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
some of the Jews that held the Transmigration of Souls and say particularly That the Soul of Adam went into David and the Soul of David was the same with that of the Messias I say to pass by that the true Reason of such use of the Names of David and Elias is this because David was an excellent Type of the Messias that was to come out of his Loins Act. ii 30 31. And for John Baptist he came in the Spirit and Power of Elias Luk. 1.17 That is he was inspired with the same Spirit of Zeal and holy Courage that Elias was formerly acted with and employ'd it as Elias did in bringing his People to Repentance and Reformation 5. We ought to do the Jews that Justice as to acknowledge that from them it is that we know the true sense of all the Prophecies concerning the Messias in the Old Testament Which sense some Criticks seem not to be satisfied with seeking for a first accomplishment in other persons than in the Messias The Jews meaning and applying those Prophecies to the Messias in a mystical or a spiritual sense is founded upon a Reason that offers it self to the Mind of those that study Scripture with attention Before Jacob's Prophecy there was no time fixed for the Coming of the Messias but after the giving of that Prophecy Gen. xlix 10. there was no possibility of being deceived in the sense of those Prophecies which God gave from time to time full of the Characters of the Messias It was necessary 1. That the Kingdom should be in Judah and not cease till the time about which they expected the Coming of the Messias 2. That the lesser Authority called here the Law-giver should be also established in Judah and destroyed before the Coming of the Messias which we knew came to pass by the Reign of Herod the Great and some years before the Death of our Saviour And indeed the Talmudist say that forty years before the Desolation of the House of the Sanctuary Judgments of Blood were taken away from Israel Talm. Jerus l. Sanhedr c. dine mammonoth Talm. Bab. C. Sanhedr c. Hajou Bodekim And Raymondus Martini who writ this Pugio at the end of the XIIIth Century quotes Part III. Dist 3. c. 16. § 46. One R. Rachmon who says that when this happened they put on sackcloth and pull'd off their hair and said Wo unto us the Scepter is departed from Israel and yet the Messias is not come And therefore they who had this Prophecy before them could not mistake David nor Solomon nor Hezekiah for the Messias Nor could they deceive themselves so far as to think this Title was applicable to Zorobabel or any of his Successors In short there appeared not any one among the Jews before the Times of our Blessed Saviour that dared assume this Title of Messias although the Name of Anointed which the word Messias signifies had been given to several of their Kings as to David in particular But since Jesus Christ's coming many have pretended to it These things being so it is clear that the Prophecies which had not and could not have their accomplishment in those upon whose occasion they were first delivered were to receive their accomplishment in the Messias and consequently those Prophecies ought necessarily to be referred to him We ought by all means to be perswaded of this For we cannot think the Jews were so void of Judgment as to imagine that the Apostles or any one else in the World had a right to produce the simple words of the Old Testament and to urge them in any other sense than what was intended by the Writer directed by the Holy Ghost It must be his Sense as well as his Words that should be offered for proof to convince reasonable Men. But we see that the Jews did yield to such Proofs out of Scripture concerning the Messias in which some Criticks do not see the force of those Arguments that were convincing to the Jews They must then have believed that the true sense of such places was the literal sense in regard of the Messias whom God had then in view at his inditing of these Books and that it was not literal in respect of him who seems at first-sight to have been intended by the Prophecy And now I leave it to the Consideration of any unprejudiced Reader that is able to judge Whether if these Principles and Maxims I have treated of were unknown to the Jews the Apostles could have made any use of the Books of the Old Testament for their Conviction either as to the Coming of the Messias or the Marks by which he was distinguishable from all others or as to the several parts of his Ministry But this is a matter of so great importance as to deserve more pains to shew that Jesus Christ and his Apostles did build upon such Maxims as I have mentioned And therefore any that call themselves Christians should take heed how they deny the force and authority of that way of Traditional interpretation which has been anciently received in the Jewish Church CHAP. IV. That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of the Christian Doctrine by this common Traditional Exposition received among the Jews which they could not have done at least not so well had there been only such a Literal Sense of those Texts which they alledged as we can find without the help of such Exposition IF we make some reflections which do not require a great deal of Meditation it is clear that Jesus Christ was to prove to the Jews that he was the Messias which they did expect many Ages ago and whose Coming they look'd on as very near He could not have done so if they had not been acquainted with their Prophetical Books and with those several Oracles which were contained in them Perhaps there might have been some difference amongst them concerning some of those Oracles because there were in many of them some Ideas which seem contrary one to another And that was almost unavoidable because the Holy Ghost was to represent the Messias in a deep humiliation and great suffering and in a great height of Glory But after all the method of calling the Jews was quite different from the method of calling the Gentiles They had the distinct knowledge of the chief Articles of Religion which the Heathen had not They had all preparations necessary for the deciding this great question Whether Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias or not They had the Sacred Books of the Old Testament they were acquainted with the Oracles as well as with the Law They longed after the coming of the Messias They had been educated all along and trained up in the expectation of him They had not only those Sacred Books in which the Messias was spoken of but many among them had gathered the Ideas of the Prophets upon that subject as we see by the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus And indeed we see that Jesus
Gentiles by the Messias as we see in Sepher Chasidim § 961. and to the abode of the Sekinah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is explained by R. Joseph de Carnisol Saare Isider fol. 3. col 4. fol. 4. col 1. And so St. Peter supposes it to be spoken of the Messias Act. iii. 25. We may reflect in like manner on the promise God made the People Deut. xviii 15. To raise them up a Prophet like unto Moses St. Peter makes use of it as being spoken of the Messias that he should give a new Law Act. iii. 22. But the Modern Jews do all they can to evade this Application Nevertheless it appears to have been the Idea of the ancient Synagogue because we read that they speak of the Law which was to be given by the Messias as of a Law in comparison to which all other Law was to be lookt upon as meer Vanity So Coheleth Rabba in c. ii and in c. xi It is not without some surprize that we read the Application St. Mat. ii 15. has made of these words in Hos xi 1. Out of Egypt have I called my son which seem only to be spoken of the Children of Israel and not of the Messias And yet in the Book Midrash Tehillim Rabba on Ps ii we may see the Jews referred to the Messias what is written of the People of Israel Exod. iv 22. Which is an argument that St. Matthew cited this passage from Hosea according to the sense the Jews gave it with respect to the Messias The Actions of the Messias are related in the Law in the Prophets and in the Books called Hagiographa or in the Psalms In the Law Exod. iv 22. Israel is my first-born In the Prophets Isai lii 13. Behold my servant shall deal prudently In the Psalms as it is written The Lord said to my Lord Psal cx i. St. Matth. viii 17. referrs the words of Isai liii 4. to the miraculous Cures that Christ wrought And he follows herein the ancient Tradition of the Jews which taught that the Messias spoken of in this Chapter of Isaiah should pardon Sins and consequently heal their distempers which were the effects and punishments of their Sins From hence it follows that according to their Tradition the Messias should be God even as Jesus Christ did then suppose when he healed the Paralytick Man by his own power Matth. ix 6. and proves that he did not blaspheme in forgiving Sins which the Jews thought belonged only to God St. Matth. i. 23. applies the words of Isai vii 14. to Christ's being born of a Virgin Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son c. This he did likewise according to the ancient Idea of the Jews which was not quite lost in the time of Adrian the Emperor For R. Akiba who lived and died under his Reign makes the following Reflection on this Prophecy He had considered that Isaiah in the beginning of the following Chapter received Order from God to take to him two Witnesses Uriah the Priest who lived in his time and Zechary the Son of Berachiah who lived not as he thought till under the second Temple Upon which he saith that God commanded the Prophet to do thus to shew that as what he had foretold concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz was true by the Witness of Uriah who saw it accomplish'd so what he had foretold concerning the Conception and Delivery of a Virgin must be accomplished under the second Temple by the Witness of Zechary who lived then See Gemara tit Maccoth c. 3. fol. 24. 3. We see that Jesus Christ Joh. iv 21 c. alludes tacitly to the Prophecy of Mal. i. 11. concerning the Sacrifices of the New Testament This is a matter at present controverted between Christians and Jews But Christ deliver'd the sense of the Synagogue as it is evident from the Targum on those words of Malachy which applies them to the Times of the Messias 4. One would think it were only by way of Similitude that Christ applied to himself the History of the Brazen Serpent in saying Joh. iii. 14. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wilderness so must the Son of Man be lifted up But there appears to be more in it than so The ancient Jews lookt upon the Brazen Serpent as a Type of the Messias so we find by their Targum on Numb xxi 8. which expounds this Serpent which Moses lifted up by the Word of the Lord who is also called God Wisd xvi 7. compared with chap. xv 1. Although Philo while he hunts for Allegories gives another Idea of it de Agric. p. 157. 5. It may also seem to be only by way of Allusion that Christ calls himself the Bread that came down from Heaven alluding to the Manna which came down from Heaven as we read Exod. xvi But he that looks into the ancient Jewish Writers shall find that herein also our Saviour followed the common Jewish Idea For Philo who writ in Egypt before Jesus Christ began to preach tells us positively that the Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Manna Lib. quòd Deter pot insid p. 137. St. Paul Heb. 1.5 cites God's Words to David concerning one that should come out of his Loins 2 Sam. vii 14. I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son as if they respected the Messias How could he do thus When on the one hand he calleth Jesus Christ holy undefiled harmless separate from Sinners and on the other hand in that Promise to David God takes it for granted that that Son of his might be a Sinner and thereupon threatens in the very next words 2 Sam. vii 14. If he commit iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of men which suits well with Solomon but not at all with the Messias The reason is St. Paul followed the sense of this place which was commonly received among the Jews who as they refer to the Messias the Psal lxxii cx and cxxxii where the same Ideas occur so they must have referred to the Messias whatever is great in this Prophecy and to others whatever therein denotes humane infirmities And Indeed it was not very hard to give to that Oracle a further prospect viz. to the Messias 1st Because Solomon was made King in the Life of his Father whereas the Son which God speaks of was to be born after David's Death 2dly Because it is spoken of a Seed not born from David but from David's Children 3dly Because the Mercy of God was to make the Kingdom of David last for ever whereas the Kingdom of Solomon was divided soon after his Death and but two parts of twelve were left to Rehoboam his Son St. Paul Gal. iv 29. alludes to the History in Gen. xxi 9. as a Type of the Persecutions which the Jews should exercise on the Christians Whereon does he build this First having proved it his way that the Christian Church was typified in Isaac
