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
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
those which Christ so severely condemned And these I shall explain more particularly giving some examples of their use and also of their Authority 1. They had by Tradition the knowledge of some Matters of fact which are not recorded in their Scriptures and of other things they had more perfect and minute accounts than are recorded in the Writings of Moses and the Prophets Particularly Philo the Jew writing of the Life of Moses declares that what he had to say of him was taken partly out of Scripture and partly received by Tradition from their Forefathers * De vita Mosis pag. 468. Edit Genev. Ib. p 470. F. Of this latter sort was the long account he there gives of Moses being brought up in all the Learning of the Egyptians for there is nothing of this in the Old Testament Therefore when St. Stephen says the same thing Act. VII 22. we know that he also had it not from Scripture but from Tradition Hence also it is that St. Paul has gathered the names of Jannes and Jambres Magicians that resisted Moses and the Truth 2 Tim. iv 8. for their names are no where in Scripture but they are in Jonathan's Targum on Exod. i. 15. vii 11. from whence also they are taken into Talmud Sanhedrin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 9. Hence also St. Paul knew that the Pot wherein Moses laid up the Manna was made of Gold Heb. ix 4. which also the Seventy and Philo the Jew de congr quaer er gr pag. 375. Ed. Gen. do assure us of Mechil fol. 20. Col. 1. Tanchumah fol. 29. Col. 4. And tho' the Modern Jews deny this and say the Pot was of Earth yet it is acknowledg'd by the Samaritans that is was Golden This must have been from Tradition because there is no such thing said in Scripture It was from hence that the Apostle had that saying of Moses when he saw the dreadful appearance of God upon Mount Sinai Heb. xii 21. So terrible was the sight that Moses said I exceedingly fear and quake And another that writ soon after Paul's death namely Clemens Bishop of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians cap. 17. has other like words that Moses said I am the Steam upon the Pot. Both these sayings being no where in Scripture they could not have known them otherwise than from the Jewish Tradition From hence also St. Jude ver 9. had that passage of the dispute that Michael the Arch-Angel had with the Devil about the Body of Moses Which Body as Josephus probably says Ant. iv 8. if any Relick of it had been kept would have drawn the people into Idolatry That passage we are told by some of the Fathers was taken out of an Apocryphal Book call'd the Analepsis of Moses Clem. Alex. in Jud. Origen peri Archon iii. 2. Grotius tells us the Jews have the like things in their Midrash on Deut. in the Aboth of R. Nathan and in other of their Books It was from hence that St. Paul understood that some of the Prophets were sawn asunder Origen Respons ad African Heb. xi 37. though he spoke in the Plural he meant it only of one saith Origen namely of the Prophet Esay who was Sawed asunder by the Command of Manasses according to the Jewish Tradition Which also is mentioned by Justin Martyr as a thing out of dispute between him and Tryphon the Jew and it is taken notice of in the Gemara tr Jevamot Ch. iv It was from hence that Christ took what he said of the Martyrdom of Zechary the Son of Berachiah who was killed between the Temple and the Altar Orig. Ib. p. 232 c. Mat. xxiii 35. which Origen there also mentions as a Jewish Tradition tho' he says they supprest it as being not for the Honour of their Nation I do not deny but that there might be some ancient Authors besides the Canonical Writers to keep up the memory of these names of Persons and other matters of fact As for example Joseph Ans. l. 10. c. â—â— that there were eighteen High Priests who Officiated in the first Temple although they are not all mention'd in Scripture But if there were any such Authors it is very probable that they were lost in the Captivity or in the bloody Persecutions of the Jewish Church long before the time of our Blessed Saviour and his Holy Apostles Josephus who lived in that Age and writ the History of the Jews makes no mention of them and gives a very lame account of the things which passed under several Kings of Persia 2. Besides the Canonical Books they had Writings of a less Authority wherein were inserted by the great Men of their Nation several Doctrines that came from the Prophets which were in very high esteem and veneration though not regarded as of equal Authority with the Writings of the Prophets It is not improbable that St. Matthew had respect to some Book of this nature when he quoted that which is not found in express words in any of the Writings of the Prophets That the Messias should be called a Nazarene Mat. ii 23. if he doth not allude to the Idea of the Jews who referred to the Messias the Netzer or Branch spoken of by Isa xi 1. So Christ himself may seem to have alluded to a passage in one of these Books Joh. vii 38. where he saith He that believeth on me as saith the Scripture out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water for there is nothing perfectly like this in any of the Canonical Books that are come to our hands St. Paul the Apostle as Jerom in Ephes v. 14. observes has cited divers such Apocryphal Books accommodating himself no doubt to the Jews who gave much deference to their Authority Thus he did Rom. ix 21. and perhaps in some other places of his Epistles from the Book of Wisdom which is still extant in our Bibles Elsewhere he has Quotations out of Books that are lost as 1 Cor. ii 9. out of an Apocryphal Book that went under the name of the Prophet Elias and Ephes v. 14. out of an Apocryphal piece of the Prophet Jeremy as we are told by Georgius Syncellus in his Chron. p. 27. A. But the most express Quotation of this kind is that which is alledged by St. James iv 5 6. For these words The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to Envy are not in any Books of the Old Testament nor are the following words God resisteth the proud but giveth grace to the humble And yet both these sayings are quoted as Scripture by the Holy Apostle Of the first he saith plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture saith Then he goes on to the other and of that he saith also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any Nominative Case but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before mentioned which implies that the Scripture saith this also Now what Scripture could he mean for it is certain that neither of these
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
some of the Jews that held the Transmigration of Souls and say particularly That the Soul of Adam went into David and the Soul of David was the same with that of the Messias I say to pass by that the true Reason of such use of the Names of David and Elias is this because David was an excellent Type of the Messias that was to come out of his Loins Act. ii 30 31. And for John Baptist he came in the Spirit and Power of Elias Luk. 1.17 That is he was inspired with the same Spirit of Zeal and holy Courage that Elias was formerly acted with and employ'd it as Elias did in bringing his People to Repentance and Reformation 5. We ought to do the Jews that Justice as to acknowledge that from them it is that we know the true sense of all the Prophecies concerning the Messias in the Old Testament Which sense some Criticks seem not to be satisfied with seeking for a first accomplishment in other persons than in the Messias The Jews meaning and applying those Prophecies to the Messias in a mystical or a spiritual sense is founded upon a Reason that offers it self to the Mind of those that study Scripture with attention Before Jacob's Prophecy there was no time fixed for the Coming of the Messias but after the giving of that Prophecy Gen. xlix 10. there was no possibility of being deceived in the sense of those Prophecies which God gave from time to time full of the Characters of the Messias It was necessary 1. That the Kingdom should be in Judah and not cease till the time about which they expected the Coming of the Messias 2. That the lesser Authority called here the Law-giver should be also established in Judah and destroyed before the Coming of the Messias which we knew came to pass by the Reign of Herod the Great and some years before the Death of our Saviour And indeed the Talmudist say that forty years before the Desolation of the House of the Sanctuary Judgments of Blood were taken away from Israel Talm. Jerus l. Sanhedr c. dine mammonoth Talm. Bab. C. Sanhedr c. Hajou Bodekim And Raymondus Martini who writ this Pugio at the end of the XIIIth Century quotes Part III. Dist 3. c. 16. § 46. One R. Rachmon who says that when this happened they put on sackcloth and pull'd off their hair and said Wo unto us the Scepter is departed from Israel and yet the Messias is not come And therefore they who had this Prophecy before them could not mistake David nor Solomon nor Hezekiah for the Messias Nor could they deceive themselves so far as to think this Title was applicable to Zorobabel or any of his Successors In short there appeared not any one among the Jews before the Times of our Blessed Saviour that dared assume this Title of Messias although the Name of Anointed which the word Messias signifies had been given to several of their Kings as to David in particular But since Jesus Christ's coming many have pretended to it These things being so it is clear that the Prophecies which had not and could not have their accomplishment in those upon whose occasion they were first delivered were to receive their accomplishment in the Messias and consequently those Prophecies ought necessarily to be referred to him We ought by all means to be perswaded of this For we cannot think the Jews were so void of Judgment as to imagine that the Apostles or any one else in the World had a right to produce the simple words of the Old Testament and to urge them in any other sense than what was intended by the Writer directed by the Holy Ghost It must be his Sense as well as his Words that should be offered for proof to convince reasonable Men. But we see that the Jews did yield to such Proofs out of Scripture concerning the Messias in which some Criticks do not see the force of those Arguments that were convincing to the Jews They must then have believed that the true sense of such places was the literal sense in regard of the Messias whom God had then in view at his inditing of these Books and that it was not literal in respect of him who seems at first-sight to have been intended by the Prophecy And now I leave it to the Consideration of any unprejudiced Reader that is able to judge Whether if these Principles and Maxims I have treated of were unknown to the Jews the Apostles could have made any use of the Books of the Old Testament for their Conviction either as to the Coming of the Messias or the Marks by which he was distinguishable from all others or as to the several parts of his Ministry But this is a matter of so great importance as to deserve more pains to shew that Jesus Christ and his Apostles did build upon such Maxims as I have mentioned And therefore any that call themselves Christians should take heed how they deny the force and authority of that way of Traditional interpretation which has been anciently received in the Jewish Church CHAP. IV. That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of the Christian Doctrine by this 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 IF we make some reflections which do not require a great deal of Meditation it is clear that Jesus Christ was to prove to the Jews that he was the Messias which they did expect many Ages ago and whose Coming they look'd on as very near He could not have done so if they had not been acquainted with their Prophetical Books and with those several Oracles which were contained in them Perhaps there might have been some difference amongst them concerning some of those Oracles because there were in many of them some Ideas which seem contrary one to another And that was almost unavoidable because the Holy Ghost was to represent the Messias in a deep humiliation and great suffering and in a great height of Glory But after all the method of calling the Jews was quite different from the method of calling the Gentiles They had the distinct knowledge of the chief Articles of Religion which the Heathen had not They had all preparations necessary for the deciding this great question Whether Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias or not They had the Sacred Books of the Old Testament they were acquainted with the Oracles as well as with the Law They longed after the coming of the Messias They had been educated all along and trained up in the expectation of him They had not only those Sacred Books in which the Messias was spoken of but many among them had gathered the Ideas of the Prophets upon that subject as we see by the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus And indeed we see that Jesus
