God the Word that spoke this to the People the ancient Church could not doubt as we see in the Book of Deuteronomy where Jonathan tells us that thus Moses minded his People of what they had heard and seen at the giving of the Law Deut. iv 33. Is it possible that a People should have heard the voice of the Word of the Lord the Living God speak out of the middle of the fire as you have heard and yet live Again v. 36. Out of Heaven he hath made you hear the voice of his Word and ye have heard his words out of the midst of the fire Again he puts them in mind of the fright they were in Deut. v. 23. After ye had heard the voice of the Word out of the midst of the Darkness on the Mount burning with fire all the Chiefs of you came to me and said Behold the Word of the Lord our God has shewed us the Divine Majesty of his Glory and the Excellence of his Magnificence and we have heard the voice of his Word out of the midst of the fire why should we die as we must if we hear any more of the voice of the Word of the Lord our God for who is there living in flesh that hears the voice of the Word of the Living God speaking out of the middle of the fire as we do and yet live Again Deut. xviii 16. he minds them of the same thing in some of the same Words Many more such Quotations might be added but these are sufficient to prove that it was the undoubted Tradition of the ancient Jewish Church That their Law was given by the Word of God and that it was he that appeared to Moses for this purpose As the Word gave the Law it was he that made those many Appearances to Moses throughout his whole Conduct of the People of Israel through the Wilderness To begin with that Divine Appearance which was continually in sight of all the People of Israel for forty years together throughout their whole Travel in the Wilderness namely the Pillar which they saw in the Air day and night Where this Pillar is first spoken of namely at the coming of the People of Israel up out of Egypt there it is expresly said That the Lord went before them in the Pillar of Cloud by day and fire by night Exod. xiii 21. Afterward indeed he is called the Angel of God Exod. xiv 19. where we read that the People being come to the Red-Sea and being there in imminent danger of being overtaken by the Egyptians by whom they were closely pursued the Angel which had gone before the Camp of Israel all day removed at night and went behind them That this Angel was God it is certain not only because he is called God Exod. xiii 21. xiv 24. Numb xii 5. But also because he was Worshipped Exod. xxxiii 10. which was a sure Proof of his Divinity Being therefore God himself and yet the Messenger of God it must be that this was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word and that this was the Tradition of the ancient Church we are taught not only by Philo in the place above mentioned Quis rer Div. haeres p. 397. F.G. but also by the Jerusalem Targum on Exod. xiv 24. and Jonathan on Exod. xxxiii 9. and by Onkelos on Deut. i. 32 33. as has been mentioned When the Children of Israel after the first three days march found no other Waters but what were too bitter for them to drink at which they murmured Moses cried unto the Lord who thereupon shewed him a Tree which they threw into the Waters and thereby made them sweet Exod. xv 25. Here was a Divine Appearance and it was of the Word of the Lord according to the Jerusalem Targum A Month after their coming out of Egypt for want of Bread they murmured against Moses and Aaron at which God shewed himself so much concerned that he made his Glory appear to them in the Pillar of Cloud Exod. xvi 7 10 That according to the sense of the ancient Church this was the Shekinah of the Word has been newly shown both from Philo and from all the Targums and the same we find here in this place v. 8. where Moses tells them your murmurings are not against us but against the Word of the Lord according to Onkelos and Jonathan When Exod. xvii 8 c. the Amalekites came against this poor people that had never seen War and smote the hindmost of them God not only gave his people a Victory over them but also said unto Moses write this for a Memorial in a Book That I will utterly put out the Remembrance of Amalek from under Heaven Exod. xvii 14. See how Moses performs this v. 15. In the place where they had fought he set up an Altar inscribed Jehovah Nissi The Lord is my Standard meaning that it was the will of God they should be in perpetual War against Amalek and this reason for it he entreth in his Book v. 16. according to Jonathan for the Word of the Lord has sworn by his Glory that he will have war against Amalek for all Generations The next Divine Appearance we read of was at the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai whereof enough has been already said and we must avoid being too long For which reason we omit much more that might be said of the following Appearances in the Wilderness which are all ascribed to the Word in one or other of the Targums But I ought not to omit to take notice of some special things So for their places of Worship God promised according to the Jerusalem Targum Exod. xx 24. Wheresoever you shall mention my Holy Name my Word shall appear to you and shall bless you and the Temple is called the place which the Word of the Lord your God will chuse to place his Shekinah there according to Jonathan's and the Jerusalem Targums on Deut. xii 4. Especially at the Altar for Sacrifice which was before the Door of the Tabernacle God promised Moses both for himself and the People according to Onkelos and Jonathan on Exod. xxix 42. I will appoint my Word to speak with thee there and I will appoint my Word there for the Children of Israel Above all at the Mercy-seat where the Ark stood God promised to Moses according to those Targums on Exod. xxv 22. xxx 36. Numb xxvii 4. I will appoint my Word to speak with thee there And in sum of all the Precepts in Leviticus it is said at the end of that Book according to those Targums on Levit. xxvi 46. These are the Statutes and Judgments and Laws which the Lord made between his Word and the Children of Israel When they entred into Covenant with God obliging themselves to live according to his Laws Hereby they made the Word to be their King and themselves his Subjects So Moses tells them Deut. xxvi 17. according to the Jerusalem Targum You have
made the Word of the Lord King over you this day that he may be your Glory And v. 18. The VVord of the Lord is become King over you in his own Name as over his beloved and peculiar people In consequence hereof as being their King he ordered them by his chief Minister Moses to make him a Royal Pavilion or Tabernacle and to set it up in the midst of their Camp Both that and all the furniture of it he ordered Moses to make according to the Pattern show'd him in the Mount Exod. xxv 40. Especially for the Presence of the great King there must be an Apartment in the inner part of the Tabernacle separated from the rest with a Veil Embroidered with Cherubims Exod. xxvii 31. which part was called the Most Holy Place or the Holy of Holies Exod. xxvi 33. There was to be placed the Ark overlay'd with pure Gold and having a Crown of Gold round about it In the Ark were contain'd the Tables of the Law Upon it was placed the Mercy-seat overshadowed with the Wings of two Cherubims that stood on the two Ends of the Mercy-seat Exod. xxxvii 9. looking each of them toward the other and both of them toward the Mercy-seat This Provision being made for the place of his Shekinah the Word which shewed it self before in a Pillar of Cloud by day and fire by night that stood over the Camp now from thence came to take possession of his Royal Seat in the Tabernacle over the Ark from whence out of the void space between these Cherubims it was that the Word used to speak to Moses and to give him Orders from time to time for the Government of his People according to the Paraphrasts on Exod. xxv 22. xxx 36. Numb xvii 4. and especially Numb vii 8 9. as has been above mentioned Henceforward throughout their whole Journey through the Wilderness the Pillar was constantly over the Tabernacle and the People attended his motion But whensoever he gave the Commandment then the Pillar removed and shewed which way the Camp was to go Upon notice of that then Moses first gave the word in a set form of Prayer which we have in the first six verses of the lxviii Psalm The first verse of it is Numb x. 35. in these words according to the Jerusalem Targum Arise now Oh Word of the Lord in the might of thy strength According to Jonathan's Paraphrase Appear now Oh Word of the Lord in the strength of thy wrath In both the Targums it