THE JUDGMENT OF THE Ancient JEWISH Church Against the VNITARIANS IN The Controversy upon the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour With a Table of Matters and a Table of Texts of Scripture Occasionally Explain'd By a Divine of the Church of England LONDON Printed for Ri. Chiswell and are to be sold at the Rose and Crown and at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCXCIX THE PREFACE ALTHOVGH the Jews by mistaking the Prophecies of Scripture concerning the Kingdom of their Messias expected he should have a Temporal Kingdom and because our Lord Jesus was not for that therefore they would not acknowledge him fâ—â— their Messias yet all things considered there is no essential difference between our Religion and theirs We own the very same God whom they formerly Worshipp'd the Maker of the World and their Lawgiver We receive that very Messias whom God promised them by his Prophets so many Ages before his coming We own no other Spirit of God to have Inspired the Apostles besides the Holy Ghost who spoke by the Prophets and by whose manifold Gifts the Messias was to be known as one in whom all Nations should be Blessed This plainly appears in the way and method which both Christ and his Apostles followed in preaching the Gospel They endeavoured to take off the prejudices the then Jews laboured under concerning the Nature of the Messias and the Characters by which he was to be known For they argued all along from the Books of Moses and the Prophets and never proposed any thing to their Disciples but what was declared in those Writings which the Jews acknowledged as the Standard of their Religion which may be seen in Christ's Discourse to the Jews John v. 46. and to his Disciples after his Resurrection Luke xxiv 47 and 44. in the words of St. Peter Acts x. 43. and of St. Paul Acts xxvi 22. The truth is in those Sacred Books although One only God be acknowledged under the Name of Jehovah which denotes his Essence and therefore is incommunicable to any other yet not only that very Name is given to the Messias but also all the Works Attributes and Characters peculiar to Jehovah the God of Israel and the only true God are frequently bestowed on him This the old Jewish Authors as Philo and the Targumists do readily acknowledge For in their Exposition of those places of the Old Testament which relate to the Messias they generally suppose him to be God whereas the Modern Jews being of a far different Opinion use all Shifts imaginable to evade the force of their Testimonies The Apostles imitated in this the Synagogue by applying to Christ several places of the Old Testament which undoubtedly were primarily intended of the God of Israel But because they sometimes only touch at places of the Old Testament without using them as formal Proofs of what they then handled Socinus and his Disciples have fancied that those Citations out of the Old Testament which are made use of by the Apostles though they represent the Messias as being the same with the God of Israel yet for all this are but bare Allusions and Accommodations made indeed by them to Subjects of a like nature but not at all by them intended as Arguments and Demonstrations Nothing can be more injurious to the Writings of the New Testament than such a Supposition And there can hardly be an Opinion more apt to overthrow the Authority of Christ and his Apostles and to expose the Christian Religion to the Scorn both of Jews and Heathens For the bare Accommodation of a place of Scripture cannot suppose that the Holy Ghost had any design in it to intimate any thing sounding that way and consequently the Sense of that Scripture so accommodated is of no Authority Whereas it is a most certain truth that Christ and his Apostles did design by many of those Quotations to prove that which was in dispute between them and the Jews To what purpose should Christ exhort the Jews to search the Scriptures of the Old Testament because they testified of him John v. 39. if those Scriptures could only give a false Notion of him by intimating that the Messias promised was the God of Israel This were to suppose that Christ and his Apostles went about to prove a thing by that which had no Strength and no Authority to prove it And that the Citations out of the Old Testament are like the Works of the Empress Eudoxia who writ the History of Christ in Verses put together and borrowed from Homer under the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that of Proba Falconia who did the same in Verses and Words taken out of Virgil. It follows at least from such a Position That in the Gospel God gave a Revelation so very new that it has no manner of Affinity to the Old although he caused this old Revelation to be carefully written by the Prophets and as carefully preserved by the Jews to be the Standard of their Faith and the Ground of their Hopes till he should fulfil his Promises contained in it and although Christ and his Apostles bid the Jews have recourse to it to know what they were to expect of God's promises The Christian Church ever rejected this pernicious Opinion And although her first Champions against the Ancient Hereticks did acknowledge that the new Revelation brought in by Christ and his Apostles had made the Doctrines much clearer then they were before which the Jews themselves do acknowledge when they affirm that hidden things are to be made plain to all by the Messias yet they ever maintained that those Doctrines were so clearly set down in the Books of the Old Testament that they could not be opposed by them who acknowledge those Books to come from God especially since the Jews are therein told that the Messias when he came should explain them and make them clearer This Observation is particularly of force against those who formerly opposed the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity and that of our Saviour's being God These Hereticks thought they followed the Opinion of the old Jews Therefore they that confuted them undertook to satisfy them that the Christian Church had received nothing from Christ and his Apostles about those two Articles but what God had formerly taught the Jews and what necessarily followed from the Writings of Moses and the Prophets so that those Doctrines could not be rejected without accusing the Divine Spirit the Author of those Books of shortness of Thought in not foreseeing what naturally follows from those Principles so often laid down and repeated by him These old Writers solidly proved to those Hereticks That God did teach the Jews the Vnity of his Essence yet so as to establish at the same time a Distinction in his Nature which according to the Notion which himself gives of it we call Trinity of Persons And that when he promised that the Messias to come was to be Man at the very same time he
expresly told the Jews that he was withal to be God blessed for ever The force and evidence of the Proofs of those Doctrines is so great and the Proofs themselves so numerous that Hereticks could not avoid them but by setting up Opinions directly opposite to the Scriptures On the other side the Hereticks were so gravelled that they broke into Opinions quite contrary one to another which greatly contributed to confirm the Faith of them whom they opposed in those Articles so that it still subsisted whereas the opposite Heresies perish'd in a manner as soon as broacht The meanness of Christ and his shameful Death moved the Ebionites in the very first Age after him to look upon him as a meer Man though exalted by God's Grace to the Dignity of a Prophet But the Cerinthians another sort of Hereticks maintained that the Word did operate in him though at the same time they denied the personal and inseparable Vnion of that Word with this human Nature In the beginning of the Third Century some had much ado to receive the Doctrine of the Trinity by reason that they could not reconcile it with that of the Vnity of God But Praxeas Noetus and Sabellius who opposed that Doctrine were soon obliged to recant And then from one Extremity they shortly fell into another For being satisfied that the Scripture does attribute to the Father to the Son and to the Holy Ghost the divine Nature which is constantly in the Old Testament expressed by the Name Jehovah they undertook contrary to the plain Notions of Scripture to maintain that there was but One Person in God which had appeared the same under three differing Names Whereas some others did so plainly see the distinction which the Scripture makes between the Persons that they chose rather to own Three distinct Essences than to deny that there are Three Persons in God as the Scripture does invincibly prove Two sorts of Hereticks did formerly oppose the Divinity of Christ Some did acknowledge that as to his divine Nature he was before the World and that by it he had made the World though Himself as to that nature was created before the World and these afterwards formed the Arian Sect. Others but very few such as Artemas and Theodotus denied that Christ was before he was born of the Virgin They acknowledged in him no other besides the human Nature which said they God had raised to a very high Dignity by giving to it a Power almost infinite And in this they made his Godhead to consist But these two sorts of Hereticks were happily destroyed one by the other for the Arians on the one side did confound Artemas his Disciples by proving from places of Scripture that Christ was before the Virgin nay before the World And on the other side Absurdity and Idolatry were proved upon the Arians both because they acknowledged more than one divine Nature and because they worshipped a Creature whereas by the Christian Religion God alone ought to be worshipped Artemas his Disciples were so few and so severely condemned even whilst the Church laboured under Persecutions that their Name is hardly remembred at this day which clearly shews how strange their Doctrine appeared to them who examined it by the Books of the Old and the New Testament As for the Arians they made it is true more noise in the World by the help of two or three of Constantine's Successors who by violent Methods endeavoured to spread their Opinion But that very thing made their Sect odious and in a little time quite ruined the credit of it Within a hundred and fifty years or thereabouts after their first Rise there hardly remained any Professors of it which plainly shews that they could not answer those Arguments from Scripture which were urged against them I observe this last thing that Arius's Heresy was destroyed by Proofs from Scripture for the Eternal Divinity of our Saviour though it was a long time countenanced by the Roman Emperours by the Vandal Kings in Africk and by the Kings of the Goths both in Spain and in Italy lest any should fancy it was extinguished only by Imperial Laws and Temporal Punishments Besides that the first Inventors of that Heresy had spread it before such time as Constantine by vanquishing Licinius became Master of the World Whoever shall consider that the Christian Religion had before Arius already suffered ten Persecutions without shrinking under them will easily see that all the Power of Constantine and of his Orthodox Successors who punished the Arian Professors had never been great enough to suppress their Opinion if it had not been a Gospel-doctrine not to say that these Laws and their Authority extended no further than the Roman Empire What had happen'd in those ancient Times soon after the Christian Church was establisht happened likewise again in the last Century at the Reformation of the Western Church As in those early days there arose many Heresies entirely opposite one to the other so in these latter times the very same was seen among us For when God raised up many Great Men to reform the Church in this and our neighbouring Kingdoms there appeared soon after some Men who being weary of the Popish Tyranny both in Doctrine and Worship did fancy that they might make a more perfect Reformation if they could remove out of the Christian Religion those things which human Reason was apt to stumble at And the Roman Church having obtruded upon her Votaries such Mysteries as were directly repugnant to Reason they imagined that the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ's Divinity were of that number and thus used all their Endeavours to prove that they were absurd and contradictory Had not these Doctrines been grounded on the Authority of the Books of the Old and the New Testament they might easily enough have confuted them But being forced to own the Authority of those Books which they durst not attack for fear of being detested by all Christians they fell into the same opposite Extremes into which those Hereticks of old had fallen when they opposed these fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and thus were as divided in Opinions about those matters as the ancient Hereticks had been before them For whilst some of them as Laelius Socinus and his Nephew Faustus denied the Divinity of Christ and thus revived the Opinion of Artemas and his Disciples others seeing how absurd the Answers were that Socinus and his Followers gave to those places of Scripture which assert the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ run so far to the contrary of this Socinian Heresy that they acknowledged three Gods And not only the Adversaries of Socinus but even some of his Disciples did oppose his Opinion moved thereto by the Authority of Scripture For he held it a fundamental Article of the Christian Faith that Christ is to be adored in which he was a downright Idolater in adoring Christ as true God when he believed Christ to be a meer
Creature But his Disciples building upon this firm Maxim of Scripture that God alone is to be adored justly concluded against him that he was not to be adored since strictly speaking he was but a Creature and no God This Division was plainly occasioned by the strength of Scripture-proofs which on the one hand clearly shew that none can be a Christian without adoring Christ and on the other positively affirm that none but the True God ought to be adored Thus these two opposite Parties did unwillingly do the business of the true Church which ever opposed to the Enemies of the Trinity and of the Godhead of Christ the Authority of the Holy Scripture which teaches that Christ ought to be adored and withal convinces the Arians of Idolatry who adored Christ without owning him to be the true God though they bestowed on him a kind of a Godhead inferior to that of the Father I cannot but admire that they who within these few years have in this Kingdom embraced Socinus his Opinions should consider no better how little success they have had elsewhere against the truth and that upon the score of their Divisions which will unavoidably follow till they can agree in unanimously rejecting the Authority of Scripture Neither doth it avail them any thing to use Quibbles and Evasions and weak Conjectures since they are often unanswerably confuted even by some of their Brethren who are more dextrous than they in expounding of Scriptures But being resolved by all means to defend their Tenents some Chief men amongst them have undertaken to set aside the Authority of Scriptures which is so troublesome to them And the Author of a late Book intitled Considerations maintains that the Gospels have been corrupted by the Orthodox Party and suspects that of St. John to be the work of Cerinthus It is no very easy Task to dispute against men whose Principles are so uncertain and who in a manner have no regard to the Authority of Scripture It was much less difficult to undertake Socinus himself because he owned however the Authority of Scripture and that it had not been corrupted But one knows not how to deal with his Disciples who in their Opinion seem to be so contrary to him and one another They do now affirm the adoration which is paid to Christ is Idolatrous thus renouncing Socinus his Principles who lookt upon it as an essential piece of Christianity So that they can no longer be called Socinians and themselves affect the name of Unitarians And as their chief business seems to be to accuse the sincerity of Scripture-writers so the main work of them who undertake to confute them must be the establishing both the Sincerity and Authority of it which is no very hard task For even Mahometans though they take some of the same Objections that the Socinians are so full of against the Divinity of Christ yet are so far from accusing Christians of having corrupted the Scripture that they furnish us with Weapons against the Unitarians of this Kingdom as the Reader will find at the end of this following Book And although there be but small hopes of bringing to right again Men of so strange Dispositions and Notions yet they ought by no means to be left to themselves They have been often confuted by them that argued from the bare Principles of Christianity that is the Authority of Scriptures of the Old and New Testament which are the very Word of God And it has been plainly shewed them that what Alterations soever they have made in Socinus's Opinions yet their new Conceits are neither more Rational than his nor more agreeable to Divine Revelation I say that their Opinions are not more agreeable than his to right Reason For when all is done to affirm That Christ received from God an Infinite Power to govern the World without being essentially God is to affirm a downright Contradiction viz. that without partaking of the Divine Essence he received one of the Attributes which are Essential to God It is true some Popish Divines allow the Soul of Christ to be all-knowing by reason of its immediate Vnion to the Divine Nature wherein they do much service to the Socinians in holding as they do that a Creature is capable of receiving such Attributes But Protestant Divines reject this Notion as altogether false as false as many of the Schoolmens Speculations even the absurdest of them that are exploded by the Socinians They have been also further refuted as to what they aver that Justin Martyr was the first that taught the Doctrines of the Trinity of Christ's Eternal Godhead and of his Incarnation And at last that Learned Divine Dr. Bull having observed that the Jewish Tradition was favourable to those Doctrines of which the Socinians make Justin to have been the first Broacher Howsoever M. N. treats him for this neither like a Scholar nor a Christian I shall venture his displeasure in making out this Observation without meddling at all with his Arguments drawn from the Fathers to shew clearly that the like Exceptions of M. N. against Philo as being a Platonick and against the Ancient Jews and their Tradition can help him no way in the Cause he has taken in hand The Doctrine of our Church being the same which was taught by Christ and his Apostles it will be an easy matter to prove it by the same places of Scripture by which Christ and his Apostles converted the Jews and the Gentiles over to the Christian Faith and by which the Hereticks were confuted who followed or renewed the Errors which the Jews have fallen into since Christianity begun But I will go farther and prove that the Ancient Jewish Church yield the same Principles which Jesus Christ and his Apostles builded upon and by this Method it will plainly appear That the Socinians or the Unitarians let them call themselves what they please must either absolutely renounce the Authority of Scripture and turn downright Deists or they must own those Doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ as being taught us by God himself in the Holy Scriptures and acknowledged by the Ancient Jewish Church THE TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS THE Preface Chap. I. The Design of this Book and what Matters it Treats of Page 1. Chap. II. That in the times of Jesus Christ Our Blessed Saviour the Jews had among them a common Explication of the Scriptures of the Old Testament grounded on the Tradition of their Fathers which was in many things approved by Christ and his Apostles Page 11. Chap. III. That the Jews had certain Traditional Maxims and Rules for the understanding of the Scripture Page 32. Chap. IV. That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of the Christian Doctrine by his common Traditional Exposition received among the Jews which they could not have done at least not so well had there been only such a Literal Sense of those Texts which they alledged as we can find without the help of such
Exposition Page 52. Chap. V. Of the Authority of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament Page 66. Chap. VI. That the Works which go under the Name of Philo the Jew are truly his and that he writ them a long while before the time of Christ's Preaching the Gospel and that it does not appear in any of his Works that ever he had heard of Christ or of the Christian Religion Page 75. Chap. VII Of the Authority and Antiquity of the Chaldee Paraphrases Page 84. Chap. VIII That the Authors of the Apocryphal Books did acknowledge a Plurality and a Trinity in the Divine Nature Page 99. Chap. IX That the Jews had Good Grounds to acknowledge some kind of Plurality in the Divine Nature Page 115. Chap. X. That the Jews did acknowledge the Foundations of the Belief of the Trinity in the Divine Nature and that they had the Notion of it Page 138. Chap XI That this Notion of a Trinity in the Divine Nature has continued among the Jews since the time of our Lord Jesus Christ Page 158. Chap. XII That the Jews had a distinct Notion of the Word as a Person and of a Divine Person too Page 181. Chap. XIII That all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of the Lord which are spoken of in the Books of Moses have been referred to the Word by the Jews before Christ's Incarnation Page 201. Chap. XIV That all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of the Lord which are spoken of in Moses have been referred to the Word of God by the ancient Jewish Church Page 214. Chap. XV. That all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of the Lord which are spoken after Moses his time in the Books of the Old Testament have been referred to the Word of God by the Jews before Christ's Incarnation Page 233. Chap. XVI That the ancient Jews did often use the Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word in speaking of the Messias Page 253. Chap. XVII That the Jews did acknowledge the Messias should be the Son of God Page 265. Chap. XVIII That the Messias was represented in the Old Testament as being Jehovah that should come and that the ancient Synagogue did believe him to be so Page 278. Chap. XIX That the New Testament does exactly follow the Notions which the Old Jews had of the Trinity and of the Divinity of the Messias Page 293 Chap. XX. That both the Apostles and the first Christians speaking of the Messias did exactly follow the Notions of the Old Jews as the Jews themselves did acknowledge Page 313. Chap. XXI That we find in the Jewish Authors after the time of Jesus Christ the same Notions which Jesus Christ and his Apostles Grounded their Discourses on to the Jews Page 327. Chap. XXII An Answer to some Exceptions taken from Expressions used in the Gospel Page 339. Chap. XXIII That neither Philo nor the Chaldee Paraphrases nor the Christians have borrowed from the Platonick Philosophers their Notions about the Trinity But that Plato should have more probably borrowed his Notions from the Books of Moses and the Prophets which he was acquainted with Page 413. Chap. XXIV An Answer to some Objections of the Modern Jews and of the Unitarians Page 365. Chap. XXV An Answer to an Objection against the Notions of the Old Jews compared with those of the new Ones Page 380. Chap. XXVI That the Jews have laid aside the Old Explications of their Forefathers the better to defend themselves in their Disputes with the Christians Page 392. Chap. XXVII That the Unitarians in opposing the Doctrines of the Trinity and our Lord's Divinity do go much further than the Modern Jews and that they are not fit Persons to Convert the Jews Page 413. A Dissertation concerning the Angel who is called the Redeemer Gen. XLVIII Page 433. THE JUDGMENT OF THE Ancient JEWISH Church Against the VNITARIANS c. CHAP. I. The Design of this Book and what Matters it treats of IF the Doctrines of the Ever-Blessed Trinity and of the Promised Messias being very God had been altogether unknown to the Jews before Jesus Christ began to preach the Gospel it would be a great prejudice against the Christian Religion But the contrary being once satisfactorily made out will go a great way towards proving those Doctrines among Christians The Socinians are so sensible of this that they give their Cause for lost if this be admitted And therefore they have used their utmost Endeavours to weaken or at least to bring under suspicion the Arguments by which this may be proved It is now about sixty years ago since one of that Sect writ a Latin Tract about the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Chaldee Paraphrases in Answer to Wechner who had proved that St. John used this word in the first Chapter of his Gospel in the same sense that the Chaldee Paraphrases had used it before Christ's time and consequently that it is to be understood of a Person properly so called in the Blessed Trinity which way of interpreting that word because it directly overthrew the Socinian Doctrine which was then that St. John by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood no other than Christ as Man it is no wonder that this Author used all his Wit and Learning to evade it The Construction which Socinus put upon the first Chapter of the Gospel of St. John was then followed generally by his Disciples But some years since they have set it aside here as being absurd and impertinent And they now freely own what that Socinian Author strongly opposed That the Word mentioned by St. John is the eternal and essential Vertue of God by which he made the World and operated in the Person of Christ Only they deny that Word to be a Person distinct from the Father as we do affirm And whereas Socinus taught That Christ was made God and therefore is a proper Object of religious Worship now the Unitarians who believe him to be no other than a meer human Creature following the Principles of Christianity better than Socinus condemn the Religious Worship which is paid to him As they do believe that the Jews had the same Notions of the Godhead and Person of the Messias which they have themselves so they think they have done the Christian Religion an extraordinary service in thus ridding it of this double Difficulty which hinders the Conversion of the Jews Mr. N. one of their ablest Men having read Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho in which Trypho says that he did not believe that the Messias was to be other than Man makes use of this Passage of Trypho for proof that the Doctrines of the Divinity of the Messias and by consequence of the Trinity were never acknowledged by the Jews This he does in a Book the Title whereof is The Judgment of the Fathers against Dr. Bull. His design being to prove that Justin Martyr about 140 years after Christ was
