the Son of the Free-woman and Israel according to the Flesh by Ishmael the Son of the Bond-woman and having thus brought unbelieving Israel into Ishmael's place he proceeds upon the Old Jewish Nation recited in Baal-Hatturim that Ishmael should pierce Isaac with an Arrow which they illustrate by Gen. xvi 12. instead whereof the Text saith only that he laughed at or mocked Isaac We see St. Paul Rom. x. 6. applies to the Gospel those words of Deut. xxx 11 12 13 14. which seem to be spoken of the Law given by Moses to the Jews But then the Old Synagogue applied these words of Moses to the times of the Messias as is clear from Jonathan's Targum on the place which is enough to justify St. Paul's Usage of the words We read in the Song of Zacharias Luk. 1.69 that these words are referred to the Messias he hath exalted the horn of his Anointed The very same words are pronounced by Hannah the Mother of Samuel 1 Sam. ii 10. where the Targum referrs them in like manner as the sense of the Synagogue The same Targum understands of the Messias that passage 2 Sam. xxiii 3. And the lxx have the like Idea with the Targum which is a farther Confirmation of the Tradition of the Synagogue It is certain this Notion of the Messias was very common among the Jews otherwise they would not have thrust it into their Targums on places where naturally it ought not to come in For instance It is said 1 Kings iv 33. That Solomon discoursed of all the Trees from the Cedar of Libanus even to the Hyssop that springeth out of the Wall Now the Remark of the Targum hereupon is this And he prophecied touching the Kings of the House of David which should rule in this present World as also in the World to come of the Messias 6. We see our Lord Jesus Christ was careful to instruct the Pharisees of the two different Characters of the Coming of the Messias Luk. xvii 20. Of which the one was to be obscure and followed with the Death of the Messias the other was to be glorious and acknowledged by the whole World Christ instructed them in this the rather to remove their mistakes through which they confounded his two Comings Though in truth they were both of them confessed by the Jews for some time after Christ's ascension into Heaven 7. We see that Christ himself Matth. xxi 16. and also his Apostle St. Paul 1 Cor. xv 27. Eph. i. 21. Heb. ii 6 7 8. apply the words of Psal viii to the Messias How could they do it were it not before the sense of the Synagogue Now that such was the sense of the Synagogue ye see till this day if we read what they say in their Rabboth upon the Song of Songs ch iv 1. and upon Ecclesiastes ch ix 1. that the Children were to make Acclamations at the Coming in of the Messias the second Redeemer according to those words of Psal viii 3. Ex ore infantium c. Lastly We see St. Paul Rom. x. 18. does refer the words of Psal xix 4. to the Preaching of the Apostles and saith Their sound went over all the Earth and their words to the end of the World What would an unbelieving Jew have said to this that Paul should apply the Psalmist's words in this manner But the Apostle was secure against this or any other Objection from the Jews if he used the words in the sense of their Synagogue And that he did so there is little reason to doubt The Encomiums which David gave to the Law of Moses they would most readily apply to the Law of the Messias And they expected he should have his Apostles to carry his Law throughout the World To this expectation of theirs the Psalmist's words were very applicable That the Divine Word is called the Sun Philo plainly affirms and if I take R. Tanchum aright he understands that it was the Messias that was called the Sun of Righteousness Mal. iv 2. St. John saw Christ in that figure of the Sun and his Apostles as twelve Stars and that in Heaven which to him is the state of the Gospel Rev. xxi 1. According to this figure in this Psalm the Sun of Righteousness is described as a Giant which rejoyceth to run a Race v. 5. And here is a description of his Course together with that of his Disciples and of the manner by which they made their Voices to be heard This Idea shocked R. Samuel in a Book he writ before his Conversion ch 18. which he communicated with a Rabin of Morocco And whoever considers that Idea of the Writer of the Book of Wisdom xviii 5. shall find it is no other than that of this xixth Psalm mixed a little with that Idea in the Canticles which the Old Jews refer to the Messias and with that of the Song of Isaiah v. touching the Messias which served the Jews for a Commentary to understand the Song of Solomon by I could gather a much greater number of Remarks on this Head but having brought as many here together as I take to be sufficient for the proving of what I have said I think I ought not to enlarge any further So I come next to search out the Store-house where we may find these Traditions of the Jews which Jesus Christ and his Apostles made use of either in explaining or confirming the Doctrines of the Gospel They must be found in the ancient Books of the Jews which remain among us such as the Apocryphal Books the Books of Philo the Jew and the Chaldee Paraphrases on the Old Testament The Authority of all these ought to be well established Let us begin by the Apocryphal Books some of which Mr. N. hath ridiculed very boldly Then we shall consider what he has said to Philo whose Writings Mr. N. hath endeavoured to render useless in this Controversy How justly we shall consider in the next Chapters CHAP. V. Of the Authority of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament ALthough the Protestants have absolutely rejected the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament which the Church of Rome make use of in Controversies as if they were of the same authority with the Books of the Law and Prophets notwithstanding they keep them as Books of a great antiquity And we make use of their authority not to prove any Doctrine which is in dispute as if they contained a Divine Revelation and a decision of an inspired Writer but to witness what was the Faith of the Jewish Church in the time when the Authors of those Apocryphal Books did flourish Any body who sees the Socinians making use of the Authorities of Artemas or of Paulus Samosatenus to prove that the Christian Church was in their opinion must grant the same authority to the Books of Wisdom Ecclesiasticus and the like touching the Sentiment of the Jewish Church in the age of those Writers Grotius a great Author for the Socinians was
THE JUDGMENT OF THE Ancient JEWISH Church Against the VNITARIANS IN The Controversy upon the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour With a Table of Matters and a Table of Texts of Scripture Occasionally Explain'd By a Divine of the Church of England LONDON Printed for Ri. Chiswell and are to be sold at the Rose and Crown and at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCXCIX THE PREFACE ALTHOVGH the Jews by mistaking the Prophecies of Scripture concerning the Kingdom of their Messias expected he should have a Temporal Kingdom and because our Lord Jesus was not for that therefore they would not acknowledge him fâ—â— their Messias yet all things considered there is no essential difference between our Religion and theirs We own the very same God whom they formerly Worshipp'd the Maker of the World and their Lawgiver We receive that very Messias whom God promised them by his Prophets so many Ages before his coming We own no other Spirit of God to have Inspired the Apostles besides the Holy Ghost who spoke by the Prophets and by whose manifold Gifts the Messias was to be known as one in whom all Nations should be Blessed This plainly appears in the way and method which both Christ and his Apostles followed in preaching the Gospel They endeavoured to take off the prejudices the then Jews laboured under concerning the Nature of the Messias and the Characters by which he was to be known For they argued all along from the Books of Moses and the Prophets and never proposed any thing to their Disciples but what was declared in those Writings which the Jews acknowledged as the Standard of their Religion which may be seen in Christ's Discourse to the Jews John v. 46. and to his Disciples after his Resurrection Luke xxiv 47 and 44. in the words of St. Peter Acts x. 43. and of St. Paul Acts xxvi 22. The truth is in those Sacred Books although One only God be acknowledged under the Name of Jehovah which denotes his Essence and therefore is incommunicable to any other yet not only that very Name is given to the Messias but also all the Works Attributes and Characters peculiar to Jehovah the God of Israel and the only true God are frequently bestowed on him This the old Jewish Authors as Philo and the Targumists do readily acknowledge For in their Exposition of those places of the Old Testament which relate to the Messias they generally suppose him to be God whereas the Modern Jews being of a far different Opinion use all Shifts imaginable to evade the force of their Testimonies The Apostles imitated in this the Synagogue by applying to Christ several places of the Old Testament which undoubtedly were primarily intended of the God of Israel But because they sometimes only touch at places of the Old Testament without using them as formal Proofs of what they then handled Socinus and his Disciples have fancied that those Citations out of the Old Testament which are made use of by the Apostles though they represent the Messias as being the same with the God of Israel yet for all this are but bare Allusions and Accommodations made indeed by them to Subjects of a like nature but not at all by them intended as Arguments and Demonstrations Nothing can be more injurious to the Writings of the New Testament than such a Supposition And there can hardly be an Opinion more apt to overthrow the Authority of Christ and his Apostles and to expose the Christian Religion to the Scorn both of Jews and Heathens For the bare Accommodation of a place of Scripture cannot suppose that the Holy Ghost had any design in it to intimate any thing sounding that way and consequently the Sense of that Scripture so accommodated is of no Authority Whereas it is a most certain truth that Christ and his Apostles did design by many of those Quotations to prove that which was in dispute between them and the Jews To what purpose should Christ exhort the Jews to search the Scriptures of the Old Testament because they testified of him John v. 39. if those Scriptures could only give a false Notion of him by intimating that the Messias promised was the God of Israel This were to suppose that Christ and his Apostles went about to prove a thing by that which had no Strength and no Authority to prove it And that the Citations out of the Old Testament are like the Works of the Empress Eudoxia who writ the History of Christ in Verses put together and borrowed from Homer under the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that of Proba Falconia who did the same in Verses and Words taken out of Virgil. It follows at least from such a Position That in the Gospel God gave a Revelation so very new that it has no manner of Affinity to the Old although he caused this old Revelation to be carefully written by the Prophets and as carefully preserved by the Jews to be the Standard of their Faith and the Ground of their Hopes till he should fulfil his Promises contained in it and although Christ and his Apostles bid the Jews have recourse to it to know what they were to expect of God's promises The Christian Church ever rejected this pernicious Opinion And although her first Champions against the Ancient Hereticks did acknowledge that the new Revelation brought in by Christ and his Apostles had made the Doctrines much clearer then they were before which the Jews themselves do acknowledge when they affirm that hidden things are to be made plain to all by the Messias yet they ever maintained that those Doctrines were so clearly set down in the Books of the Old Testament that they could not be opposed by them who acknowledge those Books to come from God especially since the Jews are therein told that the Messias when he came should explain them and make them clearer This Observation is particularly of force against those who formerly opposed the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity and that of our Saviour's being God These Hereticks thought they followed the Opinion of the old Jews Therefore they that confuted them undertook to satisfy them that the Christian Church had received nothing from Christ and his Apostles about those two Articles but what God had formerly taught the Jews and what necessarily followed from the Writings of Moses and the Prophets so that those Doctrines could not be rejected without accusing the Divine Spirit the Author of those Books of shortness of Thought in not foreseeing what naturally follows from those Principles so often laid down and repeated by him These old Writers solidly proved to those Hereticks That God did teach the Jews the Vnity of his Essence yet so as to establish at the same time a Distinction in his Nature which according to the Notion which himself gives of it we call Trinity of Persons And that when he promised that the Messias to come was to be Man at the very same time he
expresly told the Jews that he was withal to be God blessed for ever The force and evidence of the Proofs of those Doctrines is so great and the Proofs themselves so numerous that Hereticks could not avoid them but by setting up Opinions directly opposite to the Scriptures On the other side the Hereticks were so gravelled that they broke into Opinions quite contrary one to another which greatly contributed to confirm the Faith of them whom they opposed in those Articles so that it still subsisted whereas the opposite Heresies perish'd in a manner as soon as broacht The meanness of Christ and his shameful Death moved the Ebionites in the very first Age after him to look upon him as a meer Man though exalted by God's Grace to the Dignity of a Prophet But the Cerinthians another sort of Hereticks maintained that the Word did operate in him though at the same time they denied the personal and inseparable Vnion of that Word with this human Nature In the beginning of the Third Century some had much ado to receive the Doctrine of the Trinity by reason that they could not reconcile it with that of the Vnity of God But Praxeas Noetus and Sabellius who opposed that Doctrine were soon obliged to recant And then from one Extremity they shortly fell into another For being satisfied that the Scripture does attribute to the Father to the Son and to the Holy Ghost the divine Nature which is constantly in the Old Testament expressed by the Name Jehovah they undertook contrary to the plain Notions of Scripture to maintain that there was but One Person in God which had appeared the same under three differing Names Whereas some others did so plainly see the distinction which the Scripture makes between the Persons that they chose rather to own Three distinct Essences than to deny that there are Three Persons in God as the Scripture does invincibly prove Two sorts of Hereticks did formerly oppose the Divinity of Christ Some did acknowledge that as to his divine Nature he was before the World and that by it he had made the World though Himself as to that nature was created before the World and these afterwards formed the Arian Sect. Others but very few such as Artemas and Theodotus denied that Christ was before he was born of the Virgin They acknowledged in him no other besides the human Nature which said they God had raised to a very high Dignity by giving to it a Power almost infinite And in this they made his Godhead to consist But these two sorts of Hereticks were happily destroyed one by the other for the Arians on the one side did confound Artemas his Disciples by proving from places of Scripture that Christ was before the Virgin nay before the World And on the other