expresly told the Jews that he was withal to be God blessed for ever The force and evidence of the Proofs of those Doctrines is so great and the Proofs themselves so numerous that Hereticks could not avoid them but by setting up Opinions directly opposite to the Scriptures On the other side the Hereticks were so gravelled that they broke into Opinions quite contrary one to another which greatly contributed to confirm the Faith of them whom they opposed in those Articles so that it still subsisted whereas the opposite Heresies perish'd in a manner as soon as broacht The meanness of Christ and his shameful Death moved the Ebionites in the very first Age after him to look upon him as a meer Man though exalted by God's Grace to the Dignity of a Prophet But the Cerinthians another sort of Hereticks maintained that the Word did operate in him though at the same time they denied the personal and inseparable Vnion of that Word with this human Nature In the beginning of the Third Century some had much ado to receive the Doctrine of the Trinity by reason that they could not reconcile it with that of the Vnity of God But Praxeas Noetus and Sabellius who opposed that Doctrine were soon obliged to recant And then from one Extremity they shortly fell into another For being satisfied that the Scripture does attribute to the Father to the Son and to the Holy Ghost the divine Nature which is constantly in the Old Testament expressed by the Name Jehovah they undertook contrary to the plain Notions of Scripture to maintain that there was but One Person in God which had appeared the same under three differing Names Whereas some others did so plainly see the distinction which the Scripture makes between the Persons that they chose rather to own Three distinct Essences than to deny that there are Three Persons in God as the Scripture does invincibly prove Two sorts of Hereticks did formerly oppose the Divinity of Christ Some did acknowledge that as to his divine Nature he was before the World and that by it he had made the World though Himself as to that nature was created before the World and these afterwards formed the Arian Sect. Others but very few such as Artemas and Theodotus denied that Christ was before he was born of the Virgin They acknowledged in him no other besides the human Nature which said they God had raised to a very high Dignity by giving to it a Power almost infinite And in this they made his Godhead to consist But these two sorts of Hereticks were happily destroyed one by the other for the Arians on the one side did confound Artemas his Disciples by proving from places of Scripture that Christ was before the Virgin nay before the World And on the other side Absurdity and Idolatry were proved upon the Arians both because they acknowledged more than one divine Nature and because they worshipped a Creature whereas by the Christian Religion God alone ought to be worshipped Artemas his Disciples were so few and so severely condemned even whilst the Church laboured under Persecutions that their Name is hardly remembred at this day which clearly shews how strange their Doctrine appeared to them who examined it by the Books of the Old and the New Testament As for the Arians they made it is true more noise in the World by the help of two or three of Constantine's Successors who by violent Methods endeavoured to spread their Opinion But that very thing made their Sect odious and in a little time quite ruined the credit of it Within a hundred and fifty years or thereabouts after their first Rise there hardly remained any Professors of it which plainly shews that they could not answer those Arguments from Scripture which were urged against them I observe this last thing that Arius's Heresy was destroyed by Proofs from Scripture for the Eternal Divinity of our Saviour though it was a long time countenanced by the Roman Emperours by the Vandal Kings in Africk and by the Kings of the Goths both in Spain and in Italy lest any should fancy it was extinguished only by Imperial Laws and Temporal Punishments Besides that the first Inventors of that Heresy had spread it before such time as Constantine by vanquishing Licinius became Master of the World Whoever shall consider that the Christian Religion had before Arius already suffered ten Persecutions without shrinking under them will easily see that all the Power of Constantine and of his Orthodox Successors who punished the Arian Professors had never been great enough to suppress their Opinion if it had not been a Gospel-doctrine not to say that these Laws and their Authority extended no further than the Roman Empire What had happen'd in those ancient Times soon after the Christian Church was establisht happened likewise again in the last Century at the Reformation of the Western Church As in those early days there arose many Heresies entirely opposite one to the other so in these latter times the very same was seen among us For when God raised up many Great Men to reform the Church in this and our neighbouring Kingdoms there appeared soon after some Men who being weary of the Popish Tyranny both in Doctrine and Worship did fancy that they might make a more perfect Reformation if they could remove out of the Christian Religion those things which human Reason was apt to stumble at And the Roman Church having obtruded upon her Votaries such Mysteries as were directly repugnant to Reason they imagined that the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ's Divinity were of that number and thus used all their Endeavours to prove that they were absurd and contradictory Had not these Doctrines been grounded on the Authority of the Books of the Old and the New Testament they might easily enough have confuted them But being forced to own the Authority of those Books which they durst not attack for fear of being detested by all Christians they fell into the same opposite Extremes into which those Hereticks of old had fallen when they opposed these fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and thus were as divided in Opinions about those matters as the ancient Hereticks had been before them For whilst some of them as Laelius Socinus and his Nephew Faustus denied the Divinity of Christ and thus revived the Opinion of Artemas and his Disciples others seeing how absurd the Answers were that Socinus and his Followers gave to those places of Scripture which assert the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ run so far to the contrary of this Socinian Heresy that they acknowledged three Gods And not only the Adversaries of Socinus but even some of his Disciples did oppose his Opinion moved thereto by the Authority of Scripture For he held it a fundamental Article of the Christian Faith that Christ is to be adored in which he was a downright Idolater in adoring Christ as true God when he believed Christ to be a meer