followeth as in the Hebrew Text and the enemies of thy people shall be scattered and they that hate thee shall flee before thee When they had performed their Journey according to the will of their King which they knew by seeing the Pillar stand still then Moses used the Form for the resting of the Ark Numb x. 36. according to the forementioned Targums Return now Oh Word of the Lord to thy people Israel make the Glory of thy Shekinah dwell among them and have mercy on the Thousands of Israel This being said the Priests who carried the several â—ins of the Tabernacle took down their Burdens and set up all things as before and the Pillar returned to its place over the midst of the Tabernacle In this State of Theocracy their keeping of God's Laws is called by their Targums The believing and obeying of the Word their breaches of his Laws are called their despising and rebelling against the Word Of the use of both these manners of speaking there might be given more instances than can be easily numbred The Targums likewise ascribe to the Word both the rewarding of their Obedience and the punishing of their Transgressions On their Obedience according to the Targums it was the usual promise that the Word should be their help or support Numb xxiii 8 21. that he should bless them and multiply them Deut. xxiv 19. that he should rejoice over them to do them good Deut. xxviii 63. xxx 9. They were told that he would be a consuming fire to their enemies Deut. iv 24. particularly that he was so to the Anakims Deut. ix 3. That it was he that delivered Og into their hands Deut. iii. 2. That it was he that would cast out all the Nations before them Deut. xi 22. On the other hand according to the sense of the ancient Church it was the Word that punished them for their disobedience and also it was he that forgave them upon their Repentance Of both these kinds there are many remarkable instances as particularly of the punishing of their disobedience according to Jonathan on Exod. xxxii 35. It was the Word that destroyed the people for worshipping the Calf that Aaron made For their lusting at Kibroth-hattaava Moses told them whom they provoked by it Numb xi 20. according to Onkelos and Jonathan You have despised the Word of the Lord whose Shekinah dwelleth among you Their refusing to go forward toward the promised Land upon the Spies evil report of it Moses tells them according to those Targums Deut. i. 26. It was rebelling against the Word of the Lord. Afterward when they would go up contrary to order Numb xiv 41. Moses asks them Why do you transgress the decree of the Word of the Lord In their murmuring at Zalmona Polyglot Vol. IV. Numb xxi 5. according to Onkelos in one of Clerk's various Readings They spoke against the Word of the Lord and against Moses Wherefore v. 6. according to the Jerusalem Targum The Word of the Lord sent fiery Serpents among the People Upon their Whoring with Baal-Peor Numb xxv 4. according to the Jerusalem Targum The Word of the Lord said to Moses take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the Lord. In short according to the Targums on Deut. xxviii 20 21 22 c. It was the Word of the Lord that would send all his Judgments and Curses that are there denounced against impenitent Sinners But on the other hand according to those Targums the Word had the dispencing of pardon to them that were Qualified for it So when Moses beg'd pardon for his People that had sinned beyond mercy if it had not been infinite Numb xiv 20. according to the Jerusalem Targum the Word of the Lord answered him and said behold I have forgiven and pardoned according to thy word And in case upon the inflicting of God's Judgments above mentioned God's People should be thereby brought to repentance It was promised Deut. xxx 3. according to Jonathan's Targum that then the Word should accept their repentance according to his good pleasure and should have mercy on them and gather them out of all Naons c. So likewise c. xxxii 36. according to the same Targum it is promised that the Word of the Lord by his mercy should judge the judgment of his people and should repent him of the evil that he had decreed against his Servants It were easie to add many more such Instances out of
consulted Philo's Notions of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before he made this Judgment notwithstanding that he could not but see them in Grotius on St. John's Gospel which he quotes and he could not but know how much they were insisted upon by those Writers whom he pretended to answer They do indeed so distinctly and clearly establish the Personality of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they render useless and unsuitable all the Interpretations he has found out for the Texts in the Targums The second is that he himself though he fitted his Interpretations to divers passages in the Targum thereby to break the force of them when turned against him is yet forced to acknowledg that sometimes the word Memra signifies a Person properly so called according to our sense of it The several places where the Word is said to create the World give him much trouble to elude them And though he endeavours to rid his hands of them by asserting the Word does there signifie the Power of God nevertheless he lets you understand that if you are not pleased with that Solution you may have his consent to take it in the Arian sense of the word for a created God by whom as by a real and Instrumental cause God did truly create the Universe This is the strangest answer that could be returned to so great an Objection For he must have lost his Reason who imagins that God can make a Creature capable of creating the Universe Grant this and by what Character will you distinguish the Creature from the Creator By what right then could God appropriate as he doth very often in the Old Testament the work of the World's Creation to himself excluding any other from having to do in it but himself Why should God upon this score forbid the giving worship to the Creature which is due to the Creator The Arians who worship Jesus Christ though they esteem him a Creature and those Papists who swallow whole the Doctrine of Transubstantion they may teach in their Schools that a Creature may be inabled by God to become a Creator But for us who deny that any thing but God is to be adored as Philo did before us de Decal p. 581. de Monarch p. 628. We reject all such vain conceits of a Creature being any way capable to receive the Infinite Power of a Creator There are other places also which he found he could not easily evade so at length he consents that the Memra does often denote a Person in the Language of the Targums as where we read the Word spake and the Word said But what kind of Person An Angel a Created Angel in his Judgment that speaks in the Name of God And thus he thinks the Word is to be understood in those Paraphrases when they ascribe to the Word the leading of Israel through the Desert The Reader may judge how many Texts this Answer will fit by reviewing what has been said in the two foregoing Chapters He will find I have there prevented this Answer and shewed that Philo and the Targums did not take this for a created Angel but for a Divine Person who was called an Angel in respect of the Office he discharged according to the Oeconomy between the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity and of whom the Targums generally make express mention in places where the Hebrew Text hath Jehovah Elohim or the Angel of the Lord and sometimes where it hath simply the Name Jehovah However to leave no doubt in this matter we will undertake to prove further that the Word doth not signifie a Created Angel in Philo or in the Targums but a truly Divine Person It is true that Philo sometimes calls the Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Plural But elswhere he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 singularly in terms that express his acknowledgment of him for the Creator of Angels and consequently for God This he does in his Book de Sacrif Abel p. 202. where he declares him to be the Word that appeared to Moses and separates him from the Angels which are the Hosts of God Again he describes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as true God as Creator of the World Lib. de Temulentia p. 190. D. 194. B. But the Angels after another manner de Plant. Noae p. 168. F. G. de Gigant p. 221. E. de Mundo p. 391. It is true he calls the Word an Archangel de Conf. Linguar p. 267. B. But in the same place he calls him the first-born of God the Image of God the Creator of the World p. 258. A. And in another place the Son of God that conducted Israel through the