side Absurdity and Idolatry were proved upon the Arians both because they acknowledged more than one divine Nature and because they worshipped a Creature whereas by the Christian Religion God alone ought to be worshipped Artemas his Disciples were so few and so severely condemned even whilst the Church laboured under Persecutions that their Name is hardly remembred at this day which clearly shews how strange their Doctrine appeared to them who examined it by the Books of the Old and the New Testament As for the Arians they made it is true more noise in the World by the help of two or three of Constantine's Successors who by violent Methods endeavoured to spread their Opinion But that very thing made their Sect odious and in a little time quite ruined the credit of it Within a hundred and fifty years or thereabouts after their first Rise there hardly remained any Professors of it which plainly shews that they could not answer those Arguments from Scripture which were urged against them I observe this last thing that Arius's Heresy was destroyed by Proofs from Scripture for the Eternal Divinity of our Saviour though it was a long time countenanced by the Roman Emperours by the Vandal Kings in Africk and by the Kings of the Goths both in Spain and in Italy lest any should fancy it was extinguished only by Imperial Laws and Temporal Punishments Besides that the first Inventors of that Heresy had spread it before such time as Constantine by vanquishing Licinius became Master of the World Whoever shall consider that the Christian Religion had before Arius already suffered ten Persecutions without shrinking under them will easily see that all the Power of Constantine and of his Orthodox Successors who punished the Arian Professors had never been great enough to suppress their Opinion if it had not been a Gospel-doctrine not to say that these Laws and their Authority extended no further than the Roman Empire What had happen'd in those ancient Times soon after the Christian Church was establisht happened likewise again in the last Century at the Reformation of the Western Church As in those early days there arose many Heresies entirely opposite one to the other so in these latter times the very same was seen among us For when God raised up many Great Men to reform the Church in this and our neighbouring Kingdoms there appeared soon after some Men who being weary of the Popish Tyranny both in Doctrine and Worship did fancy that they might make a more perfect Reformation if they could remove out of the Christian Religion those things which human Reason was apt to stumble at And the Roman Church having obtruded upon her Votaries such Mysteries as were directly repugnant to Reason they imagined that the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ's Divinity were of that number and thus used all their Endeavours to prove that they were absurd and contradictory Had not these Doctrines been grounded on the Authority of the Books of the Old and the New Testament they might easily enough have confuted them But being forced to own the Authority of those Books which they durst not attack for fear of being detested by all Christians they fell into the same opposite Extremes into which those Hereticks of old had fallen when they opposed these fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and thus were as divided in Opinions about those matters as the ancient Hereticks had been before them For whilst some of them as Laelius Socinus and his Nephew Faustus denied the Divinity of Christ and thus revived the Opinion of Artemas and his Disciples others seeing how absurd the Answers were that Socinus and his Followers gave to those places of Scripture which assert the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ run so far to the contrary of this Socinian Heresy that they acknowledged three Gods And not only the Adversaries of Socinus but even some of his Disciples did oppose his Opinion moved thereto by the Authority of Scripture For he held it a fundamental Article of the Christian Faith that Christ is to be adored in which he was a downright Idolater in adoring Christ as true God when he believed Christ to be a meer
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
Creature But his Disciples building upon this firm Maxim of Scripture that God alone is to be adored justly concluded against him that he was not to be adored since strictly speaking he was but a Creature and no God This Division was plainly occasioned by the strength of Scripture-proofs which on the one hand clearly shew that none can be a Christian without adoring Christ and on the other positively affirm that none but the True God ought to be adored Thus these two opposite Parties did unwillingly do the business of the true Church which ever opposed to the Enemies of the Trinity and of the Godhead of Christ the Authority of the Holy Scripture which teaches that Christ ought to be adored and withal convinces the Arians of Idolatry who adored Christ without owning him to be the true God though they bestowed on him a kind of a Godhead inferior to that of the Father I cannot but admire that they who within these few years have in this Kingdom embraced Socinus his Opinions should consider no better how little success they have had elsewhere against the truth and that upon the score of their Divisions which will unavoidably follow till they can agree in unanimously rejecting the Authority of Scripture Neither doth it avail them any thing to use Quibbles and Evasions and weak Conjectures since they are often unanswerably confuted even by some of their Brethren who are more dextrous than they in expounding of Scriptures But being resolved by all means to defend their Tenents some Chief men amongst them have undertaken to set aside the Authority of Scriptures which is so troublesome to them And the Author of a late Book intitled Considerations maintains that the Gospels have been corrupted by the Orthodox Party and suspects that of St. John to be the work of Cerinthus It is no very easy Task to dispute against men whose Principles are so uncertain and who in a manner have no regard to the Authority of Scripture It was much less difficult to undertake Socinus himself because he owned however the Authority of Scripture and that it had not been corrupted But one knows not how to deal with his Disciples who in their Opinion seem to be so contrary to him and one another They do now affirm the adoration which is paid to Christ is Idolatrous thus renouncing Socinus his Principles who lookt upon it as an essential piece of Christianity So that they can no longer be called Socinians and themselves affect the name of Unitarians And as their chief business seems to be to accuse the sincerity of Scripture-writers so the main work of them who undertake to confute them must be the establishing both the Sincerity and Authority of it which is no very hard task For even Mahometans though they take some of the same Objections that the Socinians are so full of against the Divinity of Christ yet are so far from accusing Christians of having corrupted the Scripture that they furnish us with Weapons against the Unitarians of this Kingdom as the Reader will find at the end of this following Book And although there be but small hopes of bringing to right again Men of so strange Dispositions and Notions yet they ought by no means to be left to themselves They have been often confuted by them that argued from the bare Principles of Christianity that is the Authority of Scriptures of the Old and New Testament which are the very Word of God And it has been plainly shewed them that what Alterations soever they have made in Socinus's Opinions yet their new Conceits are neither more Rational than his nor more agreeable to Divine Revelation I say that their Opinions are not more agreeable than his to right Reason For when all is done to affirm That Christ received from God an Infinite Power to govern the World without being essentially God is to affirm a downright Contradiction viz. that without partaking of the Divine Essence he received one of the Attributes which are Essential to God It is true some Popish Divines allow the Soul of Christ to be all-knowing by reason of its immediate Vnion to the Divine Nature wherein they do much service to the Socinians in holding as they do that a Creature is capable of receiving such Attributes But Protestant Divines reject this Notion as altogether false as false as many of the Schoolmens Speculations even the absurdest of them that are exploded by the Socinians They have been also further refuted as to what they aver that Justin Martyr was the first that taught the Doctrines of the Trinity of Christ's Eternal Godhead and of his Incarnation And at last that Learned Divine Dr. Bull having observed that the Jewish Tradition was favourable to those Doctrines of which the Socinians make Justin to have been the first Broacher Howsoever M. N. treats him for this neither like a Scholar nor a Christian I shall venture his displeasure in making out this Observation without meddling at all with his Arguments drawn from the Fathers to shew clearly that the like Exceptions of M. N. against Philo as being a Platonick and against the Ancient Jews and their Tradition can help him no way in the Cause he has taken in hand The Doctrine of our Church being the same which was taught by Christ and his Apostles it will be an easy matter to prove it by the same places of Scripture by which Christ and his Apostles converted the Jews and the Gentiles over to the Christian Faith and by which the Hereticks were confuted who followed or renewed the Errors which the Jews have fallen into since Christianity begun But I will go farther and prove that the Ancient Jewish Church yield the same Principles which Jesus Christ and his Apostles builded upon and by this Method it will plainly appear That the Socinians or the Unitarians let them call themselves what they please must either absolutely renounce the Authority of Scripture and turn downright Deists or they must own those Doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ as being taught us by God himself in the Holy Scriptures and acknowledged by the Ancient Jewish Church THE TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS THE Preface Chap. I. The Design of this Book and what Matters it Treats of Page 1. Chap. II. That in the times of Jesus Christ Our Blessed Saviour the Jews had among them a common Explication of the Scriptures of the Old Testament grounded on the Tradition of their Fathers which was in many things approved by Christ and his Apostles Page 11. Chap. III. That the Jews had certain Traditional Maxims and Rules for the understanding of the Scripture Page 32. Chap. IV. That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of the Christian Doctrine by his common Traditional Exposition received among the Jews which they could not have done at least not so well had there been only such a Literal Sense of those Texts which they alledged as we can find without the help of such
the first that held the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity and by consequence that of the Trinity without which the other cannot be defended he found it necessary to assert 1st That since the Jews by Trypho's Testimony did own the Messias to be nothing more than meer Man therefore the Jewish Authors quoted by Dr. Bull against the Socinian Opinions must have lived after the Preaching of the Gospel 2dly That the Books that are quoted against them were written by Christians in Masquerade that lived since Justin Martyr's time And this he applies in particular to the Works of Philo the Jew and to the Book of Wisdom 3dy That since the Jewish Authors could not possibly mention any thing like the Doctrines of the Trinity and of the Messias his being God too to which they were such perfect Strangers whatsoever occurrs in any of the ancient Jewish Books that favours those Doctrines must needs have been foisted in by Christians after Justin Martyr's time Lastly he supposes That if any thing either in the Scripture or Jewish Authors sounds that way it probably came from the Platonics of whom both Jews and Christians borrowed many Notions and mixed them with Christian Doctrines to perswade the Heathens the more easily to embrace the Christian Religion Now though it seems unnecessary to dispute any further against him having already clearly shewn in my Discussion of Mr. N's Judgment of the Fathers that Justin Martyr was not the Broacher of those Doctrines as Mr. N. pretends yet I am willing to give a more full satisfaction to the World about it by examining what either Mr. N. or any others have said or can say on this Subject and shewing that the bold Answers to Dr. Bull 's Proofs concerning the Opinion of the Jews before Christ about those Doctrines are no better than Mr. N's supposition that Justin Martyr was the first that maintained those Doctrines I was particularly induced to undertake this task in hopes that by examining this matter to the bottom I might set these Controversies in their true Light shewing how little credit some Divines do deserve who playing the Criticks have favoured the new Jews and the Socinians with all their Might and abuse those who upon such ungrounded Authority too rashly believe that these Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity came from the School of Plato when on the contrary it is certain that Plato himself by conversing with the Jews in Egypt borrowed of them his best Notions of God To do this in the best method I can I will first of all consider in general what the Jewish Tradition was before Christ Let the Reader give me leave to use that word as the Fathers commonly use it not for a Doctrine unknown in Scripture but for a Doctrine drawn from Scripture and acknowledged for the Common Faith of the Church and I shall shew That both before Christ and in his time the Jews had a current way of expounding the Old Testament which they had received from their Fathers and that Christ and his Apostles used and approved this way of expounding their Scriptures in many particulars 2dly I will examine the Grounds the Jews went upon to come to the understanding of the Old Testament particularly of that part which contains the Promises of the Messias as they had it in Christ's time and still have it to this day 3dly I will shew by some Examples That Christ and his Apostles did prove many Articles of the Christian Doctrine by this Exposition commonly received among the Jews which they would hardly have done had they had nothing else of their side but only the Letter of those places which they quoted This being premised in general as a necessary Foundation I shall particularly examine the Authority of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament and of the Books of Philo the Jew that are extant and of the Targum or the Caldaick Paraphrases on the Books of the Old Testament these being the chief Helps by which we may find out the traditional sense of the Old Testament as it was received in the Synagogue before Christ's time This is absolutely necessary to be done for without proving the Authority of those Apocryphal Books of Philo and of those Paraphrases we cannot with any force and weight use their Testimony in this Controversy as I intend to do This being dispatcht I shall prove clearly That the Jews before Christ's time according to the received Expositions of the Old Testament derived from their Fathers had a Notion of a Plurality of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence And that this Plurality was a Trinity And further That contrary to what Mr. N. has imagined the most learned amongst them have constantly retained those Notions though perhaps they were divided in their Opinions about the Messias his Godhead and the Doctrine of the Trinity as we do apprehend it And because if it be granted that the Word was a Person that goes a great way toward proving the Doctrine of the Trinity And the Socinians affirm that it was not the uncreated Word but a created Angel that appeared to Men under the Old Testament-dispensation and was adored as being God's Representative I shall enquire what was the Opinion of the Old Jews concerning these Matters and shew that they owned the Word to be a Divine Person and that it was that Word that appeared in the Old Testament and consequently that nothing is more false than what some Socinians teach after Grotius upon the Book of Wisdom ch 18.15 grounding it upon his Opinion of an Angel's appearing and being adored That therefore it was lawful for the Jews under the Old Testament to worship Angels but it was first forbidden to Christians under the New as namely by St. Paul Colos 11.18 And that the Socinians may have nothing left them to reply against this I shall descend to particulars and shew at large That according to the Doctrine of the Old Synagogue the Jews apprehended the Word as a true and proper Person and held that that Word was the Son of God That he was the true God That he was to be in the Messias and that the Messias was promised under the Old Testament as Jehovah and accordingly the Old Synagogue expected that he should be Jehovah indeed It is of great moment to satisfy the World of these Truths and to make the Socinians sensible that they can't truly profess the Christian Religion without owning those Doctrines to which yet they seem to be so averse Therefore I will go farther and distinctly shew that the whole Gospel is grounded on those very Notions which the Jews before Christ entertained That the first Christians after the Apostles exactly followed them And that the Jews themselves following generally those very Notions upon the chief Texts of the Old Testament which Christians quote in those Controversies bear witness that they were the undoubted Doctrines both of them and of the Christians before Justin Martyr's time The Men that we
