also that we find not in the body of Philo's Works any formal Explication of these words This day have I begotten thee from whence we can directly conclude that he understood them of an Eternal Generation But we find something equivalent to it For speaking of these words You who were obedient to the Lord are alive this day he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De profug p. 358. E. That this is not a simple Conjecture appears from the manner of Philo's explicating of himself as he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in two places cited by Eus Praep. Ev. vii p. 323. out of Phil. de Agric. 1 11. For in the first place he calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First-born of God And in the other the Eternal Word of the Eternal God begotten by the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Title of Son is given to the Messias Psal lxxii 17. That this Psalm was understood of the Messias by the Ancient Jews 't is acknowledged by Raschi who against their unanimous Consent thinks fit to apply it to Solomon now the Hebrew word there is Innon being formed from Nin which signifies a Son Hence it is that the Jews make Innon one of the Titles of the Messias in Midrash Tillim on Psalm xciii and in the Talmud Sanhedrim c. 11. fol. 98. col 2. and in Rabboth fol. 1. col 3. And it follows in the Text that he had this Name before the Son that is before the Creation as Eternity is described Psal xc 2. Prov. viii 22 29. Again Psal lxxx 15. where the Psalmist prays God to look down and visit his Vine and the Vineyard which his right hand hath planted the Targum renders these last words and the Plant which thy right hand hath planted that is King Messias The Psalmist goes on in these words and the Branch which thou madest strong for thy self The Targum reads them even for thy Son's sake and interprets them even for the sake of King Messias So likewise in v. 17. where we render the words Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thy self the LXX have only on the Son and the Targum interprets them of King Messias God saith Psal lxxxix 25 26. I will set his hand in the sea and his right hand in the rivers He shall cry unto me thou art my father The Ancient Jews refer this to the Messias and also many of the Modern Jews finding such difficulty in applying to Solomon many of the Characters in this Psalm agree with the Ancients in their Interpretation The following Writers of the Holy Scriptures are as express as David is in this matter Prov. viii 22 23 24 25. is well worth perusing principally for this Title given Wisdom of a Son in the bosom of her Father Upon which take Philo's Reflection de Profug p. 358. A. To the Question Why is Wisdom spoken of in the Feminine he Answers it is to preserve to God the Character of a Father from whom he thought the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drew his Nature as being as he elsewhere de Agric. calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Eternal Son of the Everlasting Father And nothing is more common amongst the Jewish Writers than 1. To maintain that the Shekinah the Wisdom and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same 2dly To refer to the Messias as being the same with the Shekinah those very Places which are to be understood of the Shekinah and to the Shekinah those Places which are to be understood of the Messias If any man cast his eyes upon Jonathan Targum and the Targum Jerusalami commented by R. Mardochay and printed lately at Amsterdam he shall find that by the common consent of the Jewish Interpreters whose words he fully relates the Wisdom which is spoken Prov. iii. and Prov. viii is the same by which the World hath been created 2dly That this Wisdom is the same which is called the Shekinah the Memra it is called by Philo the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him now look upon the Places of the Prophets which are constantly spoken of the Messias and he shall find that they are referred by the best Authors of the Synagogue to the Shekinah so that it is clear they had the same Idea of the Shekinah and of the Messias and must have lookt upon the Messias as he that must have been the proper Son of God I will shew some Instances of what I advance to spare the trouble to my Reader 1st They maintain that this Wisdom by
the Jews the reality of his humane Nature Had he said plainly I am God the Jews who in their Scriptures were so much used to Divine Appearances might have had just Grounds of doubting the truth of the Incarnation of the Word They had lookt upon his Flesh as a Phantasm which persuasion of theirs would have destroyed the Notion of his Humane Nature Therefore to persuade them of the truth of his Humane Nature he was born as other Men are he grew by degrees as other Men do he suffered hunger and thirst was subject to weariness and to all the other infirmities incident to a real Man growing even in Knowledg and Wisdom by degrees as other Men do It was absolutely necessary it should be so because he was to be like his Brethren in all things sin only excepted as St. Paul says applying to him that place of Psal xxii where the Messias says he would declare the Name of God to his Brethren and of Psal xlv 7. where he mentions his fellows And also because he was to be the seed of the woman spoken of Genesis iii. 15. And if for all these real marks his being a true Man some Hereticks called the Valentinians believed his Body to have been only a Phantasm without any reality And others named the Apollinarians affirmed that the Word supplied in Christ the functions of a Rational Soul though he had really no such Soul Had Christ expresly stiled himself God he had given the Jews and Hereticks occasion of fancying that his Humane Nature was not a reality