Wilderness Quis rer Divin Haeres p. 397. F.G. He was so far from taking the Word to be an Angel that he affirmed the Word used to appear to Men under the form of an Angel thus saith he the Word appeared to Jacob de Somn. p. 465. D. And to Hagar p. 466. B. We are to observe this carefully that we may make Philo agree with Philo. For one while he saith an Angel appeared to the Patriarchs and another time he saith the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appeared to them his design being to acquaint us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is named an Angel because he appeared as an Angel in these kinds of Manifestations of himself Now as to the Targums they likewise understand by this Angel a Person that is truly God For 1. Could they ascribe the Creation of the World to the Word as they do and yet think him to be a Creature Could they profess him the Creator of Mankind without asserting his Divinity Could they think him to be no better than an Angel and yet make him to be Worshipped by Men whom they know to be little lower than Angels Could they imagin him to have given the Law on Mount Sinai and not reflect on the Preface of the Law wherein the great Law-giver says I am Jehovah thy God that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt The Word is not so often called an Angel in the Targums as he is set forth with these Characters of God as the Reader may see especially in Jonathan's Targum and in that of Jerusalem Exod. iii. 14. xii 42. and in many other places 2. The Targums always distinguish the Word from the Angels representing them as Messengers employed by the Word as the Word himself is often described as God's Messenger Thus the Targ. on 1 King xix 11 12. on Psal lxviii 13 18. on 2 Chron. xxxii 21. They say the Word was attended with Angels when he gave the Law Targ. on 1 Chron. xxix 11. and when he assisted at the Interment of Moses Jonathan on Deut. xxxiv 6. 3. The Targums represent the Word as sitting on a High Throne and hearing the Prayers of the People Jon. on Deut. iv 7. 4. Jonathan saith expresly that the Word that spake to Moses was
this Text But according to the Targums it was God the Word that swore all this to Abraham Elsewhere they also tell us That it was the Word that swore as well to Isaac as to Abraham that he would give them the promised Land Exod. vi 8. xxxii 13. At the second Appearance that God made to Isaac Gen. xxvi 24. he told him I am the God of Abraham thy Father But as the Jerusalem Targum on Gen. xxii 16. saith That Abraham worshipped and prayed to the Word of the Lord So according to Jonathan's Targum on Gen. xxvii 28. Isaac prayed for his Son Jacob in these Words The Word of the Lord give thee of the Dew of Heaven And in the same Targum on Gen. xxxi 5. where Jacob saith The God of my Father hath been with me Of thy Father so the Samaritan and LXX it is rendred The Word of the God of my Father or The Word being the God of my Father Amongst the Divine Appearances to Jacob those two at Bethel were more remarkable than the rest one at his going to Padan-Aram Gen. xxviii 13. the other at his Return from thence Gen. xxxv 9. where it is said expresly that then God appeared to him the second time The History of the first of these is given us at large Gen. xxviii 13 16. Jacob himself gives this account of the last to his Son Joseph Gen. xlviii 3 4. God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me and said unto me Behold I will make thee fruitful and multiply thee c. That it was the Word that appeared to him we have shewn already from Philo in several places and that this was the Sense of the Jewish Church in his time we have reason to believe For as to this first Appearance in the Introduction ver 10. where the Text speaks of Jacob's setting out from Beersheba to go to Haran there both Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targum tell us of the Sun 's making haste to go down before his time because the Word had a desire to speak with Jacob. Again in the Conclusion of this History Gen. xxviii 20 21. Where Jacob vowed a Vow saying If God will be with me c. then shall the Lord be my God Here we read in Jonathan's Targum That Jacob vowed a Vow to the Word saying If the Word of the Lord will be my help c then shall the Lord be my God Why should the Paraphrast say That Jacob made this Vow to the Word and not rather to God as it is in the Hebrew Text but that they believed that it was the Word that appeared to him And this being so we cannot be to seek who that Angel was that spake to Jacob Gen. xxxi 11. for he declares ver 13. I am the God of Bethel where thou vowedst a Vow unto me We see in the Targum on Gen. xxviii 20. That it was the Word to whom Jacob vowed a Vow at Bethel therefore according to this Targum it must be the Word that is called an Angel in the place next before mentioned The second time that God appeared to Jacob was in his Return from Padan-Aram Gen. xxxv 9. and it is expresly said in the Jerusalem Targum The Word of the Lord appeared to Jacob the second time when he was coming from Padan-Aram and blessed him which is as clear a Testimony as can be desired for our purpose Whosoever will reflect with some attention upon those Appearances of God to Jacob and compare them with what we read Gen. xlviii 15 16. and with what Hosea the Prophet saith ch xii concerning the Angel who was God could not but take notice of two things The first is that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is call'd an Angel was God indeed The second is that the wrestling of that Angel with Jacob was a preparation for the belief of the Mystery of the Incarnation by which the Apostles were made able to say which we have looked upon and our hands have handled of the Word of Life this is our Message 1 Joh. i. 1.5 But we must go on upon such important a Subject CHAP. XIV That all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of the Lord which are spoken of in Moses his time have been referred to the Word of God by the ancient Jewish Church WE read of no other Appearance of God or of an Angel of the Lord till that which Moses saw on Mount Horeb Exod. iii. 2. There we read that the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a Bush This is the only place where Moses calleth him an Angel that now appeared Elswhere he always calleth him God as particularly v. 4. where he saith that upon his turning aside to see why the Bush was not burnt When the Lord saw this God called to him out of the midst of the Bush and said to him I am the God of thy Father the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob v. 6. whereupon Moses saith of himself that he hid his face for he was afraid to look upon God After this he goeth on still calling him God as we read almost in every verse so ver 16. He saith God commanded him to go to the Elders of Israel and say to them The Lord God of your Fathers the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob appeared to me God would not have him tell them that which was not true and therefore we may be sure that it was not a Created Angel but God that appeared to him But why then should Moses once call him an Angel as we see he did in the second verse A created Angel he could not be for the reasons now mentioned he must therefore be God and yet he must appear as an Angel that came on a Message from God This is what Philo saith in one word He was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word who is both God and the Messenger of God as we have shewn from him in several places As for the Targums the matter is clear for when Moses was sent to the Children of Israel to tell them that their God had appeared to him and sent him to bring them forth out of Egypt and that Moses askt him his Name and that God said unto Moses tell them I AM THAT I AM or in fewer words say I AM has sent me unto you that which here God calls himself is the sense of the Name Jehovah that signifieth the Eternal Being Now see how this is rendred in the Jerusalem Targum There we read that the Word of the Lord said to Moses He that said to the World let it be and it was and shall say Let it be and it shall be Here Moses askt God and the Word answereth his question But certain it is that he that answered the question was the same that he had been speaking with