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
come in like a flood the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him and the Redeemer shall come unto Sion Again Isa lxi 1. The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon Me because the Lord hath anointed me They are the words which Christ applied to himself Luke iv 18. It may not be amiss here to answer an Objection against the use that we have made of those Texts wherein God saith WE and US in the Plural which manner of speaking the Jews cannot but see does denote a Plurality R. Kimchi on Isa vi 8. makes that Observation But then he fancies it is spoken with relation to Angels whom God is pleased to call in by way of Consultation In the Text Isa vi those whom God consults with are to send as well as he and those in Gen. i. 26. are to make Man as well as he And surely God would not join the Angels with himself in the sending of his Prophets much less would he give Angels a share in the Glory of making Man the Master-piece of the Creation Angels are Creatures as well as Man and were but a Day elder than he according to some of the Jews a Week older than he they could not be And at the making of Man it is believed with very good reason that those Angels were not yet fallen whom we now call Devils It seems not very likely that as soon as they were made God should call them into Council for making of another of his Creatures much less that he should make them Creators together with himself especially when this gives them a Title to the Worship of Intelligent Beings such as Man who if this had been true ought to have worshipp'd not only Angels but Devils as being his Creators together with God But the Truth is so far on the contrary that as at first Man was made but a little lower than the Angels so there is a Man since made Lord both of Angels and Devils whom they are to worship This I know our Unitarians will now deny But to come to an end of this matter It is certainly below the Infinite Majesty of God in any of his works whatever to say to any of his Creatures Let us make or Let us do this or that And for that idle Fancy of a Consultation it is not only absurd in it self but it is contrary to the holy Scripture that asks Isa xl 13. Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord or who hath been his Counsellor Which in effect is a flat denial that there is any Creature to be call'd into Consultation with God And therefore whoever they were to whom God said this Let us make or Let us do this or that they could be no Creatures they must be uncreated Beings like himself if there were any such then in being But that then at the Creation such there were even the Word and the Spirit has been shewn from the beginning of that History I think beyond contradiction Thus we have collected a number of Places from the Old Testament which speak of a Trinity and consequently do reduce the Plurality which we proved before to a Trinity in the Unity of the Divine Nature We see there Three distinct Characters of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit We see the Generation of the Son express'd and the Mission of the Holy Spirit upon the Son when he came to live in our Nature We see the number Three still observed in begging Pardon of Sins of Blessings and in returning Praises to God intimating there were Three from whom all good things come and who are therefore the Objects of Prayer It remains that we enquire whether the like Inferences which we draw from these Texts were made by the Jews before Jesus Christ which is the second Particular of our proposed Method I shall not repeat here what in the preceding Chapters I proved That both Philo and the Chaldee Paraphrasts had such Notions of the Unity of God as were not repugnant to his Plurality The Reader can't have forgotten already a thing of such importance My business now is to shew that the Ancient Jews plainly own Two Powers in God which they distinguish from God and yet call each of them God the one being the Son of God the other the Holy Spirit who is called the Spirit of God Notwithstanding that I take the Chaldee Paraphrasts to be ancienter than Philo yet I chuse to begin with Philo's Testimonies rather than theirs for three Reasons First Because he writ in the way of Treatises and therefore much larger and clearer than they did that writ only in the way of Translation or Paraphrase adding nothing of their own but only sometimes a very short Note on the Text And therefore their Writings are much likelier to be explained by his than his by theirs 2dly Because the Passages in Philo for the Existence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Person coeternal with the Father are so evident as to leave the Socinians no other way of answering them but to deny with Mr. N. that the Books that contain them were written by Philo the Jew 3dly A third Reason is because these Passages of Philo being written at Alexandria and abounding with Expressions used by the Apostles when they speak of Jesus Christ as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will contribute to explain some of the Quotations we shall take out of the Paraphrases in use at Babylon and Jerusalem These three great Cities Babylon Jerusalem and Alexandria were the three great Academies of the Jews till the destruction of the Temple under Vespasian So that whatever was received among the Jews in these three Cities before our Saviour's time may well pass for the Opinion of the Jewish Church at that time Let us proceed then to some of those Passages in Philo the Jew wherein he declares that there are Two such Powers in God as we call Two Persons and no one shall make sense of those Passages that calls them otherwise 1. In general he acknowledges that God hath Two Chief Supreme Powers one of which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord. De Abrah p. 286 287. F. De vit Mos iii. p. 517. F. 2. That these Two Powers are Uncreated Quod Deus sit immut p. 238. A. Eternal De Plant. Noae 176. D. and Infinite or Immense and Incomprehensible De Sacr. Ab. p. 168. B. 3. On many occasions he speaks of these Two Powers as De Cherub p. 86. F. G. 87. A. De Sacr. Ab. p. 108. A. B. De Plant. Noae p. 176. D. E. Quod Deus est immut p. 229. B. De Confus Ling. p. 270. E. 271. Lib. de Prof. p. 359. G. and especially p. 362 and p. 363. B. C. D. Quis rerum divin Haer. p. 393. G. p. 394. A. C. De Somn. p. 457. F. De Monar p. 631. A. B. C. De Vict. Offeren p. 661. B. De Mund. p. 888. B. 4.