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
so well satisfied of the truth of what I advance that he thought fit to Comment those very Apocryphal Books and to shew that they followed almost always the Ideas and the very words of the Authors of the Old Testament But as he was a Man of a deep sense seeing that they might be turned against the Socinian cause which he favoured too much he did things which he judged fit to make their authority useless against the Socinians And first he advanced without any proof that those things which were so like to the Ideas of the New Testament had been inserted in those Books by Christians according to their notions and not according to the notions of the Synagogue 2ly He endeavoured to give another sense to the places which some Fathers in the second and third Century had quoted from these Books to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of our Saviour Now since the Socinian Authors have employed against the authority of these Apocryphal Books the very Solutions which Grotius made use of to lessen their authority it is necessary being resolved to quote them for the settling of the Jewish Tradition to shew how much Grotius whose steps the Socinians trod in was out in his Judgment 1. Then I suppose with Grotius that those Apocryphal Books were written by several Jewish Authors many years before Jesus Christ appeared The third Book of the Macchabees which is indeed the first hath been written by a Jew of Egypt under Ptolomaeus Philopater that is about two hundred years before the Birth of our Saviour It contains the History of the Persecution of the Jews in Egypt and was cited by Josephus in his Book de Macchabaeis The first Book of Macchabees as we call it now hath been written in Judea by a Jew and originally in Hebrew which is lost many Centuries ago We have the translation of it which hath been quoted by Josephus who gives often the same acccount of things as we have in that Book It hath been written probably 150. years before the Birth of our Saviour The second Book of Macchabees hath originally been written in Greek in Egypt and is but an extract of the four Books of Jason the Grecian a Jew of Egypt who had writ the History of the Persecutions which the Jews of Palestina suffered under the Reign of Antiochus Epiphanés and his Successors The Book of Ecclesiasticus hath been written Originally in Hebrew by Jesus the Son of Syrac about the time of Ptolomy Philadelphus that is about 280. years before Jesus Christ and was Translated in Greek by the Grandson of Jesus the Son of Syrac under Ptolomy Euergetes Some dispute if that Ptolomy is the first or the second which is not very material since there is but a difference of 100. years R. Azaria de Rubeis in his Book Meor Enaiim ch 22. witnesseth that Ecclesiasticus is not rejected now by the Jews but is received among them with an unanimous consent and David Ganz saith that they put it in old times among the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Hagiographes So in his Tsemac David ad A. 3448. The Book of Wisdom according to Grotius his Judgment is more ancient having been written in Hebrew under Simon the High-Priest who flourished under Ptolomeus Lagus Grotius thinks that the Greek Translation we have of that Book was made by some Christian who hath foisted into that Book many things which belong more to a Christian Writer than a Jew He raises such an accusation against the Translator of Ecclesiasticus But it is very easie to confute such a bold Conjecture First because that Book was in Chaldaick among the Jews till the Thirteenth Century as we see by Ramban in his Preface upon the Pentateuch and they never objected such an Interpolation but lookt upon it as a Book that was worthy of Salomon and probably his Works It was the Judgment of R. Azarias de Rubeis in the last Century Imre bina ch 57. The Epistle of Baruch and of Jeremy seem to Grotius the Writings of a Pious Jew who had a mind to exhort his People to avoid Idolatry And 't is very probable that it was Penned under the Persecutions of Antiochus when it was not sure to any to write in favour of the Jewish Religion under his own name The Book of Tobith seems to have been writ originally in Chaldaick and was among the Jews in St. Jerom's time who knowing not the Chaldaick Tongue called for a Jew to his assistance to render it into Hebrew that so he might render it in Latin as he saith in his Preface to Chromatius and Heliodorus Grotius supposes the Book to be very ancient Others believe but without any ground that it was Translated into Greek by the Seventy So that it would have been writ more than 250. years before Jesus Christ Whatsoever Conjecture we may form upon the Antiquity of it it is certain it was in great esteem among Christians in the second Century since we see that Clemens Alexandrinus and Irenaeus have followed his fancy of seven created Angels about the Throne of God and took that Doctrine for a Truth although we see no such Idea among the Jews who have the Translation of that Book but do not now consider it very much Grotius thinks that the Book of Judith contains not a true History but an Ingenious Comment of the Author who lived under Antiochus Epiphanés before the Profanation of the Temple by that Tyrant to exhort the Jewish Nation to expect a wonderful Deliverance from such a Tyranny which they groaned under And we see no reason to discard such a Conjecture although R. Azarias thinks Imre bina ch 51. that this History was alluded to in the Book of Esdras ch 4.15 He judges the same of the Additions to the Book of Daniel viz. the Prayer of Azaria the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace and of the History of Susanna he looks upon them as written by some Hellenist Jew So the Additions to the Book of Esther he judges to be the work of some Hellenist who invented the Story which were afterwards admitted among the Holy Writings because they were Pious and had nothing which could be lookt upon as contrary to the Jewish Religion Grotius saith nothing of the third and fourth of Esdras and hath not judged them fit to be Commented probably because they are not accounted in the Canon of the Church of Rome And indeed the fourth is only extant in Latin But after all a Man must have viewed the third with very little judgment who cannot perceive first that it is certainly the work of an ancient Jew before Jesus Christ his time 2ly That it was among the Jews as a Book of great Authority Josephus p. 362. follows the Authority of that third Book of Esdras in the History of Zorobabel We have not ancienter Writers than Clemens Alexandrinus St. Cyprian and St. Ambrose who have quoted the 4th Book of
Esdras so I am resolved not to make any use of it The Antiquity and the Jewish Origin of all these Books that we call Apocryphal being so settled there is nothing to be done but to consider what is the ground of the Conjecture of Grotius who pronounces boldly in his Preface to the Book of Wisdom Eum librum nactus Christianus aliquis Graecè non indoctus in Graecum vertit libero nec ineleganti dicendi genere Christiana quaedam commodis locis addidit quod libro Syracidae quem dixi evenit sed in Latino huic magis quam in Graeco non quod nesciam post Esdram explicatius proponi caepisse patientiam piorum judicium universale vitam aeternam supplicia gehennae sed quia locutiones quaedam magis Evangelium sapiunt quam vetustiora tempora But to speak my mind plainly this Conjecture of Grotius is absolutely false and without any ground 1. Whence had he this particular account of the Jewish Faith and Religion in the time of Esdras so as to be able to judge by it which was written long after Esdras and to shew that the Notions of these Books are clearer than the Ideas which were among the Jews before Jesus Christ He goes only upon that Principle that the Jews since they were under the Greek Empire began to be more acquainted with the Ideas of the Eternal Life and of Eternal Punishment and of the last Judgment than they were before which is the Principle of Socinus and of his Followers but that Christians had much clearer Ideas of those Notions than the Jews had since Esdras his time 2ly Is it not an intolerable boldness to accuse those Books of having been so interpolated without giving any proof of it but his meer Conjecture I confess there are several various Readings in those Books as there are in Books which having been of a general use were transcribed many times by Copists of different industry one more exact and more learned than the other But to say that a Christian hath interpolated them designedly is a thing which can no more be admitted than to suppose that they have corrupted the Greek Version of the Books of the Old Testament to which those Books were joined in the Greek Bible as soon as it came into the hands of the Christians 3ly To suppose that a Christian hath been the Author of the Translation of some of those Books is a thing advanced with great absurdity since there was a Translation of these Books quoted by Philo and by St. Paul in his Epistles Now I would ask from Grotius how he can prove that there was a second Version of the Book of Wisdom made by a Christian after Jesus Christ what was the need of it since there was one before Jesus Christ And if any Christian did undertake such a new one without necessity how it came to pass that it was received instead of the Version which was in use amongst the Jews and was added to the Books of Scripture and of the Copies which were in the hands of Christians I need not to urge many other absurdities against Grotius his Conjecture I take notice only 1. That Grotius was far from ridiculing the Book of Wisdom as the Socinian Author of the Book against Dr. Bull hath done in his Judgment of the Fathers 2ly That the ridiculing of such an Author as the Book of Wisdom sheweth very little Judgment in Mr. N. He had better have made use of the Glosses of Grotius than to venture upon such rough handling of an Author quoted by St. Paul whose quoting him giveth him more credit than he can lose by a thousand censures of a Man who writes so injudiciously 3ly That the very place which Mr. N. ridicules is so manifestly taken from the Psalm xix which contains a Prophecy touching the Messias and from the Song of Isaiah ch 5. that whosoever reflects seriously upon such a ridiculing of the Book of Wisdom made by Mr. N. can 't but have a mean notion of his sense of Religion After all let Mr. N. do what he can with the Conjecture of Grotius I am very little concerned in his Judgment First because the matter which we are to handle is not the matter which Grotius suspects to have been foisted in by some Christian Interpreter 2ly Because I am resolved to make use in this Controversie only of those places of the Apocryphal Books in which they express the sense of the Old Synagogue before Jesus Christ as I shall justifie they have done by the consent of the same Synagogue after Jesus Christ and no body can suspect with any probability of the Old Synagogue that they have borrowed the Ideas of Christians and have inserted them in their ancient Books written so long time before Jesus Christ's Birth CHAP. VI. That the Works which go under the name of Philo the Jew are truly his and that he writ them a long while before the time of Christ's Preaching the Gospel and that it does not appear in any of his Works that ever he had heard of Christ or of the Christian Religion TO shew the Judgment of the Ancient Synagogue in the Points controverted between us and the Unitarians we make great use of the Writings of Philo the Jew which if they are his it cannot be denied do put this matter out of Question Our Adversaries therefore as it greatly concerns them do deny that those Works which bear his name were written by Philo the Jew By whom then were they written They say by another Philo a Christian who lived toward the end of the second Century and who as Mr. N. saith counterfeited the Writings of the famous Philo of Alexandria who was sent Embassadour to Caligula by those of his own Nation in the year of Christ 40. It is easie to refute this Suggestion of theirs And yet I cannot but acknowledge it has some kind of colour from that which we read in Eusebius and Jerome who tell us that Philo has given a Character of the Apostolick Christians in his Book de Therapeutis To which some have added that at his second coming to Rome under Claudius to be Embassadour at his Court as he was before at Caligula's he then became acquainted with St. Peter the Apostle of Christ I am therefore to prove these Propositions 1. That those Books we have under the name of Philo are the Works of a Jew of whom there is not the least appearance in his Writings that he knew any thing of Christianity nor that he ever heard of Jesus Christ or his Apostles 2. That it appears by the Books themselves that they were written before Jesus Christ began to Preach 3. That there is no foundation for what Eusebius says and also St. Jerome who Copied from Eusebius concerning Philo's account of a sort of Christians whom he describes under the name of Therapeutae 4. That the History of the Conversation between St. Peter and Philo is a ridiculous Fable which