Doctrine it was natural to conclude that the Messias being the same with the Word was to be the High Priest of the New Testament as St. Paul explains it at large in his Epistle to the Hebrews Philo says that the Word is Mediator between God and Man Lib. Quis divin rer haer pag. 398. A. That he makes Attonement with God Lib. de Somniis p. 447. E.F. From this it was easie to see that the Messias was to be indued with a Noble Priesthood especially David having mentioned it Psal cx representing the Messias whom the Chaldaick Paraphrase often calls the Word of God as being a Priest after the order of Melchisedec And this St. Paul affirms likewise in his Epistle to the Hebrews Philo says that God having appeared by the Word to the Patriarchs and to Moses spoke by the same Word to the Israelites and that he was the Prince of Angels Lib. Quis rer divin haer pag. 397. F. G. And the Light and the Doctor of his people Lib. de Somn. pag. 448. calling the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dei de Nom. Mutat pag. 810. E. It was therefore but agreeably to these Notions that the Apostles applied to the Messias those places of the Old Testament where God promised to speak to his new people by the Messias as Deut. xviii 15 16. which St. Peter Act. iii. 22. and St. Stephen Act. vii 37. apply to our Saviour and that St. John calls him the Light of the World Joh. i. It is necessary to take notice of these Principles of the Old Jews First that we may well understand the reason for which Jesus Christ and his Apostles quoted several places as relating to the Messias which are meant of Jehovah in the Old Testament Secondly That we may see for what reason they supposed as a thing owned by the Jews for whom they writ that those places related to the Messias though the Jews applied them to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Thirdly That we may understand how naturally they applied to the Messias those places of the Old Testament which by the confession of the Old Jews related to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And certainly the meanest capacity may apprehend that if under the Old Testament God acted by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though that Dispensation was much below that of the New much more he was to act under the New by that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his own Son as St. Paul concludes Heb. i. What I said of the Apostles and the other Writers of the New Testament that they exactly followed the Doctrines of the Old Jews which followed the Divine Revelation in the Old Testament may justly be said of Justin Martyr and of those who both before and after him writ in defense of our Saviour's Divinity I need not quote many of them to shew that they went upon the same Grounds with the Jews before Christ It will be enough to examine Justin's Writings for he disputed with a Jew who received no other Scripture besides the Old Testament and therefore he could not convince him but by the Authority of those Books And if his method be well examined it will be found that he argues all along as the Apostles did viz. from the sense received by the Jews supposing that such and such places of Scripture from which he draws consequences were applied to the Messias by them Justin having proved that nothing certain can be learned from Philosophy by Plato's example who entertained gross Errors about the Nature of God and of the Soul And declared that he came to the knowledg of the Truth only by the help of Divine Revelation He affirms in general that the Christian Religion which he had imbraced is all grounded upon the Doctrine of Moses and the Prophets He does particularly instance in that of our Saviour's Person and Office though the Jews lookt upon it as impious that Christians as they reckoned trusted in a Man Crucified He lays for foundation that the Scripture speaks of two Comings of Christ the one indeed Glorious mentioned Dan. vii and Psal cx and Psal lxxii But to be preceded by another altogether mean and despicable as David had also foretold Psal cx at the end He maintains that the Messias is clearly described as God Psal xlvii where he is called the Lord our King and the King of all the Earth Psal xxiv where he is called the Lord strong and mighty and the King of Glory Psal xcix where it is said that he spoke to the Israelites in the cloudy Pillar And Psal xlv where he is named God's anointed the Lord God and proposed as the object of our Adoration He affirms that Christ was to be God and though the same in nature yet a different person from him who made Heaven and Earth He proves by the several Apparitions where a true God is mentioned appearing to Abraham in the Plains of Mamre Gen. xviii 1. To Jacob in a Dream Gen. xxxi with whom he wrestled in the figure of a Man Gen. xxxii and assisted him in his Journey to Padan Aram. And to Moses he appeared in the Burning-bush Exod. iii. He maintains that he was to be God because he executed the Counsel of God Hence he is named by Joshua the Prince of the Army and an Angel which is the Lord. And because the Scripture describes him as begotten of God and called the Son the Wisdom of God and the Word Prov. viii He affirms that God spoke to the Word when he said Let us make Man in our image Gen. i. 26. And Behold the Man is become as one of us Gen. iii. 22. which also clearly argues a Plurality He proves from Psal ii This day have I begotten thee that his Generation is from all Eternity And from Psal xv that the Church ought to adore Christ because it is said He is thy Lord worship thou him He repeats the same things towards the end of his Dialogue where he proves that the Messias appeared to Moses Exod. vi 2. To Jacob Gen. xxxii 30. To Abraham Gen. xviii 16 17. To Moses Numb xi 3. and Deut. iii. 18. and to all the Patriarchs and Prophets He prevents an Objection that this was not a Person but a Vertue from the Father which is called sometimes an Angel sometimes his Glory sometimes a Man sometimes the Word By shewing that the Scripture makes out first a real distinction between the Son and the Father as between Jehovah and Jehovah Gen. xix 24. 2ly a true Plurality as Gen. iii. 22. the Man is become as one of Us. 3ly a true Filiation as Prov. viii whence he concludes that he that is begotten is different from him who begot him He answers Mr. N.'s Objection borrowed from the Jews who quote those words of Isaiah where God says He will not give his Glory to another By saying that the Son is the Glory of the Father and that in this respect he is not another Being
to St. Athanasius's meaning Jesus Christ himself speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he saith John v. 8. Ye have not the Word of God remaining in you And 't is true that it cannot be understood of the Law and Prophecy which St. Paul affirms to have been trusted to the Jewish Nation And 't is mighty probable that St. John taking the Shekinah and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the same saith that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an opposition to his Absence from the Jews who had rejected his direction and conduct I answer 3dly That many of the Ancient Doctors of the Church did remark that St. Luke Luk. i. 2. Acts i. and St. Paul Heb. iv 12. used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense to denote the Second Person of the Trinity and that therefore it was not peculiar to St. John to do so 4thly I say that the word Davar in the room of which the Jews since the Babylonian Captivity do ever use that of Memra to express the Second Person of the Trinity was in use even in David's time as appears by Psal xxxiii 6. where the LXX have render'd it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Version being common among the Jews and generally received St. John could not use a term more proper to express the Divinity of the Second Person taking our Nature upon him And if it is no matter of wonder that the other Evangelists should give to our Saviour the Name of the Messias or that of the Son of God which were first given him by David it ought to be none that St. John has given him that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which likewise was given him by David and does withal so well express the Author of the Creation who was this very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who said Let such or such a thing be and it was For which reason St. Paul says that God made the Worlds by him Heb. i. 2. and St. Peter 2 Epist chap. iii. 5. where he ascribes the Creation of the World to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word as it is acknowledged by Grotius The reason why St. John is more particular in his Expressions about the Second Person whom he makes to be the Creator of the Worlds and then represents as being made Man was because the other Evangelists had given so full an Account of his Birth and Genealogy and every thing else that was needful to prove the Truth of his Human Nature against the Simoniani and other Hereticks that would make him a Fantasm