Gentiles by the Messias as we see in Sepher Chasidim § 961. and to the abode of the Sekinah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is explained by R. Joseph de Carnisol Saare Isider fol. 3. col 4. fol. 4. col 1. And so St. Peter supposes it to be spoken of the Messias Act. iii. 25. We may reflect in like manner on the promise God made the People Deut. xviii 15. To raise them up a Prophet like unto Moses St. Peter makes use of it as being spoken of the Messias that he should give a new Law Act. iii. 22. But the Modern Jews do all they can to evade this Application Nevertheless it appears to have been the Idea of the ancient Synagogue because we read that they speak of the Law which was to be given by the Messias as of a Law in comparison to which all other Law was to be lookt upon as meer Vanity So Coheleth Rabba in c. ii and in c. xi It is not without some surprize that we read the Application St. Mat. ii 15. has made of these words in Hos xi 1. Out of Egypt have I called my son which seem only to be spoken of the Children of Israel and not of the Messias And yet in the Book Midrash Tehillim Rabba on Ps ii we may see the Jews referred to the Messias what is written of the People of Israel Exod. iv 22. Which is an argument that St. Matthew cited this passage from Hosea according to the sense the Jews gave it with respect to the Messias The Actions of the Messias are related in the Law in the Prophets and in the Books called Hagiographa or in the Psalms In the Law Exod. iv 22. Israel is my first-born In the Prophets Isai lii 13. Behold my servant shall deal prudently In the Psalms as it is written The Lord said to my Lord Psal cx i. St. Matth. viii 17. referrs the words of Isai liii 4. to the miraculous Cures that Christ wrought And he follows herein the ancient Tradition of the Jews which taught that the Messias spoken of in this Chapter of Isaiah should pardon Sins and consequently heal their distempers which were the effects and punishments of their Sins From hence it follows that according to their Tradition the Messias should be God even as Jesus Christ did then suppose when he healed the Paralytick Man by his own power Matth. ix 6. and proves that he did not blaspheme in forgiving Sins which the Jews thought belonged only to God St. Matth. i. 23. applies the words of Isai vii 14. to Christ's being born of a Virgin Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son c. This he did likewise according to the ancient Idea of the Jews which was not quite lost in the time of Adrian the Emperor For R. Akiba who lived and died under his Reign makes the following Reflection on this Prophecy He had considered that Isaiah in the beginning of the following Chapter received Order from God to take to him two Witnesses Uriah the Priest who lived in his time and Zechary the Son of Berachiah who lived not as he thought till under the second Temple Upon which he saith that God commanded the Prophet to do thus to shew that as what he had foretold concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz was true by the Witness of Uriah who saw it accomplish'd so what he had foretold concerning the Conception and Delivery of a Virgin must be accomplished under the second Temple by the Witness of Zechary who lived then See Gemara tit Maccoth c. 3. fol. 24. 3. We see that Jesus Christ Joh. iv 21 c. alludes tacitly to the Prophecy of Mal. i. 11. concerning the Sacrifices of the New Testament This is a matter at present controverted between Christians and Jews But Christ deliver'd the sense of the Synagogue as it is evident from the Targum on those words of Malachy which applies them to the Times of the Messias 4. One would think it were only by way of Similitude that Christ applied to himself the History of the Brazen Serpent in saying Joh. iii. 14. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wilderness so must the Son of Man be lifted up But there appears to be more in it than so The ancient Jews lookt upon the Brazen Serpent as a Type of the Messias so we find by their Targum on Numb xxi 8. which expounds this Serpent which Moses lifted up by the Word of the Lord who is also called God Wisd xvi 7. compared with chap. xv 1. Although Philo while he hunts for Allegories gives another Idea of it de Agric. p. 157. 5. It may also seem to be only by way of Allusion that Christ calls himself the Bread that came down from Heaven alluding to the Manna which came down from Heaven as we read Exod. xvi But he that looks into the ancient Jewish Writers shall find that herein also our Saviour followed the common Jewish Idea For Philo who writ in Egypt before Jesus Christ began to preach tells us positively that the Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Manna Lib. quòd Deter pot insid p. 137. St. Paul Heb. 1.5 cites God's Words to David concerning one that should come out of his Loins 2 Sam. vii 14. I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son as if they respected the Messias How could he do thus When on the one hand he calleth Jesus Christ holy undefiled harmless separate from Sinners and on the other hand in that Promise to David God takes it for granted that that Son of his might be a Sinner and thereupon threatens in the very next words 2 Sam. vii 14. If he commit iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of men which suits well with Solomon but not at all with the Messias The reason is St. Paul followed the sense of this place which was commonly received among the Jews who as they refer to the Messias the Psal lxxii cx and cxxxii where the same Ideas occur so they must have referred to the Messias whatever is great in this Prophecy and to others whatever therein denotes humane infirmities And Indeed it was not very hard to give to that Oracle a further prospect viz. to the Messias 1st Because Solomon was made King in the Life of his Father whereas the Son which God speaks of was to be born after David's Death 2dly Because it is spoken of a Seed not born from David but from David's Children 3dly Because the Mercy of God was to make the Kingdom of David last for ever whereas the Kingdom of Solomon was divided soon after his Death and but two parts of twelve were left to Rehoboam his Son St. Paul Gal. iv 29. alludes to the History in Gen. xxi 9. as a Type of the Persecutions which the Jews should exercise on the Christians Whereon does he build this First having proved it his way that the Christian Church was typified in Isaac
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
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
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
the Creator of all things so the Author 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 And so they call that Wisdom the Worker of all things Wisd ch vli 22. They speak of the Wisdom in the same words as Solomon doth Prov. iii. and ch viii 22. where he expresseth the true notion of Eternity And indeed they attribute to her to have been eternal Ecclus ch iv 18. They refer constantly to God himself that is to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God as we shall hereafter shew at large what is attributed to the Angel of the Lord in many places of the Books of Moses as to have delivered the Israelites from the Red Sea so Wisd ch xix 9. They went at large like horses and leaped like lambs praising thee O Lord who hadst delivered them Again to have had his Throne in a cloudy Pillar Ecclus xxiv 4. To have been caused by the Creator of all things to rest and to have his dwelling in Jacob and to have his inheritance in Israel Ibid. v. 8. and so to have given his memorial to his Children which is the Law commanded for an heritage into the Congregation of Jews Ib. 23. So they attribute to him to have spoken with Moses Ecclus ch xlv 5. He made him to hear his voice and brought him into the dark cloud and gave him commandments before his face even the Law of life and knowledg that he might teach Jacob his Covenants and Israel his Judgments Again to come down from Heaven to fight against the Egyptians Wisd ch xviii 15 16 17. Thine Almighty Word leapt down from Heaven out of thy Royal Throne as a fierce man of war into the midst of a land of destruction And brought thine unfeigned Commandment as a sharp sword and standing up filled all things with death and it touched the Heaven but it stood upon the Earth So they maintain that the Angel who appeared to Joshuah ch 5. was the Lord himself so the Author of Ecclesiasticus ch xlvi 5 6. He call'd upon the most high Lord when the enemies pressed upon him on every side and the great Lord heard him And with hailstones of mighty power he made the battle to fall violently upon the Nations and in the descent of Bethoron he destroyed them that resisted that the Nations might know all their strength because he fought in the sight of the Lord and he followed the mighty one They refer the Miracles wrought by Elias to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you see in Ecclesiasticus ch xlviii 3 4 5. By the Word of the Lord he shut up the Heaven and also three times brought down fire O Elias how wast thou honoured in thy wondrous deeds and who may glory like unto thee Who didst raise up a dead man from death and his soul from the place of the dead by the Word of the most High As there is nothing more common in the Old Testament than to call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Angel of the Lord because the Father sent him to do all things under the Old Dispensation so one can see that there is nothing more ordinary in the Apocryphal Books than to speak of an Angel in particular to whom is attributed all things which could not be performed but by God Three things prove clearly that they did not conceive a created Angel but an Angel who is God 1. Because they have this Maxim according to the constant Divinity of the Jews built upon Scripture Deut. xxxii 9. that God did take Israel for his Portion among all the Nations of the World as if he had left other Nations to the conduct of Angels so Esth ch xiii 15. 2ly Because they refer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some Histories of the Old Testament which the Jews till this day refer to an Uncreated Angel or to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Shekina or Memra da Jehova as I shall prove afterwards We see that Wisd ch xvi 12. For it was neither herb nor mollifying Plaister that restored them to health but thy Word O Lord which healeth all things So Wisd ch xviii 15 16 17. Thine Almighty Word leapt down from Heaven out of thy Royal Throne as a fierce man of war into the midst of a land of destruction and brought thine unfeigned commandment as a sharp sword and standing up filled all things with death and it touched the Heaven but it stood upon the earth I thought fit to repeat this place here to make Mr. N. ashamed who hath exposed those Ideas and laught at them which I believe he would not have done if he had reflected upon two things one is That this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is spoken of is that very man of war mentioned in Moses his Canticle Exod. xii 3. and in Juâ—lith ch ix 7. The other is that St. Paul hath followed the Notions of the Book of Wisdom speaking of a sharp sword which is to be understood not of the Gospel but of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. x. 12. But Mr. N. was in the right to laugh at such an authority which destroys to the ground the Unitarians Principles for nothing can be more clear than that this Author acknowledges a Plurality in God that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be a Person and a Person equal to the Father being set upon the Royal Throne 3ly Because they bring such appearances of that Angel which shew they conceived him as the God who ruled Israel and who had taken their Temple for the place of his abode And on the contrary they speak of God whom they considered as dwelling in the Temple in the same words which are used in Scripture when it is spoken of the name of God Exod. xxiii 21. and 1 Sam. viii 16. of the Angel of the Covenant Malach. iii. 1. and such expressions So you see in the 1. Book of Esdras ch ii 5 7. If therefore there be any of you that are of his people let the Lord even his Lord be with him and let him go up to Jerusalem that is in Judea and build the House of the Lord of Israel for he is the Lord that dwelleth in Jerusalem And ch iv v. 58. Now when this young man was gone forth he lifted up his face to Heaven toward Jerusalem and praised the King of Heaven And Judith ch v. 18. and ch ix 8. and 2 Macch. i. 25. The only giver of all things the only just Almighty and Everlasting thou that deliveredst Israel from all trouble and didst chuse the fathers and sanctifie them And ch ii 17. We hope also that the God that delivered all his people and gave them all on heritage and the Kingdom and the Priesthood and the Sanctuary And ch xiv 35. Thou O Lord of all things who hast need of nothing was pleased that the Temple of thine habitation should be
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.
