Creature But his Disciples building upon this firm Maxim of Scripture that God alone is to be adored justly concluded against him that he was not to be adored since strictly speaking he was but a Creature and no God This Division was plainly occasioned by the strength of Scripture-proofs which on the one hand clearly shew that none can be a Christian without adoring Christ and on the other positively affirm that none but the True God ought to be adored Thus these two opposite Parties did unwillingly do the business of the true Church which ever opposed to the Enemies of the Trinity and of the Godhead of Christ the Authority of the Holy Scripture which teaches that Christ ought to be adored and withal convinces the Arians of Idolatry who adored Christ without owning him to be the true God though they bestowed on him a kind of a Godhead inferior to that of the Father I cannot but admire that they who within these few years have in this Kingdom embraced Socinus his Opinions should consider no better how little success they have had elsewhere against the truth and that upon the score of their Divisions which will unavoidably follow till they can agree in unanimously rejecting the Authority of Scripture Neither doth it avail them any thing to use Quibbles and Evasions and weak Conjectures since they are often unanswerably confuted even by some of their Brethren who are more dextrous than they in expounding of Scriptures But being resolved by all means to defend their Tenents some Chief men amongst them have undertaken to set aside the Authority of Scriptures which is so troublesome to them And the Author of a late Book intitled Considerations maintains that the Gospels have been corrupted by the Orthodox Party and suspects that of St. John to be the work of Cerinthus It is no very easy Task to dispute against men whose Principles are so uncertain and who in a manner have no regard to the Authority of Scripture It was much less difficult to undertake Socinus himself because he owned however the Authority of Scripture and that it had not been corrupted But one knows not how to deal with his Disciples who in their Opinion seem to be so contrary to him and one another They do now affirm the adoration which is paid to Christ is Idolatrous thus renouncing Socinus his Principles who lookt upon it as an essential piece of Christianity So that they can no longer be called Socinians and themselves affect the name of Unitarians And as their chief business seems to be to accuse the sincerity of Scripture-writers so the main work of them who undertake to confute them must be the establishing both the Sincerity and Authority of it which is no very hard task For even Mahometans though they take some of the same Objections that the Socinians are so full of against the Divinity of Christ yet are so far from accusing Christians of having corrupted the Scripture that they furnish us with Weapons against the Unitarians of this Kingdom as the Reader will find at the end of this following Book And although there be but small hopes of bringing to right again Men of so strange Dispositions and Notions yet they ought by no means to be left to themselves They have been often confuted by them that argued from the bare Principles of Christianity that is the Authority of Scriptures of the Old and New Testament which are the very Word of God And it has been plainly shewed them that what Alterations soever they have made in Socinus's Opinions yet their new Conceits are neither more Rational than his nor more agreeable to Divine Revelation I say that their Opinions are not more agreeable than his to right Reason For when all is done to affirm That Christ received from God an Infinite Power to govern the World without being essentially God is to affirm a downright Contradiction viz. that without partaking of the Divine Essence he received one of the Attributes which are Essential to God It is true some Popish Divines allow the Soul of Christ to be all-knowing by reason of its immediate Vnion to the Divine Nature wherein they do much service to the Socinians in holding as they do that a Creature is capable of receiving such Attributes But Protestant Divines reject this Notion as altogether false as false as many of the Schoolmens Speculations even the absurdest of them that are exploded by the Socinians They have been also further refuted as to what they aver that Justin Martyr was the first that taught the Doctrines of the Trinity of Christ's Eternal Godhead and of his Incarnation And at last that Learned Divine Dr. Bull having observed that the Jewish Tradition was favourable to those Doctrines of which the Socinians make Justin to have been the first Broacher Howsoever M. N. treats him for this neither like a Scholar nor a Christian I shall venture his displeasure in making out this Observation without meddling at all with his Arguments drawn from the Fathers to shew clearly that the like Exceptions of M. N. against Philo as being a Platonick and against the Ancient Jews and their Tradition can help him no way in the Cause he has taken in hand The Doctrine of our Church being the same which was taught by Christ and his Apostles it will be an easy matter to prove it by the same places of Scripture by which Christ and his Apostles converted the Jews and the Gentiles over to the Christian Faith and by which the Hereticks were confuted who followed or renewed the Errors which the Jews have fallen into since Christianity begun But I will go farther and prove that the Ancient Jewish Church yield the same Principles which Jesus Christ and his Apostles builded upon and by this Method it will plainly appear That the Socinians or the Unitarians let them call themselves what they please must either absolutely renounce the Authority of Scripture and turn downright Deists or they must own those Doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ as being taught us by God himself in the Holy Scriptures and acknowledged by the Ancient Jewish Church THE TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS THE Preface Chap. I. The Design of this Book and what Matters it Treats of Page 1. Chap. II. That in the times of Jesus Christ Our Blessed Saviour the Jews had among them a common Explication of the Scriptures of the Old Testament grounded on the Tradition of their Fathers which was in many things approved by Christ and his Apostles Page 11. Chap. III. That the Jews had certain Traditional Maxims and Rules for the understanding of the Scripture Page 32. Chap. IV. That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of the Christian Doctrine by his common Traditional Exposition received among the Jews which they could not have done at least not so well had there been only such a Literal Sense of those Texts which they alledged as we can find without the help of such
Exposition Page 52. Chap. V. Of the Authority of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament Page 66. Chap. VI. That the Works which go under the Name of Philo the Jew are truly his and that he writ them a long while before the time of Christ's Preaching the Gospel and that it does not appear in any of his Works that ever he had heard of Christ or of the Christian Religion Page 75. Chap. VII Of the Authority and Antiquity of the Chaldee Paraphrases Page 84. Chap. VIII That the Authors of the Apocryphal Books did acknowledge a Plurality and a Trinity in the Divine Nature Page 99. Chap. IX That the Jews had Good Grounds to acknowledge some kind of Plurality in the Divine Nature Page 115. Chap. X. That the Jews did acknowledge the Foundations of the Belief of the Trinity in the Divine Nature and that they had the Notion of it Page 138. Chap XI That this Notion of a Trinity in the Divine Nature has continued among the Jews since the time of our Lord Jesus Christ Page 158. Chap. XII That the Jews had a distinct Notion of the Word as a Person and of a Divine Person too Page 181. Chap. XIII That all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of the Lord which are spoken of in the Books of Moses have been referred to the Word by the Jews before Christ's Incarnation Page 201. Chap. XIV That all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of the Lord which are spoken of in Moses have been referred to the Word of God by the ancient Jewish Church Page 214. Chap. XV. That all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of the Lord which are spoken after Moses his time in the Books of the Old Testament have been referred to the Word of God by the Jews before Christ's Incarnation Page 233. Chap. XVI That the ancient Jews did often use the Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word in speaking of the Messias Page 253. Chap. XVII That the Jews did acknowledge the Messias should be the Son of God Page 265. Chap. XVIII That the Messias was represented in the Old Testament as being Jehovah that should come and that the ancient Synagogue did believe him to be so Page 278. Chap. XIX That the New Testament does exactly follow the Notions which the Old Jews had of the Trinity and of the Divinity of the Messias Page 293 Chap. XX. That both the Apostles and the first Christians speaking of the Messias did exactly follow the Notions of the Old Jews as the Jews themselves did acknowledge Page 313. Chap. XXI That we find in the Jewish Authors after the time of Jesus Christ the same Notions which Jesus Christ and his Apostles Grounded their Discourses on to the Jews Page 327. Chap. XXII An Answer to some Exceptions taken from Expressions used in the Gospel Page 339. Chap. XXIII That neither Philo nor the Chaldee Paraphrases nor the Christians have borrowed from the Platonick Philosophers their Notions about the Trinity But that Plato should have more probably borrowed his Notions from the Books of Moses and the Prophets which he was acquainted with Page 413. Chap. XXIV An Answer to some Objections of the Modern Jews and of the Unitarians Page 365. Chap. XXV An Answer to an Objection against the Notions of the Old Jews compared with those of the new Ones Page 380. Chap. XXVI That the Jews have laid aside the Old Explications of their Forefathers the better to defend themselves in their Disputes with the Christians Page 392. Chap. XXVII That the Unitarians in opposing the Doctrines of the Trinity and our Lord's Divinity do go much further than the Modern Jews and that they are not fit Persons to Convert the Jews Page 413. A Dissertation concerning the Angel who is called the Redeemer Gen. XLVIII Page 433. THE JUDGMENT OF THE Ancient JEWISH Church Against the VNITARIANS c. CHAP. I. The Design of this Book and what Matters it treats of IF the Doctrines of the Ever-Blessed Trinity and of the Promised Messias being very God had been altogether unknown to the Jews before Jesus Christ began to preach the Gospel it would be a great prejudice against the Christian Religion But the contrary being once satisfactorily made out will go a great way towards proving those Doctrines among Christians The Socinians are so sensible of this that they give their Cause for lost if this be admitted And therefore they have used their utmost Endeavours to weaken or at least to bring under suspicion the Arguments by which this may be proved It is now about sixty years ago since one of that Sect writ a Latin Tract about the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Chaldee Paraphrases in Answer to Wechner who had proved that St. John used this word in the first Chapter of his Gospel in the same sense that the Chaldee Paraphrases had used it before Christ's time and consequently that it is to be understood of a Person properly so called in the Blessed Trinity which way of interpreting that word because it directly overthrew the Socinian Doctrine which was then that St. John by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood no other than Christ as Man it is no wonder that this Author used all his Wit and Learning to evade it The Construction which Socinus put upon the first Chapter of the Gospel of St. John was then followed generally by his Disciples But some years since they have set it aside here as being absurd and impertinent And they now freely own what that Socinian Author strongly opposed That the Word mentioned by St. John is the eternal and essential Vertue of God by which he made the World and operated in the Person of Christ Only they deny that Word to be a Person distinct from the Father as we do affirm And whereas Socinus taught That Christ was made God and therefore is a proper Object of religious Worship now the Unitarians who believe him to be no other than a meer human Creature following the Principles of Christianity better than Socinus condemn the Religious Worship which is paid to him As they do believe that the Jews had the same Notions of the Godhead and Person of the Messias which they have themselves so they think they have done the Christian Religion an extraordinary service in thus ridding it of this double Difficulty which hinders the Conversion of the Jews Mr. N. one of their ablest Men having read Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho in which Trypho says that he did not believe that the Messias was to be other than Man makes use of this Passage of Trypho for proof that the Doctrines of the Divinity of the Messias and by consequence of the Trinity were never acknowledged by the Jews This he does in a Book the Title whereof is The Judgment of the Fathers against Dr. Bull. His design being to prove that Justin Martyr about 140 years after Christ was
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
the first that held the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity and by consequence that of the Trinity without which the other cannot be defended he found it necessary to assert 1st That since the Jews by Trypho's Testimony did own the Messias to be nothing more than meer Man therefore the Jewish Authors quoted by Dr. Bull against the Socinian Opinions must have lived after the Preaching of the Gospel 2dly That the Books that are quoted against them were written by Christians in Masquerade that lived since Justin Martyr's time And this he applies in particular to the Works of Philo the Jew and to the Book of Wisdom 3dy That since the Jewish Authors could not possibly mention any thing like the Doctrines of the Trinity and of the Messias his being God too to which they were such perfect Strangers whatsoever occurrs in any of the ancient Jewish Books that favours those Doctrines must needs have been foisted in by Christians after Justin Martyr's time Lastly he supposes That if any thing either in the Scripture or Jewish Authors sounds that way it probably came from the Platonics of whom both Jews and Christians borrowed many Notions and mixed them with Christian Doctrines to perswade the Heathens the more easily to embrace the Christian Religion Now though it seems unnecessary to dispute any further against him having already clearly shewn in my Discussion of Mr. N's Judgment of the Fathers that Justin Martyr was not the Broacher of those Doctrines as Mr. N. pretends yet I am willing to give a more full satisfaction to the World about it by examining what either Mr. N. or any others have said or can say on this Subject and shewing that the bold Answers to Dr. Bull 's Proofs concerning the Opinion of the Jews before Christ about those Doctrines are no better than Mr. N's supposition that Justin Martyr was the first that maintained those Doctrines I was particularly induced to undertake this task in hopes that by examining this matter to the bottom I might set these Controversies in their true Light shewing how little credit some Divines do deserve who playing the Criticks have favoured the new Jews and the Socinians with all their Might and abuse those who upon such ungrounded Authority too rashly believe that these Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity came from the School of Plato when on the contrary it is certain that Plato himself by conversing with the Jews in Egypt borrowed of them his best Notions of God To do this in the best method I can I will first of all consider in general what the Jewish Tradition was before Christ Let the Reader give me leave to use that word as the Fathers commonly use it not for a Doctrine unknown in Scripture but for a Doctrine drawn from Scripture and acknowledged for the Common Faith of the Church and I shall shew That both before Christ and in his time the Jews had a current way of expounding the Old Testament which they had received from their Fathers and that Christ and his Apostles used and approved this way of expounding their Scriptures in many particulars 2dly I will examine the Grounds the Jews went upon to come to the understanding of the Old Testament particularly of that part which contains the Promises of the Messias as they had it in Christ's time and still have it to this day 3dly I will shew by some Examples That Christ and his Apostles did prove many Articles of the Christian Doctrine by this Exposition commonly received among the Jews which they would hardly have done had they had nothing else of their side but only the Letter of those places which they quoted This being premised in general as a necessary Foundation I shall particularly examine the Authority of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament and of the Books of Philo the Jew that are extant and of the Targum or the Caldaick Paraphrases on the Books of the Old Testament these being the chief Helps by which we may find out the traditional sense of the Old Testament as it was received in the Synagogue before Christ's time This is absolutely necessary to be done for without proving the Authority of those Apocryphal Books of Philo and of those Paraphrases we cannot with any force and weight use their Testimony in this Controversy as I intend to do This being dispatcht I shall prove clearly That the Jews before Christ's time according to the received Expositions of the Old Testament derived from their Fathers had a Notion of a Plurality of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence And that this Plurality was a Trinity And further That contrary to what Mr. N. has imagined the most learned amongst them have constantly retained those Notions though perhaps they were divided in their Opinions about the Messias his Godhead and the Doctrine of the Trinity as we do apprehend it And because if it be granted that the Word was a Person that goes a great way toward proving the Doctrine of the Trinity And the Socinians affirm that it was not the uncreated Word but a created Angel that appeared to Men under the Old Testament-dispensation and was adored as being God's Representative I shall enquire what was the Opinion of the Old Jews concerning these Matters and shew that they owned the Word to be a Divine Person and that it was that Word that appeared in the Old Testament and consequently that nothing is more false than what some Socinians teach after Grotius upon the Book of Wisdom ch 18.15 grounding it upon his Opinion of an Angel's appearing and being adored That therefore it was lawful for the Jews under the Old Testament to worship Angels but it was first forbidden to Christians under the New as namely by St. Paul Colos 11.18 And that the Socinians may have nothing left them to reply against this I shall descend to particulars and shew at large That according to the Doctrine of the Old Synagogue the Jews apprehended the Word as a true and proper Person and held that that Word was the Son of God That he was the true God That he was to be in the Messias and that the Messias was promised under the Old Testament as Jehovah and accordingly the Old Synagogue expected that he should be Jehovah indeed It is of great moment to satisfy the World of these Truths and to make the Socinians sensible that they can't truly profess the Christian Religion without owning those Doctrines to which yet they seem to be so averse Therefore I will go farther and distinctly shew that the whole Gospel is grounded on those very Notions which the Jews before Christ entertained That the first Christians after the Apostles exactly followed them And that the Jews themselves following generally those very Notions upon the chief Texts of the Old Testament which Christians quote in those Controversies bear witness that they were the undoubted Doctrines both of them and of the Christians before Justin Martyr's time The Men that we