have to do with do very confidently affirm any thing that comes into their heads be it never so little probable so they may thereby give any plausible Solutions of the Difficulties in which they find themselves entangled and perplext and they are much given to vaunt of their unanswerable Arguments so they call them which are many times but weak Objections such as Men of Learning and Wit should be ashamed of For this reason I thought it necessary to prevent as far as it was possible all that they can object against my Position of the Opinions the Old Jews held concerning those Doctrines which were exactly followed and fully declared by the Apostles and first Christians And because I foresee some Objections may arise I will shew that nothing can be more absurd than to imagine that the Jews or the first Christians borrowed their Notions about the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ from Plato's Disciples whereas Plato hath in truth followed the Jewish Notions of those things After this I shall make it appear that however some of the Modern Jews have changed their Opinions in these Articles yet the Socinians can make no advantage thereof because the Jews have in reality much alter'd their belief since Christ's time and are guilty of great Disingenuity as is common to all those who are obstinately set upon the maintaining of erroneous Doctrines In fine I shall plainly shew that the Socinians to defend themselves against the Orthodox have been forced to imitate those Modern Jews and have much out done them in changing and shifting their Opinions when they dispute with Christians I hope to manage this Controversy with the Socinians so plainly and fully as to satisfy the Reader That as on the one side they most falsly accuse the Church of having corrupted the New Testament to favour the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ's Godhead So they cannot on the other side get any ground upon the Jews in their Disputes with them though they fancy they got a great way towards their Conversion by rejecting those Doctrines In a word both the Ancient and Modern Jews do so far agree in those things which make on the Church's side against the Socinians that if they appeal to the Jews they are sure to lose their Cause which when they have better considered they will find it their best way for the maintaining of their Opinions to abandon the Jews altogether as Men that understood not their own Scriptures viz. the Old Testament and to reject both as they have gone a great way towards it in rejecting that traditional sense of the Old Testament for which it was quoted in the New and without which it would have signified little or nothing to those purposes for which it was quoted And so it will appear that for all their brags of the Aptness and even Necessity of their way for the Conversion of the Jews they have taken the direct way to harden them by giving up that sense of the Old Testament Scriptures which Christ and his Apostles made use of for the converting of their Forefathers But we have the less reason to complain of them for this when we see how apt they are to question the Authority of the Books of the New Testament as oft as they find them so clearly opposite to their Doctrines that they cannot obscure the Light of them by any tolerable Exposition To shew that I do not say this without cause I shall show some instances in the last Chapter of this Book CHAP. II. That in the times of Jesus Christ our Blessed Saviour the Jews had among them a common Explication of the Scriptures of the Old Testament grounded on the Tradition of their Fathers which was in many things approved by Christ and his Apostles THE Jews have to this day a certain kind of Tradition received from their Forefathers which contain many precepts of things to be done or avoided on the account of their Religion This they call their Oral Law by which name they distinguish it from the written Law which God gave them by Moses They make five Orders of such a Tradition which are explained by Moses de Trano in his Kiriat Sepher Printed at Venice Anno 1551. The first is of the things which they infer from Moses and the Prophets by a clear consequence and they are certainly of the same Authority as the rest of the Revelation although they call it a Tradition We are not such Enemies to Names as not to like such a sort of Tradition and we receive it with all imaginable reverence we like very well the Judgment of Maimonides who leaves as uncertain whatsoever the Jewish Doctors speak upon many things as being without ground when their Tradition is not gathered from Texts of Scripture de Regib c. 12. The second Order is of the Ceremonies and Rites which they keep as coming from Mount Sinai but of which there is not a word in the Law The third Order is of the Judiciary Laws upon which the two Schools of Hillel and Shammai were divided The fourth is of some Constitutions of the Ancients which they look upon as an hedge to the Law The last is of their Customs which are various in several places of their dispersion Tho' in many things they cannot but see that those last four Orders of Tradition do not agree with the Law of Moses or are quite unknown in it yet they seem to like it never the worse Nay their Rabbins professedly ascribe a much greater Authority to this Oral Law than to the Law of Moses They say in the Talmud Avoda zara c. 1. fol. 17. Col. 2. that a Man who studies in the Law alone without these Traditions is a Man which is without God according to the Prophecy of Azariah 2 Chr. 15.3 Of this sort were all the Traditions which were condemned by our Lord Jesus Christ He plainly calls them the Commandments of Men Mat. XV. 9. and has purposely directed several of his Discourses against them because even where their observing these Traditions would not consist with their Obedience to God as particularly in the case of Corban Mat. XV. 3. yet they gave Tradition the preference and so as our Saviour there tells them Ver. 9. They made the Commandments of God of no effect by their Tradition The Author of these Traditions or new Laws as one may term them did almost all of them live since the time that the Jews were under the power of the Seleucidae and they were the Leaders of those several Sects that corrupted their Religion by adding to it a great number of Observations which were perfectly new We have therefore no reason to look upon this sort of Tradition as the fountain from whence the Jews in Christ's time took their measures of the sense and meaning of the Writings of the Old Testament But for the Interpreting of their Scriptures the Jews in Christ's time had some other kinds of Traditions much different from
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
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
Martyr having been formerly a Platonist and then turning Christian was the first that invented this Doctrine or rather adopted it out of the Platonick into the Christian Divinity and that neither the Jewish nor the Christian Church had ever before conceived any Notion of a Trinity or of any Plurality in the Divine Essence The Doctrine of the Trinity supposes the Divine Essence to be common to three Persons distinguished from one another by incommunicable Properties These Persons are called by St. John 1 Joh. v. 7. the Father the Word and the Spirit There are Three saith he that bear Witness in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these Three are One. This Personal distinction supposes the Father not to be the Son nor the Holy Ghost and that the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit Revelation teaching that the Son is begotten of the Father and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or from the Father by the Son And this distinction is the foundation of their Order and of their Operations For although the Unity of the Divine Nature makes it necessary that these three Persons should all co-operate in the Works of God ad extra as we call them nevertheless there being a certain order among the Persons and a distinction founded in their Personal Properties the Holy Scripture mentioneth an Oeconomy in their Operations so that one work ad extra is ascribed to the Father another to the Son and a third to the Holy Spirit But this distinction of Persons all partaking of the same common Nature and Majesty hinders not their being equally the Object of that Worship which Religion commands us to pay to God I touch this matter but very briefly because my business is only to examine whether the Jews had any notion of this Doctrine And our Opinion is this that though the Gospel has proposed that Doctrine more clearly and distinctly yet there were in the Old Testament sufficient notices of it so that the Jews before Christ's time did draw from thence their Notions concerning it On the contrary the Socinians maintain that this Doctrine is not only alike foreign to the Books of the Old and New Testament but that it was altogether unknown to the Jews before and after Christ till Justin Martyr first brought it into the Church In opposition to which I affirm for truth 1. That the Jews before Jesus Christ had a notion of a Plurality in God following herein certain Traces of this Doctrine that are to be found in the Books of Moses and the Prophets 2. That the same Jews following the Scriptures of the Old Testament did acknowledg a Trinity in the Divine Nature I begin the Examination of this Subject by considering the Notions of the Authors of the Apocryphal Books Now one cannot expect that these Authors should have explained their mind with relation to the notions of a Plurality and of a Trinity in the Godhead as if they had been Interpreters of the Books of the Old Testament But they express it sufficiently without that and speak in such a manner that no body can deny that they must have had those very Notions when it appears that their Expressions in speaking of God supposes the Notions of a Plurality in the Godhead and of a Trinity in particular Let us consider some of those Expressions 1. They were so full of the notion of a Plurality which is expressed in Gen. i. 26. that the Author of Tobith hath used it as the Form of Marriage among the Jews of old Let us make unto him an aid So Chap. 8.6 Thou madest Man and gavest him Eve his Wife for an helper and stay of them came Mankind Thou hast said It is not good that Man should be alone Let us make unto him an aid like unto himself whereas in the Hebrew it is only I shall make 2ly We see that they acknowledg the Creation of the World by the Word of God and by the Holy Ghost as David Psal xxxiii 6. So the Book of Wisdom Ch. ix 1. O God of my Fathers and Lord of mercy who hath made all things with thy Word or more properly by thy Word as it is explained in the 2. vers and ver 4. he asketh Wisdom in these words Give me Wisdom that sitteth by thy Throne And v. 17. Thy counsel who hath known except thou give Wisdom and send thy Holy Spirit from above Where he distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Wisdom and the Holy Spirit from God to whom he directs his Prayer And so the Book of Judith ch xvi 13 14. I will sing unto the Lord a new Song O Lord thou art great and glorious wonderful in strength and invincible Let all creatures serve thee for thou speakest and they were made thou didst send forth thy Spirit and it created them and there is none that can resist thy voice 3ly They speak of the Emanation of the Word from God Those are the words of the Book of Wisdom ch vii 25. For she is the breath of the power of God and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty therefore can no defiled thing fall into her That description of Wisdom deserves to be considered as we have it in the same place ver 22 23 24 25 26. For Wisdom which is the worker of All things taught me for in her is an understanding spirit holy one only manifold subtil lively clear undefiled plain not subject to hurt loving the thing that is good quick which cannot be letted ready to do good Kind to man stedfast sure free from care having all power over-seeing all things and going through all understanding pure and most subtil Spirits For Wisdom is more moving than any motion she passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness For she is the brightness of the everlasting Light the unspotted mirrour of the power of God and the image of his Goodness And indeed St. Paul Heb. i. 3. hath borrowed from thence what we read touching the Son that he is the brightness of God's glory and the express Image of his Person So the Book of Ecclesiasticus saith ch xxv 3. That it is come out of the mouth of the most High 4ly There are several Names in Scripture which serve to express the second Person the Son the Word the Wisdom the Angel of the Lord but who is the Lord indeed Now those Authors use all these Names to express a second Person For they acknowledge a Father and a Son by a natural consequence Thus the Author of Ecclesiasticus ch li. 10. I called upon the Lord the father of my Lord in the same way as David speaks of the Messias Psal ii and Psal cx and as Solomon in his Proverbs ch viii 25. as of a Son in the bosom of his Father and ch xxx 4. What is his Sons name if thou canst tell They speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as