the first that held the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity and by consequence that of the Trinity without which the other cannot be defended he found it necessary to assert 1st That since the Jews by Trypho's Testimony did own the Messias to be nothing more than meer Man therefore the Jewish Authors quoted by Dr. Bull against the Socinian Opinions must have lived after the Preaching of the Gospel 2dly That the Books that are quoted against them were written by Christians in Masquerade that lived since Justin Martyr's time And this he applies in particular to the Works of Philo the Jew and to the Book of Wisdom 3dy That since the Jewish Authors could not possibly mention any thing like the Doctrines of the Trinity and of the Messias his being God too to which they were such perfect Strangers whatsoever occurrs in any of the ancient Jewish Books that favours those Doctrines must needs have been foisted in by Christians after Justin Martyr's time Lastly he supposes That if any thing either in the Scripture or Jewish Authors sounds that way it probably came from the Platonics of whom both Jews and Christians borrowed many Notions and mixed them with Christian Doctrines to perswade the Heathens the more easily to embrace the Christian Religion Now though it seems unnecessary to dispute any further against him having already clearly shewn in my Discussion of Mr. N's Judgment of the Fathers that Justin Martyr was not the Broacher of those Doctrines as Mr. N. pretends yet I am willing to give a more full satisfaction to the World about it by examining what either Mr. N. or any others have said or can say on this Subject and shewing that the bold Answers to Dr. Bull 's Proofs concerning the Opinion of the Jews before Christ about those Doctrines are no better than Mr. N's supposition that Justin Martyr was the first that maintained those Doctrines I was particularly induced to undertake this task in hopes that by examining this matter to the bottom I might set these Controversies in their true Light shewing how little credit some Divines do deserve who playing the Criticks have favoured the new Jews and the Socinians with all their Might and abuse those who upon such ungrounded Authority too rashly believe that these Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity came from the School of Plato when on the contrary it is certain that Plato himself by conversing with the Jews in Egypt borrowed of them his best Notions of God To do this in the best method I can I will first of all consider in general what the Jewish Tradition was before Christ Let the Reader give me leave to use that word as the Fathers commonly use it not for a Doctrine unknown in Scripture but for a Doctrine drawn from Scripture and acknowledged for the Common Faith of the Church and I shall shew That both before Christ and in his time the Jews had a current way of expounding the Old Testament which they had received from their Fathers and that Christ and his Apostles used and approved this way of expounding their Scriptures in many particulars 2dly I will examine the Grounds the Jews went upon to come to the understanding of the Old Testament particularly of that part which contains the Promises of the Messias as they had it in Christ's time and still have it to this day 3dly I will shew by some Examples That Christ and his Apostles did prove many Articles of the Christian Doctrine by this Exposition commonly received among the Jews which they would hardly have done had they had nothing else of their side but only the Letter of those places which they quoted This being premised in general as a necessary Foundation I shall particularly examine the Authority of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament and of the Books of Philo the Jew that are extant and of the Targum or the Caldaick Paraphrases on the Books of the Old Testament these being the chief Helps by which we may find out the traditional sense of the Old Testament as it was received in the Synagogue before Christ's time This is absolutely necessary to be done for without proving the Authority of those Apocryphal Books of Philo and of those Paraphrases we cannot with any force and weight use their Testimony in this Controversy as I intend to do This being dispatcht I shall prove clearly That the Jews before Christ's time according to the received Expositions of the Old Testament derived from their Fathers had a Notion of a Plurality of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence And that this Plurality was a Trinity And further That contrary to what Mr. N. has imagined the most learned amongst them have constantly retained those Notions though perhaps they were divided in their Opinions about the Messias his Godhead and the Doctrine of the Trinity as we do apprehend it And because if it be granted that the Word was a Person that goes a great way toward proving the Doctrine of the Trinity And the Socinians affirm that it was not the uncreated Word but a created Angel that appeared to Men under the Old Testament-dispensation and was adored as being God's Representative I shall enquire what was the Opinion of the Old Jews concerning these Matters and shew that they owned the Word to be a Divine Person and that it was that Word that appeared in the Old Testament and consequently that nothing is more false than what some Socinians teach after Grotius upon the Book of Wisdom ch 18.15 grounding it upon his Opinion of an Angel's appearing and being adored That therefore it was lawful for the Jews under the Old Testament to worship Angels but it was first forbidden to Christians under the New as namely by St. Paul Colos 11.18 And that the Socinians may have nothing left them to reply against this I shall descend to particulars and shew at large That according to the Doctrine of the Old Synagogue the Jews apprehended the Word as a true and proper Person and held that that Word was the Son of God That he was the true God That he was to be in the Messias and that the Messias was promised under the Old Testament as Jehovah and accordingly the Old Synagogue expected that he should be Jehovah indeed It is of great moment to satisfy the World of these Truths and to make the Socinians sensible that they can't truly profess the Christian Religion without owning those Doctrines to which yet they seem to be so averse Therefore I will go farther and distinctly shew that the whole Gospel is grounded on those very Notions which the Jews before Christ entertained That the first Christians after the Apostles exactly followed them And that the Jews themselves following generally those very Notions upon the chief Texts of the Old Testament which Christians quote in those Controversies bear witness that they were the undoubted Doctrines both of them and of the Christians before Justin Martyr's time The Men that we
have to do with do very confidently affirm any thing that comes into their heads be it never so little probable so they may thereby give any plausible Solutions of the Difficulties in which they find themselves entangled and perplext and they are much given to vaunt of their unanswerable Arguments so they call them which are many times but weak Objections such as Men of Learning and Wit should be ashamed of For this reason I thought it necessary to prevent as far as it was possible all that they can object against my Position of the Opinions the Old Jews held concerning those Doctrines which were exactly followed and fully declared by the Apostles and first Christians And because I foresee some Objections may arise I will shew that nothing can be more absurd than to imagine that the Jews or the first Christians borrowed their Notions about the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ from Plato's Disciples whereas Plato hath in truth followed the Jewish Notions of those things After this I shall make it appear that however some of the Modern Jews have changed their Opinions in these Articles yet the Socinians can make no advantage thereof because the Jews have in reality much alter'd their belief since Christ's time and are guilty of great Disingenuity as is common to all those who are obstinately set upon the maintaining of erroneous Doctrines In fine I shall plainly shew that the Socinians to defend themselves against the Orthodox have been forced to imitate those Modern Jews and have much out done them in changing and shifting their Opinions when they dispute with Christians I hope to manage this Controversy with the Socinians so plainly and fully as to satisfy the Reader That as on the one side they most falsly accuse the Church of having corrupted the New Testament to favour the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ's Godhead So they cannot on the other side get any ground upon the Jews in their Disputes with them though they fancy they got a great way towards their Conversion by rejecting those Doctrines In a word both the Ancient and Modern Jews do so far agree in those things which make on the Church's side against the Socinians that if they appeal to the Jews they are sure to lose their Cause which when they have better considered they will find it their best way for the maintaining of their Opinions to abandon the Jews altogether as Men that understood not their own Scriptures viz. the Old Testament and to reject both as they have gone a great way towards it in rejecting that traditional sense of the Old Testament for which it was quoted in the New and without which it would have signified little or nothing to those purposes for which it was quoted And so it will appear that for all their brags of the Aptness and even Necessity of their way for the Conversion of the Jews they have taken the direct way to harden them by giving up that sense of the Old Testament Scriptures which Christ and his Apostles made use of for the converting of their Forefathers But we have the less reason to complain of them for this when we see how apt they are to question the Authority of the Books of the New Testament as oft as they find them so clearly opposite to their Doctrines that they cannot obscure the Light of them by any tolerable Exposition To shew that I do not say this without cause I shall show some instances in the last Chapter of this Book CHAP. II. That in the times of Jesus Christ our Blessed Saviour the Jews had among them a common Explication of the Scriptures of the Old Testament grounded on the Tradition of their Fathers which was in many things approved by Christ and his Apostles THE Jews have to this day a certain kind of Tradition received from their Forefathers which contain many precepts of things to be done or avoided on the account of their Religion This they call their Oral Law by which name they distinguish it from the written Law which God gave them by Moses They make five Orders of such a Tradition which are explained by Moses de Trano in his Kiriat Sepher Printed at Venice Anno 1551. The first is of the things which they infer from Moses and the Prophets by a clear consequence and they are certainly of the same Authority as the rest of the Revelation although they call it a Tradition We are not such Enemies to Names as not to like such a sort of Tradition and we receive it with all imaginable reverence we like very well the Judgment of Maimonides who leaves as uncertain whatsoever the Jewish Doctors speak upon many things as being without ground when their Tradition is not gathered from Texts of Scripture de Regib c. 12. The second Order is of the Ceremonies and Rites which they keep as coming from Mount Sinai but of which there is not a word in the Law The third Order is of the Judiciary Laws upon which the two Schools of Hillel and Shammai were divided The fourth is of some Constitutions of the Ancients which they look upon as an hedge to the Law The last is of their Customs which are various in several places of their dispersion Tho' in many things they cannot but see that those last four Orders of Tradition do not agree with the Law of Moses or are quite unknown in it yet they seem to like it never the worse Nay their Rabbins professedly ascribe a much greater Authority to this Oral Law than to the Law of Moses They say in the Talmud Avoda zara c. 1. fol. 17. Col. 2. that a Man who studies in the Law alone without these Traditions is a Man which is without God according to the Prophecy of Azariah 2 Chr. 15.3 Of this sort were all the Traditions which were condemned by our Lord Jesus Christ He plainly calls them the Commandments of Men Mat. XV. 9. and has purposely directed several of his Discourses against them because even where their observing these Traditions would not consist with their Obedience to God as particularly in the case of Corban Mat. XV. 3. yet they gave Tradition the preference and so as our Saviour there tells them Ver. 9. They made the Commandments of God of no effect by their Tradition The Author of these Traditions or new Laws as one may term them did almost all of them live since the time that the Jews were under the power of the Seleucidae and they were the Leaders of those several Sects that corrupted their Religion by adding to it a great number of Observations which were perfectly new We have therefore no reason to look upon this sort of Tradition as the fountain from whence the Jews in Christ's time took their measures of the sense and meaning of the Writings of the Old Testament But for the Interpreting of their Scriptures the Jews in Christ's time had some other kinds of Traditions much different from
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
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
Martyr having been formerly a Platonist and then turning Christian was the first that invented this Doctrine or rather adopted it out of the Platonick into the Christian Divinity and that neither the Jewish nor the Christian Church had ever before conceived any Notion of a Trinity or of any Plurality in the Divine Essence The Doctrine of the Trinity supposes the Divine Essence to be common to three Persons distinguished from one another by incommunicable Properties These Persons are called by St. John 1 Joh. v. 7. the Father the Word and the Spirit There are Three saith he that bear Witness in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these Three are One. This Personal distinction supposes the Father not to be the Son nor the Holy Ghost and that the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit Revelation teaching that the Son is begotten of the Father and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or from the Father by the Son And this distinction is the foundation of their Order and of their Operations For although the Unity of the Divine Nature makes it necessary that these three Persons should all co-operate in the Works of God ad extra as we call them nevertheless there being a certain order among the Persons and a distinction founded in their Personal Properties the Holy Scripture mentioneth an Oeconomy in their Operations so that one work ad extra is ascribed to the Father another to the Son and a third to the Holy Spirit But this distinction of Persons all partaking of the same common Nature and Majesty hinders not their being equally the Object of that Worship which Religion commands us to pay to God I touch this matter but very briefly because my business is only to examine whether the Jews had any notion of this Doctrine And our Opinion is this that though the Gospel has proposed that Doctrine more clearly and distinctly yet there were in the Old Testament sufficient notices of it so that the Jews before Christ's time did draw from thence their Notions concerning it On the contrary the Socinians maintain that this Doctrine is not only alike foreign to the Books of the Old and New Testament but that it was altogether unknown to the Jews before and after Christ till Justin Martyr first brought it into the Church In opposition to which I affirm for truth 1. That the Jews before Jesus Christ had a notion of a Plurality in God following herein certain Traces of this Doctrine that are to be found in the Books of Moses and the Prophets 2. That the same Jews following the Scriptures of the Old Testament did acknowledg a Trinity in the Divine Nature I begin the Examination of this Subject by considering the Notions of the Authors of the Apocryphal Books Now one cannot expect that these Authors should have explained their mind with relation to the notions of a Plurality and of a Trinity in the Godhead as if they had been Interpreters of the Books of the Old Testament But they express it sufficiently without that and speak in such a manner that no body can deny that they must have had those very Notions when it appears that their Expressions in speaking of God supposes the Notions of a Plurality in the Godhead and of a Trinity in particular Let us consider some of those Expressions 1. They were so full of the notion of a Plurality which is expressed in Gen. i. 26. that the Author of Tobith hath used it as the Form of Marriage among the Jews of old Let us make unto him an aid So Chap. 8.6 Thou madest Man and gavest him Eve his Wife for an helper and stay of them came Mankind Thou hast said It is not good that Man should be alone Let us make unto him an aid like unto himself whereas in the Hebrew it is only I shall make 2ly We see that they acknowledg the Creation of the World by the Word of God and by the Holy Ghost as David Psal xxxiii 6. So the Book of Wisdom Ch. ix 1. O God of my Fathers and Lord of mercy who hath made all things with thy Word or more properly by thy Word as it is explained in the 2. vers and ver 4. he asketh Wisdom in these words Give me Wisdom that sitteth by thy Throne And v. 17. Thy counsel who hath known except thou give Wisdom and send thy Holy Spirit from above Where he distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Wisdom and the Holy Spirit from God to whom he directs his Prayer And so the Book of Judith ch xvi 13 14. I will sing unto the Lord a new Song O Lord thou art great and glorious wonderful in strength and invincible Let all creatures serve thee for thou speakest and they were made thou didst send forth thy Spirit and it created them and there is none that can resist thy voice 3ly They speak of the Emanation of the Word from God Those are the words of the Book of Wisdom ch vii 25. For she is the breath of the power of God and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty therefore can no defiled thing fall into her That description of Wisdom deserves to be considered as we have it in the same place ver 22 23 24 25 26. For Wisdom which is the worker of All things taught me for in her is an understanding spirit holy one only manifold subtil lively clear undefiled plain not subject to hurt loving the thing that is good quick which cannot be letted ready to do good Kind to man stedfast sure free from care having all power over-seeing all things and going through all understanding pure and most subtil Spirits For Wisdom is more moving than any motion she passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness For she is the brightness of the everlasting Light the unspotted mirrour of the power of God and the image of his Goodness And indeed St. Paul Heb. i. 3. hath borrowed from thence what we read touching the Son that he is the brightness of God's glory and the express Image of his Person So the Book of Ecclesiasticus saith ch xxv 3. That it is come out of the mouth of the most High 4ly There are several Names in Scripture which serve to express the second Person the Son the Word the Wisdom the Angel of the Lord but who is the Lord indeed Now those Authors use all these Names to express a second Person For they acknowledge a Father and a Son by a natural consequence Thus the Author of Ecclesiasticus ch li. 10. I called upon the Lord the father of my Lord in the same way as David speaks of the Messias Psal ii and Psal cx and as Solomon in his Proverbs ch viii 25. as of a Son in the bosom of his Father and ch xxx 4. What is his Sons name if thou canst tell They speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as
and 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
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
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
reasonable Reader that sticks at this difficulty by telling him First in few words that I will scarce ever cite any of these Targums but when they say the same thing that Onkelos doth And secondly that these as well as Onkelos are owned by the Jews And it cannot with any colour of reason be imagined that the Jews since Christ's time have adopted Books contrary to their Religion and used them in their common reading as true Versions of the Law and the Prophets It is certain that the Jews many Centuries ago have taken them for such And therefore these Books in whatsoever time they were written are sufficient testimonies of the Opinions of the Synagogue But I have something more considerable to offer for the establishing of the Authority of these Paraphrases as well as of that of Onkelos in our dispute with our Unitarians against whom we shall have occasion to make use of the Testimony of these Paraphrases For this one needs only examine these Paraphrases with an ordinary attention I pray therefore the Reader to consider 1. That whatsoever has been said in general for the necessity that there was for the making of these Chaldee Paraphrases the same does also confirm the antiquity of all these Paraphrases if not as to every part of them yet at least as to the main of these Paraphrases such as we now have them almost on every Book of the Old Testament 2ly We see in the Misna a clear mention made of some Targums upon the Law and the first Prophets Megillah cap. 4. Sect. 9 10. which must be Onkelos and Jonathan 3ly We read in the Gemarah of Sabbath cap. 16. fol. 115. col 1. an account of the Targum upon Job which Raban Gamaliel the Grand-father to R. Judah who compiled the Misna had read Now if the Paraphrase on the Books of Job was in common use so anciently who can doubt but that they had the like Versions also on the Books of Moses and on the Prophets Nay we see that Jesus Christ upon the Cross cites the xxii Psalm according to the Chaldee Paraphrase and not according to the Hebrew This he did that he might be understood by them that were present at that time from whence it follows that the Jews in Judea had a Paraphrase of the Book of Psalms and that that Paraphrase was already received among them before the time of our Blessed Saviour I know some Criticks will not allow the Misnah which speaks of the Targums to be so ancient as I do Their great reason is that this Book is cited by none of the Fathers who lived just after it was written and that it is mentioned by no body before Justinian the Emperour his time But this Objection proceeds only from an oversight of these Criticks who have not observed that although I should grant what they suppose to be true it would not weaken the Authority of the Misnah when the Author of the Misnah does witness the antiquity of the Targums because the Misnah is not a Book of a common form but a collection of many old Decisions as the Book of Justinian which is called Digestum which is not Justinian his work but his Collection or as the Book of Gratian which is called Decretum which is nothing but the Compilation of Canons or Decisions of Fathers who lived six or seven hundred years before Gratian. That hath been judiciously remark'd by Paul Archbishop of Burgos in the Preface to his Scrutinium and in this judgment he follows Maymonides in his Preface upon his Jad Kazaka And indeed we must observe that almost all the famous Rabins which are mentioned in the Misnah are the very Men which are mentioned by St. Com. on Isa 8.14 Jerome as the great Authors of the Judaick Traditions If the Learned Men do not like the Conjecture of R. Elias Levita upon the Targum of Jerusalem but would have it to be the rest of an entire work upon the Pentateuch Let them examine how it came to pass that the Jerusalem Paraphrase on the Pentateuch is almost all lost So that there remain only some few bits of it here and there on some Texts and then they will find that perhaps it is not lost but that it subsists in great measure in that which is under Jonathan his name on the Pentateuch Whence it is probably that in some MSS. it bears the name of the Targum of Jerusalem and in other 's the name of Jonathan's Targum It is easie to judge how this came to pass The Jerusalem Targum differed from that of Jonathan but in some places or perhaps it was the very Targum of Jonathan which was augmented from time to time by divers Explications Then when the Jews came to make their Paraphrase no longer than their Text that they might have the Text and the Paraphrase both together in their Bibles they did not give themselves the trouble to transcribe the Jerusalem Paraphrase all at length But they contented themselves with transcribing those parts where it appeared to have some difference from that of Jonathan and this they did after so scrupulous a manner that they transcribed the Passages of the Jerusalem Targum that agree in the sense and differ only in the words as well as those that have a different sense from that of Jonathan I know very well that the Jews speak of several Paraphrases besides that of Jonathan on the Prophets and that of Onkelos on the Books of Moses As for instance they speak of a Targum of R. Joseph who they say has translated the Books of the Prophets But as to this it ought to be considered 1. That it was the Jews Custom to teach their Scholars these Paraphrases not from a Book but from their memory and by heart and so the Scholars might very well ascribe to their Masters that which they had learnt from their mouths and their verbal instructions as well as if it had been delivered to them in writing 2. That the same places which are quoted from the Paraphrase of R. Joseph on some Books of the Prophets are to be found in express terms in Jonathan's Paraphrase which the Jews esteem more ancient than Onkelos who writ on the Law 3. R. Joseph whom they quote does himself cite the Chaldee Paraphrase as being of Authority in his time and therefore it was not his work And this appears from his Confession that he could never have understood the words of Isai viii 6. without the help of the Chaldee Paraphrase Gemara ch xi tit Sanbedr fol. 95. But notwithstanding the antiquity of these Paraphrases I own they contain Additions very new which shew that after they were written they were in such places enlarged with the Glosses of Doctors that applied themselves to the Study of the Law and took pains to shew how one part of it depended upon another of which we find nothing in Onkelos which is almost a verbal translation of the Hebrew Text into Chaldee And
thus 1. we find in many places the connexion of one History with another which is very often the imagination of a Rabbin who fancied what he pleased and fathered it upon Moses 2. We find Explications in these later Targums different from the former ones yet added to the former with an impudence not to be endured and this in several places 3. We there find long Narrations which have no other foundation than their method of explaining Scripture by the way of Notarikon as they call it as where we read of the five Sins of Esau which he committed on the same day in which he sold his birthright to Jacob and in pursuance of their manner of explaining Scripture by Gematria of which Rittangel on Jetzira has given some examples p. 31 32 33. But all this makes nothing against the authority of those places in the Paraphrase where they do little more than render the Text out of Hebrew into Chaldee In them there was no occasion to shew any more than the sense of the words such as the Paraphrasts had received by Tradition from their Forefathers Whereas the Authors of those Additions thereby made a shew of Learning out of the common road and gave themselves the pleasure to see their own fictions come into such credit that they were received as the Oracles of God But beyond that we must take notice that as on one hand those Targums have been enlarged by so many Additions so on the other hand they have been altered in many places and new Ideas substituted to the old To shew the alteration which was made in those Targums by Modern Jews we can remark a thing which hath been often taken notice of by Buxtorf in his Lexicon Talmud viz. that there are many places cited from those Targums 500 years ago by the Author of Aroule that are not to be found in them as they are now in Print So we can prove clearly that new Ideas have been put in instead of the old chiefly upon the points controverted between Jews and Christians For in many places where St. Jerome in his Comments upon the Prophets brings the common explication of the Jews as agreeing with the explication of Christians we find the Targum brings an explication quite different from what it was to be according to St. Jerome's account It appears by this the Jews have done in their Books the same thing which Papists have done in the Books of the Fathers They have added many things to help their Cause and they have cut out many places which might have done great service to Truth As for the Additions then I will scarce cite any of them but when it is evident that they speak the sense of the Ancients and truly whatever one may say of the Corruptions of these Jewish Paraphrases I will maintain that it is as easie for an attentive Reader to distinguish these Corruptions from the ancient Text which it seems Arias Montanus had a design to do in a particular Treatise as it is for one that looks on an old Pot or Kettle to tell where the Tinker has been at work and to distinguish his Clouts from the Original metal The ancient pieces have a sort of simplicity that makes them to be valued and which easily shews their antiquity The Additions are the rambling fancies of bold Commentators which they devised in later times as occasion required and thrust them upon the ancient Paraphrasts who lived in those times when there was no such occasion nor could they foresee that there would be any such in after-times As for example we do not find that the Jews before Christ's time ever spoke of two Messias the one the Son of David who was to reign gloriously the other a suffering Messias the Son of Joseph of the Tribe of Ephraim The reason is plain for they had no occasion for that fancy of a suffering Messias That arose upon their Disputes with the Christians who proved that the Sufferings of Christ were no other than what the Messias was to suffer according to the Prophecies of Scripture At first the Jews tried other ways to avoid the force of these Prophecies but when no other would do they came to this to devise another Messias the Son of Joseph and to give him the Sufferings which the Scripture attributes to the Messias the Son of David In a word all these Conceits of which the greatest part of these Additions do consist do so evidently demonstrate their Novelty that when one is acquainted with a little of the History of the World as well as that of the Jews it is scarce possible that he should take them for the Text of Jonathan or of the ancient Paraphrasts Besides all this in the Modern Paraphrases themselves we find very often these words Another Targum and sometimes yet Another Targum which shews that the following words are not the ancient Targum but are the Additions of some Modern Authors whom the Copyers of the Paraphrasts have joyned as a new light to the ancient Whether the Jews's inserting such things into their Paraphrases has been out of fondness of these Discoveries which appeared to them new or whether they have found it turn to account to insert these Additions in the Body of their ancient Paraphrases thereby to enhance the value of them or whether they thought by publishing them under the Names of those ancient Commentators whose Authority is so venerable to wrest from the Christians all the advantages they might draw from any thing in their Paraphrases the things that they added being oftentimes contrary to what the Ancients did teach is a secret among the Jews but a secret little worth since the Providence of God has preserved the Apocryphal Books and the Books of Philo which can give us so much light into the knowledg of what is ancient and what is modern in these Paraphrases I will add nothing upon this matter but this that we see in the most ancient Books of the Jews as in the Books call'd Rabboth Mechista and in their old Midrashim almost all composed before the 7th Century and in the Talmud of Babylon the same Ideas and the same Doctrine which we meet in the Apocryphal Books and in Philo's Writings And those Ideas have been constantly followed by the most considerable part of the Jews those very Men who have their name from their constant sticking to the old Tradition of their Forefathers CHAP. VIII That the Authors of the Apocryphal Books did acknowledg a Plurality and a Trinity in the Divine Nature HAving finished our General Reflexions on the Traditional Sense of the Scriptures which was receiv'd among the Jews before the time of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Books wherein we can find such a Tradition it is time we should come to the chief matter we designed to treat of The Question is Whether the Jews before Christ's time had any notion of a Trinity For the Socinians would make us believe that Justin