sayings is any where else in our Scriptures He must therefore mean it of one or other of the Apocryphal Books And one of the Fathers that was born within a hundred years after his death gives us a very probable guess at the Book that he intended It is Clement of Alexandria who saith of the latter Quotation These are the words of Moses Strom. iv p. 376. meaning in all likelihood of the Analepsis of Moses which Book is mentioned by the same Clement elsewhere on Jude v. 9. as a Book well known in those times in which he lived Therefore in all likelihood the words also of the former Quotation were taken from the Analepsis of Moses and it was that Apocryphal Book that S. James quoted and called it Scripture This can be no strange thing to him that considers what was intimated before that the Jews had probably these Books join'd to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hagiographa and therefore they might well be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any addition The Apocryphal Books that are in our Bibles were commonly call'd so by the Primitive Fathers Thus Clement before mention'd Strom. v. p. 431. B. quotes the words that we read in Wisdom vii 24. from Sophia in the Scriptures And the Book of Ecclesiasticus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven or eight times in his writings Paed. i. 10. ii 5. ver 8 vis 10 vis iii. 3. 11. So it is quoted by Origen with the same Title Orig. in Jerem. Hom. 16. p. 155. D. There are many the like Instances to be found in the writings of the Ancientest Fathers They familiarly called such Books The Scriptures and sometimes The Holy Scriptures and yet they never attributed the same Authority to them as to the Books that were received into the Canon of the Old Testament which as the Apostle saith were written by Divine Inspiration 2 Tim. 3.16 The same is to be said of the Prophecy of Enoch out of which St. Jude brings a Quotation in his Epistle vers 14 15. Grotius in his Annotations on the place saith This Prophecy was extant in the Apostles times in a Book that went under the name of the Revelation of Enoch and was a Book of great credit among the Jews for it is cited in their Zohar and was not unknown to Celsus the Heathen Philosopher for he also cited is as appears by Origen's Answer to him Orig. in Cels lib. V. Grotius also shews that this Book is often cited by the Primitive Fathers and he takes notice of a large piece of it that is preserved by Georg. Syncellus in his Chronicon And whereas in this piece there are many fabulous things he very well judges that they might be foisted in as many such things have been thrust into very Ancient Books But whether his Conjecture in this be true or no it is certain that the piece which is quoted by St. Jude was truly the Prophecy of Enoch because we have the Apostle's Authority to assure us of the Historical truth of it 3. It is clear that the Jews had very good and authentic Traditions concerning the Authors the Use and the Sence of divers parts of the Old Testament For Example St. Mat. Chap. xxvii 9. quotes Jeremy for the Author of a passage which he there transcribes and which we find in Zechary xi 12. How could this be but that it was a thing known among the Jews that the four last Chapters of the Book of Zechary were written by Jeremy Medes Works p. 709. and 963. and 1022. as Mr. Mede has proved by many Arguments It is by the help of this Tradition that the Ancient Interpreters have added to the Psalms such Titles as express their design and their usage in the Synagogue Certainly these Titles which shew the design of many of the Psalms contribute much to make us understand the sense of those Psalms which a man that knows the occasion of their Composing will apprehend more perfectly than he can do that reads the Psalms without these Assistances And for the Titles of several Psalms in the Septuagint and other of the Ancient Translations which shew on what days they were sung in the publick Worship of the Jews as Ps xxiv 48 81 82 93 94 c. tho' these Titles are not in the Hebrew and therefore are not part of the Jews Scripture yet that they had the knowledge of this by Tradition we find by Maimonides who tho' a stranger to those Translations De cultu divino tract de sacrificiis jugibus c. 6. Sect. 9. yet affirms that those several Psalms were sung on such and such days and he names the very days that are prefixt to them in the said Titles It is from the same Tradition that they have these Rules concerning the Psalms I. This Rule to know the Authors of them namely that all Psalms that are not inscribed with some other name are David's Psalms although they bear not his name a Maxim owned by Aben-Ezra Praefat. in Psalmos and David Kimchi and we see an Instance of this Rule in that Quotation of Ps xcv 7. which is ascribed to David in Heb. iv 7. II. From hence they have learnt also another Rule by which they distinguish between the Psalms spoken by David in his own name Tehillim Rabbat in Ps 24. Fol. 22. col 2. and as King of Israel and those which he spoke in the name of the Synagogue without any particular respect to his own time but in a prospect of the remotest future times Tehillim Rab. Ib. From thence they have learned to distinguish between the Psalms in which the Holy Ghost spoke of the present times and those in which he speaks of the times to come viz. of the time of the Messias So R. David Kimchi and others agree that the Psalms 93 94. till the Psalm 101. speak of the days of the Messias So they remark upon Ps 92. whose Title is for the Sabbath-day that it is for the time to come which shall be all Sabbath Manasseh Ben. Is in Exod. q. 102. By the help of Tradition also they clear the Text Ex. xii 40. where it is said That the sojourning of the Children of Israel who dwelt in Aegypt was 430 years It would be a great mistake of these words to think the meaning of them should be that the Children of Israel dwelled in Aegypt 430 years For in truth they dwelled there but half the time as the Jews themselves reckon and all Learned men do agree to it But the Jews understand by these words that the sojourning of the Children of Israel all the while they dwelled in Aegypt and in the Land of Canaan they and their Fathers was 430 years Thus all the Rabbins do understand it and thus it was anciently explained by putting in words to this sense in the Samaritan Text and in the Alexandrian LXX That they were in the right we see by the Apostle's reckoning
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
Esdras so I am resolved not to make any use of it The Antiquity and the Jewish Origin of all these Books that we call Apocryphal being so settled there is nothing to be done but to consider what is the ground of the Conjecture of Grotius who pronounces boldly in his Preface to the Book of Wisdom Eum librum nactus Christianus aliquis Graecè non indoctus in Graecum vertit libero nec ineleganti dicendi genere Christiana quaedam commodis locis addidit quod libro Syracidae quem dixi evenit sed in Latino huic magis quam in Graeco non quod nesciam post Esdram explicatius proponi caepisse patientiam piorum judicium universale vitam aeternam supplicia gehennae sed quia locutiones quaedam magis Evangelium sapiunt quam vetustiora tempora But to speak my mind plainly this Conjecture of Grotius is absolutely false and without any ground 1. Whence had he this particular account of the Jewish Faith and Religion in the time of Esdras so as to be able to judge by it which was written long after Esdras and to shew that the Notions of these Books are clearer than the Ideas which were among the Jews before Jesus Christ He goes only upon that Principle that the Jews since they were under the Greek Empire began to be more acquainted with the Ideas of the Eternal Life and of Eternal Punishment and of the last Judgment than they were before which is the Principle of Socinus and of his Followers but that Christians had much clearer Ideas of those Notions than the Jews had since Esdras his time 2ly Is it not an intolerable boldness to accuse those Books of having been so interpolated without giving any proof of it but his meer Conjecture I confess there are several various Readings in those Books as there are in Books which having been of a general use were transcribed many times by Copists of different industry one more exact and more learned than the other But to say that a Christian hath interpolated them designedly is a thing which can no more be admitted than to suppose that they have corrupted the Greek Version of the Books of the Old Testament to which those Books were joined in the Greek Bible as soon as it came into the hands of the Christians 3ly To suppose that a Christian hath been the Author of the Translation of some of those Books is a thing advanced with great absurdity since there was a Translation of these Books quoted by Philo and by St. Paul in his Epistles Now I would ask from Grotius how he can prove that there was a second Version of the Book of Wisdom made by a Christian after Jesus Christ what was the need of it since there was one before Jesus Christ And if any Christian did undertake such a new one without necessity how it came to pass that it was received instead of the Version which was in use amongst the Jews and was added to the Books of Scripture and of the Copies which were in the hands of Christians I need not to urge many other absurdities against Grotius his Conjecture I take notice only 1. That Grotius was far from ridiculing the Book of Wisdom as the Socinian Author of the Book against Dr. Bull hath done in his Judgment of the Fathers 2ly That the ridiculing of such an Author as the Book of Wisdom sheweth very little Judgment in Mr. N. He had better have made use of the Glosses of Grotius than to venture upon such rough handling of an Author quoted by St. Paul whose quoting him giveth him more credit than he can lose by a thousand censures of a Man who writes so injudiciously 3ly That the very place which Mr. N. ridicules is so manifestly taken from the Psalm xix which contains a Prophecy touching the Messias and from the Song of Isaiah ch 5. that whosoever reflects seriously upon such a ridiculing of the Book of Wisdom made by Mr. N. can 't but have a mean notion of his sense of Religion After all let Mr. N. do what he can with the Conjecture of Grotius I am very little concerned in his Judgment First because the matter which we are to handle is not the matter which Grotius suspects to have been foisted in by some Christian Interpreter 2ly Because I am resolved to make use in this Controversie only of those places of the Apocryphal Books in which they express the sense of the Old Synagogue before Jesus Christ as I shall justifie they have done by the consent of the same Synagogue after Jesus Christ and no body can suspect with any probability of the Old Synagogue that they have borrowed the Ideas of Christians and have inserted them in their ancient Books written so long time before Jesus Christ's Birth CHAP. VI. That the Works which go under the name of Philo the Jew are truly his and that he writ them a long while before the time of Christ's Preaching the Gospel and that it does not appear in any of his Works that ever he had heard of Christ or of the Christian Religion TO shew the Judgment of the Ancient Synagogue in the Points controverted between us and the Unitarians we make great use of the Writings of Philo the Jew which if they are his it cannot be denied do put this matter out of Question Our Adversaries therefore as it greatly concerns them do deny that those Works which bear his name were written by Philo the Jew By whom then were they written They say by another Philo a Christian who lived toward the end of the second Century and who as Mr. N. saith counterfeited the Writings of the famous Philo of Alexandria who was sent Embassadour to Caligula by those of his own Nation in the year of Christ 40. It is easie to refute this Suggestion of theirs And yet I cannot but acknowledge it has some kind of colour from that which we read in Eusebius and Jerome who tell us that Philo has given a Character of the Apostolick Christians in his Book de Therapeutis To which some have added that at his second coming to Rome under Claudius to be Embassadour at his Court as he was before at Caligula's he then became acquainted with St. Peter the Apostle of Christ I am therefore to prove these Propositions 1. That those Books we have under the name of Philo are the Works of a Jew of whom there is not the least appearance in his Writings that he knew any thing of Christianity nor that he ever heard of Jesus Christ or his Apostles 2. That it appears by the Books themselves that they were written before Jesus Christ began to Preach 3. That there is no foundation for what Eusebius says and also St. Jerome who Copied from Eusebius concerning Philo's account of a sort of Christians whom he describes under the name of Therapeutae 4. That the History of the Conversation between St. Peter and Philo is a ridiculous Fable which
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
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
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
shortness of what we have to say in the following part of this Chapter For being now to treat of those Divine Appearances that are recorded in the other Books of Scripture after the Pentateuch we shall find those Appearances fewer and fewer till they come quite to cease in the Jewish Church For when once the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was setled as the King of Israel between the Cherubims He is not to be look'd for in other places And of those Books of Scripture in which the following Appearances are mentioned we have not so many Paraphrases as we have of the five Books of Moses One Paraphrase is all that we have of most of the Books we now speak of But after all we have reason to thank God that that Evidence of the Divine Appearances of the Word of God has been so abundantly sufficient that we have no need of any more So that of the following Appearances of God or of a Worshipt Angel it will be enough to shew that the ancient Jewish Church had the same Notion that they had of those already mentioned out of the five Books of Moses We read but of one Divine appearance to Joshua and that is of one that came to him as a man with a drawn-sword in his hand calling himself the Captain of the Lord's Host Josh v. 13 14. Some would have it that this was a created Angel But certainly Joshua did not take him to be such otherwise he would not have fallen down on his face and worshipped him as he did v. 14. Nor would a created Angel have taken it of him without giving him a present reproof as the Angel did to St. John in the like Case Rev. xix 10. xxii 9. But this Divine Person was so far from reproving him for having done too much that he commanded him to go on and do yet much more requiring of him the highest acknowledgment of a Divine Presence that was used among the Eastern Nations in these words Loose thy Shoo from off thy foot for the ground whereon thou standest is holy Now considering that these are the very same words that God used to Moses in Exod. iii. 2 3. We see a plain reason why God should command this to Joshua It was for the strengthening of his faith to let him know that as he was now in Moses's stead so God would be the same to him that he had been to Moses And particularly with respect to that trial which required a more than ordinary measure of faith the difficulty of taking the strong City of Jericho with such an Army as he had without any provision for a Siege the Lord said unto him Josh vi 2. See I have given Jericho into thy hand None but God could say and do this and the Text plainly saith It was the Lord. And that the Lord who thus appeared as a Warrier and called himself Captain of the Lord's Host was no other than the Word this was plainly the sense of the ancient Jewish Church as appears by what remains of it in their Paraphrase on Josh x. 42. xxiii 3 10. which saith It was the Word of the Lord that fought for them and v. 13. which saith It was the VVord which cast out the Nations before them And indeed this very judgment of the Old Synagogue is to be seen not only in their Targums till this day but in their most ancient Books as Rabboth fol. 108. col 3. Zohar par 3. fol. 139. col 3. Tanch ad Exod. 3. Ramb. ad Exod. 3. Bach. fol. 69. 2. The learned Masius in Josh v. 13.14 hath translated the words of Ramban and he hath preferred his Interpretation which is the most ancient amongst the Jews to the sense of the Commentators of the Church of Rome Of Divine Appearances in the Book of Judges we read of one to Gideon that seems to have been of an Angel of God for so he is called Judg. vi 11 12. And again v. 20 21 22. In this last place it is also said that Gideon perceived he was an Angel of the Lord i. e. He saw that this was an Heavenly Person that came to him with a Message from God And yet that he was no created Angel it seems by his being oftner called the Lord v. 14 16 23 24 25 27. And Gideon in that whole History never address'd himself to any other but God The Message delivered from God by this Angel to Gideon ver 16. is thus rendred in the Targum Surely my Word shall be thy help and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man The Word that help'd Gideon against the Midianites was no other than he that appeared to Joshua with a Sword in his hand Josh v. 13. That was now the Sword of the Lord and of Gideon Judg. vii 18 20. And what the Ancient Jewish Church meant by the Word of the Lord in this place one may guess by their Targum on Judg. vi 12 13. Where the Angel saying to Gideon The Word of the Lord is thy help he answered Is the Shekinah of the Lord our help whence then hath all this happen'd to us It is plain by this Paraphrase that they reckoned the Word of the Lord to be the same with the Shekinah of the Lord even him by whom God so gloriously appeared for their deliverance And indeed they could hardly be mistaken in the Person of that Angel who saith that his Name is Pele the Wonderful which is used Isaiah ix amongst the Names of the Messias which Name the Jews make a shift to appropriate to God exclusively to the Messias The Angel that appeared to Manoah Judg. xiii could seem to have been no other than a created Angel but the Name which he takes of Pele the Wonderful shews that he was the Word of the Lord or the Angel of the Lord l. lxiii 8. In the first Book of Samuel we read of no other such Appearance but that which God made to Samuel 1 Sam. iii. 21. and that was only by a Voice from the Temple of the Lord where the Ark was at that time ver 3 4. The same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a Temple and a Palace and so the Tabernacle was called in which the Ark was then in Shiloh There it was that God revealed himself to Samuel by the Word of the Lord ver 21. But that in the Opinion of the Ancient Jewish Church the Word of the Lord was their King and the Tabernacle was his Palace where his Throne was upon the Ark between the Cherubims and that from thence the Word gave his Oracles all this has been so fully proved before in this Chapter that to prove it here again would be superfluous and therefore I take it for granted that in their Opinion it was the Word of the Lord from whom this Voice came to Samuel In the Second Book of Samuel we read how upon David's Sin in numbring the People â—â—d sent the Prophet Gad to give him his
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
is a Book of no Authority but an Imposture of which you are the Father We Jews who are spread throughout all parts of the World and are intermingled among Christians of all Persuasions never yet met with these Books such as you now produce them to shew that Jesus is the Messias You tell us they were corrupted by the Christians of the second Age Produce Copies more ancient as Vouchers of this Truth The Books which you contend were falsified are of no Authority What other Books have you besides these falsified Books to prove there ever was such a Man as Jesus Christ who did and suffered what you tell us of Since you accuse these Books of Additions and defalcations and all sorts of corruption you have no solid proof for the matters in them which you say are true They who thus falsified the Scriptures by adding and substracting as they please or rather you your selves by advancing this Position have spoiled all use that might be made of these Books in Points controverted between us Thus much it is natural for a Jew of but an ordinary capacity to say and to quote his Tanchuma and all the Rabins who have disputed ever since there were Christians against the Gospel on the score of their attributing Divinity to Jesus Christ This Tanchuma is a famous Book among the Jews and has a passage in it in the Parascha va-elle Massahe which the Italian Inquisitors blot out of all those Books which the Jews Printed by Bomberg at Venice But this passage is still preserved and is to this effect that Jesus Christ whom they call wicked Balaam taught that he was God and on the contrary R. Tanchuma argues that he was a meer Man But should we call into the Dispute a Learned Jew that understands the Original and the meaning of his Prayers he would laugh in the face of a Socinian that should go about to persuade him that Jesus is not represented in the Gospels as God or that the Christians were not of this belief till after the 140th year after Christ And good reason for it The Learned Jews know well that the Prayer which in the Christian Countries is called the Prayer against the Sadducees and in other Countries the Prayer against the Minnim the Hereticks and Apostates was truly and originally written against the Christians for being Teachers of a Trinity and of Christ's Divinity and so as they judged destroyers of the Unity of the Godhead And this is R. Solomon's sense of that Prayer in his Notes on the Talmud The Jews otherwise know that this Prayer was composed under R. Gamaliâ—l who died A. D. 52. i. e. eighteen years before the Destruction of the Temple That this is no Fable of the Talmud which in more than one place * Talm. tr Berac ch c. Beth. Isr sect 69. does relate it they may evidently prove from Justin Martyr's Dialogue written A. D. 139. who mentions this Prayer or rather Curse against the Christians as already spread and received throughout all the Synagogues of the World Our Learned Jew deriding these Socinians would represent that he knew not how they could refuse Jesus Christ that Worship which the Christians ever since the first Preaching of the Gospel throughout the World have paid him on supposition of his being the true God He reads how his Ancestors saw him adored by the Christians in the first Century and he proves it to the Socinians from the Talmud * Sanhedr c. 4 in Gem. wherein are divers Relations of R. Eliezer the great Friend of R. Akiba who lived in the end of the first Century and the beginning of the second Century concerning the Gospels and the Publick Worship rendred to Jesus Christ by the Christians In a word any Jew who has sense enough to reflect on it may see that the Gospel proposes Jesus Christ as the Object of Christian Worship And not to mention now their other prejudices The single prejudice which will be taken against such a Socinian Novel-Gospel will tend more to make them disesteem the Gospel and reject it altogether than it will dispose them to attend to the Arguments of a Socinian drawn thence in behalf of Christianity These things I leave to the consideration of our Socinians For other Christians they see whither the Socinian Methods of treating Scripture lead and cannot but behold with sorrow the wounds they give to the Christian Religion under pretence of making it more apt to gain the Jews but in truth making it so ridiculous to Men of any ordinary capacity that we cannot wonder at their not having after all their boasts converted so much as one Jew to the Christian Faith FINIS A Dissertation concerning the Angel who is called the Redeemer Gen. XLVIII SIR YOU do very truly observe that the Subject of our last but short Conversation is a matter of the greatest moment and deserving the utmost care in the discussion of it When mention was there made of the Angel whose Blessing Jacob prayed might descend on the Sons of Joseph I then asserted he was not other than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word You were not then very forward to embrace this Notion being carried away with the Authority of some great Names and especially of Grotius who understand this Angel in Jacob's Prayer to be only a created Angel But having not time to hear the Grounds of my Assertion you were desirous I should put them with what perspicuity I could into writing in hopes that the same Arguments if they should prove cogent to bring you over to my opinion might be of use to others who were in the same Sentiments with your self So good an end being proposed I set my self without delay to your commands and having digested my thoughts in this Paper I now send them to you intreating you to judge of them as you are wont of the Labours of your Friend with all impartiality and humanity still remembring that I made it only my care to express my thoughts clearly and to find out the truth and to deliver it simply according to the best of my understanding And so I come to the Question in hand SECT I. Moses having related how Joseph took his two Sons along with him to Jacob his Father that lay sick in order to obtain his Blessing on them before he died goes on to give us the form in which he Blessed them Gen. xlviii 15 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Words are thus rendred by the Greek Interpreters commonly called the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And in the Vulgar Latin Version Benedixitque Jacob filiis Josephi ait Deus in cujus conspectu ambulaverunt patres mei Abraham Isaac Deus qui pascit me ab adolescentia mea usque in praesentem diem Angelus qui eruit me de cunctis malis benedicat pueris istis invocetur super eos nomen meum nomina quoque patrum