Eusebius took upon hear-say from he knew not whom or from an Author whom he did not think fit to name for fear it should give no credit to his Story The first Proposition namely That these Pieces were written by one that was a Jew by Religion this one cannot doubt of if he considers these following things 1. That in all these Pieces of Philo where-ever he has occasion to make use of Authority he fetches it only out of the Jewish Scriptures And those are the only Scriptures that he takes upon him to explain He quotes Moses whom he usually calls the Law-giver as we do the Sayings of our Lord Jesus Christ And sometimes tho very rarely he quotes other Writings of the Old Testament But I dare affirm that in all his Treatises he cites not one passage from the New Testament which thing alone is sufficient to prove that he was no Christian For the first Christians used to cite the New Testament with as much care and even affection as the Jews did the Old But Secondly one had need have an Imagination as strong as Mr. N. to fancy that a Christian Author in the end of the Second Century could write as Philo does upon most part of the Books of Moses without mixing some touches at least at the Christian Religion And yet there is no such thing in all Philo's Works He takes it for his business to make the Jews understand their Law according to their Midrashim in an Allegorical way and to teach the Heathens that their prejudices against the Law of Moses were unjust and that they ought to acknowledg the Divinity of this Law which he explained to them This is the end or design of this Author in all his Works 3dly It appears that he according to the opinion of the Jewish Nation did expect the Messias as a great Temporal King yet to come as is evident from the Interpretation he gives of Balaam's Prophecy touching the Messias in his Book de Praemiis p. 716. 4thly In all his Works there is nothing peculiar to Christ that Mr. N. can alledg except in what is written of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very thing in dispute between us and him but even that doth not hinder but that the Jews themselves finding every thing in Philo so agreeable to the Notions that their Ancestors had in his Age do own them to be the Writings of a Jew and of Philo in particular As we see in Manasseh ben Israel who in many places alledges his Authority In Exod. p. 137. and shews that his Opinions do generally agree with those of their most ancient Authors The second thing I have to shew is that it appears from the Books themselves and other wise that many of them were composed before Jesus Christ began to Preach the Gospel Christ's Preaching began in Palestine in the year of the Building of Rome 783. But the Author of the Book Quod omnis probus sit Liber which has always been accounted undoubtely Philo's does note that the obstinate resistance of those of Xanthus in Lycia against M. Brutus was an affair fresh in memory as having happened 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not much before the writing of that Book Now this which he tells us of the Xanthians happened not long after the death of Julius Caesar who was killed on the 13th of March in the year of Rome 709 for Brutus himself was kill'd at the time of the Battel of Philippi which was in Autumn in the year 712. Therefore Philo could not say it happened not long since if he writ so long after as in the year Urb. Con. 783. when Christ began to Preach for according to the common manner of speaking no man could say a thing happened not long since that happened before the remembrance of any man then living But if that Book was writ before Christ began to preach the Gospel much more were all those Books which we make use of against the Unitarians for according to the Order in which these Books are rankt by Eusebius this Book Quod omnis probus est Liber was one of the last that Philo writ The first that Eusebius names were the Three Books of Allegories after which he goes on to the Books of Questions and Answers upon Genesis and upon Exodus he tells us besides That Philo took pains to examine particular difficulties which might arise from several Histories in those Books and names the several Books that Philo writ of this sort This Order of his Books was observed in the Manuscripts which Eusebius hath exactly followed and it is agreeable enough to the Jewish Method of handling the Scripture by way of Questions and Answers which is still the Title of many Jewish Books of this Nature We may gather the same truth from another part of Philo which tells us expresly that he studi'd the Scriptures Primâ aetate when he was young and he complains of being called afterwards to publick business and that he had not now leisure to attend to the study of the Scriptures as formerly Lib. de Leg. spec p. 599. Therefore all his Books before were written in his younger days and especially his Three Books of Allegories which Eusebius placeth first before any of the rest Josephus in his Antiq. Lib. xviii c. 10. assures us That Philo was the Chief and most considerable of the Jews employed by those of Alexandria in the Embassy to Caligula This man saith he eminent among those of his Nation appeared before Caligula his Death which was A. U. C. 793. That is to say in the 40th year of our Lord. Now Philo in the History of his Legation to Caligula says of himself That he was at that time all grey with Age that is 70 years old according to the Jewish Notion of a man with grey hair Pirke Avoth c. 5. Suppose then that he was 70 years old when he appeared before Caligula it follows that he was born in the year of Rome 723. Suppose also that he began to write at 30 years old it will fall in with the year of Rome 793. That is to say 30 years before Christ preach'd in Judaea For Jesus Christ began not to preach till the year of Rome 783. The Third Assertion is as easy to be justified For though Baronius makes much of that fancy of Eusebius who to prove the Antiquity of Monastic Life held that Philo's Therapeutae were Christians and who was herein followed by St. Hierom without Examination yet others of the most Learned Papists as particularly Lucas Holstenius and Hen. Valesius have confest that herein Eusebius was mistaken Indeed one need only read the Book de Therapeutis it self or even the first period of it to be convinced that those whom Philo there describes were the Jews of the Essen Sect and the Essens were as Josephus plainly shews in the account he gives of them as much Jews by Religion as the Pharisees were Photius who was a better
that is to say he lived in the reign of Herod the Great about thirty years before the Birth of our Lord. And some Criticks believe our Saviour does cite his Chaldee Paraphrase Luc. iv 18. in quoting the Text Isa lx 2. Thus much may at least be said for it that all that which is there cited does agree better with his Targum than with the Original Text. Onkelos a Proselyte was he according to their common account who turned the five Books of Moses into Chaldee This Work is rather a pure simple Translation than a Paraphrase notwithstanding it must be allowed that in divers places he does not endeavour so much to give us the Text word for word as to clear up the sense of certain places which otherwise could not well be understood by the people This Onkelos according to the common opinion of the Jews saw Jonathan and lived in the time of that ancient Gamaliel who was Master of the Apostle St. Paul as some would have it We find in Megillah c. 1. that he Composed his Targum under the Conduct of R. Eliezer and of R. Josua after the year of our Lord 70 and that he died in the year of our Lord 108 and that his Targum was immediately received into the publick use of the Jews what other Targums there were on the five Books of Moses having almost wholly lost their credit and their authority As to the other Sacred Books which the Jews call Cetouvim or Hagiographes they ascribe the Targums of the Psalms the Proverbs and Job to R. Joseph Caeeus and affirm that he lived a long time after Onkelos And for the Targums of the other Books they look on them as works of Anonymous Authors However the most part of these Targums have been Printed under the name of Jonathan as if he had been Author of them all There are moreover some scraps of a Paraphrase upon the five Books of Moses which is called the Jerusalem Targum and there is another that bears the name of Jonathan upon the Pentateuch and which some Learned Jews have said to be his As doth R. Azaria Imrebinah c. 25. and the Author of the Chain of Tradition p. 28. after R. Menahem de Rekanati who cites it under the name of Jonathan following some Ancient MSS. These Targums ordinarily exceed the bounds of a Paraphrase and enter into Explications some of which are strange enough and appear to be the work of divers Commentators who among some good things have very often mixed their own idle Fancies and Dreams Beckius nineteen years ago published a Paraphrase on the two Books of Chronicles of which also there is a MSS. at Cambridge This deserves almost the same Character with these Paraphrases I spoke of last For the Author of this as well as those before mentioned does often intermingle such Explications as taste of the Commentator with those which appear to have been taken from the Ancient Perushim or Explications of the most Eminent Authors of the Synagogue A Man must be mighty credulous if he gives credit to all the fables which the Jews bring in their Talmud to extoll the authority of Jonathan his Targum and he must have read these Pieces with very little attention or judgment who should maintain that they are entirely and throughout the Works of the Authors whose names they bear or that they are of the same antiquity in respect of all their parts Onkelos is so simple that it seems nothing or very little has been added to him and he has been in so great esteem among the Jews that they have commonly inserted his Version after the Text of Moses verse for verse in the Ancient Manuscripts of the Pentateuch And from thence we may judge if there is any ground for the Conjecture of some Jews who would persuade us that it is only an Abridgment of the Targum of Jonathan upon the Pentateuch Certainly Jonathan his Targum upon the Pentateuch must be of a very dubious origin since we see that the Zohar cites from it the first words which are not to be found in it but in the Targum of Jerusalem fol. 79. col 1. l. 17. It is uncertain if the Targum of Jerusalem hath been a continued Targum or only the Notes of some Learned Jew upon the Margent of the Pentateuch or an abridgment of Onkelos for