that this Evangelist found himself obliged to be the more express in asserting his Divinity against the Ebïonites who abused some places of the other Gospels to maintain that Christ was a mere Man and against the Cerinthians who affirmed that the Word was not inseparably united to the Flesh Lastly St. John used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express the Unity of God tho there be Three Persons in the Divine Nature Therefore he says that the Word was with God and that he was God He observes that Christ said that he was in the Father and the Father in him That he and the Father were one as he had before express'd himself in his first Epist chap. v. 7. These Three are One to shew the Unity of the Divine Monarchy after the manner in which the Jews did apprehend it wherein he was followed by the first Christians Another Objection which seems very plausible and therefore is confidently made by the Socinians is grounded upon those places in the Jewish Writers where they attribute to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is affirmed in Scripture to have been said or done by an Angel in very many Apparitions as Exod. iii. 2. and Acts vii 30. where St. Stephen after Moses affirms that the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in the bush In which places of Scripture a created Angel not the Son of God seems to have appeared to Moses Whereas the Jewish Writers take this Angel to have been the Word as I shewed before Which Mistake must invalidate their Testimony in this case Accordingly some Interpreters as Lorinus the Jesuit and others Papists suppose him to have been a created Angel but which represented the Person of the Son of God and therefore acted in his Name and spoke as if he had been the Lord himself This Opinion they ground upon two things First Because he is expresly distinguish'd from the Lord both by Moses and St. Stephen who call him the Angel of the Lord. And Secondly Because the Son of God never took upon him the Nature of Angels as he did that of Men and therefore can't be called by their Name This has been thoroughly considered before to which I might refer the Reader for an Answer But to save him trouble we shall here shew him reason enough to believe that those Texts speak of one that was more than a Creature First Because the Angel is presently named the Lord or Jehovah both by Moses and St. Stephen even as Gen. xxxi the Angel which wrestled with Jacob is called God Secondly Because he declared formally that he was the Lord when he said to Moses I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob which can never be said of a mere Creature under whatsoever Commission or Dignity The Prophets did formerly represent God and they acted as well as spake in his Name but for all this they never spoke as the Angel mentioned by St. Stephen They said barely Thus saith the Lord or Jehovah I am God c. Likewise Christ represented his Father as being his Ambassador and his Deputy and yet he never took the Name of Father We read of many Apparitions of Angels in the New Testament yet no man can pretend to shew that any of them either spoke or acted as God though sent by him and speaking to Men in his Name It had been as absurd and as great a crime for them to have done so as for a Viceroy to tell the People whom he is sent to govern I am your King tho' he does represent the King's Person It is true the Angel mentioned by St. Stephen is named the Angel of the Lord and as true that Christ did not take the nature of Angels on him He did this favour only to Men for them only he humbled himself and was made like them in all things sin excepted and for this reason he is truly named Man and the Son of Man as well as the Son of God For Apostate Angels he forsook them and left them for ever in their Rebellion But it must be observed that the word Angel signifies properly a Messenger and denotes rather the Office than the nature of those blessed Spirits sent forth to Minister And consequently their Name may well be given to the Son of God who ever had the care of the Church committed to him and by whom the Father
1. p. 16. l. 4. p. 198. l. 6. p. 275 279 308. l. 7. p. 351 and 371. Thirdly The very Heathen Authors own that Plato borrowed his Notions from Moses as Numenius who as Theodoret tells us did acknowledge that Plato had learnt in Egypt the Doctrine of the Hebrews during his stay there for 13 years Theod. Serm. 1. If any of the Ancient Fathers have quoted any thing out of Plato concerning the Trinity they look'd upon it not as Plato's Invention but as a Doctrine which he had either from Moses or from those who had it from him Not to say That in what manner soever Plato proposed this Doctrine it is much at one For his Notions about it are not very exact and no wonder since it was natural enough for a Greek to mix fabulous Notions with what he had from others and they to adulterate it The truth which we profess and draw from a Divine Original in this matter is not at all concerned with Plato's Visions And yet since the Notion of the Trinity could not possibly be framed by any mortal Man Two considerable Uses may be made of Plato's Notion about it First To shew That this Doctrine is not of Justin Martyr's Invention since Plato who lived five hundred Years before Justin had scattered some Notions of it in his Books which he had probably learned from the Jews or from some other Philosophers who conversed with the Jews And Secondly To make Men sensible that the greatest Scholars among the Heathens did not find so many Absurdities in it as the now Socinians do There is an Objection of greater moment than all the Objections which the Unitarian Authors can oppose to my using the Authority of the Judgment of the Old Synagogue and I will not dissemble it although they have not been sensible of it It is the Authority of St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy and Titus where he rejects with an abhorrence the Jewish Fables and Genealogies as the fruits of the falsly named Knowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. vi 20 21. which he compares with a Cancer I acknowledg freely that Ireneus Lib. 1. c. 20. and Tertul. adv Valentin understood those expressions of St. Paul against the Gnosticks of their time who were come from Simon Magus And I acknowledge with Grotius upon 1 Tim. i. 4. that by those infinite Genealogies which are spoken of by St. Paul as coming from a vain Philosophy and controverted by some of the Heretick Jews Saint Paul had a mind to speak against several Notions of the then new Jewish Cabbala which was in truth a mixture of the true Tradition of the Synagogue and of the Notions of the Platonists and Pythagoreans who had borrowed their Notions from the Egyptians And I will not insist now too much upon the judgment of those who think probably enough that the Egyptians had borrowed their Notions from the Jews But after all I maintain that this Objection against this part of the new Jewish Cabala which I mention as having such an impure birth and having been corrupted amongst the Jews doth not abate the authority of the proofs of the Trinity and of the Notions of the Messias which I have brought from all the Jewish Writers and which hath nothing common with those innumerable aeones which are mention'd by Ireneus and Tertullian as received by the Valentinians and which the Apostle St. Paul hath condemned in some of the Doctors of the Synagogue Let us suppose that there had been in the Body of the Synagogue before Jesus Christ some Sadducees and some Baithusaei whose Birth the Jews say was as old as that of the Sadducees but who seem not so ancient but to have their Origin from one Simon Boethus an Alexandrian Jew mentioned by Josephus Let us suppose that from the time of the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes some amongst the Jews had adopted some Platonick or Pythagorean Notions What is that to the Body of the Jewish Nation which was not included in Palestina or Egypt but spread every where To the contrary I maintain justly that when Saint Paul condemns the Jewish Genealogies he confirms all my Proofs from the Jewish Writers who did not ground their Ideas upon the Doctrine of Pythagoras or Plato but upon the Text of the Old Testament When St. Paul hath used the same Notions which are in the Apocryphal Books in Philo and in the Chaldee Paraphrases which no body accuses to have used those foolish Genealogies which were found amongst the Valentinians and are to be found now amongst some of the Cabbalists he hath secured my Argument taken from the pure Traditional Exposition of the Ancient Jews this is all I have a mind to contend for in this matter