1 for Author read Authors 23 31 for upon r. concerning 25 28 for cap. viii r. cap. vii ibid 32 for of great r. of the great 64 28 for with r. to 69 22 for sure r. secure ibid 35 for would r. must 71 13 for not r. no. ibid 15 for who have quoted r. have quoted 117 25 for 6ly r. 2ly 161 3 after Scriptures add with relation 163 29 30 for which is the same r. which Names are the same 173 13 for Caema r. Cochma 205 20 for can r. may ibid 22 for cut many r. cut away many 213 29 for such r. so 233 15 for this r. the former 244 16 for this r. the former 262 32 for Micah vi 14. r. Micah vii 14. 288 16 17 for besides they r. besides that they 291 30 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid 34 35 for to the two to the Father to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. of the two of the Father of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 315 11 for chap. xii 18 r. vii 8. 320 32 for Psal xv r. xlv 327 20 for Context r. Text. 331 4 after righteous add Word 339 13 for which r. what 340 23 for marks his r. marks of his 364 17 for To r. On. 376 3 for they were very few of r. there were very few 392 1 for Chap. XXIII r. XXVI 400 21 for Ancient r. Ancients 433 16 for understand r. understands 434 15 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 451 9 for Deut. r. Numb BOOKS Printed for Ric. Chiswell THE Fathers Vindicated or Animadversions on a late Socinian Book Intituled The Judgment of the Fathers touching the Trinity against Dr. Bull 's Defence of the Nicene Faith By a Presbyter of the Church of England Reflections upon a Libel lately Printed Intituled The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson Considered 4to Dr. Williams now Lord Bishop of Chichester his Vindication of Archbishop Tillotson's Sermons against the Socinians and of the Bishop of Worcester's Sermon of the Mysteries of the Christian Religion To which is annexed a Letter from the Bishop of Salisbury to the Author in Vindication of his Discourse of the Divinity of our Saviour 4to SCRIPTORUM ECCLESIASTICORUM Historia Literaria facili perspicua methodo digesta Pars Altera Qua plusquam DC Scriptores novi tam Editi quam Manuscripti recensentur Prioribus plurima adduntur breviter aut obscure dicta illustratur recte asserta vindicantur Accedit ad finem cujusvis Saeculi CONCILIORUM omnium tum Generalium tum Particularium Historica Notitia Ad Calcem vero Operis Dissertationes tres 1 De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis incertae aetatis 2 De Libris Officiis Ecclesiasticis Graecorum 3 De Eusebii Caesariensis Arianismo adversus Joannem Clericum Adjecti sunt Indices utilissimi Scriptorum Alphabetico-Chronologici Studio labore Gulielmi Cave S. T. P. Canon Windesortensis Fol. Bishop Wilkins of the Principles and Duties of Natural Religion In two Books The 4th Edition Primitive Christianity Or the Religion of the Ancient Christians in the first Ages of the Gospel In Three Parts By William Cave D. D. The fifth Edition Octavo Several Discourses viz. Proving Jesus to be the Messias The Prejudices against Jesus and His Religion considered Jesus the Son of God proved by his Resurrection The Danger of Apostacy from Christianity Christ the Author Obedience the Condition of Salvation The Possibility and Necessity of Gospel-obedience and its Consistence with Free Grace The Authority of Christ with the Commission and Promise which he gave to his Apostles The Difficulties of a Christian Life considered The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus Children of this World wiser than the Children of Light By the most Reverend Dr. John Tillotson late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Being the Fifth Volume Published from the Originals by Dr. Barker Chaplain to His Grace 8vo Several Discourses upon the Attributes of God viz. Concerning the perfection of God Concerning our Imitation of the Divine Perfection The Happiness of God The Unchangeableness of God The Knowledge of God The Wisdom and Soveraignty of God The Wisdom of God in his Providence The Wisdom of God in the Redemption of Mankind The Justice of God in the Distribution of Rewards and Punishments The Truth of God The Holiness of God c. Being the Sixth Volume Published from the Originals by Dr. Barker Octavo Sermons Preached on several Occasions By John Conant D. D. The first and second Volumes The Second Edition Corrected Published by Dr. John Williams now Lord Bishop of Chichester 8vo A Commentary on Genesis Exodus Leviticus and Numbers In Four Volumes In 4to By Dr. Sim Patrick Lord Bishop of Ely His Commentary on Deuteronomy is now in the Press A Discourse of the Government of the Thoughts By Geo. Tully Late Sub Dean of York The 3d Edition 1699. A New Account of India and Persia being Nine Years Travel begun 1672 and finished 1681. By John Fryer M. D. Fellow of the Royal Society Fol. 1698. Illustrated with Cuts The Life of Henry Chichele Archbishop of Canterbury In which there is a Particular Relation of many Remarkable Passages in the Reigns of Henry the Fifth and Sixth Kings of England Written in Latin by Arthur Duck. LLD. Chancellor of the Diocess of London and Advocate of the Court of Honour Now made English and a Table of Contents Annexed 8vo FINIS
have to do with do very confidently affirm any thing that comes into their heads be it never so little probable so they may thereby give any plausible Solutions of the Difficulties in which they find themselves entangled and perplext and they are much given to vaunt of their unanswerable Arguments so they call them which are many times but weak Objections such as Men of Learning and Wit should be ashamed of For this reason I thought it necessary to prevent as far as it was possible all that they can object against my Position of the Opinions the Old Jews held concerning those Doctrines which were exactly followed and fully declared by the Apostles and first Christians And because I foresee some Objections may arise I will shew that nothing can be more absurd than to imagine that the Jews or the first Christians borrowed their Notions about the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ from Plato's Disciples whereas Plato hath in truth followed the Jewish Notions of those things After this I shall make it appear that however some of the Modern Jews have changed their Opinions in these Articles yet the Socinians can make no advantage thereof because the Jews have in reality much alter'd their belief since Christ's time and are guilty of great Disingenuity as is common to all those who are obstinately set upon the maintaining of erroneous Doctrines In fine I shall plainly shew that the Socinians to defend themselves against the Orthodox have been forced to imitate those Modern Jews and have much out done them in changing and shifting their Opinions when they dispute with Christians I hope to manage this Controversy with the Socinians so plainly and fully as to satisfy the Reader That as on the one side they most falsly accuse the Church of having corrupted the New Testament to favour the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ's Godhead So they cannot on the other side get any ground upon the Jews in their Disputes with them though they fancy they got a great way towards their Conversion by rejecting those Doctrines In a word both the Ancient and Modern Jews do so far agree in those things which make on the Church's side against the Socinians that if they appeal to the Jews they are sure to lose their Cause which when they have better considered they will find it their best way for the maintaining of their Opinions to abandon the Jews altogether as Men that understood not their own Scriptures viz. the Old Testament and to reject both as they have gone a great way towards it in rejecting that traditional sense of the Old Testament for which it was quoted in the New and without which it would have signified little or nothing to those purposes for which it was quoted And so it will appear that for all their brags of the Aptness and even Necessity of their way for the Conversion of the Jews they have taken the direct way to harden them by giving up that sense of the Old Testament Scriptures which Christ and his Apostles made use of for the converting of their Forefathers But we have the less reason to complain of them for this when we see how apt they are to question the Authority of the Books of the New Testament as oft as they find them so clearly opposite to their Doctrines that they cannot obscure the Light of them by any tolerable Exposition To shew that I do not say this without cause I shall show some instances in the last Chapter of this Book CHAP. II. That in the times of Jesus Christ our Blessed Saviour the Jews had among them a common Explication of the Scriptures of the Old Testament grounded on the Tradition of their Fathers which was in many things approved by Christ and his Apostles THE Jews have to this day a certain kind of Tradition received from their Forefathers which contain many precepts of things to be done or avoided on the account of their Religion This they call their Oral Law by which name they distinguish it from the written Law which God gave them by Moses They make five Orders of such a Tradition which are explained by Moses de Trano in his Kiriat Sepher Printed at Venice Anno 1551. The first is of the things which they infer from Moses and the Prophets by a clear consequence and they are certainly of the same Authority as the rest of the Revelation although they call it a Tradition We are not such Enemies to Names as not to like such a sort of Tradition and we receive it with all imaginable reverence we like very well the Judgment of Maimonides who leaves as uncertain whatsoever the Jewish Doctors speak upon many things as being without ground when their Tradition is not gathered from Texts of Scripture de Regib c. 12. The second Order is of the Ceremonies and Rites which they keep as coming from Mount Sinai but of which there is not a word in the Law The third Order is of the Judiciary Laws upon which the two Schools of Hillel and Shammai were divided The fourth is of some Constitutions of the Ancients which they look upon as an hedge to the Law The last is of their Customs which are various in several places of their dispersion Tho' in many things they cannot but see that those last four Orders of Tradition do not agree with the Law of Moses or are quite unknown in it yet they seem to like it never the worse Nay their Rabbins professedly ascribe a much greater Authority to this Oral Law than to the Law of Moses They say in the Talmud Avoda zara c. 1. fol. 17. Col. 2. that a Man who studies in the Law alone without these Traditions is a Man which is without God according to the Prophecy of Azariah 2 Chr. 15.3 Of this sort were all the Traditions which were condemned by our Lord Jesus Christ He plainly calls them the Commandments of Men Mat. XV. 9. and has purposely directed several of his Discourses against them because even where their observing these Traditions would not consist with their Obedience to God as particularly in the case of Corban Mat. XV. 3. yet they gave Tradition the preference and so as our Saviour there tells them Ver. 9. They made the Commandments of God of no effect by their Tradition The Author of these Traditions or new Laws as one may term them did almost all of them live since the time that the Jews were under the power of the Seleucidae and they were the Leaders of those several Sects that corrupted their Religion by adding to it a great number of Observations which were perfectly new We have therefore no reason to look upon this sort of Tradition as the fountain from whence the Jews in Christ's time took their measures of the sense and meaning of the Writings of the Old Testament But for the Interpreting of their Scriptures the Jews in Christ's time had some other kinds of Traditions much different from
brought a force upon others by which many were driven to Idolatry But some chose rather to die than to yield to it 1 Mac. i. 62 63. ii 29 30 37 38. Which is an argument that the Rebukes of the Prophets had made great Impression on their Minds and raised a great Concern in them for their Religion and for the study of the Scripture which contained the Precepts of it But it was impossible that in reading the Writings of the Prophets and hearing them explained by their Doctors they should give no attention to the great Promises of the Messias whose Coming was spoken of by some of the Prophets as being very near at hand See Dan. ix Hag. ii Malach iii. The Second is That their Zeal for the Scriptures and their Religion was really much quickned by the cruel Persecution which they suffered from Antiochus Epiphanes whose Tyrannical Fury did particularly extend to the Holy Scriptures 1 Mac. i. 56 57. and to whatever else did contribute to the maintenance of their Religion The Third is That it appears from History that there were more Writers of their Nation since the Captivity than we read of at any time before so saith Josephus lib. I. contr Appion Especially since they came under the Power of the Ptolomeys and the Seleucidae who being Princes of a Greek Original were great Lovers of Learning and did much for the improving of good Letters The Fourth is That learned Men among the Jews applying themselves to this business did write either at Jerusalem at Babylon or at Alexandria several Extracts of ancient Books of Morality for the instruction of their People Such were the Books of Baruch and Esdras which seem to have been written in Chaldee and those of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus which were written in Greek The Fifth is That the great Business of the Jews in their Synagogues and in their Schools hath been ever since to understand the Books of the Prophets and to explain them in a Language intelligible to the People the Knowledge of the Hebrew being in great part lost during the time of the Babylonian Captivity The Sixth is That it does indeed appear that this was the proper time in which the Jewish Paraphrases began first to be formed They were began and carried on insensibly One adding some Chaldee Words in the Margin of his Book opposite to the Text which the People did not understand so well Another adding to these some Notes in another place till at length Jonathan and Onkelos or some other Doctor of Jerusalem gathered together all these Observations and made thence those Paraphrases which we have under their Name For the Confirmation of this Conjecture consider 1. That we find in these Paraphrases very many Explications which by no means agree with the Ideas that the Jews have framed to themselves since the Propagation of Christianity For since their Disputes with the Christians they found themselves obliged in many particulars to reject the Opinions and refute the Confessions of their Ancestors 2. We see the very same thing has happened among the Christians and among the Greeks that set themselves to write Scholia or Notes on the Scriptures which are only Abstracts of Authors who have written or preacht more at large on these Books The same thing I say hapned among Christians in the VIIIth Century and the following Ages when most of their Learning was reduced within this compass To compile Glosses and to collect the Opinion of those that went before them upon difficult places and after that to form out of all these Glosses one continued Paraphrase upon the whole Book as if it had been the Judgment and Work of one and the same Author It 's the Character of all the Books which they call Catenae upon Scripture I know well that some Criticks call in question the Antiquity of these Paraphrases and have remarked how ridiculous the Miracles are which the Jews say were wrought in favour of Jonathan the Son of Uzziel But what does this make for their doubting the Antiquity of these pieces Do we question whether there was a Greek Version of the Old Testament before Christ's time because we can hardly believe Aristaeas's History to be true or because we cannot say that the Greek Version is deliver'd down to us in the same purity as it was at first written Ought we to suspect St. Chrysostom's Homilies on St. Paul's Epistles or those of Pope Gregory the First because the Greeks have storied that St. Paul came to inspire St. Chrysostom with the Sense of his Epistles while he was meditating an Exposition of them and because the Latins do relate the like Fable in favour of Gregory the First After all the Authority of these Paraphrases does still further appear in that the Works themselves are spread almost as far as there are Jews in the World and are highly esteem'd in all places of their Dispersion Some may perhaps imagin that the Jews being fallen into great Corruptions about the time of our Blessed Saviour's coming into the World must necessarily at that time have lost much of that Light which their Ancestors received of the Prophets and of those that succeeded the Prophets They may think it may be that their Nation being become subject to the Greeks did by insensible degrees change their Principles and alter their Expositions of the Scripture as they adopted the Ideas of the Greek Philosophers whose Opinions they then began to borrow In short it may be conceived by some that the several Sects which arose among the Jews long before Christ's time did considerably alter the Opinions of the Synagogue and did corrupt their Tradition and the Notions they had received from the most ancient Doctors of their Schools In answer to all this It is certain the Corruption among the Jews was principally of their Morals for which though they had very good Precepts in their Law yet the true meaning of them was spoiled and corrupted with Glosses which were devised as I have shewn in later times and with these being stampt with the Name of Tradition they evaded the force of the Laws There were then but very few that had not an aversion to the Greek Learning and those few applied themselves to it while they were in Judaea with great Caution and Secrecy lest they should be lookt upon as Heathens Josephus witnesseth of that Antiq. l. 20. c. ult As to what is inferred from the many Sects among the Jews the quite contrary is clear For the opposition of one Sect to the other hindred any one of them from becoming Masters of the People and their Faith in so general a manner as to be able to corrupt absolutely their Traditional Notions of Religion Moreover these Sects all but the Sadducees who were abhorred by the People knew no other way to distinguish themselves and draw esteem but by a strict Observation of the Law and its Ceremonies to which they pretended that the Rules they gave their Disciples