In the beginning saith he Bara Elohim the Gods created Gen. i. 1. He might have said Jehovah Bara Jehovah being the proper name by which God made himself know to Moses and by him to his People Ixod iii. 15. or he might have said Eloah Bara and so he had joyned the Singular Number of Elohim which signifies God with the Verb Bara which is also the Singular Number and signifies created But Moses uses the Plural word Elohim with a Verb of the Singular Number and he repeats it thirty times in the History of the Creation only although this word denotes a Plurality in the Divine Nature and not one single Person Had Moses joyned always the Noun Elohim which is Plural with a Verb or Adjective in the Singular we might have judged that by calling God by a name in the Plural he had followed the corrupt custom which then obtained among the Heathens of speaking of the Gods in the Plural and that he designed to rectifie it by expressing the single action of God by a Singular Verb or Adjective But here this Excuse will not serve for 1. he had the word Eloah God in the Singular which he uses Deut. xxxii 15 17. and in other places He had also several other Names of God which he uses in other places all of them Singular and consequently any of them had been fitter for his use to root out Polytheism 2. Moses himself sometimes joyns the Noun Elohim with Verbs and Adjectives in the Plural There are several examples of this in his Books and more in the other Sacred Writers that imitated him in it you may see it in Gen. xx 13. xxxv 7. Job xxxv 10. Jos xxiv 19. Psal cxlix 1. Eccles xii 3. 1 Sam. vii 23. Es liv 5. which shews the impudence of Abarbanel who to elude the force of this Argument maintains that the word Elohim is a Singular In Pent. fol. 6. col 3. 6. Another Reflection on the Stile of Moses which ought to be every where Singular and yet intimates a Plurality is this That Moses in the History of the Creation brings in God speaking to some one thus Let such a thing be made and it follows it was made and again God said and God said This expression is repeated no less than eight times within the compass of one Chapter which is a thing very surprizing in so concise an History For to whom did God then speak to whom did he issue out his Orders or who was he that did execute them There were then neither Men nor Angels to obey him nor to hear him speak 3. There is no one that reads the account of Man's Creation but if he considers what he reads is struck with these words of God Gen. i. 26. Let Us make man after our Image and likeness These words in the Plural Number denote plainly a Plurality Let US make and OUR Image are too lively Characters of Plurality to be passed over without particular regard 4. We may make the same reflection on those words Gen. iii. 5. which point out a Plurality of Persons And you shall be as Gods and a little after Adam is become as one of Us ver 22. We find a like example Gen. xi 7. where God saith Let Us go down and confound their Language Again Gen. xx 13. When God caused me to wander from my Father's house the Hebrew is when the Gods caused me to wander Again Gen. xxxv 7. Jacob built an Altar and called the place El-Bethel because there God or Gods as it is in Hebrew appeared unto him All this is contained within one Book only that of Genesis We meet with the same Notion in these words of Deuteronomy ch iv 7. Who have the Gods so nigh unto them We may trace the Idea of Plurality still further in the following Books as in Joshua xxiv 19. And Joshua said You cannot serve the Lord for he is an holy God where in the Hebrew it is the Holy Gods So Solomon Prov. xxx 3. I neither learned wisdom nor have the knowledg of the Holies instead of the Holy And Eccl. xii 1. Remember thy Creators Upon the whole we should remark 1. That this Plurality is expressed in several passages of the Old Testament and not in one place only 2. That there is no kind of speaking by which a Plurality in God may be signified but is used in the Old Testament A Plural is joyned with a Verb Singular Gen. i. 1. In the beginning the Gods created Heaven and Earth A Plural is joyned with a Verb Plural Gen. xxxv 7 And Jacob called the name of the place Beth-El because the Gods there appeared to him A Plural is joyned with an Adjective Plural Jos xxiv 19. You cannot serve the Lord for he is the holy Gods 2 Sam vii 23 What one nation in the earth is like thy people like Israel whom the Gods went to redeem for a people to himself So Eccles v. 8. There be higher than they Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which stands for Gods God being called the Most High And in Eccles xii 1. Remember thy Creators in the days of thy Youth In conformity to which manner of speaking Isaiah says ch liv 5. For thy Makers are thy Husbands the Lord of Hosts is his name A Verb in the Plural is joyned with a name in the Singular as you read Eccles ii 12. as it has been observed by R. Bachaie in Parash bresch fol. 11. col 2. of the Edit in fol. from which he infers that God and the house of his Judgment are expressed there for by the King which is there spoken of he doth not understand Solomon but God as they do in the Targum upon 1 Chron. iv 23. which hath been followed by R. Bachaje Ibid. fol. 11. col 3. and by Lombroso in his Heb. Bible you have the same remark of St. Jerome upon Jer. xxiii 36. when you read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Living Gods and from which he draws an argument for the Doctrine of the Trinity 3. That though there is but one only Jehovah yet in the Holy Scripture we meet with several Elohim to whom the Title of Jehovah is given this we see in a hundred places in the Law where the words are Jehovah Eloheka i. e. the Lord thy Gods which does certainly deserve to be considered This also we more particularly see in the History of the destruction of Sodom Gen. 30.24 where it is written That Jehovah rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of Heaven There is Jehovah and Jehovah and if they do not make two I know not what will express a Plurality But we shall have more to say of this afterwards I have given in short some Marks of a Plurality in the Divine Nature which may be gathered out of the Writings of the Old Testament For the fuller satisfaction of my Reader I am next to shew that the ancient Jews made the same Reflections and
say they ought to be understood as if they were written in the Singular Others confess that truly they do denote a Plurality But that Plurality consists of God and his Angels whom he joyns with himself as his Counsellors Ask but what instance they have in Scripture of such a strange way of speaking which makes God and his Angels as it were Fellows and Companions they presently alledg that one passage of Dan. iv 17. This matter is by the decree of the Watchers and the Demand of the Holy Ones Now these Watchers and these Holy Ones say they are the Holy Angels But admit they are Angels all that is said of them in this Text will not prove what they infer from it For 1. the thing that they would prove is false and contrary to Scripture Es xl 13. which expresly denies that God has any Companions or Counsellors as hath been already shewn 2. The nature of the Works consulted on in those Texts to which they would apply this is such as is infinitely above the power of any Creature such as the Creation of Man and the confounding of Languages c. 3. In this very Text their most Learned Commentators R. Saadia Gaon and Aben Ezra do not find any such Consultation of God with his Angels as these Jews imagin they do indeed find that these Watchers and Holy Ones are the Holy Angels but they say for the Decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they pronounce it from the mouth of God and it is called their Decree because they are the Ministers of God to do whatever he commands them Thus Jer. i. 10. that Prophet is said to be set over Nations and Kingdoms to destroy and to throw down to build and to plant not that God shared that power with his Prophet or took him into Councel for such things but only that he by the appointment of God as his Minister was to declare the Sentence and Judgment of God for the doing of such things 4. This appears in the very Decree here spoken of which concerns a revolution in a great Empire But the disposal of Kingdoms is that which properly belongs to the Eternal Wisdom of God as Solomon declares Prov. viii 15 16. and not to Angels any farther than they are employed by God for the publishing or for the executing of his Sentence But after all this though I have admitted it that the Angels are here called Watchers and Holy Ones yet I am rather of opinion that these words do not signifie Angels but the three Persons in the Trinity My reason is because however that Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being Angels has obtained among the Jews I do not find them called so any where in the Old Testament Scriptures But God is often said to watch over his People Gen. xxxi 49. Psal vii 6. cxxvii 1. Jer. xxxi 28. xliv 27. and even by this Prophet Dan. ix 14. And for the other word that is here joyn'd with the Watchers viz. the Holy Ones however this may be used of Angels elswhere yet here it is certainly used of God in this Chapter v. 8 9 18. and that in the Plural as it is in Josh xxiv 19. and yet as there in Joshua the Holy Gods in the Plural are the same with the Jehovah in the Singular Number so here the Watchers and the Holy Ones in the Plural are the same with the Watcher and Holy One in the Singular v. 13. and the Decree of the Watchers and Holy Ones in this verse is called the Decree of the Most High v. 24. and it is he whom Nebuchadnezzar glorifies as the sole Author of his abasement and also of his restauration I hope the Reader will easily pardon this digression if he thinks it is one It seemed necessary that I should consider this Text at large because it is as far as I know the only place in Scripture which is brought by the Jews to colour that Interpretation with which they think to elude the force of our Arguments After all that I have alledged from Philo and the Paraphrases I do not pretend to affirm that they had as distinct Notions of the Trinity as we have nor do I deny but that sometimes they put a different construction on the Texts which we have cited in proof of this Mystery Nay I own that their Ideas are often confused when they speak of these things and particularly they refer sometimes that to the second Person which should be ascribed to the third and that to the third which properly belongs to the second Nay more I acknowledg that Philo by the Spirit Gen. i. 2. understands the Wind de Gig. p. 223. which is something strange seeing the Greek Interpreters whom he followed read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Spirit of God and not simply