has communed with Man ever since his fall into sin Upon this Ground Malachi ch iii. v. 1. names the Son of God the Angel or Messenger of the Covenant Which Prophecy is owned to this day by the Jews to speak of the Messias Isaiah ch lxiii v. 9. names him the Angel of the Presence of the Lord who saved and redeemed the Israelites According to what the Lord said to Moses Exod. xxiii 23. My Angel shall go before thee And Exod. xxxiii 14. My presence shall go with thee The Primitive Christians never doubted but that the Angel which appeared to Moses in the Desart and guided the Israelites was the Son of God St. Paul says expresly thus much 1 Cor. x. 9. when he affirms that the Israelites tempted Christ in the Wilderness by their Rebellions Lorinus himself quoting some places from the most Ancient Fathers is forced to acknowledge it on Acts vii And I shewed before that St. Paul has affirmed nothing upon this Point but according to the common Notion of the Jews It ought not therefore to seem strange that St. Stephen does distinguish the Angel of whom he speaks from the Lord himself when he names him the Angel of the Lord For the Son is distinct from the Father and the Son was sent by the Father But because they so partake of the same Divine Nature that they are in reality but one and the same God blessed for ever the Son in this regard might well say I am the God of Abraham c. and be called the Lord Jehovah If it be askt why Moses did rather call him an Angel than otherwise I answer that he did so for these two reasons First because the distinction of the Divine Persons was not so clearly revealed under the Old Testament by reason that it did not so well suit that Oecomy Secondly because God since he created the World commonly imploying Angels in those works which were not above their power and capacity It may very well be that the Son of God when he appeared to Men used the Ministry of Angels either to form the voice and the words which he spoke to his Prophets or to make the Body or the Figure under which he appeared It is objected in the last place that St. Paul seems to suppose that an Angel gave the Law upon Mount Sinai and not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Son of God and that that Angel is called God because he spoke in God's Name Thus Gal. iii. 19. he says that the Law was ordained by Angels Heb. ii 2. that it was spoken by Angels And Heb. i. 1 2. making opposition between the Law and the Gospel he says to elevate this last above the former that God having formerly spoke to Men by his Prophets has in these last days spoken to us by his Son which could not be true if he had before made use of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give his Law to the Jews The Socinians look upon this Argument as unanswerable And the truth is it has imposed upon many Learned Writers as Lorinus Grotius and others But it will be no difficult business to answer it if it be observed First that it hath been always the opinion of the old Jews that the Law was given by Jehovah himself Secondly that it was likewise their opinion that Jehovah who gave the Law was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 3ly that 't is affirmed by Moses Deut. xxxiii 2. That when the Lord came from Sinai and rose up from Seir He came with ten thousands of Saints from his right hand went a fiery Law I say that 't is enough to prove those three things to convince any Man that when St. Paul says that the Law was spoken by Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means only that they were present as witnesses where it was given not that they represented God's person The first appears by Philo who affirms that it was God who spoke when he gave the Law de Migrat Abrah p. 309. D. E. F. And de Decal p. 576. D. C. and p. 593. F. he spoke by a voice which he created And Lib. de Praem p. 705. The Targum affirms the same that Jehovah revealed himself with multitudes of Angels when he gave his Law 1 Chron. xxix 11. The second is clear by Hag. ii 6. where the Lord speaking of the time when he brought his People out of Egypt saith that he had shaken the Earth which relates to his giving the Law as appears from Psal lxviii 8. and Heb. xii 25 26. where St. Paul applies that place to our Saviour And it is acknowledged also by the Jews as the Author of Rabboth fol. 135. col 3. Onkelos Deut. iv 33 36. the People heard the voice of the Word of the Lord out of the fire And also Deut. v. 24. And likewise Exod. xx 7. Deut. v. 11. and vi 13. where the third Commandment is mentioned in these words None shall swear by the Name of the Word of the Lord. The third Point is evident according to the constant Maxim of the Jews that the Shekinah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is always accompanied with several Camps of Angels who attend him and execute his Judgments Those things being noted I maintain that when St. Paul saith that the Law hath been Ordained by Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. iii. 19. the Text must be rendred between Angels as St. Paul hath used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Tim. ii 2. not to say by many Witnesses but among or before many Witnesses 2ly That when St. Paul speaks Heb. ii of the Word that hath been spoken by Angels he doth not speak of the Law but of the several threatnings which were made by the Prophets to whom the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sent