Christ and his Apostles spake to the Jews according to the Notions which were received among them What I say will clearly appear if we reflect on some of the Citations made by Christ and his Apostles from the Old Testament For altho Jesus Christ had in himself all the Treasures of Wisdom and altho his Apostles were divinely inspired yet they ought 〈◊〉 proportion what they said to the capacity of their hearers Their Miracles were to move and dispose them to the receiving of the Truth but their proofs and arguments were the proper means to convince their hearers of it 1. The Doctrines of the Immortality of the Soul and the Resurrection from the Dead being deny'd by the Sadducees who required an express Text of Moses for the proof of those Doctrines and affirmed that there was not any such to be found in the Writings of Moses our Saviour proves it against them by these words which stopped their mouths and raised the admiration of the multitude I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob but God is not the God of the dead but of the living Mat. xxii 32. His proof was by a known and necessary consequence from that Text out of the Law which he inferred according to the received method among the Jews For the Jews at this day do gather the same Doctrines from the same words Vid. Mede his Works p. 801. Exod. iii. 6 15 16. which Jesus Christ alledged to prove them by The astonishment of the people on this occasion did not proceed from the newness of his argument as if they had never heard the like before for they gathered also the Doctrine of the Resurrection from Moses his Song as we see in Josephus de Macchab. p. 1012. But it arose from another cause to wit his giving them such a Spiritual notion of the Resurrection as was not clogged with the difficulties drawn from that instance of a Woman's Marriage to more Husbands than one which the Sadducees justly urged against that gross Idea of a Resurrection that many of them had wherein Marriage and other actions of mortal life should have place 2. Our Blessed Saviour in the same 22th ch of St. Matth. asked the Pharisees whose Son the Messias was to be they answered the Son of David i. e. the Scripture saith he should descend from the Line of David Against which Christ raises this Objection How then does David in spirit or inspired by the Spirit call him Lord And he alledges for proof that David calls him Lord the words of Psal cx 1. The Lord said to my Lord sit thou at my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool If then David by the Spirit called him Lord how is he then his Son It appears that Jesus Christ in making this Objection did take these three things as granted by the Jews at that time 1. That Psal cx was the work of the Prophet David 2. That this Psalm concerned the Messias 3. That the name Adonai is in this place equivalent to the name Jehovah There is not any of these things which the Jews will not dispute at this day But that their Forefathers did hold that these words were spoken to the Messias it appears by their Midrash on the Psalms and Saadia Gaon on Dan. vii 13. Indeed their Targum justifies all that our Saviour said in this place not only in acknowledging that this Psalm was composed by David but also that it was written for the Messias who is therefore instead of Adonai called Memra or the Word according to Fagius his reading which is most natural to the place But that Memra the Word denotes the Messias shall be shown in the sequel of this Discourse St. Paul has taken the same way Act. xiii 24. where he quotes these words from Isa lv 3. I will give you the sure mercies of David He refers this passage to the sending of the Messias altho the Text seems obscure enough for such a reference But he does it in pursuance of the explication given of it by the ancient Jews who understood this Chapter of the Messias So does R. David Kimchi upon this verse and Aben Ezra and Sam. Laniado and R. Meir Ararma and Abarvanel Upon the same ground he applies to the Messias in the same Chapter the words of Psal xvi 10. Thou wilt not leave thy holy One to see corruption He proves that they could not be understood of David seeing that his Sepulchre the Monument of his Corruption remained till that day He ought first to have proved that this Psalm was spoken of the Messias and then have proved that it could not belong to David But this method was needless since he went on this known Maxim among the Jews That whatever Psalm was not fulfilled in David ought to be understood of the Messias Let us proceed to another clear proof of this Proposition St. Paul in Heb. i. 6. quotes a Text from Moses Song Deut. xxxii 43. according to the LXXth Version 'T is commonly believed that the Quotation is out of Psal xcvii 8. but the very words Let all the Angels of God worship him are not found in that Psalm They are in the Greek of Moses Song without the least alteration though it must be confessed they are not there in the Hebrew Text. I will not dispute whether the Jews have lost out of their Bibles this part of the ancient Text since St. Paul's time They may in their Vindication shew that neither the Samaritans have in their Text this Quotation which is extant in the LXX It seems therefore that this Song of Moses was copied separately from the rest of the Pentateuch for their convenience who were to learn it by heart to which some pious People added a few Verses out of the Psalms that concerned the same Subject Which Copy with the Additions was translated by the LXX because the People had generally committed this to their Memory What I conclude from hence is this That St. Paul made no difficulty to quote words that were only in the LXX Version because they contained things conformable to the ancient Sentiments of the Jews and following the Genius and Doctrine prevailing in his Nation he referrs these words to the second Appearance of the Messias when all the Angels of God shall pay him adoration If we read St. Paul's Citation Gal. iii. 8 16 of the Promise God made to Abraham that in his seed all the nations of the Earth should be blessed which he understands of the Promise of the Messias we shall quickly judge that he followed herein the sense of the ancient Synagogue I know the greatest part of the Modern Jews do understand it of Isaac As if God had said All the Nations of the Earth shall wish their Friends the Blessing which God gave to Isaac But the Ancients understood it otherwise as we can judge by the Book of Ecclesiasticus ch xliv 25. They referred it to the Calling of
the Son of the Free-woman and Israel according to the Flesh by Ishmael the Son of the Bond-woman and having thus brought unbelieving Israel into Ishmael's place he proceeds upon the Old Jewish Nation recited in Baal-Hatturim that Ishmael should pierce Isaac with an Arrow which they illustrate by Gen. xvi 12. instead whereof the Text saith only that he laughed at or mocked Isaac We see St. Paul Rom. x. 6. applies to the Gospel those words of Deut. xxx 11 12 13 14. which seem to be spoken of the Law given by Moses to the Jews But then the Old Synagogue applied these words of Moses to the times of the Messias as is clear from Jonathan's Targum on the place which is enough to justify St. Paul's Usage of the words We read in the Song of Zacharias Luk. 1.69 that these words are referred to the Messias he hath exalted the horn of his Anointed The very same words are pronounced by Hannah the Mother of Samuel 1 Sam. ii 10. where the Targum referrs them in like manner as the sense of the Synagogue The same Targum understands of the Messias that passage 2 Sam. xxiii 3. And the lxx have the like Idea with the Targum which is a farther Confirmation of the Tradition of the Synagogue It is certain this Notion of the Messias was very common among the Jews otherwise they would not have thrust it into their Targums on places where naturally it ought not to come in For instance It is said 1 Kings iv 33. That Solomon discoursed of all the Trees from the Cedar of Libanus even to the Hyssop that springeth out of the Wall Now the Remark of the Targum hereupon is this And he prophecied touching the Kings of the House of David which should rule in this present World as also in the World to come of the Messias 6. We see our Lord Jesus Christ was careful to instruct the Pharisees of the two different Characters of the Coming of the Messias Luk. xvii 20. Of which the one was to be obscure and followed with the Death of the Messias the other was to be glorious and acknowledged by the whole World Christ instructed them in this the rather to remove their mistakes through which they confounded his two Comings Though in truth they were both of them confessed by the Jews for some time after Christ's ascension into Heaven 7. We see that Christ himself Matth. xxi 16. and also his Apostle St. Paul 1 Cor. xv 27. Eph. i. 21. Heb. ii 6 7 8. apply the words of Psal viii to the Messias How could they do it were it not before the sense of the Synagogue Now that such was the sense of the Synagogue ye see till this day if we read what they say in their Rabboth upon the Song of Songs ch iv 1. and upon Ecclesiastes ch ix 1. that the Children were to make Acclamations at the Coming in of the Messias the second Redeemer according to those words of Psal viii 3. Ex ore infantium c. Lastly We see St. Paul Rom. x. 18. does refer the words of Psal xix 4. to the Preaching of the Apostles and saith Their sound went over all the Earth and their words to the end of the World What would an unbelieving Jew have said to this that Paul should apply the Psalmist's words in this manner But the Apostle was secure against this or any other Objection from the Jews if he used the words in the sense of their Synagogue And that he did so there is little reason to doubt The Encomiums which David gave to the Law of Moses they would most readily apply to the Law of the Messias And they expected he should have his Apostles to carry his Law throughout the World To this expectation of theirs the Psalmist's words were very applicable That the Divine Word is called the Sun Philo plainly affirms and if I take R. Tanchum aright he understands that it was the Messias that was called the Sun of Righteousness Mal. iv 2. St. John saw Christ in that figure of the Sun and his Apostles as twelve Stars and that in Heaven which to him is the state of the Gospel Rev. xxi 1. According to this figure in this Psalm the Sun of Righteousness is described as a Giant which rejoyceth to run a Race v. 5. And here is a description of his Course together with that of his Disciples and of the manner by which they made their Voices to be heard This Idea shocked R. Samuel in a Book he writ before his Conversion ch 18. which he communicated with a Rabin of Morocco And whoever considers that Idea of the Writer of the Book of Wisdom xviii 5. shall find it is no other than that of this xixth Psalm mixed a little with that Idea in the Canticles which the Old Jews refer to the Messias and with that of the Song of Isaiah v. touching the Messias which served the Jews for a Commentary to understand the Song of Solomon by I could gather a much greater number of Remarks on this Head but having brought as many here together as I take to be sufficient for the proving of what I have said I think I ought not to enlarge any further So I come next to search out the Store-house where we may find these Traditions of the Jews which Jesus Christ and his Apostles made use of either in explaining or confirming the Doctrines of the Gospel They must be found in the ancient Books of the Jews which remain among us such as the Apocryphal Books the Books of Philo the Jew and the Chaldee Paraphrases on the Old Testament The Authority of all these ought to be well established Let us begin by the Apocryphal Books some of which Mr. N. hath ridiculed very boldly Then we shall consider what he has said to Philo whose Writings Mr. N. hath endeavoured to render useless in this Controversy How justly we shall consider in the next Chapters CHAP. V. Of the Authority of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament ALthough the Protestants have absolutely rejected the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament which the Church of Rome make use of in Controversies as if they were of the same authority with the Books of the Law and Prophets notwithstanding they keep them as Books of a great antiquity And we make use of their authority not to prove any Doctrine which is in dispute as if they contained a Divine Revelation and a decision of an inspired Writer but to witness what was the Faith of the Jewish Church in the time when the Authors of those Apocryphal Books did flourish Any body who sees the Socinians making use of the Authorities of Artemas or of Paulus Samosatenus to prove that the Christian Church was in their opinion must grant the same authority to the Books of Wisdom Ecclesiasticus and the like touching the Sentiment of the Jewish Church in the age of those Writers Grotius a great Author for the Socinians was
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
Martyr having been formerly a Platonist and then turning Christian was the first that invented this Doctrine or rather adopted it out of the Platonick into the Christian Divinity and that neither the Jewish nor the Christian Church had ever before conceived any Notion of a Trinity or of any Plurality in the Divine Essence The Doctrine of the Trinity supposes the Divine Essence to be common to three Persons distinguished from one another by incommunicable Properties These Persons are called by St. John 1 Joh. v. 7. the Father the Word and the Spirit There are Three saith he that bear Witness in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these Three are One. This Personal distinction supposes the Father not to be the Son nor the Holy Ghost and that the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit Revelation teaching that the Son is begotten of the Father and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or from the Father by the Son And this distinction is the foundation of their Order and of their Operations For although the Unity of the Divine Nature makes it necessary that these three Persons should all co-operate in the Works of God ad extra as we call them nevertheless there being a certain order among the Persons and a distinction founded in their Personal Properties the Holy Scripture mentioneth an Oeconomy in their Operations so that one work ad extra is ascribed to the Father another to the Son and a third to the Holy Spirit But this distinction of Persons all partaking of the same common Nature and Majesty hinders not their being equally the Object of that Worship which Religion commands us to pay to God I touch this matter but very briefly because my business is only to examine whether the Jews had any notion of this Doctrine And our Opinion is this that though the Gospel has proposed that Doctrine more clearly and distinctly yet there were in the Old Testament sufficient notices of it so that the Jews before Christ's time did draw from thence their Notions concerning it On the contrary the Socinians maintain that this Doctrine is not only alike foreign to the Books of the Old and New Testament but that it was altogether unknown to the Jews before and after Christ till Justin Martyr first brought it into the Church In opposition to which I affirm for truth 1. That the Jews before Jesus Christ had a notion of a Plurality in God following herein certain Traces of this Doctrine that are to be found in the Books of Moses and the Prophets 2. That the same Jews following the Scriptures of the Old Testament did acknowledg a Trinity in the Divine Nature I begin the Examination of this Subject by considering the Notions of the Authors of the Apocryphal Books Now one cannot expect that these Authors should have explained their mind with relation to the notions of a Plurality and of a Trinity in the Godhead as if they had been Interpreters of the Books of the Old Testament But they express it sufficiently without that and speak in such a manner that no body can deny that they must have had those very Notions when it appears that their Expressions in speaking of God supposes the Notions of a Plurality in the Godhead and of a Trinity in particular Let us consider some of those Expressions 1. They were so full of the notion of a Plurality which is expressed in Gen. i. 26. that the Author of Tobith hath used it as the Form of Marriage among the Jews of old Let us make unto him an aid So Chap. 8.6 Thou madest Man and gavest him Eve his Wife for an helper and stay of them came Mankind Thou hast said It is not good that Man should be alone Let us make unto him an aid like unto himself whereas in the Hebrew it is only I shall make 2ly We see that they acknowledg the Creation of the World by the Word of God and by the Holy Ghost as David Psal xxxiii 6. So the Book of Wisdom Ch. ix 1. O God of my Fathers and Lord of mercy who hath made all things with thy Word or more properly by thy Word as it is explained in the 2. vers and ver 4. he asketh Wisdom in these words Give me Wisdom that sitteth by thy Throne And v. 17. Thy counsel who hath known except thou give Wisdom and send thy Holy Spirit from above Where he distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Wisdom and the Holy Spirit from God to whom he directs his Prayer And so the Book of Judith ch xvi 13 14. I will sing unto the Lord a new Song O Lord thou art great and glorious wonderful in strength and invincible Let all creatures serve thee for thou speakest and they were made thou didst send forth thy Spirit and it created them and there is none that can resist thy voice 3ly They speak of the Emanation of the Word from God Those are the words of the Book of Wisdom ch vii 25. For she is the breath of the power of God and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty therefore can no defiled thing fall into her That description of Wisdom deserves to be considered as we have it in the same place ver 22 23 24 25 26. For Wisdom which is the worker of All things taught me for in her is an understanding spirit holy one only manifold subtil lively clear undefiled plain not subject to hurt loving the thing that is good quick which cannot be letted ready to do good Kind to man stedfast sure free from care having all power over-seeing all things and going through all understanding pure and most subtil Spirits For Wisdom is more moving than any motion she passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness For she is the brightness of the everlasting Light the unspotted mirrour of the power of God and the image of his Goodness And indeed St. Paul Heb. i. 3. hath borrowed from thence what we read touching the Son that he is the brightness of God's glory and the express Image of his Person So the Book of Ecclesiasticus saith ch xxv 3. That it is come out of the mouth of the most High 4ly There are several Names in Scripture which serve to express the second Person the Son the Word the Wisdom the Angel of the Lord but who is the Lord indeed Now those Authors use all these Names to express a second Person For they acknowledge a Father and a Son by a natural consequence Thus the Author of Ecclesiasticus ch li. 10. I called upon the Lord the father of my Lord in the same way as David speaks of the Messias Psal ii and Psal cx and as Solomon in his Proverbs ch viii 25. as of a Son in the bosom of his Father and ch xxx 4. What is his Sons name if thou canst tell They speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as
among us I can add 4ly that they distinguish exactly the Angel of God from the Prophets although they are call'd by the same name of Angels or Messengers and they distinguish him from Angels which as creatures they exhort to praise God as in the Song of Azaria v. 36. O ye Angels of the Lord bless ye the Lord praise and exalt him above all for ever Such a distinction appears in the 1. of Esdras ch i. 50 51. Nevertheless the God of their Fathers sent by his Messenger to call them back because he spared them and his Tabernacle also But they had his Messengers in derision and look when the Lord spake unto them they made a sport of his Prophets So in Tobith ch v. 16. So they were well pleased Then said he to Tobias prepare thy self for the journey his father said Go thou with this man and God which dwelleth in heaven prosper your journey and the Angel of God keep you company Just according to the Prayer of Jacob Gen. 48.16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads And that very Angel is called God by Jacob in the verse before So in Ecclus ch xvli 17. For in the division of the Nations of the whole earth he set a ruler over every people but Israel is the Lord's portion So in the Epistle of Jeremy v. 5 6. But say ye in your hearts O Lord we must worship thee For mine Angel is with you and I my self caring for your souls Where in the Greek that caring for their souls is referred to the same Angel So 2 Mac. xi 6. Now they that were with Maccabeus heard that he besieged the holds they and all the people with lamentation and tears besought the Lord that he would send a good Angel to deliver Israel To shew that the Jews before Jesus Christ had such a notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was to save his people we must take notice of two things the first is that the Author of the three Books of Maccabees speaks of God at the end of his Book in the same terms which are used by Jacob Gen. xlviii 15 16. and are to be referred to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to a created Angel as I have explained it in a particular discussion of that very place of Genesis The second is that the Greek Interpreters of Scripture have used such method in translating some places of the Prophets which sheweth they understood that the Messias should be the very Angel of the Lord who is called the Counsellor and that the Angel of the Lord was the Lord himself Two examples will shew that clearly the first is in that famous Oracle of Isaiah ch ix 6. they have these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Angel of the Great Counsel whereas in the Hebrew it is said he shall be called the admirable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very Word that the Angel of the Lord gives to himself Judg. xiii 18. the Counsellor of the mighty God and it is clear that they did understand these words of the Messias who is spoken of as the Son of David v. 7. in the same words which are used in Psalm lxxii The other example is in this other famous place of Isai lxiii 9. they have translated neither an Angel but himself saved them as if they had read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we read now Some of the new Jews are mightily intangled in explaining that place but it appears that these Interpreters of Isaiah look'd upon the face of God to have been God himself which is the reason of their translation and shews that they understood the face of the Lord which is so often spoken of by Moses to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Jehovah I can add a reflection upon their Version of the 3d of Daniel v. 25. Species quarti similis filio Dei as saith Aquila a Jew who lived under Hadrian but the ancient Greeks had translated it similis Angelo Dei as saith an old Scholion related by Drusius in Fragmentis p. 1213. which shews that the ancient Hellenist had the same Notion of the Angel of God as of the Son of God But all those things shall be more cleared when we come to the authority of the other Jews which we are to produce Some perhaps may think that the Book of Ecclesiasticus supposeth the Wisdom which we maintain to be eternal to have been created and so saith that Author ch 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ch xxiv 9. But I take notice of three things 1. That such an Objection may be good in the mouth of an Arian but not at all in the mouth of a Socinian and much less in the mouth of an Unitarian of this Kingdom after their Writers have owned that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word of God signifies the essential vertue of God 2ly That the Author of Ecclesiasticus follows in that expression the very words of the Greek Version of Proverbs ch viii 22. in which it answers to the word possessed which is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3ly That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although we should suppose it to be the true reading hath a very large signification and indeed Aristobulus a Jew of Alexandria who lived about the same age of the Authors of those Apocryphal Books and whose words are quoted by Eusebius de Praep. Ev. L. vii § 14. p. 324. declares that the Wisdom which Solomon speaks of in the Book of Proverbs was before the Heaven and Earth and the very Author of Ecclesiasticus calls it positively eternal ch xxiv 18. There is another Objection which is backed by the authority of Grotius who by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Wisdom understands a created Angel but I shall shew afterwards the absurdity of that opinion of Grotius and his error is so plain that Mr. N. and the Unitarian Authors have been ashamed to follow his authority in this point daring not to maintain that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the first of St. John signified an Angel which they would have done if they could have digested the absurdity of Grotius his Notions upon that place of Wisdom ch xviii 15. As for the Holy Ghost that they acknowledged him for a Person and for a Divine one there is as much evidence from the same Apocryphal Books 1. I have noted they attributed to him the Creation of the World as you see in Judith ch xvi 14. Thou didst send forth thy Spirit and it created them which is an imitation of David's Notions Psal xxxiii 6. 2ly They call him the mouth of the Lord so in the 3d Book of Esdras ch i. 28. and 47 and 57. Howbeit Josias did not turn back his chariot from him but undertook to fight with him not regarding the words of the Prophet Jeremy spoken by the mouth of the Lord.