it hath a mixture of Chaldaick Greek Latin and Persian words which sheweth it hath been written in latter times according to the judgment of R. Elias Levita Jonathan who explained the former and the latter Prophets has not been so happy as Onkelos for it seems those that Copied his Targum have added many things to it some of which discover their Authors to have lived more than 700 years after him one may also see there a medly of different Targum of which the Targum on Isai xlix is a plain instance As to the Targums on all the other Holy Books which the Jews call the first Prophets it is visible that all their parts are not equally ancient Those which we have on Joshua and Judges are simple enough and Literal That on Ruth is full of Talmudical Ideas The same judgment may be made of those on the two Books of Samuel Those which we have on the two Books of Kings are a little freer from additions But that on Esther is rather a Commentary that collects several Opinions upon difficult places than a Paraphrase In that on Job attributed to R. Joseph in the Jews Edition at Venice in Folio Anno 1515. there are divers Targums cited in express Terms as there are also in the Targum on the Psalms which bears the name of R. Joseph in the aforesaid Edition of Venice One may also observe many Additions in the Targums on the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes but especially in that upon the Canticles all which have been published under the name of R. Joseph I have said almost as much of that on the two Books of Chronicles which Beckius published about eighteen or nineteen years ago This being so one may very well ask with what justice do you ascribe these Books to those who as the Jews now say were the Authors of them when by their own confession Onkelos on the five Books of Moses is perhaps the only Translator in whom you find none of these marks of corruption which you acknowledg in the other Targums you quote For the other Targums it may be said that we ought to leave them out of the Dispute unless we would impose the new Sentiments of the Jews that lived long after Christ's time under the pretence of producing the opinions of the ancient Synagogue before Jesus Christ One may insist upon it that we are to quote the Books of Onkelos only and lay the other aside as Books of no authority since we do confess that they are full of Additions in which there are many Fables and Visions borrowed from the Talmudical Jews I might hope to satisfie any
reasonable Reader that sticks at this difficulty by telling him First in few words that I will scarce ever cite any of these Targums but when they say the same thing that Onkelos doth And secondly that these as well as Onkelos are owned by the Jews And it cannot with any colour of reason be imagined that the Jews since Christ's time have adopted Books contrary to their Religion and used them in their common reading as true Versions of the Law and the Prophets It is certain that the Jews many Centuries ago have taken them for such And therefore these Books in whatsoever time they were written are sufficient testimonies of the Opinions of the Synagogue But I have something more considerable to offer for the establishing of the Authority of these Paraphrases as well as of that of Onkelos in our dispute with our Unitarians against whom we shall have occasion to make use of the Testimony of these Paraphrases For this one needs only examine these Paraphrases with an ordinary attention I pray therefore the Reader to consider 1. That whatsoever has been said in general for the necessity that there was for the making of these Chaldee Paraphrases the same does also confirm the antiquity of all these Paraphrases if not as to every part of them yet at least as to the main of these Paraphrases such as we now have them almost on every Book of the Old Testament 2ly We see in the Misna a clear mention made of some Targums upon the Law and the first Prophets Megillah cap. 4. Sect. 9 10. which must be Onkelos and Jonathan 3ly We read in the Gemarah of Sabbath cap. 16. fol. 115. col 1. an account of the Targum upon Job which Raban Gamaliel the Grand-father to R. Judah who compiled the Misna had read Now if the Paraphrase on the Books of Job was in common use so anciently who can doubt but that they had the like Versions also on the Books of Moses and on the Prophets Nay we see that Jesus Christ upon the Cross cites the xxii Psalm according to the Chaldee Paraphrase and not according to the Hebrew This he did that he might be understood by them that were present at that time from whence it follows that the Jews in Judea had a Paraphrase of the Book of Psalms and that that Paraphrase was already received among them before the time of our Blessed Saviour I know some Criticks will not allow the Misnah which speaks of the Targums to be so ancient as I do Their great reason is that this Book is cited by none of the Fathers who lived just after it was written and that it is mentioned by no body before Justinian the Emperour his time But this Objection proceeds only from an oversight of these Criticks who have not observed that although I should grant what they suppose to be true it would not weaken the Authority of the Misnah when the Author of the Misnah does witness the antiquity of the Targums because the Misnah is not a Book of a common form but a collection of many old Decisions as the Book of Justinian which is called Digestum which is not Justinian his work but his Collection or as the Book of Gratian which is called Decretum which is nothing but the Compilation of Canons or Decisions of Fathers who lived six or seven hundred years before Gratian. That hath been judiciously remark'd by Paul Archbishop of Burgos in the Preface to his Scrutinium and in this judgment he follows Maymonides in his Preface upon his Jad Kazaka And indeed we must observe that almost all the famous Rabins which are mentioned in the Misnah are the very Men which are mentioned by St. Com. on Isa 8.14 Jerome as the great Authors of the Judaick Traditions If the Learned Men do not like the Conjecture of R. Elias Levita upon the Targum of Jerusalem but would have it to be the rest of an entire work upon the Pentateuch Let them examine how it came to pass that the Jerusalem Paraphrase on the Pentateuch is almost all lost So that there remain only some few bits of it here and there on some Texts and then they will find that perhaps it is not lost but that it subsists in great measure in that which is under Jonathan his name on the Pentateuch Whence it is probably that in some MSS. it bears the name of the Targum of Jerusalem and in other 's the name of Jonathan's Targum It is easie to judge how this came to pass The Jerusalem Targum differed from that of Jonathan but in some places or perhaps it was the very Targum of Jonathan which was augmented from time to time by divers Explications Then when the Jews came to make their Paraphrase no longer than their Text that they might have the Text and the Paraphrase both together in their Bibles they did not give themselves the trouble to transcribe the Jerusalem Paraphrase all at length But they contented themselves with transcribing those parts where it appeared to have some difference from that of Jonathan and this they did after so scrupulous a manner that they transcribed the Passages of the Jerusalem Targum that agree in the sense and differ only in the words as well as those that have a different sense from that of Jonathan I know very well that the Jews speak of several Paraphrases besides that of Jonathan on the Prophets and that of Onkelos on the Books of Moses As for instance they speak of a Targum of R. Joseph who they say has translated the Books of the Prophets But as to this it ought to be considered 1. That it was the Jews Custom to teach their Scholars these Paraphrases not from a Book but from their memory and by heart and so the Scholars might very well ascribe to their Masters that which they had learnt from their mouths and their verbal instructions as well as if it had been delivered to them in writing 2. That the same places which are quoted from the Paraphrase of R. Joseph on some Books of the Prophets are to be found in express terms in Jonathan's Paraphrase which the Jews esteem more ancient than Onkelos who writ on the Law 3. R. Joseph whom they quote does himself cite the Chaldee Paraphrase as being of Authority in his time and therefore it was not his work And this appears from his Confession that he could never have understood the words of Isai viii 6. without the help of the Chaldee Paraphrase Gemara ch xi tit Sanbedr fol. 95. But notwithstanding the antiquity of these Paraphrases I own they contain Additions very new which shew that after they were written they were in such places enlarged with the Glosses of Doctors that applied themselves to the Study of the Law and took pains to shew how one part of it depended upon another of which we find nothing in Onkelos which is almost a verbal translation of the Hebrew Text into Chaldee And
thus 1. we find in many places the connexion of one History with another which is very often the imagination of a Rabbin who fancied what he pleased and fathered it upon Moses 2. We find Explications in these later Targums different from the former ones yet added to the former with an impudence not to be endured and this in several places 3. We there find long Narrations which have no other foundation than their method of explaining Scripture by the way of Notarikon as they call it as where we read of the five Sins of Esau which he committed on the same day in which he sold his birthright to Jacob and in pursuance of their manner of explaining Scripture by Gematria of which Rittangel on Jetzira has given some examples p. 31 32 33. But all this makes nothing against the authority of those places in the Paraphrase where they do little more than render the Text out of Hebrew into Chaldee In them there was no occasion to shew any more than the sense of the words such as the Paraphrasts had received by Tradition from their Forefathers Whereas the Authors of those Additions thereby made a shew of Learning out of the common road and gave themselves the pleasure to see their own fictions come into such credit that they were received as the Oracles of God But beyond that we must take notice that as on one hand those Targums have been enlarged by so many Additions so on the other hand they have been altered in many places and new Ideas substituted to the old To shew the alteration which was made in those Targums by Modern Jews we can remark a thing which hath been often taken notice of by Buxtorf in his Lexicon Talmud viz. that there are many places cited from those Targums 500 years ago by the Author of Aroule that are not to be found in them as they are now in Print So we can prove clearly that new Ideas have been put in instead of the old chiefly upon the points controverted between Jews and Christians For in many places where St. Jerome in his Comments upon the Prophets brings the common explication of the Jews as agreeing with the explication of Christians we find the Targum brings an explication quite different from what it was to be according to St. Jerome's account It appears by this the Jews have done in their Books the same thing which Papists have done in the Books of the Fathers They have added many things to help their Cause and they have cut out many places which might have done great service to Truth As for the Additions then I will scarce cite any of them but when it is evident that they speak the sense of the Ancients and truly whatever one may say of the Corruptions of these Jewish Paraphrases I will maintain that it is as easie for an attentive Reader to distinguish these Corruptions from the ancient Text which it seems Arias Montanus had a design to do in a particular Treatise as it is for one that looks on an old Pot or Kettle to tell where the Tinker has been at work and to distinguish his Clouts from the Original metal The ancient pieces have a sort of simplicity that makes them to be valued and which easily shews their antiquity The Additions are the rambling fancies of bold Commentators which they devised in later times as occasion required and thrust them upon the ancient Paraphrasts who lived in those times when there was no