his Angels to bring back the People of Israel from their wickedness And of the several punishments which fell upon Israel and were inflicted by Angels as Executors of the judgment of God It must be understood so necessarily or it is impossible to save St. Paul from having contradicted himself in the same Epistle For he supposeth ch xii 25 26. that 't was Jesus Christ that being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shook the Earth in which he follows the words of Haggai the Prophet and of the Psalmist Psal lxviii 8. and who can reconcile that with St. Paul saying that many Angels Ordained the Law Did they all personate God in that occasion No body hath ever imagined such a thing It cannot be objected to me that St. Paul opposes the Person of Jesus to Moses as it hath been done by St. John ch i. where he saith that the Law was given by Moses but Grace and Truth by Jesus Christ The reason is clear and it is because he opposes the Ministry of Reconciliation to the Ministry of Condemnation Moses hath been the Mediator of the first Covenant but Jesus Christ is the Minister of the second although both
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.
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
thus 1. we find in many places the connexion of one History with another which is very often the imagination of a Rabbin who fancied what he pleased and fathered it upon Moses 2. We find Explications in these later Targums different from the former ones yet added to the former with an impudence not to be endured and this in several places 3. We there find long Narrations which have no other foundation than their method of explaining Scripture by the way of Notarikon as they call it as where we read of the five Sins of Esau which he committed on the same day in which he sold his birthright to Jacob and in pursuance of their manner of explaining Scripture by Gematria of which Rittangel on Jetzira has given some examples p. 31 32 33. But all this makes nothing against the authority of those places in the Paraphrase where they do little more than render the Text out of Hebrew into Chaldee In them there was no occasion to shew any more than the sense of the words such as the Paraphrasts had received by Tradition from their Forefathers Whereas the Authors of those Additions thereby made a shew of Learning out of the common road and gave themselves the pleasure to see their own fictions come into such credit that they were received as the Oracles of God But beyond that we must take notice that as on one hand those Targums have been enlarged by so many Additions so on the other hand they have been altered in many places and new Ideas substituted to the old To shew the alteration which was made in those Targums by Modern Jews we can remark a thing which hath been often taken notice of by Buxtorf in his Lexicon Talmud viz. that there are many places cited from those Targums 500 years ago by the Author of Aroule that are not to be found in them as they are now in Print So we can prove clearly that new Ideas have been put in instead of the old chiefly upon the points controverted between Jews and Christians For in many places where St. Jerome in his Comments upon the Prophets brings the common explication of the Jews as agreeing with the explication of Christians we find the Targum brings an explication quite different from what it was to be according to St. Jerome's account It appears by this the Jews have done in their Books the same thing which Papists have done in the Books of the Fathers They have added many things to help their Cause and they have cut out many places which might have done great service to Truth As for the Additions then I will scarce cite any of them but when it is evident that they speak the sense of the Ancients and truly whatever one may say of the Corruptions of these Jewish Paraphrases I will maintain that it is as easie for an attentive Reader to distinguish these Corruptions from the ancient Text which it seems Arias Montanus had a design to do in a particular Treatise as it is for one that looks on an old Pot or Kettle to tell where the Tinker has been at work and to distinguish his Clouts from the Original metal The ancient pieces have a sort of simplicity that makes them to be valued and which easily shews their antiquity The Additions are the rambling fancies of bold Commentators which they devised in later times as occasion required and thrust them upon the ancient Paraphrasts who lived in those times when there was no such occasion nor could they foresee that there would be any such in after-times As for example we do not find that the Jews before Christ's time ever spoke of two Messias the one the Son of David who was to reign gloriously the other a suffering Messias the Son of Joseph of the Tribe of Ephraim The reason is plain for they had no occasion for that fancy of a suffering Messias That arose upon their Disputes with the Christians who proved that the Sufferings of Christ were no other than what the Messias was to suffer according to the Prophecies of Scripture At first the Jews tried other ways to avoid the force of these Prophecies but when no other would do they came to this to devise another Messias the Son of Joseph and to give him the Sufferings which the Scripture attributes to the Messias the Son of David In a word all these Conceits of which the greatest