formed the same Notions that we have of the Divine Nature To do this with the more clearness I shall observe this Method 1. To shew what were their Reflections on the Unity of the Divine Nature 2. To shew what their Reflections were on those passages of the Scripture which note a Plurality in the Unity of the Divine Essence As to the first Philo who left a great many Pieces behind him is best able to instruct us and he asserts that the Nature of God is incomprehensible i. e. that we cannot form a just Idea of it Alleg. 1. p. 43. F. G. De Profug p. 370. C. That God's Providence and Existence are known to us but as to his Essence we are altogether ignorant of it De Mund. p. 889. D. And having in several places of his Writings observed 1. That Moses the Law-giver of the Jews made this his chief End to destroy the Notion of Polytheism He then 2. Affirms that though it is said God is one yet this is not to be understood with respect to Number Alleg. L. III. p. 841. Not that Philo would have it thought that there is more than one God but hereby he intimates the Unity of God to be transcendent to have nothing common with that of other Beings which fall under Number 3. And indeed he acknowledges a Generation in God If you ask him what he begets he will tell you 4. That God begets his Word Who is therefore said to be not unbegotten like God and yet not begotten like his Creatures Quis rerum Divin haeres p. 398. A. And on account of this Generation he calls him the First-born of God De Agricult p. 152. De Confus Ling. p. 267. Again he will tell you that God begets his Wisdom De Temul p. 190. E. And that his Wisdom is the same with his Word Alleg. 1. p. 39. F. following no doubt Solomon's Notion Prov. viii 22. But did he own that this Generation was made in time No For 5. He asserts that this Generation was from all Eternity For he saith the Word of God is the Eternal Son of God De Confus Ling. p. 255. D. p. 267. C. 6. When he would explain in what respect or for what reason God is called in Scripture The God of Gods he saith not that it is in respect of the Angels whose God he is and who sometimes are called Elohim or Gods even by Philo himself De Opif. p. 4. F. But he saith it is in relation to his two Powers Lib. de Victim off p. 661. G. which would be a ridiculous thing had he thought these two Powers were no other than two Attributes of God Indeed Philo is so far from thinking them meer simple Attributes that he maintains 1. That these Powers made the World or by them God created the World De Victim off p. 663. F. de Confus Ling. p. 270. B. de Plant. Noae p. 176. E. Quis rer div Haer. p. 393. G. 2. That these eternal Powers appeared acted and spoke as real Persons and in a visible and sensible manner Lib. de Cherub p. 97. D. De Sacr. Ab. p. 108. B. C. Quod Deus sit immutab p. 229. B. p. 241. C. D. p. 242. B. de Plant. Noae p. 176. D. E. Quod rer div haer p. 393. G. De Somn. p. 457. G. de Mund. p. 888. B. He also maintains that the two Cherubins which were over the Ark were the Symbols of the two eternal Powers of God De Vit. Mos III. p. 517. F. Quis rerum Divin Haer. p. 393. G. These are in general the Notions which the Jews had of a Plurality in the Divine Essence which is otherwise single and one I shall hereafter shew that the very same Notions are spred throughout the ancient Targums as far as the Nature of the Works which for the most part are only naked Translations of the Hebrew into Chaldee does give occasion to the Authors of these Targums to explain themselves on these Heads Now let us go on to examine the Foundations on which the ancient Jews grounded this Notion of a Plurality in God For it is not to be imagined that they would have believed thus without some Authority for it in the Books of the Old Testament upon which alone they pretended to found the Doctrines of their Religion Secondly then As to the first Words of Moses In the beginning the Gods created I must own that Philo writing in Greek did not express his Notion of Plurality in expounding this Text For he followed the Version of the LXX which reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Singular instead of the Hebrew Elohim in the Plural But then he more than hints that this Reflexion was common among the Jews seeing that he rarely speaks of God without mentioning his two Powers as I have newly observed to you And in one place he gives this reason why the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used throughout the History of the Creation because that was the Appellation of one of God's Powers by which he made the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Plant. Noae p. 176. D. E. Which shews evidently that the Notion of Plurality did still remain among the Greek Jews when the Plural Elohim which was the Ground of it was taken away by their Translators for a reason that I shall shortly mention But to shew that the word Elohim in the Plural has always made this impression on the Minds of the Jews we must observe 1. That long before Justin Martyr's time there was a sort of Men who imagined that the Angels did create the World grounding it upon this place compared with those other Texts where the Angels are sometimes called Elohim as Psal viii 6. Psal xcvii 7. Such was the Opinion of Menander the Scholar of Simon Magus in particular 2. That the Talmudists themselves were so perswaded of a Plurality expressed in the word Elohim as to teach in Title Megilla c. 1. fol. 11. That the LXX Interpreters did purposely change the Notion of Plurality couched in the Hebrew Plural into a Greek Singular as they did also on Gen. 1.26 and xi 7. lest Ptolom Philadelph should conclude that the Jews as well as himself had a belief of Polytheism That was taken notice of by St. Jerom in his Preface to the Book De Quaest Hebr. 3. That however the Construction of a Noun Plural with a Verb Singular may render it doubtful to some whether these words express a Plurality or no yet certainly there can be no doubt in those places where a Verb or Adjective Plural are joyned with the word Elohim and such places as I already have made appear are often to be found in the Writings of the Old Testament That the word Elohim is to be understood Plurally this the Jews since Christ's time have acknowledged to be agreeable to their sense of the word For in 1 Sam. xxviii 13. where the Witch of Endor saith I see the Gods ascending 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Eminent Divines of the old Jewish Church and consequently as subject to several weaknesses and oversights which are common to the greatest as well as to the meanest men Even the most Learned Men in all Ages though they agree in the truth of certain Doctrines are yet often divided in their ways of expressing them and also in their grounding them on this or that place of Scripture For the Jews since Christ's time we are less concern'd what they say because when they had once rejected their Messias the Lord Jesus Christ they soon found that if they stood to their Traditional Expositions of Scripture it could not be denied but he whom they had rejected was the Word the Son of God whom their Fathers expected to come in our Flesh but rather than yield to that they would alter their Creed and either wholly throw out the Word the Son of God or bring him down to the state of a created Angel as we see some of them do now in their ordinary Comments on Scripture And so they deal with the Shekinah likewise confounding the Master with the Servant as we see that some few perhaps one or two Cabalists have done in their Books In consequence of this alteration they are forc'd to acknowledg the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob worshipped a created Angel and have left themselves no way to excuse them from Idolatry therein but by corrupting their Doctrine concerning Religious Worship and teaching that it is lawful to pray to these Ministring Spirits which is effectually the setting up of other Gods plainly contrary to the first Commandment of their Law Some of themselves are so sensible of this that they cannot deny it to be Idolatry Which is certainly the more inexcusable in the Jews because on other occasions they constantly affirm that when God charged the Angels with the care of other Nations he reserved to himself the sole Government of his people Israel Deut. xxxii 8 9. And therefore it must be a grievous sin in them to worship Angels howsoever they should imagin it might be permitted to other Nations After all this they have not been able so totally to suppress the ancient Tradition but that in their Writers since Christ's time there appear some footsteps of it still And that it is so I am next to shew that notwithstanding their aversness to the Christian Doctrine they yet have a Notion distinct enough both of a Plurality and Trinity in the Divine Nature which will be the whole business of my next Chapter CHAP. XI That this Notion of a Trinity in the Divine Nature has continued among the Jews since the time of our Lord Jesus Christ TO begin with the Jewish Authors who have writ Medrashim that is a sort of Allegorical Commentaries upon Scripture and the Cabalistical Jews whom their people look upon as the wisest Men of their Nation viz. those that know the truth more than all others among them this truth passes for undoubted I know very well that the method of those Cabalistical Men who seek for Mysteries almost in every Letter of the words of Scripture hath made them justly ridiculous And indeed one cannot imagin an occupation more vain or useless than the prodigious labour which they undergo in their way of Gematria Notarikon and Tsirouph But besides that Vice is not so general among the Jews I am fully resolved to lay aside in this Controversie all such remarks my design being only to shew that the ancient Tradition hath been kept among those Authors who have their Name from their firm adherence to the Tradition of their Forefathers So I am not willing to deny that some of the Books of those Cabalistical Authors which the Jews who are not great Criticks look upon as very ancient are not as to all their parts of such an antiquity as the Jews suppose them to be But I take notice that those who attack the antiquity of those Books are not aware that notwithstanding some additions which are in those Books as for example in the Zohar and in the Rabboth the very Doctrine of the Synagogue is to be found there and the same as it is represented to us by the Apocryphal Authors by Philo or those who had occasion to mention the Doctrine of the Jews After all let us suppose that almost all those Books have been written since the Talmud and that the Talmud was written since the beginning of the seventh Century that could not be a prejudice against the Doctrine which the Jews propose as the ancient Doctrine of the Synagogue But to the contrary it would be a strong proof of the constancy of those Authors in keeping the Tradition of their Ancestors in so strange a dispersion and among so many Nations chiefly since in the Articles upon which I shall quote their Authorities they so exactly follow the steps of the Authors of the Apocryphal Books of Philo the Jew and of their ancient Paraphrast who had more penetrated into the sense of Scripture I say then that both the Authors of the Midrashim and the Cabalistical Authors agree exactly in this that they acknowledg a Plurality in the Divine Essence and that they reduce such a Plurality to three Persons as we do To prove such an assertion I take notice first That the Jews do judg as we do that the word Elohim which is Plural expresses a Plurality Their ordinary remark upon that word is this that Elohim is as if one did read El hem that is They are God Bachajè a famous Commentator of the Pentateuch who brings in his work all the senses of the four sorts of Interpreters among the Jews speaks to this purpose upon the Parascha Breschit fol. 2. col 3. 2ly It is certain that they make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express those Persons as they use to express the two first human Persons viz. Adam and Eve Thus speaks of them the same Bachaje Ibid. fol. 13. col 2. 3ly They fix the number of three Persons in the Divine Essence distinguishing their Personal Characters and Actions which serve to make them known 4ly They speak of the emanation of the two last from the first and that the last proceeds by the second 5ly They declare that this Doctrine contains a Mystery that is incomprehensible and above human reason and that in such an unsearchable secret we must acquiesce with the Authority of the Divine Revelation 6ly They ground this Doctrine upon the very same Texts of Scripture which we alledg to prove the several Positions of ours which deserves a great deal of consideration And indeed those things being so we must necessarily conclude either that they mock their Readers or that they do not understand what they say or one must acknowledg that the consequences and conclusions which Christians draw from the Scriptures to this subject of Trinity are not so easie to be avoided as the Socinians believe Let the Reader reflect upon each of those Articles while I
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
to the Memra or Shekinah as you may see in the same Comment of Menachem I shall only point at some of them not to enlarge too much in this Chapter So they give to the Shekinah the Character of Ruler and Conducter of the Animals of Glory who receive their Virtue from the Shekinah and live by his Glory fol. 65. col 2. fol. 66. col 4. According as we read in Ezek. i. 13. So R. Menachem following the Zohar fol. 5. col 3. fol. 8. col 1. They call the Shekinah the Adam of above after whose Image Adam was created And they give to him the Titles of Exalted and Blessed which they give only to the True God R. Men. fol. 14. col 3. They say That 't was he to whom Noah offered his Sacrifice Ibid. fol. 27. col 1. fol. 34. col 4. They pretend that the Shekinah is the Bridegroom of the Synagogue according to the Idea of God by Isaiah lxii 3. R. Men. fol. 15. col 1. And that God having committed to Angels the Care of other Nations the Shekinah alone was intrusted with the Care and Conduct of Israel fol. 28. col 3. fol. 153. col 2. They pretend that he hath been in Captivity with their Fathers R. Men. fol. 17. col 2. col 4. fol. 51. col 2. That he hath smote the Egyptians fol. 56. col 4. without the help of Angels although the Angels attended him as their King fol. 59. col 1. col 2. fol. 61. col 3. They pretend that the Temple was built to the Honour of the Shekinah fol. 63. col 1. fol. 70. col 2. And that it was to him and not to the Ark that the Levites said Arise O Lord into thy rest Thou and the Ark of thy strength Psal cxxxii 8. fol. 121. col 4. In a word they look upon the Shekinah as the Living God fol. 2. col 1. The God of Jacob R. Men. fol. 38. col 3. And they acknowledge him to be that very Angel whom Jacob looks upon as his Redeemer his Shepherd and whom the Prophets call the Angel of the Presence and the Angel of the Covenant Ibid. fol. 73. col 1. fol. 83. col 4. They are no less positive when they speak of the Third Sephira which they call Binah and which we take justly to be the Holy Ghost For they teach that it proceeds from the First by the Second and who can conceive that the Spirit of God is not God And 't is also the Doctrine of the Zohar and of the Book Habbahir related by R. Menachem fol. 1. col 3. The very Book of Zohar saith That the word Jehovah expresses both the Wisdom and the Binah and calls them Father and Mother R. Men. fol. 3. col 3. fol. 10. col 4. This Idea is grounded upon what is said Thou art our Father which they refer to the Shekinah fol. 22. col 2. col 3. And they call her upon that account the Mother of Israel and her Tutor R. Men. fol. 62. col 3. fol. 64. col 4. That Idea of the Holy Ghost as a Mother which R. Menachem hath fol. 114. col 2. is so ancient among the Jews that St. Jerom witnesses that it was the name which the Nazarenes gave to the Holy Ghost Hicronym in Ezek. xvi in Isa viii in Matth. xiii They speak of the Spirit as of a Person when they look upon a Man as a Prophet who is sent by God and by his Spirit Isa chap. xlviii R. Menach fol. 34. col 2. fol. 56. col 1. And by whom the Holy Ghost hath spoken fol. 122. col 2. And who for that reason is called the mouth of God fol. 127. col 4. Which is now turned by some other Jews as signifying only a Created Angel as you see in Bachaje at the end of the Parasha Breschith fol. 18. col 1. So they speak of the Holy Ghost as being the mouth of God fol. 127. col 4. And that the Angels have been created by the Mouth of God fol. 143. col 3. I acknowledg that sometimes some of them seem to take the Shekinah for the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost for the Shekinah although they commonly call one the Second Sephira and the other the Third viz. the Binah that is to be seen in R. Men. fol. 80. col 2. So some of them refer to the Binah the Title of King of Israel which occurs so often in Scripture See Men. fol. 132. col 3. Although it is the common Name of the Shekinah fol. 113. col 1. Some other refer to the Shekinah the Name of the Spirit of God which is mentioned Gen. i. 1. So says the Author of the Book Jetzira in R. Menachem fol. 3. col 2. But if some are mistaken in their Ideas I can say that they are very few and almost not worth taking notice of And indeed if we consider a little what is the general Sense of those Authors about the Emanations which are spoken of in Scripture as by which the Divine Nature is communicated to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Shekinah and to the Holy Ghost we shall know evidently that they had as distinct a Notion of a true Trinity as they have of the Plurality of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence And first the Author of the Zohar and the Author of the Book Habbahir pronounce that the Third Sephira proceeds from the First by the Second and R. Men. follows their Doctrine fol. 1. col 3. 2dly They attribute equally the Name of Jehovah to the Second and the Third Sepâ—â—â—a viz. the Wisdom and the Binah or Understanding So does the Zohar in R. Men. fol. 3. col 3. fol. 10. col 4. 3dly They propose the manner in which Eve was Taken from Adam as an Image of the manner of Emanation of the Wisdom from the En soph that is Infinite Ib. fol. 105. col 3. fol. 14. col 1. 4thly They propose the Image of the two Cherubims who were drawn from the Ark to give the Idea of the Two last Persons for the distinction of the Cherubims was evident although there was an Unity of them with the Ark. So R. Men. fol. 74. col 3. But we must add some of their Expressions upon this matter so much contradicted by the Socinians And first R. Menachem with the Jewish Authors suppose that not only the Three Persons which they call Sephiroth are spoken of in the History of the Creation but that they are also express'd in the first Command of the Law See him fol. 66. col 3. fol. 68. col 1. 2dly They acknowledge those Three Sephiroth and attribute to every one his Operations Ibid. fol. 139. col 4. 3dly The Author of Zohar is a Voucher of great Authority and he cites these words of R. Jose a famous Jew of the second Century where examining the Text Deut. iv 7. Who have their Gods so near to them What saith
he may be the meaning of this It seems that Moses should have said Who have God so near them But saith he there is a Superior God and there is the God who was the Fear of Isaac and there is an Inferior God and therefore Moses saith The Gods so near For there are many Virtues that come from the only One and all they are one See how the same Author supposes that there are Three Degrees in the Godhead in Levit. col 116. Come and see the Mystery in the word Elohim viz. There are Three degrees and every degree is distinct by himself and notwithstanding they are all One and tied in One and one is not separated from the other And again in Exod. col 75. Upon the words of Deut vi 4. Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord they must know that those Three viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are One unum and that is a Secret which we learn in the Mystery of the Voice which is heard The Voice is One unum but it contains Three Modes viz. the Fire the Air and the Water Now these Three are One in the Mystery of the Voice and they are but One unum So in this place Jehovah our Lord Jehovah are one unum You have this Remark of the same Author in Gen. fol. 54. col 2. de Litera ש That the Three Branches of that Letter denote the Heavenly Fathers who are there named Jehovah our Lord Jehovah R. Hay Hagahon who lived Seven hundred Years ago said there are Three Lights in God the Ancient Light or Kadmon the Pure Light or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Purified Light or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that these make but One God And that there is neither Plurality nor Polytheism in this The same Idea is followed by R. Shem Tov in his Book Emunoth part 4. cap. 8. p. 32. col 2. See again R. Hamay Hagaon in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Speculation cited by Reuchlin p. 651. Hi tres qui sunt unum inter se proportionem habent ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unum uniens unitum He said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sunt principium medium finis haec sunt unus punctus est dominus universi R. Joseph ben Gekatilia and the other Cabalists are in effect for three Elohims when they treat of the three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or three first Sephiroth For they agree that the three first Sephiroth were never seen by any body and that there is no discord no imperfection among them The Note of this R. Joseph Gekatilia is very remarkable The Jews saith he have been under the severity of judgment and shall continue so till the coming of the Messias who shall be united saith he with the second Sephirah which is Wisdom according as it is written Isa xi 2. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him the Spirit of Wisdom c. And he shall cause the Spirit of Grace and Clemency to descend from the first Sephirah who is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Infinite and he follows in that Rabbi Salomon Jarchi who saith upon Isa xi that the Cochma which is the second Sephira shall be in the middle of the Messias In a word this Notion of Plurality and Trinity expressed in the Writings of Moses and the Prophets hath not only been observed by the Jews but they have found and acknowledged it as well as the Christians to be a great and profound mystery And for the explaining of it the Jews have employed very near the same Ideas that the Christians use in speaking of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity For they conceive in God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faces and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subsistences which we call Persons as one may see in Sepher Jetzirah Moreover we may observe 1. That when they speak of the three first Sephiroth they understand the same thing by them as we do by three Personalities three Modes of Existence active or passive Emanations or Processions which are the foundation of the Personalities 2ly That though they hold ten Sephiroth in all yet they make a great difference between the three first Sephiroth and the seven last For they regard the first as Persons but the last as Attributes according to which God acts in the ordinary course of his Providence or according to his several dispensations towards his Creatures Hence they call the seven last Middoth or Measures that is to say the Attributes and Characters which are visible in the Works of God namely his Justice and Mercy c. And this is confessed in plain words by the great Cabalist R. Menachem de Rekanati Tres primariae numerationes quae sunt intellectuales non vocantur mensurae i.e. they are not Attributes as are the seven last which he explains under that Notion Rittangel hath already quoted that place in his Notes upon Sepher Jetzira p. 193. It may be objected that the ancient Jews were ignorant of the Names of Father Son and Holy Spirit which Names the Christians give to the three Persons in the Deity But this if it were true would not weigh much with a reasonable mind For who can doubt but a new Revelation may distinguish those Notions clearly by proper and suitable Names which the Jews by what Revelation they had knew but more confusedly And yet to remove the Objection wholly it is certain the ancient Cabalists were acquainted with the Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost They gave the Name of Father to the first of their Sephiroth whom they called En Soph i. e. Infinite to express his Incomprehensibility This we have in Zohar from whence it is easie to conclude that they must own the Son also the Name of Father being relative to the Son But further they knew that second Person by the name Coema Wisdom even that Wisdom by which the Word was created c. according to Prov. 3.19 The Lord by Wisdom hath founded the Earth This Notion was so ancient among the Jews that the Jerusalem Targum hath rendred the first verse of Genesis thus The Lord created by his Wisdom The Christians call'd him the Word and Wisdom alluding to divers places especially Psal xxxiii 6. and Prov. viii 14. The Jews commonly call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second Glory and the Crown of the Creation Rittanget brings their Authorities for this in Seph Jetzira p. 4 5. They knew the third Person by the name of Binah or Intelligence because they thought it was he that gave Men the knowledg of what God was pleased to reveal to them In particular they called him the Sanctifier and the Father of Faith nor is any thing more common among them than to give him the name of the Spirit of Holiness or the Holy Spirit The same Doctrine is to be found in several other Books of the Cabalists which are known to most Christians because they are Printed
