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
that is to say he lived in the reign of Herod the Great about thirty years before the Birth of our Lord. And some Criticks believe our Saviour does cite his Chaldee Paraphrase Luc. iv 18. in quoting the Text Isa lx 2. Thus much may at least be said for it that all that which is there cited does agree better with his Targum than with the Original Text. Onkelos a Proselyte was he according to their common account who turned the five Books of Moses into Chaldee This Work is rather a pure simple Translation than a Paraphrase notwithstanding it must be allowed that in divers places he does not endeavour so much to give us the Text word for word as to clear up the sense of certain places which otherwise could not well be understood by the people This Onkelos according to the common opinion of the Jews saw Jonathan and lived in the time of that ancient Gamaliel who was Master of the Apostle St. Paul as some would have it We find in Megillah c. 1. that he Composed his Targum under the Conduct of R. Eliezer and of R. Josua after the year of our Lord 70 and that he died in the year of our Lord 108 and that his Targum was immediately received into the publick use of the Jews what other Targums there were on the five Books of Moses having almost wholly lost their credit and their authority As to the other Sacred Books which the Jews call Cetouvim or Hagiographes they ascribe the Targums of the Psalms the Proverbs and Job to R. Joseph Caeeus and affirm that he lived a long time after Onkelos And for the Targums of the other Books they look on them as works of Anonymous Authors However the most part of these Targums have been Printed under the name of Jonathan as if he had been Author of them all There are moreover some scraps of a Paraphrase upon the five Books of Moses which is called the Jerusalem Targum and there is another that bears the name of Jonathan upon the Pentateuch and which some Learned Jews have said to be his As doth R. Azaria Imrebinah c. 25. and the Author of the Chain of Tradition p. 28. after R. Menahem de Rekanati who cites it under the name of Jonathan following some Ancient MSS. These Targums ordinarily exceed the bounds of a Paraphrase and enter into Explications some of which are strange enough and appear to be the work of divers Commentators who among some good things have very often mixed their own idle Fancies and Dreams Beckius nineteen years ago published a Paraphrase on the two Books of Chronicles of which also there is a MSS. at Cambridge This deserves almost the same Character with these Paraphrases I spoke of last For the Author of this as well as those before mentioned does often intermingle such Explications as taste of the Commentator with those which appear to have been taken from the Ancient Perushim or Explications of the most Eminent Authors of the Synagogue A Man must be mighty credulous if he gives credit to all the fables which the Jews bring in their Talmud to extoll the authority of Jonathan his Targum and he must have read these Pieces with very little attention or judgment who should maintain that they are entirely and throughout the Works of the Authors whose names they bear or that they are of the same antiquity in respect of all their parts Onkelos is so simple that it seems nothing or very little has been added to him and he has been in so great esteem among the Jews that they have commonly inserted his Version after the Text of Moses verse for verse in the Ancient Manuscripts of the Pentateuch And from thence we may judge if there is any ground for the Conjecture of some Jews who would persuade us that it is only an Abridgment of the Targum of Jonathan upon the Pentateuch Certainly Jonathan his Targum upon the Pentateuch must be of a very dubious origin since we see that the Zohar cites from it the first words which are not to be found in it but in the Targum of Jerusalem fol. 79. col 1. l. 17. It is uncertain if the Targum of Jerusalem hath been a continued Targum or only the Notes of some Learned Jew upon the Margent of the Pentateuch or an abridgment of Onkelos for it hath a mixture of Chaldaick Greek Latin and Persian words which sheweth it hath been written in latter times according to the judgment of R. Elias Levita Jonathan who explained the former and the latter Prophets has not been so happy as Onkelos for it seems those that Copied his Targum have added many things to it some of which discover their Authors to have lived more than 700 years after him one may also see there a medly of different Targum of which the Targum on Isai xlix is a plain instance As to the Targums on all the other Holy Books which the Jews call the first Prophets it is visible that all their parts are not equally ancient Those which we have on Joshua and Judges are simple enough and Literal That on Ruth is full of Talmudical Ideas The same judgment may be made of those on the two Books of Samuel Those which we have on the two Books of Kings are a little freer from additions But that on Esther is rather a Commentary that collects several Opinions upon difficult places than a Paraphrase In that on Job attributed to R. Joseph in the Jews Edition at Venice in Folio Anno 1515. there are divers Targums cited in express Terms as there are also in the Targum on the Psalms which bears the name of R. Joseph in the aforesaid Edition of Venice One may also observe many Additions in the Targums on the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes but especially in that upon the Canticles all which have been published under the name of R. Joseph I have said almost as much of that on the two Books of Chronicles which Beckius published about eighteen or nineteen years ago This being so one may very well ask with what justice do you ascribe these Books to those who as the Jews now say were the Authors of them when by their own confession Onkelos on the five Books of Moses is perhaps the only Translator in whom you find none of these marks of corruption which you acknowledg in the other Targums you quote For the other Targums it may be said that we ought to leave them out of the Dispute unless we would impose the new Sentiments of the Jews that lived long after Christ's time under the pretence of producing the opinions of the ancient Synagogue before Jesus Christ One may insist upon it that we are to quote the Books of Onkelos only and lay the other aside as Books of no authority since we do confess that they are full of Additions in which there are many Fables and Visions borrowed from the Talmudical Jews I might hope to satisfie any