part of these Additions do consist do so evidently demonstrate their Novelty that when one is acquainted with a little of the History of the World as well as that of the Jews it is scarce possible that he should take them for the Text of Jonathan or of the ancient Paraphrasts Besides all this in the Modern Paraphrases themselves we find very often these words Another Targum and sometimes yet Another Targum which shews that the following words are not the ancient Targum but are the Additions of some Modern Authors whom the Copyers of the Paraphrasts have joyned as a new light to the ancient Whether the Jews's inserting such things into their Paraphrases has been out of fondness of these Discoveries which appeared to them new or whether they have found it turn to account to insert these Additions in the Body of their ancient Paraphrases thereby to enhance the value of them or whether they thought by publishing them under the Names of those ancient Commentators whose Authority is so venerable to wrest from the Christians all the advantages they might draw from any thing in their Paraphrases the things that they added being oftentimes contrary to what the Ancients did teach is a secret among the Jews but a secret little worth since the Providence of God has preserved the Apocryphal Books and the Books of Philo which can give us so much light into the knowledg of what is ancient and what is modern in these Paraphrases I will add nothing upon this matter but this that we see in the most ancient Books of the Jews as in the Books call'd Rabboth Mechista and in their old Midrashim almost all composed before the 7th Century and in the Talmud of Babylon the same Ideas and the same Doctrine which we meet in the Apocryphal Books and in Philo's Writings And those Ideas have been constantly followed by the most considerable part of the Jews those very Men who have their name from their constant sticking to the old Tradition of their Forefathers CHAP. VIII That the Authors of the Apocryphal Books did acknowledg a Plurality and a Trinity in the Divine Nature HAving finished our General Reflexions on the Traditional Sense of the Scriptures which was receiv'd among the Jews before the time of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Books wherein we can find such a Tradition it is time we should come to the chief matter we designed to treat of The Question is Whether the Jews before Christ's time had any notion of a Trinity For the Socinians would make us believe that Justin
And 47. And he did evil also in the sight of the Lord and cared not for the words that were spoken unto him by the Prophet Jeremy from the mouth of the Lord. 3ly They speak of the Bina or Understanding by which is to be understood the Holy Spirit from Prov. iii. and viii So in Eccles c. i. 4. Wisdom hath been created before all things and the understanding of prudence from everlasting So the Book of Wisdom chap. i. 4 5 6 7. For into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit and remove from thoughts that are without understanding and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in For Wisdom is a loving spirit and will not acquit a blasphemer of his words for God is witness of his reins and a true beholder of his heart and a hearer of his tongue For the Spirit of the Lord filleth the world and that which containeth all things hath knowledge of the voice 4ly They acknowledg him as the Counsellor of God which knew all his Counsels So you read in the Book of Wisdom ch ix 17. And thy counsel who hath known except thou give wisdom and send thy Holy Spirit from above 5ly They speak of him as of he that discovers the secrets of God so Ecclus ch 39.8 He shall shew forth that which he hath learned and shall glory in the law of the covenant of the Lord. And ch 48.24 25. He saith of Isaiah He saw by an excellent spirit what should come to pass at the last and he comforted them that mourned in Sion He shewed what should come to pass for ever and secret things or ever they came 6ly They acknowledg him to be sent from God Wisdom ch ix 17. And thy counsel who hath known except thou give wisdom and send thy Holy Spirit from above After all if we consider what Notions they had of the Messias which was promised to them we shall find that they had much nobler Ideas than those which are now entertained by the last Jews and more like to them which we find among the Prophets 1. It is clear that they lookt upon him as the Person which was to sit upon the Throne of God the Title of my Lord which is given by the Author of Ecclus ch li. 10. shews that beyond exception by so clear an allusion to the Psal cx and ii which both speak of the Messias 2ly They did not look upon it as an absurd thing to suppose that God is to appear in the earth as you see in Baruch ch iii. 37. Afterward did he shew himself upon earth and conversed with men For they refer that either to his appearance upon Sinai or to the Incarnation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3ly They suppose another coming of the Messias and then the Saints are to judge the Nations and have dominion over the people and their Lord shall reign for ever Wisd ch iii. 8. which words have been borrowed by St. Paul 1 Cor. vi 2. 