me to Thee Oh Zion Here are plainly two Persons called by the name of Jehovah namely one that sends and another that is sent So that this second Person is God and yet he is also the Messenger of God So likewise in the next Chapter v. 1. the Angel that used to talk with the Prophet shewed him Joshua the High Priest standing before the Angel of the Lord and Satan standing over against Joshua as his Adversary And v. 2. the Prophet hears the Lord say unto Satan twice over The Lord rebuke thee for being so maliciously bent against Joshua that was come out of the Captivity as a brand pluckt out of the fire He that was called the Angel v. 1. is here called the Lord v. 2. and this Lord intercedes with the Lord for his Protection of Joshua against Satan That which gave the Devil advantage against Joshua was his Sins which as the Targum saith were the Marriages of his Sons to strange Wives His Sins whatsoever they were are here called filthy Garments and Joshua standing in these before the Angel v. 3 4. The Angel commands them that stood about him saying take away the filthy garments from him Here again by commanding the Angels he sheweth himself their Superior Afterward when the filthy Cloaths were taken off this Angel saith to Joshua Behold I have caused thy Iniquity to pass from thee words that if one Man had said to another the Jews would have accounted Blasphemy Mat. ix 2 3. For who say they can forgive Sins but God only But here was one that exercised that Authority over the High Priest himself This could be no other than he that was called of God a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek Psal cx 4. of whom the Jewish High Priest even Joshua himself was but a figure But he goes farther adding I will cloth thee with change of raiment that is according to the Targum I will cloth thee with righteousness ver 5. And he * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he said Jon. Targ. said again commanding the Angels Let them set a fair Miter on his head and they did so and clothed him with Garments and the Angel of the Lord stood by Here again he is called an Angel at last as he was at first ii 3. It is an Angel's Office to be the Messenger of God and so he often owned himself to be in saying The Lord sent me And yet this Messenger of God commands the Angels ii 4. iii. 4 5. and himself stands by to see them do his commands v. 5. This Angel calleth Israel his People and saith he will dwell among them ii 10 11. He takes upon him to protect his People v. 5. and to avenge them on their enemies v. 10. He intercedes with God iii. 2. He forgives sin and confers Righteousness iii. 4. If all these things cannot be truly said of one and the same Person then here are two Chapters together that are each of them half Nonsense and there is no way to reconcile them with sense but by putting some kind of force upon the Text whether by changing the words Socin in Wiek 1. ii p. 565. or by putting in other words as Socinus honestly confesseth he has done in his Interpretation And he saith they must do it that will make sense of the words It is certain they must do so that will interpret the words as he would have it But he and his followers bring this necessity upon themselves They that will set up new Opinions must defend them with new Scriptures For our parts we change nothing in the words and in our way of understanding them we follow the Judgment of the ancient Jewish Church that makes all these things perfectly agree to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This we see in Philo who often calleth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * De Somn. p. 466. B. Eus praep vii 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo L. 1. Quaest Sol. as Philo calls the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De migr Abr. p. 416. B. 418. C. Quis rer Divin haeres B. p. 397. G. De Somn. p. 457. B. Quod Deus sit immut p. 249. B. Quis rer Divin haer p. 397. G. God and yet as often calleth him an †De Somn. p. 463. F. De Prof. p. 364. B. Angel the Messenger of God and ‖ our High-Priest and * De profug 466. B. De Somniis p. 594. E. Quis rer Divin p. 397. G. Vit. Mos iii. p. 521. B. our Mediator with God The same hath been shewed of the Word elswhere out of the Targums And here in this Targum though no doubt it hath been carefully purged yet by some oversight it is said ii 5. That the Word shall be a wall of fire about Jerusalem And if the Modern Jews had not changed the third Person into the first it would have followed that his Shekinah should be in the midst of her as himself saith afterward v. 10 11. He would dwell in the midst of her meaning in the Temple where the Word of God had his dwelling-place always before its destruction as has been abundantly shewn in this Chapter and as we shewed from Ezekiel it was promised he should dwell there again after its Restauration CHAP. XVI That the Ancient Jews did often use the Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word in speaking of the Messias I Hope what I have said upon the Appearances of the Word in the Old Testament proves beyond exception that the Word which is spoken of in the ancient Books of the Jews is a Person and a Divine one From thence it is natural to conclude that St. John and the other Holy Writers of the New Testament who made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could not rationally give to that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any other Idea than that which was commonly received in the Jewish Nation Nothing more can be required from me than to refute fully the Unitarians who pretend that the Word signifies no more than an Attribute or the eternal vertue of God and who to confirm this assertion of theirs observe that in the Targums the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never employed when they speak of the Messias The Socinian Author who wrote against Wecknerus insists very much upon this observation Let us therefore examine how true that is which he affirms and supposing it true how rational the consequence is which he draws from thence in opposition to it I lay down these three Propositions which I shall consider in as many Chapters The first is that in several places of the Ancient Jewish Authors the Memra or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for the Messias And so that it is certain that St. John hath followed the Language of the Jews before Jesus Christ in taking the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Divine Person that in the fulness of time as it was foretold
by the Prophets did assume our flesh Joh. i. 14. The second is that the Jews of old did acknowledge the Messias should be the proper Son of God The last is that the Messias was represented in the Old Testament as being Jehovah that should come and that the ancient Synagogue did believe him to be so I begin with the first of these three Articles And upon this I must put my Reader in mind that it should not be a just subject of admiration if we could not prove such a thing by many of the Jewish Books It is clear that when the Jewish Authors did consider the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they considered him as the true Lord of Heaven and Earth and chiefly of their own Nation Whereas the Messias is often represented to the Prophets as one that should appear in a very mean condition and whatsoever glory is attributed to him in other places of the Ancient Revelation which brought them to believe till the last times that the Shekinah was to be in him there were some Characters which could hardly be applied to him as being Personally the Word himself Such are his Sufferings described Psal xxii and Isa liii Such is his riding upon an Ass and coming to Jerusalem which they refer constantly to the Messias as you may see in their Ceremonial Book or Aggada of Pesach But altho we should suppose that the places we are going to cite cannot expresly convince the Reader of this truth yet we might establish it by necessary consequences from them For example It is universally received that Jacob speaks of the Messiah Gen. xlix 10. Onkelos Paraphrases it the People shall obey him And yet Gen. xlix 24. he makes the Word the Governour of the People The ancient Jews hold that the Word delivered Israel out of Egypt and to the Word they apply all the Appearances ascribed to the Angel of the Lord. Does it not follow from hence that they understood the Messiah by the Word since they confess the Messiah is called the Angel of his Presence Isa lxiii 10. the Angel of the Covenant Mal. iii. 1. which words they refer constantly to the Messias The ancient Jews affirm that it was upon the motion of the Word that their Ancestors were to move and that He ordered them to prepare themselves for a sight of God Onk. on Exod. xix 17. And is not this it which Amos demands of the People with respect to the Messiah ch iv 12. The Jews relate that the Temple was built for the Word as was also the Tabernacle where the Majesty of the Word resided After this whom could they understand but the Word of the Lord of whom Malachy promised that he should come to his Temple chap. iii. 1. which words relate constantly to the Messias The Jews thought him to be the Messias that is spoken of by Zech. ch vi 22. And whom else could they think him but the Word who is named by Zechariah the East and the Sun of Righteousness by Mal. iv 2. Especially since Philo interprets that place of Zechariah of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Confus Linguar p. 278. where he speaks of him as of the first-born of God and of the Creator of the World The Jews held that it is said of the Word God is a consuming fire Onk. on Deut. iv 24. which renders it natural to understand him what is to the same sense spoken of the Messias Mal. iii. 2. iv 1. The Jews believed a promise of the Messias Deut. xviii 15. But Onkelos notes here that the Word shall revenge himself of them that disobey the Messias They maintained with Philo de Agric. p. 152. B. de Somn. p. 267. B. that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the first begotten of God Could they then imagin that any other but he was meant in the places where the like Titles are owned even down to our times to be given the Messias as Psal ii 7. lxxxix 28. lxxii 1. They held as did Philo that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 led the People through the desert and referred to him Psalm xxiv wherein he is called the Shepherd And could they do this without reflecting how often this Title of Shepherd is given by the Prophets to the Messias They held that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was adored in his Appearances to the Patriarchs and could they doubt whether the Messias whom all the Kings of the Earth must adore Psal lxxii 11. had any affinity with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They assert that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the great High Priest Phil. de Somn. p. 463. F. And how could they deny that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be the Messias when they constantly ascribed to the Messias what we read of his Priesthood Psal cx 4. Whom did Isaiah see in that Vision ch vi but the Messiah And yet the Targum there calls him the Word of the Lord. When Isaiah speaks of the Messias ch viii 14. that the Lord shall be a stone of stumbling the Targum reads the Word of the Lord using it as one of the Names of the Messias The like it does on ch xxviii 16. where it is manifest the Messias is spoken of Isaiah saith ch xii 2. Behold God my Saviour I will trust in him Jonathan renders him I will trust in the Word of Salvation i. e. in the Word the Saviour The same Prophet ch xli 4. having called Jehovah the First and the Last he attributes to the Word the Title of Redeemer v. 13 14 16. which Title properly belongs to the Messias And so the whole is applied by Jesus Christ to himself Rev. i. 8 17. xxii 13. God is called Isa xlv 15. the Saviour of Israel and the same thing is said of the Word v. 17 22 24. where the Messias is treated of But I foresee these consequences will not seem strong enough to a Socinian Let us therefore produce out of Philo and the Targums some places where the Notions of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Messias do appear positively the same For Philo 1. He declares that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the first begotten of God in Euseb Praep. vii 13. p. 323. which he had from Prov. viii 25. Psal ii 7. But this proves unanswerably that in the judgment of the Old Jews the Messias should be the same Person with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing the Messias is called the first-born Psal lxxxix 28. 2. He explains the last Zech. vi 12. by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Text runs thus Thus speaks the Lord of Hosts saying behold the man whose name is the Branch or as the Greek has it the East he shall grow up out of his place and he shall build the Temple of the Lord. This is understood by the Jews of the Messias But Philo plainly says that this East here spoken of is the Word the first-born of God the Creator of the World
King as he hath been the first which they infer from Psal lxxii 8. and Dan. ii 35.44 in Bresh Rabba ad Gen. xlii 6. Now it is the very description of the Word of God as you see in Jonathan's Targum upon Deut. xxxii 39. Quando revelaverit se Sermo Domini ad redimendum populum suum dicet omnibus populis Videte quod ego nunc sim qui sum fui ego sum qui futurus sum nec alius Deus praeter me 4thly Jonathan on Micah vi 14. has the same Notion The Text runs Feed thy people with thy Rod the flock of thy heritage which dwell solitarily in the wood in the midst of Carmel let them feed in Bashan and Gilead as in the days of old But Jonathan paraphrases it thus Feed thy People by thy Word the People of thy Heritage in the Age to come a Term always used to denote the Times of the Messias and consequently shews that the Word shall be in the Messias 5thly The same Jonathan who affirms that the Word gave the Law on Horeb and made a Covenant with Israel refers to the Messias what Philo saith of the Word Zech. vi 12. as we see him on Mal. iv 2. We might infer the same thing from those Prophecies that speak of God as anointed as Psal xlv 7. Of God as sent Isa xl 9. Of God for the sake of whom God forgives Dan. ix 17. For the Targum in many places applies these Expressions to the Word though the Passages themselves are supposed by them to concern the Messias The same Truth may be also collected from hence That the Word is clearly distinguâ—â—hed from God who sends him and from the Holy Spirit who is to rest on the Messias in respect of his Human Nature Which is a good Argument that the Word and the Messias according to the common Notion of the Ancient Jews was to be one and the same Person That Sense was so well known in the Synagogue that you see in Midrash Tehillim upon Psal xxxiii that the Shekinah which was in Heaven was to leave them and to be upon the Earth and that although it was not possible for any Mortal to see her in this Life in the future Age which is the second coming of the Messias she is to be seen by Israel who are then to live for ever and to say as you see in Isa xxv 9. Here is your God And according to Psal xlviii 15. He is God our God as it is observed by Tanchuma and many others But this I shall shew more distinctly in evincing 2dly That the Jews who esteemed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Son of God did likewise believe the Messias should be the Son of God CHAP. XVII That the Jews did acknowledge the Messias should be the Son of God GOD having by a great Number of Appearances settled it in the Minds of the Jews That there was a true distinction between the Lord and the Angel of the Lord to whose care they were committed did afterwards more plainly intimate to them than he had done to the Ancient Patriarchs who and what this Angel was I mean he gave them Revelation in Scripture concerning the Nature of the Messias in the expectation of whom he had trained them up by so many extraordinary Appearances For this purpose he raised David to the Throne and made him a Prophet that his Dignity might cause attention to his Prophecies and his Authority establish the Psalms which he writ by Inspiration into a Form of Worship most acceptable to God We therefore find in his Psalms all the Passions which the Promise and hope of the Messias naturally produce arising from more distinct Notions of him than were formerly given And afterwards God raised up other Prophets until Malachi who all tread in David's steps and pursue his Notions as far as they concern the Messias It might be gathered from several things in the Writings of Moses as Gen. iii. 15. that the Messias should be more than a man because he was to destroy the Works of the Devil and whosoever did that must be stronger than he as our Saviour shews in the Parable of the strong man Matth. xii 29. Because God respecting the coming of the Messias promised to dwell in the Tabernacles of Sem Gen. ix 27. which the Ancient Jews understood of the Shekina Talm. Babyl Joma fol. 9. col 2. Because he was to bless all Nations as was promised Abraham Gen. xii 3. as it is acknowledged by the Author of the Book Chasidim § 961. and that could not be done but by the Shekinah dwelling among them as the Jews acknowledge it Because he was to be King of all Nations of the Earth as Jacob prophecied Gen. xlix 10. and as Balaam foretold of the Messias according to Onkelos he was to smite the corners of Moab and destroy all the Children of Seth or as Onkelos renders it to have dominion over all the Children of men Num. xxiv 17. But it was necessary that the notion of the Messias should be yet more distinct And to this end there was a constant Succession of Prophets from David to Malachi who by their particular Characters of the Messias excited a more ardent desire in the Jews that God would fulfil his promise concerning him Let us enquire a little by what degrees this Light became more distinct and shew what impression it caused in the Jews before the coming of our Lord. I lay it down then as a truth that the Prophets from David do constantly represent the Messias as the proper Son of God one begotten by a proper and not a figurative Generation That God hath a Son is declared in Solomon's Question Prov. xxx 4. What is his name and what is his Son's name For it appears clearly by the description of God's Works and Attributes which goes before these words that this Question cannot be understood but of the true God and of his true Son the same which is spoken of Prov. viii 22. as being Eternal and Verses 24 and 25. as being begotten by God And indeed although the Author of the Zohar refers sometimes those words What is his Son's name to the People of Israel who is called the first-born of God nevertheless he gives them their true sense in referring them to the Messias who is spoken of in Psalm ii in these words Thou art my Son and kiss the Son Part 3. fol. 124. col 3. Philo in his Pieces hath preserved the sense of the Ancient Jews in this matter that this Son was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as where he saith that the Word by whom they swear was begotten All. 11. p. 76. B. that God begat his Wisdom according to Solomon Prov. viii 24. De temul p. 190. D. which Wisdom is no other than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. p. 194. that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the most Ancient Son the Eternal Spirit of God but the World is
very words he shews he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Jews believe till this day that although the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Jehovah nevertheless the Father is the Superior Light and they call it the great Luminary R. Men. fol. 135. col 2. He saith to his Disciples Joh. xv 16. Whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my Name he may give it you to hint to them that he was the Shekinah by whom they were to have access to the Father The same of whom God said My Name is in him as the Jews acknowledge R. Menach fol. 56. col 3. fol. 53. col 4. He speaks of the Holy Ghost Joh. xv 26. as proceeding from the Father and the Jews have this Idea when they suppose that the third Enumeration or Person which they name Bina and which they render by the Holy Ghost as you see in the famous Book Saare Ora proceeds from the first by the second So Zohar and the Book Habbahir quoted by R. Menach fol. 3. col 1. In the same Chapter he represents his Emanation from the Father as the Jews conceived the Emanation of the Wisdom or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the first Enumeration from which it draws all the Influxes and Blessings This is the Doctrine of R. Nechounia ben Cana and of the Rabboth quoted by R. Menac fol. 1. col 2. He saith Joh. xvii 21. That all may be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee Just according to the Idea of the Jews who say of the time of the Messias that God then shall be one and his Name one Zech. xiv R. Men. fol. 135. col 4. We see in the Acts of the Apostles ch vii 52. St. Stephen reproaching the Jews that they sold the just for Money What is the Ground which St. Stephen builds upon It is clear according to the Jewish Notions who give to the Shekinah the name of Just and apply to him the words of Amos ch ii 6. where it is spoken of the just sold for Money R. Men. fol. 17. col 3. fol. 19. col 2. St. Paul Act. xx 28. saith that God hath redeemed the Church by his Blood and that according the Jewish Notions whose constant Doctrine is That the Salvation of Israel is to be made by God himself who refer to him Psal xxii and the place of Zechary ch ix 9. and who pretend that the Shekinah shall be their Redeemer R. Men. fol. 19. col 4. fol. 58. col 4. fol. 59. col 1. The same St. Paul 1 Cor. xv calls Jesus Christ the Adam from above shewing that he followed the Notions of the Jews who call the Shekinah the Adam from above the heavenly Adam the Adam blessed which are the Titles which they give only to God R. Men. fol. 14. col 3. He makes a long and deep Reflection Ephes v. upon the love of Jesus Christ to the Church who gave himself for her Redemption he considers the Church as his Wife and seeks in the first Match between Adam and Eve a great and a deep Mystery and a Type of that between Jesus Christ and the Church In all these he follows the Jewish Notions who look upon the Shekinah as the Bride of the Church R. Men. fol. 15. col 3. St. Paul Hebr. vi and vii considers Melchisedek as a Type of Jesus Christ and that according to the Notion of the Jews who agree that Melchisedek was the Type of the Shekinah which they call the King of Peace and the Just R. Men. fol. 18. col 1. fol. 31. col 1. He calls God Hebr. x. a consuming fire and applies to Jesus Christ that very Idea But he speaks so after the Jewish manner for they believe the power of judging the World belongs to the Shekinah and they refer to him what is said in Exodus that God is a consuming fire R. Menach fol. 6. col 4. fol. 8. col 3. He supposes Hebr. xii that Jesus Christ gave the Law and spoke upon Mount Sinai but this according to the Jewish Idea of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Shekinah which they believe to have given the Law and to have appeared then and to have spoken with the Israelites R. Men. fol. 56. col 2. Jesus Christ calls himself Apoc. i. the First and the Last because Isaiah hath spoken so ch xlix but chiefly according to the Notion of the Jews who did acknowledge the Word to be the first King and that he shall be the last all Nations being to be subjected to him after the destruction of the fourth and last Monarchy spoken of in the iid and in the viith of Daniel He calls himself King of Kings Apoc. xix 16. But exactly according to the Jewish Notion which is that such a Title belongs to Jehovah and to the Shekinah that is Jehovah R. Men. fol. 64. col 2. So in the last Chapter of the Revelation xxii 2. you see that it is spoken of the Tree of Life as of the Eternal Food What is that Tree of Life according to the Jewish Notion They conceive 't is the very Shekinah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is the food of Angels as saith R. Men. fol. 65. col 2. fol. 66. col 4. And they give him that Name in relation to the happiness it will cause to those which shall be saved by him R. Men. fol. 143. col 3. fol. 146. col 1. I could easily enlarge much more upon this Article but it should be more fit for a Comment upon the New Testament than for such a Work which we are now engaged in What has been said shews sufficiently that the first Christians followed exactly the steps of the Apostles and that the Apostles and Jesus Christ himself followed exactly the Notions of the ancient Synagogue CHAP. XXII An Answer to some Exceptions taken from Expressions used in the Gospel WHat has been said about the Notions which the Writers of the Gospels the Apostles and the first Christians had of the Messias shews plainly that they were the same that were then common among the Jews But because some Objections are made against what has been said I will for the satisfaction of the Reader examine those which seem most material and might prejudice which I have already established The first is raised from our Saviour's Expressions when he speaks of himself It is that which St. Chrysostome T. i. Hom. 32. observes that although Christ declared himself to be God as appears by his way of speaking all along and named himself the Son of God yet he never actually took upon him the Name or Title of God while he lived upon Earth Which seems very strange for there was great reason to expect that he should have exprest himself more clearly upon so important an Article on which the Authority of the Christian Religion does depend I answer first that Christ used that caution for fear of destroying in the opinion of