the Spirit which might have stood for Wind here as it does in some places of the Old Testament But Philo's Error is easily accounted for He fell into it by endeavouring to accommodate Moses his Notions to the Notions of the Philosophy that makes four Elements of all things And probably for such a reason some of the Targums might come into the same Interpretation But for the other ancient Jews they expounded this Spirit not by Wind but by that Spirit which was to rest on the Messiah in Isaiah's Language Isa xi 1. See Bresh Rabba in Gen. i. 2. And truly Rashi on these words affirms that the Throne of Glory was in the Air and that it warmed the Heavens by the Spirit of the Goodness of God blessed for ever Where by the way the Spirit of Goodness is the same with the latter of Philo's two Powers above mentioned De Sacr. Ab. 108. Those among the Jews who take the Spirit of God for the Will of God as R. Abr. doth in Tzeror hammor and some mentioned in the Book Cozri p. 5. p. 329. are not far from this Opinion And this is the sense Maimonides gives to those words The Spirit of the Lord in explaining of Isa xl 13. Mor. Neb. i. 40. It appears from Psal xxxiii 6. That the Hosts of Heaven were made by the Spirit of his mouth words which no Jew has yet interpreted of the Wind. I know Philo expresses his thoughts obscurely speaking of the two Powers of God de Cherub p. 86. he saith that the Word joyns these two Powers which he afterwards calls his Principality and his Goodness But this can raise no prejudice against our Position It shews indeed that our Author who had gathered his Notions as other Jews did from reading the Books of the Old Testament together with their Traditional Interpretations was not so much a Master of them as to make them always consist with one another Others perhaps will say he was not always constant to himself nor am I concern'd to have it granted that he was so We look not on him nor any of these Writers to be inspired but esteem them only as
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
lectitant Nazaraei Salvator inducitur lâ—quens Modo me arripuit Mater mea Spiritus Sanctus This Passage of the Nazarene's Gospel would never have been understood if we had not known that the Jews call the Holy Spirit Imma Mother as well as Binah Understanding as we see in Zohar and other Cabalists And perhaps from hence Philo de Temul calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of the World Nor are we to fancy that the Talmudists oppose the Cabalists herein No Maimonides who is a Talmudist agrees in this with the Cabalists as appears from his Book de fundament legis ch 2. Mor. Neb. p. 1. ch 68. Lastly Nor is it to be urged against what I have said that the Jews have formal Disputes against the Doctrine of the Trinity as Saadiah Sepher Emunoth ch 2. Maim Mor. Neb. p. 1. c. 71. For we may remember 1. That all their Disputes with the Christians are built on this wrong bottom That the Christians are Tritheists and deny the Unity of the Deity 2. That almost all those who dispute against the Christians on this Head contradict themselves in their Writings that are not Polemical but are drawn up in cool Blood out of the heat of dispute of which Saadiah Haggaen as I have shewed before is a Proof 3. The Study of their Rites having been the great business of the Jews for many Centuries it hath happen'd that their greatest Authors have applied themselves but little to the Study of the Traditions concerning their Doctrines In Maimonides one of the greatest Men the Jews ever had we have a plain Example of it He tells us That it was towards the declension of his Life before he could turn himself to study their Traditions and he laments his Misfortune in that he could not begin this Study sooner This is related by R. Elias Chaiim who saith he had it from a Letter of Maimonides to one of his Scholars I have said before that these Notions of the Cabalist Jews are received in all parts of the World where the Jews are found in any numbers And I say it not without good reason For 1. The Rabboth are Books received whereever there are Jews Now this Book begins with the Notion of a Second Person 2. For the Cabalists they are dispersed with the other Jews and in all places where Learning is cultivated and Study encouraged there they are to be found 3. We may well infer the Universality of this Tradition from the several different Authors that have written alike on this Subject without any Consent or Communication together that we know of R. Saadiah Hagaon writ in Babylon in the Tenth Century He was an Egyptian by Birth and the Translator of the Pentateuch into Arabick and wrote a bitter Book against the Christians which hath been printed at Thessalonica and since at Amsterdam where he disputes against the Christians Trinity yet he teaches not only the Unity but this distinction from everlasting in the Deity R. Moses Bar Nachman in the Thirteenth Century and R. Judas the Levite writ in Spain and yet we see how they agree in their Notions with the Cabalists which flourished other-where R. Aaron writ at Babylon and yet his Notions are as exactly like those of Spain as if he had trod in their Steps R. Moses Botril writ in France and he teaches the same things He that would see the Places at large may consult their Comment on the Book Jetzira It is now time to return to the Judgment of the Ancient Synagogue and to consider how it agrees or differs with us in the other Matters we have in hand CHAP. XII That the Jews had a distinct Notion of the Word as of a Person and of a Divine Person too A Great part of the Dispute we have with the Socinians depending on the true meaning of the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is spoken of as being he that created the World and was at length made Flesh and whom we Christians look upon as the promised Messias I think I can't do the Truth a greater service than in clearing this Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and shewing what thoughts the ancient Jews had concerning it Socinus confesses that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Person for he owns that St. John did describe the Man Christ Jesus by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and attributed to him the Creation of the Church which is according to him the new World But here in England the followers of Socinus will not stand by this Exposition but understand by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that virtue by which God created Heaven and Earth as Moses relates Gen. i. They obstinately deny this Virtue to be a Person i. e. an Intelligent Subsistence and rather look upon it as a Divine Attribute which they say was particularly discovered in the Mission of Jesus Christ for the Salvation of Mankind It cannot be denied us that St. John being one of the Circumcision did write with an especial respect to the Jews that they might understand him and receive benefit by it and therefore it cannot be doubted but that when he called Jesus Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he used a word that was commonly known among the Jews of those times in which he lived Otherwise if he had used this word in a sense not commonly known to the Jews he would have signified to them the new Idea he had affixed to it But he gives not the least intimation of any thing new in it though he uses the word so many times in the very beginning of his Gospel It is certain therefore that he used it in the sense wherein it was then commonly understood by the Jews Now the Idea the Jews had of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the same they had of a real and proper Person that is a living Intelligent free Principle of Action That this was their Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word we shall prove by the Works of Philo and the Chaldee Paraphrases To begin with Philo He conceives the Word to be a true and proper cause For he declares in about a hundred places that God created the World by his Word He conceived the Word to be an Intelligent Cause Because in him according to Philo are the Original Ideas of all things that are expressed in the Works of the Creation De Opif. p. 3. G. 4. C.D. He makes the Word a Cooperator with God in the Creation of Man and says that God spake those words to him Let Us make Man Gen. i. 26. It may be added that he calls the Word the Image of God and makes Man the Image of this Image * Lib. Quis rer Divin Haer. p. 400. E. F. These are some of the Characters that represent the Word as a true Person But there are others no less demonstrative of this Truth As 1. where Philo asserts that the 〈◊〉
consulted Philo's Notions of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before he made this Judgment notwithstanding that he could not but see them in Grotius on St. John's Gospel which he quotes and he could not but know how much they were insisted upon by those Writers whom he pretended to answer They do indeed so distinctly and clearly establish the Personality of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they render useless and unsuitable all the Interpretations he has found out for the Texts in the Targums The second is that he himself though he fitted his Interpretations to divers passages in the Targum thereby to break the force of them when turned against him is yet forced to acknowledg that sometimes the word Memra signifies a Person properly so called according to our sense of it The several places where the Word is said to create the World give him much trouble to elude them And though he endeavours to rid his hands of them by asserting the Word does there signifie the Power of God nevertheless he lets you understand that if you are not pleased with that Solution you may have his consent to take it in the Arian sense of the word for a created God by whom as by a real and Instrumental cause God did truly create the Universe This is the strangest answer that could be returned to so great an Objection For he must have lost his Reason who imagins that God can make a Creature capable of creating the Universe Grant this and by what Character will you distinguish the Creature from the Creator By what right then could God appropriate as he doth very often in the Old Testament the work of the World's Creation to himself excluding any other from having to do in it but himself Why should God upon this score forbid the giving worship to the Creature which is due to the Creator The Arians who worship Jesus Christ though they esteem him a Creature and those Papists who swallow whole the Doctrine of Transubstantion they may teach in their Schools that a Creature may be inabled by God to become a Creator But for us who deny that any thing but God is to be adored as Philo did before us de Decal p. 581. de Monarch p. 628. We reject all such vain conceits