the Creator of all things so the Author of Wisdom ch ix 1. O God of my Fathers and Lord of mercy who hath made all things with thy word Or more properly by thy Word And so they call that Wisdom the Worker of all things Wisd ch vli 22. They speak of the Wisdom in the same words as Solomon doth Prov. iii. and ch viii 22. where he expresseth the true notion of Eternity And indeed they attribute to her to have been eternal Ecclus ch iv 18. They refer constantly to God himself that is to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God as we shall hereafter shew at large what is attributed to the Angel of the Lord in many places of the Books of Moses as to have delivered the Israelites from the Red Sea so Wisd ch xix 9. They went at large like horses and leaped like lambs praising thee O Lord who hadst delivered them Again to have had his Throne in a cloudy Pillar Ecclus xxiv 4. To have been caused by the Creator of all things to rest and to have his dwelling in Jacob and to have his inheritance in Israel Ibid. v. 8. and so to have given his memorial to his Children which is the Law commanded for an heritage into the Congregation of Jews Ib. 23. So they attribute to him to have spoken with Moses Ecclus ch xlv 5. He made him to hear his voice and brought him into the dark cloud and gave him commandments before his face even the Law of life and knowledg that he might teach Jacob his Covenants and Israel his Judgments Again to come down from Heaven to fight against the Egyptians Wisd ch xviii 15 16 17. Thine Almighty Word leapt down from Heaven out of thy Royal Throne as a fierce man of war into the midst of a land of destruction And brought thine unfeigned Commandment as a sharp sword and standing up filled all things with death and it touched the Heaven but it stood upon the Earth So they maintain that the Angel who appeared to Joshuah ch 5. was the Lord himself so the Author of Ecclesiasticus ch xlvi 5 6. He call'd upon the most high Lord when the enemies pressed upon him on every side and the great Lord heard him And with hailstones of mighty power he made the battle to fall violently upon the Nations and in the descent of Bethoron he destroyed them that resisted that the Nations might know all their strength because he fought in the sight of the Lord and he followed the mighty one They refer the Miracles wrought by Elias to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you see in Ecclesiasticus ch xlviii 3 4 5. By the Word of the Lord he shut up the Heaven and also three times brought down fire O Elias how wast thou honoured in thy wondrous deeds and who may glory like unto thee Who didst raise up a dead man from death and his soul from the place of the dead by the Word of the most High As there is nothing more common in the Old Testament than to call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Angel of the Lord because the Father sent him to do all things under the Old Dispensation so one can see that there is nothing more ordinary in the Apocryphal Books than to speak of an Angel in particular to whom is attributed all things which could not be performed but by God Three things prove clearly that they did not conceive a created Angel but an Angel who is God 1. Because they have this Maxim according to the constant Divinity of the Jews built upon Scripture Deut. xxxii 9. that God did take Israel for his Portion among all the Nations of the World as if he had left other Nations to the conduct of Angels so Esth ch xiii 15. 2ly Because they refer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some Histories of the Old Testament which the Jews till this day refer to an Uncreated Angel or to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Shekina or Memra da Jehova as I shall prove afterwards We see that Wisd ch xvi 12. For it was neither herb nor mollifying Plaister that restored them to health but thy Word O Lord which healeth all things So Wisd ch xviii 15 16 17. Thine Almighty Word leapt down from Heaven out of thy Royal Throne as a fierce man of war into the midst of a land of destruction and brought thine unfeigned commandment as a sharp sword and standing up filled all things with death and it touched the Heaven but it stood upon the earth I thought fit to repeat this place here to make Mr. N. ashamed who hath exposed those Ideas and laught at them which I believe he would not have done if he had reflected upon two things one is That this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is spoken of is that very man of war mentioned in Moses his Canticle Exod. xii 3. and in Juâ—lith ch ix 7. The other is that St. Paul hath followed the Notions of the Book of Wisdom speaking of a sharp sword which is to be understood not of the Gospel but of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. x. 12. But Mr. N. was in the right to laugh at such an authority which destroys to the ground the Unitarians Principles for nothing can be more clear than that this Author acknowledges a Plurality in God that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be a Person and a Person equal to the Father being set upon the Royal Throne 3ly Because they bring such appearances of that Angel which shew they conceived him as the God who ruled Israel and who had taken their Temple for the place of his abode And on the contrary they speak of God whom they considered as dwelling in the Temple in the same words which are used in Scripture when it is spoken of the name of God Exod. xxiii 21. and 1 Sam. viii 16. of the Angel of the Covenant Malach. iii. 1. and such expressions So you see in the 1. Book of Esdras ch ii 5 7. If therefore there be any of you that are of his people let the Lord even his Lord be with him and let him go up to Jerusalem that is in Judea and build the House of the Lord of Israel for he is the Lord that dwelleth in Jerusalem And ch iv v. 58. Now when this young man was gone forth he lifted up his face to Heaven toward Jerusalem and praised the King of Heaven And Judith ch v. 18. and ch ix 8. and 2 Macch. i. 25. The only giver of all things the only just Almighty and Everlasting thou that deliveredst Israel from all trouble and didst chuse the fathers and sanctifie them And ch ii 17. We hope also that the God that delivered all his people and gave them all on heritage and the Kingdom and the Priesthood and the Sanctuary And ch xiv 35. Thou O Lord of all things who hast need of nothing was pleased that the Temple of thine habitation should be
In particular Though he doth not directly name these Two Powers yet it is clear that by the first he means the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he saith it is the Power by which all things are created or to which God spoke when he made Man Which two Characters are ascribed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Philo in many of his Tracts The other which we call the Holy Spirit is often acknowledged by Philo Lib. Quod Deus sit immut p. 229. B. 5. These things being considered he saith it appears how God is Three and yet he is but One He sheweth how this was represented in that Vision to Abraham Gen. xviii where it is said Verse 1. That Jehovah appeared to him And Verse 2. Abraham looked and behold Three men stood by him Yet he spoke but to One Vers 3. saying My Lord if now I have found favour in thy sight pass not away I pray thee from thy servant c. This Vision according to the Literal Sense he expounds of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Two Angels as I have quoted him elsewhere * V. Phil. All. 11. p. 77. E. But he saith here was also a Mystery that lay under this Literal Sense like to Sarah's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the LXX calleth the Cakes that were hid under the Embers According to this Mystical Sense he saith here was denoted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Great Jehovah with his Two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which one is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These are Philo's words De Sacrif Ab. Cain p. 108. B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God attended with his Two Supreme Powers Principality and Goodness being himself but One in the middle of these Two makes these Three Appearances to the seeing Soul which is represented by Abraham That these words did not drop from Philo by chance the Reader may see in another place where he speaks purposely of this matter De Abrahamo p. 287. E. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In the middle is the Father of all things on each side of him are the Two Powers the oldest and the nearest to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jehovah whereof one is the Creative Power the other is the Royal Power The Creative Power is called God the Royal Power is called Lord. He therefore in the middle being attended by these Powers on each side of him represents to the seeing Faculty the appearance of sometimes One and sometimes of Three Philo after all warns his Reader that this is a Mystery not to be communicated to every one but only to them that were capable to understand and to keep it to themselves By which he sheweth that this was kept as a Cabala among the Jewish Doctors for fear if it came out the People might misunderstand it and thereby fall into Polytheism As for the Targums they likewise are very clear in this matter For besides the Lord Jehova without any addition they speak of the Word of the Lord or the Shekinah of the Lord and that so often that it will be endless to quote all the places some of them however must be cited to put the thing out of dispute 1. Where ever the words Jehovah and Elohim are read in the Hebrew There Onkelos commonly renders it in his Chaldee Paraphrase the Word of the Lord as Gen. xxviii 20 21. xxxi 49. Ex. ii 25. xvi 8. xix 17. xxxii 20. Lev xx 23. xxvi 49. Numb xi 20. xiv 9. xxiii 21. Deut. i. 30 32. ii 7. iii. 12. iv 24 27. v. 5. ix 3. xx 1. xxxi 6 8. The Targums commonly describe the same Person under the Title of Shekinah which signifies the Divine Habitation The Origin of that expression is in the Hebrew word which we find in Gen. ix 27. and is repeated in many places of the Old Testament I acknowledg freely that in some few places of the Targums it seems to be employed to express the Holy Ghost so that Eliah in his Dictionary and some others who have followed him and transcribed his Book in their Lexicons takes the Shekinah and the Holy Ghost to be the same But after all I believe that Eliah hath been mistaken by not being fully acquainted with the Ideas of the most learned of his people And indeed we see that the most famous Writers of the Synagogue put quite another sense upon the Targums and decide that question against Eliah looking upon the Memra and the Shekinah as the same So doth R. Moses Maimonides R. Menachem de Rakanaty and Ramban and R. Bachaye It is very easie to be satisfied that these famous Authors are in the right For if you consider the places where Philo the Jew speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you shall see that they are in the Targum explained either by the Memra da Jehova or by the Shekinah And on the contrary if you except very few places you shall find that the Targums employ the term of Holy Ghost as the proper name which we have in the Original And even to this day the Jews do oftner call the Spirit as by his proper name Ruach hakkodesh the Holy Spirit That the Targumists had the same Notions of these two that Philo had is I think plain if we compare what Philo saith of the two Powers of God De Plant. Noae p. 172. whereof as we shewed before he hath one on each side of himself with what we read of the two Hands of God in Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targum on Ex. xv 17. The like expressions are to be found in other places too many to be here collected but we shall consider them afterwards The mean while we cannot but take notice how that Doctrine of the Trinity past current among the Jews of the ancient Synagogue though they were as zealous Asserters of the Unity of the Godhead as our Socinians can pretend to be at this day No doubt the ancient Jews could have found as many Contradictions in these two Doctrines of Trinity and Unity as the Socinians do if they had not been more disposed to study how to reconcile them together being satisfied that both these Doctrines were part of the Revelation which God had made to their Fathers We cannot say so altogether of the Modern Jews who are very much alienated from the Doctrine of the Trinity by seeing much clearer Revelations of it in the New Testament and especially since they are treated with disputes against the Christians that make Christ to be the Messias or second Person in the Trinity which they can by no means endure now to hear This has set them to hunt for ways to avoid the Evidence of these Texts that speak of a Plurality in the Divine Nature and in this pursuit they forsake their ancient Guides and strangely intangle themselves and contradict one another Some of them flatly deny that any of those Plural words do denote any Plurality in God but
the same who spake and the World was made and who was God of Abraham Exod. iii. 14 15. vi 4. So then if he who was the God of Abraham was only an Angel that Personated God then he who created the World was a created Angel which as I have shewed is absurd 5. It is impossible to explain otherwise what the Jews so unanimously affirm that God revealed himself face to face to Moses which is more than he granted any Prophet besides unless the Word that appeared to Moses was true God and not a meer Angel See Onk. on Deut. xxxiv 10 11. and the other Targums But what say they may not an Angel bear the Name of God when he sustains the Person of God was not the Ark called Jehovah because it was a Symbol of his Person Does not Jonathan on Numb xi 35 36. say to the Ark Revelare Sermo Domini redi This is indeed a Notion which the Socinians have borrowed of Abenezra on Exod. iii. and Joseph Albo de fund c. 8. And so they pretend that the Pillar of Cloud is called the Lord Exod. xiii 21. xiv 19. that the Ark is called the Lord Numb x. 35. that the Angel is called the Lord Judg. vi 15. The Name being given to the Symbol viz. the Ark and to the second Cause namely the Angel because of their representing God But to the great displeasure of our Modern Jews and Socinians that borrow their Weapons we have still enough of the ancient Jewish Pieces left to shew their quite contrary Sentiments in these matters For 1. they as has been already observed believed that the Angel spoken of in Judg. vi 15. was the Word and that this Word created the World as has been largely proved 2. Just the reverse of what our Moderns say did the Ancients hold as we gather from Philo. For instead of an Angel's taking the place of God he saith the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 took the place of an Angel De Somn. p. 466. As to the Ark it is folly to imagin that because God promised to dwell and to hear Prayers there and enjoyned Worship toward it therefore the Ark was called Jehovah The ancient Jews spoke not to the Ark but to God who resided between the Cherubims This is plainly expressed in those words of Jonathan Numb xi 35 36. Revelare Sermo Domini c. where the words are not addressed to the Ark it self but to him that promised to give them some Tokens of his Presence namely to the Word who created the World who redeemed Israel from Egypt who heard their Prayers over the Ark and who had shut up therein the Tables of the Law which he had given them on Mount Sinai And thus the Targum on 1 Chron. xiii 6. David and all Israel went up to remove the Ark of the Lord that dwelleth between the Cherubims whose Name is called on it or as 2 Sam. vi 2. Whose Name is called by the Name of the Lord of Hosts that dwelleth between the Cherubims In short the Scripture never gives to any Place or Creature the Name Jehovah in the Nominative Case either singly or joined with any other Noun in apposition But either in an Oblique Case as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or with a Verb Substantive understood as Jehovah Nissi Jehovah Shamma What the Socinians have to say more against this the Reader may see fully answered by Buxt Hist of the Ark c. 1. And the Reader shall have a full Satisfaction upon it out of the following Chapters It remains therefore certain That the Word mentioned in Philo and the Paraphrases is not an Angel but a Divine Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Philo calls him many times and if the Expression be allowable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he speaks in Euseb Praep. vii 13. p. 322 323. But we must now go on to that which will remove all difficulties from this Subject and convince the Reader if any thing can do it That the Jews looked upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Divine Person I speak of the Appearances of an Angel who is called God and worshipped as God under the Old Testament And I thought fit for this very reason to enlarge more upon this Subject to prevent at once all the Objections of the New Jews and of the Unitarians 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 SOME of the late Jewish Commentators that have had Disputes with the Christians particularly those whose Comments are collected in the Hebrew Bible printed by Bomberg at Venice do oppose this Proposition with all their Might They have laid it down for a Rule That whereever God is said to be present there all the Celestial Family is with him i. e. the Angels by whose Ministry as they say God has ordinarily acted in his Appearances to men So saith Rabbi Solom Jarchi on Gen. xix 24. Whereas those Old Jews who followed the Tradition of their Forefathers being not biassed by the Spirit of Dispute understood it of the Cochma and Bina viz. of the Wisdom and of the Holy Ghost as we were admonished by R. Joseph de Karnitol in his Saare Tsedec fol. 25. col 4. fol. 26. col 2. This Collection of Commentators being of great use for the interpreting the Scriptures several Divines that have applied themselves to the Study of the Rabbins Comments have been led by them unwarily into this Opinion The renowned Grotius fell into this Snare and has had but too many Followers We have no cause to wonder that Papists do the same being concern'd as they are to find Examples in the Old Testament of Religious Worship paid to Angels the better to cover their Idolatry But in truth the Modern Jews do in this quite abandon the Ancient Sentiments of their Fathers And they who follow the Modern Jews herein do weaken I hope without thinking of it the Proofs of the Godhead of Jesus Christ by yielding up to the Modern Jews as an agreed Point between them and the Christians that which is quite contrary to what the Apostles and Primitive Christians supposed in their Disputes with the Jews of their Times and which our later Jews themselves would never have submitted to if they had known any other way to avoid the Arguments that were brought against them out of their own Scriptures It behoves us therefore to give their just Force to those Arguments that were used by the Apostles and Fathers and to recover to Truth all her Advantages by shewing how bad Guides our Modern Jews are in the matters now before us and how they have deviated from the constant Doctrine of their Ancestors to find out ways to defend themselves against the Christians I affirm then for certain That the Appearances of God or of any Angel that is called Jehovah or the God of
the Targums but these are abundantly enough to shew the sense of the ancient Church what they thought of him that so often appeared to their Fathers in the Wilderness and spoke to them by his Servant Moses When Moses understood that God was not willing he should live to bring his People into the Promised Land thereupon he besought God to send him a Successor in these words according to Jonathan's Targum Numb xxvii 16. Let the Word of the Lord who has dominion over the souls of men appoint a faithful man over the Congregation of his People God having appointed Joshua in his stead Moses gave him this Charge in the hearing of the People Deut. iii. 21 22. according to Onkelos and Jonathan Thy eyes have seen what the Lord hath done to Og and Sihon so shall he do to all the kingdoms where thou art to pass therefore fear them not for the Word of the Lord your God shall fight for you The same he repeated afterward to all the People telling them first Deut. xxxi 2 3. according to Jonathan The Word of the Lord hath said to me Thou shalt not pass over this Jordan but the Lord your God and his Shekinah will go before you Josh iv He addeth And Joshua will go over before you as the Lord has spoken And for all your Enemies ver 5. The Word of the Lord shall deliver them up before you therefore saith he ver 6. according to Onkelos Fear them not for the Word of the Lord your God goes before you he will not fail nor forsake you After this he calleth to Joshua and saith to him before them all ver 7. according to Jonathan Be strong and of a good Courage for thou must go with this People into the Land which the Word of the Lord has sworn to their Fathers that he would give them and the Shekinah of the Word of the Lord shall go before thee and his Word shall be thy help he will not leave thee nor forsake thee fear not therefore neither be dismay'd He repeats it again from God to Joshua ver 23. according to Onkelos and Jonathan Thou shalt bring the Children of Israel into the Land which I have sworn to them and my Word shall be thy help It was the same day that together with this Charge Moses gave to Joshua his Prophetical Song Deut. xxxi 22 23. And the self-same day xxxii 48. God bade him Get thee up into Mount Nebo and dye After which Moses staid no longer than to give the Tribes of Israel his Blessing before his Death xxxiii 1. That being done he went up to Mount Nebo xxxiv 1. There according to Jonathan It was the Word of the Lord that gave that Satisfaction to his Bodily Eyes to see all the Land of Canaan before they were closed So ver 5. Moses the Servant of the Lord died there according to the Word of the Lord. He was translated by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Sacr. Abr. p. 162. C. D. according to Philo. It was certainly the current Tradition of the Church in his Age that his Soul was taken out of his Body by a Kiss of the Word of the Lord as Jonathan renders it or according to the Jerusalem Targum at the Mouth of the Decree of the Word of the Lord. After his Death Joshua entred into the Government ver 9. and according to the Jerusalem Targum the Children of Israel obeyed Joshua and they did as the Word of the Lord had commanded Moses Besides all these Divine Appearances to Moses and the Children of Israel there are also some few that were made to Balaam on their account and are therefore recorded in the same Sacred History Where these are first mentioned Numb xxii 9. both Onkelos and Jonathan have That the Word came from before the Lord to Balaam and said what followeth in that place So again the second time ver 20. according to the same Targums The Word came from before the Lord to Balaam by night and said to him what followeth in that second place It is plain that so far the Ancient Jewish Church took these Appearances to have been made by the Word But what Opinion had they of the Angel's appearing to Balaam ver 22. Others may ask what they thought of the Dialogue between Balaam and the Ass that he rode upon occasioned by the Fright that the Beast was in at the Angel's appearing to him All this as Maimonides * More Nebochim 11. p. 42. saith happened only in Vision of Prophecy But that it was a thing that really happened we are assured by St. Peter who tells us 2 Pet. ii 16. God opened the mouth of the dumb beast to rebuke the madness of the Prophet As it cannot be doubted that Balaam was used to have Communication with Devils that spake to him in divers manners so there is reason to believe they spoke to him sometimes by the mouth of dumb Beasts and if so then to hear the Ass speak could not be strange to him And why God should order it so there is a reason in Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targum The Reader may see other Reasons elsewhere †Muis Varia p. 95. but they are not proper for this place But we are here to consider whether this that appeared to Balaam was a created Angel or no. It appears by the words ver 35. to have been the Lord himself that appeared as an Angel to Balaam for thus he saith to him Go with the men but only the word that I shall speak to thee that thou shalt speak Now it doth not appear after this that any other spoke to him from God but God himself Therefore Philo saith plainly that this Appearance was of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as has been already shown And that this was the Sense of the Church in his Age we may see in the two following Appearances to Balaam where as well as in the two that were before this the Targums say It was the Word that met Balaam and spoke to him Thus both Onkelos and Jonathan on Num. xxiii 4 and 16. 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 THUS far it has been our business to shew that it was the Word that made all those Appearances either of God or of an Angel of God that was worshipt in any part of the five Books of Moses We have been much larger in this than was necessary for our present occasion But whatsoever may seem to have been too much in this Chapter it is hoped the Reader will not wish it had been spared when he comes to reflect upon the use of it to prove that the Word was a Person and that he was God At present there will be some kind of amends for the prolixity hitherto in the