Martyr having been formerly a Platonist and then turning Christian was the first that invented this Doctrine or rather adopted it out of the Platonick into the Christian Divinity and that neither the Jewish nor the Christian Church had ever before conceived any Notion of a Trinity or of any Plurality in the Divine Essence The Doctrine of the Trinity supposes the Divine Essence to be common to three Persons distinguished from one another by incommunicable Properties These Persons are called by St. John 1 Joh. v. 7. the Father the Word and the Spirit There are Three saith he that bear Witness in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these Three are One. This Personal distinction supposes the Father not to be the Son nor the Holy Ghost and that the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit Revelation teaching that the Son is begotten of the Father and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or from the Father by the Son And this distinction is the foundation of their Order and of their Operations For although the Unity of the Divine Nature makes it necessary that these three Persons should all co-operate in the Works of God ad extra as we call them nevertheless there being a certain order among the Persons and a distinction founded in their Personal Properties the Holy Scripture mentioneth an Oeconomy in their Operations so that one work ad extra is ascribed to the Father another to the Son and a third to the Holy Spirit But this distinction of Persons all partaking of the same common Nature and Majesty hinders not their being equally the Object of that Worship which Religion commands us to pay to God I touch this matter but very briefly because my business is only to examine whether the Jews had any notion of this Doctrine And our Opinion is this that though the Gospel has proposed that Doctrine more clearly and distinctly yet there were in the Old Testament sufficient notices of it so that the Jews before Christ's time did draw from thence their Notions concerning it On the contrary the Socinians maintain that this Doctrine is not only alike foreign to the Books of the Old and New Testament but that it was altogether unknown to the Jews before and after Christ till Justin Martyr first brought it into the Church In opposition to which I affirm for truth 1. That the Jews before Jesus Christ had a notion of a Plurality in God following herein certain Traces of this Doctrine that are to be found in the Books of Moses and the Prophets 2. That the same Jews following the Scriptures of the Old Testament did acknowledg a Trinity in the Divine Nature I begin the Examination of this Subject by considering the Notions of the Authors of the Apocryphal Books Now one cannot expect that these Authors should have explained their mind with relation to the notions of a Plurality and of a Trinity in the Godhead as if they had been Interpreters of the Books of the Old Testament But they express it sufficiently without that and speak in such a manner that no body can deny that they must have had those very Notions when it appears that their Expressions in speaking of God supposes the Notions of a Plurality in the Godhead and of a Trinity in particular Let us consider some of those Expressions 1. They were so full of the notion of a Plurality which is expressed in Gen. i. 26. that the Author of Tobith hath used it as the Form of Marriage among the Jews of old Let us make unto him an aid So Chap. 8.6 Thou madest Man and gavest him Eve his Wife for an helper and stay of them came Mankind Thou hast said It is not good that Man should be alone Let us make unto him an aid like unto himself whereas in the Hebrew it is only I shall make 2ly We see that they acknowledg the Creation of the World by the Word of God and by the Holy Ghost as David Psal xxxiii 6. So the Book of Wisdom Ch. ix 1. O God of my Fathers and Lord of mercy who hath made all things with thy Word or more properly by thy Word as it is explained in the 2. vers and ver 4. he asketh Wisdom in these words Give me Wisdom that sitteth by thy Throne And v. 17. Thy counsel who hath known except thou give Wisdom and send thy Holy Spirit from above Where he distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Wisdom and the Holy Spirit from God to whom he directs his Prayer And so the Book of Judith ch xvi 13 14. I will sing unto the Lord a new Song O Lord thou art great and glorious wonderful in strength and invincible Let all creatures serve thee for thou speakest and they were made thou didst send forth thy Spirit and it created them and there is none that can resist thy voice 3ly They speak of the Emanation of the Word from God Those are the words of the Book of Wisdom ch vii 25. For she is the breath of the power of God and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty therefore can no defiled thing fall into her That description of Wisdom deserves to be considered as we have it in the same place ver 22 23 24 25 26. For Wisdom which is the worker