4ly They acknowledg such Appearances of God as we have an example in 2 Macc. ch xi 6. and ch xxi 22 23. Now when they that were with Maccabeus heard that he besieged the holds they and all the people with lamentation and tears besought the Lord that he would send a good Angel to deliver Israel 5ly They speak of the Appearances of God as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very word used by St. Paul for the first and second Appearance of Jesus Christ So the 2. of Macc. ch xv 27. and 34. So every man praised toward the even that glorious Lord saying Blessed be he that hath kept his own place undefiled So that fighting with their hands and praying unto God with their hearts they slew no less than thirty and five thousand men for through the appearance of God they were greatly cheared 6ly They expected at the second coming of the Messias such a manifestation of his Glory as in the Consecration of the Temple So 2 Macc. ch ii 8. Then shall the Lord shew them these things and the glory of the Lord shall appear and the cloud also as it was shewed under Moses and as when Solomon desired that the place might be honourably sanctified I believe these Proofs are sufficient to demonstrate 1. That there was before Jesus Christ's time a Notion of Plurality in the Godhead 2ly That they believed that such a Plurality was a Trinity 3ly That they look'd upon the Son or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Holy Ghost as not created Beings but as Beings of the same Divine Nature with the Father by an Eternal Emanation from him as having the same Power and the same Majesty But these Ideas of the Apocryphal Books will appear more clear when we take them in conjunction with the explication of the like Notions among other Hebrew Writers which I shall now consider more particularly And withal those places of Scripture on which they ground their Explications CHAP. IX That the Jews had good Grounds to acknowledg some kind of Plurality in the Divine Nature AFter what I have quoted from the Authors of the Apocryphal Books which are in the hand of all people to prove 1. That the Jews before Jesus Christ had a Notion of a Plurality in God following herein certain Traces of this Doctrine that are to be found in the Books of Moses and the Prophets And 2ly that the same Jews did acknowledg a Trinity in the Divine Nature I will proceed to consider in particular the Grounds which they build upon to admit such Notions I begin with the first of those two Articles which is That the Stile of God in the Jewish Scriptures gave them a Notion of a Plurality in God To establish this Proposition I do not intend to gather all the Texts of the Old Testament which might be brought to prove a Plurality in the Divine Nature nor will I answer the several Solutions which the Unitarians have invented to darken this truth which they oppose It shall suffice me to do two things 1. To shew that the Stile of God in Scripture and of the Sacred Authors leads one naturally to the Notion of a Plurality of Persons in the Divine Essence 2. That this Stile made the like Impression on the Jews before Jesus Christ as was made by it anciently and is still made on it by the generality of Christians So that the Jews generally have acknowledged that the Divine Nature which is otherwise perfectly one is distinguishable into certain Properties which we call Persons For the proof of the first Point to wit that the Scriptures of the Old Testament suppose a Plurality in God I make these following Reflections 1. Moses the chief End of whose Writings was to root out of the minds of Men the conceit of Polytheism does yet describe the Creation of the World in words that insinuate a Plurality
In the beginning saith he Bara Elohim the Gods created Gen. i. 1. He might have said Jehovah Bara Jehovah being the proper name by which God made himself know to Moses and by him to his People Ixod iii. 15. or he might have said Eloah Bara and so he had joyned the Singular Number of Elohim which signifies God with the Verb Bara which is also the Singular Number and signifies created But Moses uses the Plural word Elohim with a Verb of the Singular Number and he repeats it thirty times in the History of the Creation only although this word denotes a Plurality in the Divine Nature and not one single Person Had Moses joyned always the Noun Elohim which is Plural with a Verb or Adjective in the Singular we might have judged that by calling God by a name in the Plural he had followed the corrupt custom which then obtained among the Heathens of speaking of the Gods in the Plural and that he designed to rectifie it by expressing the single action of God by a Singular Verb or Adjective But here this Excuse will not serve for 1. he had the word Eloah God in the Singular which he uses Deut. xxxii 15 17. and in other places He had also several other Names of God which he uses in other places all of them Singular and consequently any of them had been fitter for his use to root out Polytheism 2. Moses himself sometimes joyns the Noun Elohim with Verbs and Adjectives in the Plural There are several examples of this in his Books and more in the other Sacred Writers that imitated him in it you may see it in Gen. xx 13. xxxv 7. Job xxxv 10. Jos xxiv 19. Psal cxlix 1. Eccles xii 3. 1 Sam. vii 23. Es liv 5. which shews the impudence of Abarbanel who to elude the force of this Argument maintains that the word Elohim is a Singular In Pent. fol. 6. col 3. 