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
Veritatis Besides it is so palpable that the ancient Jews particularly Philo have given the Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being a Divine Person that Maimonides his answer can be no other than an Evasion Nay it is observable that the word Davar which in Hebrew signifies Word is sometimes explained by that which is a true Person in the Books of the Old Jewish Authors who lived since Christ even in those whose authority Maimonides does acknowledge One of their ancient Books namely R. Akiba's Letters has these words on the Letter Gimel God said Thy Word is setled for ever in Heaven and this Word signifies nothing else but the healing Angel as it is written Psal cvii. 20. He sent his Word and he healed them He must needs mean a Person namely an Angel though perhaps he might mistake him for a created Angel Lastly The Notion which Maimonides does suggest can never be applied to Psal cx 1. which is thus rendred by the Paraphrast The Lord said to his Word where the Word does manifestly denote the Messias as the ancient Jews did fairly acknowledge It is true that in the common Edition that place of the Targum is rendered thus The Lord said in his Word or by his Word but it is a poor shift For in his Word does certainly signifie to his Word or of his Word the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Chaldeans having naturally that double signification as appears from many places Thus it signifies concerning or of Deut. vi 7. Jer. xxxi 20. Cant. viii 8. Job xix 18. Psal l. 20. It signifies to in Hos i. 2. Hab. ii 1. Zech. i. 4 9 13 14. Numb xii 2 6. 1 Sam. xxv 39. You may to this observation about Psal cx 1. add that of the Text of Jonathan's Targum on Isa xxviii 5. where the Messias is named in the room of the Lord of Hosts The second Evasion used by Moses Maimonides is More Nevoch pag. 1. c. 23. where he tells us in what sense Isaiah said that God comes out of his place namely that God does manifest his Word which before was hidden from us For says he all that is created by God is said to be created by his Word as Psal xxxiii By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the breath of his mouth By a comparison taken from Kings who do what they have a mind to by their word as by an Instrument For God needs no Instrument to work by but he works by his bare Will neither has he any Word properly so called Thus far Maimonides But it is not true as I shewed before that the Word in the Chaldee Paraphrase signifies no more than the manifestation of the Will of God I have quoted so many places out of the Apocryphal Books out of Philo and out of the Paraphrase it self which shew the contrary that Maimonides is not to be believed upon his bare word against so many formal proofs It is not true neither that Psal xxxiii 6. expresses only the bare act of the Will of God as Maimonides does suppose I shewed before that the great Authors of the Jewish Traditions which Maimonides was to follow when he writ his More Nevochim give another sense to those words and do acknowledge that they do establish the Personality of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Holy Ghost which they do express by the second and third Sephira or Emanation in the Divine Essence That which made Maimonides stumble was that he believed that Christians made the Word to be an Instrument different from God which is very far from their opinion For they do as well as Philo apprehend the Word as a Person distinct from the Father but not of a different nature from his but having the same Will and Operation common to him and the Father and this they have by Divine Revelation A famous Socinian whom I mentioned already being hard put to it by the Authority of the Targums has endeavoured in a Tract which he writ and which has this Title Disceptatio de Verbo vel Sermone Dei cujus creberrima fit mentio apud Paraphrast as Chaldaeos Jonathan Onkelos Targum Hierosolymitanum to shake it off by boldly affirming that the Word of the Lord is barely used by them to express the following things The Decree of God His Commands His inward Deliberation His Promise His Covenant and his Oath to the Israelites His design to punish or to do good A Prophetick Revelation The Providence which protected good Men. In short the Word by which God does promise or threaten and declare what he is resolved to do Of which the said Author pretendeth to give many instances I have already proved how false this is what that Author so positively affirms that the term Word is never found to be used by the Paraphrasts to denote a Person The very place which I just now quoted out of R. Akiba's Alphabet were enough to confute him I need not repeat neither what I said that supposing all were true which he affirms of the use of the word Memra in the Paraphrasts yet he could not but acknowledge that Philo gives quite another Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely as of a real Person in which he visibly follows the Author of the Book of Wisdom The Unitarians of this Kingdom do for that reason reject Philo's Works as being Supposititious and written after our Saviour's time I say therefore that the sense which he puts upon the Targums is very far from the true meaning of the words which they use when they speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in many places I shall not examine whether in any place of the Targums the word Memra is used instead of that of Davar which in Hebrew signifies the Word or Command of God Rittangel positively denies it And the truth is that the Targums commonly render the word Davar by Pitgama and not by Memra To be fully satisfied of it one needs but take an Hebrew Concordance upon the word Davar and search whether the Paraphrasts ever rendered it by Memra But supposing Rittangel should deny the thing too positively however the Targumists do so exactly distinguish the Word when they mention him as a Divine Person that it is impossible to mistake him in all places by putting upon them those senses which the Socinian Author endeavours to affix to them that he may destroy the Notion which they give of the Word as being a Divine Person And though I have already alledged many proofs of it yet this being a matter of great moment I will again briefly speak to it to confute that Author and those who shall borrow his Arguments Let an impartial Reader judge whether any of the Socinian Author's senses can be applied to the word Memra in Onkelos his Targum Gen. iii. 8. They heard the voice of the Word of the Lord. And Gen. xv 1 5 9.
than he usually rendered which yet he did for great reasons One great Objection of the Socinian Author which he much insists upon is that the Christians never quoted the Authority of the Targum against the Jews before Galatinus who lived at the beginning of the 16th Century But that since him Heinsius Vechnerus and some others followed him in that fancy Supposing this to be true I cannot see what advantage it would be to him Put case the Ancients were not capable Scholars enough to peruse the Jewish Books can this ever prejudice truth And ought not they to be received how late soever they come by whose care soever they be vindicated and asserted But it is absolutely false that Christians before Galatinus have nothing of the Jewish Opinions about this matter I shewed in the vii Chap. of this Book that Ribera and others which would have these Paraphrases to be written after St. Jerome are much mistaken And consequently this Socinian Author who followed them and Vorstius in his Notes on Tsemach David was also mistaken about the Antiquity of the Targums But our Socinian says if they are so ancient how comes it to pass that they have not been quoted by the Christians that disputed against the Jews in ancienter Times They were very few of ancient Christians that writ upon these matters And of them yet fewer understood the Chaldee or even the Hebrew Tongue most of them rested upon the Authority of Philo of the Book of Wisdom and of other Authors who were famous among the Jews before Christ and who had writ full enough upon this Subject as may be seen by what Eusebius quotes out of them And no doubt those places of Philo and those other Jewish Writers were well known to Clemens of Alexandria and to Origen whose Work Eusebius much followed as appears by reading his Books and as he himself does acknowledge The Socinian Author affirms too positively that Galatinus is the first that used that Authority of the Targums He must not suppose a thing which is absolutely false Origin lib. 4. in Celsum speaks of a Dispute between Jason and Papiscus in which saith Origin Christianus ex Judaicis Scriptoribus cum Judaeo describitur disputans plane demonstrans quae de Christo extant vaticinia Jesu ipsi congruere c. What were those Writings of the Jews but the Targums who had translated Becocma for Breschith according to the Jewish Notion which I have explained so many times and for which St. Jerome reflects upon Jason who hath quoted the Targums as if he hath read them in Hebrew Besides it appears by Justin the Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho That in his time some Jews had already endeavoured to invalidate the Proofs taken out of Scripture in their so frequent Stile about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we see them in the Targums For Justin undertakes to prove that the Word is not barely an Attribute in God nor an Angel but a Person and a true Principle of Action And this he proves by his Apparitions and by other Characters and Signs of a real Person such as are his executing his Father's Counsels his being his Off-spring and his Son properly so called Here I must add one thing which is that St. Jerome hath express'd the Sense of the Targum in many places especially upon the Prophets which Sense he had no doubt from the learned Jews whom he had consulted and they from the Targums I confess that Jerome never made his business to write against the Jews nor did any other Christian that was ever able to make use of the Targums Some indeed of the Fathers took the pains to learn Hebrew because the Old Testament was writ in that Language but those were very few and none of them ever troubled himself with the Chaldee St. Jerome himself how skilful soever in the Hebrew understood not the Chaldee as appears by his Writings The first that set himself to beat the Jews with their own Weapons was Raimundus Martini a convert Jew who lived about the Year of Christ 1260. He writ a Book against them call'd Pugio Fidei which shews he had well studied their Rabbins and he makes use of their Targums to very good purpose Out of this Book there was another compos'd and call'd Victoria adversus Judaeos by Porchetus Salvaticus that is said to have lived in the next Century Neither of their Books was much considered in those ignorant times wherein they lived So that when Learning came more in request one might venture to make use of their labours and set them forth as his own with little danger of being discover'd This very thing was done by Galatinus who lived about the end of the Fifteenth Century He did with great Impudence almost transcribe his Notions and the Arguments against the Jews out of that Work of Porchetus without so much as mentioning his Name That Socinian mentions the Pugio in the close of that Book against Vechner by which it may be supposed he read that Book of Raimundus above mentioned Which if he did and consider'd it with Galatinus he could not but see that this Work of Galatinus was as to the main of it a Stream from that Fountain of Raimund's Pugio And if he saw it he did very disingenuously in making Galatinus the first among Christians that made use of the Jewish Notions The last Objection of the Unitarians against what I have proved about the Word's being a Person from the consent of the Chaldee Paraphrases when they speak of the Memra of the Lord and his Actions is made by the same Socinian Author who affirms that in the Targums the Memra implies no more than that God works by himself because the word Memra is used of Men as well as of God I will not deny but that here and there in the Targums the word Memra has that Sense as Hacspan well observes in his Notes on Psalm cx and produces many Instances of it to which many more might be added But when all is done this Objection much the same with that of Moses Maimonides can't absolutely take away that force of those Texts where the Memra is used of God and to be satisfied of this it is but making the following Reflexions First That Philo one of the most famous Jews of Egypt very well apprehended and clearly declared That by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answers to the Hebrew Memra the old Jews understood a real Principle of Action such as we call a Person Secondly That the Jewish Authors more ancient than Philo had the very same Notion of it as may be seen in the Book of Baruch and in that of Wisdom the Notions of which Philo has clearly followed in his Book de Agric. apud Euseb de Proepar Evang. pag. 323. And Lastly That even since Christ the Cabalistical Authors followed and to this day do follow the same Notion making use of those places where the Memra and the Cochma that is
after his example to worship â— Brick by which they understood the figure of a Cross Sanhedrin fol. 107. Sota fol. 47. Lastly It may be observed that the many Heresies which arose in after-times among Christians concerning our Saviour's Person and Natures gave the Jews very great prejudices against the Gospel The Arians for two hundred years then the Nestorians and Eutychians but chiefly the Tritheists visibly taught Doctrines contrary to truth In particular the Writings of John Philoponus who was a Tritheist were much perused by the Mahometans and Jews because they begun to study Philosophy at which John Philoponus was very good as Maimonides tells us More Nevochim pag. 1. ch 71. Now this Heresie destroying the Unity of God which is the fundamental Article of the Jewish Religion could not but give the Jews just matter of horror and detestation for Christianity Besides the Jews themselves confess that in their dispersion they have lost the knowledge of many of the Mysteries of their Religion One cannot think how it could be otherwise if one considers 1. The long time they have been dispersed which confounds the most distinct and darkens the clearest matters 2. Their extreme misery in so long a captivity which subjected them to so many different Nations and many of them such as had a particular hatred both of their Nation and Religion 3. But chiefly if one considers that those Mysteries were communicated only to a few Learned Men and kept from the knowledge of the common people as Maimonides does acknowledg and proves by many Reflections worth considering in More Nevoch p. 1. ch 71. After this the Jews having still great aversion to Christians it ought not to seem strange that the Cabalists should be so few in number among them and that most of the Jewish Doctors should follow in their Disputes against Christians Explications and Notions contrary to Scripture about the Trinity and the Divinity of the Messias For even before Christ there were amongst them many Errors crept amongst some of them about those matters so that they that lived after Christ did easily follow the worst Explication and prefer it before the better in the heats of their Disputes against Christians Neither is it to be wondered at that the same Men should maintain contrary Propositions and defend them equally in their turns as they come ta have to do with different adversaries The Papists are a remarkable instance of this when they dispute and write against the Eutychians to prove the Truth of Christ's Human Nature one would admire at the strength and soundness of their Arguments But when they are upon the manner of our Saviour's existence in the Sacrament as to his Flesh and Blood nothing can be more contrary to their former Positions than what they affirm on this occasion they destroy quite what they said before and one would think they had forgot themselves The Jews do perfectly like the Papists in this and having less knowledg and labouring under greater prejudices than they no wonder if they maintain contrary Principles one to another This may be seen in some of the old Hereticks which sprung from amongst the Jews and brought their Opinions into the Christian Religion the Cerinthians for instance who owned that the Word had dwelt in Christ but did imagin that it was but for a certain time And if the Patripassians and afterwards the Sabellians who had the clear Revelation of the Gospel yet for all this opposed the Doctrine of the Trinity as contrary to the Unity of God and affirmed that there was in God but one Person which had appeared under three differing Names It ought not to appear strange that the Jews blinded by their hatred against Christians should through their prejudices apprehend that what their old Masters taught about the three Sephiroth did not signifie three Persons in God but only the three different manners in which God works by one and the same Person I have already hinted that the Jews even about the end of the fourth Century had great offence given them by the Christians in their Worship of Saints and Relicks which being at last as Idolatrous as the Heathenish made the Jews look upon them as no other than Heathens This may be seen in many places of the Talmud which they pretend was finisht about five hundred years after Christ But especially in their Additions to those Books which they made when Idolatry was so ripe both in the East and the West One might make a Book of those too just Accusations of the Jews against the Christians which caused them to be Banisht out of many Kingdoms The Dominican Friers made a Collection of most of them in the Thirteenth Century when Christians going much into the Holy Land did something retrieve their lost knowledg of the Greek and other Eastern Languages Since that time the Jews transcribing their Talmud and their other ancient Books begun to use the words of Samaritans instead of those of Apostates and Hereticks which they used before in speaking of Christians against whom in the old Times they had made many Rules Besides the violent and Antichristian methods which some Christian Princes used against them by a false Principle of Religion to make them against their Will profess Christianity made them look upon Christians as no better than savage Beasts which besides their outward Form had nothing of Humanity and regarded neither Justice nor Religion For though their own Jewish Principles are persecuting enough yet they can't but condemn the same Principles when used against them nothing being more apt to make Men reject Truth than Persecution because Conscience ought to be instructed not inslaved as Experience in all Ages does abundantly confirm It cannot be denied but that the Jews Crucified Christ for affirming himself to be the Son of God Neither can it be supposed that he meant no more by it but that he was God's adoptive Son as the Jews were or some of their Kings For he spoke in an ordinary plain intelligible sense He meant therefore by it not only that he was the Messias but that the Word of God dwelt in him the same which the Jews acknowledged to be the Off-spring of God And for this the Jews Crucifyed him as he hints plainly enough in the Parable of the Husbandmen for he designs the Prophets by the name of meer Servants and himself he calls the Son in opposition to the Prophets and tells the Scribes and Pharisees that though they knew him to be such yet would they for all this put him to death So that by Crucifying him they did purpose to destroy a Person whom they knew to be the true Messias but by whom they were like to have lost their credit with the People He having called them a parcel of Hypocrites who made a Trade of Religion who in their hearts laught at it and only endeavoured to get by it This is the meaning of those words which Christ puts in their