shortness of what we have to say in the following part of this Chapter For being now to treat of those Divine Appearances that are recorded in the other Books of Scripture after the Pentateuch we shall find those Appearances fewer and fewer till they come quite to cease in the Jewish Church For when once the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was setled as the King of Israel between the Cherubims He is not to be look'd for in other places And of those Books of Scripture in which the following Appearances are mentioned we have not so many Paraphrases as we have of the five Books of Moses One Paraphrase is all that we have of most of the Books we now speak of But after all we have reason to thank God that that Evidence of the Divine Appearances of the Word of God has been so abundantly sufficient that we have no need of any more So that of the following Appearances of God or of a Worshipt Angel it will be enough to shew that the ancient Jewish Church had the same Notion that they had of those already mentioned out of the five Books of Moses We read but of one Divine appearance to Joshua and that is of one that came to him as a man with a drawn-sword in his hand calling himself the Captain of the Lord's Host Josh v. 13 14. Some would have it that this was a created Angel But certainly Joshua did not take him to be such otherwise he would not have fallen down on his face and worshipped him as he did v. 14. Nor would a created Angel have taken it of him without giving him a present reproof as the Angel did to St. John in the like Case Rev. xix 10. xxii 9. But this Divine Person was so far from reproving him for having done too much that he commanded him to go on and do yet much more requiring of him the highest acknowledgment of a Divine Presence that was used among the Eastern Nations in these words Loose thy Shoo from off thy foot for the ground whereon thou standest is holy Now considering that these are the very same words that God used to Moses in Exod. iii. 2 3. We see a plain reason why God should command this to Joshua It was for the strengthening of his faith to let him know that as he was now in Moses's stead so God would be the same to him that he had been to Moses And particularly with respect to that trial which required a more than ordinary measure of faith the difficulty of taking the strong City of Jericho with such an Army as he had without any provision for a Siege the Lord said unto him Josh vi 2. See I have given Jericho into thy hand None but God could say and do this and the Text plainly saith It was the Lord. And that the Lord who thus appeared as a Warrier and called himself Captain of the Lord's Host was no other than the Word this was plainly the sense of the ancient Jewish Church as appears by what remains of it in their Paraphrase on Josh x. 42. xxiii 3 10. which saith It was the Word of the Lord that fought for them and v. 13. which saith It was the VVord which cast out the Nations before them And indeed this very judgment of the Old Synagogue is to be seen not only in their Targums till this day but in their most ancient Books as Rabboth fol. 108. col 3. Zohar par 3. fol. 139. col 3. Tanch ad Exod. 3. Ramb. ad Exod. 3. Bach. fol. 69. 2. The learned Masius in Josh v. 13.14 hath translated the words of Ramban and he hath preferred his Interpretation which is the most ancient amongst the Jews to the sense of the Commentators of the Church of Rome Of Divine Appearances in the Book of Judges we read of one to Gideon that seems to have been of an Angel of God for so he is called Judg. vi 11 12. And again v. 20 21 22. In this last place it is also said that Gideon perceived he was an Angel of the Lord i. e. He saw that this was an Heavenly Person that came to him with a Message from God And yet that he was no created Angel it seems by his being oftner called the Lord v. 14 16 23 24 25 27. And Gideon in that whole History never address'd himself to any other but God The Message delivered from God by this Angel to Gideon ver 16. is thus rendred in the Targum Surely my Word shall be thy help and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man The Word that help'd Gideon against the Midianites was no other than he that appeared to Joshua with a Sword in his hand Josh v. 13. That was now the Sword of the Lord and of Gideon Judg. vii 18 20. And what the Ancient Jewish Church meant by the Word of the Lord in this place one may guess by their Targum on Judg. vi 12 13. Where the Angel saying to Gideon The Word of the Lord is thy help he answered Is the Shekinah of the Lord our help whence then hath all this happen'd to us It is plain by this Paraphrase that they reckoned the Word of the Lord to be the same with the Shekinah of the Lord even him by whom God so gloriously appeared for their deliverance And indeed they could hardly be mistaken in the Person of that Angel who saith that his Name is Pele the Wonderful which is used Isaiah ix amongst the Names of the Messias which Name the Jews make a shift to appropriate to God exclusively to the Messias The Angel that appeared to Manoah Judg. xiii could seem to have been no other than a created Angel but the Name which he takes of Pele the Wonderful shews that he was the Word of the Lord or the Angel of the Lord l. lxiii 8. In the first Book of Samuel we read of no other such Appearance but that which God made to Samuel 1 Sam. iii. 21. and that was only by a Voice from the Temple of the Lord where the Ark was at that time ver 3 4. The same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a Temple and a Palace and so the Tabernacle was called in which the Ark was then in Shiloh There it was that God revealed himself to Samuel by the Word of the Lord ver 21. But that in the Opinion of the Ancient Jewish Church the Word of the Lord was their King and the Tabernacle was his Palace where his Throne was upon the Ark between the Cherubims and that from thence the Word gave his Oracles all this has been so fully proved before in this Chapter that to prove it here again would be superfluous and therefore I take it for granted that in their Opinion it was the Word of the Lord from whom this Voice came to Samuel In the Second Book of Samuel we read how upon David's Sin in numbring the People â—â—d sent the Prophet Gad to give him his
me to Thee Oh Zion Here are plainly two Persons called by the name of Jehovah namely one that sends and another that is sent So that this second Person is God and yet he is also the Messenger of God So likewise in the next Chapter v. 1. the Angel that used to talk with the Prophet shewed him Joshua the High Priest standing before the Angel of the Lord and Satan standing over against Joshua as his Adversary And v. 2. the Prophet hears the Lord say unto Satan twice over The Lord rebuke thee for being so maliciously bent against Joshua that was come out of the Captivity as a brand pluckt out of the fire He that was called the Angel v. 1. is here called the Lord v. 2. and this Lord intercedes with the Lord for his Protection of Joshua against Satan That which gave the Devil advantage against Joshua was his Sins which as the Targum saith were the Marriages of his Sons to strange Wives His Sins whatsoever they were are here called filthy Garments and Joshua standing in these before the Angel v. 3 4. The Angel commands them that stood about him saying take away the filthy garments from him Here again by commanding the Angels he sheweth himself their Superior Afterward when the filthy Cloaths were taken off this Angel saith to Joshua Behold I have caused thy Iniquity to pass from thee words that if one Man had said to another the Jews would have accounted Blasphemy Mat. ix 2 3. For who say they can forgive Sins but God only But here was one that exercised that Authority over the High Priest himself This could be no other than he that was called of God a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek Psal cx 4. of whom the Jewish High Priest even Joshua himself was but a figure But he goes farther adding I will cloth thee with change of raiment that is according to the Targum I will cloth thee with righteousness ver 5. And he * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he said Jon. Targ. said again commanding the Angels Let them set a fair Miter on his head and they did so and clothed him with Garments and the Angel of the Lord stood by Here again he is called an Angel at last as he was at first ii 3. It is an Angel's Office to be the Messenger of God and so he often owned himself to be in saying The Lord sent me And yet this Messenger of God commands the Angels ii 4. iii. 4 5. and himself stands by to see them do his commands v. 5. This Angel calleth Israel his People and saith he will dwell among them ii 10 11. He takes upon him to protect his People v. 5. and to avenge them on their enemies v. 10. He intercedes with God iii. 2. He forgives sin and confers Righteousness iii. 4. If all these things cannot be truly said of one and the same Person then here are two Chapters together that are each of them half Nonsense and there is no way to reconcile them with sense but by putting some kind of force upon the Text whether by changing the words Socin in Wiek 1. ii p. 565. or by putting in other words as Socinus honestly confesseth he has done in his Interpretation And he saith they must do it that will make sense of the words It is certain they must do so that will interpret the words as he would have it But he and his followers bring this necessity upon themselves They that will set up new Opinions must defend them with new Scriptures For our parts we change nothing in the words and in our way of understanding them we follow the Judgment of the ancient Jewish Church that makes all these things perfectly agree to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This we see in Philo who often calleth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * De Somn. p. 466. B. Eus praep vii 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo L. 1. Quaest Sol. as Philo calls the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De migr Abr. p. 416. B. 418. C. Quis rer Divin haeres B. p. 397. G. De Somn. p. 457. B. Quod Deus sit immut p. 249. B. Quis rer Divin haer p. 397. G. God and yet as often calleth him an †De Somn. p. 463. F. De Prof. p. 364. B. Angel the Messenger of God and ‖ our High-Priest and * De profug 466. B. De Somniis p. 594. E. Quis rer Divin p. 397. G. Vit. Mos iii. p. 521. B. our Mediator with God The same hath been shewed of the Word elswhere out of the Targums And here in this Targum though no doubt it hath been carefully purged yet by some oversight it is said ii 5. That the Word shall be a wall of fire about Jerusalem And if the Modern Jews had not changed the third Person into the first it would have followed that his Shekinah should be in the midst of her as himself saith afterward v. 10 11. He would dwell in the midst of her meaning in the Temple where the Word of God had his dwelling-place always before its destruction as has been abundantly shewn in this Chapter and as we shewed from Ezekiel it was promised he should dwell there again after its Restauration CHAP. XVI That the Ancient Jews did often use the Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word in speaking of the Messias I Hope what I have said upon the Appearances of the Word in the Old Testament proves beyond exception that the Word which is spoken of in the ancient Books of the Jews is a Person and a Divine one From thence it is natural to conclude that St. John and the other Holy Writers of the New Testament who made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could not rationally give to that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any other Idea than that which was commonly received in the Jewish Nation Nothing more can be required from me than to refute fully the Unitarians who pretend that the Word signifies no more than an Attribute or the eternal vertue of God and who to confirm this assertion of theirs observe that in the Targums the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never employed when they speak of the Messias The Socinian Author who wrote against Wecknerus insists very much upon this observation Let us therefore examine how true that is which he affirms and supposing it true how rational the consequence is which he draws from thence in opposition to it I lay down these three Propositions which I shall consider in as many Chapters The first is that in several places of the Ancient Jewish Authors the Memra or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for the Messias And so that it is certain that St. John hath followed the Language of the Jews before Jesus Christ in taking the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Divine Person that in the fulness of time as it was foretold
Doctrine it was natural to conclude that the Messias being the same with the Word was to be the High Priest of the New Testament as St. Paul explains it at large in his Epistle to the Hebrews Philo says that the Word is Mediator between God and Man Lib. Quis divin rer haer pag. 398. A. That he makes Attonement with God Lib. de Somniis p. 447. E.F. From this it was easie to see that the Messias was to be indued with a Noble Priesthood especially David having mentioned it Psal cx representing the Messias whom the Chaldaick Paraphrase often calls the Word of God as being a Priest after the order of Melchisedec And this St. Paul affirms likewise in his Epistle to the Hebrews Philo says that God having appeared by the Word to the Patriarchs and to Moses spoke by the same Word to the Israelites and that he was the Prince of Angels Lib. Quis rer divin haer pag. 397. F. G. And the Light and the Doctor of his people Lib. de Somn. pag. 448. calling the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dei de Nom. Mutat pag. 810. E. It was therefore but agreeably to these Notions that the Apostles applied to the Messias those places of the Old Testament where God promised to speak to his new people by the Messias as Deut. xviii 15 16. which St. Peter Act. iii. 22. and St. Stephen Act. vii 37. apply to our Saviour and that St. John calls him the Light of the World Joh. i. It is necessary to take notice of these Principles of the Old Jews First that we may well understand the reason for which Jesus Christ and his Apostles quoted several places as relating to the Messias which are meant of Jehovah in the Old Testament Secondly That we may see for what reason they supposed as a thing owned by the Jews for whom they writ that those places related to the Messias though the Jews applied them to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Thirdly That we may understand how naturally they applied to the Messias those places of the Old Testament which by the confession of the Old Jews related to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And certainly the meanest capacity may apprehend that if under the Old Testament God acted by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though that Dispensation was much below that of the New much more he was to act under the New by that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his own Son as St. Paul concludes Heb. i. What I said of the Apostles and the other Writers of the New Testament that they exactly followed the Doctrines of the Old Jews which followed the Divine Revelation in the Old Testament may justly be said of Justin Martyr and of those who both before and after him writ in defense of our Saviour's Divinity I need not quote many of them to shew that they went upon the same Grounds with the Jews before Christ It will be enough to examine Justin's Writings for he disputed with a Jew who received no other Scripture besides the Old Testament and therefore he could not convince him but by the Authority of those Books And if his method be well examined it will be found that he argues all along as the Apostles did viz. from the sense received by the Jews supposing that such and such places of Scripture from which he draws consequences were applied to the Messias by them Justin having proved that nothing certain can be learned from Philosophy by Plato's example who entertained gross Errors about the Nature of God and of the Soul And declared that he came to the knowledg of the Truth only by the help of Divine Revelation He affirms in general that the Christian Religion which he had imbraced is all grounded upon the Doctrine of Moses and the Prophets He does particularly instance in that of our Saviour's Person and Office though the Jews lookt upon it as impious that Christians as they reckoned trusted in a Man Crucified He lays for foundation that the Scripture speaks of two Comings of Christ the one indeed Glorious mentioned Dan. vii and Psal cx and Psal lxxii But to be preceded by another altogether mean and despicable as David had also foretold Psal cx at the end He maintains that the Messias is clearly described as God Psal xlvii where he is called the Lord our King and the King of all the Earth Psal xxiv where he is called the Lord strong and mighty and the King of Glory Psal xcix where it is said that he spoke to the Israelites in the cloudy Pillar And Psal xlv where he is named God's anointed the Lord God and proposed as the object of our Adoration He affirms that Christ was to be God and though the same in nature yet a different person from him who made Heaven and Earth He proves by the several Apparitions where a true God is mentioned appearing to Abraham in the Plains of Mamre Gen. xviii 1. To Jacob in a Dream Gen. xxxi with whom he wrestled in the figure of a Man Gen. xxxii and assisted him in his Journey to Padan Aram. And to Moses he appeared in the Burning-bush Exod. iii. He maintains that he was to be God because he executed the Counsel of God Hence he is named by Joshua the Prince of the Army and an Angel which is the Lord. And because the Scripture describes him as begotten of God and called the Son the Wisdom of God and the Word Prov. viii He affirms that God spoke to the Word when he said Let us make Man in our image Gen. i. 26. And Behold the Man is become as one of us Gen. iii. 22. which also clearly argues a Plurality He proves from Psal ii This day have I begotten thee that his Generation is from all Eternity And from Psal xv that the Church ought to adore Christ because it is said He is thy Lord worship thou him He repeats the same things towards the end of his Dialogue where he proves that the Messias appeared to Moses Exod. vi 2. To Jacob Gen. xxxii 30. To Abraham Gen. xviii 16 17. To Moses Numb xi 3. and Deut. iii. 18. and to all the Patriarchs and Prophets He prevents an Objection that this was not a Person but a Vertue from the Father which is called sometimes an Angel sometimes his Glory sometimes a Man sometimes the Word By shewing that the Scripture makes out first a real distinction between the Son and the Father as between Jehovah and Jehovah Gen. xix 24. 2ly a true Plurality as Gen. iii. 22. the Man is become as one of Us. 3ly a true Filiation as Prov. viii whence he concludes that he that is begotten is different from him who begot him He answers Mr. N.'s Objection borrowed from the Jews who quote those words of Isaiah where God says He will not give his Glory to another By saying that the Son is the Glory of the Father and that in this respect he is not another Being
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
1. p. 16. l. 4. p. 198. l. 6. p. 275 279 308. l. 7. p. 351 and 371. Thirdly The very Heathen Authors own that Plato borrowed his Notions from Moses as Numenius who as Theodoret tells us did acknowledge that Plato had learnt in Egypt the Doctrine of the Hebrews during his stay there for 13 years Theod. Serm. 1. If any of the Ancient Fathers have quoted any thing out of Plato concerning the Trinity they look'd upon it not as Plato's Invention but as a Doctrine which he had either from Moses or from those who had it from him Not to say That in what manner soever Plato proposed this Doctrine it is much at one For his Notions about it are not very exact and no wonder since it was natural enough for a Greek to mix fabulous Notions with what he had from others and they to adulterate it The truth which we profess and draw from a Divine Original in this matter is not at all concerned with Plato's Visions And yet since the Notion of the Trinity could not possibly be framed by any mortal Man Two considerable Uses may be made of Plato's Notion about it First To shew That this Doctrine is not of Justin Martyr's Invention since Plato who lived five hundred Years before Justin had scattered some Notions of it in his Books which he had probably learned from the Jews or from some other Philosophers who conversed with the Jews And Secondly To make Men sensible that the greatest Scholars among the Heathens did not find so many Absurdities in it as the now Socinians do There is an Objection of greater moment than all the Objections which the Unitarian Authors can oppose to my using the Authority of the Judgment of the Old Synagogue and I will not dissemble it although they have not been sensible of it It is the Authority of St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy and Titus where he rejects with an abhorrence the Jewish Fables and Genealogies as the fruits of the falsly named Knowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. vi 20 21. which he compares with a Cancer I acknowledg freely that Ireneus Lib. 1. c. 20. and Tertul. adv Valentin understood those expressions of St. Paul against the Gnosticks of their time who were come from Simon Magus And I acknowledge with Grotius upon 1 Tim. i. 4. that by those infinite Genealogies which are spoken of by St. Paul as coming from a vain Philosophy and controverted by some of the Heretick Jews Saint Paul had a mind to speak against several Notions of the then new Jewish Cabbala which was in truth a mixture of the true Tradition of the Synagogue and of the Notions of the Platonists and Pythagoreans who had borrowed their Notions from the Egyptians And I will not insist now too much upon the judgment of those who think probably enough that the Egyptians had borrowed their Notions from the Jews But after all I maintain that this Objection against this part of the new Jewish Cabala which I mention as having such an impure birth and having been corrupted amongst the Jews doth not abate the authority of the proofs of the Trinity and of the Notions of the Messias which I have brought from all the Jewish Writers and which hath nothing common with those innumerable aeones which are mention'd by Ireneus and Tertullian as received by the Valentinians and which the Apostle St. Paul hath condemned in some of the Doctors of the Synagogue Let us suppose that there had been in the Body of the Synagogue before Jesus Christ some Sadducees and some Baithusaei whose Birth the Jews say was as old as that of the Sadducees but who seem not so ancient but to have their Origin from one Simon Boethus an Alexandrian Jew mentioned by Josephus Let us suppose that from the time of the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes some amongst the Jews had adopted some Platonick or Pythagorean Notions What is that to the Body of the Jewish Nation which was not included in Palestina or Egypt but spread every where To the contrary I maintain justly that when Saint Paul condemns the Jewish Genealogies he confirms all my Proofs from the Jewish Writers who did not ground their Ideas upon the Doctrine of Pythagoras or Plato but upon the Text of the Old Testament When St. Paul hath used the same Notions which are in the Apocryphal Books in Philo and in the Chaldee Paraphrases which no body accuses to have used those foolish Genealogies which were found amongst the Valentinians and are to be found now amongst some of the Cabbalists he hath secured my Argument taken from the pure Traditional Exposition of the Ancient Jews this is all I have a mind to contend for in this matter leaving those Cabbalists who have mixed some heathenish Notions with the Ancient Divinity of the Fathers to shift for themselves and being not concerned in all their other Speculations although since they have quite forgot this impure Origin they have very much laboured to uphold them upon some Texts of Scripture but not well understood and taken in another sense CHAP. XXIV An Answer to some Objections of the Modern Jews and of the Unitarians THAT the Reader may be fully satisfied of the Truth which I have asserted by so many proofs taken out of the Apocryphal Books of the Chaldee Paraphrasts and out of Philo the most ancient Jewish Author we have as to expounding the Scripture I must solve some difficulties made by the Modern Jews and Socinians about the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so frequent amongst the ancient Interpreters of Scripture Moses Maimonides who lived about the end of the Twelfth Century affirms that the word Memra which in Chaldaick is the same as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek was made use of by the ancient Paraphrasts on purpose to prevent Peoples thinking God had a Body More Nevoch Lib. 1. c. 21. He says also that for the same reason they often used the words Jekara Glory Shekinah Majesty or habitation But he does manifestly wrong them For if it had been so they would have used that caution on other occasions whereas they often render places of Scripture where mention is made only of the Lord by these words before the face of the Lord which are apt to make people fancy God as being Corporeal Besides if what he says were true they would have used the same caution where ever the Notion of his being Corporeal might be attributed to God But it is certain that in many places as apt to give that Notion of God they do not use the word Memra or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as certain that in many others they use it where there is no danger of fancying God as having a Body As Gen. xx 21. Exod. ii 25. Exod. vi 8. Exod. xix 17. Lev. xxvi 46. Numb xi 20. Numb xxiii 21. and in many more quoted by Rittangel on Jetzira pag. 96. and in his Book Libra
Veritatis Besides it is so palpable that the ancient Jews particularly Philo have given the Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being a Divine Person that Maimonides his answer can be no other than an Evasion Nay it is observable that the word Davar which in Hebrew signifies Word is sometimes explained by that which is a true Person in the Books of the Old Jewish Authors who lived since Christ even in those whose authority Maimonides does acknowledge One of their ancient Books namely R. Akiba's Letters has these words on the Letter Gimel God said Thy Word is setled for ever in Heaven and this Word signifies nothing else but the healing Angel as it is written Psal cvii. 20. He sent his Word and he healed them He must needs mean a Person namely an Angel though perhaps he might mistake him for a created Angel Lastly The Notion which Maimonides does suggest can never be applied to Psal cx 1. which is thus rendred by the Paraphrast The Lord said to his Word where the Word does manifestly denote the Messias as the ancient Jews did fairly acknowledge It is true that in the common Edition that place of the Targum is rendered thus The Lord said in his Word or by his Word but it is a poor shift For in his Word does certainly signifie to his Word or of his Word the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Chaldeans having naturally that double signification as appears from many places Thus it signifies concerning or of Deut. vi 7. Jer. xxxi 20. Cant. viii 8. Job xix 18. Psal l. 20. It signifies to in Hos i. 2. Hab. ii 1. Zech. i. 4 9 13 14. Numb xii 2 6. 1 Sam. xxv 39. You may to this observation about Psal cx 1. add that of the Text of Jonathan's Targum on Isa xxviii 5. where the Messias is named in the room of the Lord of Hosts The second Evasion used by Moses Maimonides is More Nevoch pag. 1. c. 23. where he tells us in what sense Isaiah said that God comes out of his place namely that God does manifest his Word which before was hidden from us For says he all that is created by God is said to be created by his Word as Psal xxxiii By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the breath of his mouth By a comparison taken from Kings who do what they have a mind to by their word as by an Instrument For God needs no Instrument to work by but he works by his bare Will neither has he any Word properly so called Thus far Maimonides But it is not true as I shewed before that the Word in the Chaldee Paraphrase signifies no more than the manifestation of the Will of God I have quoted so many places out of the Apocryphal Books out of Philo and out of the Paraphrase it self which shew the contrary that Maimonides is not to be believed upon his bare word against so many formal proofs It is not true neither that Psal xxxiii 6. expresses only the bare act of the Will of God as Maimonides does suppose I shewed before that the great Authors of the Jewish Traditions which Maimonides was to follow when he writ his More Nevochim give another sense to those words and do acknowledge that they do establish the Personality of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Holy Ghost which they do express by the second and third Sephira or Emanation in the Divine Essence That which made Maimonides stumble was that he believed that Christians made the Word to be an Instrument different from God which is very far from their opinion For they do as well as Philo apprehend the Word as a Person distinct from the Father but not of a different nature from his but having the same Will and Operation common to him and the Father and this they have by Divine Revelation A famous Socinian whom I mentioned already being hard put to it by the Authority of the Targums has endeavoured in a Tract which he writ and which has this Title Disceptatio de Verbo vel Sermone Dei cujus creberrima fit mentio apud Paraphrast as Chaldaeos Jonathan Onkelos Targum Hierosolymitanum to shake it off by boldly affirming that the Word of the Lord is barely used by them to express the following things The Decree of God His Commands His inward Deliberation His Promise His Covenant and his Oath to the Israelites His design to punish or to do good A Prophetick Revelation The Providence which protected good Men. In short the Word by which God does promise or threaten and declare what he is resolved to do Of which the said Author pretendeth to give many instances I have already proved how false this is what that Author so positively affirms that the term Word is never found to be used by the Paraphrasts to denote a Person The very place which I just now quoted out of R. Akiba's Alphabet were enough to confute him I need not repeat neither what I said that supposing all were true which he affirms of the use of the word Memra in the Paraphrasts yet he could not but acknowledge that Philo gives quite another Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely as of a real Person in which he visibly follows the Author of the Book of Wisdom The Unitarians of this Kingdom do for that reason reject Philo's Works as being Supposititious and written after our Saviour's time I say therefore that the sense which he puts upon the Targums is very far from the true meaning of the words which they use when they speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in many places I shall not examine whether in any place of the Targums the word Memra is used instead of that of Davar which in Hebrew signifies the Word or Command of God Rittangel positively denies it And the truth is that the Targums commonly render the word Davar by Pitgama and not by Memra To be fully satisfied of it one needs but take an Hebrew Concordance upon the word Davar and search whether the Paraphrasts ever rendered it by Memra But supposing Rittangel should deny the thing too positively however the Targumists do so exactly distinguish the Word when they mention him as a Divine Person that it is impossible to mistake him in all places by putting upon them those senses which the Socinian Author endeavours to affix to them that he may destroy the Notion which they give of the Word as being a Divine Person And though I have already alledged many proofs of it yet this being a matter of great moment I will again briefly speak to it to confute that Author and those who shall borrow his Arguments Let an impartial Reader judge whether any of the Socinian Author's senses can be applied to the word Memra in Onkelos his Targum Gen. iii. 8. They heard the voice of the Word of the Lord. And Gen. xv 1 5 9.