6. Another Reflection on the Stile of Moses which ought to be every where Singular and yet intimates a Plurality is this That Moses in the History of the Creation brings in God speaking to some one thus Let such a thing be made and it follows it was made and again God said and God said This expression is repeated no less than eight times within the compass of one Chapter which is a thing very surprizing in so concise an History For to whom did God then speak to whom did he issue out his Orders or who was he that did execute them There were then neither Men nor Angels to obey him nor to hear him speak 3. There is no one that reads the account of Man's Creation but if he considers what he reads is struck with these words of God Gen. i. 26. Let Us make man after our Image and likeness These words in the Plural Number denote plainly a Plurality Let US make and OUR Image are too lively Characters of Plurality to be passed over without particular regard 4. We may make the same reflection on those words Gen. iii. 5. which point out a Plurality of Persons And you shall be as Gods and a little after Adam is become as one of Us ver 22. We find a like example Gen. xi 7. where God saith Let Us go down and confound their Language Again Gen. xx 13. When God caused me to wander from my Father's house the Hebrew is when the Gods caused me to wander Again Gen. xxxv 7. Jacob built an Altar and called the place El-Bethel because there God or Gods as it is in Hebrew appeared unto him All this is contained within one Book only that of Genesis We meet with the same Notion in these words of Deuteronomy ch iv 7. Who have the Gods so nigh unto them We may trace the Idea of Plurality still further in the following Books as in Joshua xxiv 19. And Joshua said You cannot serve the Lord for he is an holy God where in the Hebrew it is the Holy Gods So Solomon Prov. xxx 3. I neither learned wisdom nor have the knowledg of the Holies instead of the Holy And Eccl. xii 1. Remember thy Creators Upon the whole we should remark 1. That this Plurality is expressed in several passages of the Old Testament and not in one place only 2. That there is no kind of speaking by which a Plurality in God may be signified but is used in the Old Testament A Plural is joyned with a Verb Singular Gen. i. 1. In the beginning the Gods created Heaven and Earth A Plural is joyned with a Verb Plural Gen. xxxv 7 And Jacob called the name of the place Beth-El because the Gods there appeared to him A Plural is joyned with an Adjective Plural Jos xxiv 19. You cannot serve the Lord for he is the holy Gods 2 Sam vii 23 What one nation in the earth is like thy people like Israel whom the Gods went to redeem for a people to himself So Eccles v. 8. There be higher than they Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which stands for Gods God being called the Most High And in Eccles xii 1. Remember thy Creators in the days of thy Youth In conformity to which manner of speaking Isaiah says ch liv 5. For thy Makers are thy Husbands the Lord of Hosts is his name A Verb in the Plural is joyned with a name in the Singular as you read Eccles ii 12. as it has been observed by R. Bachaie in Parash bresch fol. 11. col 2. of the Edit in fol. from which he infers that God and the house of his Judgment are expressed there for by the King which is there spoken of he doth not understand Solomon but God as they do in the Targum upon 1 Chron. iv 23. which hath been followed by R. Bachaje Ibid. fol. 11. col 3. and by Lombroso in his Heb. Bible you have the same remark of St. Jerome upon Jer. xxiii 36. when you read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Living Gods and from which he draws an argument for the Doctrine of the Trinity 3. That though there is but one only Jehovah yet in the Holy Scripture we meet with several Elohim to whom the Title of Jehovah is given this we see in a hundred places in the Law where the words are Jehovah Eloheka i. e. the Lord thy Gods which does certainly deserve to be considered This also we more particularly see in the History of the destruction of Sodom Gen. 30.24 where it is written That Jehovah rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of Heaven There is Jehovah and Jehovah and if they do not make two I know not what will express a Plurality But we shall have more to say of this afterwards I have given in short some Marks of a Plurality in the Divine Nature which may be gathered out of the Writings of the Old Testament For the fuller satisfaction of my Reader I am next to shew that the ancient Jews made the same Reflections and
formed the same Notions that we have of the Divine Nature To do this with the more clearness I shall observe this Method 1. To shew what were their Reflections on the Unity of the Divine Nature 2. To shew what their Reflections were on those passages of the Scripture which note a Plurality in the Unity of the Divine Essence As to the first Philo who left a great many Pieces behind him is best able to instruct us and he asserts that the Nature of God is incomprehensible i. e. that we cannot form a just Idea of it Alleg. 