of a Creature being any way capable to receive the Infinite Power of a Creator There are other places also which he found he could not easily evade so at length he consents that the Memra does often denote a Person in the Language of the Targums as where we read the Word spake and the Word said But what kind of Person An Angel a Created Angel in his Judgment that speaks in the Name of God And thus he thinks the Word is to be understood in those Paraphrases when they ascribe to the Word the leading of Israel through the Desert The Reader may judge how many Texts this Answer will fit by reviewing what has been said in the two foregoing Chapters He will find I have there prevented this Answer and shewed that Philo and the Targums did not take this for a created Angel but for a Divine Person who was called an Angel in respect of the Office he discharged according to the Oeconomy between the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity and of whom the Targums generally make express mention in places where the Hebrew Text hath Jehovah Elohim or the Angel of the Lord and sometimes where it hath simply the Name Jehovah However to leave no doubt in this matter we will undertake to prove further that the Word doth not signifie a Created Angel in Philo or in the Targums but a truly Divine Person It is true that Philo sometimes calls the Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Plural But elswhere he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 singularly in terms that express his acknowledgment of him for the Creator of Angels and consequently for God This he does in his Book de Sacrif Abel p. 202. where he declares him to be the Word that appeared to Moses and separates him from the Angels which are the Hosts of God Again he describes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as true God as Creator of the World Lib. de Temulentia p. 190. D. 194. B. But the Angels after another manner de Plant. Noae p. 168. F. G. de Gigant p. 221. E. de Mundo p. 391. It is true he calls the Word an Archangel de Conf. Linguar p. 267. B. But in the same place he calls him the first-born of God the Image of God the Creator of the World p. 258. A. And in another place the Son of God that conducted Israel through the Wilderness Quis rer Divin Haeres p. 397. F.G. He was so far from taking the Word to be an Angel that he affirmed the Word used to appear to Men under the form of an Angel thus saith he the Word appeared to Jacob de Somn. p. 465. D. And to Hagar p. 466. B. We are to observe this carefully that we may make Philo agree with Philo. For one while he saith an Angel appeared to the Patriarchs and another time he saith the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appeared to them his design being to acquaint us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is named an Angel because he appeared as an Angel in these kinds of Manifestations of himself Now as to the Targums they likewise understand by this Angel a Person that is truly God For 1. Could they ascribe the Creation of the World to the Word as they do and yet think him to be a Creature Could they profess him the Creator of Mankind without asserting his Divinity Could they think him to be no better than an Angel and yet make him to be Worshipped by Men whom they know to be little lower than Angels Could they imagin him to have given the Law on Mount Sinai and not reflect on the Preface of the Law wherein the great Law-giver says I am Jehovah thy God that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt The Word is not so often called an Angel in the Targums as he is set forth with these Characters of God as the Reader may see especially in Jonathan's Targum and in that of Jerusalem Exod. iii. 14. xii 42. and in many other places 2. The Targums always distinguish the Word from the Angels representing them as Messengers employed by the Word as the Word himself is often described as God's Messenger Thus the Targ. on 1 King xix 11 12. on Psal lxviii 13 18. on 2 Chron. xxxii 21. They say the Word was attended with Angels when he gave the Law Targ. on 1 Chron. xxix 11. and when he assisted at the Interment of Moses Jonathan on Deut. xxxiv 6. 3. The Targums represent the Word as sitting on a High Throne and hearing the Prayers of the People Jon. on Deut. iv 7. 4. Jonathan saith expresly that the Word that spake to Moses was
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
that this place was related to the Messias that it was used at our Saviour's Entry into Jerusalem Mat. xxi 16. Since that time it is related to the Messias as we see in the Midrash upon Cant. i. 4. where these very words are referred to God whom the Babes of Israel were to bless which shews plainly that the praises which are spoken of are praises which are acts of Adoration and so in the Midrash upon Eccl. ch ix 1. The same positive order for the Worship of the Messias is given in Psal xlv 11. He is the Lord worship thou him There is no doubt but that Psalm is to be referred to the Messias It is so acknowledged by the Targum and by all the Jewish Interpreters What then can be said against the Worship of the Messias If the Jews of old had denied that the Shekinah was to be in the Messias then it should be rational to conclude that they did not acknowledge the Worship which is to be paid to him But they have acknowledged the Divinity of the Messias as we read in Midrash Tehillim in Psal x. Stetit Divinitas Messiae praedicavit From whence it follows by necessary consequence that they thought themselves obliged to worship him We have the same Worship of the Messias setled in Psal lxviii 32. where it is said that the Princes shall extend their hands to him from Egypt All the Jews agree that such a thing is to happen at the coming of the Messias which we call the second So Rashi We read the same in Psal lxxii where it is said v. 11. that they shall fall down and worship him No body doubts but that Psalm relates to the Messias I have taken notice in the second Chapter of this Book that the Jews refer constantly to the time of the Messias all the Psalms from the xc to the c. Now in Psal xcv v. 6 7. the words seem to be spoken of Jehovah but they were understood by the Jews of the Messias who was to have the name of Jehovah as you see in Midrash in Echa i. 6. After David what saith Isaiah of the Worship of the Messias he speaks as distinctly as can be ch xlix v. 23. The Jews understand it of the Messias whom they look upon as the Redeemer to whom all people are to make their confession from their heart as you see in Breshit Rabba upon Gen. xli v. 44. where they refer these words to the Messias Isa xlv 23. You see the same in Midr. Tehin in Psal ii 2. these words when they have seen his great tribulation they shall come and shall worship the King Messias as it is said Isa xlix 23. Some perhaps shall think they can avoid the strength of this Argument drawn from the Worship to be paid to the Messias by allowing that it is spoken in those places which I have quoted of a civil worship to be paid to the Messias as a great King But it should be in vain for a Socinian to employ such an evasion because we find that the ancient Jews have prevented it by giving us instances of all the several Parts of such a Worship either Faith Vows or Prayers or Sacrifices which cannot be paid but to a true God and I have quoted so many places upon that point that I do not think fit to enlarge more upon it I shall then conclude this matter by the solemn Prayer of the Jews in the Feast of Succoth where they have these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ego ille Salva nunc p. 53. of the Venice Edit in 8 o. which words the Jews labour very much to explain who is that ille but which the most understanding explain to the two first Middoth viz. to the Father and to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have shewn before Having now produced the Sentiments of the old Jews as to several points that concern the Trinity and the Divinity of our Lord we ought next to consider how Jesus Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians did follow these Notions of the Synagogue 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 WHoever shall attentively examine the method which our Saviour and his Apostles follow in the New Testament will find it exactly suited to the Notions which the Jews had entertained and which they had from the Writings of the Prophets It was absolutely necessary it should be so because the Doctrine concerning the coming of the Messias began to be more narrowly inquired into among the Jews when they saw Herod who was an Idumean setled in the Throne of Judaea it being at the just time markt out for the coming of the Messias by Jacob's Prophecy Ge. xlix 10. The Scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a Law-giver from between his feet until Shilo come and unto him shall the gathering of people be An Angel therefore appears to the Virgin Mary that was to be the Mother of Christ and shews the manner of his Conception which was to be by the operation of the Holy Ghost He names the Child who was to be born of her Jesus and declares that he should be the Son of the Highest and that of his Kingdom there should be no end Alluding to Psal ii and to many other places of Scripture where the Messias is described as one that was to be the Son of God Next the Angel appeared to Joseph who was upon parting with his betrothed Wife the Blessed Virgin and told him she should bring forth a Son and must name him Jesus because he should save his People from their sins Whereupon the Evangelist saith that this Child was he of whom the Prophet foretold he should be Emanuel God with us He was to do that for his People which none but God was able to do to save them from their sins How could he shew it better that he was the God of the Jews to whom Judea belonged as his Country and the Jews as his People as it was foretold Is vii and viii That God whose very Name Habakkuk had named Hab. iii. 18. the God of my Salvation so called saith Jonathan's Targum because of the wonderful things that God would do by his Messias Another Angel brings to the Shepherds the news of Christ's Birth and what words does he use He names him the Christ the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jehovah God's own proper name Luk. ii The Wisemen came from the East to Bethlehem guided by a new Star to worship him and amongst other Gifts presented him with Frankincense which by the Law was to be offered to God alone Shewing thereby that they owned him for that heavenly Star spoken of by their Countryman Balaam Numb xxiv 17. And for that King of whom it was foretold Psal lxxii 10 11. The Kings of Tharshish and of the Isles shall bring presents the Kings of Sheba and Seba
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