leaving those Cabbalists who have mixed some heathenish Notions with the Ancient Divinity of the Fathers to shift for themselves and being not concerned in all their other Speculations although since they have quite forgot this impure Origin they have very much laboured to uphold them upon some Texts of Scripture but not well understood and taken in another sense CHAP. XXIV An Answer to some Objections of the Modern Jews and of the Unitarians THAT the Reader may be fully satisfied of the Truth which I have asserted by so many proofs taken out of the Apocryphal Books of the Chaldee Paraphrasts and out of Philo the most ancient Jewish Author we have as to expounding the Scripture I must solve some difficulties made by the Modern Jews and Socinians about the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so frequent amongst the ancient Interpreters of Scripture Moses Maimonides who lived about the end of the Twelfth Century affirms that the word Memra which in Chaldaick is the same as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek was made use of by the ancient Paraphrasts on purpose to prevent Peoples thinking God had a Body More Nevoch Lib. 1. c. 21. He says also that for the same reason they often used the words Jekara Glory Shekinah Majesty or habitation But he does manifestly wrong them For if it had been so they would have used that caution on other occasions whereas they often render places of Scripture where mention is made only of the Lord by these words before the face of the Lord which are apt to make people fancy God as being Corporeal Besides if what he says were true they would have used the same caution where ever the Notion of his being Corporeal might be attributed to God But it is certain that in many places as apt to give that Notion of God they do not use the word Memra or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as certain that in many others they use it where there is no danger of fancying God as having a Body As Gen. xx 21. Exod. ii 25. Exod. vi 8. Exod. xix 17. Lev. xxvi 46. Numb xi 20. Numb xxiii 21. and in many more quoted by Rittangel on Jetzira pag. 96. and in his Book Libra
Veritatis Besides it is so palpable that the ancient Jews particularly Philo have given the Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being a Divine Person that Maimonides his answer can be no other than an Evasion Nay it is observable that the word Davar which in Hebrew signifies Word is sometimes explained by that which is a true Person in the Books of the Old Jewish Authors who lived since Christ even in those whose authority Maimonides does acknowledge One of their ancient Books namely R. Akiba's Letters has these words on the Letter Gimel God said Thy Word is setled for ever in Heaven and this Word signifies nothing else but the healing Angel as it is written Psal cvii. 20. He sent his Word and he healed them He must needs mean a Person namely an Angel though perhaps he might mistake him for a created Angel Lastly The Notion which Maimonides does suggest can never be applied to Psal cx 1. which is thus rendred by the Paraphrast The Lord said to his Word where the Word does manifestly denote the Messias as the ancient Jews did fairly acknowledge It is true that in the common Edition that place of the Targum is rendered thus The Lord said in his Word or by his Word but it is a poor shift For in his Word does certainly signifie to his Word or of his Word the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Chaldeans having naturally that double signification as appears from many places Thus it signifies concerning or of Deut. vi 7. Jer. xxxi 20. Cant. viii 8. Job xix 18. Psal l. 20. It signifies to in Hos i. 2. Hab. ii 1. Zech. i. 4 9 13 14. Numb xii 2 6. 1 Sam. xxv 39. You may to this observation about Psal cx 1. add that of the Text of Jonathan's Targum on Isa xxviii 5. where the Messias is named in the room of the Lord of Hosts The second Evasion used by Moses Maimonides is More Nevoch pag. 1. c. 23. where he tells us in what sense Isaiah said that God comes out of his place namely that God does manifest his Word which before was hidden from us For says he all that is created by God is said to be created by his Word as Psal xxxiii By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the breath of his mouth By a comparison taken from Kings who do what they have a mind to by their word as by an Instrument For God needs no Instrument to work by but he works by his bare Will neither has he any Word properly so called Thus far Maimonides But it is not true as I shewed before that the Word in the Chaldee Paraphrase signifies no more than the manifestation of the Will of God I have quoted so many places out of the Apocryphal Books out of Philo and out of the Paraphrase it self which shew the contrary that Maimonides is not to be believed upon his bare word against so many formal proofs It is not true neither that Psal xxxiii 6. expresses only the bare act of the Will of God as Maimonides does suppose I shewed before that the great Authors of the Jewish Traditions which Maimonides was to follow when he writ his More Nevochim give another sense to those words and do acknowledge that they do establish the Personality of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Holy Ghost which they do express by the second and third Sephira or Emanation in the Divine Essence That which made Maimonides stumble was that he believed that Christians made the Word to be an Instrument different from God which is very far from their opinion For they do as well as Philo apprehend the Word as a Person distinct from the Father but not of a different nature from his but having the same Will and Operation common to him and the Father and this they have by Divine Revelation A famous Socinian whom I mentioned already being hard put to it by the Authority of the Targums has endeavoured in a Tract which he writ and which has this Title Disceptatio de Verbo vel Sermone Dei cujus creberrima fit mentio apud Paraphrast as Chaldaeos Jonathan Onkelos Targum Hierosolymitanum to shake it off by boldly affirming that the Word of the Lord is barely used by them to express the following things The Decree of God His Commands His inward Deliberation His Promise His Covenant and his Oath to the Israelites His design to punish or to do good A Prophetick Revelation The Providence which protected good Men. In short the Word by which God does promise or threaten and declare what he is resolved to do Of which the said Author pretendeth to give many instances I have already proved how false this is what that Author so positively affirms that the term Word is never found to be used by the Paraphrasts to denote a Person The very place which I just now quoted out of R. Akiba's Alphabet were enough to confute him I need not repeat neither what I said that supposing all were true which he affirms of the use of the word Memra in the Paraphrasts yet he could not but acknowledge that Philo gives quite another Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely as of a real Person in which he visibly follows the Author of the Book of Wisdom The Unitarians of this Kingdom do for that reason reject Philo's Works as being Supposititious and written after our Saviour's time I say therefore that the sense which he puts upon the Targums is very far from the true meaning of the words which they use when they speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in many places I shall not examine whether in any place of the Targums the word Memra is used instead of that of Davar which in Hebrew signifies the Word or Command of God Rittangel positively denies it And the truth is that the Targums commonly render the word Davar by Pitgama and not by Memra To be fully satisfied of it one needs but take an Hebrew Concordance upon the word Davar and search whether the Paraphrasts ever rendered it by Memra But supposing Rittangel should deny the thing too positively however the Targumists do so exactly distinguish the Word when they mention him as a Divine Person that it is impossible to mistake him in all places by putting upon them those senses which the Socinian Author endeavours to affix to them that he may destroy the Notion which they give of the Word as being a Divine Person And though I have already alledged many proofs of it yet this being a matter of great moment I will again briefly speak to it to confute that Author and those who shall borrow his Arguments Let an impartial Reader judge whether any of the Socinian Author's senses can be applied to the word Memra in Onkelos his Targum Gen. iii. 8. They heard the voice of the Word of the Lord. And Gen. xv 1 5 9.