of All things taught me for in her is an understanding spirit holy one only manifold subtil lively clear undefiled plain not subject to hurt loving the thing that is good quick which cannot be letted ready to do good Kind to man stedfast sure free from care having all power over-seeing all things and going through all understanding pure and most subtil Spirits For Wisdom is more moving than any motion she passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness For she is the brightness of the everlasting Light the unspotted mirrour of the power of God and the image of his Goodness And indeed St. Paul Heb. i. 3. hath borrowed from thence what we read touching the Son that he is the brightness of God's glory and the express Image of his Person So the Book of Ecclesiasticus saith ch xxv 3. That it is come out of the mouth of the most High 4ly There are several Names in Scripture which serve to express the second Person the Son the Word the Wisdom the Angel of the Lord but who is the Lord indeed Now those Authors use all these Names to express a second Person For they acknowledge a Father and a Son by a natural consequence Thus the Author of Ecclesiasticus ch li. 10. I called upon the Lord the father of my Lord in the same way as David speaks of the Messias Psal ii and Psal cx and as Solomon in his Proverbs ch viii 25. as of a Son in the bosom of his Father and ch xxx 4. What is his Sons name if thou canst tell They speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as
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
the Son of God in time Quod Deus sit immut p. 232. that his Word is his Image and his First-born De confus ling. p. 266. 267. B. that the Word is the Son of God before the Angels Quis rer div h. p. 397. F. G. that the Unity of God is not to be reduced to number that God is unus non unicus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Jews say in their Book of Prayers which are the very steps we take to shew that an Eternal Generation in the Divine Nature is no contradiction Nothing can be more express for to prove that there is a Son in the Godhead than what we read in the Targum of Jerusalem Gen. iii. 22. The Word of Jehovah said Here Adam whom I created is the only begotten Son in the World as I am the only begotten Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the high Heaven 3. The Prophets positively teach the Son of God who the Jews thought as under the former Head appears was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Eternal Wisdom of God to be the Messiah Thus David Psalm ii brings in God speaking of the Messiah Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee 6. V. 8. Kiss the son lest he be angry and lest you perish For thus it ought to be rendred according to Aben-Ezra and the Midrash on this Psalm and the Zohar in the place I have quoted just now which Expression is also used by Solomon Cant. i. 2. Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth which the old Jews refer to the Messias in Shir hashirim Rabba fol. 5. Col. 2 3. and in Midrash Tehillim ad Ps lxviii v. 4. I confess that we read in Tehillim Rabbathi upon this iid Psalm a kind of answer to this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he doth not say thou art a Son to me but thou art my Son and they pretend that God speaks to the Messias as a Master to his Servant The Inquisitors of Italy take great care to blot out that Answer in the Books which they give leave to the Jews to keep in their Houses But it is a ridiculous fear for the solution is so absurd that it is exploded as soon as you look upon the description of that Son which is in the Book of Proverbs Chap. xxx 4. I own also that we find not in the body of Philo's Works any formal Explication of these words This day have I begotten thee from whence we can directly conclude that he understood them of an Eternal Generation But we find something equivalent to it For speaking of these words You who were obedient to the Lord are alive this day he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De profug p. 358. E. That this is not a simple Conjecture appears from the manner of Philo's explicating of himself as he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in two places cited by Eus Praep. Ev. vii p. 323. out of Phil. de Agric. 1 11. For in the first place he calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First-born of God And in the other the Eternal Word of the Eternal God begotten by the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Title of Son is given to the Messias Psal lxxii 17. That this Psalm was understood of the Messias by the Ancient Jews 't is acknowledged by Raschi who against their unanimous Consent thinks fit to apply it to Solomon now the Hebrew word there is Innon being formed from Nin which signifies a Son Hence it is that the Jews make Innon one of the Titles of the Messias in Midrash Tillim on Psalm xciii and in the Talmud Sanhedrim c. 11. fol. 98. col 2. and in Rabboth fol. 1. col 3. And it follows in the Text that he had this Name before the Son that is before the Creation as Eternity is described Psal xc 2. Prov. viii 22 29. Again Psal lxxx 15. where the Psalmist prays God to look down and visit his Vine and the Vineyard which his right hand hath planted the Targum renders these last words and the Plant which thy right hand hath planted that is King Messias The Psalmist goes on in these words and the Branch which thou madest strong for thy self The Targum reads them even for thy Son's sake and interprets them even for the sake of King Messias So likewise in v. 17. where we render the words Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thy self the LXX have only on the Son and the Targum interprets them of King Messias God saith Psal lxxxix 25 26. I will set his hand