such occasion nor could they foresee that there would be any such in after-times As for example we do not find that the Jews before Christ's time ever spoke of two Messias the one the Son of David who was to reign gloriously the other a suffering Messias the Son of Joseph of the Tribe of Ephraim The reason is plain for they had no occasion for that fancy of a suffering Messias That arose upon their Disputes with the Christians who proved that the Sufferings of Christ were no other than what the Messias was to suffer according to the Prophecies of Scripture At first the Jews tried other ways to avoid the force of these Prophecies but when no other would do they came to this to devise another Messias the Son of Joseph and to give him the Sufferings which the Scripture attributes to the Messias the Son of David In a word all these Conceits of which the greatest part of these Additions do consist do so evidently demonstrate their Novelty that when one is acquainted with a little of the History of the World as well as that of the Jews it is scarce possible that he should take them for the Text of Jonathan or of the ancient Paraphrasts Besides all this in the Modern Paraphrases themselves we find very often these words Another Targum and sometimes yet Another Targum which shews that the following words are not the ancient Targum but are the Additions of some Modern Authors whom the Copyers of the Paraphrasts have joyned as a new light to the ancient Whether the Jews's inserting such things into their Paraphrases has been out of fondness of these Discoveries which appeared to them new or whether they have found it turn to account to insert these Additions in the Body of their ancient Paraphrases thereby to enhance the value of them or whether they thought by publishing them under the Names of those ancient Commentators whose Authority is so venerable to wrest from the Christians all the advantages they might draw from any thing in their Paraphrases the things that they added being oftentimes contrary to what the Ancients did teach is a secret among the Jews but a secret little worth since the Providence of God has preserved the Apocryphal Books and the Books of Philo which can give us so much light into the knowledg of what is ancient and what is modern in these Paraphrases I will add nothing upon this matter but this that we see in the most ancient Books of the Jews as in the Books call'd Rabboth Mechista and in their old Midrashim almost all composed before the 7th Century and in the Talmud of Babylon the same Ideas and the same Doctrine which we meet in the Apocryphal Books and in Philo's Writings And those Ideas have been constantly followed by the most considerable part of the Jews those very Men who have their name from their constant sticking to the old Tradition of their Forefathers CHAP. VIII That the Authors of the Apocryphal Books did acknowledg a Plurality and a Trinity in the Divine Nature HAving finished our General Reflexions on the Traditional Sense of the Scriptures which was receiv'd among the Jews before the time of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Books wherein we can find such a Tradition it is time we should come to the chief matter we designed to treat of The Question is Whether the Jews before Christ's time had any notion of a Trinity For the Socinians would make us believe that Justin
Martyr having been formerly a Platonist and then turning Christian was the first that invented this Doctrine or rather adopted it out of the Platonick into the Christian Divinity and that neither the Jewish nor the Christian Church had ever before conceived any Notion of a Trinity or of any Plurality in the Divine Essence The Doctrine of the Trinity supposes the Divine Essence to be common to three Persons distinguished from one another by incommunicable Properties These Persons are called by St. John 1 Joh. v. 7. the Father the Word and the Spirit There are Three saith he that bear Witness in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these Three are One. This Personal distinction supposes the Father not to be the Son nor the Holy Ghost and that the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit Revelation teaching that the Son is begotten of the Father and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or from the Father by the Son And this distinction is the foundation of their Order and of their Operations For although the Unity of the Divine Nature makes it necessary that these three Persons should all co-operate in the Works of God ad extra as we call them nevertheless there being a certain order among the Persons and a distinction founded in their Personal Properties the Holy Scripture mentioneth an Oeconomy in their Operations so that one work ad extra is ascribed to the Father another to the Son and a third to the Holy Spirit But this distinction of Persons all partaking of the same common Nature and Majesty hinders not their being equally the Object of that Worship which Religion commands us to pay to God I touch this matter but very briefly because my business is only to examine whether the Jews had any notion of this Doctrine And our Opinion is this that though the Gospel has proposed that Doctrine more clearly and distinctly yet there were in the Old Testament sufficient notices of it so that the Jews before Christ's time did draw from thence their Notions concerning it On the contrary the Socinians maintain that this Doctrine is not only alike foreign to the Books of the Old and New Testament but that it was altogether unknown to the Jews before and after Christ till Justin Martyr first brought it into the Church In opposition to which I affirm for truth 1. That the Jews before Jesus Christ had a notion of a Plurality in God following herein certain Traces of this Doctrine that are to be found in the Books of Moses and the Prophets 2. That the same Jews following the Scriptures of the Old Testament did acknowledg a Trinity in the Divine Nature I begin the Examination of this Subject by considering the Notions of the Authors of the Apocryphal Books Now one cannot expect that these Authors should have explained their mind with relation to the notions of a Plurality and of a Trinity in the Godhead as if they had been Interpreters of the Books of the Old Testament But they express it sufficiently without that and speak in such a manner that no body can deny that they must have had those very Notions when it appears that their Expressions in speaking of God supposes the Notions of a Plurality in the Godhead and of a Trinity in particular Let us consider some of those Expressions 1. They were so full of the notion of a Plurality which is expressed in Gen. i. 26. that the Author of Tobith hath used it as the Form of Marriage among the Jews of old Let us make unto him an aid So Chap. 8.6 Thou madest Man and gavest him Eve his Wife for an helper and stay of them came Mankind Thou hast said It is not good that Man should be alone Let us make unto him an aid like unto himself whereas in the Hebrew it is only I shall make 2ly We see that they acknowledg the Creation of the World by the Word of God and by the Holy Ghost as David Psal xxxiii 6. So the Book of Wisdom Ch. ix 1. O God of my Fathers and Lord of mercy who hath made all things with thy Word or more properly by thy Word as it is explained in the 2. vers and ver 4. he asketh Wisdom in these words Give me Wisdom that sitteth by thy Throne And v. 17. Thy counsel who hath known except thou give Wisdom and send thy Holy Spirit from above Where he distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Wisdom and the Holy Spirit from God to whom he directs his Prayer And so the Book of Judith ch xvi 13 14. I will sing unto the Lord a new Song O Lord thou art great and glorious wonderful in strength and invincible Let all creatures serve thee for thou speakest and they were made thou didst send forth thy Spirit and it created them and there is none that can resist thy voice 3ly They speak of the Emanation of the Word from God Those are the words of the Book of Wisdom ch vii 25. For she is the breath of the power of God and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty therefore can no defiled thing fall into her That description of Wisdom deserves to be considered as we have it in the same place ver 22 23 24 25 26. For Wisdom which is the worker of All things taught me for in her is an understanding spirit holy one only manifold subtil lively clear undefiled plain not subject to hurt loving the thing that is good quick which cannot be letted ready to do good Kind to man stedfast sure free from care having all power over-seeing all things and going through all understanding pure and most subtil Spirits For Wisdom is more moving than any motion she passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness For she is the brightness of the everlasting Light the unspotted mirrour of the power of God and the image of his Goodness And indeed St. Paul Heb. i. 3. hath borrowed from thence what we read touching the Son that he is the brightness of God's glory and the express Image of his Person So the Book of Ecclesiasticus saith ch xxv 3. That it is come out of the mouth of the most High 4ly There are several Names in Scripture which serve to express the second Person the Son the Word the Wisdom the Angel of the Lord but who is the Lord indeed Now those Authors use all these Names to express a second Person For they acknowledge a Father and a Son by a natural consequence Thus the Author of Ecclesiasticus ch li. 10. I called upon the Lord the father of my Lord in the same way as David speaks of the Messias Psal ii and Psal cx and as Solomon in his Proverbs ch viii 25. as of a Son in the bosom of his Father and ch xxx 4. What is his Sons name if thou canst tell They speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as
among us I can add 4ly that they distinguish exactly the Angel of God from the Prophets although they are call'd by the same name of Angels or Messengers and they distinguish him from Angels which as creatures they exhort to praise God as in the Song of Azaria v. 36. O ye Angels of the Lord bless ye the Lord praise and exalt him above all for ever Such a distinction appears in the 1. of Esdras ch i. 50 51. Nevertheless the God of their Fathers sent by his Messenger to call them back because he spared them and his Tabernacle also But they had his Messengers in derision and look when the Lord spake unto them they made a sport of his Prophets So in Tobith ch v. 16. So they were well pleased Then said he to Tobias prepare thy self for the journey his father said Go thou with this man and God which dwelleth in heaven prosper your journey and the Angel of God keep you company Just according to the Prayer of Jacob Gen. 48.16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads And that very Angel is called God by Jacob in the verse before So in Ecclus ch xvli 17. For in the division of the Nations of the whole earth he set a ruler over every people but Israel is the Lord's portion So in the Epistle of Jeremy v. 5 6. But say ye in your hearts O Lord we must worship thee For mine Angel is with you and I my self caring for your souls Where in the Greek that caring for their souls is referred to the same Angel So 2 Mac. xi 6. Now they that were with Maccabeus heard that he besieged the holds they and all the people with lamentation and tears besought the Lord that he would send a good Angel to deliver Israel To shew that the Jews before Jesus Christ had such a notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was to save his people we must take notice of two things the first is that the Author of the three Books of Maccabees speaks of God at the end of his Book in the same terms which are used by Jacob Gen. xlviii 15 16. and are to be referred to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to a created Angel as I have explained it in a particular discussion of that very place of Genesis The second is that the Greek Interpreters of Scripture have used such method in translating some places of the Prophets which sheweth they understood that the Messias should be the very Angel of the Lord who is called the Counsellor and that the Angel of the Lord was the Lord himself Two examples will shew that clearly the first is in