than he usually rendered which yet he did for great reasons One great Objection of the Socinian Author which he much insists upon is that the Christians never quoted the Authority of the Targum against the Jews before Galatinus who lived at the beginning of the 16th Century But that since him Heinsius Vechnerus and some others followed him in that fancy Supposing this to be true I cannot see what advantage it would be to him Put case the Ancients were not capable Scholars enough to peruse the Jewish Books can this ever prejudice truth And ought not they to be received how late soever they come by whose care soever they be vindicated and asserted But it is absolutely false that Christians before Galatinus have nothing of the Jewish Opinions about this matter I shewed in the vii Chap. of this Book that Ribera and others which would have these Paraphrases to be written after St. Jerome are much mistaken And consequently this Socinian Author who followed them and Vorstius in his Notes on Tsemach David was also mistaken about the Antiquity of the Targums But our Socinian says if they are so ancient how comes it to pass that they have not been quoted by the Christians that disputed against the Jews in ancienter Times They were very few of ancient Christians that writ upon these matters And of them yet fewer understood the Chaldee or even the Hebrew Tongue most of them rested upon the Authority of Philo of the Book of Wisdom and of other Authors who were famous among the Jews before Christ and who had writ full enough upon this Subject as may be seen by what Eusebius quotes out of them And no doubt those places of Philo and those other Jewish Writers were well known to Clemens of Alexandria and to Origen whose Work Eusebius much followed as appears by reading his Books and as he himself does acknowledge The Socinian Author affirms too positively that Galatinus is the first that used that Authority of the Targums He must not suppose a thing which is absolutely false Origin lib. 4. in Celsum speaks of a Dispute between Jason and Papiscus in which saith Origin Christianus ex Judaicis Scriptoribus cum Judaeo describitur disputans plane demonstrans quae de Christo extant vaticinia Jesu ipsi congruere c. What were those Writings of the Jews but the Targums who had translated Becocma for Breschith according to the Jewish Notion which I have explained so many times and for which St. Jerome reflects upon Jason who hath quoted the Targums as if he hath read them in Hebrew Besides it appears by Justin the Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho That in his time some Jews had already endeavoured to invalidate the Proofs taken out of Scripture in their so frequent Stile about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we see them in the Targums For Justin undertakes to prove that the Word is not barely an Attribute in God nor an Angel but a Person and a true Principle of Action And this he proves by his Apparitions and by other Characters and Signs of a real Person such as are his executing his Father's Counsels his being his Off-spring and his Son properly so called Here I must add one thing which is that St. Jerome hath express'd the Sense of the Targum in many places especially upon the Prophets which Sense he had no doubt from the learned Jews whom he had consulted and they from the Targums I confess that Jerome never made his business to write against the Jews nor did any other Christian that was ever able to make use of the Targums Some indeed of the Fathers took the pains to learn Hebrew because the Old Testament was writ in that Language but those were very few and none of them ever troubled himself with the Chaldee St. Jerome himself how skilful soever in the Hebrew understood not the Chaldee as appears by his Writings The first that set himself to beat the Jews with their own Weapons was Raimundus Martini a convert Jew who lived about the Year of Christ 1260. He writ a Book against them call'd Pugio Fidei which shews he had well studied their Rabbins and he makes use of their Targums to very good purpose Out of this Book there was another compos'd and call'd Victoria adversus Judaeos by Porchetus Salvaticus that is said to have lived in the next Century Neither of their Books was much considered in those ignorant times wherein they lived So that when Learning came more in request one might venture to make use of their labours and set them forth as his own with little danger of being discover'd This very thing was done by Galatinus who lived about the end of the Fifteenth Century He did with great Impudence almost transcribe his Notions and the Arguments against the Jews out of that Work of Porchetus without so much as mentioning his Name That Socinian mentions the Pugio in the close of that Book against Vechner by which it may be supposed he read that Book of Raimundus above mentioned Which if he did and consider'd it with Galatinus he could not but see that this Work of Galatinus was as to the main of it a Stream from that Fountain of Raimund's Pugio And if he saw it he did very disingenuously in making Galatinus the first among Christians that made use of the Jewish Notions The last Objection of the Unitarians against what I have proved about the Word's being a Person from the consent of the Chaldee Paraphrases when they speak of the Memra of the Lord and his Actions is made by the same Socinian Author who affirms that in the Targums the Memra implies no more than that God works by himself because the word Memra is used of Men as well as of God I will not deny but that here and there in the Targums the word Memra has that Sense as Hacspan well observes in his Notes on Psalm cx and produces many Instances of it to which many more might be added But when all is done this Objection much the same with that of Moses Maimonides can't absolutely take away that force of those Texts where the Memra is used of God and to be satisfied of this it is but making the following Reflexions First That Philo one of the most famous Jews of Egypt very well apprehended and clearly declared That by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answers to the Hebrew Memra the old Jews understood a real Principle of Action such as we call a Person Secondly That the Jewish Authors more ancient than Philo had the very same Notion of it as may be seen in the Book of Baruch and in that of Wisdom the Notions of which Philo has clearly followed in his Book de Agric. apud Euseb de Proepar Evang. pag. 323. And Lastly That even since Christ the Cabalistical Authors followed and to this day do follow the same Notion making use of those places where the Memra and the Cochma that is
him or which may not from the circumstances of the Text be well explained otherwise This is his Position in examination of Gen. xlix 10. where he doth his utmost to evade the Text v. 10. The Scepter shall not depart from Judah c. 3. He looks on the Article of the Messias's Coming to be a matter of that small importance to the Jews that he leaves it doubtful whether the Messias be come since the time of Onkelos their famous Paraphrast who expresses his expectation of this Promise in many places of the Books of Moses and if he be not already come whether he shall come in the Glory of the Clouds of Heaven or whether he shall come poor and riding on an Ass and because of Men's sins not distributing those great Blessings promised at his Coming nor Men on the other hand regarding him as the Messias Certainly R. Lipman in his Nitzachon where he examines the above mentioned Text Gen. xlix 10. advances a Rule which quite overthrows all Proofs from the Holy Scripture This Rabin seeing the Jews give such opposite Interpretations of Jacob's Prophecy concerning the Scepter 's continuance in Judah as were impossible to be reconciled some understanding Empire by the Scepter and some Slavery and oppression he lays this down for a Maxim That the Law was capable of divers Explications and all of them though never so incompatible and contradictory were nevertheless the words of the Living God This is very near the Sentiment of R. Menasseh Ben Israel in his Questions on Genesis where he collects the several Jewish Expositions of this Text. But granting this once for a Principle it is in vain to consult the Scriptures or to think of ever discovering the meaning of them The sense of them must absolutely depend on the Authority of the Rabins and what they teach must be all equally received as the Word of God though they teach things contradictory to one another Such Positions put one to a loss whether their blindness or their spite is therein most to be pitied 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 WHAT I have observed of the alteration made by the Modern Jews in their Belief is enough to shew that they were forced to adopt new Notions because of the evident Proofs drawn from the Opinions of their Ancestors which the Christians used against them The very same prevarication may be charged on the Socinians in their Explications of those places of Scripture that prove the Blessed Trinity and the Divinity of our Saviour And 1st They have borrowed many of the Jews answers to the Christians and often carried them much further than the Jews themselves did intend them 2dly They have invented the way of accommodation for the evading of those Quotations in the New Testament that are taken out of the Old Testament as finding this the most effectual means to escape those difficulties which they can no other way resolve 3dly The Unitarians especially those of England to make short work do not stick to assert that the Christians have foisted those Texts into the Gospel which speak of the Trinity and the Divinity of our Lord. It is fit I should give particular Instances of each of these in proof of what I say Smalcius * De Divin Chr. c. 10. maintains in the general That the Books of the Old Testament are of little use for the Conversion of the Jews He gives this reason for it That almost all that which is said to be spoken of the Messias in the Old Testament must be interpreted mystically before it can appear to be spoken of him and by consequence very remotely from what the words do naturally signify Then in particular When we would prove a Plurality of Persons in the Deity against the Jews from those Expressions of Scripture that speak of God in the Plural Number although the Jews as you may see in their Comments on Gen. i. 26. xi 7. and especially on Isa vi 8. are forced to own that a Plurality is imported in those Expressions and therefore pretend that the Number is Plural because God speaks of himself and the Angels his Counsellors yet the Socinians as Enjedinus witnesses for them do deny that these Plural Expressions do denote any Plurality in the Deity no more than Expressions in the Singular Number do As for Socinus he solves it by a Figure by which as he saith a single Person speaks plurally when he excites himself to do any thing A Figure of which we have no Example in the Writings of the Old Testament Socinus has followed the Jews Evasion on the words Gen. iii. 22. Behold the Man is as one of Us in maintaining that God does herein speak of himself and of the Angels And Smalcius has followed him in this Solution The very same Eplication they give of the words Gen. xi 7. Let us go down and confound their Language borrowing entirely the Subterfuge of the Jews who at this day teach that God spoke it to the Angels Crellius on Gal. iii. 8. espouses the Jewish Sense of the Text Gen. xii 3. In thee shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed by which he overthrows the force of St. Paul's Citation and makes it nothing to the purpose He supposes that St. Paul did herein allude only to the Passage in Genesis but on the contrary it appears that he followed the Literal Sense as we have it Gen. xii 3. xviii 18. xxii 18. xxvi 4. xxviii 14. and as the Ancient Cabalists do acknowledge at large in Reuchlin L. 1. Smalcius ch 2. Ib. asserts That the Promise of the Seed of the Woman Gen. iii. 5. can very hardly be understood of the Messias And yet the Ancient Jews acknowledged it in their Targum of Jerusalem and by the Cabalists Tikunzoh 21. fol. 52. col 2. Bachaie fol. 13. col 3. in Gen. Schlichtingius affirms that Psal xlv does literally relate to Solomon and that this is its first and principal sense Altho the Ancient Jews do all agree that it treats of the Messias and cannot be understood of Solomon Socinus persuading himself that St. Paul cites Heb. i. 6. from Psal xcvii 8. And let all the Angels of God worship him does maintain that he cites it in the mystical Sense because Jesus Christ could not be adored by the Angels before he was advanced to be their Head And yet the Jews of old did refer it to the Messias adding these words in the end of Moses's Song Deut. xxxii as we see there in the LXX Version from whence it was indeed that St. Paul took the words in Heb. i. 6. Again Socinus to rid himself of Psal xxiv where according to the Ancient Jews Opinion the Messias is spoken of does pretend that the Messias is not meant here in this Psalm or at least he is
sayings is any where else in our Scriptures He must therefore mean it of one or other of the Apocryphal Books And one of the Fathers that was born within a hundred years after his death gives us a very probable guess at the Book that he intended It is Clement of Alexandria who saith of the latter Quotation These are the words of Moses Strom. iv p. 376. meaning in all likelihood of the Analepsis of Moses which Book is mentioned by the same Clement elsewhere on Jude v. 9. as a Book well known in those times in which he lived Therefore in all likelihood the words also of the former Quotation were taken from the Analepsis of Moses and it was that Apocryphal Book that S. James quoted and called it Scripture This can be no strange thing to him that considers what was intimated before that the Jews had probably these Books join'd to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hagiographa and therefore they might well be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any addition The Apocryphal Books that are in our Bibles were commonly call'd so by the Primitive Fathers Thus Clement before mention'd Strom. v. p. 431. B. quotes the words that we read in Wisdom vii 24. from Sophia in the Scriptures And the Book of Ecclesiasticus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven or eight times in his writings Paed. i. 10. ii 5. ver 8 vis 10 vis iii. 3. 11. So it is quoted by Origen with the same Title Orig. in Jerem. Hom. 16. p. 155. D. There are many the like Instances to be found in the writings of the Ancientest Fathers They familiarly called such Books The Scriptures and sometimes The Holy Scriptures and yet they never attributed the same Authority to them as to the Books that were received into the Canon of the Old Testament which as the Apostle saith were written by Divine Inspiration 2 Tim. 3.16 The same is to be said of the Prophecy of Enoch out of which St. Jude brings a Quotation in his Epistle vers 14 15. Grotius in his Annotations on the place saith This Prophecy was extant in the Apostles times in a Book that went under the name of the Revelation of Enoch and was a Book of great credit among the Jews for it is cited in their Zohar and was not unknown to Celsus the Heathen Philosopher for he also cited is as appears by Origen's Answer to him Orig. in Cels lib. V. Grotius also shews that this Book is often cited by the Primitive Fathers and he takes notice of a large piece of it that is preserved by Georg. Syncellus in his Chronicon And whereas in this piece there are many fabulous things he very well judges that they might be foisted in as many such things have been thrust into very Ancient Books But whether his Conjecture in this be true or no it is certain that the piece which is quoted by St. Jude was truly the Prophecy of Enoch because we have the Apostle's Authority to assure us of the Historical truth of it 3. It is clear that the Jews had very good and authentic Traditions concerning the Authors the Use and the Sence of divers parts of the Old Testament For Example St. Mat. Chap. xxvii 9. quotes Jeremy for the Author of a passage which he there transcribes and which we find in Zechary xi 12. How could this be but that it was a thing known among the Jews that the four last Chapters of the Book of Zechary were written by Jeremy Medes Works p. 709. and 963. and 1022. as Mr. Mede has proved by many Arguments It is by the help of this Tradition that the Ancient Interpreters have added to the Psalms such Titles as express their design and their usage in the Synagogue Certainly these Titles which shew the design of many of the Psalms contribute much to make us understand the sense of those Psalms which a man that knows the occasion of their Composing will apprehend more perfectly than he can do that reads the Psalms without these Assistances And for the Titles of several Psalms in the Septuagint and other of the Ancient Translations which shew on what days they were sung in the publick Worship of the Jews as Ps xxiv 48 81 82 93 94 c. tho' these Titles are not in the Hebrew and therefore are not part of the Jews Scripture yet that they had the knowledge of this by Tradition we find by Maimonides who tho' a stranger to those Translations De cultu divino tract de sacrificiis jugibus c. 6. Sect. 9. yet affirms that those several Psalms were sung on such and such days and he names the very days that are prefixt to them in the said Titles It is from the same Tradition that they have these Rules concerning the Psalms I. This Rule to know the Authors of them namely that all Psalms that are not inscribed with some other name are David's Psalms although they bear not his name a Maxim owned by Aben-Ezra Praefat. in Psalmos and David Kimchi and we see an Instance of this Rule in that Quotation of Ps xcv 7. which is ascribed to David in Heb. iv 7. II. From hence they have learnt also another Rule by which they distinguish between the Psalms spoken by David in his own name Tehillim Rabbat in Ps 24. Fol. 22. col 2. and as King of Israel and those which he spoke in the name of the Synagogue without any particular respect to his own time but in a prospect of the remotest future times Tehillim Rab. Ib. From thence they have learned to distinguish between the Psalms in which the Holy Ghost spoke of the present times and those in which he speaks of the times to come viz. of the time of the Messias So R. David Kimchi and others agree that the Psalms 93 94. till the Psalm 101. speak of the days of the Messias So they remark upon Ps 92. whose Title is for the Sabbath-day that it is for the time to come which shall be all Sabbath Manasseh Ben. Is in Exod. q. 102. By the help of Tradition also they clear the Text Ex. xii 40. where it is said That the sojourning of the Children of Israel who dwelt in Aegypt was 430 years It would be a great mistake of these words to think the meaning of them should be that the Children of Israel dwelled in Aegypt 430 years For in truth they dwelled there but half the time as the Jews themselves reckon and all Learned men do agree to it But the Jews understand by these words that the sojourning of the Children of Israel all the while they dwelled in Aegypt and in the Land of Canaan they and their Fathers was 430 years Thus all the Rabbins do understand it and thus it was anciently explained by putting in words to this sense in the Samaritan Text and in the Alexandrian LXX That they were in the right we see by the Apostle's reckoning
brought a force upon others by which many were driven to Idolatry But some chose rather to die than to yield to it 1 Mac. i. 62 63. ii 29 30 37 38. Which is an argument that the Rebukes of the Prophets had made great Impression on their Minds and raised a great Concern in them for their Religion and for the study of the Scripture which contained the Precepts of it But it was impossible that in reading the Writings of the Prophets and hearing them explained by their Doctors they should give no attention to the great Promises of the Messias whose Coming was spoken of by some of the Prophets as being very near at hand See Dan. ix Hag. ii Malach iii. The Second is That their Zeal for the Scriptures and their Religion was really much quickned by the cruel Persecution which they suffered from Antiochus Epiphanes whose Tyrannical Fury did particularly extend to the Holy Scriptures 1 Mac. i. 56 57. and to whatever else did contribute to the maintenance of their Religion The Third is That it appears from History that there were more Writers of their Nation since the Captivity than we read of at any time before so saith Josephus lib. I. contr Appion Especially since they came under the Power of the Ptolomeys and the Seleucidae who being Princes of a Greek Original were great Lovers of Learning and did much for the improving of good Letters The Fourth is That learned Men among the Jews applying themselves to this business did write either at Jerusalem at Babylon or at Alexandria several Extracts of ancient Books of Morality for the instruction of their People Such were the Books of Baruch and Esdras which seem to have been written in Chaldee and those of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus which were written in Greek The Fifth is That the great Business of the Jews in their Synagogues and in their Schools hath been ever since to understand the Books of the Prophets and to explain them in a Language intelligible to the People the Knowledge of the Hebrew being in great part lost during the time of the Babylonian Captivity The Sixth is That it does indeed appear that this was the proper time in which the Jewish Paraphrases began first to be formed They were began and carried on insensibly One adding some Chaldee Words in the Margin of his Book opposite to the Text which the People did not understand so well Another adding to these some Notes in another place till at length Jonathan and Onkelos or some other Doctor of Jerusalem gathered together all these Observations and made thence those Paraphrases which we have under their Name For the Confirmation of this Conjecture consider 1. That we find in these Paraphrases very many Explications which by no means agree with the Ideas that the Jews have framed to themselves since the Propagation of Christianity For since their Disputes with the Christians they found themselves obliged in many particulars to reject the Opinions and refute the Confessions of their Ancestors 2. We see the very same thing has happened among the Christians and among the Greeks that set themselves to write Scholia or Notes on the Scriptures which are only Abstracts of Authors who have written or preacht more at large on these Books The same thing I say hapned among Christians in the VIIIth Century and the following Ages when most of their Learning was reduced within this compass To compile Glosses and to collect the Opinion of those that went before them upon difficult places and after that to form out of all these Glosses one continued Paraphrase upon the whole Book as if it had been the Judgment and Work of one and the same Author It 's the Character of all the Books which they call Catenae upon Scripture I know well that some Criticks call in question the Antiquity of these Paraphrases and have remarked how ridiculous the Miracles are which the Jews say were wrought in favour of Jonathan the Son of Uzziel But what does this make for their doubting the Antiquity of these pieces Do we question whether there was a Greek Version of the Old Testament before Christ's time because we can hardly believe Aristaeas's History to be true or because we cannot say that the Greek Version is deliver'd down to us in the same purity as it was at first written Ought we to suspect St. Chrysostom's Homilies on St. Paul's Epistles or those of Pope Gregory the First because the Greeks have storied that St. Paul came to inspire St. Chrysostom with the Sense of his Epistles while he was meditating an Exposition of them and because the Latins do relate the like Fable in favour of Gregory the First After all the Authority of these Paraphrases does still further appear in that the Works themselves are spread almost as far as there are Jews in the World and are highly esteem'd in all places of their Dispersion Some may perhaps imagin that the Jews being fallen into great Corruptions about the time of our Blessed Saviour's coming into the World must necessarily at that time have lost much of that Light which their Ancestors received of the Prophets and of those that succeeded the Prophets They may think it may be that their Nation being become subject to the Greeks did by insensible degrees change their Principles and alter their Expositions of the Scripture as they adopted the Ideas of the Greek Philosophers whose Opinions they then began to borrow In short it may be conceived by some that the several Sects which arose among the Jews long before Christ's time did considerably alter the Opinions of the Synagogue and did corrupt their Tradition and the Notions they had received from the most ancient Doctors of their Schools In answer to all this It is certain the Corruption among the Jews was principally of their Morals for which though they had very good Precepts in their Law yet the true meaning of them was spoiled and corrupted with Glosses which were devised as I have shewn in later times and with these being stampt with the Name of Tradition they evaded the force of the Laws There were then but very few that had not an aversion to the Greek Learning and those few applied themselves to it while they were in Judaea with great Caution and Secrecy lest they should be lookt upon as Heathens Josephus witnesseth of that Antiq. l. 20. c. ult As to what is inferred from the many Sects among the Jews the quite contrary is clear For the opposition of one Sect to the other hindred any one of them from becoming Masters of the People and their Faith in so general a manner as to be able to corrupt absolutely their Traditional Notions of Religion Moreover these Sects all but the Sadducees who were abhorred by the People knew no other way to distinguish themselves and draw esteem but by a strict Observation of the Law and its Ceremonies to which they pretended that the Rules they gave their Disciples
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
p. 169. 3. He maintains that God spake this to his Powers as may be collected from his Exposition of this Text. De Confus Ling. p. 270. A. C. and as he saith expresly Lib. de Profug p. 357. G. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is he shews that Man only was formed by God with fellow-workers for Moses tells us that God said Let us make Man after our Image implying a Plurality in the expression Let Us make God therefore speaks here to his Powers 4. He expresses himself in so particular a manner on this head as to leave no doubt concerning his opinion of this place It is in his first Book of Questions and Solutions which is now lost all but a fragment preserv'd by Euseb Praep. Evang. vii 13. p. 322 323. His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why does God say in the Image of God made I Man and not in his own Image as if he had spoken of another God This Scripture-expression is for wise and good reasons for nothing mortal can be fashioned after the Image of the Supreme God and Father of all things but of his Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is the second God For the rational part of Man's soul ought to receive its impression from the Word or Reason of God because God himself who is Superior to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vastly beyond the nature of all Rational Beings and consequently it was not fit that any created Being should be made after his likeness whose Nature doth subsist in the highest degree of Excellence To speak next of the ancient Targums they are not unacquainted with this Notion which they shew as far as the nature of their Versions would permit God made Man by his Word saith the Jerusalem Targum Gen. i. 26. and the same thing Jonathan teaches Es xlv 12. The Jerusalem Targum Gen. i. 1. does indeed say God made all things by his Wisdom but then he shews that this is but another name for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by saying elswhere ver 27. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Word of the Lord created Man after his Image I know that in Jonathan's Targum on Gen. i. 26. God is brought in as speaking to the Angels when he said Let Us make Man But he who reads this and the following verse in the Targum of Jonathan and compares them with the Jerusalem Targum will soon see that these are not the words of the ancient Paraphrast but an Addition made to them by the Jews since Christ's time What I have said above is a convincing proof of it The Socinians cannot avoid being shockt a little with the expression Gen. xix 24. The Lord rained from the Lord out of Heaven Menasseh ben Israel confesses the place too hard for him unless by the Lord who is on Earth you understand the Angel Gabriel who as God's Ambassador bears the name of God q. 44. in Genesis But the ancient Jews found no such difficulty in it as he and the Socinians do at present find For Philo the Jew holds De Abr p◠290. B. that it was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that rained fire from Heaven de Somn. p. 449. F. As he otherwhere saith it was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that confounded the Language at Babel Again Philo saith in his History of Sodom God and his two Powers are spoken of The Targum of Onkelos though it speaks of Angels in this 19th Chap. yet it treats one as Jehova who rains fire from Heaven v. 24. and thus it Paraphrases the Text The Jehova rained from before the face of the Jehova from Heaven 3. This Notion of Plurality must have sunk deep into the minds of the Jews seeing they have constantly read the word Jehova which is singular with the Vowels of the word Adonai which is Plural instead of Adoni which is Singular And this notwithstanding their dispute with the Christians whom they accuse of Tritheism I am not ignorant that this manner of reading Jehova was long in use before the Birth of Jesus Christ But this it is that renders my Remark the more considerable For all the other names of God which represent him by some one of his Attributes are Singular as well as the name Jehova is Singular which is the proper name of God And yet the Jews all agree to forbear rendring the name Jehova by any of his many Names that are Singular but interpret it by that of Adonai whose Plural Vowels make Jehova to signifie Plurally as much as to say my Lords and that for this reason as it seems because there is more than one in the Godhead to whom the name Jehova is given in Scripture It is clear how sensible the Jews have been that there is a Notion of Plurality plainly imported in the Hebrew Text since they have forbidden their common people the reading of the History of the Creation lest understanding it literally it should lead them into Heresie Malmon Mor. Neboch p. 11. c. 29. The Talmudists as I before noted have invented this excuse for the Seventy as to their changing the Hebrew Plural into a Greek Singular they say it was for fear Ptolomy Phil. should take the Jews for Polytheists And to this they have added another Story that Moses himself was startled at God's speaking these words Let Us make Man in which he thought a Plurality was expressed and that he remonstrated to God the danger which might arise thereby and at length resolved not to write them till he had God's express order for it which God did give him notwithstanding the danger that Moses represented might follow Beresh Rab. § 8. Another thing relating to this Head which deserves our consideration is this That the Samaritans who were originally of the same Religion with the Jews but receive only the five Books of Moses have shewn that they had in the Apostles times the same Notions that are met with in Philo of a Plurality in God We have a proof of it Act. viii 9. where we read that Simon Magus had bewitched that people giving out that himself was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some great one he did not say what but gave them leave to understand it their own way And how did they take it This follows v. 10. They said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this person is the great power of God This they would not have said if they had not believed that besides the great God there was also a person called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say a Person for I suppose Mr. N. can 't think they took Simon Magus to be only an Attribute But looking yet nearer into this Text I conceive it is plain that they understood there was more than one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as it is in the Text they said this is the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seems to imply that they believed there was another power less than this It seems yet plainer