in the sea and his right hand in the rivers He shall cry unto me thou art my father The Ancient Jews refer this to the Messias and also many of the Modern Jews finding such difficulty in applying to Solomon many of the Characters in this Psalm agree with the Ancients in their Interpretation The following Writers of the Holy Scriptures are as express as David is in this matter Prov. viii 22 23 24 25. is well worth perusing principally for this Title given Wisdom of a Son in the bosom of her Father Upon which take Philo's Reflection de Profug p. 358. A. To the Question Why is Wisdom spoken of in the Feminine he Answers it is to preserve to God the Character of a Father from whom he thought the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drew his Nature as being as he elsewhere de Agric. calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Eternal Son of the Everlasting Father And nothing is more common amongst the Jewish Writers than 1. To maintain that the Shekinah the Wisdom and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same 2dly To refer to the Messias as being the same with the Shekinah those very Places which are to be understood of the Shekinah and to the Shekinah those Places which are to be understood of the Messias If any man cast his eyes upon Jonathan Targum and the Targum Jerusalami commented by R. Mardochay and printed lately at Amsterdam he shall find that by the common consent of the Jewish Interpreters whose words he fully relates the Wisdom which is spoken Prov. iii. and Prov. viii is the same by which the World hath been created 2dly That this Wisdom is the same which is called the Shekinah the Memra it is called by Philo the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him now look upon the Places of the Prophets which are constantly spoken of the Messias and he shall find that they are referred by the best Authors of the Synagogue to the Shekinah so that it is clear they had the same Idea of the Shekinah and of the Messias and must have lookt upon the Messias as he that must have been the proper Son of God I will shew some Instances of what I advance to spare the trouble to my Reader 1st They maintain that this Wisdom by
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.
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
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
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
Esdras so I am resolved not to make any use of it The Antiquity and the Jewish Origin of all these Books that we call Apocryphal being so settled there is nothing to be done but to consider what is the ground of the Conjecture of Grotius who pronounces boldly in his Preface to the Book of Wisdom Eum librum nactus Christianus aliquis Graecè non indoctus in Graecum vertit libero nec ineleganti dicendi genere Christiana quaedam commodis locis addidit quod libro Syracidae quem dixi evenit sed in Latino huic magis quam in Graeco non quod nesciam post Esdram explicatius proponi caepisse patientiam piorum judicium universale vitam aeternam supplicia gehennae sed quia locutiones quaedam magis Evangelium sapiunt quam vetustiora tempora But to speak my mind plainly this Conjecture of Grotius is absolutely false and without any ground 1. Whence had he this particular account of the Jewish Faith and Religion in the time of Esdras so as to be able to judge by it which was written long after Esdras and to shew that the Notions of these Books are clearer than the Ideas which were among the Jews before Jesus Christ He goes only upon that Principle that the Jews since they were under the Greek Empire began to be more acquainted with the Ideas of the Eternal Life and of Eternal Punishment and of the last Judgment than they were before which is the Principle of Socinus and of his Followers but that Christians had much clearer Ideas of those Notions than the Jews had since Esdras his time 2ly Is it not an intolerable boldness to accuse those Books of having been so interpolated without giving any proof of it but his meer Conjecture I confess there are several various Readings in those Books as there are in Books which having been of a general use were transcribed many times by Copists of different industry one more exact and more learned than the other But to say that a Christian hath interpolated them designedly is a thing which can no more be admitted than to suppose that they have corrupted the Greek Version of the Books of the Old Testament to which those Books were joined in the Greek Bible as soon as it came into the hands of the Christians 3ly To suppose that a Christian hath been the Author of the Translation of some of those Books is a thing advanced with great absurdity since there was a Translation of these Books quoted by Philo and by St. Paul in his Epistles Now I would ask from Grotius how he can prove that there was a second Version of the Book of Wisdom made by a Christian after Jesus Christ what was the need of it since there was one before Jesus Christ And if any Christian did undertake such a new one without necessity how it came to pass that it was received instead of the Version which was in use amongst the Jews and was added to the Books of Scripture and of the Copies which were in the hands of Christians I need not to urge many other absurdities against Grotius his Conjecture I take notice only 1. That Grotius was far from ridiculing the Book of Wisdom as the Socinian Author of the Book against Dr. Bull hath done in his Judgment of the Fathers 2ly That the ridiculing of such an Author as the Book of Wisdom sheweth very little Judgment in Mr. N. He had better have made use of the Glosses of Grotius than to venture upon such rough handling of an Author quoted by St. Paul whose quoting him giveth him more credit than he can lose by a thousand