that famous Oracle of Isaiah ch ix 6. they have these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Angel of the Great Counsel whereas in the Hebrew it is said he shall be called the admirable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very Word that the Angel of the Lord gives to himself Judg. xiii 18. the Counsellor of the mighty God and it is clear that they did understand these words of the Messias who is spoken of as the Son of David v. 7. in the same words which are used in Psalm lxxii The other example is in this other famous place of Isai lxiii 9. they have translated neither an Angel but himself saved them as if they had read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we read now Some of the new Jews are mightily intangled in explaining that place but it appears that these Interpreters of Isaiah look'd upon the face of God to have been God himself which is the reason of their translation and shews that they understood the face of the Lord which is so often spoken of by Moses to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Jehovah I can add a reflection upon their Version of the 3d of Daniel v. 25. Species quarti similis filio Dei as saith Aquila a Jew who lived under Hadrian but the ancient Greeks had translated it similis Angelo Dei as saith an old Scholion related by Drusius in Fragmentis p. 1213. which shews that the ancient Hellenist had the same Notion of the Angel of God as of the Son of God But all those things shall be more cleared when we come to the authority of the other Jews which we are to produce Some perhaps may think that the Book of Ecclesiasticus supposeth the Wisdom which we maintain to be eternal to have been created and so saith that Author ch 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ch xxiv 9. But I take notice of three things 1. That such an Objection may be good in the mouth of an Arian but not at all in the mouth of a Socinian and much less in the mouth of an Unitarian of this Kingdom after their Writers have owned that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word of God signifies the essential vertue of God 2ly That the Author of Ecclesiasticus follows in that expression the very words of the Greek Version of Proverbs ch viii 22. in which it answers to the word possessed which is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3ly That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although we should suppose it to be the true reading hath a very large signification and indeed Aristobulus a Jew of Alexandria who lived about the same age of the Authors of those Apocryphal Books and whose words are quoted by Eusebius de Praep. Ev. L. vii § 14. p. 324. declares that the Wisdom which Solomon speaks of in the Book of Proverbs was before the Heaven and Earth and the very Author of Ecclesiasticus calls it positively eternal ch xxiv 18. There is another Objection which is backed by the authority of Grotius who by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Wisdom understands a created Angel but I shall shew afterwards the absurdity of that opinion of Grotius and his error is so plain that Mr. N. and the Unitarian Authors have been ashamed to follow his authority in this point daring not to maintain that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the first of St. John signified an Angel which they would have done if they could have digested the absurdity of Grotius his Notions upon that place of Wisdom ch xviii 15. As for the Holy Ghost that they acknowledged him for a Person and for a Divine one there is as much evidence from the same Apocryphal Books 1. I have noted they attributed to him the Creation of the World as you see in Judith ch xvi 14. Thou didst send forth thy Spirit and it created them which is an imitation of David's Notions Psal xxxiii 6. 2ly They call him the mouth of the Lord so in the 3d Book of Esdras ch i. 28. and 47 and 57. Howbeit Josias did not turn back his chariot from him but undertook to fight with him not regarding the words of the Prophet Jeremy spoken by the mouth of the Lord.
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
1. That the Targum plainly owns on Psal xlv 6. Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever And ver 7. O God thy God hath anointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy fellows That the Messias is God This Truth is yet more clear in Isa ix 6. applied to the Messias by Jonathan and the present Jews cannot satisfie themselves with any answer they make to it as appears by their different ways of evasion and their changing the very Text to avoid the evidence of it 2ly The Targum on Isa xxviii 5. hath these considerable words In that day the Messias of the Lord of Hosts shall be crowned with joy instead of the Lord of Hosts as it is in the Text. 3ly The Targum on Jer. xxiii acknowledges the Messias to be there treated of and yet he is called in this place the Lord of our Righteousness See to the same purpose the Targum on Jer. xxxiii 14. The learned M. Edzardi has proved that the same Interpretation of these words of Jeremy hath continued among the Jews from the time of Jesus Christ without interruption till these latter days and this he hath done from a great number of Jewish Authors and even their Liturgies themselves which I have no mind to transcribe His Book was Printed at Hamburgh A. 1670. 4ly They have been so sensible that the Messias is represented by the Prophets as God that in Psal cx where it is said of the Messias that he shall be a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck they refer the Priesthood of the Messias to God or to the Shekinah which is Jehovah So doth R. Menach fol. 18. col 1. fol. 31. col 1. Without that it is hard to conceive how Philo should so often mention the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Priest and Prophet of God and at the same time believe the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be God unless he gathered it from Psal cx 1. where the Messias that is represented as sitting at the right hand of God and equal to God is also described as an High Priest of a new Order and from Isa xi 2. where the Messias is promised to receive the Spirit of Prophecy in the highest degree I need not cite the Paraphrasts any further on this Subject What I have already quoted out of them is more than enough to shew how common this Idea was among their Nation For the Jews in the Ages next to these Paraphrases I ought to observe this one thing of Pirke Eliezer ch xiv There they assert that God descended nine times and that the tenth time he shall descend in the Age to come i. e. in the time of the Messias The first time was in the Garden of Eden The second at the Confusion of Tongues The third at the destruction of Sodom The fourth at his talking with Moses on Mount Horeb. The fifth at his appearance on Sinai The sixth and seventh where he spake to Moses in the hollow of the Rock The eighth and ninth in the Tabernacle The tenth will be when he shall appear in the times of the Messias Such is their ancient Opinion The Prophecies that speak of it as one end of the coming of the Messias to judge his People and the Nations do constantly ascribe the Name of God or of Jehovah to the Messias We see it in Psalm lxxxii 8. Arise O God and judge the earth for thou shalt inherit all nations Which is followed by Daniel ch vii 13 14. in these words I saw in the night visions and behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven and came to the ancient of days and there was given him dominions and glory and a kingdom that all people nations and languages should serve him His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed The Jews confess three things one is that Psalm lxxii is to be understood of the Messias The second is That in the Vision of Ezech. ch i. that form of a man sitting upon the Throne signifies the true God the third That the Vision of Daniel ch vii is the same in substance with that of Ezek. i. So that the Messias as a Man receives an absolute Empire upon all Nations and sits upon a Throne as God Now it should be the most absurd thing in the World to conceive the Messias as only a Man when he is invested with such an Empire which cannot be governed but by a true God and by Jehovah whose Character is represented so often as the Ruler of all Nations See Gen. xviii 25. The Prophecies that speak of Jehovah as the King and Bridegroom of his Church are constantly interpreted of the Messias For example where God said to his People Hos ii 19 20. I will betroth thee unto me for ever I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness and in judgment and in loving-kindness and in mercies I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness and thou shalt know the Lord. This the Jews generally understand of the Messias 'T is the judgment of R. Menachem in Genes fol. 15. col 1. where he reflects upon Isaiah ch lxii 3. And it is agreeable to what is said Psal xlv 7 9 10 11. Thy throne O God is for ever and ever the scepter of thy kingdom is a scepter of righteousness thou lovest righteousness and hatest iniquity wherefore O God thy God hath anointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy fellows Kings daughters were among thy honourable women upon thy right hand did stand the Queen in gold of Ophir Hearken O daughter and consider forget thy own people and thy father's house So shall the King greatly desire thy beauty for he is thy Lord and worship thou him Whereas the Targum v. 2. interprets it all of the Messias so R. Meir Arama says all agree that that Psalm is to be understood of the Messias We cannot have a better proof that the Messias should be Jehovah than Zech. xii 10. which the Targum also interprets of the Messias and the new Jews would refer to the feigned Messias Son of Joseph The words are these I Jehovah will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and supplication and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son In Malach. iii. 1. we find this expression Behold I will send my messenger and he shall prepare the way before me and the Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to his temple even the messenger or the Angel of the Covenant whom you delight in Now take notice that whereas it is said after in the Hebrew here he is coming the Greeks have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now since it is certain that he is the Jehovah to whom the Temple is here said to be built and dedicated and who is