but that this last Apparition of God in a Humane Body was like the old ones when God appeared in the form of a Man and wrestled with Jacob though it was without a true Incarnation the thing being done by a Body made of Air on purpose or by the Body of a real Man but borrowed only for the time and presently after put off Secondly Let it be considered that Christ used that caution that he might not give the utmost provocation to the Jews who were much offended to see him in so mean a condition For though they might perhaps have owned such a despicable Man to be a Prophet yet they could by no means own him to be the Messias of whom they expected that he should be a Temporal and a great King Therefore they could hardly bear our Saviour's discourse about the Dignity of his Person they took up stones to throw at him when he told them he was greater than Abraham and before Abraham Joh. viii They said he had a Devil when he told them he had power to raise himself from the dead and also those who did believe in him How then could they have heard from him an express declaration that he was God Maker of Heaven and Earth Thirdly It must be also observed that there being many Prophecies by the fulfilling of which the Messias was to be known Christ declared himself by degrees and fulfilled those Prophecies one after another that the Jews might have a competent time to examine every particular To this end he did for some years Preach the Gospel He wrought his Miracles at several times and in several places He wrought such and such Miracles and not others imitating herein the Sun which by degrees appears and enlightens the World This might easily be shewn more at large but that the thing is plain to any that have attentively read the Gospel What I have noted is sufficient to shew that Jesus Christ was not to assume the Name of God in the time of his Humiliation although he hath done the equivalent in so many places where he speaks of himself as of the Son of God the Memra the Shekinah the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is God 2ly That it was more fit for him to let it be concluded from his performing all the Ministry of the Messias as it was by Thomas Joh. xx 18. Not that they knew then and not before that he was he from whom Life and an Eternal Life should be expected Upon which Grotius seems to Ground his Godhead in h. l. but because then they saw in him a full demonstration that he was the true God the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whom the Life of all Creatures is derived as is said Joh. i. A second Objection is taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. John has used in the first Chapter of his Gospel to denote our Saviour's Divinity For if we hear the Unitarians First it is not clear that any other of the Writers of the New Testament has used it in that sense And then the Notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be grounded only on the Greek Expressions and not on the Hebrew Tongue as it is used in the Original of the Old Testament To answer that Objection I must take notice 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not unknown to the Jews before Jesus Christ to express the Shekinah that is the Angel of the Covenant So we see in the Book of Wisdom chap. xviii 15. Omnipotens sermo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tuus de coelo à regalibus sedibus durus debellator and so in some other places of the Book of Ecclesiasticus as chap. i. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know that Grotius pretends upon the place of Wisdom that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies a created Angel and quotes Philo to confirm his Explication But I maintain that no body but Grotius could have advanced such a false Explication and be so bold as to quote Philo for it whose Testimonies which I have quoted before are so clearly against him and distinguish so exactly the Angels from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I pray the Reader only to remark this that if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies here a created Angel then it was the current Notion of the Synagogue concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that when St. John speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his first Chapter either 't was only his meaning that such a created Angel was made Flesh and the Hellenist Jews could not understand it otherwise or St. John was to explain the sense of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to a new an unknown and unheard signification that he never did and so he help'd the Arians and confounded the Orthodox Some body will perhaps excuse Grotius who saith in the Preface to his Annotations upon this Book that such a piece hath been inserted by a Christian who hath fobb'd in many other things and it was the sense of Mr. N. in his Judgment of the Fathers But Grotius who believes the Works of Philo true hath shut that Door against this Evasion when he confirms the truth of that Saying of the Author by the Authority of Philo the Jew and 't is so strange an Accusation and without any ground that it came in no body's head before Grotius 2dly I answer That according