censures of a Man who writes so injudiciously 3ly That the very place which Mr. N. ridicules is so manifestly taken from the Psalm xix which contains a Prophecy touching the Messias and from the Song of Isaiah ch 5. that whosoever reflects seriously upon such a ridiculing of the Book of Wisdom made by Mr. N. can 't but have a mean notion of his sense of Religion After all let Mr. N. do what he can with the Conjecture of Grotius I am very little concerned in his Judgment First because the matter which we are to handle is not the matter which Grotius suspects to have been foisted in by some Christian Interpreter 2ly Because I am resolved to make use in this Controversie only of those places of the Apocryphal Books in which they express the sense of the Old Synagogue before Jesus Christ as I shall justifie they have done by the consent of the same Synagogue after Jesus Christ and no body can suspect with any probability of the Old Synagogue that they have borrowed the Ideas of Christians and have inserted them in their ancient Books written so long time before Jesus Christ's Birth CHAP. VI. That the Works which go under the name of Philo the Jew are truly his and that he writ them a long while before the time of Christ's Preaching the Gospel and that it does not appear in any of his Works that ever he had heard of Christ or of the Christian Religion TO shew the Judgment of the Ancient Synagogue in the Points controverted between us and the Unitarians we make great use of the Writings of Philo the Jew which if they are his it cannot be denied do put this matter out of Question Our Adversaries therefore as it greatly concerns them do deny that those Works which bear his name were written by Philo the Jew By whom then were they written They say by another Philo a Christian who lived toward the end of the second Century and who as Mr. N. saith counterfeited the Writings of the famous Philo of Alexandria who was sent Embassadour to Caligula by those of his own Nation in the year of Christ 40. It is easie to refute this Suggestion of theirs And yet I cannot but acknowledge it has some kind of colour from that which we read in Eusebius and Jerome who tell us that Philo has given a Character of the Apostolick Christians in his Book de Therapeutis To which some have added that at his second coming to Rome under Claudius to be Embassadour at his Court as he was before at Caligula's he then became acquainted with St. Peter the Apostle of Christ I am therefore to prove these Propositions 1. That those Books we have under the name of Philo are the Works of a Jew of whom there is not the least appearance in his Writings that he knew any thing of Christianity nor that he ever heard of Jesus Christ or his Apostles 2. That it appears by the Books themselves that they were written before Jesus Christ began to Preach 3. That there is no foundation for what Eusebius says and also St. Jerome who Copied from Eusebius concerning Philo's account of a sort of Christians whom he describes under the name of Therapeutae 4. That the History of the Conversation between St. Peter and Philo is a ridiculous Fable which
Eusebius took upon hear-say from he knew not whom or from an Author whom he did not think fit to name for fear it should give no credit to his Story The first Proposition namely That these Pieces were written by one that was a Jew by Religion this one cannot doubt of if he considers these following things 1. That in all these Pieces of Philo where-ever he has occasion to make use of Authority he fetches it only out of the Jewish Scriptures And those are the only Scriptures that he takes upon him to explain He quotes Moses whom he usually calls the Law-giver as we do the Sayings of our Lord Jesus Christ And sometimes tho very rarely he quotes other Writings of the Old Testament But I dare affirm that in all his Treatises he cites not one passage from the New Testament which thing alone is sufficient to prove that he was no Christian For the first Christians used to cite the New Testament with as much care and even affection as the Jews did the Old But Secondly one had need have an Imagination as strong as Mr. N. to fancy that a Christian Author in the end of the Second Century could write as Philo does upon most part of the Books of Moses without mixing some touches at least at the Christian Religion And yet there is no such thing in all Philo's Works He takes it for his business to make the Jews understand their Law according to their Midrashim in an Allegorical way and to teach the Heathens that their prejudices against the Law of Moses were unjust and that they ought to acknowledg the Divinity of this Law which he explained to them This is the end or design of this Author in all his Works 3dly It appears that he according to the opinion of the Jewish Nation did expect the Messias as a great Temporal King yet to come as is evident from the Interpretation he gives of Balaam's Prophecy touching the Messias in his Book de Praemiis p. 716. 