and the same thing is to be found in their Manuscripts which are more rare because the Jews have not yet Printed them Of this sort is Iggereth Hassodoth cited by Galatinus whose Authority is vindicated by Plantavitius Bibl. Rabb p. 549. Of this sort also is the Manuscript called Sod Mercava Eliona quoted by Ritt p. 35. where are mentioned the three Modes of Existence in God Notwithstanding which they are all unanimous that the Lord is one and his Name is one If you would know on what foundations it was that the Cabalists built this Doctrine you need but look over the Texts on which they have reflected and you 'l find them almost all the same with those that were quoted to the same purpose by the Apostles and Apostolical Men in their Writings Particularly if you would know their opinion to whom it was that God did speak at the Creation Gen. i. 26. R. Juda will tell you God spoke to his Word If you would know of them who is the Spirit of whom we read Gen. i. 2. that he moved on the face of the Waters Moses Botril will inform you it is the Holy Spirit If you would learn of them to whom it was that God spoke Gen. i. 26. saying Let Us make Man Moses Botril tells us that these words are directed to the Wisdom of God If you would know what Spirit it was that is spoken of Job xxviii 12. Again Moses Botril will tell you it is the Holy Spirit If you would know of whom they understand those words in Psal xxxvi 6. They say plainly that they are spoken of that very Trinity If you would know what they think of that Wisdom Psal civ 24. R. Moses Botril describes it to you as a Person and not an Attribute If you would know to whom that is to be referr'd which we read of Isa xl 14. R. Abraham ben David will tell you to the Three Sephiroth All this is to be found in their several Comments on the Book Jetzira which were printed at Mantua in the last Century A. D. 1562. 1592. and have been quoted in Latin by Rittangelius But it may be said That the Jews have adopted this Doctrine inconsiderately without reflecting upon the Absurdity of it For how is it possible to conceive such Emanations in God who is Immutable and Eternal and such an Idea of Plurality and of Trinity in God who is over and above all Ideas of Composition But I answer 1. All these they have considered and yet have owned this Distinction in the Divine Essence as a Truth not to be contested But assert these Three Sephiroth which they call sometimes Spirits to be Eternal and Essential in God which they say we ought not to deny because we can't easily conceive it For the Divine Nature is Incomprehensible far exceeding the Limits of our narrow Understandings And the Revelation God hath given us does no more put us in a capacity to judge of the nature of the things revealed than the borrowed Light of the Moon which is all that the Owls can behold does render them able to judge of the Sun 's far more glorious Light Such are the Thoughts of R. Sabtay in Rit on Jetz p. 78 79 80. Such are the Reflections of R. Menach who cites Job xxviii 7. to this purpose and the Caution of the Jewish Doctors who forbid to undertake the Examination of things that are incomprehensible 2. They have expressed their Notions of this matter much after the same manner as the Thomists have done theirs The Book Jetzira chap. 1. distinguishes in God Sopher Sepher and Sippour which R. Abraham explaining says they answer to Him that understands to the Act of Understanding and to the Thing understood All this is still the more remarkable 1. Because the common Jews have well nigh quite lost the Notion of the Messias being God and they generally expect no other than a mere common Man for their Redeemer 2. Because the main Body of the Jews are such zealous Asserters of the Unity of God that they repeat every day the words of Deut. vi 4. The Lord our God is One Lord. It is a Practice which though now they have turn'd against the Christians yet doubtless was taken up first in opposition to the Gentiles whose Polytheism was renounced in this short Confession of the Jewish Faith And hence it is that they do so much celebrate R. Akiba's Faith who died in Torments with the last Syllables of the word Echad in his Mouth which signifies the Unity of God 3. Because the Jews at the same time dispute against the Christians Doctrine of the Trinity as doth R. Saadia for instance in his Book entituled Sepher Emunah chap. 2. 4. Because from the beginning of Christianity some Rabbins have applied themselves to find out other Senses of those Passages which the Christians urge against them This we see in Gem. of Sanhedr chap. 4. sect 2. And yet notwithstanding all this opposition the Cabalists have past and do still pass for Divines among the Jews and the Targumists for Inspired Men. Nor is it to be imagined that these Notions of the Cabalistical Jews are new things which they pick'd up since their more frequent Converse with the Christians For we find them in the Book Zohar the Author of which is reputed one of the chief Jewish Martyrs Jebhamoth tr 1. fol. 5. col 2. and to have lived in the Second Century I know some have suspected that this Book is a counterfeit and falsly fathered on R. Simeon whose Name it bears The Zohar was not known say they till about the time of R. Moses Bar Nachman So saith the Book Juchazin p. 42. R. D. Ganz in Tzemach David p. 106. But we find these Notions in the beginning of the Rabboth which Books they will have to be more Ancient than the Talmud Furthermore we see in the Gemara of Sabbath that R. Simeon was dispensed with the necessity of his being present at Prayers in the Synagogue because he and his Scholars were at work upon the Study of the Laws which supposes that he was writing some such Comments as we have now although 't is probable that they have been increased in following Ages Besides who can imagine that in all places the Jews should have adopted Opinions unknown to their Religion and in effect destructive of those Points for which they then zealously contended if they had not been convinced of the Truth of such a Doctrine And now give me leave to propose one Argument to the Unitarians which I believe they will not be able to answer and adhere to their new-advanced Position That the Nazarenes were the true Primitive Christians and the only Depositaries of the Apostolick Doctrine It is a Passage taken from the Gospel of the Nazarenes as cited by St. Jerome on Ezek. xvi Where after noting that the word Ruach Spirit in the Hebrew Tongue is Feminine he adds In Evangelio quoque Hebraeorum quod
lectitant Nazaraei Salvator inducitur lâ—quens Modo me arripuit Mater mea Spiritus Sanctus This Passage of the Nazarene's Gospel would never have been understood if we had not known that the Jews call the Holy Spirit Imma Mother as well as Binah Understanding as we see in Zohar and other Cabalists And perhaps from hence Philo de Temul calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of the World Nor are we to fancy that the Talmudists oppose the Cabalists herein No Maimonides who is a Talmudist agrees in this with the Cabalists as appears from his Book de fundament legis ch 2. Mor. Neb. p. 1. ch 68. Lastly Nor is it to be urged against what I have said that the Jews have formal Disputes against the Doctrine of the Trinity as Saadiah Sepher Emunoth ch 2. Maim Mor. Neb. p. 1. c. 71. For we may remember 1. That all their Disputes with the Christians are built on this wrong bottom That the Christians are Tritheists and deny the Unity of the Deity 2. That almost all those who dispute against the Christians on this Head contradict themselves in their Writings that are not Polemical but are drawn up in cool Blood out of the heat of dispute of which Saadiah Haggaen as I have shewed before is a Proof 3. The Study of their Rites having been the great business of the Jews for many Centuries it hath happen'd that their greatest Authors have applied themselves but little to the Study of the Traditions concerning their Doctrines In Maimonides one of the greatest Men the Jews ever had we have a plain Example of it He tells us That it was towards the declension of his Life before he could turn himself to study their Traditions and he laments his Misfortune in that he could not begin this Study sooner This is related by R. Elias Chaiim who saith he had it from a Letter of Maimonides to one of his Scholars I have said before that these Notions of the Cabalist Jews are received in all parts of the World where the Jews are found in any numbers And I say it not without good reason For 1. The Rabboth are Books received whereever there are Jews Now this Book begins with the Notion of a Second Person 2. For the Cabalists they are dispersed with the other Jews and in all places where Learning is cultivated and Study encouraged there they are to be found 3. We may well infer the Universality of this Tradition from the several different Authors that have written alike on this Subject without any Consent or Communication together that we know of R. Saadiah Hagaon writ in Babylon in the Tenth Century He was an Egyptian by Birth and the Translator of the Pentateuch into Arabick and wrote a bitter Book against the Christians which hath been printed at Thessalonica and since at Amsterdam where he disputes against the Christians Trinity yet he teaches not only the Unity but this distinction from everlasting in the Deity R. Moses Bar Nachman in the Thirteenth Century and R. Judas the Levite writ in Spain and yet we see how they agree in their Notions with the Cabalists which flourished other-where R. Aaron writ at Babylon and yet his Notions are as exactly like those of Spain as if he had trod in their Steps R. Moses Botril writ in France and he teaches the same things He that would see the Places at large may consult their Comment on the Book Jetzira It is now time to return to the Judgment of the Ancient Synagogue and to consider how it agrees or differs with us in the other Matters we have in hand CHAP. XII That the Jews had a distinct Notion of the Word as of a Person and of a Divine Person too A Great part of the Dispute we have with the Socinians depending on the true meaning of the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is spoken of as being he that created the World and was at length made Flesh and whom we Christians look upon as the promised Messias I think I can't do the Truth a greater service than in clearing this Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and shewing what thoughts the ancient Jews had concerning it Socinus confesses that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Person for he owns that St. John did describe the Man Christ Jesus by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and attributed to him the Creation of the Church which is according to him the new World But here in England the followers of Socinus will not stand by this Exposition but understand by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that virtue by which God created Heaven and Earth as Moses relates Gen. i. They obstinately deny this Virtue to be a Person i. e. an Intelligent Subsistence and rather look upon it as a Divine Attribute which they say was particularly discovered in the Mission of Jesus Christ for the Salvation of Mankind It cannot be denied us that St. John being one of the Circumcision did write with an especial respect to the Jews that they might understand him and receive benefit by it and therefore it cannot be doubted but that when he called Jesus Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he used a word that was commonly known among the Jews of those times in which he lived Otherwise if he had used this word in a sense not commonly known to the Jews he would have signified to them the new Idea he had affixed to it But he gives not the least intimation of any thing new in it though he uses the word so many times in the very beginning of his Gospel It is certain therefore that he used it in the sense wherein it was then commonly understood by the Jews Now the Idea the Jews had of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the same they had of a real and proper Person that is a living Intelligent free Principle of Action That this was their Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word we shall prove by the Works of Philo and the Chaldee Paraphrases To begin with Philo He conceives the Word to be a true and proper cause For he declares in about a hundred places that God created the World by his Word He conceived the Word to be an Intelligent Cause Because in him according to Philo are the Original Ideas of all things that are expressed in the Works of the Creation De Opif. p. 3. G. 4. C.D. He makes the Word a Cooperator with God in the Creation of Man and says that God spake those words to him Let Us make Man Gen. i. 26. It may be added that he calls the Word the Image of God and makes Man the Image of this Image * Lib. Quis rer Divin Haer. p. 400. E. F. These are some of the Characters that represent the Word as a true Person But there are others no less demonstrative of this Truth As 1. where Philo asserts that the 〈◊〉
choice of Three Punishments either Three Years Famine or Three Months Destruction by Enemies or Three Days Pestilence throughout all the Coast of Israel This last being a Judgment from Heaven that falls as soon upon the Prince as the Peasant David made choice of it rather than either of the other saying withal Let me not fall into the hands of Man but into the hands of the Lord for great are his Mercies 1 Chron. xxi 13. Thereupon God sent a Pestilence upon all the Coasts of Israel by which there fell Seventy thousand Men 2 Sam. xxiv 15. And to represent to David's Bodily Eyes an extraordinary Instance as well of God's Justice in punishing Sinners as of his Mercy to them upon their Repentance and Prayer God made him see an Angel standing between the Earth and the Heaven having a drawn Sword in his hand stretch'd out over Jerusalem to destroy it 2 Sam. xxiv 16 17. And 1 Chron. xxi 16. And when at this Sight David fell upon his face and prayed as it followeth ver 17. God said to the destroying Angel It is enough stay now thy hand Then the Angel came down and stood by the Floor of Ornan the Jebusite on which Place God designed that Solomon should build his Temple and declared it to David upon this occasion There according to the Angel's Order by the Prophet Gad David now built an Altar and sacrificed thereon upon which the Lord commanded the Angel and he put up his Sword into his sheath 2 Sam. xxiv 17. This was no other than a Created Angel whom God that employ'd him in that Service appointed to appear in that manner for all those purposes before-mentioned What the Ancient Church thought of all this Passage of History we may easily guess by what has been already shewn of their ascribing all Rewards and Punishments to the Word that had the Conduct and Government over God's People And though it seems that Care has been taken to conceal this Notion of theirs as much as was possible in the Targums of the Books now before us yet here is a Passage that seems to have escaped the Correctors by which we may perceive the Church's Sense here was agreeable to what we find of it in all other places For in 2 Sam. xxiv 14. where we find in the Text that David said ver 6. Let us fall now into the â—â—nd of the Lord for his Mercies are great the Targum thus renders these words Let me be delivered into the hand of the Word of the Lord for great are his Mercies It was therefore the Word of the Lord into whose hands David fell It was his Angel by whom the Judgment was executed And it was also his Mercy by which the Judgment was suspended and revoked The Targum on this Text sufficiently shews that all this was the Sense of the Jewish Church In short the Ancient Church considered the Word as being their Sovereign Lord and King of the People of Israel All those Kings whose Acts are described in the Two Books of Kings they look'd upon as his Lieutenants or Deputies that held their Title from and under him by his Covenant with David their Father This Solomon declared in these words 1 Kings viii 15. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel who by his Word made a Covenant with David my Father Whatsoever God did for his People under their Government in protecting and delivering them from their Enemies they own'd that it was for his Word's sake and for his Servant David's sake 2 Kings xix 34. xx 6. When they had quite broken his Covenant then God removed them from before his Word and gave them up to be a Scorn to all Nations as he threatned he would 1 Kings ix 7. according to their Targum In these Books we read of no more but Two Divine Appearances in Solomon's time and both these were made to Solomon himself 1 Kings ix 2. The first was at Gibeon chap. iii. 5. where the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night and said to him Ask what I shall give thee He asked nothing but Wisdom which so pleased the Lord that he gave him not only that but also Riches and Honour above all the Kings then in the Word The Targum as it is come to our hands doth not say It was the Word of the Lord that appeared to him and that gave him all this But that it was so according to the Sense of their Church may be gathered from the Text which tells us ver 15. That as soon as Solomon was awake he went presently to Jerusalem which was about seven Miles distant and there he stood before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord which was there in the Tabernacle set up by David his Father and he offered up both Burnt-Offerings and Peace-Offerings and made a Feast to all his Servants The haste in which all this was done brings us presently to the Occasion of it for of all Peace-Offerings for Thanksgiving to God the same day that they were offered the Flesh must be eaten Lev. vii 15. the Breast and Right Shoulder by the Priests all the rest by the Offerer and those that he had to eat with him It is plain therefore that this was a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving to God But why should not Solomon have staid at Gibeon and there paid this Duty where he had received the Obligation Especially since there at Gibeon was the Tabernacle which Moses made by God's Command and there was the Brazen Altar which Bezaleel made 2 Chron. i. 2 3 4. and Solomon had come on purpose to Gibeon to sacrifice upon that Altar at that time The very day before this Appearance of God he had offered a thousand Burnt-Offerings upon it ver 6. and in that very night did God appear to him ver 7. Now Solomon having found that good Success of his sacrificing at Gibeon that presently God appeared to him and gave him so great a Boon would certainly have staid there to have paid his Thanksgiving in that Place but that he understood that he that appeared to him was the Word whose especial Presence was with the Ark at Jerusalem as we have abundantly proved To Him therefore he hasten'd immediately to pay his Burnt-Offerings and Peace-Offerings of Thanksgiving to the Word of the Lord. This we cannot doubt was the Sense of the Ancient Jewish Church though it doth not appear now in their Targums And if it was the Word that made that first Appearance to Solomon then it must be He that made the second also for both these Appearances were of the same Person So it is said expresly in the Text 1 Kings ix 2. The Lord appeared to Solomon the second time as he had appeared to him at Gibeon But of this second Appearance that it was of the Word of the Lord there is a clearer Proof than of the former as the Reader will certainly judge if he considers the Circumstances of this second Appearance and the
that this place was related to the Messias that it was used at our Saviour's Entry into Jerusalem Mat. xxi 16. Since that time it is related to the Messias as we see in the Midrash upon Cant. i. 4. where these very words are referred to God whom the Babes of Israel were to bless which shews plainly that the praises which are spoken of are praises which are acts of Adoration and so in the Midrash upon Eccl. ch ix 1. The same positive order for the Worship of the Messias is given in Psal xlv 11. He is the Lord worship thou him There is no doubt but that Psalm is to be referred to the Messias It is so acknowledged by the Targum and by all the Jewish Interpreters What then can be said against the Worship of the Messias If the Jews of old had denied that the Shekinah was to be in the Messias then it should be rational to conclude that they did not acknowledge the Worship which is to be paid to him But they have acknowledged the Divinity of the Messias as we read in Midrash Tehillim in Psal x. Stetit Divinitas Messiae praedicavit From whence it follows by necessary consequence that they thought themselves obliged to worship him We have the same Worship of the Messias setled in Psal lxviii 32. where it is said that the Princes shall extend their hands to him from Egypt All the Jews agree that such a thing is to happen at the coming of the Messias which we call the second So Rashi We read the same in Psal lxxii where it is said v. 11. that they shall fall down and worship him No body doubts but that Psalm relates to the Messias I have taken notice in the second Chapter of this Book that the Jews refer constantly to the time of the Messias all the Psalms from the xc to the c. Now in Psal xcv v. 6 7. the words seem to be spoken of Jehovah but they were understood by the Jews of the Messias who was to have the name of Jehovah as you see in Midrash in Echa i. 6. After David what saith Isaiah of the Worship of the Messias he speaks as distinctly as can be ch xlix v. 23. The Jews understand it of the Messias whom they look upon as the Redeemer to whom all people are to make their confession from their heart as you see in Breshit Rabba upon Gen. xli v. 44. where they refer these words to the Messias Isa xlv 23. You see the same in Midr. Tehin in Psal ii 2. these words when they have seen his great tribulation they shall come and shall worship the King Messias as it is said Isa xlix 23. Some perhaps shall think they can avoid the strength of this Argument drawn from the Worship to be paid to the Messias by allowing that it is spoken in those places which I have quoted of a civil worship to be paid to the Messias as a great King But it should be in vain for a Socinian to employ such an evasion because we find that the ancient Jews have prevented it by giving us instances of all the several Parts of such a Worship either Faith Vows or Prayers or Sacrifices which cannot be paid but to a true God and I have quoted so many places upon that point that I do not think fit to enlarge more upon it I shall then conclude this matter by the solemn Prayer of the Jews in the Feast of Succoth where they have these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ego ille Salva nunc p. 53. of the Venice Edit in 8 o. which words the Jews labour very much to explain who is that ille but which the most understanding explain to the two first Middoth viz. to the Father and to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have shewn before Having now produced the Sentiments of the old Jews as to several points that concern the Trinity and the Divinity of our Lord we ought next to consider how Jesus Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians did follow these Notions of the Synagogue CHAP. XIX That the New Testament does exactly follow the Notions which the Old Jews had of the Trinity and of the Divinity of the Messias WHoever shall attentively examine the method which our Saviour and his Apostles follow in the New Testament will find it exactly suited to the Notions which the Jews had entertained and which they had from the Writings of the Prophets It was absolutely necessary it should be so because the Doctrine concerning the coming of the Messias began to be more narrowly inquired into among the Jews when they saw Herod who was an Idumean setled in the Throne of Judaea it being at the just time markt out for the coming of the Messias by Jacob's Prophecy Ge. xlix 10. The Scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a Law-giver from between his feet until Shilo come and unto him shall the gathering of people be An Angel therefore appears to the Virgin Mary that was to be the Mother of Christ and shews the manner of his Conception which was to be by the operation of the Holy Ghost He names the Child who was to be born of her Jesus and declares that he should be the Son of the Highest and that of his Kingdom there should be no end Alluding to Psal ii and to many other places of Scripture where the Messias is described as one that was to be the Son of God Next the Angel appeared to Joseph who was upon parting with his betrothed Wife the Blessed Virgin and told him she should bring forth a Son and must name him Jesus because he should save his People from their sins Whereupon the Evangelist saith that this Child was he of whom the Prophet foretold he should be Emanuel God with us He was to do that for his People which none but God was able to do to save them from their sins How could he shew it better that he was the God of the Jews to whom Judea belonged as his Country and the Jews as his People as it was foretold Is vii and viii That God whose very Name Habakkuk had named Hab. iii. 18. the God of my Salvation so called saith Jonathan's Targum because of the wonderful things that God would do by his Messias Another Angel brings to the Shepherds the news of Christ's Birth and what words does he use He names him the Christ the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jehovah God's own proper name Luk. ii The Wisemen came from the East to Bethlehem guided by a new Star to worship him and amongst other Gifts presented him with Frankincense which by the Law was to be offered to God alone Shewing thereby that they owned him for that heavenly Star spoken of by their Countryman Balaam Numb xxiv 17. And for that King of whom it was foretold Psal lxxii 10 11. The Kings of Tharshish and of the Isles shall bring presents the Kings of Sheba and Seba
above the Heathens both as to Virtue and Knowledge In which he followed Aristobulus's Notions who had writ long before him and was a Jewish Philosopher And of this Opinion the Jews are to this day as may be seen in Cozri p. 29 and p. 131. And as the Egyptians lookt upon the Greeks as Children in learning which they were fain to fetch from Egypt so Philo calls often the Egyptians even of the most ancient times a heavy People and who wanted common Sense by reason of the many gross Errors they entertain'd unworthy of rational Creatures In a word I affirm that if Plato had any distinct Notions in Religion he most certainly had them from the Jews while he sojourned in Egypt as it is maintained by Josephus in his first Book against Appion As for the Chaldee Paraphrasts I do not see how they can be suspected to have had a Tincture of Plato's Doctrine It must be a mere Fancy to suppose it Let those Gentlemen read exactly the Books of Philo and find therein if they can such an Expression as we have in the Targum upon Hag. ii 4 5. I am with you saith the Lord of Hosts with the Word which covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt and my Spirit which abideth in the midst of you M. N. hath been sensible of that and therefore he does not accuse them of having been Platonists but he accuses the Orthodox Christians in general to have inserted in the Jewish Books whatever in them is favourable to the Doctrines of the Trinity and of the Divinity of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But certainly the Unitarians must have very little Correspondence with the Jews to fancy that they are so simple as to be thus abused How can it be imagined that the Jews should be such Friends to Christians as to trust them with their Books in order to falsify them And afterwards so sottish as to spread every where their Books and their Targums which they falsified This Supposition is so ridiculous that I cannot imagine how any Author can write such a thing or even conceive and suppose it What I said of the Gospel Notions in the 15th Chapter shews plainly that neither Christ nor his Apostles did adopt the System of Philosophy which was taught by the Platonists The Angel who declared his Conception used the word Lord or Jehovah to denote his being God But when he named him Jesus because he was to save his People from their sins which no other could do but God he intimated that it was he who was foretold not by Plato but by Habakkuk chap. iii. 8 13 18. I will rejoice in the Lord I will joy in the God of my salvation In which place the Prophet expresly calls God Saviour or Jesus by which Name Christ by Divine Appointment was named In short a man must be out of his Senses to find any thing in the Gospel that savours of Plato's Hypothesis When the Devils own Christ to be the Son of God were they Platonists When St. Peter owns him to be the Son of God had Plato told him this When he was ask'd in the Council of the Jews whether he was the Son of God was the question made in a Platonick sense It is true St. Paul has sometimes quoted Heathenish Authors he was brought up at Tarsus amongst Heathens he had read Aratus whom he quotes against the Epicurean Philosophers at Athens and he quotes a place out of the Cretan Epimenides in his Epistle to Titus who was Bishop of Crete But we never find that he quoted Plato or used his Testimony Christ chose illiterate men for his Apostles St. John who speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been a Fisherman about the Lake of Tiberias St. Paul only and St. Luke were Scholars St. Paul was brought up under Gamaliel a Doctor of the Law and St. Luke who had been a Physician and was a Learned Man followed St. Paul in his Travels and by his directions writ his Gospel But it does not appear that our Saviour taught his ignorant Disciples the Notions of Plato nor that the Learned ones as St. Paul and St. Luke ever used Plato's Authority in their Preaching This appears plainly in the Book of the Acts in which St. Luke gives an account of it If at any time St. Paul had a fair opportunity to make use of Plato's Testimony it was when he disputed at Athens against the Stoicks and the Epicureans These last laughing at Miracles St. Paul wrought none there to convince them But he might have quoted places out of Plato's Republick to prove the Resurrection and a Judgment in the Life to come yet he quotes never an Author and was contented to argue the Case by strength of Reason and this he did with that force that he converted one of the Judges of Areopagus who probably was an Epicurean and knew what Plato said in his Books and did laugh at it This Method of the Apostles was followed by the first Christians Plato was not mentioned amongst them till some Philosophers turned Christians Justin Martyr amongst others This Justin scorned all other Philosophers as mean-spirited Teachers but commended Plato as being one of a great Genius that made him think of God and the Immortality of the Soul in a more elevated manner than other Philosophers But when all is done How much did he value Plato But indifferently He declares that it was from the Gospel together with the Law and the Prophets that he had the true Notions of the Christian Religion He quotes Plato neither against the Heathens nor against the Jews If we had the Book he writ against Marcion who out of Plato's Writings had broach'd his detestable Opinions we might very probably have seen how little he valued Plato's Authority Tertullian who had read Justin's Book and who saw that both the Gnosticks and the Valentinians made much of Plato's Authority shews plainly how little he valued Plato when he says he was grown omnium haereticorum condimentarium the sawce which all Hereticks used to propagate their Doctrines by which they corrupted the Purity of the Christian Religion And much the same Opinion of Plato had they that opposed the Arian Heresy of which it is thought Origen was the first Broacher However I aver First That the first Christians were no more Platonists than the Jews that is did not use Plato's Notions in their System of Divinity They were so far from it that they declared that what they believed about the Trinity they had it from the Holy Writers Justin Apol. 2. Athenagoras p. 8 9. Theophilus of Antioch p. 100. Secondly It is false that any of the Ancient Christians made any other use of Plato than by shewing that Plato had borrowed from Moses the Doctrine he taught Justin in his Exhortation to the Greeks p. 18 22 24. Clemens of Alexandria Strom. l. 4. p. 517. and l. 5. p. 598. Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. Origen against Celsus l.