Magog with the Kingdoms of the North shall come to attack the Jews in Palestine but he and they shall be destroyed by Rain and Hail after which the Land shall be purged of the dead Bodies and they shall build the Third Temple and then the Ten Tribes shall return and offer Sacrifices to God in the Temple and God shall pour out his Spirit on all Israel and make them Prophets as Joel hath foretold chap. xi 28. This is the Notion in short of the Two Messias's which R. Meyr Aldabi gives us in his Book Intituled Sevile Emuna ch 10. p. 123. But it is certain 1. the ancient Jews knew but of one Messias Trypho knew not of two as we see in Justin Martyr's Dialogue which is a clear proof that those passages of the Targum which speak of two Messias's are Additions to the ancient Text made since the Jews invented the conceit of a double Messias 2. It is certain the Talmudists did not believe firmly the Return of the Ten Tribes Tr. Sanh c. 10. § 3. Some did hope for it as doth also R. Eliezer Massech Sanh c. 30. § 3. But R. Akiba was of quite another opinion And yet their Posterity hath been so much inclined for R. Eliezer his opinion that one of their greatest Objections against Jesus being the Messias is this that if he had been the Messias he would have gathered the Ten Tribes 3. Their confining of the Messias's Reign to forty years is contrary to the opinion of their Fathers who held that the Messias should reign for ever Some afterward thought that he was to reign forty years others that he was to reign seventy years as you see in the Gemara of Sanhedrim ch 11. fol. 97. col 2. 4. They suppose now that the Messias shall build a third Temple Whereas Haggai describing the second Temple as that under which the Messias should appear expresly calls it the last Hag. ii 9. And this R. David Kimchi and R. Azariah and the Talmud of Jerusalem Megillah fol. 72. col 4. The Talmud of Babylon Tit. Baba batra fol. 3. col 1. and several others do acknowledg Though some few suppose Haggai's Prophecy to have reference to a third Temple See Abarbanel Men. ben Israel on Hagg. 5. It is the remark of one of the most celebrated Authors of the Talmud and received amongst the other Jews that all the times noted by the Prophets for the coming of the Messias are past Dixit Rav Omnes termini de adventu Messiae transierunt nec jam remanet nisi in conversione si Israel convertatur redimetur quod si non convertatur non redimetur Since that they have been forced to quit that miserable shift and now they maintain that all the Promises of the coming of the Messias were conditional and that he shall come when his People the Jews shall be by Repentance prepared to receive him Manas Ben. Isr q. 27. on Es And yet the Ancient in the same place before did affirm that the Messias must come in the most corrupt Age fol. 97. col 1. To be a little more particular the Jews did maintain that all the Prophets spoke of the Messias See Bethlem Juda in the word Goel At present they dispute almost every Text that we urge for the Messias so that instead of convincing them we can only shame them by laying before them the Authorities of their Fathers who understood these Texts in the same sense that the Apostles did The Modern Jews are very sensible of the Notion of a Plurality of Persons in the words Let us make Man after our Image Gen. i. Some of them therefore are for changing the reading and instead of Let Us make Man would have it Let Man be made though the Samaritan Text the Old Seventy Version and the Talmudists and all their Ancient and Modern Translations read as we do See Aben Ezra on the place and R. David Kimchi in Michlol p. 9. They will scarcely allow the Messias to be spoken of in Gen. iii. 15. Although Jonathan's Targum and that of Jerusalem do clearly understand it of the Messias The Old Jews affirmed that the Angel who appeared Gen. xix and in other places and who is called the Lord was as I have before shewed the Word of the Lord but many of their Disciples do say it was a created Angel as we learn from R. Shem Tov in his Book Emun Men. ben Israel q. 64. on Genesis Such a thing cannot be done but by an extream impudence since we see that they profess just the contrary in their own Prayers where you read in their Office of Pesach And he brought us out of Egypt Not say they by the hand of an Angel neither by the hand of a Seraphim nor by the hand of an Envoy but the Holy Blessed by his Glory and by himself as the Scripture saith Exod. xii 12. And so there they refer almost all the appearances of the Angel of the Lord to God himself exclusively to any created Angel And such are those Appearances Gen. xiv 15. Gen. xx 6. Gen. xxxi 24. Gen. xxxii 24. where they say that Israel wrestled with God Exod. xii 29 c. The present Jews are not for applying the Text Gen. xlix 10. to the Messias but some refer the words to Moses himself as R. Bechay others to David others to Ahijah the Shilonite and others to Nebuchadnezzar Notwithstanding both Jonathan's and the Jerusalem Targum note expresly this Prophecy to be spoken of the Messias And thus in the same Text the Scepter there spoken of was explained in the Old Talmudists by Power and Dominion which should not depart from Judah till the coming of the Messias Though now among some of the Modern Jews it signifies only Affliction and Calamities R. Joel aben Sueb At this day the Jews do obstinately deny any Promise to be made of the Messias Deut. xviii 18 19. And some of them will have it spoken of Joshua some of David So the Author of Midrash Tehil in Psal i. and some of Jeremy But it is visible that in and before the times of Jesus Christ they were of another opinion as may be gathered from 1 Mâ—c xiv 41. and is clear from what the multitude say Joh. vi 14. This is that Prophet who was to come into the world See also Luc. vii 16. Joh. i. 19. Mat. xxi It was not questioned in St. Paul's time whether the 2d Psalm did relate to the Messias else St. Paul could not have applied it to Christ as he doth Act. xiii 33. nor was it questioned for some Ages after the Talmudical Doctors agreeing to it You see that in the Gemara of Succoth c. 5. in Jalkuth in Psal ii in Midrash Tehillim But their new Expositors have done their utmost to make it belong to David only or to apply these words Thou art my Son Psal ii to the People of Israel So doth R. Mose Israel Mercadon upon that Psalm in his
but God only adding that the Holy Writers of the New Testament in applying them to Jesus Christ turned these Texts to quite another sense than was intended by the Holy Spirit at the inditing of them The Prophet Isaiah again has these words ch xxxv 4 5 6. Behold your God will come and save you c. Sal Jarchi and D. Kimchi expound them of the Deliverance from Babylon contrary to the ancient Jews opinion who as these Rabbins confess understood them of the Messias The Socinians will not deny that Jesus Christ assumed them to himself but to shew how little ground he had for so doing they insist on it that he only accommodated the words to himself The same Isaiah writes thus ch xli 4. I am the first and the last and Jesus Christ has the same expressions of himself Rev. i. 17. The Chaldee Paraphrast thought they belonged so properly to the True God as to Paraphrase them in this manner I am the Lord Jehovah who created the World in the beginning and the Ages to come are all mine Joseph Albo makes this Text a proof of the Eternity of God and notes that it is a parallel Text to Isa xliv 6. But if you 'l have Socinus opinion of the place when it is applied to our Lord Jesus Christ it does not at all regard his Eternity Once more we read Isa xlv 23. I have sworn by my self the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness that unto me every knee shall bow every tongue shall swear St. Paul refers these words to Jesus Christ Rom. xiv 11. nay he proves our standing before Christ's Judgment-seat by this Quotation Notwithstanding the Socinians believe them only a simple accommodation and not the prime scope of the Text. I know the Apostles have sometimes cited Texts from the Old Testament which have not their exact accomplishment in that sense wherein they are used As for example 2 Cor. viii 15. St. Paul exhorting the Corinthians to supply the wants of their Brethren with their abundance addeth As it is written He that had gathered much had nothing over and he that had gathered little had no lack Thus alluding to the History of the Manna Exod. xvi 18. it is plain that he accommodates that Story to the Beneficence of the Christians without any thing either from Letter or Allegory to justifie this accommodation They who think that John ch xix 37. does allude to Exod. xii 46. Neither shall you break a bone thereof go upon this ground that Christ was typified by the Paschal Lamb and therefore what was spoken of the Paschal Lamb is truly applicable to Christ But some others believe that St. John cited this passage from Psal xxxiv 21. and applies what David saith of all the just in general to the Messias who is often called the Just One as being eminently so I know that some think that a Prophecy which has been already accomplish'd literally was accommodated by the Holy Penmen to a like event And thus they think St. Matthew ch ii 17. applies the voice that was heard at Ramah and Rachel's weeping for her Children to those Expressions of sorrow used by the Women of Bethlehem when Herod slew their Children Although this Prophecy was before accomplished in the Captivity of Judah and Benjamin under Nebuchadnezzar But besides what I have said upon such places the Examples of this nature are but few and those may be easily discerned by a careful Reader from such Citations as are not Accommodations but Proofs and for the Texts which are commonly and generally quoted by the Holy Writers they expose the Books of the New Testament to the scorn and contempt of Jews who suppose that the Apostles went about to make Converts from the Synagogue by such passages of the Old Testament as had nothing of strength or reason to convince any Man for such are the places quoted by way of Accommodation and let any one but consult the Writings of the Jews against Christianity and he will find that the main Argument they make use of against the Proofs brought by the Apostles is that the passages they cite were never designed by the Spirit to that purpose Literally taken but were only made use of by them by way of Accommodation But the most wonderful thing of all in the Unitarians management of this Controversie especially in our English Unitarians is this that they do not only side with the Jews and dress up their sense of those Texts of the Old Testament which are cited in the New as Proofs of our Lords Divinity or which are objected in confirmation of the Holy Trinity and that they have not been content to bring