4thly In all his Works there is nothing peculiar to Christ that Mr. N. can alledg except in what is written of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very thing in dispute between us and him but even that doth not hinder but that the Jews themselves finding every thing in Philo so agreeable to the Notions that their Ancestors had in his Age do own them to be the Writings of a Jew and of Philo in particular As we see in Manasseh ben Israel who in many places alledges his Authority In Exod. p. 137. and shews that his Opinions do generally agree with those of their most ancient Authors The second thing I have to shew is that it appears from the Books themselves and other wise that many of them were composed before Jesus Christ began to Preach the Gospel Christ's Preaching began in Palestine in the year of the Building of Rome 783. But the Author of the Book Quod omnis probus sit Liber which has always been accounted undoubtely Philo's does note that the obstinate resistance of those of Xanthus in Lycia against M. Brutus was an affair fresh in memory as having happened 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not much before the writing of that Book Now this which he tells us of the Xanthians happened not long after the death of Julius Caesar who was killed on the 13th of March in the year of Rome 709 for Brutus himself was kill'd at the time of the Battel of Philippi which was in Autumn in the year 712. Therefore Philo could not say it happened not long since if he writ so long after as in the year Urb. Con. 783. when Christ began to Preach for according to the common manner of speaking no man could say a thing happened not long since that happened before the remembrance of any man then living But if that Book was writ before Christ began to preach the Gospel much more were all those Books which we make use of against the Unitarians for according to the Order in which these Books are rankt by Eusebius this Book Quod omnis probus est Liber was one of the last that Philo writ The first that Eusebius names were the Three Books of Allegories after which he goes on to the Books of Questions and Answers upon Genesis and upon Exodus he tells us besides That Philo took pains to examine particular difficulties which might arise from several Histories in those Books and names the several Books that Philo writ of this sort This Order of his Books was observed in the Manuscripts which Eusebius hath exactly followed and it is agreeable enough to the Jewish Method of handling the Scripture by way of Questions and Answers which is still the Title of many Jewish Books of this Nature We may gather the same truth from another part of Philo which tells us expresly that he studi'd the Scriptures Primâ aetate when he was young and he complains of being called afterwards to publick business and that he had not now leisure to attend to the study of the Scriptures as formerly Lib. de Leg. spec p. 599. Therefore all his Books before were written in his younger days and especially his Three Books of Allegories which Eusebius placeth first before any of the rest Josephus in his Antiq. Lib. xviii c. 10. assures us That Philo was the Chief and most considerable of the Jews employed by those of Alexandria in the Embassy to Caligula This man saith he eminent among those of his Nation appeared before Caligula his Death which was A. U. C. 793. That is to say in the 40th year of our Lord. Now Philo in the History of his Legation to Caligula says of himself That he was at that time all grey with Age that is 70 years old according to the Jewish Notion of a man with grey hair Pirke Avoth c. 5. Suppose then that he was 70 years old when he appeared before Caligula it follows that he was born in the year of Rome 723. Suppose also that he began to write at 30 years old it will fall in with the year of Rome 793. That is to say 30 years before Christ preach'd in Judaea For Jesus Christ began not to preach till the year of Rome 783. The Third Assertion is as easy to be justified For though Baronius makes much of that fancy of Eusebius who to prove the Antiquity of Monastic Life held that Philo's Therapeutae were Christians and who was herein followed by St. Hierom without Examination yet others of the most Learned Papists as particularly Lucas Holstenius and Hen. Valesius have confest that herein Eusebius was mistaken Indeed one need only read the Book de Therapeutis it self or even the first period of it to be convinced that those whom Philo there describes were the Jews of the Essen Sect and the Essens were as Josephus plainly shews in the account he gives of them as much Jews by Religion as the Pharisees were Photius who was a better
reasonable Reader that sticks at this difficulty by telling him First in few words that I will scarce ever cite any of these Targums but when they say the same thing that Onkelos doth And secondly that these as well as Onkelos are owned by the Jews And it cannot with any colour of reason be imagined that the Jews since Christ's time have adopted Books contrary to their Religion and used them in their common reading as true Versions of the Law and the Prophets It is certain that the Jews many Centuries ago have taken them for such And therefore these Books in whatsoever time they were written are sufficient testimonies of the Opinions of the Synagogue But I have something more considerable to offer for the establishing of the Authority of these Paraphrases as well as of that of Onkelos in our dispute with our Unitarians against whom we shall have occasion to make use of the Testimony of these Paraphrases For this one needs only examine these Paraphrases with an ordinary attention I pray therefore the Reader to consider 1. That whatsoever has been said in general for the necessity that there was for the making of these Chaldee Paraphrases the same does also confirm the antiquity of all these Paraphrases if not as to every part of them yet at least as to the main of these Paraphrases such as we now have them almost on every Book of the Old Testament 2ly We see in the Misna a clear mention made of some Targums upon the Law and the first Prophets Megillah cap. 4. Sect. 9 10. which must be Onkelos and Jonathan 3ly We read in the Gemarah of Sabbath cap. 16. fol. 115. col 1. an account of the Targum upon Job which Raban Gamaliel the Grand-father to R. Judah who compiled the Misna had read Now if the Paraphrase on the Books of Job was in common use so anciently who can doubt but that they had the like Versions also on the Books of Moses and on the Prophets Nay we see that Jesus Christ upon the Cross cites the xxii