worship'd in it and since the Jews understand this place of the Messias it must follow that the Messias is Jehovah It is evident that the Lord and the Messenger or the Angel of the Covenant are the same Person whose coming is promised to the Jews as a thing very near But it is no less evident that this Angel of the Covenant is the same which is spoken by Jacob Genes xlviii 15 16. as the Redeemer and is named by Isaiah ch lxiii the Angel of the face Now all the Ancient Jews agree that that Angel or Messenger is the Shekinah or Jehovah himself as we see in R. Menachem de Rekanati fol. 54. col 2. fol. 66. col 2. fol. 72. col 4. fol. 73. col And they agree all that the Shekinah and Jehovah is the same It is a Point agreed by the Talmudist and by the Cabalist as it is explained by R. Menach fol. 73. col 3. fol. 77. col 4. fol. 79. col 3. This being so who can deny that the Text of Malachi is an undeniable proof that the Messias was to be Jehovah himself according to the Ideas of the most Ancient Jews If we had not such Confessions of the Jews 't will be easy to supply the want of them by the help of the general Tradition that reigns among them and proves clearly that the Messias was to be Jehovah himself They hold that the Messias shall be greater than all the Patriarchs and even the Angels themselves Neve shalom l. 9. c. 5. How can this be unless he be truly Jehovah And whence could they take this Notion except from Psalm xcvii 7. where the Angels are commanded to worship him It is very easy to reconcile that Idea with the Notions of the old Jews touching the Messias supposing him to be the Shekinah and Jehovah and that this Shekinah or Jehovah was to be the same Person with the Messiah as they confess R. Menach fol. 73. col 3. and fol. 77. col 4. and fol. 79. col 3. They teach constantly that Angels receive their virtue from the Shekinah R. Menach fol. 8. col 1. and fol. 12. col 1. They teach that the Shekinah is the God of Jacob R. Men. fol. 38. col 3. that he appeared to him at Bethel and promised him to govern him without the Ministry of Angels R. Menach fol. 41 42. They said the Shekinah is the Jehovah who appeared to the Patriarchs R. Menach fol. 56. col 1. They maintain that the Temple was built to worship the Shekinah R. Menach fol. 63. col 1. fol. 70. col 2. fol. 73. col 4. fol. 74. col 2. They maintain on the other side that 't is not lawful to pay any religious worship to Angels although sent by God as Messengers of him or as Mediators R. Menach fol. 68. col 2. They deny that the Ancient Patriarchs have paid other worship than a civil one to an Angel when he appeared to them R. Menach Ibidem col 3. But it is impossible to reconcile those Ideas with the Opinion of the Messias being only a meer Man Indeed he that will reflect on all these Prophecies will very hardly think that then when the High-Priest demanded of Jesus whether he was the Son of God and Jesus answered that he was so the Jews did understand only that he made himself a great Prophet Both the Jews and Socinians own that in this Answer he made himself the Messias which according to both of them is more than a great Prophet and the High-Priest was so sensible of it that he called it Blasphemy In short the Angels who are God's Ministers could not serve nor obey one that was only as well as themselves a Creature He must be God to have the Angels Subjects to him He must be God to govern the World and to discern the thoughts of the heart without which he could not be a competent Judge And they that imagine a Creature could be made capable to know hearts and to exercise those other Acts which are the Characters of the Divinity do form to themselves the greatest Chimera in the World It is therefore necessary that the Ancient Jews having these Notions of the Messias should have conceived an intimate and close habitation of the Word in his Person by which all these Prophecies should receive their accomplishment and all the Promises of God concerning the Messias should be perfectly fulfilled The Unitarians conceive they have done a great service to the Christian Religion when to court the Jews favour they deny the Divinity of the Messias and condemn as Idolatry the Worship which Christians pay to Jesus Christ In this they argue more consistently than Socinus himself as I have said in my Preface to this Book But after all I can say that besides they cannot answer Socinus his Argument for the Worship of Jesus Christ they shall not get from the Jews what they pretend by their opinion Indeed the Jews would be in the right to condemn us as Idolaters if we did worship Jesus Christ as a meer Creature But they cannot do that justly if they reflect seriously upon the Grounds which we lay for the Adoration of the Messias As it is a thing which I hope shall be of some use to undeceive the Unitarians I am willing to add to the foregoing observations upon the Trinity and Divinity of the World the sense of the Synagogue to this Article And indeed it would be unconceivable that the Jews should have believed the Messias to be true God and should not be ready to worship him It is a thing which Christians and Jews are agreed upon that there is but one God who is to be Worshipped The Jews and the ancient Christians did agree that Angels must not be Worshipped From which it follows that if the Jews acknowledged that the Messias is to be Worshipped they must have acknowledged him to be God and vice versa Now there are positive Orders of God to Worship the Messias as Psal ii 12. Kiss the Son Who is that Son spoken in this place it is the Messias as it is granted by the ancient Synagogue as we see in Ecclesiasticus I called upon the Lord the Father of my Lord. And Tehillim Rabba with many others use this place of Psal ii to the Messias So the Breshit Rabba in Gen. xlix so the Talmud in Succa c. 5. Saadias in Dan. vii 13. with the ancient witness R. Salom Jarchi in his Comment I know well that the Greek Interpreters have Translated those words of the second Psalm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But that Version is rejected by the Jews who read now in their Spanish Translation Printed at Ferrara Besad hiio pro que non se insanne which is the sense of Lombroso in his short Notes upon that place So it is understood by R. Abensueb in h. l. We read in Psal viii 3. From the mouth of babes c. It was so well known
the Jews the reality of his humane Nature Had he said plainly I am God the Jews who in their Scriptures were so much used to Divine Appearances might have had just Grounds of doubting the truth of the Incarnation of the Word They had lookt upon his Flesh as a Phantasm which persuasion of theirs would have destroyed the Notion of his Humane Nature Therefore to persuade them of the truth of his Humane Nature he was born as other Men are he grew by degrees as other Men do he suffered hunger and thirst was subject to weariness and to all the other infirmities incident to a real Man growing even in Knowledg and Wisdom by degrees as other Men do It was absolutely necessary it should be so because he was to be like his Brethren in all things sin only excepted as St. Paul says applying to him that place of Psal xxii where the Messias says he would declare the Name of God to his Brethren and of Psal xlv 7. where he mentions his fellows And also because he was to be the seed of the woman spoken of Genesis iii. 15. And if for all these real marks his being a true Man some Hereticks called the Valentinians believed his Body to have been only a Phantasm without any reality And others named the Apollinarians affirmed that the Word supplied in Christ the functions of a Rational Soul though he had really no such Soul Had Christ expresly stiled himself God he had given the Jews and Hereticks occasion of fancying that his Humane Nature was not a reality but that this last Apparition of God in a Humane Body was like the old ones when God appeared in the form of a Man and wrestled with Jacob though it was without a true Incarnation the thing being done by a Body made of Air on purpose or by the Body of a real Man but borrowed only for the time and presently after put off Secondly Let it be considered that Christ used that caution that he might not give the utmost provocation to the Jews who were much offended to see him in so mean a condition For though they might perhaps have owned such a despicable Man to be a Prophet yet they could by no means own him to be the Messias of whom they expected that he should be a Temporal and a great King Therefore they could hardly bear our Saviour's discourse about the Dignity of his Person they took up stones to throw at him when he told them he was greater than Abraham and before Abraham Joh. viii They said he had a Devil when he told them he had power to raise himself from the dead and also those who did believe in him How then could they have heard from him an express declaration that he was God Maker of Heaven and Earth Thirdly It must be also observed that there being many Prophecies by the fulfilling of which the Messias was to be known Christ declared himself by degrees and fulfilled those Prophecies one after another that the Jews might have a competent time to examine every particular To this end he did for some years Preach the Gospel He wrought his Miracles at several times and in several places He wrought such and such Miracles and not others imitating herein the Sun which by degrees appears and enlightens the World This might easily be shewn more at large but that the thing is plain to any that have attentively read the Gospel What I have noted is sufficient to shew that Jesus Christ was not to assume the Name of God in the time of his Humiliation although he hath done the equivalent in so many places where he speaks of himself as of the Son of God the Memra the Shekinah the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is God 2ly That it was more fit for him to let it be concluded from his performing all the Ministry of the Messias as it was by Thomas Joh. xx 18. Not that they knew then and not before that he was he from whom Life and an Eternal Life should be expected Upon which Grotius seems to Ground his Godhead in h. l. but because then they saw in him a full demonstration that he was the true God the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whom the Life of all Creatures is derived as is said Joh. i. A second Objection is taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. John has used in the first Chapter of his Gospel to denote our Saviour's Divinity For if we hear the Unitarians First it is not clear that any other of the Writers of the New Testament has used it in that sense And then the Notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be grounded only on the Greek Expressions and not on the Hebrew Tongue as it is used in the Original of the Old Testament To answer that Objection I must take notice 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not unknown to the Jews before Jesus Christ to express the Shekinah that is the Angel of the Covenant So we see in the Book of Wisdom chap. xviii 15. Omnipotens sermo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tuus de coelo à regalibus sedibus durus debellator and so in some other places of the Book of Ecclesiasticus as chap. i. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know that Grotius pretends upon the place of Wisdom that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies a created Angel and quotes Philo to confirm his Explication But I maintain that no body but Grotius could have advanced such a false Explication and be so bold as to quote Philo for it whose Testimonies which I have quoted before are so clearly against him and distinguish so exactly the Angels from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I pray the Reader only to remark this that if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies here a created Angel then it was the current Notion of the Synagogue concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that when St. John speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his first Chapter either 't was only his meaning that such a created Angel was made Flesh and the Hellenist Jews could not understand it otherwise or St. John was to explain the sense of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to a new an unknown and unheard signification that he never did and so he help'd the Arians and confounded the Orthodox Some body will perhaps excuse Grotius who saith in the Preface to his Annotations upon this Book that such a piece hath been inserted by a Christian who hath fobb'd in many other things and it was the sense of Mr. N. in his Judgment of the Fathers But Grotius who believes the Works of Philo true hath shut that Door against this Evasion when he confirms the truth of that Saying of the Author by the Authority of Philo the Jew and 't is so strange an Accusation and without any ground that it came in no body's head before Grotius 2dly I answer That according