Comment Printed at Amsterdam The Jews in Christ's time did believe the xxiid Psalm to be a Prophecy touching the Messias And Jesus Christ to shew the accomplishment of it in his own Person cites the first verse of it on the Cross Mat. xxvii 46. Yet soon after as we see in Justin Martyr's Dialogue they denied that Psalm to belong to the Messias But their folly appears because they cannot agree among themselves some referring it to David others to Esther and others to the whole People of the Jews Menass q. 8. in Psalm The 16th ver of the same xxiid Psalm is thus Translated by the Seventy They pierced my hands and my feet This reading is proved by de Muis on this place and by Walton in Prolegom p. 40. But our Jews now read it As a Lion my hands and my feet which is not sense Their own Masora Notes that it should be read they have pierced However they have espoused the other reading and will not be beaten from it by any Argument because they think this reading will best destroy the Inference which the Christians draw from this place to shew that the Messias was to be Crucifyed according to this Psalm The Psalm lxviii by the ancient Jews was referred to the Messias and so doth R. Joel Aben Sueb refers the last part to the time of the Messias p. 158. in h. Ps It was also by St. Paul Ephes iv 8. referred to the Ascension of our Lord Wherefore he saith when he ascended up on high he led Captivity captive and gave gifts unto men The very same subject is handled in Psal xlvii 5. which Psalm David Kimchi does acknowledg belongs to the Times of the Messias and there they cannot deny but the true God is spoken of the same Memra who conducted the People in the Desert and gave the Law at Sinai as it is spoken v. 8 9. And yet the Modern Jews will apply those words of Psal lxviii 10. to the Ascension of Abraham or Moses or the Prophet Elias to any rather than the Messias It is granted by the Modern Jews that their Fathers understood Psal lxxii of the Messias So R. Saadia on Dan. vii 14. Salom. Jarchi on Psal 72.6 and Bahal Hatturim ad Numb xxvi 16. and yet now they stick not of which R. David Kimchi is a witness to interpret it only of Salomon In Jesus Christ's time the Jews confessed Psalm cx did belong to the Messias v. 1. The Lord said unto my Lord sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy foot-stool Christ's argument Mat. xxii 44. necessarily supposes it So it was understood in the Midrash Tehillim and by R. Saadia Gaon on Dan. vii 13. But notwithstanding this our later Jews affirm that it was made for David or Abraham 'T was of old constantly believed that Wisdom Prov. iii. and viii did denote the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have shewed it from Philo the Jew from the Apocryphal Book and from the Cabalists and yet at this day they explain it of the Law of Moses or the Attribute of Wisdom Jonathan in his Paraphrase on Isa ix 6. interprets the Text of the Messias For unto us a Child is born unto us a Son is given and his Name shall be called Wonderful Counseller the mighty God the Everlasting Father the Prince of Peace And so did the most ancient Jewish Writers But after Jesus Christ the Jews having broken up a new way it has pleased some of their late Writers to tread in the steps of R. Hillel and to apply it to Hezekiah So does Salomon Jarchi David Kimchi Abenezra and Lipman As for the rest they quite change the present Text by referring to God all the Names which are evidently given to the Messias except that of the Prince of Peace For much the same reason do the latter Jews make Zorobabel to be spoken of in Isa xi 12. Manas q. 18. on Isaiah Though not only St. Paul understood it of Jesus Christ Rom. xv 12. 2 Thes ii 8. But the ancient Jews did generally refer it to the Messias as appears all along in the Targum of that Chapter and the Jews shewed they understood it so by their rejecting Barcochba when they found he could not smell Souls as they thought the Messias should do according to the second verse of the said Chapter And St. Jerome witnesses upon that Chapter that all the Jews agreed with Christians that all that Chapter was to be understood of the Messias The old Jews as St. Jerome witnesses upon this Chapter ascribed Isa xxv 6. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened and the ears of the deaf be unstopped Then shall the lame man leap as an hart and the tongue of the dumb sing for in the wilderness shall waters break out and streams in the desert to the times of the Messias But the Modern Jews have endeavoured to wrest it and to make it agree to other times because they saw how the Evangelists applied it to the Miracles of our Lord. See Menass q. 17. on Isaiah And they are gone so far in that fancy that they give it out now for an Axiom amongst their People that the Messias shall not work any Miracle So Rambam R. Meyr Aldab and R. Menass ben Israel who would have the Miracles which are there spoken of either to be understood Metaphorically or to be referred to the time of the Resurrection The Impudence of R. Salomon on Isa xlviii 48 16. is amazing The words of the Text run thus From the time that it was there am I and now the Lord God and his Spirit have sent me From hence it appears that the Messias who is here spoken of according to the Targum was on Mount Sinai when God gave the Law from thence This R. Salomon will by no means grant of the Messias but affirms that it is spoken of Isaiah But how was he on Mount Sinai when the Law was given Why he answers His Soul was there as were the Souls also of all the Prophets God then revealing to them all those things that were to come which each of them in his time have since Prophesied of A fancy that R. Tanchuma who lived a long while before R. Salomon never hit on For he maintains from Isa lvii 16. that the Souls are then created as God orders Men to be born in every Generation We see how positive they are in expounding the Sufferings of the Messias which are described Isa liii of the People of the Jews And yet they can't but know that Jonathan refers the end of the lii Chap. and the beginning of the liii to the Messias as the Apostles refer it to Jesus Christ following herein John the Baptist Joh. i. 29. And so did R. Alexandri among the Talmudist as we see in Sanhedrin fol. 93. col 2. and in the Midrash Conen in Arze Levanon fol. 3. col 2. The Prophet Micah ch v. 2. speaks of the Messias But
described only as the Messenger of God A Salvo as ridiculous as his Answer For most of the Characters and Works of God are ascribed to him that is there spoken of and he is expresly called the Lord of Hosts But this is not all For our Socinians not only follow the Jews but exceed them in the bold ways they take to get over those Authorities which make against them Because that the words of Psal xl 7. Thou hast bored my ears are cited by St. Paul in this manner A Body hast thou prepared me Heb. x. 5. who follows herein the LXX Text which thus paraphrases the Psalmist's words from thence Enjedinus takes occasion to accuse the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews for not having cited the Original and to traduce him as an Apocryphal Writer They go further than the Jews do on Psal xlv 6. Thy throne O God is for ever and ever A Text cited by St. Paul and applied to Jesus Christ Heb. i. 7 8. The LXX translate it as we do But the Jews have tried all ways to deliver themselves of this Authority which proves so evidently that the Messias is God As for Socinus he pretends to reject the Jews Solutions But his Disciples have invented another which is worse than that of the Jews as may be seen in Enjedinus and Ostorodius Psalm xc throughout relates to the Messias Jesus Christ applies it to himself Matth. xxii and from thence proves that he is David's Lord although he is the Son of David But Enjedinus refutes this Argument of Jesus Christ And Schlichtingius treats it as absurd This is a thing that deserves to be reflected on because these Gentlemen pretend that among them only true Christianity is continued The like way they take to answer what the Apostle saith of Christ's creating the Heavens and the Earth Heb. i. 10 11. and his Proof of it from Psal cii 27 28. And with the same Impudence do they elude the Citation from Psal cxviii 22. which is quoted Mat. xxi 42. Altho R. D. Kimchi among other Jews refers it to the Messias It is strange to see how they take the Jews part in explaining as they do Isa vii 14. A Virgin that is say they a Prophetess Crell on Matt. i. The only reason of this Explication is the word Immanuel which there follows to their great perplexity They therefore say that Immanuel is spoken of the Father in Isaiah's Prophecy and of Jesus Christ in St. Matthew's Gospel in a Mystical Sense Isaiah chap. xxxv 5. has distinctly noted the Miracles which the Messias should work and has given us a clear Character of his Person R. Solomon Jarchi endeavours to shift off this Text and to explain it of the deliverance of the People out of Babylon Socinus who could not but know how the Evangelists have referred it to the Miracles of Jesus Christ does nevertheless establish as well as he can the Explication of the Modern Jews And this he does for no other reason but because the Appearance of God himself is spoken of in the 4th Verse of this Chapter How audaciously does Crellius destroy the Proof of the Place where Christ should be born Matth. ii 5. taken out of Micah v. 2. Saith he The Jews cited it only according to the Mystical Sense But we know the Jews took it to be the Literal Sense as appears by their Targum The viiith Chapter of Proverbs was understood by Philo of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And indeed such Attributes are given to