Psalm according to the Chaldee Paraphrase and not according to the Hebrew This he did that he might be understood by them that were present at that time from whence it follows that the Jews in Judea had a Paraphrase of the Book of Psalms and that that Paraphrase was already received among them before the time of our Blessed Saviour I know some Criticks will not allow the Misnah which speaks of the Targums to be so ancient as I do Their great reason is that this Book is cited by none of the Fathers who lived just after it was written and that it is mentioned by no body before Justinian the Emperour his time But this Objection proceeds only from an oversight of these Criticks who have not observed that although I should grant what they suppose to be true it would not weaken the Authority of the Misnah when the Author of the Misnah does witness the antiquity of the Targums because the Misnah is not a Book of a common form but a collection of many old Decisions as the Book of Justinian which is called Digestum which is not Justinian his work but his Collection or as the Book of Gratian which is called Decretum which is nothing but the Compilation of Canons or Decisions of Fathers who lived six or seven hundred years before Gratian. That hath been judiciously remark'd by Paul Archbishop of Burgos in the Preface to his Scrutinium and in this judgment he follows Maymonides in his Preface upon his Jad Kazaka And indeed we must observe that almost all the famous Rabins which are mentioned in the Misnah are the very Men which are mentioned by St. Com. on Isa 8.14 Jerome as the great Authors of the Judaick Traditions If the Learned Men do not like the Conjecture of R. Elias Levita upon the Targum of Jerusalem but would have it to be the rest of an entire work upon the Pentateuch Let them examine how it came to pass that the Jerusalem Paraphrase on the Pentateuch is almost all lost So that there remain only some few bits of it here and there on some Texts and then they will find that perhaps it is not lost but that it subsists in great measure in that which is under Jonathan his name on the Pentateuch Whence it is probably that in some MSS. it bears the name of the Targum of Jerusalem and in other 's the name of Jonathan's Targum It is easie to judge how this came to pass The Jerusalem Targum differed from that of Jonathan but in some places or perhaps it was the very Targum of Jonathan which was augmented from time to time by divers Explications Then when the Jews came to make their Paraphrase no longer than their Text that they might have the Text and the Paraphrase both together in their Bibles they did not give themselves the trouble to transcribe the Jerusalem Paraphrase all at length But they contented themselves with transcribing those parts where it appeared to have some difference from that of Jonathan and this they did after so scrupulous a manner that they transcribed the Passages of the Jerusalem Targum that agree in the sense and differ only in the words as well as those that have a different sense from that of Jonathan I know very well that the Jews speak of several Paraphrases besides that of Jonathan on the Prophets and that of Onkelos on the Books of Moses As for instance they speak of a Targum of R. Joseph who they say has translated the Books of the Prophets But as to this it ought to be considered 1. That it was the Jews Custom to teach their Scholars these Paraphrases not from a Book but from their memory and by heart and so the Scholars might very well ascribe to their Masters that which they had learnt from their mouths and their verbal instructions as well as if it had been delivered to them in writing 2. That the same places which are quoted from the Paraphrase of R. Joseph on some Books of the Prophets are to be found in express terms in Jonathan's Paraphrase which the Jews esteem more ancient than Onkelos who writ on the Law 3. R. Joseph whom they quote does himself cite the Chaldee Paraphrase as being of Authority in his time and therefore it was not his work And this appears from his Confession that he could never have understood the words of Isai viii 6. without the help of the Chaldee Paraphrase Gemara ch xi tit Sanbedr fol. 95. But notwithstanding the antiquity of these Paraphrases I own they contain Additions very new which shew that after they were written they were in such places enlarged with the Glosses of Doctors that applied themselves to the Study of the Law and took pains to shew how one part of it depended upon another of which we find nothing in Onkelos which is almost a verbal translation of the Hebrew Text into Chaldee And
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
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
Ministries were originally from God I need not spend much time to confute the fancy of those who say that the Angel of the Lord is named Jehovah because he was Jehovah's Ambassador For it is a Notion which the Unitarians have borrowed from the Modern Jews such as Menasseh Ben Isr in Gen. i. 44. But I have fully proved that it is a new Notion forged by them to save their new System It is so certain that the Old Jews believed that an Angel could not say I am Jehovah as we read Exod. xx that even the Talmudists affirm that Jehovah himself spoke these words I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt Though they say that the rest of the Law was spoken by Moses Shir. Hashirin Rabba fol. 5. col 1. CHAP. XXIII That neither Philo nor the Chaldee Paraphrasts nor the Christians have borrowed from the Platonick Philosophers their Notions about the Trinity But that Plato should have more probably borrowed his Notions from the Books of Moses and the Prophets which he was acquainted with HAving in the foregoing Chapters shewn that the Doctrine of the Trinity