And 47. And he did evil also in the sight of the Lord and cared not for the words that were spoken unto him by the Prophet Jeremy from the mouth of the Lord. 3ly They speak of the Bina or Understanding by which is to be understood the Holy Spirit from Prov. iii. and viii So in Eccles c. i. 4. Wisdom hath been created before all things and the understanding of prudence from everlasting So the Book of Wisdom chap. i. 4 5 6 7. For into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit and remove from thoughts that are without understanding and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in For Wisdom is a loving spirit and will not acquit a blasphemer of his words for God is witness of his reins and a true beholder of his heart and a hearer of his tongue For the Spirit of the Lord filleth the world and that which containeth all things hath knowledge of the voice 4ly They acknowledg him as the Counsellor of God which knew all his Counsels So you read in the Book of Wisdom ch ix 17. And thy counsel who hath known except thou give wisdom and send thy Holy Spirit from above 5ly They speak of him as of he that discovers the secrets of God so Ecclus ch 39.8 He shall shew forth that which he hath learned and shall glory in the law of the covenant of the Lord. And ch 48.24 25. He saith of Isaiah He saw by an excellent spirit what should come to pass at the last and he comforted them that mourned in Sion He shewed what should come to pass for ever and secret things or ever they came 6ly They acknowledg him to be sent from God Wisdom ch ix 17. And thy counsel who hath known except thou give wisdom and send thy Holy Spirit from above After all if we consider what Notions they had of the Messias which was promised to them we shall find that they had much nobler Ideas than those which are now entertained by the last Jews and more like to them which we find among the Prophets 1. It is clear that they lookt upon him as the Person which was to sit upon the Throne of God the Title of my Lord which is given by the Author of Ecclus ch li. 10. shews that beyond exception by so clear an allusion to the Psal cx and ii which both speak of the Messias 2ly They did not look upon it as an absurd thing to suppose that God is to appear in the earth as you see in Baruch ch iii. 37. Afterward did he shew himself upon earth and conversed with men For they refer that either to his appearance upon Sinai or to the Incarnation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3ly They suppose another coming of the Messias and then the Saints are to judge the Nations and have dominion over the people and their Lord shall reign for ever Wisd ch iii. 8. which words have been borrowed by St. Paul 1 Cor. vi 2. 4ly They acknowledg such Appearances of God as we have an example in 2 Macc. ch xi 6. and ch xxi 22 23. Now when 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 5ly They speak of the Appearances of God as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very word used by St. Paul for the first and second Appearance of Jesus Christ So the 2. of Macc. ch xv 27. and 34. So every man praised toward the even that glorious Lord saying Blessed be he that hath kept his own place undefiled So that fighting with their hands and praying unto God with their hearts they slew no less than thirty and five thousand men for through the appearance of God they were greatly cheared 6ly They expected at the second coming of the Messias such a manifestation of his Glory as in the Consecration of the Temple So 2 Macc. ch ii 8. Then shall the Lord shew them these things and the glory of the Lord shall appear and the cloud also as it was shewed under Moses and as when Solomon desired that the place might be honourably sanctified I believe these Proofs are sufficient to demonstrate 1. That there was before Jesus Christ's time a Notion of Plurality in the Godhead 2ly That they believed that such a Plurality was a Trinity 3ly That they look'd upon the Son or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Holy Ghost as not created Beings but as Beings of the same Divine Nature with the Father by an Eternal Emanation from him as having the same Power and the same Majesty But these Ideas of the Apocryphal Books will appear more clear when we take them in conjunction with the explication of the like Notions among other Hebrew Writers which I shall now consider more particularly And withal those places of Scripture on which they ground their Explications CHAP. IX That the Jews had good Grounds to acknowledg some kind of Plurality in the Divine Nature AFter what I have quoted from the Authors of the Apocryphal Books which are in the hand of all people to prove 1. That the Jews before Jesus Christ had a Notion of a Plurality in God following herein certain Traces of this Doctrine that are to be found in the Books of Moses and the Prophets And 2ly that the same Jews did acknowledg a Trinity in the Divine Nature I will proceed to consider in particular the Grounds which they build upon to admit such Notions I begin with the first of those two Articles which is That the Stile of God in the Jewish Scriptures gave them a Notion of a Plurality in God To establish this Proposition I do not intend to gather all the Texts of the Old Testament which might be brought to prove a Plurality in the Divine Nature nor will I answer the several Solutions which the Unitarians have invented to darken this truth which they oppose It shall suffice me to do two things 1. To shew that the Stile of God in Scripture and of the Sacred Authors leads one naturally to the Notion of a Plurality of Persons in the Divine Essence 2. That this Stile made the like Impression on the Jews before Jesus Christ as was made by it anciently and is still made on it by the generality of Christians So that the Jews generally have acknowledged that the Divine Nature which is otherwise perfectly one is distinguishable into certain Properties which we call Persons For the proof of the first Point to wit that the Scriptures of the Old Testament suppose a Plurality in God I make these following Reflections 1. Moses the chief End of whose Writings was to root out of the minds of Men the conceit of Polytheism does yet describe the Creation of the World in words that insinuate a Plurality
formed the same Notions that we have of the Divine Nature To do this with the more clearness I shall observe this Method 1. To shew what were their Reflections on the Unity of the Divine Nature 2. To shew what their Reflections were on those passages of the Scripture which note a Plurality in the Unity of the Divine Essence As to the first Philo who left a great many Pieces behind him is best able to instruct us and he asserts that the Nature of God is incomprehensible i. e. that we cannot form a just Idea of it Alleg. 1. p. 43. F. G. De Profug p. 370. C. That God's Providence and Existence are known to us but as to his Essence we are altogether ignorant of it De Mund. p. 889. D. And having in several places of his Writings observed 1. That Moses the Law-giver of the Jews made this his chief End to destroy the Notion of Polytheism He then 2. Affirms that though it is said God is one yet this is not to be understood with respect to Number Alleg. L. III. p. 841. Not that Philo would have it thought that there is more than one God but hereby he intimates the Unity of God to be transcendent to have nothing common with that of other Beings which fall under Number 3. And indeed he acknowledges a Generation in God If you ask him what he begets he will tell you 4. That God begets his Word Who is therefore said to be not unbegotten like God and yet not begotten like his Creatures Quis rerum Divin haeres p. 398. A. And on account of this Generation he calls him the First-born of God De Agricult p. 152. De Confus Ling. p. 267. Again he will tell you that God begets his Wisdom De Temul p. 190. E. And that his Wisdom is the same with his Word Alleg. 1. p. 39. F. following no doubt Solomon's Notion Prov. viii 22. But did he own that this Generation was made in time No For 5. He asserts that this Generation was from all Eternity For he saith the Word of God is the Eternal Son of God De Confus Ling. p. 255. D. p. 267. C. 6. When he would explain in what respect or for what reason God is called in Scripture The God of Gods he saith not that it is in respect of the Angels whose God he is and who sometimes are called Elohim or Gods even by Philo himself De Opif. p. 4. F. But he saith it is in relation to his two Powers Lib. de Victim off p. 661. G. which would be a ridiculous thing had he thought these two Powers were no other than two Attributes of God Indeed Philo is so far from thinking them meer simple Attributes that he maintains 1. That these Powers made the World or by them God created the World De Victim off p. 663. F. de Confus Ling. p. 270. B. de Plant. Noae p. 176. E. Quis rer div Haer. p. 393. G. 2. That these eternal Powers appeared acted and spoke as real Persons and in a visible and sensible manner Lib. de Cherub p. 97. D. De Sacr. Ab. p. 108. B. C. Quod Deus sit immutab p. 229. B. p. 241. C. D. p. 242. B. de Plant. Noae p. 176. D. E. Quod rer div haer p. 393. G. De Somn. p. 457. G. de Mund. p. 888. B. He also maintains that the two Cherubins which were over the Ark were the Symbols of the two eternal Powers of God De Vit. Mos III. p. 517. F. Quis rerum Divin Haer. p. 393. G. These are in general the Notions which the Jews had of a Plurality in the Divine Essence which is otherwise single and one I shall hereafter shew that the very same Notions are spred throughout the ancient Targums as far as the Nature of the Works which for the most part are only naked Translations of the Hebrew into Chaldee does give occasion to the Authors of these Targums to explain themselves on these Heads Now let us go on to examine the Foundations on which the ancient Jews grounded this Notion of a Plurality in God For it is not to be imagined that they would have believed thus without some Authority for it in the Books of the Old Testament upon which alone they pretended to found the Doctrines of their Religion Secondly then As to the first Words of Moses In the beginning the Gods created I must own that Philo writing in Greek did not express his Notion of Plurality in expounding this Text For he followed the Version of the LXX which reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Singular instead of the Hebrew Elohim in the Plural But then he more than hints that this Reflexion was common among the Jews seeing that he rarely speaks of God without mentioning his two Powers as I have newly observed to you And in one place he gives this reason why the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used throughout the History of the Creation because that was the Appellation of one of God's Powers by which he made the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Plant. Noae p. 176. D. E. Which shews evidently that the Notion of Plurality did still remain among the Greek Jews when the Plural Elohim which was the Ground of it was taken away by their Translators for a reason that I shall shortly mention But to shew that the word Elohim in the Plural has always made this impression on the Minds of the Jews we must observe 1. That long before Justin Martyr's time there was a sort of Men who imagined that the Angels did create the World grounding it upon this place compared with those other Texts where the Angels are sometimes called Elohim as Psal viii 6. Psal xcvii 7. Such was the Opinion of Menander the Scholar of Simon Magus in particular 2. That the Talmudists themselves were so perswaded of a Plurality expressed in the word Elohim as to teach in Title Megilla c. 1. fol. 11. That the LXX Interpreters did purposely change the Notion of Plurality couched in the Hebrew Plural into a Greek Singular as they did also on Gen. 1.26 and xi 7. lest Ptolom Philadelph should conclude that the Jews as well as himself had a belief of Polytheism That was taken notice of by St. Jerom in his Preface to the Book De Quaest Hebr. 3. That however the Construction of a Noun Plural with a Verb Singular may render it doubtful to some whether these words express a Plurality or no yet certainly there can be no doubt in those places where a Verb or Adjective Plural are joyned with the word Elohim and such places as I already have made appear are often to be found in the Writings of the Old Testament That the word Elohim is to be understood Plurally this the Jews since Christ's time have acknowledged to be agreeable to their sense of the word For in 1 Sam. xxviii 13. where the Witch of Endor saith I see the Gods ascending 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Eminent Divines of the old Jewish Church and consequently as subject to several weaknesses and oversights which are common to the greatest as well as to the meanest men Even the most Learned Men in all Ages though they agree in the truth of certain Doctrines are yet often divided in their ways of expressing them and also in their grounding them on this or that place of Scripture For the Jews since Christ's time we are less concern'd what they say because when they had once rejected their Messias the Lord Jesus Christ they soon found that if they stood to their Traditional Expositions of Scripture it could not be denied but he whom they had rejected was the Word the Son of God whom their Fathers expected to come in our Flesh but rather than yield to that they would alter their Creed and either wholly throw out the Word the Son of God or bring him down to the state of a created Angel as we see some of them do now in their ordinary Comments on Scripture And so they deal with the Shekinah likewise confounding the Master with the Servant as we see that some few perhaps one or two Cabalists have done in their Books In consequence of this alteration they are forc'd to acknowledg the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob worshipped a created Angel and have left themselves no way to excuse them from Idolatry therein but by corrupting their Doctrine concerning Religious Worship and teaching that it is lawful to pray to these Ministring Spirits which is effectually the setting up of other Gods plainly contrary to the first Commandment of their Law Some of themselves are so sensible of this that they cannot deny it to be Idolatry Which is certainly the more inexcusable in the Jews because on other occasions they constantly affirm that when God charged the Angels with the care of other Nations he reserved to himself the sole Government of his people Israel Deut. xxxii 8 9. And therefore it must be a grievous sin in them to worship Angels howsoever they should imagin it might be permitted to other Nations After all this they have not been able so totally to suppress the ancient Tradition but that in their Writers since Christ's time there appear some footsteps of it still And that it is so I am next to shew that notwithstanding their aversness to the Christian Doctrine they yet have a Notion distinct enough both of a Plurality and Trinity in the Divine Nature which will be the whole business of my next Chapter CHAP. XI That this Notion of a Trinity in the Divine Nature has continued among the Jews since the time of our Lord Jesus Christ TO begin with the Jewish Authors who have writ Medrashim that is a sort of Allegorical Commentaries upon Scripture and the Cabalistical Jews whom their people look upon as the wisest Men of their Nation viz. those that know the truth more than all others among them this truth passes for undoubted I know very well that the method of those Cabalistical Men who seek for Mysteries almost in every Letter of the words of Scripture hath made them justly ridiculous And indeed one cannot imagin an occupation more vain or useless than the prodigious labour which they undergo in their way of Gematria Notarikon and Tsirouph But besides that Vice is not so general among the Jews I am fully resolved to lay aside in this Controversie all such remarks my design being only to shew that the ancient Tradition hath been kept among those Authors who have their Name from their firm adherence to the Tradition of their Forefathers So I am not willing to deny that some of the Books of those Cabalistical Authors which the Jews who are not great Criticks look upon as very ancient are not as to all their parts of such an antiquity as the Jews suppose them to be But I take notice that those who attack the antiquity of those Books are not aware that notwithstanding some additions which are in those Books as for example in the Zohar and in the Rabboth the very Doctrine of the Synagogue is to be found there and the same as it is represented to us by the Apocryphal Authors by Philo or those who had occasion to mention the Doctrine of the Jews After all let us suppose that almost all those Books have been written since the Talmud and that the Talmud was written since the beginning of the seventh Century that could not be a prejudice against the Doctrine which the Jews propose as the ancient Doctrine of the Synagogue But to the contrary it would be a strong proof of the constancy of those Authors in keeping the Tradition of their Ancestors in so strange a dispersion and among so many Nations chiefly since in the Articles upon which I shall quote their Authorities they so exactly follow the steps of the Authors of the Apocryphal Books of Philo the Jew and of their ancient Paraphrast who had more penetrated into the sense of Scripture I say then that both the Authors of the Midrashim and the Cabalistical Authors agree exactly in this that they acknowledg a Plurality in the Divine Essence and that they reduce such a Plurality to three Persons as we do To prove such an assertion I take notice first That the Jews do judg as we do that the word Elohim which is Plural expresses a Plurality Their ordinary remark upon that word is this that Elohim is as if one did read El hem that is They are God Bachajè a famous Commentator of the Pentateuch who brings in his work all the senses of the four sorts of Interpreters among the Jews speaks to this purpose upon the Parascha Breschit fol. 2. col 3. 