Wisdom in that Chapter as belong only to a Person such as being conceived born creating governing exercising of Mercy and the like But Socinus is not content it should go so He will have all this attributed to the Wisdom of God by a Prosopopeia just as our later Jews do interpret it of the Law Jer. xxiii 5 6. relates to the Messias in the Judgment of all the Ancient Jews Our Socinians will not allow this but rather than own that the Messias is named God they refer the Title of The Lord our Righteousness to the People there spoken of We have a remarkable Prophecy for the Proof of the Divinity of the Messias in Zech. xii 10. They shall look on him whom they have pierced The Jews anciently did and still do understand it of the Messias And Jesus Christ does apply it to himself Rev. i. 7. What saith Socinus to this He declares that this Text which is so like Psal xxii has been corrupted by the Jews and thus he trys to render its Authority useless Here you have a Sample of their conduct in rejecting the Literal and setting up a Mystical sense But there are other Quotations cited in the New Testament from which it is manifest that our Lord Jesus Christ is the God spoken of in the Old Testament the Authority of which Texts cannot so easily be eluded And to take away the evidence of these they have invented the way of accommodation David speaking of the God of Israel has these words Psal lxviii 19. Thou art ascended on high c. Hence we conclude that Jesus Christ is the God of Israel because St. Paul saith they had their accomplishment in our Lord's Ascension into Heaven Ephes iv 8. The Jews say those words in the Psalm were spoken of Moses The Socinians cannot deny they were spoken of God but deny they were spoken of the Messias literally But say they these words were applied to Jesus Christ by St. Paul only by way of accommodation Strange Is it not plain that David saith no more in this lxviii Psalm of the Messias than he saith in Psal cx which the Jews do refer to the Messias Is not the calling of the Gentiles here clearly foretold v. 33 34. which is owned on all hands to be the work of the Messias Is it not then visible that St. Paul in citing these words has followed the sense of the Ancient Synagogue who understood Psal cx of the Messias according to the Literal sense Socinus owns that the words Psal xcvii 7. which are applied to Jesus Christ Heb. i. 6. do respect the Supreme God He cannot therefore deny Jesus Christ to be the Supreme God to whom they are applied But he does it as he pleases by this way of accommodation which he saith the Sacred Author used in applying this Text to Jesus Christ And so the Adoration commanded to be given him terminates not in him but is referrable to the Supreme God who commanded this Adoration Isa ch viii 13 14. has these words Sanctifie the Lord of Hosts The Jews interpret them of the Messias Gemar Massech Sanhedr in ch iv and they are cited by St. Paul Rom. ix 32. St. Luke ii 34. St. Peter 1 Pet. ii 7. who apply them to Jesus Christ The Socinians whose Cause will not bear this that Jesus Christ should be called the Lord of Hosts do therefore deny that the Massias is here treated of or that any one else is here meant
is mentioned This is he of whom it is said and God called Moses out of the Bush He is called an Angel because he Governs the World for it is written in one place And Jehovah that is the Lord God brought us out of Egypt and in another place He sent his Angel and brought us out of Egypt And again The Angel of his Presence saved them viz. that Angel who is the face of God of whom it is said My face shall go before you Lastly that Angel of whom the Prophet Malachi mentions And the Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to his Temple even the Angel of the Covenant whom you desire At length he adds The face of God is God himself as all Interpreters do acknowledge but no one can rightly understand this without being instructed in the Mysteries of the Law R. Menachem of Rekan on Gen. xlviii 16. the same that afterwards commented on the whole Pentateuch was no stranger to this Notion Saith he He means the Shekinah when he speaks of the Redeeming Angel f. 52. See also f. 55. The like has R. Bechai the famous Jewish Writer whose Comments are constantly in the hands of the Jewish Doctors He proves that this Blessing is not different from that which is afterwards repeated Gen. xlix where no Angel is mentioned Whence it follows that the three terms in Gen. xlviii God God that fed me the Angel that redeemed me are Synonimous to the mighty one of Jacob Ch. xlix which Title the Jews in their Prayers do frequently ascribe to God Bech f. 71. c. 4. Ed. Rivae di Trento He also there teaches that this Angel was the Shekinah As does R. Joseph Gekatilia in his Book called Saare Ora according to Menasseh Ben Israel q. 64. in Gen. p. 118. Aben Sueb on this place a Man of Name among his Party writes much to the same purpose on this place These are followed by two Eminent Authors of the Cabalists The one in his Notes on Zohar f. 122. toward the end saith the Angel that delivered me from all evil is the Shekinah of whom Exod. xiv 19. And the Angel of the Lord which went before the camp of Israel removed and went behind them and may God bless us in the age to come The other is he who contracted the Zohar on Genesis and is called R. David the less He in that Book Ed. Thessalonic f. 174. professes to follow the opinion of R. Gekatalia in his Saare Ora. Nor does Menasseh Ben Israel himself much dissent from these in the above-mentioned place For though he attempts to reconcile Gen. xxviii 16. with the first Commandment Exod. xx Thou shalt have no other Gods before me by saying it was the opinion of several of their Masters that there was no contradiction between them yet at length he produces the opinion of the Cabalists for the satisfaction of his Readers who possibly would not acquiesce in his former reason drawn only from Modern Authorities I mention not R. Levi ben Gersom's opinion who denies the Angel here spoken of to be a Creature but calls him the Intellectus Agens because he seems to have borrowed the Notion from the Arabian Philosophers nor is it commonly received by those of his Religion Many others might be added to these Jewish Testimonies but what I have already produced is I think very sufficient SECT V. Having thus shewed the Opinions of the ancient Jews concerning Jacob's Angel and that to this day the Tradition is not quite worn out that exalts him above a created Angel I now proceed to the third Question the clearing of which will fully justifie that Opinion of the Ancients concerning this Text. And that is Whether this form of Blessing be not an express Prayer The soundest and most part as well of Jews as Christians do agree That we can't worship Angels without Idolatry This Maimonides affirms as I quoted him above and the Protestants as all Men know do abhor this Idolatry in the Roman Church I do therefore positively assert That these words contain a Prayer to the Angel as well as to God for a Blessing on his Children This the Jews can't gain-say since Jonathan their Paraphrast and other Writers after him do commonly term this Blessing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Prayer And for this reason R. Menasseh thought it necessary to endeavour to reconcile this Prayer of Jacob with the first Commandment which forbids Angel-Worship according to the Jews Interpretation R. Menach de Rek in Pent. f. 97. c. 4. It is true Jacob's form of Blessing does seem to proceed from him either as a Wish or a Prophecy A Wish as if he had said Would to the Lord God and his Angel would bless the Lads A Prophecy as if he had foretold that God and his Angel should in after-times fulfill what he now wished But it might be both Wish and Prophecy and notwithstanding be a direct Prayer to God and the Redeeming Angel 'T is well known how the Jews commonly delivered their Petitions to God in this form And yet I can't forbear giving one instance to confirm it You may read it in Deut. vi 22 c. And the Lord said to Moses saying Speak to Aaron and his Sons thus shall you bless the children of Israel and say The Lord bless thee and keep thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord make his face shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee and give thee peace And they shall invoke my name for the children of Israel so our Translation is to be mended and I will bless them So that in plain terms the form of Blessing here prescribed by God is called Invocation I cannot therefore see what should hinder but that we after Jacob's example may offer up our Prayers to a created Angel supposing as some do that Jacob prayed for a Blessing to such a kind of Angel De Sanct. Beat. l. 1. c. 29. Corn. A Lap. on Gen. xlviii It is a necessary consequence that Bellarmine and others of his Communion draw from this instance Holy Jacob invoked an Angel therefore it is not unlawful for the pretended reformed to do the like therefore one may worship others besides God these things saith he cannot be denied unless you reckon Prayer to be no act of Worship not peculiar to God alone But let them of his Church get out of these difficulties as they can who believe Jacob's Angel to have been a meer Creature Let them try how they can convince a Socinian from Ephes i. 2. and other places of Scripture where Worship is ascribed to Christ The Socinian has his answer ready he may wish and pray to Christ for Grace though he be not God since he does no more than Jacob did when he prayed for a Blessing on his Children to a meer Angel I am more concerned for these Divines of the Reformed Church who have given the same Interpretation of Jacob's Angel