has its Ground in the Writings of Moses and the Prophets and that the ancient Jews before Christ did acknowledge it as appears from many places in the Apocryphal Authors in Philo and the Chaldee Paraphrasts who were exactly followed by Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Christians It may be seen how falsly the Socinians pretend that Justin Martyr was the Author of the Doctrine of the Trinity But to put them altogether from this Evasion I will shew that nothing can be more absurd than to say that if Philo was not a Christian he was at least a Platonist and that the Fathers particularly Justin Martyr brought into the Christian Religion a Doctrine which they borrowed from Plato As to Philo's being a Platonist I say first that though this were granted yet it would do the Unitarians no good The reason is because whatever Notions the Greeks had of Divine matters they had from Pherecides a Syrian who lived a long time before Plato and was Pythagoras's Master Pythagoras who afterwards was much followed by the Greeks travelled into Egypt into Arabia and into Chaldea after he had had Pherecides to his Master Plotinus does ingenuously confess that the three Original Hypostases were not of Plato's inventions but were known before him and this he makes out from Parmenides his Writings who had treated of this Notion Plot. Enn. 5. Lib. 1. Now Parmenides had the Notion of the Trinity from the Pythagoreans whose Master Pythagoras had probably borrowed it from the Jews with whom he conversed in Egypt Secondly I own that Philo was compared by many with Plato as to his Stile and that lively Eloquence for which Plato was so admired One may see by his Book Quod omnis probus sit Liber and many other of his Works that he was very conversant in these Greek Authors both Poets and Philosophers But he had been so little acquainted with Plato's Works that he brings some of Plato's opinion upon the credit of Aristotle We see that in his Book Quod mundus sit p. 728 729. He never proves his Doctrines by the Authority of Plato He Grounds all he says upon the Divine Authority speaking in the Old Testament well reflected upon as you see p. 288. where he speaks of the Three who appeared to Abraham A Jew as he was could not well have suited his Notions with Plato's For Plato believed for instance That Matter was Eternal and uncreated which is positively contrary to what Moses says of the Creation of the World and as positively rejected by Philo in his Books of Providence and that Matter had a Beginning As to the Doctrine of the Trinity Plato speaks of it so obscurely that one may justly wonder how some Christians formerly made use of his Testimony to prove it Probably he had heard of it in Egypt But what he says about it in his Parmenides though quoted by Eusebius shews that he had not a very true Notion of it He speaks of an Eternal and unbegotten Being He attributes to that Being which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a first Understanding and a first Life And Proclus does distinguish those three Principles of Plato as three different Beings But Plotinus does not agree in this with Proclus and affirms that these Three are but one and the same thing The reason why many Christians have so much esteemed Plato is the nobleness of his Morals the Maxims of which are much more elevated and Christian-like than those of other Heathen Philosophers It is true Philo seems to have followed Plato's Expressions when he calls the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a second God But it must be observed First that Philo never owns above one God And secondly that he used that expression to mark the distinction which is between Jehovah and Jehovah as I shewed already Let the thing be considered in its self It is certain that the Notion of the Trinity cannot be had from Reason It must therefore be a Doctrine either revealed by God or devised by Plato or some other from whom he received it But the Platonists are so far from believing their Master to be the first inventer of it that Proclus affirms it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a piece of Divinity delivered by God himself And Numenius a famous Platonist who lived under the two Antonines and was therefore Justin's Contemporary expresly maintains that Plato during his thirteen years stay in Egypt had learnt the Doctrine of the Hebrews as Theodoret tells us in his first Sermon against the Greeks For it is certain that many Jews fled into Egypt after Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and after the death of Gedaliah These two Testimonies are enough to prove that Plato was not the first Inventer of the Notion of a Trinity And that Philo borrowed not his Notions from Plato may further appear because Philo lived at a time when Plato's Philosophy had long ago lost much of its credit Aristotle did much lessen it But it was much more crest-fallen when the opinions of Zeno and Epicurus prevailed Zeno's Philosophy spread it self as far as Rome although the Maxims of it were barbarous and unnatural And in St. Paul's days that of Epicurus was much followed at Athens That of the Pyrrhonians got much Ground likewise So that Plato had but a very few Disciples left him In Plato's days there started up at Alexandria a Sect of Philosophers the Head of whom was one Polemo who lived under Augustus These freely rejected the most famous Opinions and pickt out what they found most rational in the several Sects of Philosophers for which reason they were called Electicks or Chusers And one needs but read Philo with Judgment to find that he followed this Sect. It appears that Philo's great design in all his Works is to shew That the Jews were infinitely
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
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