Magog with the Kingdoms of the North shall come to attack the Jews in Palestine but he and they shall be destroyed by Rain and Hail after which the Land shall be purged of the dead Bodies and they shall build the Third Temple and then the Ten Tribes shall return and offer Sacrifices to God in the Temple and God shall pour out his Spirit on all Israel and make them Prophets as Joel hath foretold chap. xi 28. This is the Notion in short of the Two Messias's which R. Meyr Aldabi gives us in his Book Intituled Sevile Emuna ch 10. p. 123. But it is certain 1. the ancient Jews knew but of one Messias Trypho knew not of two as we see in Justin Martyr's Dialogue which is a clear proof that those passages of the Targum which speak of two Messias's are Additions to the ancient Text made since the Jews invented the conceit of a double Messias 2. It is certain the Talmudists did not believe firmly the Return of the Ten Tribes Tr. Sanh c. 10. § 3. Some did hope for it as doth also R. Eliezer Massech Sanh c. 30. § 3. But R. Akiba was of quite another opinion And yet their Posterity hath been so much inclined for R. Eliezer his opinion that one of their greatest Objections against Jesus being the Messias is this that if he had been the Messias he would have gathered the Ten Tribes 3. Their confining of the Messias's Reign to forty years is contrary to the opinion of their Fathers who held that the Messias should reign for ever Some afterward thought that he was to reign forty years others that he was to reign seventy years as you see in the Gemara of Sanhedrim ch 11. fol. 97. col 2. 4. They suppose now that the Messias shall build a third Temple Whereas Haggai describing the second Temple as that under which the Messias should appear expresly calls it the last Hag. ii 9. And this R. David Kimchi and R. Azariah and the Talmud of Jerusalem Megillah fol. 72. col 4. The Talmud of Babylon Tit. Baba batra fol. 3. col 1. and several others do acknowledg Though some few suppose Haggai's Prophecy to have reference to a third Temple See Abarbanel Men. ben Israel on Hagg. 5. It is the remark of one of the most celebrated Authors of the Talmud and received amongst the other Jews that all the times noted by the Prophets for the coming of the Messias are past Dixit Rav Omnes termini de adventu Messiae transierunt nec jam remanet nisi in conversione si Israel convertatur redimetur quod si non convertatur non redimetur Since that they have been forced to quit that miserable shift and now they maintain that all the Promises of the coming of the Messias were conditional and that he shall come when his People the Jews shall be by Repentance prepared to receive him Manas Ben. Isr q. 27. on Es And yet the Ancient in the same place before did affirm that the Messias must come in the most corrupt Age fol. 97. col 1. To be a little more particular the Jews did maintain that all the Prophets spoke of the Messias See Bethlem Juda in the word Goel At present they dispute almost every Text that we urge for the Messias so that instead of convincing them we can only shame them by laying before them the Authorities of their Fathers who understood these Texts in the same sense that the Apostles did The Modern Jews are very sensible of the Notion of a Plurality of Persons in the words Let us make Man after our Image Gen. i. Some of them therefore are for changing the reading and instead of Let Us make Man would have it Let Man be made though the Samaritan Text the Old Seventy Version and the Talmudists and all their Ancient and Modern Translations read as we do See Aben Ezra on the place and R. David Kimchi in Michlol p. 9. They will scarcely allow the Messias to be spoken of in Gen. iii. 15. Although Jonathan's Targum and that of Jerusalem do clearly understand it of the Messias The Old Jews affirmed that the Angel who appeared Gen. xix and in other places and who is called the Lord was as I have before shewed the Word of the Lord but many of their Disciples do say it was a created Angel as we learn from R. Shem Tov in his Book Emun Men. ben Israel q. 64. on Genesis Such a thing cannot be done but by an extream impudence since we see that they profess just the contrary in their own Prayers where you read in their Office of Pesach And he brought us out of Egypt Not say they by the hand of an Angel neither by the hand of a Seraphim nor by the hand of an Envoy but the Holy Blessed by his Glory and by himself as the Scripture saith Exod. xii 12. And so there they refer almost all the appearances of the Angel of the Lord to God himself exclusively to any created Angel And such are those Appearances Gen. xiv 15. Gen. xx 6. Gen. xxxi 24. Gen. xxxii 24. where they say that Israel wrestled with God Exod. xii 29 c. The present Jews are not for applying the Text Gen. xlix 10. to the Messias but some refer the words to Moses himself as R. Bechay others to David others to Ahijah the Shilonite and others to Nebuchadnezzar Notwithstanding both Jonathan's and the Jerusalem Targum note expresly this Prophecy to be spoken of the Messias And thus in the same Text the Scepter there spoken of was explained in the Old Talmudists by Power and Dominion which should not depart from Judah till the coming of the Messias Though now among some of the Modern Jews it signifies only Affliction and Calamities R. Joel aben Sueb At this day the Jews do obstinately deny any Promise to be made of the Messias Deut. xviii 18 19. And some of them will have it spoken of Joshua some of David So the Author of Midrash Tehil in Psal i. and some of Jeremy But it is visible that in and before the times of Jesus Christ they were of another opinion as may be gathered from 1 Mâ—c xiv 41. and is clear from what the multitude say Joh. vi 14. This is that Prophet who was to come into the world See also Luc. vii 16. Joh. i. 19. Mat. xxi It was not questioned in St. Paul's time whether the 2d Psalm did relate to the Messias else St. Paul could not have applied it to Christ as he doth Act. xiii 33. nor was it questioned for some Ages after the Talmudical Doctors agreeing to it You see that in the Gemara of Succoth c. 5. in Jalkuth in Psal ii in Midrash Tehillim But their new Expositors have done their utmost to make it belong to David only or to apply these words Thou art my Son Psal ii to the People of Israel So doth R. Mose Israel Mercadon upon that Psalm in his