2ly It is certain that they make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express those Persons as they use to express the two first human Persons viz. Adam and Eve Thus speaks of them the same Bachaje Ibid. fol. 13. col 2. 3ly They fix the number of three Persons in the Divine Essence distinguishing their Personal Characters and Actions which serve to make them known 4ly They speak of the emanation of the two last from the first and that the last proceeds by the second 5ly They declare that this Doctrine contains a Mystery that is incomprehensible and above human reason and that in such an unsearchable secret we must acquiesce with the Authority of the Divine Revelation 6ly They ground this Doctrine upon the very same Texts of Scripture which we alledg to prove the several Positions of ours which deserves a great deal of consideration And indeed those things being so we must necessarily conclude either that they mock their Readers or that they do not understand what they say or one must acknowledg that the consequences and conclusions which Christians draw from the Scriptures to this subject of Trinity are not so easie to be avoided as the Socinians believe Let the Reader reflect upon each of those Articles while I
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
and the same thing is to be found in their Manuscripts which are more rare because the Jews have not yet Printed them Of this sort is Iggereth Hassodoth cited by Galatinus whose Authority is vindicated by Plantavitius Bibl. Rabb p. 549. Of this sort also is the Manuscript called Sod Mercava Eliona quoted by Ritt p. 35. where are mentioned the three Modes of Existence in God Notwithstanding which they are all unanimous that the Lord is one and his Name is one If you would know on what foundations it was that the Cabalists built this Doctrine you need but look over the Texts on which they have reflected and you 'l find them almost all the same with those that were quoted to the same purpose by the Apostles and Apostolical Men in their Writings Particularly if you would know their opinion to whom it was that God did speak at the Creation Gen. i. 26. R. Juda will tell you God spoke to his Word If you would know of them who is the Spirit of whom we read Gen. i. 2. that he moved on the face of the Waters Moses Botril will inform you it is the Holy Spirit If you would learn of them to whom it was that God spoke Gen. i. 26. saying Let Us make Man Moses Botril tells us that these words are directed to the Wisdom of God If you would know what Spirit it was that is spoken of Job xxviii 12. Again Moses Botril will tell you it is the Holy Spirit If you would know of whom they understand those words in Psal xxxvi 6. They say plainly that they are spoken of that very Trinity If you would know what they think of that Wisdom Psal civ 24. R. Moses Botril describes it to you as a Person and not an Attribute If you would know to whom that is to be referr'd which we read of Isa xl 14. R. Abraham ben David will tell you to the Three Sephiroth All this is to be found in their several Comments on the Book Jetzira which were printed at Mantua in the last Century A. D. 1562. 1592. and have been quoted in Latin by Rittangelius But it may be said That the Jews have adopted this Doctrine inconsiderately without reflecting upon the Absurdity of it For how is it possible to conceive such Emanations in God who is Immutable and Eternal and such an Idea of Plurality and of Trinity in God who is over and above all Ideas of Composition But I answer 1. All these they have considered and yet have owned this Distinction in the Divine Essence as a Truth not to be contested But assert these Three Sephiroth which they call sometimes Spirits to be Eternal and Essential in God which they say we ought not to deny because we can't easily conceive it For the Divine Nature is Incomprehensible far exceeding the Limits of our narrow Understandings And the Revelation God hath given us does no more put us in a capacity to judge of the nature of the things revealed than the borrowed Light of the Moon which is all that the Owls can behold does render them able to judge of the Sun 's far more glorious Light Such are the Thoughts of R. Sabtay in Rit on Jetz p. 78 79 80. Such are the Reflections of R. Menach who cites Job xxviii 7. to this purpose and the Caution of the Jewish Doctors who forbid to undertake the Examination of things that are incomprehensible 2. They have expressed their Notions of this matter much after the same manner as the Thomists have done theirs The Book Jetzira chap. 1. distinguishes in God Sopher Sepher and Sippour which R. Abraham explaining says they answer to Him that understands to the Act of Understanding and to the Thing understood All this is still the more remarkable 1. Because the common Jews have well nigh quite lost the Notion of the Messias being God and they generally expect no other than a mere common Man for their Redeemer 2. Because the main Body of the Jews are such zealous Asserters of the Unity of God that they repeat every day the words of Deut. vi 4. The Lord our God is One Lord. It is a Practice which though now they have turn'd against the Christians yet doubtless was taken up first in opposition to the Gentiles whose Polytheism was renounced in this short Confession of the Jewish Faith And hence it is that they do so much celebrate R. Akiba's Faith who died in Torments with the last Syllables of the word Echad in his Mouth which signifies the Unity of God 3. Because the Jews at the same time dispute against the Christians Doctrine of the Trinity as doth R. Saadia for instance in his Book entituled Sepher Emunah chap. 2. 4. Because from the beginning of Christianity some Rabbins have applied themselves to find out other Senses of those Passages which the Christians urge against them This we see in Gem. of Sanhedr chap. 4. sect 2. And yet notwithstanding all this opposition the Cabalists have past and do still pass for Divines among the Jews and the Targumists for Inspired Men. Nor is it to be imagined that these Notions of the Cabalistical Jews are new things which they pick'd up since their more frequent Converse with the Christians For we find them in the Book Zohar the Author of which is reputed one of the chief Jewish Martyrs Jebhamoth tr 1. fol. 5. col 2. and to have lived in the Second Century I know some have suspected that this Book is a counterfeit and falsly fathered on R. Simeon whose Name it bears The Zohar was not known say they till about the time of R. Moses Bar Nachman So saith the Book Juchazin p. 42. R. D. Ganz in Tzemach David p. 106. But we find these Notions in the beginning of the Rabboth which Books they will have to be more Ancient than the Talmud Furthermore we see in the Gemara of Sabbath that R. Simeon was dispensed with the necessity of his being present at Prayers in the Synagogue because he and his Scholars were at work upon the Study of the Laws which supposes that he was writing some such Comments as we have now although 't is probable that they have been increased in following Ages Besides who can imagine that in all places the Jews should have adopted Opinions unknown to their Religion and in effect destructive of those Points for which they then zealously contended if they had not been convinced of the Truth of such a Doctrine And now give me leave to propose one Argument to the Unitarians which I believe they will not be able to answer and adhere to their new-advanced Position That the Nazarenes were the true Primitive Christians and the only Depositaries of the Apostolick Doctrine It is a Passage taken from the Gospel of the Nazarenes as cited by St. Jerome on Ezek. xvi Where after noting that the word Ruach Spirit in the Hebrew Tongue is Feminine he adds In Evangelio quoque Hebraeorum quod
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 〈◊〉
God the Word that spoke this to the People the ancient Church could not doubt as we see in the Book of Deuteronomy where Jonathan tells us that thus Moses minded his People of what they had heard and seen at the giving of the Law Deut. iv 33. Is it possible that a People should have heard the voice of the Word of the Lord the Living God speak out of the middle of the fire as you have heard and yet live Again v. 36. Out of Heaven he hath made you hear the voice of his Word and ye have heard his words out of the midst of the fire Again he puts them in mind of the fright they were in Deut. v. 23. After ye had heard the voice of the Word out of the midst of the Darkness on the Mount burning with fire all the Chiefs of you came to me and said Behold the Word of the Lord our God has shewed us the Divine Majesty of his Glory and the Excellence of his Magnificence and we have heard the voice of his Word out of the midst of the fire why should we die as we must if we hear any more of the voice of the Word of the Lord our God for who is there living in flesh that hears the voice of the Word of the Living God speaking out of the middle of the fire as we do and yet live Again Deut. xviii 16. he minds them of the same thing in some of the same Words Many more such Quotations might be added but these are sufficient to prove that it was the undoubted Tradition of the ancient Jewish Church That their Law was given by the Word of God and that it was he that appeared to Moses for this purpose As the Word gave the Law it was he that made those many Appearances to Moses throughout his whole Conduct of the People of Israel through the Wilderness To begin with that Divine Appearance which was continually in sight of all the People of Israel for forty years together throughout their whole Travel in the Wilderness namely the Pillar which they saw in the Air day and night Where this Pillar is first spoken of namely at the coming of the People of Israel up out of Egypt there it is expresly said That the Lord went before them in the Pillar of Cloud by day and fire by night Exod. xiii 21. Afterward indeed he is called the Angel of God Exod. xiv 19. where we read that the People being come to the Red-Sea and being there in imminent danger of being overtaken by the Egyptians by whom they were closely pursued the Angel which had gone before the Camp of Israel all day removed at night and went behind them That this Angel was God it is certain not only because he is called God Exod. xiii 21. xiv 24. Numb xii 5. But also because he was Worshipped Exod. xxxiii 10. which was a sure Proof of his Divinity Being therefore God himself and yet the Messenger of God it must be that this was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word and that this was the Tradition of the ancient Church we are taught not only by Philo in the place above mentioned Quis rer Div. haeres p. 397. F.G. but also by the Jerusalem Targum on Exod. xiv 24. and Jonathan on Exod. xxxiii 9. and by Onkelos on Deut. i. 32 33. as has been mentioned When the Children of Israel after the first three days march found no other Waters but what were too bitter for them to drink at which they murmured Moses cried unto the Lord who thereupon shewed him a Tree which they threw into the Waters and thereby made them sweet Exod. xv 25. Here was a Divine Appearance and it was of the Word of the Lord according to the Jerusalem Targum A Month after their coming out of Egypt for want of Bread they murmured against Moses and Aaron at which God shewed himself so much concerned that he made his Glory appear to them in the Pillar of Cloud Exod. xvi 7 10 That according to the sense of the ancient Church this was the Shekinah of the Word has been newly shown both from Philo and from all the Targums and the same we find here in this place v. 8. where Moses tells them your murmurings are not against us but against the Word of the Lord according to Onkelos and Jonathan When Exod. xvii 8 c. the Amalekites came against this poor people that had never seen War and smote the hindmost of them God not only gave his people a Victory over them but also said unto Moses write this for a Memorial in a Book That I will utterly put out the Remembrance of Amalek from under Heaven Exod. xvii 14. See how Moses performs this v. 15. In the place where they had fought he set up an Altar inscribed Jehovah Nissi The Lord is my Standard meaning that it was the will of God they should be in perpetual War against Amalek and this reason for it he entreth in his Book v. 16. according to Jonathan for the Word of the Lord has sworn by his Glory that he will have war against Amalek for all Generations The next Divine Appearance we read of was at the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai whereof enough has been already said and we must avoid being too long For which reason we omit much more that might be said of the following Appearances in the Wilderness which are all ascribed to the Word in one or other of the Targums But I ought not to omit to take notice of some special things So for their places of Worship God promised according to the Jerusalem Targum Exod. xx 24. Wheresoever you shall mention my Holy Name my Word shall appear to you and shall bless you and the Temple is called the place which the Word of the Lord your God will chuse to place his Shekinah there according to Jonathan's and the Jerusalem Targums on Deut. xii 4. Especially at the Altar for Sacrifice which was before the Door of the Tabernacle God promised Moses both for himself and the People according to Onkelos and Jonathan on Exod. xxix 42. I will appoint my Word to speak with thee there and I will appoint my Word there for the Children of Israel Above all at the Mercy-seat where the Ark stood God promised to Moses according to those Targums on Exod. xxv 22. xxx 36. Numb xxvii 4. I will appoint my Word to speak with thee there And in sum of all the Precepts in Leviticus it is said at the end of that Book according to those Targums on Levit. xxvi 46. These are the Statutes and Judgments and Laws which the Lord made between his Word and the Children of Israel When they entred into Covenant with God obliging themselves to live according to his Laws Hereby they made the Word to be their King and themselves his Subjects So Moses tells them Deut. xxvi 17. according to the Jerusalem Targum You have