in the Notion of Accommodation to elude the force of those Quotations on which the Apostles grounded several Doctrines but for the most part they give broad intimations as if the New Testament Writings were on purpose falsified by the Christians and many things there inserted which were never thought of by the Authors of those Writings If they could have made good this accusation it would have saved them a great deal of pains which it has cost them to find out Answers to the several Objections proposed to them 'T is the most easie natural and shortest way to joyn with the Deists in destroying the Authority of the Gospel and to endeavour to shew that nothing certain can be drawn from thence seeing that since the Apostles Times the Christian Faith hath been corrupted and new Doctrines have been foisted into their Books which from the beginning were not there For my part I see no other way left them for the defence of their bad Cause But by ill luck Socinus has stopped their retreat even to this last Refuge by the Treatise he writ concerning the Authority of the Holy Scriptures When they have solidly refuted this Book of their great Leader it will be then time to take their Charge against the Sacred Books into more particular consideration Let them do this when they will We promise them when they have done it to reproach them no more with Socinus's Authority in defence of the Integrity of the Scripture But for the present we refer them to the Book of a famous Mahometan called Hazzadaula who has handled this matter with length and force enough to confound both the Unitarians and Deists I mean his third Book of the comparison of the three Laws the Jewish Christian and Mahometan of which there is an Extract in Jos de Voisin de Lege Divina in a Letter from Gabriel Syonita It has been thought by some that Mahomet and his Followers did accuse the Jews and Christians of corrupting the Old and New Testament Writings But we see this Accusation is proved false by such as have managed the Controversie against Mahometanism And the more knowing Mahometans do insult the Christian Missionaries for charging it on them when Mahomet accused the Christians only for wresting several passages in Scripture and putting a false
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
is mentioned This is he of whom it is said and God called Moses out of the Bush He is called an Angel because he Governs the World for it is written in one place And Jehovah that is the Lord God brought us out of Egypt and in another place He sent his Angel and brought us out of Egypt And again The Angel of his Presence saved them viz. that Angel who is the face of God of whom it is said My face shall go before you Lastly that Angel of whom the Prophet Malachi mentions And the Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to his Temple even the Angel of the Covenant whom you desire At length he adds The face of God is God himself as all Interpreters do acknowledge but no one can rightly understand this without being instructed in the Mysteries of the Law R. Menachem of Rekan on Gen. xlviii 16. the same that afterwards commented on the whole Pentateuch was no stranger to this Notion Saith he He means the Shekinah when he speaks of the Redeeming Angel f. 52. See also f. 55. The like has R. Bechai the famous Jewish Writer whose Comments are constantly in the hands of the Jewish Doctors He proves that this Blessing is not different from that which is afterwards repeated Gen. xlix where no Angel is mentioned Whence it follows that the three terms in Gen. xlviii God God that fed me the Angel that redeemed me are Synonimous to the mighty one of Jacob Ch. xlix which Title the Jews in their Prayers do frequently ascribe to God Bech f. 71. c. 4. Ed. Rivae di Trento He also there teaches that this Angel was the Shekinah As does R. Joseph Gekatilia in his Book called Saare Ora according to Menasseh Ben Israel q. 64. in Gen. p. 118. Aben Sueb on this place a Man of Name among his Party writes much to the same purpose on this place These are followed by two Eminent Authors of the Cabalists The one in his Notes on Zohar f. 122. toward the end saith the Angel that delivered me from all evil is the Shekinah of whom Exod. xiv 19. And the Angel of the Lord which went before the camp of Israel removed and went behind them and may God bless us in the age to come The other is he who contracted the Zohar on Genesis and is called R. David the less He in that Book Ed. Thessalonic f. 174. professes to follow the opinion of R. Gekatalia in his Saare Ora. Nor does Menasseh Ben Israel himself much dissent from these in the above-mentioned place For though he attempts to reconcile Gen. xxviii 16. with the first Commandment Exod. xx Thou shalt have no other Gods before me by saying it was the opinion of several of their Masters that there was no contradiction between them yet at length he produces the opinion of the Cabalists for the satisfaction of his Readers who possibly would not acquiesce in his former reason drawn only from Modern Authorities I mention not R. Levi ben Gersom's opinion who denies the Angel here spoken of to be a Creature but calls him the Intellectus Agens because he seems to have borrowed the Notion from the Arabian Philosophers nor is it commonly received by those of his Religion Many others might be added to these Jewish Testimonies but what I have already produced is I think very sufficient SECT V. Having thus shewed the Opinions of the ancient Jews concerning Jacob's Angel and that to this day the Tradition is not quite worn out that exalts him above a created Angel I now proceed to the third Question the clearing of which will fully justifie that Opinion of the Ancients concerning this Text. And that is Whether this form of Blessing be not an express Prayer The soundest and most part as well of Jews as Christians do agree That we can't worship Angels without Idolatry This Maimonides affirms as I quoted him above and the Protestants as all Men know do abhor this Idolatry in the Roman Church I do therefore positively assert That these words contain a Prayer to the Angel as well as to God for a Blessing on his Children This the Jews can't gain-say since Jonathan their Paraphrast and other Writers after him do commonly term this Blessing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Prayer And for this reason R. Menasseh thought it necessary to endeavour to reconcile this Prayer of Jacob with the first Commandment which forbids Angel-Worship according to the Jews Interpretation R. Menach de Rek in Pent. f. 97. c. 4. It is true Jacob's form of Blessing does seem to proceed from him either as a Wish or a Prophecy A Wish as if he had said Would to the Lord God and his Angel would bless the Lads A Prophecy as if he had foretold that God and his Angel should in after-times fulfill what he now wished But it might be both Wish and Prophecy and notwithstanding be a direct Prayer to God and the Redeeming Angel 'T is well known how the Jews commonly delivered their Petitions to God in this form And yet I can't forbear giving one instance to confirm it You may read it in Deut. vi 22 c. And the Lord said to Moses saying Speak to Aaron and his Sons thus shall you bless the children of Israel and say The Lord bless thee and keep thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord make his face shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee and give thee peace And they shall invoke my name for the children of Israel so our Translation is to be mended and I will bless them So that in plain terms the form of Blessing here prescribed by God is called Invocation I cannot therefore see what should hinder but that we after Jacob's example may offer up our Prayers to a created Angel supposing as some do that Jacob prayed for a Blessing to such a kind of Angel De Sanct. Beat. l. 1. c. 29. Corn. A Lap. on Gen. xlviii It is a necessary consequence that Bellarmine and others of his Communion draw from this instance Holy Jacob invoked an Angel therefore it is not unlawful for the pretended reformed to do the like therefore one may worship others besides God these things saith he cannot be denied unless you reckon Prayer to be no act of Worship not peculiar to God alone But let them of his Church get out of these difficulties as they can who believe Jacob's Angel to have been a meer Creature Let them try how they can convince a Socinian from Ephes i. 2. and other places of Scripture where Worship is ascribed to Christ The Socinian has his answer ready he may wish and pray to Christ for Grace though he be not God since he does no more than Jacob did when he prayed for a Blessing on his Children to a meer Angel I am more concerned for these Divines of the Reformed Church who have given the same Interpretation of Jacob's Angel
xii 22 337  25 26 315 351  29 337 I PET iii. 21 46 II PET. i. 21 48 ii 16 231 iii. 5 345 I JOHN i. 1 5 213 v. â—7 99 347 REVELATIONS i.  337  4 458 ii  7 iii. 1 458 xii 1 64 xix 10 2â—4  6 337 xxii 2 42 337  14 42  9 234 THE TABLE OF MATTERS ALlegorical Expositions in use before Christ's time Page 24 45 57. Angel of the Face or Presence of God Called the Redeemer vid. Dissert Page 433. Apocryphal Books among the Jews cited and followed in the New Testament Page 14 15 16 17 18. Apocryphal Books in our Bibles their Antiquity Page 67 68. Their freedom from corruptions Page 71 72. Appearances Page 201 c. Cabalistical Divinity receiv'd by the Jews Page 179 180 381. Embased about Christ's time Page 363. Chaldee Paraphrases their Original Page 27 84 85. And Antiquity Page 91. Progress Page 28 86 c. Antiquity of those we have Page 85 86 88 89. Their Interpretations Page 94 95 96 c. Christ See Messias Divine Essence its kind of Unity Page 121 268. Plurality of Persons in it Page 116 118 120 c. Distinguished by the Name Sephiroth Page 163 Prosopa Page 160 167 164 171. Panim or Faces and Havioth or Substance Page 171. And Madregoth or degrees Page 163. Wisdom coming from the Infinite Page 169. And Understanding from the Infinite by Wisdom Page 168. Yet they are all one Page 170 174. Elias a kind of second Moses Page 244. Enoch's Prophesie how anciently known Page 319. God His Name Eloah in the Singular used in Scripture Page 117. His Name Elohim in the Plural joyned with a Singular Page 116. He speaks in the Plural and why Page 117 118. God understood by the Jews where only King is exprest Page 119. Why called God of Gods Page 122. His Name Elohim signifies Plurally Page 125 161. Greek Learning discouraged among the Jews Page 30. Jews early Provision against the Christian Objections Page 323 324. Law by whom given Page 349 350. Messias to be like Moses Page 22. Spoken of by all the Prophets Page 32 266. By Isaiah chap. liii Page 33. In Canticles Page 25 33 268. Rules for Interpreting Prophecies