and forced sense on them But with what face the Mahometans can object this I know not when they themselves do so grosly pervert the passages in Deut. xxxiii 33. Hab. iii. 3. Deut. xviii and xxxiv in favour of Mahomet and his Law and in favour of Mahomet only many Texts in Isaiah Ezekiel Zephany and other Prophets as you may see them alledged by Hazzadaula in his Fourth Book but especially when they urge all those places in St. John's Gospel where the Paraclete is spoken of as so many Promises of Mahomet's coming I must confess some warm indiscreet Mahometans in dispute with the Christians have given them occasion to believe that the Mahometans generally accused the Christians with falsifying their Scriptures Just as the petty Controvertists of the Church of Rome have impudently averred the Scripture to be corrupt in many places the better to establish their Church's Authority And thus we find Ahmed the Mahometan charging both Jews and Christians with altering of their Bibles Hotting Hist p. 364. But as there are in the Roman Church Men wiser and calmer that see the consequences of so rash an Accusation and have therefore proved unanswerably the Integrity of the Sacred Text so are there among the Mahometans more wary and cautious Disputants who despise and disallow those false Charges advanced by some of their party against the Jews and Christians Such a one was Hazzadaula in the Book before cited who solidly proves that by the care the Masorite Jews took to ascertain the Text of the Old Testament it was impossible they should be willing to corrupt it and that if they had been willing yet they were divided into so many Sects of unreconcileable hatred to one another as rendred it impossible for them to do it He then shews that the difference which is between the several Versions as between the Seventy and Syriack for Example was no prejudice to the Purity of the Text it self but that this arose from the several Views the Interpreters then had from the different Notions and senses they affixed to the Original words He then passes to the Examination of the various Readings which our Unitarians triumph in and shews that neither their number nor variety ought to diminish the Authority of the Originals He gives Reasons for his preference of the Jewish Bible to that of the Samaritans He proves the corruption of the Books of the Old Testament could not be made before Jesus Christ's time since he never reproached them for it which he would certainly have done had they been guilty of it nor could the corruption come in after Christ's time because the Jews and Christians who are such mortal Enemies have had these Books in keeping and daily read them though they interpret them very differently In a word we cannot easily meet with a more perfect Treatise on this Subject nor one more proper to refute the bold insinuations of some who under the name of Christians and Men skilled in Critical knowledg have undertaken to shake the Foundations of the Christian Religion and for this purpose would discredit the Authority of the Holy Scripture under the disguise of making it rest on the Authority of Tradition The Reader will I hope reflect on what I have said concerning the conduct of the Socinians in their Disputes with us relating to the Divinity of Christ To which I may add that some of them less modest though more sincere than Socinus being convinced that no Answer could be given to the Quotations from the Old Testament that were used in Proof of our Lord's Divinity thought fit to reject the Epistle to the Hebrews which contains those Quotations as an Apocryphal Piece This Enjedinus has done and thought it a quick way to deliver himself at once of many difficulties from which otherwise he could not extricate himself For had he believed Socinus's Answers Satisfactory he had never betaken himself to this last and desperate shift Others of whom Mr. N. is one do suppose that whatever makes for the advantage of the Trinitarians Cause is all forged And so they abandon the fanciful Explications Socinus has given of the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel as having no need of them so long as they can make one believe that the Trinitarians have foisted into the New Testament whatever they pleased This is still a shorter answer than the former The first rendred one particular Book only useless to the Trinitarians but this makes all those Books of the New Testament useless from whence any Objection may be drawn against the Unitarians What end the Socinians have in these dangerous attempts whether to facilitate the Conversion of the Jews as they pretend or to do service to the Atheists and Deists as it seems to be their real design is worthy every Christian 's serious enquiry If they intend the Conversion of the Jews we may well demand of them what way they will take to effect it Smalcius one of their chief Writers has affirmed that the Books of the Old Testament are of little use to convert the Jews De Div. Chr. c. x. already quoted His reason is because if we interpret any Text in the Old Testament of Jesus Christ we must interpret it Mystically that is according to quite another sense than that which the words do naturally import And now admitting this to be true what use can a Socinian make of the Old Testament against the Jews Sommerus and Francis David whose Opinions as to the denial of the Worship of Jesus Christ are embraced by Mr. N. being forced to own that the Author of the Book of Proverbs did ascribe a Son to God ch xxx 4. and yet being not willing to acknowledg it as a truth took the readiest way to defeat the Authority of this Book and placed it among the Apocryphal Writings One should wonder how such Socinians are like to be Converters who call the Jews Canon of the Scriptures into question and consequently leave no Books from whence as from a common Principle they may on each side deduce their reasonings As for the Books of the New Testament what use can they make of them Yes very great saith the Socinian If the Books of the New Testament were reformed and those Patches intirely taken from them which were never written by the Apostles though added under their Names such as the Epistle to the Hebrews which was brought in after the year 140. of Christ and stuffed with Doctrines of a Trinity and Christ's Divinity contrary to the Faith of Jesus Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians then we might hope to have success in the Conversion of the Jews But in truth they are not likely to succeed with their reformed Socinian Gospel so well as they would have us believe For 't is reasonable to think that every Jew of common sense would retort the Book on themselves and tell them frankly This is not the Christians Gospel from whence you offer to convince me this
is a Book of no Authority but an Imposture of which you are the Father We Jews who are spread throughout all parts of the World and are intermingled among Christians of all Persuasions never yet met with these Books such as you now produce them to shew that Jesus is the Messias You tell us they were corrupted by the Christians of the second Age Produce Copies more ancient as Vouchers of this Truth The Books which you contend were falsified are of no Authority What other Books have you besides these falsified Books to prove there ever was such a Man as Jesus Christ who did and suffered what you tell us of Since you accuse these Books of Additions and defalcations and all sorts of corruption you have no solid proof for the matters in them which you say are true They who thus falsified the Scriptures by adding and substracting as they please or rather you your selves by advancing this Position have spoiled all use that might be made of these Books in Points controverted between us Thus much it is natural for a Jew of but an ordinary capacity to say and to quote his Tanchuma and all the Rabins who have disputed ever since there were Christians against the Gospel on the score of their attributing Divinity to Jesus Christ This Tanchuma is a famous Book among the Jews and has a passage in it in the Parascha va-elle Massahe which the Italian Inquisitors blot out of all those Books which the Jews Printed by Bomberg at Venice But this passage is still preserved and is to this effect that Jesus Christ whom they call wicked Balaam taught that he was God and on the contrary R. Tanchuma argues that he was a meer Man But should we call into the Dispute a Learned Jew that understands the Original and the meaning of his Prayers he would laugh in the face of a Socinian that should go about to persuade him that Jesus is not represented in the Gospels as God or that the Christians were not of this belief till after the 140th year after Christ And good reason for it The Learned Jews know well that the Prayer which in the Christian Countries is called the Prayer against the Sadducees and in other Countries the Prayer against the Minnim the Hereticks and Apostates was truly and originally written against the Christians for being Teachers of a Trinity and of Christ's Divinity and so as they judged destroyers of the Unity of the Godhead And this is R. Solomon's sense of that Prayer in his Notes on the Talmud The Jews otherwise know that this Prayer was composed under R. Gamaliâ—l who died A. D. 52. i. e. eighteen years before the Destruction of the Temple That this is no Fable of the Talmud which in more than one place * Talm. tr Berac ch c. Beth. Isr sect 69. does relate it they may evidently prove from Justin Martyr's Dialogue written A. D. 139. who mentions this Prayer or rather Curse against the Christians as already spread and received throughout all the Synagogues of the World Our Learned Jew deriding these Socinians would represent that he knew not how they could refuse Jesus Christ that Worship which the Christians ever since the first Preaching of the Gospel throughout the World have paid him on supposition of his being the true God He reads how his Ancestors saw him adored by the Christians in the first Century and he proves it to the Socinians from the Talmud * Sanhedr c. 4 in Gem. wherein are divers Relations of R. Eliezer the great Friend of R. Akiba who lived in the end of the first Century and the beginning of the second Century concerning the Gospels and the Publick Worship rendred to Jesus Christ by the Christians In a word any Jew who has sense enough to reflect on it may see that the Gospel proposes Jesus Christ as the Object of Christian Worship And not to mention now their other prejudices The single prejudice which will be taken against such a Socinian Novel-Gospel will tend more to make them disesteem the Gospel and reject it altogether than it will dispose them to attend to the Arguments of a Socinian drawn thence in behalf of Christianity These things I leave to the consideration of our Socinians For other Christians they see whither the Socinian Methods of treating Scripture lead and cannot but behold with sorrow the wounds they give to the Christian Religion under pretence of making it more apt to gain the Jews but in truth making it so ridiculous to Men of any ordinary capacity that we cannot wonder at their not having after all their boasts converted so much as one Jew to the Christian Faith FINIS A Dissertation concerning the Angel who is called the Redeemer Gen. XLVIII SIR YOU do very truly observe that the Subject of our last but short Conversation is a matter of the greatest moment and deserving the utmost care in the discussion of it When mention was there made of the Angel whose Blessing Jacob prayed might descend on the Sons of Joseph I then asserted he was not other than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word You were not then very forward to embrace this Notion being carried away with the Authority of some great Names and especially of Grotius who understand this Angel in Jacob's Prayer to be only a created Angel But having not time to hear the Grounds of my Assertion you were desirous I should put them with what perspicuity I could into writing in hopes that the same Arguments if they should prove cogent to bring you over to my opinion might be of use to others who were in the same Sentiments with your self So good an end being proposed I set my self without delay to your commands and having digested my thoughts in this Paper I now send them to you intreating you to judge of them as you are wont of the Labours of your Friend with all impartiality and humanity still remembring that I made it only my care to express my thoughts clearly and to find out the truth and to deliver it simply according to the best of my understanding And so I come to the Question in hand SECT I. Moses having related how Joseph took his two Sons along with him to Jacob his Father that lay sick in order to obtain his Blessing on them before he died goes on to give us the form in which he Blessed them Gen. xlviii 15 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Words are thus rendred by the Greek Interpreters commonly called the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And in the Vulgar Latin Version Benedixitque Jacob filiis Josephi ait Deus in cujus conspectu ambulaverunt patres mei Abraham Isaac Deus qui pascit me ab adolescentia mea usque in praesentem diem Angelus qui eruit me de cunctis malis benedicat pueris istis invocetur super eos nomen meum nomina quoque patrum
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
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