shortness of what we have to say in the following part of this Chapter For being now to treat of those Divine Appearances that are recorded in the other Books of Scripture after the Pentateuch we shall find those Appearances fewer and fewer till they come quite to cease in the Jewish Church For when once the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was setled as the King of Israel between the Cherubims He is not to be look'd for in other places And of those Books of Scripture in which the following Appearances are mentioned we have not so many Paraphrases as we have of the five Books of Moses One Paraphrase is all that we have of most of the Books we now speak of But after all we have reason to thank God that that Evidence of the Divine Appearances of the Word of God has been so abundantly sufficient that we have no need of any more So that of the following Appearances of God or of a Worshipt Angel it will be enough to shew that the ancient Jewish Church had the same Notion that they had of those already mentioned out of the five Books of Moses We read but of one Divine appearance to Joshua and that is of one that came to him as a man with a drawn-sword in his hand calling himself the Captain of the Lord's Host Josh v. 13 14. Some would have it that this was a created Angel But certainly Joshua did not take him to be such otherwise he would not have fallen down on his face and worshipped him as he did v. 14. Nor would a created Angel have taken it of him without giving him a present reproof as the Angel did to St. John in the like Case Rev. xix 10. xxii 9. But this Divine Person was so far from reproving him for having done too much that he commanded him to go on and do yet much more requiring of him the highest acknowledgment of a Divine Presence that was used among the Eastern Nations in these words Loose thy Shoo from off thy foot for the ground whereon thou standest is holy Now considering that these are the very same words that God used to Moses in Exod. iii. 2 3. We see a plain reason why God should command this to Joshua It was for the strengthening of his faith to let him know that as he was now in Moses's stead so God would be the same to him that he had been to Moses And particularly with respect to that trial which required a more than ordinary measure of faith the difficulty of taking the strong City of Jericho with such an Army as he had without any provision for a Siege the Lord said unto him Josh vi 2. See I have given Jericho into thy hand None but God could say and do this and the Text plainly saith It was the Lord. And that the Lord who thus appeared as a Warrier and called himself Captain of the Lord's Host was no other than the Word this was plainly the sense of the ancient Jewish Church as appears by what remains of it in their Paraphrase on Josh x. 42. xxiii 3 10. which saith It was the Word of the Lord that fought for them and v. 13. which saith It was the VVord which cast out the Nations before them And indeed this very judgment of the Old Synagogue is to be seen not only in their Targums till this day but in their most ancient Books as Rabboth fol. 108. col 3. Zohar par 3. fol. 139. col 3. Tanch ad Exod. 3. Ramb. ad Exod. 3. Bach. fol. 69. 2. The learned Masius in Josh v. 13.14 hath translated the words of Ramban and he hath preferred his Interpretation which is the most ancient amongst the Jews to the sense of the Commentators of the Church of Rome Of Divine Appearances in the Book of Judges we read of one to Gideon that seems to have been of an Angel of God for so he is called Judg. vi 11 12. And again v. 20 21 22. In this last place it is also said that Gideon perceived he was an Angel of the Lord i. e. He saw that this was an Heavenly Person that came to him with a Message from God And yet that he was no created Angel it seems by his being oftner called the Lord v. 14 16 23 24 25 27. And Gideon in that whole History never address'd himself to any other but God The Message delivered from God by this Angel to Gideon ver 16. is thus rendred in the Targum Surely my Word shall be thy help and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man The Word that help'd Gideon against the Midianites was no other than he that appeared to Joshua with a Sword in his hand Josh v. 13. That was now the Sword of the Lord and of Gideon Judg. vii 18 20. And what the Ancient Jewish Church meant by the Word of the Lord in this place one may guess by their Targum on Judg. vi 12 13. Where the Angel saying to Gideon The Word of the Lord is thy help he answered Is the Shekinah of the Lord our help whence then hath all this happen'd to us It is plain by this Paraphrase that they reckoned the Word of the Lord to be the same with the Shekinah of the Lord even him by whom God so gloriously appeared for their deliverance And indeed they could hardly be mistaken in the Person of that Angel who saith that his Name is Pele the Wonderful which is used Isaiah ix amongst the Names of the Messias which Name the Jews make a shift to appropriate to God exclusively to the Messias The Angel that appeared to Manoah Judg. xiii could seem to have been no other than a created Angel but the Name which he takes of Pele the Wonderful shews that he was the Word of the Lord or the Angel of the Lord l. lxiii 8. In the first Book of Samuel we read of no other such Appearance but that which God made to Samuel 1 Sam. iii. 21. and that was only by a Voice from the Temple of the Lord where the Ark was at that time ver 3 4. The same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a Temple and a Palace and so the Tabernacle was called in which the Ark was then in Shiloh There it was that God revealed himself to Samuel by the Word of the Lord ver 21. But that in the Opinion of the Ancient Jewish Church the Word of the Lord was their King and the Tabernacle was his Palace where his Throne was upon the Ark between the Cherubims and that from thence the Word gave his Oracles all this has been so fully proved before in this Chapter that to prove it here again would be superfluous and therefore I take it for granted that in their Opinion it was the Word of the Lord from whom this Voice came to Samuel In the Second Book of Samuel we read how upon David's Sin in numbring the People â—â—d sent the Prophet Gad to give him his
choice of Three Punishments either Three Years Famine or Three Months Destruction by Enemies or Three Days Pestilence throughout all the Coast of Israel This last being a Judgment from Heaven that falls as soon upon the Prince as the Peasant David made choice of it rather than either of the other saying withal Let me not fall into the hands of Man but into the hands of the Lord for great are his Mercies 1 Chron. xxi 13. Thereupon God sent a Pestilence upon all the Coasts of Israel by which there fell Seventy thousand Men 2 Sam. xxiv 15. And to represent to David's Bodily Eyes an extraordinary Instance as well of God's Justice in punishing Sinners as of his Mercy to them upon their Repentance and Prayer God made him see an Angel standing between the Earth and the Heaven having a drawn Sword in his hand stretch'd out over Jerusalem to destroy it 2 Sam. xxiv 16 17. And 1 Chron. xxi 16. And when at this Sight David fell upon his face and prayed as it followeth ver 17. God said to the destroying Angel It is enough stay now thy hand Then the Angel came down and stood by the Floor of Ornan the Jebusite on which Place God designed that Solomon should build his Temple and declared it to David upon this occasion There according to the Angel's Order by the Prophet Gad David now built an Altar and sacrificed thereon upon which the Lord commanded the Angel and he put up his Sword into his sheath 2 Sam. xxiv 17. This was no other than a Created Angel whom God that employ'd him in that Service appointed to appear in that manner for all those purposes before-mentioned What the Ancient Church thought of all this Passage of History we may easily guess by what has been already shewn of their ascribing all Rewards and Punishments to the Word that had the Conduct and Government over God's People And though it seems that Care has been taken to conceal this Notion of theirs as much as was possible in the Targums of the Books now before us yet here is a Passage that seems to have escaped the Correctors by which we may perceive the Church's Sense here was agreeable to what we find of it in all other places For in 2 Sam. xxiv 14. where we find in the Text that David said ver 6. Let us fall now into the â—â—nd of the Lord for his Mercies are great the Targum thus renders these words Let me be delivered into the hand of the Word of the Lord for great are his Mercies It was therefore the Word of the Lord into whose hands David fell It was his Angel by whom the Judgment was executed And it was also his Mercy by which the Judgment was suspended and revoked The Targum on this Text sufficiently shews that all this was the Sense of the Jewish Church In short the Ancient Church considered the Word as being their Sovereign Lord and King of the People of Israel All those Kings whose Acts are described in the Two Books of Kings they look'd upon as his Lieutenants or Deputies that held their Title from and under him by his Covenant with David their Father This Solomon declared in these words 1 Kings viii 15. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel who by his Word made a Covenant with David my Father Whatsoever God did for his People under their Government in protecting and delivering them from their Enemies they own'd that it was for his Word's sake and for his Servant David's sake 2 Kings xix 34. xx 6. When they had quite broken his Covenant then God removed them from before his Word and gave them up to be a Scorn to all Nations as he threatned he would 1 Kings ix 7. according to their Targum In these Books we read of no more but Two Divine Appearances in Solomon's time and both these were made to Solomon himself 1 Kings ix 2. The first was at Gibeon chap. iii. 5. where the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night and said to him Ask what I shall give thee He asked nothing but Wisdom which so pleased the Lord that he gave him not only that but also Riches and Honour above all the Kings then in the Word The Targum as it is come to our hands doth not say It was the Word of the Lord that appeared to him and that gave him all this But that it was so according to the Sense of their Church may be gathered from the Text which tells us ver 15. That as soon as Solomon was awake he went presently to Jerusalem which was about seven Miles distant and there he stood before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord which was there in the Tabernacle set up by David his Father and he offered up both Burnt-Offerings and Peace-Offerings and made a Feast to all his Servants The haste in which all this was done brings us presently to the Occasion of it for of all Peace-Offerings for Thanksgiving to God the same day that they were offered the Flesh must be eaten Lev. vii 15. the Breast and Right Shoulder by the Priests all the rest by the Offerer and those that he had to eat with him It is plain therefore that this was a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving to God But why should not Solomon have staid at Gibeon and there paid this Duty where he had received the Obligation Especially since there at Gibeon was the Tabernacle which Moses made by God's Command and there was the Brazen Altar which Bezaleel made 2 Chron. i. 2 3 4. and Solomon had come on purpose to Gibeon to sacrifice upon that Altar at that time The very day before this Appearance of God he had offered a thousand Burnt-Offerings upon it ver 6. and in that very night did God appear to him ver 7. Now Solomon having found that good Success of his sacrificing at Gibeon that presently God appeared to him and gave him so great a Boon would certainly have staid there to have paid his Thanksgiving in that Place but that he understood that he that appeared to him was the Word whose especial Presence was with the Ark at Jerusalem as we have abundantly proved To Him therefore he hasten'd immediately to pay his Burnt-Offerings and Peace-Offerings of Thanksgiving to the Word of the Lord. This we cannot doubt was the Sense of the Ancient Jewish Church though it doth not appear now in their Targums And if it was the Word that made that first Appearance to Solomon then it must be He that made the second also for both these Appearances were of the same Person So it is said expresly in the Text 1 Kings ix 2. The Lord appeared to Solomon the second time as he had appeared to him at Gibeon But of this second Appearance that it was of the Word of the Lord there is a clearer Proof than of the former as the Reader will certainly judge if he considers the Circumstances of this second Appearance and the
by what the Apostle saith Joh. xii 41. that this was no other than our Lord Jesus Christ For there the Apostle having quoted the words that Isaiah heard from the Lord that spoke to him Isai vi 9 10. tells us These things said Isaiah when he saw his Glory and spoke of him That the Apostle here speaks of the Word made flesh is clear enough from the Text. But besides it has been proved by our Writers beyond all contradiction See Plac. lib. ii Disput 1. In like manner that which the Prophet Ezekiel saw was an Appearance of God represented to him as a Man sitting on a Throne of Glory Ezek. i. 26 27 28. x. 1. Which Throne was then upon Wheels after the manner of a Sella Curulis They were living Wheels animated and supported by Cherubims i. 21. each of which had four Faces i. 6. such as were carved on the Walls of the Temple xli 19. In short that which Ezekiel saw though he was then in Chaldea was nothing else but the Appearance of God as yet dwelling in his Temple at Jerusalem but quite weary of it and now about to remove and to leave his dwelling-place to be destroyed by the Chaldeans To shew that this was the meaning of it he saw this Glorious Appearance of God first in his place iii. 12. i. e. on the Mercy-seat in the Temple ix 3. Next he saw him gone from his place to the Threshold of the House Judges use to give Judgment in the Gate so there over the Threshold of his House God gave Sentence against his rebellious people v. 5 6 7. Afterward from the Threshold of the House x. 4. the Prophet saw the Glory departed yet farther and mounted up from the Earth over the midst of the City x. 18 19. And lastly he saw it go from thence and stand upon the Mountain on the East-side of the City xi 23. That is on Mount Olivet which is before Jerusalem on the East Zech. xiv 4. and so the Targum has it on this place After this departure of the Divine Presence Ezekiel saw his forsaken Temple and City destroyed and his People carried away into Captivity xxxiii 21 c. After this he saw no more Appearance of God till his People's return from Captivity And then the Temple being rebuilt according to the measures given from God xl xli xlii the Prophet could not but expect that God would return to it as of old So he saw it come to pass in his Vision xliii 2. Behold the Glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the East where the Prophet saw it last at M. Olivet So again v. 4. The Glory of the Lord came into the House by the way of the Gate whose prospect is toward the East And v. 5. Behold the Glory of the Lord filled the House So again xliv 4. It filled the House now as it had done in Solomon's time 1 King viii 11. All along in this Prophecy of Ezekiel it was but one Person that appeared from the beginning to the end In the beginning of this Prophecy it was God that appeared in his Temple over the Cherubims and there we find him again in the end of this Prophecy But that it was no other but the Word that so appeared in the Temple according to the sense of the ancient Jewish Church has been proved so fully out of their Targums elswhere that we need not trouble our selves about that any farther though we cannot find it in the Targum on this Book In the Books of Chronicles there is nothing remarkable of this kind but what has been considered already in the account that we have given of the Divine Appearances in the Books of Kings And there is no mention of any such Appearance in any of the other Books that were written after the Babylonian Captivity except on the Books