concerning him Page 34 35. Messias expected according to the Jews ever since Adam's time Page 42 43. To be united with the second Number or Wisdom at his Coming Page 171. The same with the Word Page 254 c. With the Shekinah Page 333 334 c. To be a Prophet Page 261. Messias â—s the Son of God Page 267 c. And Bridegroom of the Church Page 272 284 299. The true Jehovah Page 278 c. His Great Dignity Page 286. Messias is God according to the Gospels Page 300 301 c. He is to be Worshipped Page 289. Messias a Shepherd Page 304 316. Why Christ did not expresly assume the Title of God Page 339. Christ or Messias Crucified for affirming himself to be the Son of God Page 388. Moses's Education in Egyptian Learning Page 13. Platonick Philosophy out of credit in Philo's time Page 356 360. Occasioned the Heresies in the Christian Church Page 361. If Plato's Morality and not his Divinity followed by the first Christians Page 360 361. Plato borrowed the Notion of a Trinity from the Jews Page 362. Powers of God what Page 122 146 147 150. They made the World Ib. 129. Philo's Notions of them but not so clear Page 155 156. They are said to be the same as Wisdom and Understanding by the Cabbalists Page 161 162. Simon called himself the Power of God Page 134. Those Powers called Prosopa Page 160. Psalms their Titles by whom affixed Page 19. Rules for Interpreting them Page 20. Pythagoras had many Notions from the Hebrews Page 354 356. Scripture-Reading discouraged by the Jews after Christ's time Page 326. Misinterpreted by way of Accommodation Page 423. By the Modern Jews Page 392 Talm. By the Socinians Page 414 415 c. Shekinah the same with the Word Page 149 272. And sometimes used for the Spirit Ib. 168. The several Appearances of it to the Patriarchs and under the Legal Dispensation Page 165 166 286. Called Father Page 167. And Jehovah to whom Prayers of the Jews were directed Page 279. It s coming into the Tabernacle Page 225. And Temple Page 243. Leaving the Temple Page 247. It s Return Page 248 Its expected Appearance in a visible manner in the age of the Messias Page 263 275. Shekinah to be a Priest Page 282. To be the same with the Messias Page 286 333 c. Shekinah called Rachel Page 328. A Stone Page 330. The Finger of God Page 331. Simonians some of their Opinions Page 135 136. Spirit made all Things Page 102 111 c. Is a Person in Gen. i. 2. Page 141. An Uncreated Being Page 162. And not Air or Wind Page 155. Called sometimes the Shekinah Page 149. But more commonly Bina or Understanding Page 167 Called by the Cabbalists Mother Page 167. And the Mouth of God and the Spirit of Holiness and the Sanctifier Page 173. Seven Spirits the Spirit of God Page 456 459. Traditions how many sorts Page 11 12. Time of the Authors of them Page 13. One kind useful to clear the Text Page 20 21. To understand the Prophecies of the Messias Page 22. Used by the Apostles in the sense of Texts quoted by them Page 316 317 318. And Justin Martyr Page 319 320 321. Types their Ground Page 45. Oft used by the Apostles Page 46. Unity of Divine Essence according to the Jews Page 121 268. Wisdom made all Things Page 102 104 162 173. Begot by God Page 121. To be united with the Messias Page 171. Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence so called Page 127. The Use of it among the Jews Page 365. Made all Things Page 102 103 126 129. Man especially Page 130. After his Image Page 129 131. Is an Emanation from God Page 102. The same with an Uncreated Angel Page 104 106 108 194 195 203 206 215. That acted in all the Divine Appearances in the Old Testament Page 183. Objections against this answered Page 346 347 348. The Son of God Page 121 183. A Person Page 193 372. A true Cause or Agent Page 125 126 A Divine Person Page 196 197 366 373. Used by the Chaldee Paraphrasts for Jehovah and Elohim Page 372 374. In the Text Page 149. And by the Targums a Word a Man Page 259. The same with the Shekinah Page 149 272. And with Wisdom Page 162 163 164 272. And Messias Page 254 c. A Mediator Page 183. A Teacher Ibid. A Shepherd Ib. p. 275. The Sun of Righteousness Page 256. God swears by his Word Page 209. The Word prayed to Page 210 211. The Word gave the Law Page 219 c. And spoke from off the Mercy-seat Page 225 245 247. Zohar its Author probably Page 177. ERRATA Praecipua sic Corrigenda Page Line  13
all this while even the same that appeared to him in the Bush Moses being thus employ'd by the Word of God as his Messenger to the Children of Israel for the discharge of his Ministry had both his Instructions and Credentials from the Word according to the Targums For the first of these God appeared to him oftener than to any before him R. Akiba who lived since Christ's time saith that Moses acted as Mediator between the Gevura that is the Word of God and the People of Israel and observeth that God spake to him 175 times They were times without number that God spake to him from off the Mercy-seat upon the Ark of Testimony from between the two Cherubims Numb vii 89. But those which R. Akiba reckons were Appearances upon extraordinary occasions In both these Appearances ordinary and extraordinary it was the Word of God that spake to Moses according to the Targums Thus of God's speaking to him from the Mercy-seat to appoint my Word for thee as God promised there according to Onkelos and Jonathan on Exod. xxv 22. xxx 36. So Numb vii 89. Jonathan saith it was the Word that spake to him And thus likewise in those Occasional Appearances both Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targums tell us once for all Deut. xxxiv 10. The Word of the Lord knew Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking to Moses as oft as Moses spake to him on any occasion For his Credentials were as we see Deut. xxxiv 11. All the Signs and Wonders which the Lord sent him to do or according to the Targums which the Word of the Lord sent him to do in Egypt to Pharaoh and his Servants and all his Land and in all that mighty Land and that great terrour which Moses shewed in the sight of all Israel For the Acts of his Ministry they were chiefly these three 1. His bringing the People out of Egypt 2. His giving them Laws and Statutes and Judgments from God 3. His Leading them through the Wilderness to the Confines of Canaan In each of these was the Word that appeared to him according to the Targums His bringing the People out of Egypt is wholly ascribed to the Word by Onkelos and Jonathan on Deut. xx 1. and by Jonathan on Deut. xxiv 18. The People were commanded to teach this to their Children that it was the Word of the Lord that did all those Signs and Wonders in Egypt saith Jonathan on Exod. xiii 8. It was the Word that sent all those Plagues on Pharaoh and his Servants and all the Land of Egypt saith Jonathan on Deut. xxviii 6. and xxix 2. Especially it was the Word that gave that stroke which finisht the work according to the Jerusalem Targum Exod. xii 29. namely It was the Word of the Lord that appeared against the Egyptians at midnight and his right hand kill'd the first-born of the Egyptians and delivered his own first-born the Children of Israel After this the Word of the Lord led the People through the Desert to the Red-Sea saith the same Targum on Exod. xiii 18. The Word of the Lord being their Leader in a Pillar of Fire by night and of a Cloud by day saith Onkelos on Deut. i. 32 33. And when the People being come to the Red-Sea and seeing Pharaoh with his Army behind them were in a rage against Moses and he cried to God Exod. xiv 15. according to the Jerusalem Targum the Word of the Lord said to Moses How long dost thou stand and pray before me Bid the Children of Israel come forward and do thou reach out thy Rod and divide the Red Sea He did so and according to the Jerusalem Targum on Deut. i. 1. The Word divided the Sea before them So that the Children of Israel went into the midst of the Sea on dry ground Exod. xiv 22. the Egyptians following them And at morning v. 24. according to the Jerusalem Targum The Word of the Lord lookt upon the Army of the Egyptians and threw upon them Bitumen and Fire and Hail out of Heaven and v. 25. The Egyptians said Let us fly from before the People of Israel for this is the Word of the Lord that gets them victory But their flight was in vain for by the Word of the Lord the waters were made heaps according to Onkelos on Exod. xv 8. And according to him also when God spoke by his Word the Sea covered them v. 10. Thus as the whole work of the People of Israel's Deliverance out of Egypt so every part of it has been ascribed to the Word of the Lord by the Targums For the giving of the Laws by which they were to be formed into a Church and Kingdom First immediately after their coming out of the Red-Sea Exod. xv 25. according to the Jerusalem Targum the Word of the Lord gave them Precepts and Orders of Judgments particularly as Jonathan has it the Word of the Lord gave them there the Law of the Sabbath and that of Honouring Father and Mother and Judgments concerning Bruises and Wounds and for the Punishment of Transgressours Afterwards when they were come into the Wilderness of Sinai Exod. xix 3. the Text saith Moses went up to God and the Lord called to him out of the Mount saying Thus shalt thou say to the House of Israel c. there Onkelos saith according to one of Clark's various Readings Moses went up to meet the Word of the Lord Exod. xix 8. Moses returns with the People's Answer to the Lord then v. 9. according to the Jerusalem Targum the Word of the Lord said to Moses Go to the People and sanctifie them to day and to morrow and let them wash their Clothes and be ready against the third day for the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the People upon Mount Sinai Accordingly the People having prepared themselves on the third day according to Onkelos Exod. xix 17. Moses brought the People out of the Camp to meet the word of God Yet the People only saw Thunder and Lightning and the Mountain smoking and felt the Earth quake under them They also heard the noise of the Trumpet which so affrighted them that they removed and stood at a distance and said to Moses Speak thou to us and we will hear but let not the Word from before the Lord speak with us lest we die Exod. xx 19. according to Onkelos in one of Clark's various Readings Moses therefore according to Jonathan on Deut. v. 5. Stood between them and the Word of the Lord to shew them the Pithgama the matter and words that were spoken to him from the Lord. What they were we read Exod. xx 1 c. where according to the Jerusalem Targum the Word of the Lord spoke the tenor of all these words saying I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt out of the House of Bondage then follow the Ten Commandments commonly called the Decalogue That it was
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