Cat. xii the Concil Sirm. c. 13. Gregor Baet tr de fide Theodor. Q. 5. in Exod. Leo. i. Ep. 13. ad Pulch. and many others In like manner they refer to the Word those Appearances of God which be vouchsafed to Abraham Isaac and Jacob himself as you may see in Just Mart. Apol. for those to Abraham and Isaac and for those to Jacob in Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7. Novat I. de Trin. c. 26 27. Proc. Gaz. in h. l. The ancient Christians did in this no more than the ancienter Jews did before them who by Elohim in this place did not understand a created Angel but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom the Targumists and the strictest Followers of their Fathers Traditions are wont to express by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo makes all the Appearances which we meet with in the Books of Moses to belong to the Word and the latter Cabalists since Christ's time not only do the same but deny that the Father ever appeared saying it was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only that manifested himself to their Fathers whose proper name is Elohim For this consult R. Menachem de Rekanati from Beres Rabba on the Parasch Breschit f. 14. c. 3. Ed. Ven. and on Par. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f. 30. c. 1. I have often wondred how it came to pass that most of the Divines of the Church of Rome who would seem to have the greatest veneration for Antiquity should so much despise it in this Question wherein the ancient Jewish and Christian Church do agrees Sanctius in his Notes on the Acts ch 7. says it is a difficult question among Divines whether God's Appearances in Scripture were performed immediately by God himself or by his Angels And then having cited several ancient Fathers who thought it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that appeared he adds Sed Theologis jam illa sententia placet quae statuit Angelorum ministerio antiquis hominibus oblatam esse divinam speciem quae est sententia Dionys de caelest Hier. c. 4 c. To the same purpose Lorinus another Jesuit speaks in Act. vii 31. But this is not the worst of it that they forsake the judgment of the Ancients they do herein make bold to contradict the plain words of Christ himself Joh. i. 18. Christ saith thus No man hath seen God at any time the only begotten who is in the bosom of the Father he hath declared him And parallel to this Text is Joh. vi 46. Certainly he must be very blind who does not see that Christ in these words not only denies the Father to have shewn himself in those Appearances that were made to the ancient Patriarchs but also asserts them to himself and not to the Angels Away then with such Divines who setting aside the Authority of Christ do chuse to Theologize in the principal Heads of Religion according to the sense and prejudices of the Moderns We desire to be no wiser in these matters than the Primitive Christians were among whom it passed for an establisht truth that the Elohim in Jacob's Prayer was the very Jehovah of the Jews termed by them sometime Shekinah and sometime Memra SECT III. As to the second Question it would be no Question at all but for the obstinacy of some latter Jews He that reads the Hebrew Text without prejudice cannot but see the Elohim in v. 15. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the following verse whence it follows that this Redeeming Angel is Jehovah But because this opinion is contradicted by some of the chief Modern Jews as Abarbanel and Alshek on this place and by most of the Popish Divines as well as some few of the Reformed that have not sifted this matter accurately we will offer some proofs for the conviction of them that are not obstinately bent against it And 1. If Jacob had had two Persons then in his mind so different as God and a created Angel are he would have coupled them together by the particle ז which is not only conjunctive but very proper to distinguish the Persons of whom we speak and said God before whom my Fathers walked God who fed me from my youth and the Angel that delivered me bless the Lads But Jacob is so far from doing thus that on the contrary he puts a ה demonstrative as well before the Angel as before God without any Copulative between which sufficiently demonstrates he means the same Person by God and the Angel Munster was well aware of this and therefore being willing to distinguish the Redeeming Angel from God he Translates it with an addition the Angel also 2. It cannot be easily supposed That Jacob would in a Prayer use the Singular Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in common to Persons in Nature so very different the Creator and a Creature He certainly ought to have said God and the Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may they bless the Lads if he had spoken of two But his speaking in the the Singular may he bless is an Argument of his having in his Eye one Person alone whose Blessing he prayed for on his Seed Otherwise it would have been a Prayer of a strange Composition For according to Athanasius we do no where find that one prays to God and the Angel or any other created Being at the same time for any thing Nor is there any like instance of such a Form as this God and an Angel give thee this 3. But setting aside those Rules with which the contrary Opinion can never be reconciled consider the thing it self in Jacob's Prayer and you will find it absurd to distinguish between the Offices of God and those of a created Angel toward Jacob. The Office ascribed to God is feeding him from his Youth the Office ascribed to the Angel is delivering him from all Evil which must be very distinct Offices if the Persons be distinguished And so R. Jochanan accounts them Gem. Pesasch f. 118. Tho he believes the Angel to be the same with Elohim yet he contends that feeding the greater Work is attributed to God and delivering the lesser Work to an Angel The same thing is said by the Author of Jalkut on this place and R. Samule on the Book Rabboth abovementioned But in the Phrase of these Jewish Masters this Distinction is very insipid it is harshly formed without considering that Jacob in this Blessing reflected on the Words of the Vow which he made at Luz afterwards called Bethel because of God's appearing to him there Now these were the Words of Jacob's Vow If God will be with me and keep me in the way in which I shall walk if he will give meat to eat and cloathing to put on and bring me home in safety to the house of my Father then shall the Lord be my God Gen. xxvii 20 21. Here you see it is from God that Jacob expects to be kept in his way i. e. to be redeemed from
all Evils that might happen and that he esteems this to be no less a benefit than Sustenance or Cloathing which he mentions in the second place Here is no Angel spoken of here and since the redeeming Angel is to be expounded from this place he cannot be a created Angel for here is no other spoken of but the Lord. 4. By fancying him a created Angel who delivered Jacob from all Evil they make Jacob to be a mere Idolater as ascribing that to a Creature which belongs only to the Lord of the Creation The Scripture appropriates to God the Title of Redeemer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor do godly Men ever say of a Creature that it delivers them from all Evil. David I am sure never does but when he speaks of the Tribulations of the Righteous he adds but the Lord delivers him out of all Ps xxxiv 20. And Jacob on another occasion directs his Prayer to the Lord that appeared to him at Luz saying Save me from the hand of my brother Esau for I fear him much Gen. xxxii 9 10 11. 5. God as I said has so appropriated the Name of Redeemer to himself that Jacob could not without Sacriledge communicate this Title to any Creature though never so excellent We cannot be ignorant that David makes this the proper Name of God Psal xix 14. as does Isaiah Chap. xliii 14. xlvii 4. And this Jonathan confesses on Isa lxiii 16. in these words Thou art our redeemer thy name is from everlasting i. e. this is the Name that was designed for God from the beginning which yet can't hold true if in this place Gen. xlviii 16. it be ascribed by Jacob to a created Angel 6. It appears plainly from Gen. xlix that Jacob neither desired nor expected any Blessing from a created Angel but only from God Thus he prays c. The God of thy Father shall be thy helper and the Almighty shall bless thee with the Blessings of Heaven above c. Not a word of a mere Angel that redeemed him from all Evil so far was the Patriarch in his former Blessing from begging of an Angel the Multiplication of his Seed which was the only thing which he could now expect of God as the Jews own Bechai Praef. in Pent. f. 1. c. 1. 7. The same Conclusion may be drawn from the very Order of Jacob's Prayer Had Jacob intended a created Angel by him whom he names in the last place as a Redeemer from Evil and whose Intercession with God he bespeaks in behalf of his Children would he not have prayed to the Angel in the first place It is most rational so to do He that wants the Interest of a great Man to introduce him to the King he does not in the first place direct his Petition to the King immediately but first to the great Man and afterwards by him to the King Let the Papists therefore look to the Absurdity of their proceeding while they first pray to God and then to Saints and Angels Let those Jews who are of the mind of Isaac Abarbanel and Franco Serrano in his Spanish Notes on this place and stickle for Angel-worship see how they can clear themselves of this difficulty as well as reconcile themselves with those ancienter Jews who abhor this sort of Idolatry Maim Per. Misna ad tit Sanh c. xi SECT IV. How firm these Reasons are to shew the Angel here spoken of to be an uncreated and not a created Angel is I hope evident to every one Something however of great importance may be still added to illustrate this weighty Argument and that is the Judgment of the Ancient Synagogue The most ancient Jewish Writers and they that received the Traditionary Doctrine from them though mortal Enemies of the Christian Religion yet agree with the Christians in the Sense of this Text. For God be thanked such Truths were not renounced all at once by these Enemies of our Faith but they began to dissemble them by degrees as they found them turning against them in their Disputes with the Christians To begin with the Writings of the Jews before Christ we find it is God the Word ver 12. who is described as he that delivers from all Evil in the Book of Wisd xvi 8. no doubt with respect to this place where he takes the Angel that delivered Jacob from all Evil to be God The same Doctrine is to be met with in Philo the Jew that lived before Christ and in Christ's time He * Allegor ii p. 71. D. expresly affirms of the Angel that delivered Jacob from all Evil that he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so does Onkelos in his Chaldee Paraphrase translating the Words of Jacob simply as they lie in the Text without any Addition Jonathan indeed seems to be of another mind in his Paraphrase that runs thus God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac worshipped the Lord that fed me from the time I began to be till this day may be pleas'd that the Angel may bless the Lads whom thou hast ordained to deliver me from all Evil. Here he distinguishes the Angel from God but that he did not mean a Creature by this Angel is clear for that in other places he translates this Angel by the Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and especially in that remarkable place where the same Angel is treated of Isaiah lxiii 8 9 10. he saith it was the Word that redeemed Israel out of all their Afflictions Let us pass to the Jews after Christ's time and shew that they did not immediately renounce the Doctrine of their Forefathers The Author of the Book Zohar in Par. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fol. 123. hath these words which he repeats often afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come see the Angel that redeemed me is the Shekinah that went along with him This is sufficiently intimated by the ancient Author Tanchuma in his Book Jelammedenu who notes on Exod. xxxiii that the Jews would not have a created Angel go before them but God himself in these words Moses answered I will not have an Angel but thy own self Now the Jewish Commentators on this place of Exod. xxxiii explain of the Shekinah the words thy own self and always distinguish the Shekinah from all created Beings R. Salomon in his Notes on this Text has these words The Angel that delivered me i. e. the Angel who was wont to be sent to me in my affliction as it is said Gen. xxxi 11 13. And the Angel of God spake to me in a dream saying Jacob I am the God of Bethel c. The Note of R. Moses Ben Nachman on this Text Gen. xlviii 16. is very remarkable The Redeeming Angel saith he is he that answered him in the time of his affliction and who said to him I am the God of Bethel c. he of whom it is said that my name is in him The like he has on Exod. iii. where the appearance in the Bush
with the Generality of Papists though they cannot be ignorant they therein dissent from the Divinity of the ancient Jews and the Fathers of the Christian Church and even the more Learned and candid Romanists such as Masius was I might add which perhaps they have not considered though they therein contradict the whole strain of the New Testament See Mercerus ad Pagnini Lexicon p. 1254. The intended shortness of this Treatise will not permit me to enlarge on this Head However one thing I must not pass over which is worthy the examination of the less cautious Divines It is very certain that the God that appeared to Jacob in Bethel was the very God that fed Israel in the Desert and against whom the Israelites in the Wilderness did rebel Now the Apostle is express 1 Cor. x. that he was Christ whom the Jews tempted in the Wilderness i. e. that he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not a meer Angel The Apostle takes it for granted it was a thing undisputed by the Synagogue in his time And indeed unless this be allowed St. Paul's reasoning in this Chapter is trifling and groundless Well! what can Bellarmine say to this he who asserts a created Angel to be spoken of Gen. xlviii 16. He has forgot what he said on that Text when he is come to this place He here strenuously urges it against the Socinians to prove that Christ was then in being when the Jews tempted him in the Wilderness And since hereby he owns that Christ in his Divine Nature was he that led Israel through the Wilderness who is sometimes called God and sometimes an Angel he inconsiderately grants what he had denied before that the Angel who redeemed Jacob from all evil being the same Angel that conducted Israel was also God SECT VI. You see what Contradictions Bellarmine falls into out of his zeal to promote the Doctrine of Invocation of Saints I wish there were not something as bad in our Divines that carries them in the like Contradictions The best I can say for their excuse is only this They have not carefully attended to the Stile of Holy Scripture Two or three things therefore I will mention which occur frequently in Scripture that methinks would have suggested higher thoughts of this Angel to one that considered what he read He that considers how often our Lord Christ is called in the New Testament the Spouse or Husband of the Church and compares it with the same Title that God appropriates to himself under the Old Testament Estate will make little doubt that it was the same Christ who was then married to Israel By the same rule one may infer that our Lord Christ in calling himself a Shepherd had a respect to that Title by which he is so often ascribed in his dealings with Jacob and his Posterity This the ancienter Jews were sensible of and therefore both here Gen. xlviii 15. and ch xlix 24. where God is mentioned as a Shepherd they understand it of the Shekinah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. Menachem de Rekanah from the Book Habbahir in Pent. f. 84. c. 2. Of this also the Jews in Christ's time were not ignorant who hearing Christ in one of his Sermons likening himself to the good Shepherd Joh. x. did presently apprehend that he would be thought the Messias and therefore took up stones to stone him And then in the process of his Discourse to maintain this Character he made himself one with the Father As Christ called himself a Shepherd to shew that he was the God that had fed Jacob and his Posterity like sheep so also is Christ most frequently represented in the New Testament under the Notion of a Redeemer intimating thereby that he was the same Redeeming Angel of whom Jacob had spoken It was he that was called * Isa lxiii 9. the Angel of his Presence by whom God redeem'd his ancient People And he is also called the Angel of the Covenant †Mal. iii. 1. in the promise of his coming in the time of the Gospel Here I should have put an end to this Tract but for two Objections that lye in my way and seem to require some kind of Answer The first is taken from the Jews who many of them expound this Redeeming Angel by Metatron and Metatron according to them being a created Angel or as some say no other than Enoch that was Translated there seems to be as many Authorities against us as for us But let it be observed 1. Though the Jews have several Names of Angels which are not mentioned in Scripture yet they are all formed out of the Names of God according to the Rules of their Cabala and that with respect to the Ten Sephiroth as Buxtorf has noted Lex Talm. p. 828. 2. This is plain from the word Actariel which is at the head of the Jewish forms of Excommunication * v. Bartolocci f. 4. 450. This is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name of the first of the Ten Sephiroth whence the Talmudists place Actariel upon the Throne Beracoth f. 7. c. 1. and distinguish him from the Ministring Angels that stand before the Throne But I refer the curious Reader that would know more of this to the ancient Jewish Book Intituled Berith Menucha c. 1. 3. This is no less plain of the Angel Metatron who as they say was he that discoursed with Moses Exod. iii. and the Angel in whom God placed his Name So that they acknowledge though it is framed from the Latin Tongue yet it expresses the same that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does as R. S. Jarchi on Exod. xxiii confesses Now St. Hierome on Ezek. i. 24. notes that the Greek Interpreters sometimes render God's Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which leads us into the meaning of those ancient Jews that accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Metatron to be the same 4. The Generality of Jews are so far from believing Metatron to be Enoch that they believe him to be the Messias the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before his Incarnation in our phrase but in theirs the Soul of the Messias which they look on as something between God and the Angels whom nothing separates from the Living God See Reuchlin l. i. de Cabala p. 651. where he proves Metatron to be the Messias from their Writings Or in short take the confession of Menasse ben Israel Q. 6. in Gen. § 2. And truly if one would compare all those places of the Old Testament that mention the Angel whom the later Jews call Metatron he would find such Properties belonging to this Angel as are incommunicable to a Creature And this shews that they who have departed in this point from the Tradition of their Fathers did it on this ground because they were loth to acknowledge the Divinity of the Messias which seemed to be clear upon allowing Metatron to be the Messias They were more
and forced sense on them But with what face the Mahometans can object this I know not when they themselves do so grosly pervert the passages in Deut. xxxiii 33. Hab. iii. 3. Deut. xviii and xxxiv in favour of Mahomet and his Law and in favour of Mahomet only many Texts in Isaiah Ezekiel Zephany and other Prophets as you may see them alledged by Hazzadaula in his Fourth Book but especially when they urge all those places in St. John's Gospel where the Paraclete is spoken of as so many Promises of Mahomet's coming I must confess some warm indiscreet Mahometans in dispute with the Christians have given them occasion to believe that the Mahometans generally accused the Christians with falsifying their Scriptures Just as the petty Controvertists of the Church of Rome have impudently averred the Scripture to be corrupt in many places the better to establish their Church's Authority And thus we find Ahmed the Mahometan charging both Jews and Christians with altering of their Bibles Hotting Hist p. 364. But as there are in the Roman Church Men wiser and calmer that see the consequences of so rash an Accusation and have therefore proved unanswerably the Integrity of the Sacred Text so are there among the Mahometans more wary and cautious Disputants who despise and disallow those false Charges advanced by some of their party against the Jews and Christians Such a one was Hazzadaula in the Book before cited who solidly proves that by the care the Masorite Jews took to ascertain the Text of the Old Testament it was impossible they should be willing to corrupt it and that if they had been willing yet they were divided into so many Sects of unreconcileable hatred to one another as rendred it impossible for them to do it He then shews that the difference which is between the several Versions as between the Seventy and Syriack for Example was no prejudice to the Purity of the Text it self but that this arose from the several Views the Interpreters then had from the different Notions and senses they affixed to the Original words He then passes to the Examination of the various Readings which our Unitarians triumph in and shews that neither their number nor variety ought to diminish the Authority of the Originals He gives Reasons for his preference of the Jewish Bible to that of the Samaritans He proves the corruption of the Books of the Old Testament could not be made before Jesus Christ's time since he never reproached them for it which he would certainly have done had they been guilty of it nor could the corruption come in after Christ's time because the Jews and Christians who are such mortal Enemies have had these Books in keeping and daily read them though they interpret them very differently In a word we cannot easily meet with a more perfect Treatise on this Subject nor one more proper to refute the bold insinuations of some who under the name of Christians and Men skilled in Critical knowledg have undertaken to shake the Foundations of the Christian Religion and for this purpose would discredit the Authority of the Holy Scripture under the disguise of making it rest on the Authority of Tradition The Reader will I hope reflect on what I have said concerning the conduct of the Socinians in their Disputes with us relating to the Divinity of Christ To which I may add that some of them less modest though more sincere than Socinus being convinced that no Answer could be given to the Quotations from the Old Testament that were used in Proof of our Lord's Divinity thought fit to reject the Epistle to the Hebrews which contains those Quotations as an Apocryphal Piece This Enjedinus has done and thought it a quick way to deliver himself at once of many difficulties from which otherwise he could not extricate himself For had he believed Socinus's Answers Satisfactory he had never betaken himself to this last and desperate shift Others of whom Mr. N. is one do suppose that whatever makes for the advantage of the Trinitarians Cause is all forged And so they abandon the fanciful Explications Socinus has given of the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel as having no need of them so long as they can make one believe that the Trinitarians have foisted into the New Testament whatever they pleased This is still a shorter answer than the former The first rendred one particular Book only useless to the Trinitarians but this makes all those Books of the New Testament useless from whence any Objection may be drawn against the Unitarians What end the Socinians have in these dangerous attempts whether to facilitate the Conversion of the Jews as they pretend or to do service to the Atheists and Deists as it seems to be their real design is worthy every Christian 's serious enquiry If they intend the Conversion of the Jews we may well demand of them what way they will take to effect it Smalcius one of their chief Writers has affirmed that the Books of the Old Testament are of little use to convert the Jews De Div. Chr. c. x. already quoted His reason is because if we interpret any Text in the Old Testament of Jesus Christ we must interpret it Mystically that is according to quite another sense than that which the words do naturally import And now admitting this to be true what use can a Socinian make of the Old Testament against the Jews Sommerus and Francis David whose Opinions as to the denial of the Worship of Jesus Christ are embraced by Mr. N. being forced to own that the Author of the Book of Proverbs did ascribe a Son to God ch xxx 4. and yet being not willing to acknowledg it as a truth took the readiest way to defeat the Authority of this Book and placed it among the Apocryphal Writings One should wonder how such Socinians are like to be Converters who call the Jews Canon of the Scriptures into question and consequently leave no Books from whence as from a common Principle they may on each side deduce their reasonings As for the Books of the New Testament what use can they make of them Yes very great saith the Socinian If the Books of the New Testament were reformed and those Patches intirely taken from them which were never written by the Apostles though added under their Names such as the Epistle to the Hebrews which was brought in after the year 140. of Christ and stuffed with Doctrines of a Trinity and Christ's Divinity contrary to the Faith of Jesus Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians then we might hope to have success in the Conversion of the Jews But in truth they are not likely to succeed with their reformed Socinian Gospel so well as they would have us believe For 't is reasonable to think that every Jew of common sense would retort the Book on themselves and tell them frankly This is not the Christians Gospel from whence you offer to convince me this