of Daniel and Zechariah Of Daniel the Jews have not given us any Targum therefore we have nothing to say of that Book They have given us a Targum such as it is of the Book of Zechariah which is the last we have to consider In this Book of Zechariah we read of three Angels that appeared to the Prophet The first appeared to him as a Man i. 8 -10. But is called an Angel v. 9. In Zechary's words The Angel that talked with me By which Title he is often distinguisht from all others in the same Book i. 13 14 19. ii 3. v. 5 6. vi 4. A second Angel appeared to him also as a Man with a Measuring Line in his hand ii 1. But whosoever compares this Text with Ezek. xl 3 4 5 c. will find that this who appeared as a Man was truly an Angel of God Next the first Angel going forth from the place where he appeared ii 3. Another Angel comes to meet him and bids him Run speak to this young man whether to the Angel Surveyor or whether to Zechary himself and tell him Jerusalem shall be inhabited c. ii 4. He that commands another should be his Superior And yet this Superior owns himself sent from God But he own'd it in such terms as shew'd that he was God himself This the Reader will see more than once in his speech which is continued from v. 4. to the end of the Chapter It appears especially in v. 8 9 11. of this Chapter First in v. 5. having declared what God would do for Jerusalem in these words according to the Targum The Lord hath said my Word shall be a wall of fire about her and my Glory will I place in the midst of her He goes on to v. 8. and there he delivers a Message from God to his People in these words Thus saith the Lord of Hosts After the Glory * After the Glory of his Shekinah being returned into the Temple when that was rebuilt they should soon after see Babylon it self taken and spotled by their ancient Servants the Persians hath he sent me to the Nations that spoiled you c. Here the sense is ambiguous for it seems strange that the Lord of Hosts should say another hath sent me But so it is again and much clearer exprest in v. 9. where he saith Behold I will shake my hand upon them and they shall be a spoil to their Servants This none but God could say But he addeth in the next words And ye shall know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me which words plainly shew that though he stiled himself God yet he came as a Messenger from God This is plainer yet v. 11. where he saith Many Nations shall be joyned to the Lord in that day and shall be my people and I will dwell in the midst of thee Thee Thou Thee are all Feminines in the Hebrew and therefore all three refer to Zion Thee Oh Zion v. 10. This again none but God could say And yet it followeth Thou Oh Zion shalt know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent
Ministries were originally from God I need not spend much time to confute the fancy of those who say that the Angel of the Lord is named Jehovah because he was Jehovah's Ambassador For it is a Notion which the Unitarians have borrowed from the Modern Jews such as Menasseh Ben Isr in Gen. i. 44. But I have fully proved that it is a new Notion forged by them to save their new System It is so certain that the Old Jews believed that an Angel could not say I am Jehovah as we read Exod. xx that even the Talmudists affirm that Jehovah himself spoke these words I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt Though they say that the rest of the Law was spoken by Moses Shir. Hashirin Rabba fol. 5. col 1. CHAP. XXIII That neither Philo nor the Chaldee Paraphrasts 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 HAving in the foregoing Chapters shewn that the Doctrine of the Trinity has its Ground in the Writings of Moses and the Prophets and that the ancient Jews before Christ did acknowledge it as appears from many places in the Apocryphal Authors in Philo and the Chaldee Paraphrasts who were exactly followed by Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Christians It may be seen how falsly the Socinians pretend that Justin Martyr was the Author of the Doctrine of the Trinity But to put them altogether from this Evasion I will shew that nothing can be more absurd than to say that if Philo was not a Christian he was at least a Platonist and that the Fathers particularly Justin Martyr brought into the Christian Religion a Doctrine which they borrowed from Plato As to Philo's being a Platonist I say first that though this were granted yet it would do the Unitarians no good The reason is because whatever Notions the Greeks had of Divine matters they had from Pherecides a Syrian who lived a long time before Plato and was Pythagoras's Master Pythagoras who afterwards was much followed by the Greeks travelled into Egypt into Arabia and into Chaldea after he had had Pherecides to his Master Plotinus does ingenuously confess that the three Original Hypostases were not of Plato's inventions but were known before him and this he makes out from Parmenides his Writings who had treated of this Notion Plot. Enn. 5. Lib. 1. Now Parmenides had the Notion of the Trinity from the Pythagoreans whose Master Pythagoras had probably borrowed it from the Jews with whom he conversed in Egypt Secondly I own that Philo was compared by many with Plato as to his Stile and that lively Eloquence for which Plato was so admired One may see by his Book Quod omnis probus sit Liber and many other of his Works that he was very conversant in these Greek Authors both Poets and Philosophers But he had been so little acquainted with Plato's Works that he brings some of Plato's opinion upon the credit of Aristotle We see that in his Book Quod mundus sit p. 728 729. He never proves his Doctrines by the Authority of Plato He Grounds all he says upon the Divine Authority speaking in the Old Testament well reflected upon as you see p. 288. where he speaks of the Three who appeared to Abraham A Jew as he was could not well have suited his Notions with Plato's For Plato believed for instance That Matter was Eternal and uncreated which is positively contrary to what Moses says of the Creation of the World and as positively rejected by Philo in his Books of Providence and that Matter had a Beginning As to the Doctrine of the Trinity Plato speaks of it so obscurely that one may justly wonder how some Christians formerly made use of his Testimony to prove it Probably he had heard of it in Egypt But what he says about it in his Parmenides though quoted by Eusebius shews that he had not a very true Notion of it He speaks of an Eternal and unbegotten Being He attributes to that Being which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a first Understanding and a first Life And Proclus does distinguish those three Principles of Plato as three different Beings But Plotinus does not agree in this with Proclus and affirms that these Three are but one and the same thing The reason why many Christians have so much esteemed Plato is the nobleness of his Morals the Maxims of which are much more elevated and Christian-like than those of other Heathen Philosophers It is true Philo seems to have followed Plato's Expressions when he calls the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a second God But it must be observed First that Philo never owns above one God And secondly that he used that expression to mark the distinction which is between Jehovah and Jehovah as I shewed already Let the thing be considered in its self It is certain that the Notion of the Trinity cannot be had from Reason It must therefore be a Doctrine either revealed by God or devised by Plato or some other from whom he received it But the Platonists are so far from believing their Master to be the first inventer of it that Proclus affirms it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a piece of Divinity delivered by God himself And Numenius a famous Platonist who lived under the two Antonines and was therefore Justin's Contemporary expresly maintains that Plato during his thirteen years stay in Egypt had learnt the Doctrine of the Hebrews as Theodoret tells us in his first Sermon against the Greeks For it is certain that many Jews fled into Egypt after Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and after the death of Gedaliah These two Testimonies are enough to prove that Plato was not the first Inventer of the Notion of a Trinity And that Philo borrowed not his Notions from Plato may further appear because Philo lived at a time when Plato's Philosophy had long ago lost much of its credit Aristotle did much lessen it But it was much more crest-fallen when the opinions of Zeno and Epicurus prevailed Zeno's Philosophy spread it self as far as Rome although the Maxims of it were barbarous and unnatural And in St. Paul's days that of Epicurus was much followed at Athens That of the Pyrrhonians got much Ground likewise So that Plato had but a very few Disciples left him In Plato's days there started up at Alexandria a Sect of Philosophers the Head of whom was one Polemo who lived under Augustus These freely rejected the most famous Opinions and pickt out what they found most rational in the several Sects of Philosophers for which reason they were called Electicks or Chusers And one needs but read Philo with Judgment to find that he followed this Sect. It appears that Philo's great design in all his Works is to shew That the Jews were infinitely
above the Heathens both as to Virtue and Knowledge In which he followed Aristobulus's Notions who had writ long before him and was a Jewish Philosopher And of this Opinion the Jews are to this day as may be seen in Cozri p. 29 and p. 131. And as the Egyptians lookt upon the Greeks as Children in learning which they were fain to fetch from Egypt so Philo calls often the Egyptians even of the most ancient times a heavy People and who wanted common Sense by reason of the many gross Errors they entertain'd unworthy of rational Creatures In a word I affirm that if Plato had any distinct Notions in Religion he most certainly had them from the Jews while he sojourned in Egypt as it is maintained by Josephus in his first Book against Appion As for the Chaldee Paraphrasts I do not see how they can be suspected to have had a Tincture of Plato's Doctrine It must be a mere Fancy to suppose it Let those Gentlemen read exactly the Books of Philo and find therein if they can such an Expression as we have in the Targum upon Hag. ii 4 5. I am with you saith the Lord of Hosts with the Word which covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt and my Spirit which abideth in the midst of you M. N. hath been sensible of that and therefore he does not accuse them of having been Platonists but he accuses the Orthodox Christians in general to have inserted in the Jewish Books whatever in them is favourable to the Doctrines of the Trinity and of the Divinity of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But certainly the Unitarians must have very little Correspondence with the Jews to fancy that they are so simple as to be thus abused How can it be imagined that the Jews should be such Friends to Christians as to trust them with their Books in order to falsify them And afterwards so sottish as to spread every where their Books and their Targums which they falsified This Supposition is so ridiculous that I cannot imagine how any Author can write such a thing or even conceive and suppose it What I said of the Gospel Notions in the 15th Chapter shews plainly that neither Christ nor his Apostles did adopt the System of Philosophy which was taught by the Platonists The Angel who declared his Conception used the word Lord or Jehovah to denote his being God But when he named him Jesus because he was to save his People from their sins which no other could do but God he intimated that it was he who was foretold not by Plato but by Habakkuk chap. iii. 8 13 18. I will rejoice in the Lord I will joy in the God of my salvation In which place the Prophet expresly calls God Saviour or Jesus by which Name Christ by Divine Appointment was named In short a man must be out of his Senses to find any thing in the Gospel that savours of Plato's Hypothesis When the Devils own Christ to be the Son of God were they Platonists When St. Peter owns him to be the Son of God had Plato told him this When he was ask'd in the Council of the Jews whether he was the Son of God was the question made in a Platonick sense It is true St. Paul has sometimes quoted Heathenish Authors he was brought up at Tarsus amongst Heathens he had read Aratus whom he quotes against the Epicurean Philosophers at Athens and he quotes a place out of the Cretan Epimenides in his Epistle to Titus who was Bishop of Crete But we never find that he quoted Plato or used his Testimony Christ chose illiterate men for his Apostles St. John who speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been a Fisherman about the Lake of Tiberias St. Paul only and St. Luke were Scholars St. Paul was brought up under Gamaliel a Doctor of the Law and St. Luke who had been a Physician and was a Learned Man followed St. Paul in his Travels and by his directions writ his Gospel But it does not appear that our Saviour taught his ignorant Disciples the Notions of Plato nor that the Learned ones as St. Paul and St. Luke ever used Plato's Authority in their Preaching This appears plainly in the Book of the Acts in which St. Luke gives an account of it If at any time St. Paul had a fair opportunity to make use of Plato's Testimony it was when he disputed at Athens against the Stoicks and the Epicureans These last laughing at Miracles St. Paul wrought none there to convince them But he might have quoted places out of Plato's Republick to prove the Resurrection and a Judgment in the Life to come yet he quotes never an Author and was contented to argue the Case by strength of Reason and this he did with that force that he converted one of the Judges of Areopagus who probably was an Epicurean and knew what Plato said in his Books and did laugh at it This Method of the Apostles was followed by the first Christians Plato was not mentioned amongst them till some Philosophers turned Christians Justin Martyr amongst others This Justin scorned all other Philosophers as mean-spirited Teachers but commended Plato as being one of a great Genius that made him think of God and the Immortality of the Soul in a more elevated manner than other Philosophers But when all is done How much did he value Plato But indifferently He declares that it was from the Gospel together with the Law and the Prophets that he had the true Notions of the Christian Religion He quotes Plato neither against the Heathens nor against the Jews If we had the Book he writ against Marcion who out of Plato's Writings had broach'd his detestable Opinions we might very probably have seen how little he valued Plato's Authority Tertullian who had read Justin's Book and who saw that both the Gnosticks and the Valentinians made much of Plato's Authority shews plainly how little he valued Plato when he says he was grown omnium haereticorum condimentarium the sawce which all Hereticks used to propagate their Doctrines by which they corrupted the Purity of the Christian Religion And much the same Opinion of Plato had they that opposed the Arian Heresy of which it is thought Origen was the first Broacher However I aver First That the first Christians were no more Platonists than the Jews that is did not use Plato's Notions in their System of Divinity They were so far from it that they declared that what they believed about the Trinity they had it from the Holy Writers Justin Apol. 2. Athenagoras p. 8 9. Theophilus of Antioch p. 100. Secondly It is false that any of the Ancient Christians made any other use of Plato than by shewing that Plato had borrowed from Moses the Doctrine he taught Justin in his Exhortation to the Greeks p. 18 22 24. Clemens of Alexandria Strom. l. 4. p. 517. and l. 5. p. 598. Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. Origen against Celsus l.