where the Word appeared to Abraham brought him forth and commanded him to offer a Sacrifice to him And suppose that the word Memra should in some places have some of the senses which the Socinian Author mentions does it follow that it has not in many other places the sense we give to it and which Philo gave to it before Christ Let it be granted it signifies sometimes the Command of God as Gen. xxii 18. can it have the same sense in a number of places where mention is made of the Laws of the Word of the Lord Let the word Memra be taken sometimes in the Targums for the Decree of God can it be taken in that sense in Jonathan's Targum on Hag. ii 6. where it is distinguisht from that Decree or in those lately Printed in the Books of Chronicles where mention is made of the Decree of the Word of the Lord as 1 Chron. xii 23. Were it not a ridiculous Tautology if in that place the Word should be said to signifie the Decree The same may be said of all other places where the Decree of the Word is spoken of as 2 Chron. vi 4 15. xxix 23. xxxiii 3. Supposing that Memra signifies sometimes the Word of God can it signifie so too where we read according to the word of the Memra 1 Chron. xxix 23. Let it be granted that the Word signifies sometimes the Oracles of God can it signifie them also where it is expresly distinguisht from them as 2 Chron. xx 20. ch xxxvi 12. And from the Law of God in the same place The truth is the Paraphrast does suppose that it was the Memra who gave the Law and the Oracles to the Jews And that it was for refusing to offer Sacrifices to him that the Jews often fell into Idolatry 2 Chron. xiii 11. ch xxviii 19. xxix 19. xxx 5. There are so many proofs that the Paraphrasts mention it in many places in the very same sense the Old Jews gave to it who acknowledged the Word of God to be a Person that no Man can mistake unless he does it wilfully Many of their Works have been Printed almost two hundred years and I have produced so many proofs out of them that I need not alledge any more I shall therefore only produce a few out of the two Books of Chronicles which the Learned Beckius publisht about sixteen years ago The Targum on those two Books of Chronicles affirms the following things That it is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who appeared in most Apparitions in which God appeared to the Patriarchs To Abraham to whom he spoke from between the Victims Gen. xv 1 Chron. vii 21. To Solomon 2 Chron. vii 12. To Phinehas 1 Chron. ix 20. To David 1 Chron. xvii 2. To Solomon 1 Chron. xxii 11. That the Angel who hindered Abraham from killing Isaac was the Word of God 2 Chron. iii. 1. He plainly distinguishes the Angel from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Chron. xiv 15. and xv 1. He affirms that the Word sent Gabriel to help Hezekiah 2 Chron. xxxii 20. whereas David had said he sent his Word and healed them Psal cvii. 20. See Cosri pag. 45. He affirms that to the Word the Temple was built 1 Chron. xxviii 1 3. and 2 Chron. vi 1 10. and xx 8. To whom Sacrifices were offered 2 Chron. xxxiii 17. David exhorts Solomon in the presence of all the People and of the Word of the Lord who chose him King to keep the Law of God 1 Chron. xxviii 8 10. He says that the Judges judg before the Word and before the Holy Spirit 2 Chron. xix 6. He affirms that it was the Word who helped David 1 Chron. xi 9. xii 18. And Solomon 1 Chron. xxviii 20. And Abijah against Jeroboam 2 Chron. xiii 15. That the faithful seek the Word of the Lord and his Power and ever regard his Face 1 Chron. xvi 10 11. He says the Word decreed with God 2 Chron. vi 4. That the Word helps them that trust in him and destroys the wicked 1 Chron. xii 18. xvii 2. 2 Chron. xiii 18. and xiv 11. and xv 2. and xvi 7 8. and xx 20. and xxv 7. and xxxii 8. and xvii 3. and xviii 31. and xx 22 29. That the Word drove out of Canaan the Inhabitants of it 2 Chron. xx 7. and fought for Israel 2 Chron. xxxii 8. That by Solomon's Orders the Word was pray'd to 2 Chron. xx 8. That Men are adjured by the Name of the Word 2 Chron. xviii 15. Speak according to the mouth of the Word 2 Chron. xxii 7. That it was the Word that gave Moses leave to shew the Tables of the Law 2 Chron. xxxii 31. That the Word saved Hezekiah from being burnt in the fire through which Ahaz made his other Children to pass 2 Chron. xxviii 3. That the Word blest the People 2 Chron. xxxi 10. That the Prophets spoke to Manasseh in the Name of the Word of the Lord who is the God of Israel 2 Chron. xxxiii 18. That Men repent before the Word of the Lord 2 Chron. xxxiv 27. That the Word of the Lord the God of Heaven commanded Cyrus to build him a Temple 2 Chron. xxxvi 23. In a word the Author of this Targum leaves no room to doubt but that by the Word he understood and meant in many places a Divine Person a Principle of Action such as we conceive him to be Though in some others he might use the word Word in those other different Significations which the Socinian Author who writ against Wecknerus was pleased to put upon it Another Objection of the same Socinian Author which seems more plausible is this That there are some places in the Targum where instead of the Holy Spirit as it is in the Hebrew they render it by Memra or the Word of which he gives some instances as Isa xxx 28. Zech. iv 6. To which may be added Isa xlviii 16. which in the Hebrew is the Lord and his Spirit has sent me and in the Paraphrase the Lord and his Word I answer that though in some few places the Targums have a confused Notion of the thing yet this ought not to ballance the constant stile of those Books in others and much more numerous places It being easie to confound those Notions before the gospel-Gospel-times when they were not by much so clearly apprehended as they have been since Otherwise the stile of the Targums is pretty equal And here comes in very naturally Maimonides his observation about the stile of Onkelos his Paraphrase which he was well versed in He thinks in his More Nevochim p. 1. c. 48. that three or four places of the Targum in which his remark about the constant method had no room might have been altered and wishes he could get some Copies of it more ancient than those he used and owns that he did not well apprehend the reason which had obliged the Paraphrast to render in some places otherwise
after his example to worship â— Brick by which they understood the figure of a Cross Sanhedrin fol. 107. Sota fol. 47. Lastly It may be observed that the many Heresies which arose in after-times among Christians concerning our Saviour's Person and Natures gave the Jews very great prejudices against the Gospel The Arians for two hundred years then the Nestorians and Eutychians but chiefly the Tritheists visibly taught Doctrines contrary to truth In particular the Writings of John Philoponus who was a Tritheist were much perused by the Mahometans and Jews because they begun to study Philosophy at which John Philoponus was very good as Maimonides tells us More Nevochim pag. 1. ch 71. Now this Heresie destroying the Unity of God which is the fundamental Article of the Jewish Religion could not but give the Jews just matter of horror and detestation for Christianity Besides the Jews themselves confess that in their dispersion they have lost the knowledge of many of the Mysteries of their Religion One cannot think how it could be otherwise if one considers 1. The long time they have been dispersed which confounds the most distinct and darkens the clearest matters 2. Their extreme misery in so long a captivity which subjected them to so many different Nations and many of them such as had a particular hatred both of their Nation and Religion 3. But chiefly if one considers that those Mysteries were communicated only to a few Learned Men and kept from the knowledge of the common people as Maimonides does acknowledg and proves by many Reflections worth considering in More Nevoch p. 1. ch 71. After this the Jews having still great aversion to Christians it ought not to seem strange that the Cabalists should be so few in number among them and that most of the Jewish Doctors should follow in their Disputes against Christians Explications and Notions contrary to Scripture about the Trinity and the Divinity of the Messias For even before Christ there were amongst them many Errors crept amongst some of them about those matters so that they that lived after Christ did easily follow the worst Explication and prefer it before the better in the heats of their Disputes against Christians Neither is it to be wondered at that the same Men should maintain contrary Propositions and defend them equally in their turns as they come ta have to do with different adversaries The Papists are a remarkable instance of this when they dispute and write against the Eutychians to prove the Truth of Christ's Human Nature one would admire at the strength and soundness of their Arguments But when they are upon the manner of our Saviour's existence in the Sacrament as to his Flesh and Blood nothing can be more contrary to their former Positions than what they affirm on this occasion they destroy quite what they said before and one would think they had forgot themselves The Jews do perfectly like the Papists in this and having less knowledg and labouring under greater prejudices than they no wonder if they maintain contrary Principles one to another This may be seen in some of the old Hereticks which sprung from amongst the Jews and brought their Opinions into the Christian Religion the Cerinthians for instance who owned that the Word had dwelt in Christ but did imagin that it was but for a certain time And if the Patripassians and afterwards the Sabellians who had the clear Revelation of the Gospel yet for all this opposed the Doctrine of the Trinity as contrary to the Unity of God and affirmed that there was in God but one Person which had appeared under three differing Names It ought not to appear strange that the Jews blinded by their hatred against Christians should through their prejudices apprehend that what their old Masters taught about the three Sephiroth did not signifie three Persons in God but only the three different manners in which God works by one and the same Person I have already hinted that the Jews even about the end of the fourth Century had great offence given them by the Christians in their Worship of Saints and Relicks which being at last as Idolatrous as the Heathenish made the Jews look upon them as no other than Heathens This may be seen in many places of the Talmud which they pretend was finisht about five hundred years after Christ But especially in their Additions to those Books which they made when Idolatry was so ripe both in the East and the West One might make a Book of those too just Accusations of the Jews against the Christians which caused them to be Banisht out of many Kingdoms The Dominican Friers made a Collection of most of them in the Thirteenth Century when Christians going much into the Holy Land did something retrieve their lost knowledg of the Greek and other Eastern Languages Since that time the Jews transcribing their Talmud and their other ancient Books begun to use the words of Samaritans instead of those of Apostates and Hereticks which they used before in speaking of Christians against whom in the old Times they had made many Rules Besides the violent and Antichristian methods which some Christian Princes used against them by a false Principle of Religion to make them against their Will profess Christianity made them look upon Christians as no better than savage Beasts which besides their outward Form had nothing of Humanity and regarded neither Justice nor Religion For though their own Jewish Principles are persecuting enough yet they can't but condemn the same Principles when used against them nothing being more apt to make Men reject Truth than Persecution because Conscience ought to be instructed not inslaved as Experience in all Ages does abundantly confirm It cannot be denied but that the Jews Crucified Christ for affirming himself to be the Son of God Neither can it be supposed that he meant no more by it but that he was God's adoptive Son as the Jews were or some of their Kings For he spoke in an ordinary plain intelligible sense He meant therefore by it not only that he was the Messias but that the Word of God dwelt in him the same which the Jews acknowledged to be the Off-spring of God And for this the Jews Crucifyed him as he hints plainly enough in the Parable of the Husbandmen for he designs the Prophets by the name of meer Servants and himself he calls the Son in opposition to the Prophets and tells the Scribes and Pharisees that though they knew him to be such yet would they for all this put him to death So that by Crucifying him they did purpose to destroy a Person whom they knew to be the true Messias but by whom they were like to have lost their credit with the People He having called them a parcel of Hypocrites who made a Trade of Religion who in their hearts laught at it and only endeavoured to get by it This is the meaning of those words which Christ puts in their
one compare Job xxviii 20. Psal xxxiii 6. Prov. viii 12 22. with what is written Wisdom vi 24 22. and so on till Chap. viii 11. and he will find a great likeness if not the very same Notions and words 4. Through the same neglect they have quite lost the Works of other ancient and famous Jews as namely of Philo the Jew who was in such reputation amongst them as to be chosen the Agent or Deputy of the Alexandrian Jews in their Embassy to the Roman Emperour and of Aristobulus who lived in the time of the Ptolomees and Dedicated to one of them his Explication of the Law of which we have a fragment in Eusebius which shews that his Notions were the same with Philo's and that they did generally prevail in Egypt before Christ's Incarnation as well in the time of Philo. It is no hard matter to give some reasons of this neglect For 1. their first destruction by Titus and after by Hadrian involved with it a great part of their Books They thought then only of saving their Bibles with which it seems their Targum was joined and so this came to be preserved with the Scriptures This was by the great care of Josephus as he himself relates desiring of Titus this favour alone that he might preserve the Sacred Books 2. After their second destruction by Hadrian they applied themselves straight to gather their Traditions and Customs which now make the Body of their Misna or Second Law as they call it This spent them a deal of time For to compose such a work it was necessary to collect the several pieces in the hands of several men who had drawn certain Memoirs for the observation of every Law that did more immediately concern them 3. They then began to increase their hatred for the study of the Greek Tongue abandoning themselves wholly to the study of their Traditions This we see in the Misna Mas sota c. 9. § 14. 4. About this time being pressed with Arguments out of these Books by the Christians that disputed against them they thought best to reject the Works themselves And because the Christians used the LXX Version against them they invented several Lyes to discredit it as we see in the Gemara of Megilla and lest that should not do they made it their business to find out some that were able to make a new Version such as Aquila in the time of Hadrian and Symmachus and Theodotion who turn'd Jews toward the end of the Second Century These Three Interpreters were designed to change the Sense of those Texts which the Christians according to the Old Jewish Traditions did refer to the Messias Of this Justin Martyr has given some Instances in his Dialogue with Trypho R. Akiba's great Friend and we see that St. Jerom Ep. 89. complains of the same And now what wonder is it if the Jews in this humour did neglect or rather rejected those Apocryphal Books whose Authority in some points were set up against them by the Christians as were the Books of Baruch Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus As for Philo tho he wrote in a lofty Stile and after an Allegorical way and therefore we find in the Rabboth several Thoughts common to him and the Cabalists and other Allegorical Authors whose Notions are gathered in the Rabboth yet the Jews soon lost all esteem for his Works First Because he writ in Greek which was a Language most despised by them at this time they having establish'd it as a Maxim That he who brought up his Children in the Greek Tongue was cursed as he who fed Swine Bava kama fol. 82. col 1. Sota fol. 49. col 2. Secondly Because some Christians challenged him for their own For finding some of his Principles to be agreeable to those of the Christian Religion it came into their head tho it is a Fancy without any Foundation that he while he was at Rome was converted by St. Peter The same thing befel Josephus as soon as the Christians began to use his Authority against the Jews notwithstanding that the Jews have no better Historian than Josephus Thirdly Because the Jews had then almost forsaken the study of the Holy Scriptures and given themselves up entirely to the study of their Traditions or Second Law as they call it The Catalogue of their Ancient Commentators is very small Their first literal Commentator is R. Saadiah who writ his Comments on the Scripture in the beginning of the Tenth Century As for the others that were long before him as Zohar Siphre and Siphri Siphra Mechilta Tanchuma and the Rabboth they all make it their business to explain allegorically or to establish their Traditions As to the Targum we see how heat of Dispute hath carried the Jews to such strange extremities that now they reject no small part of those Interpretations that were Authentick with their Forefathers It may not be amiss to give some Proofs of this to shew that we do not accuse them without cause And in general there is not a more idle Romance than that which the Jews have devised touching two Messias's that are to come unto the World One must be of the Race of Joseph by Ephraim and called Nehemiah the Son of Husiel who as they will have it after a Reign of many Years at Jerusalem and after having sack'd Rome is at last to be killed himself at Jerusalem by a King of Persia The other Messias is to be Menahem the Son of Hammiel who is to appear for the delivery of the Jews being sent from God on that Errand according to Moses's Prayer Exod. iv 13. For the time of this second Messias's coming shall be when the Mother of the deceased Messias the Son of Joseph having gathered the Jews dispersed from Galilee to Jerusalem shall be there besieged by one Armillus the Son of Satan who is to proceed out of a Marble Statue in Rome and who in this close Siege shall be at the very point of destroying them Then they say Messias the Son of David shall come with seven Shepherds to wit the Three Patriarchs Moses David and Elias and eight of the principal Fathers or Prophets who are to rise before the rest They say That Moses at the head of them shall convert the Jews without working any Miracle and then all the Jews shall rise at the sound of a Trumpet passing under ground till they come to Mount Olivet which shall cleave in two to let them out Then the Jews shall come from all Quarters to form the Messias's Army and the Messias the Son of Joseph shall be raised from the dead to come in among the rest and so the two Messias's shall reign without jealousy of one another only the Son of David shall have the chief Power reigning from one end of the Earth to the other and that for Forty Years All this time the Jews shall continue in Feasting and Jollity using the other Nations as Slaves And then Gog the King of
Comment Printed at Amsterdam The Jews in Christ's time did believe the xxiid Psalm to be a Prophecy touching the Messias And Jesus Christ to shew the accomplishment of it in his own Person cites the first verse of it on the Cross Mat. xxvii 46. Yet soon after as we see in Justin Martyr's Dialogue they denied that Psalm to belong to the Messias But their folly appears because they cannot agree among themselves some referring it to David others to Esther and others to the whole People of the Jews Menass q. 8. in Psalm The 16th ver of the same xxiid Psalm is thus Translated by the Seventy They pierced my hands and my feet This reading is proved by de Muis on this place and by Walton in Prolegom p. 40. But our Jews now read it As a Lion my hands and my feet which is not sense Their own Masora Notes that it should be read they have pierced However they have espoused the other reading and will not be beaten from it by any Argument because they think this reading will best destroy the Inference which the Christians draw from this place to shew that the Messias was to be Crucifyed according to this Psalm The Psalm lxviii by the ancient Jews was referred to the Messias and so doth R. Joel Aben Sueb refers the last part to the time of the Messias p. 158. in h. Ps It was also by St. Paul Ephes iv 8. referred to the Ascension of our Lord Wherefore he saith when he ascended up on high he led Captivity captive and gave gifts unto men The very same subject is handled in Psal xlvii 5. which Psalm David Kimchi does acknowledg belongs to the Times of the Messias and there they cannot deny but the true God is spoken of the same Memra who conducted the People in the Desert and gave the Law at Sinai as it is spoken v. 8 9. And yet the Modern Jews will apply those words of Psal lxviii 10. to the Ascension of Abraham or Moses or the Prophet Elias to any rather than the Messias It is granted by the Modern Jews that their Fathers understood Psal lxxii of the Messias So R. Saadia on Dan. vii 14. Salom. Jarchi on Psal 72.6 and Bahal Hatturim ad Numb xxvi 16. and yet now they stick not of which R. David Kimchi is a witness to interpret it only of Salomon In Jesus Christ's time the Jews confessed Psalm cx did belong to the Messias v. 1. The Lord said unto my Lord sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy foot-stool Christ's argument Mat. xxii 44. necessarily supposes it So it was understood in the Midrash Tehillim and by R. Saadia Gaon on Dan. vii 13. But notwithstanding this our later Jews affirm that it was made for David or Abraham 'T was of old constantly believed that Wisdom Prov. iii. and viii did denote the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have shewed it from Philo the Jew from the Apocryphal Book and from the Cabalists and yet at this day they explain it of the Law of Moses or the Attribute of Wisdom Jonathan in his Paraphrase on Isa ix 6. interprets the Text of the Messias For unto us a Child is born unto us a Son is given and his Name shall be called Wonderful Counseller the mighty God the Everlasting Father the Prince of Peace And so did the most ancient Jewish Writers But after Jesus Christ the Jews having broken up a new way it has pleased some of their late Writers to tread in the steps of R. Hillel and to apply it to Hezekiah So does Salomon Jarchi David Kimchi Abenezra and Lipman As for the rest they quite change the present Text by referring to God all the Names which are evidently given to the Messias except that of the Prince of Peace For much the same reason do the latter Jews make Zorobabel to be spoken of in Isa xi 12. Manas q. 18. on Isaiah Though not only St. Paul understood it of Jesus Christ Rom. xv 12. 2 Thes ii 8. But the ancient Jews did generally refer it to the Messias as appears all along in the Targum of that Chapter and the Jews shewed they understood it so by their rejecting Barcochba when they found he could not smell Souls as they thought the Messias should do according to the second verse of the said Chapter And St. Jerome witnesses upon that Chapter that all the Jews agreed with Christians that all that Chapter was to be understood of the Messias The old Jews as St. Jerome witnesses upon this Chapter ascribed Isa xxv 6. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened and the ears of the deaf be unstopped Then shall the lame man leap as an hart and the tongue of the dumb sing for in the wilderness shall waters break out and streams in the desert to the times of the Messias But the Modern Jews have endeavoured to wrest it and to make it agree to other times because they saw how the Evangelists applied it to the Miracles of our Lord. See Menass q. 17. on Isaiah And they are gone so far in that fancy that they give it out now for an Axiom amongst their People that the Messias shall not work any Miracle So Rambam R. Meyr Aldab and R. Menass ben Israel who would have the Miracles which are there spoken of either to be understood Metaphorically or to be referred to the time of the Resurrection The Impudence of R. Salomon on Isa xlviii 48 16. is amazing The words of the Text run thus From the time that it was there am I and now the Lord God and his Spirit have sent me From hence it appears that the Messias who is here spoken of according to the Targum was on Mount Sinai when God gave the Law from thence This R. Salomon will by no means grant of the Messias but affirms that it is spoken of Isaiah But how was he on Mount Sinai when the Law was given Why he answers His Soul was there as were the Souls also of all the Prophets God then revealing to them all those things that were to come which each of them in his time have since Prophesied of A fancy that R. Tanchuma who lived a long while before R. Salomon never hit on For he maintains from Isa lvii 16. that the Souls are then created as God orders Men to be born in every Generation We see how positive they are in expounding the Sufferings of the Messias which are described Isa liii of the People of the Jews And yet they can't but know that Jonathan refers the end of the lii Chap. and the beginning of the liii to the Messias as the Apostles refer it to Jesus Christ following herein John the Baptist Joh. i. 29. And so did R. Alexandri among the Talmudist as we see in Sanhedrin fol. 93. col 2. and in the Midrash Conen in Arze Levanon fol. 3. col 2. The Prophet Micah ch v. 2. speaks of the Messias But
but God only adding that the Holy Writers of the New Testament in applying them to Jesus Christ turned these Texts to quite another sense than was intended by the Holy Spirit at the inditing of them The Prophet Isaiah again has these words ch xxxv 4 5 6. Behold your God will come and save you c. Sal Jarchi and D. Kimchi expound them of the Deliverance from Babylon contrary to the ancient Jews opinion who as these Rabbins confess understood them of the Messias The Socinians will not deny that Jesus Christ assumed them to himself but to shew how little ground he had for so doing they insist on it that he only accommodated the words to himself The same Isaiah writes thus ch xli 4. I am the first and the last and Jesus Christ has the same expressions of himself Rev. i. 17. The Chaldee Paraphrast thought they belonged so properly to the True God as to Paraphrase them in this manner I am the Lord Jehovah who created the World in the beginning and the Ages to come are all mine Joseph Albo makes this Text a proof of the Eternity of God and notes that it is a parallel Text to Isa xliv 6. But if you 'l have Socinus opinion of the place when it is applied to our Lord Jesus Christ it does not at all regard his Eternity Once more we read Isa xlv 23. I have sworn by my self the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness that unto me every knee shall bow every tongue shall swear St. Paul refers these words to Jesus Christ Rom. xiv 11. nay he proves our standing before Christ's Judgment-seat by this Quotation Notwithstanding the Socinians believe them only a simple accommodation and not the prime scope of the Text. I know the Apostles have sometimes cited Texts from the Old Testament which have not their exact accomplishment in that sense wherein they are used As for example 2 Cor. viii 15. St. Paul exhorting the Corinthians to supply the wants of their Brethren with their abundance addeth As it is written He that had gathered much had nothing over and he that had gathered little had no lack Thus alluding to the History of the Manna Exod. xvi 18. it is plain that he accommodates that Story to the Beneficence of the Christians without any thing either from Letter or Allegory to justifie this accommodation They who think that John ch xix 37. does allude to Exod. xii 46. Neither shall you break a bone thereof go upon this ground that Christ was typified by the Paschal Lamb and therefore what was spoken of the Paschal Lamb is truly applicable to Christ But some others believe that St. John cited this passage from Psal xxxiv 21. and applies what David saith of all the just in general to the Messias who is often called the Just One as being eminently so I know that some think that a Prophecy which has been already accomplish'd literally was accommodated by the Holy Penmen to a like event And thus they think St. Matthew ch ii 17. applies the voice that was heard at Ramah and Rachel's weeping for her Children to those Expressions of sorrow used by the Women of Bethlehem when Herod slew their Children Although this Prophecy was before accomplished in the Captivity of Judah and Benjamin under Nebuchadnezzar But besides what I have said upon such places the Examples of this nature are but few and those may be easily discerned by a careful Reader from such Citations as are not Accommodations but Proofs and for the Texts which are commonly and generally quoted by the Holy Writers they expose the Books of the New Testament to the scorn and contempt of Jews who suppose that the Apostles went about to make Converts from the Synagogue by such passages of the Old Testament as had nothing of strength or reason to convince any Man for such are the places quoted by way of Accommodation and let any one but consult the Writings of the Jews against Christianity and he will find that the main Argument they make use of against the Proofs brought by the Apostles is that the passages they cite were never designed by the Spirit to that purpose Literally taken but were only made use of by them by way of Accommodation But the most wonderful thing of all in the Unitarians management of this Controversie especially in our English Unitarians is this that they do not only side with the Jews and dress up their sense of those Texts of the Old Testament which are cited in the New as Proofs of our Lords Divinity or which are objected in confirmation of the Holy Trinity and that they have not been content to bring in the Notion of Accommodation to elude the force of those Quotations on which the Apostles grounded several Doctrines but for the most part they give broad intimations as if the New Testament Writings were on purpose falsified by the Christians and many things there inserted which were never thought of by the Authors of those Writings If they could have made good this accusation it would have saved them a great deal of pains which it has cost them to find out Answers to the several Objections proposed to them 'T is the most easie natural and shortest way to joyn with the Deists in destroying the Authority of the Gospel and to endeavour to shew that nothing certain can be drawn from thence seeing that since the Apostles Times the Christian Faith hath been corrupted and new Doctrines have been foisted into their Books which from the beginning were not there For my part I see no other way left them for the defence of their bad Cause But by ill luck Socinus has stopped their retreat even to this last Refuge by the Treatise he writ concerning the Authority of the Holy Scriptures When they have solidly refuted this Book of their great Leader it will be then time to take their Charge against the Sacred Books into more particular consideration Let them do this when they will We promise them when they have done it to reproach them no more with Socinus's Authority in defence of the Integrity of the Scripture But for the present we refer them to the Book of a famous Mahometan called Hazzadaula who has handled this matter with length and force enough to confound both the Unitarians and Deists I mean his third Book of the comparison of the three Laws the Jewish Christian and Mahometan of which there is an Extract in Jos de Voisin de Lege Divina in a Letter from Gabriel Syonita It has been thought by some that Mahomet and his Followers did accuse the Jews and Christians of corrupting the Old and New Testament Writings But we see this Accusation is proved false by such as have managed the Controversie against Mahometanism And the more knowing Mahometans do insult the Christian Missionaries for charging it on them when Mahomet accused the Christians only for wresting several passages in Scripture and putting a false