thou Bethlehem Ephratah though thou be little among the thousands of Judah yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel whose goings forth have been from of old from everlasting The Jews can't deny this But then to evade what is there spoken of his Eternity they pretend it means no more than his descent from David as if the distance of time from David to Jesus Christ could be called Eternity This is the way Manasseh ben Israel q. 5. on Micah takes to get over this difficulty Before him others took another way and affirmed that God decreed before the Creation of the World to send the Messias and that in this respect it is said in Micah that his goings forth are from the days of eternity Jeremy ch xxiii 26. saith very expresly that the Messias shall be called the Jehovah our Righteousness and he repeats the same ch xxxiii 15 16. In those days and at that time will I cause the Branch of Righteousness to grow up unto David and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the Land In those days shall Judah be saved and Jerusalem shall dwell safely And this is the Name wherewith he shall be called The Lord our Righteousness R. David Kimchi owns it and quotes the Authority of two Eminent Rabbins for it namely R. Aba Bar Caana and R. Levi in Eccha Rabati But they will none of them own that this Name Jehovah belongs any otherwise to him than it doth to the Ark which is altogether impertinent for the Ark is never called Jehovah nor doth Menasseh prove that it is with all his talking q. 18. in Isaiah Jonathan as well as Philo ascribes to the Messias the Prophecies Zech. vi 12 13. And so Jonathan applies to the Messias what is said in the same Prophet But many of the Modern Jews among whom R. Salomon is one do refer them to Zorobabel These several places I have now mentioned may serve as a Sample of the confusion the Jews are in while they attempt to interpret the ancient Prophecies and I may confidently affirm that all those other places which I have omitted that intimate a Trinity or the Divinity of the Messias or the time when he should come into the World are in like manner explained so very triflingly and forcedly as that oftentimes their own Authors convinced by the Evidence of the Texts themselves have refuted them and given a new Interpretation of them Whence it comes to pass that their Reader can find no certain sense of those Texts to rest on but his understanding continues in an entire darkness and unsetledness This ill luck they have of Explications is not of yesterday as I have already observed Soon after Jesus Christ's time they set themselves to oppose what the Christians held of the two Comings of the Messias though so distinctly described one of them Zech. ix 9. and the other Dan. vii 13. And still to this day do they reject that Notion of his two Comings as may be seen in Menass on Zech. ix p. 185. But others of them who found it impossible to deny that the Scripture speaks of two Comings of the Messias whom they expected thought it better to make two Messias's than to acknowledg that the Messias whom they expected was to be a suffering Messias And thus they thought they removed the difficulties in the other opinion that made but one Coming of the Messias by owning the Messias the Son of Joseph should be a Man of sorrows but Messias the Son of David was to be a Glorious Deliverer As the Jews Disputes with the Christians encreased they advanced certain Characters of the Times of the Messias and all of them very miraculous which they inferred from some Allegorical Descriptions in the Prophets concerning the Times of the Messias These they run up to ten as we see in Shemoth Rabba Parascha 15. And they make a great use of those Miracles which they conceive should have been in the time of Jesus Christ if he had been the true Messias Notwithstanding all which Menasse q. 7. on Isaiah finds himself obliged to assure us that David Kimchi and Abarbanel and many Interpreters explain most of these passages as Allegorical Descriptions of the Times of the Messias And Maimonides is of this opinion that when the Messias comes there shall be no change in the Order of Nature Jad Chaz Lib. de Regibus And in that he follows the opinion of one Rabbi Samuel that is quoted in the Talmud Tit. Beracoth where he saith that there shall be not any difference between the Times of the Messias and the other Times of the World but the subduing of the Kingdoms by the Messias To conclude the Jews being so often deceived in their Expectations of the Messias and finding themselves abused by a great number of false pretenders to that Character have almost lost their hopes of his Coming And finding his Coming to be a thing uncertain few of them do regard the Promise of the Messias with that assurance with which the Ancients did expect it Indeed it is observable that though Maimonides professes to own the Messias and hath inserted the hope of it among the Articles of the Jewish Faith which he hath given us yet he otherwhere speaks very indifferently of it In one place he asserts the observation of Moses's Law and the recompenses annexed to it to be the chief end of the Jews enquiry and not the time of the Messias's appearance as we are informed by the Author of the Chain of the Cabala The same judgment may be made of Joseph Albo who writ with great bitterness against the Christians For 1. he maintains in his Book of the Principles that R. Hillel was no Apostate though he denied the coming of any other Messias but of Hezekiah who was already come And Albo gives this reason for it because the Coming of the Messias is no Fundamental Article of the Jewish Religion Orat. 1. chap. 1. Nothing can be more wretched than this excuse of his For if the Messias had come before the Babylonian Captivity as R. Hillel would have it in the Person of King Hezekiah and if no other was to be expected why did the Jewish Church take those Books into her Bible that were written by the Prophets that lived under the second Temple and why did not R. Hillel and his Followers declare against them as false Prophecies that spoke of the Messias as being yet to come namely Zechary Haggai and Malachy who did all Prophecy of the Messias as has been abundantly shewn with Proofs out of the Targums of those Books and the general consent of Jewish Writers 2. The same Albo is not afraid to assert That the Article of the Messias has no other foundation than the authority of Tradition For saith he there is not any Prophecy either in the Law or in the Prophets that foretells his Coming by any necessary Exposition of it with respect to
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
all Evils that might happen and that he esteems this to be no less a benefit than Sustenance or Cloathing which he mentions in the second place Here is no Angel spoken of here and since the redeeming Angel is to be expounded from this place he cannot be a created Angel for here is no other spoken of but the Lord. 4. By fancying him a created Angel who delivered Jacob from all Evil they make Jacob to be a mere Idolater as ascribing that to a Creature which belongs only to the Lord of the Creation The Scripture appropriates to God the Title of Redeemer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor do godly Men ever say of a Creature that it delivers them from all Evil. David I am sure never does but when he speaks of the Tribulations of the Righteous he adds but the Lord delivers him out of all Ps xxxiv 20. And Jacob on another occasion directs his Prayer to the Lord that appeared to him at Luz saying Save me from the hand of my brother Esau for I fear him much Gen. xxxii 9 10 11. 5. God as I said has so appropriated the Name of Redeemer to himself that Jacob could not without Sacriledge communicate this Title to any Creature though never so excellent We cannot be ignorant that David makes this the proper Name of God Psal xix 14. as does Isaiah Chap. xliii 14. xlvii 4. And this Jonathan confesses on Isa lxiii 16. in these words Thou art our redeemer thy name is from everlasting i. e. this is the Name that was designed for God from the beginning which yet can't hold true if in this place Gen. xlviii 16. it be ascribed by Jacob to a created Angel 6. It appears plainly from Gen. xlix that Jacob neither desired nor expected any Blessing from a created Angel but only from God Thus he prays c. The God of thy Father shall be thy helper and the Almighty shall bless thee with the Blessings of Heaven above c. Not a word of a mere Angel that redeemed him from all Evil so far was the Patriarch in his former Blessing from begging of an Angel the Multiplication of his Seed which was the only thing which he could now expect of God as the Jews own Bechai Praef. in Pent. f. 1. c. 1. 7. The same Conclusion may be drawn from the very Order of Jacob's Prayer Had Jacob intended a created Angel by him whom he names in the last place as a Redeemer from Evil and whose Intercession with God he bespeaks in behalf of his Children would he not have prayed to the Angel in the first place It is most rational so to do He that wants the Interest of a great Man to introduce him to the King he does not in the first place direct his Petition to the King immediately but first to the great Man and afterwards by him to the King Let the Papists therefore look to the Absurdity of their proceeding while they first pray to God and then to Saints and Angels Let those Jews who are of the mind of Isaac Abarbanel and Franco Serrano in his Spanish Notes on this place and stickle for Angel-worship see how they can clear themselves of this difficulty as well as reconcile themselves with those ancienter Jews who abhor this sort of Idolatry Maim Per. Misna ad tit Sanh c. xi SECT IV. How firm these Reasons are to shew the Angel here spoken of to be an uncreated and not a created Angel is I hope evident to every one Something however of great importance may be still added to illustrate this weighty Argument and that is the Judgment of the Ancient Synagogue The most ancient Jewish Writers and they that received the Traditionary Doctrine from them though mortal Enemies of the Christian Religion yet agree with the Christians in the Sense of this Text. For God be thanked such Truths were not renounced all at once by these Enemies of our Faith but they began to dissemble them by degrees as they found them turning against them in their Disputes with the Christians To begin with the Writings of the Jews before Christ we find it is God the Word ver 12. who is described as he that delivers from all Evil in the Book of Wisd xvi 8. no doubt with respect to this place where he takes the Angel that delivered Jacob from all Evil to be God The same Doctrine is to be met with in Philo the Jew that lived before Christ and in Christ's time He * Allegor ii p. 71. D. expresly affirms of the Angel that delivered Jacob from all Evil that he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so does Onkelos in his Chaldee Paraphrase translating the Words of Jacob simply as they lie in the Text without any Addition Jonathan indeed seems to be of another mind in his Paraphrase that runs thus God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac worshipped the Lord that fed me from the time I began to be till this day may be pleas'd that the Angel may bless the Lads whom thou hast ordained to deliver me from all Evil. Here he distinguishes the Angel from God but that he did not mean a Creature by this Angel is clear for that in other places he translates this Angel by the Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and especially in that remarkable place where the same Angel is treated of Isaiah lxiii 8 9 10. he saith it was the Word that redeemed Israel out of all their Afflictions Let us pass to the Jews after Christ's time and shew that they did not immediately renounce the Doctrine of their Forefathers The Author of the Book Zohar in Par. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fol. 123. hath these words which he repeats often afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come see the Angel that redeemed me is the Shekinah that went along with him This is sufficiently intimated by the ancient Author Tanchuma in his Book Jelammedenu who notes on Exod. xxxiii that the Jews would not have a created Angel go before them but God himself in these words Moses answered I will not have an Angel but thy own self Now the Jewish Commentators on this place of Exod. xxxiii explain of the Shekinah the words thy own self and always distinguish the Shekinah from all created Beings R. Salomon in his Notes on this Text has these words The Angel that delivered me i. e. the Angel who was wont to be sent to me in my affliction as it is said Gen. xxxi 11 13. And the Angel of God spake to me in a dream saying Jacob I am the God of Bethel c. The Note of R. Moses Ben Nachman on this Text Gen. xlviii 16. is very remarkable The Redeeming Angel saith he is he that answered him in the time of his affliction and who said to him I am the God of Bethel c. he of whom it is said that my name is in him The like he has on Exod. iii. where the appearance in the Bush
careful to defend their own prejudices than the Opinions of the Ancients II. Another Objection is made from the place in Rev. i. 4. the words are these John to the seven Churches that are in Asia Grace be to you and peace from him that was and is and is to come and from the seven Spirits that are before his Throne and from Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness c. For John here seems to wish and pray for Grace not only from the Father but also from the Seven Angels that are before the Throne of God and so to be reckoned among the Ministring Spirits This place is indeed abused by those of the Romish Church to shew that Prayers may be lawfully directed to Angels And the Jews themselves have contributed to lead some Men of Note into the mistake For besides the four chief Angels whom they make to preside over the four Armies of Angels which they have chiefly grounded on Ezek. i. they speak of seven other Angels that were created before the rest and that wait on God before the Vail R. Eliezer in capit c. 4. that divides them from the Shechinah The hearing of these things so often repeated by the Jews has given occasion I say to some considerable Divines to believe those seven to be proper Angels whom St. John mentions in his Revelation But then not apprehending how Prayers could be offered to them nor why the precedency is given them before Christ they would not have John here to have spoken a Prayer but only to have wisht Grace on the Seven Churches and this they thought a sense consistent enough with the Angel-worship forbidden by St. Paul Col. ii 18. and even in this very Book Revel xix 10. xxii 9. But to shorten this matter I altogether deny that St. John intended here any created Angels What then did he mean by them Nothing else but the Holy Spirit for whose most perfect Power and Grace on the Seven Churches he here makes Supplication For as Cyril on Zech. iii. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Number seven is always a mark of Perfection in the thing to which it is applied St. John therefore thought of no allusion to the Jewish opinion of seven Angels when he prayed for Grace from the Seven Spirits before the Throne but had in his mind to express the far more plentiful effusion and more powerful efficacy of the Holy Spirit under the Gospel than under the Law and his never ceasing Ministration for the good of the Church for which purposes he hath received a Vicarious authority under God immediately to Christ as Tertullian speaks de Praesc Haeret. c. 13. and for this Interpretation I have Justin Martyr Paraen ad Graec. and St. Austin on my side St. John's way of expressing himself is borrowed from Zech. iii. 9. where God is represented as having seven Eyes running through the Earth to signifie by this Figure God's perfect knowledge of all things as Cyril Alexandrinus Notes Hence we read of Christ Revel iii. 1. These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God And in another place seven Eyes and seven Horns are ascribed to him But we never read which is worth our observation of these seven Spirits as we do of the four Beasts and twenty-four Elders that they fell down and Worshipped God But why does St. John put the Holy Spirit before Christ If I should say St. Paul has done the like in Gal. i. 1. and Ephes v. 5. to teach us the unity and equality of each Person in the Blessed Trinity or because St. John in the following Verses was to speak more at large of Christ I think I should not answer improperly But I shall add another reason which may explain the whole matter In a word I do believe this difficulty must be resolved another way for that which makes this place so intricate according to the judgment of many Interpreters is their referring to the Father the words of the 4th verse Grace be unto you and peace from him which is and which was and which is to come which ought to be referred particularly to Christ himself who is described Chap. iv v. 8. according to the description of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Jonathan's Targum on Deut. xxxii 39. But then some will say Why is there any mention made of the seven Spirits if we conceive that the Grace which is asked for the Church in the first words is asked from Jesus Christ The thing is so clear that Socinus has perceiv'd it Now seven Spirits are here mentioned to denote the Spirit of God which was to reside with his sevenfold Gifts in the Messias according to the Prophecy of Isaiah ch xi 2 3. and from thence it comes that in Revel ch v. 6. the Lamb is described having seven Horns and seven Eyes which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the Earth To Christ there are attributed seven Horns which denote his Empire in opposition to the Empire of the little Horn which is spoken of Dan. vii 8. So there are seven Eyes which are the seven Spirits of God attributed to him likewise to denote the Gracious Providence of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost and that in opposition to the little Horn in which there were Eyes Like the Eyes of man Da◠vii 〈…〉 Here then the Grace asked is from the seven Spirits that is from the Holy Ghost who is united in one with the Messias Jesus Christ and is sent by him and so it is said to be asked from Jesus Christ himself who both has those Spirits as his Eyes and does cause the Mission of them to his Church St. John therefore doth not place the Holy Spirit before Christ but mentions him with Christ because he after Christ's Ascension and during the time of Christ's continuance on God's right hand has a more particular hand in the immediate Government of the Church and is especially watchful to do her good And for this reason I think it is the Holy Spirit is placed as it were without the Veil like a Ministring Angel Many of the Ancients knew this as Victorinus Petavionensis Ambrose Beda Arethas Autpertus Walafridus Strabo Haymo Rupertus from whom Tho. Aquinas and Caelius of Pannonia who rebukes those that understand it otherwise and other Elder Divines of the Roman Church learnt it to say nothing of those of the Reformed Church But it is time to give over A TABLE OF TEXTS of Scripture Occasionally Explained in this Treatise GENESIS Chap. Ver. Pag. i. 1 116 119 123 142  2 141  26 101 117 320 323 400 414 iii. 5 118  8 370  15 401  22 42 118 320 iv 7 118  8 21 vi 3 141 ix 7 142 xi 7 118 323 xv 1 5 9 370 xviii 1 2 3 147  18 35  20 21 443 xix  401  24 323 xxi 9 61 xxv 7 118 xxx 24