Cat. xii the Concil Sirm. c. 13. Gregor Baet tr de fide Theodor. Q. 5. in Exod. Leo. i. Ep. 13. ad Pulch. and many others In like manner they refer to the Word those Appearances of God which be vouchsafed to Abraham Isaac and Jacob himself as you may see in Just Mart. Apol. for those to Abraham and Isaac and for those to Jacob in Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7. Novat I. de Trin. c. 26 27. Proc. Gaz. in h. l. The ancient Christians did in this no more than the ancienter Jews did before them who by Elohim in this place did not understand a created Angel but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom the Targumists and the strictest Followers of their Fathers Traditions are wont to express by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo makes all the Appearances which we meet with in the Books of Moses to belong to the Word and the latter Cabalists since Christ's time not only do the same but deny that the Father ever appeared saying it was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only that manifested himself to their Fathers whose proper name is Elohim For this consult R. Menachem de Rekanati from Beres Rabba on the Parasch Breschit f. 14. c. 3. Ed. Ven. and on Par. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f. 30. c. 1. I have often wondred how it came to pass that most of the Divines of the Church of Rome who would seem to have the greatest veneration for Antiquity should so much despise it in this Question wherein the ancient Jewish and Christian Church do agrees Sanctius in his Notes on the Acts ch 7. says it is a difficult question among Divines whether God's Appearances in Scripture were performed immediately by God himself or by his Angels And then having cited several ancient Fathers who thought it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that appeared he adds Sed Theologis jam illa sententia placet quae statuit Angelorum ministerio antiquis hominibus oblatam esse divinam speciem quae est sententia Dionys de caelest Hier. c. 4 c. To the same purpose Lorinus another Jesuit speaks in Act. vii 31. But this is not the worst of it that they forsake the judgment of the Ancients they do herein make bold to contradict the plain words of Christ himself Joh. i. 18. Christ saith thus No man hath seen God at any time the only begotten who is in the bosom of the Father he hath declared him And parallel to this Text is Joh. vi 46. Certainly he must be very blind who does not see that Christ in these words not only denies the Father to have shewn himself in those Appearances that were made to the ancient Patriarchs but also asserts them to himself and not to the Angels Away then with such Divines who setting aside the Authority of Christ do chuse to Theologize in the principal Heads of Religion according to the sense and prejudices of the Moderns We desire to be no wiser in these matters than the Primitive Christians were among whom it passed for an establisht truth that the Elohim in Jacob's Prayer was the very Jehovah of the Jews termed by them sometime Shekinah and sometime Memra SECT III. As to the second Question it would be no Question at all but for the obstinacy of some latter Jews He that reads the Hebrew Text without prejudice cannot but see the Elohim in v. 15. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the following verse whence it follows that this Redeeming Angel is Jehovah But because this opinion is contradicted by some of the chief Modern Jews as Abarbanel and Alshek on this place and by most of the Popish Divines as well as some few of the Reformed that have not sifted this matter accurately we will offer some proofs for the conviction of them that are not obstinately bent against it And 1. If Jacob had had two Persons then in his mind so different as God and a created Angel are he would have coupled them together by the particle ז which is not only conjunctive but very proper to distinguish the Persons of whom we speak and said God before whom my Fathers walked God who fed me from my youth and the Angel that delivered me bless the Lads But Jacob is so far from doing thus that on the contrary he puts a ה demonstrative as well before the Angel as before God without any Copulative between which sufficiently demonstrates he means the same Person by God and the Angel Munster was well aware of this and therefore being willing to distinguish the Redeeming Angel from God he Translates it with an addition the Angel also 2. It cannot be easily supposed That Jacob would in a Prayer use the Singular Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in common to Persons in Nature so very different the Creator and a Creature He certainly ought to have said God and the Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may they bless the Lads if he had spoken of two But his speaking in the the Singular may he bless is an Argument of his having in his Eye one Person alone whose Blessing he prayed for on his Seed Otherwise it would have been a Prayer of a strange Composition For according to Athanasius we do no where find that one prays to God and the Angel or any other created Being at the same time for any thing Nor is there any like instance of such a Form as this God and an Angel give thee this 3. But setting aside those Rules with which the contrary Opinion can never be reconciled consider the thing it self in Jacob's Prayer and you will find it absurd to distinguish between the Offices of God and those of a created Angel toward Jacob. The Office ascribed to God is feeding him from his Youth the Office ascribed to the Angel is delivering him from all Evil which must be very distinct Offices if the Persons be distinguished And so R. Jochanan accounts them Gem. Pesasch f. 118. Tho he believes the Angel to be the same with Elohim yet he contends that feeding the greater Work is attributed to God and delivering the lesser Work to an Angel The same thing is said by the Author of Jalkut on this place and R. Samule on the Book Rabboth abovementioned But in the Phrase of these Jewish Masters this Distinction is very insipid it is harshly formed without considering that Jacob in this Blessing reflected on the Words of the Vow which he made at Luz afterwards called Bethel because of God's appearing to him there Now these were the Words of Jacob's Vow If God will be with me and keep me in the way in which I shall walk if he will give meat to eat and cloathing to put on and bring me home in safety to the house of my Father then shall the Lord be my God Gen. xxvii 20 21. Here you see it is from God that Jacob expects to be kept in his way i. e. to be redeemed from
all Evils that might happen and that he esteems this to be no less a benefit than Sustenance or Cloathing which he mentions in the second place Here is no Angel spoken of here and since the redeeming Angel is to be expounded from this place he cannot be a created Angel for here is no other spoken of but the Lord. 4. By fancying him a created Angel who delivered Jacob from all Evil they make Jacob to be a mere Idolater as ascribing that to a Creature which belongs only to the Lord of the Creation The Scripture appropriates to God the Title of Redeemer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor do godly Men ever say of a Creature that it delivers them from all Evil. David I am sure never does but when he speaks of the Tribulations of the Righteous he adds but the Lord delivers him out of all Ps xxxiv 20. And Jacob on another occasion directs his Prayer to the Lord that appeared to him at Luz saying Save me from the hand of my brother Esau for I fear him much Gen. xxxii 9 10 11. 5. God as I said has so appropriated the Name of Redeemer to himself that Jacob could not without Sacriledge communicate this Title to any Creature though never so excellent We cannot be ignorant that David makes this the proper Name of God Psal xix 14. as does Isaiah Chap. xliii 14. xlvii 4. And this Jonathan confesses on Isa lxiii 16. in these words Thou art our redeemer thy name is from everlasting i. e. this is the Name that was designed for God from the beginning which yet can't hold true if in this place Gen. xlviii 16. it be ascribed by Jacob to a created Angel 6. It appears plainly from Gen. xlix that Jacob neither desired nor expected any Blessing from a created Angel but only from God Thus he prays c. The God of thy Father shall be thy helper and the Almighty shall bless thee with the Blessings of Heaven above c. Not a word of a mere Angel that redeemed him from all Evil so far was the Patriarch in his former Blessing from begging of an Angel the Multiplication of his Seed which was the only thing which he could now expect of God as the Jews own Bechai Praef. in Pent. f. 1. c. 1. 7. The same Conclusion may be drawn from the very Order of Jacob's Prayer Had Jacob intended a created Angel by him whom he names in the last place as a Redeemer from Evil and whose Intercession with God he bespeaks in behalf of his Children would he not have prayed to the Angel in the first place It is most rational so to do He that wants the Interest of a great Man to introduce him to the King he does not in the first place direct his Petition to the King immediately but first to the great Man and afterwards by him to the King Let the Papists therefore look to the Absurdity of their proceeding while they first pray to God and then to Saints and Angels Let those Jews who are of the mind of Isaac Abarbanel and Franco Serrano in his Spanish Notes on this place and stickle for Angel-worship see how they can clear themselves of this difficulty as well as reconcile themselves with those ancienter Jews who abhor this sort of Idolatry Maim Per. Misna ad tit Sanh c. xi SECT IV. How firm these Reasons are to shew the Angel here spoken of to be an uncreated and not a created Angel is I hope evident to every one Something however of great importance may be still added to illustrate this weighty Argument and that is the Judgment of the Ancient Synagogue The most ancient Jewish Writers and they that received the Traditionary Doctrine from them though mortal Enemies of the Christian Religion yet agree with the Christians in the Sense of this Text. For God be thanked such Truths were not renounced all at once by these Enemies of our Faith but they began to dissemble them by degrees as they found them turning against them in their Disputes with the Christians To begin with the Writings of the Jews before Christ we find it is God the Word ver 12. who is described as he that delivers from all Evil in the Book of Wisd xvi 8. no doubt with respect to this place where he takes the Angel that delivered Jacob from all Evil to be God The same Doctrine is to be met with in Philo the Jew that lived before Christ and in Christ's time He * Allegor ii p. 71. D. expresly affirms of the Angel that delivered Jacob from all Evil that he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so does Onkelos in his Chaldee Paraphrase translating the Words of Jacob simply as they lie in the Text without any Addition Jonathan indeed seems to be of another mind in his Paraphrase that runs thus God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac worshipped the Lord that fed me from the time I began to be till this day may be pleas'd that the Angel may bless the Lads whom thou hast ordained to deliver me from all Evil. Here he distinguishes the Angel from God but that he did not mean a Creature by this Angel is clear for that in other places he translates this Angel by the Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and especially in that remarkable place where the same Angel is treated of Isaiah lxiii 8 9 10. he saith it was the Word that redeemed Israel out of all their Afflictions Let us pass to the Jews after Christ's time and shew that they did not immediately renounce the Doctrine of their Forefathers The Author of the Book Zohar in Par. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fol. 123. hath these words which he repeats often afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come see the Angel that redeemed me is the Shekinah that went along with him This is sufficiently intimated by the ancient Author Tanchuma in his Book Jelammedenu who notes on Exod. xxxiii that the Jews would not have a created Angel go before them but God himself in these words Moses answered I will not have an Angel but thy own self Now the Jewish Commentators on this place of Exod. xxxiii explain of the Shekinah the words thy own self and always distinguish the Shekinah from all created Beings R. Salomon in his Notes on this Text has these words The Angel that delivered me i. e. the Angel who was wont to be sent to me in my affliction as it is said Gen. xxxi 11 13. And the Angel of God spake to me in a dream saying Jacob I am the God of Bethel c. The Note of R. Moses Ben Nachman on this Text Gen. xlviii 16. is very remarkable The Redeeming Angel saith he is he that answered him in the time of his affliction and who said to him I am the God of Bethel c. he of whom it is said that my name is in him The like he has on Exod. iii. where the appearance in the Bush
with the Generality of Papists though they cannot be ignorant they therein dissent from the Divinity of the ancient Jews and the Fathers of the Christian Church and even the more Learned and candid Romanists such as Masius was I might add which perhaps they have not considered though they therein contradict the whole strain of the New Testament See Mercerus ad Pagnini Lexicon p. 1254. The intended shortness of this Treatise will not permit me to enlarge on this Head However one thing I must not pass over which is worthy the examination of the less cautious Divines It is very certain that the God that appeared to Jacob in Bethel was the very God that fed Israel in the Desert and against whom the Israelites in the Wilderness did rebel Now the Apostle is express 1 Cor. x. that he was Christ whom the Jews tempted in the Wilderness i. e. that he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not a meer Angel The Apostle takes it for granted it was a thing undisputed by the Synagogue in his time And indeed unless this be allowed St. Paul's reasoning in this Chapter is trifling and groundless Well! what can Bellarmine say to this he who asserts a created Angel to be spoken of Gen. xlviii 16. He has forgot what he said on that Text when he is come to this place He here strenuously urges it against the Socinians to prove that Christ was then in being when the Jews tempted him in the Wilderness And since hereby he owns that Christ in his Divine Nature was he that led Israel through the Wilderness who is sometimes called God and sometimes an Angel he inconsiderately grants what he had denied before that the Angel who redeemed Jacob from all evil being the same Angel that conducted Israel was also God SECT VI. You see what Contradictions Bellarmine falls into out of his zeal to promote the Doctrine of Invocation of Saints I wish there were not something as bad in our Divines that carries them in the like Contradictions The best I can say for their excuse is only this They have not carefully attended to the Stile of Holy Scripture Two or three things therefore I will mention which occur frequently in Scripture that methinks would have suggested higher thoughts of this Angel to one that considered what he read He that considers how often our Lord Christ is called in the New Testament the Spouse or Husband of the Church and compares it with the same Title that God appropriates to himself under the Old Testament Estate will make little doubt that it was the same Christ who was then married to Israel By the same rule one may infer that our Lord Christ in calling himself a Shepherd had a respect to that Title by which he is so often ascribed in his dealings with Jacob and his Posterity This the ancienter Jews were sensible of and therefore both here Gen. xlviii 15. and ch xlix 24. where God is mentioned as a Shepherd they understand it of the Shekinah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. Menachem de Rekanah from the Book Habbahir in Pent. f. 84. c. 2. Of this also the Jews in Christ's time were not ignorant who hearing Christ in one of his Sermons likening himself to the good Shepherd Joh. x. did presently apprehend that he would be thought the Messias and therefore took up stones to stone him And then in the process of his Discourse to maintain this Character he made himself one with the Father As Christ called himself a Shepherd to shew that he was the God that had fed Jacob and his Posterity like sheep so also is Christ most frequently represented in the New Testament under the Notion of a Redeemer intimating thereby that he was the same Redeeming Angel of whom Jacob had spoken It was he that was called * Isa lxiii 9. the Angel of his Presence by whom God redeem'd his ancient People And he is also called the Angel of the Covenant †Mal. iii. 1. in the promise of his coming in the time of the Gospel Here I should have put an end to this Tract but for two Objections that lye in my way and seem to require some kind of Answer The first is taken from the Jews who many of them expound this Redeeming Angel by Metatron and Metatron according to them being a created Angel or as some say no other than Enoch that was Translated there seems to be as many Authorities against us as for us But let it be observed 1. Though the Jews have several Names of Angels which are not mentioned in Scripture yet they are all formed out of the Names of God according to the Rules of their Cabala and that with respect to the Ten Sephiroth as Buxtorf has noted Lex Talm. p. 828. 2. This is plain from the word Actariel which is at the head of the Jewish forms of Excommunication * v. Bartolocci f. 4. 450. This is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name of the first of the Ten Sephiroth whence the Talmudists place Actariel upon the Throne Beracoth f. 7. c. 1. and distinguish him from the Ministring Angels that stand before the Throne But I refer the curious Reader that would know more of this to the ancient Jewish Book Intituled Berith Menucha c. 1. 3. This is no less plain of the Angel Metatron who as they say was he that discoursed with Moses Exod. iii. and the Angel in whom God placed his Name So that they acknowledge though it is framed from the Latin Tongue yet it expresses the same that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does as R. S. Jarchi on Exod. xxiii confesses Now St. Hierome on Ezek. i. 24. notes that the Greek Interpreters sometimes render God's Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which leads us into the meaning of those ancient Jews that accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Metatron to be the same 4. The Generality of Jews are so far from believing Metatron to be Enoch that they believe him to be the Messias the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before his Incarnation in our phrase but in theirs the Soul of the Messias which they look on as something between God and the Angels whom nothing separates from the Living God See Reuchlin l. i. de Cabala p. 651. where he proves Metatron to be the Messias from their Writings Or in short take the confession of Menasse ben Israel Q. 6. in Gen. § 2. And truly if one would compare all those places of the Old Testament that mention the Angel whom the later Jews call Metatron he would find such Properties belonging to this Angel as are incommunicable to a Creature And this shews that they who have departed in this point from the Tradition of their Fathers did it on this ground because they were loth to acknowledge the Divinity of the Messias which seemed to be clear upon allowing Metatron to be the Messias They were more
xii 22 337  25 26 315 351  29 337 I PET iii. 21 46 II PET. i. 21 48 ii 16 231 iii. 5 345 I JOHN i. 1 5 213 v. â—7 99 347 REVELATIONS i.  337  4 458 ii  7 iii. 1 458 xii 1 64 xix 10 2â—4  6 337 xxii 2 42 337  14 42  9 234 THE TABLE OF MATTERS ALlegorical Expositions in use before Christ's time Page 24 45 57. Angel of the Face or Presence of God Called the Redeemer vid. Dissert Page 433. Apocryphal Books among the Jews cited and followed in the New Testament Page 14 15 16 17 18. Apocryphal Books in our Bibles their Antiquity Page 67 68. Their freedom from corruptions Page 71 72. Appearances Page 201 c. Cabalistical Divinity receiv'd by the Jews Page 179 180 381. Embased about Christ's time Page 363. Chaldee Paraphrases their Original Page 27 84 85. And Antiquity Page 91. Progress Page 28 86 c. Antiquity of those we have Page 85 86 88 89. Their Interpretations Page 94 95 96 c. Christ See Messias Divine Essence its kind of Unity Page 121 268. Plurality of Persons in it Page 116 118 120 c. Distinguished by the Name Sephiroth Page 163 Prosopa Page 160 167 164 171. Panim or Faces and Havioth or Substance Page 171. And Madregoth or degrees Page 163. Wisdom coming from the Infinite Page 169. And Understanding from the Infinite by Wisdom Page 168. Yet they are all one Page 170 174. Elias a kind of second Moses Page 244. Enoch's Prophesie how anciently known Page 319. God His Name Eloah in the Singular used in Scripture Page 117. His Name Elohim in the Plural joyned with a Singular Page 116. He speaks in the Plural and why Page 117 118. God understood by the Jews where only King is exprest Page 119. Why called God of Gods Page 122. His Name Elohim signifies Plurally Page 125 161. Greek Learning discouraged among the Jews Page 30. Jews early Provision against the Christian Objections Page 323 324. Law by whom given Page 349 350. Messias to be like Moses Page 22. Spoken of by all the Prophets Page 32 266. By Isaiah chap. liii Page 33. In Canticles Page 25 33 268. Rules for Interpreting Prophecies concerning him Page 34 35. Messias expected according to the Jews ever since Adam's time Page 42 43. To be united with the second Number or Wisdom at his Coming Page 171. The same with the Word Page 254 c. With the Shekinah Page 333 334 c. To be a Prophet Page 261. Messias â—s the Son of God Page 267 c. And Bridegroom of the Church Page 272 284 299. The true Jehovah Page 278 c. His Great Dignity Page 286. Messias is God according to the Gospels Page 300 301 c. He is to be Worshipped Page 289. Messias a Shepherd Page 304 316. Why Christ did not expresly assume the Title of God Page 339. Christ or Messias Crucified for affirming himself to be the Son of God Page 388. Moses's Education in Egyptian Learning Page 13. Platonick Philosophy out of credit in Philo's time Page 356 360. Occasioned the Heresies in the Christian Church Page 361. If Plato's Morality and not his Divinity followed by the first Christians Page 360 361. Plato borrowed the Notion of a Trinity from the Jews Page 362. Powers of God what Page 122 146 147 150. They made the World Ib. 129. Philo's Notions of them but not so clear Page 155 156. They are said to be the same as Wisdom and Understanding by the Cabbalists Page 161 162. Simon called himself the Power of God Page 134. Those Powers called Prosopa Page 160. Psalms their Titles by whom affixed Page 19. Rules for Interpreting them Page 20. Pythagoras had many Notions from the Hebrews Page 354 356. Scripture-Reading discouraged by the Jews after Christ's time Page 326. Misinterpreted by way of Accommodation Page 423. By the Modern Jews Page 392 Talm. By the Socinians Page 414 415 c. Shekinah the same with the Word Page 149 272. And sometimes used for the Spirit Ib. 168. The several Appearances of it to the Patriarchs and under the Legal Dispensation Page 165 166 286. Called Father Page 167. And Jehovah to whom Prayers of the Jews were directed Page 279. It s coming into the Tabernacle Page 225. And Temple Page 243. Leaving the Temple Page 247. It s Return Page 248 Its expected Appearance in a visible manner in the age of the Messias Page 263 275. Shekinah to be a Priest Page 282. To be the same with the Messias Page 286 333 c. Shekinah called Rachel Page 328. A Stone Page 330. The Finger of God Page 331. Simonians some of their Opinions Page 135 136. Spirit made all Things Page 102 111 c. Is a Person in Gen. i. 2. Page 141. An Uncreated Being Page 162. And not Air or Wind Page 155. Called sometimes the Shekinah Page 149. But more commonly Bina or Understanding Page 167 Called by the Cabbalists Mother Page 167. And the Mouth of God and the Spirit of Holiness and the Sanctifier Page 173. Seven Spirits the Spirit of God Page 456 459. Traditions how many sorts Page 11 12. Time of the Authors of them Page 13. One kind useful to clear the Text Page 20 21. To understand the Prophecies of the Messias Page 22. Used by the Apostles in the sense of Texts quoted by them Page 316 317 318. And Justin Martyr Page 319 320 321. Types their Ground Page 45. Oft used by the Apostles Page 46. Unity of Divine Essence according to the Jews Page 121 268. Wisdom made all Things Page 102 104 162 173. Begot by God Page 121. To be united with the Messias Page 171. Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence so called Page 127. The Use of it among the Jews Page 365. Made all Things Page 102 103 126 129. Man especially Page 130. After his Image Page 129 131. Is an Emanation from God Page 102. The same with an Uncreated Angel Page 104 106 108 194 195 203 206 215. That acted in all the Divine Appearances in the Old Testament Page 183. Objections against this answered Page 346 347 348. The Son of God Page 121 183. A Person Page 193 372. A true Cause or Agent Page 125 126 A Divine Person Page 196 197 366 373. Used by the Chaldee Paraphrasts for Jehovah and Elohim Page 372 374. In the Text Page 149. And by the Targums a Word a Man Page 259. The same with the Shekinah Page 149 272. And with Wisdom Page 162 163 164 272. And Messias Page 254 c. A Mediator Page 183. A Teacher Ibid. A Shepherd Ib. p. 275. The Sun of Righteousness Page 256. God swears by his Word Page 209. The Word prayed to Page 210 211. The Word gave the Law Page 219 c. And spoke from off the Mercy-seat Page 225 245 247. Zohar its Author probably Page 177. ERRATA Praecipua sic Corrigenda Page Line  13