1. p. 43. F. G. De Profug p. 370. C. That God's Providence and Existence are known to us but as to his Essence we are altogether ignorant of it De Mund. p. 889. D. And having in several places of his Writings observed 1. That Moses the Law-giver of the Jews made this his chief End to destroy the Notion of Polytheism He then 2. Affirms that though it is said God is one yet this is not to be understood with respect to Number Alleg. L. III. p. 841. Not that Philo would have it thought that there is more than one God but hereby he intimates the Unity of God to be transcendent to have nothing common with that of other Beings which fall under Number 3. And indeed he acknowledges a Generation in God If you ask him what he begets he will tell you 4. That God begets his Word Who is therefore said to be not unbegotten like God and yet not begotten like his Creatures Quis rerum Divin haeres p. 398. A. And on account of this Generation he calls him the First-born of God De Agricult p. 152. De Confus Ling. p. 267. Again he will tell you that God begets his Wisdom De Temul p. 190. E. And that his Wisdom is the same with his Word Alleg. 1. p. 39. F. following no doubt Solomon's Notion Prov. viii 22. But did he own that this Generation was made in time No For 5. He asserts that this Generation was from all Eternity For he saith the Word of God is the Eternal Son of God De Confus Ling. p. 255. D. p. 267. C. 6. When he would explain in what respect or for what reason God is called in Scripture The God of Gods he saith not that it is in respect of the Angels whose God he is and who sometimes are called Elohim or Gods even by Philo himself De Opif. p. 4. F. But he saith it is in relation to his two Powers Lib. de Victim off p. 661. G. which would be a ridiculous thing had he thought these two Powers were no other than two Attributes of God Indeed Philo is so far from thinking them meer simple Attributes that he maintains 1. That these Powers made the World or by them God created the World De Victim off p. 663. F. de Confus Ling. p. 270. B. de Plant. Noae p. 176. E. Quis rer div Haer. p. 393. G. 2. That these eternal Powers appeared acted and spoke as real Persons and in a visible and sensible manner Lib. de Cherub p. 97. D. De Sacr. Ab. p. 108. B. C. Quod Deus sit immutab p. 229. B. p. 241. C. D. p. 242. B. de Plant. Noae p. 176. D. E. Quod rer div haer p. 393. G. De Somn. p. 457. G. de Mund. p. 888. B. He also maintains that the two Cherubins which were over the Ark were the Symbols of the two eternal Powers of God De Vit. Mos III. p. 517. F. Quis rerum Divin Haer. p. 393. G. These are in general the Notions which the Jews had of a Plurality in the Divine Essence which is otherwise single and one I shall hereafter shew that the very same Notions are spred throughout the ancient Targums as far as the Nature of the Works which for the most part are only naked Translations of the Hebrew into Chaldee does give occasion to the Authors of these Targums to explain themselves on these Heads Now let us go on to examine the Foundations on which the ancient Jews grounded this Notion of a Plurality in God For it is not to be imagined that they would have believed thus without some Authority for it in the Books of the Old Testament upon which alone they pretended to found the Doctrines of their Religion Secondly then As to the first Words of Moses In the beginning the Gods created I must own that Philo writing in Greek did not express his Notion of Plurality in expounding this Text For he followed the Version of the LXX which reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Singular instead of the Hebrew Elohim in the Plural But then he more than hints that this Reflexion was common among the Jews seeing that he rarely speaks of God without mentioning his two Powers as I have newly observed to you And in one place he gives this reason why the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used throughout the History of the Creation because that was the Appellation of one of God's Powers by which he made the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Plant. Noae p. 176. D. E. Which shews evidently that the Notion of Plurality did still remain among the Greek Jews when the Plural Elohim which was the Ground of it was taken away by their Translators for a reason that I shall shortly mention But to shew that the word Elohim in the Plural has always made this impression on the Minds of the Jews we must observe 1. That long before Justin Martyr's time there was a sort of Men who imagined that the Angels did create the World grounding it upon this place compared with those other Texts where the Angels are sometimes called Elohim as Psal viii 6. Psal xcvii 7. Such was the Opinion of Menander the Scholar of Simon Magus in particular 2. That the Talmudists themselves were so perswaded of a Plurality expressed in the word Elohim as to teach in Title Megilla c. 1. fol. 11. That the LXX Interpreters did purposely change the Notion of Plurality couched in the Hebrew Plural into a Greek Singular as they did also on Gen. 1.26 and xi 7. lest Ptolom Philadelph should conclude that the Jews as well as himself had a belief of Polytheism That was taken notice of by St. Jerom in his Preface to the Book De Quaest Hebr. 3. That however the Construction of a Noun Plural with a Verb Singular may render it doubtful to some whether these words express a Plurality or no yet certainly there can be no doubt in those places where a Verb or Adjective Plural are joyned with the word Elohim and such places as I already have made appear are often to be found in the Writings of the Old Testament That the word Elohim is to be understood Plurally this the Jews since Christ's time have acknowledged to be agreeable to their sense of the word For in 1 Sam. xxviii 13. where the Witch of Endor saith I see the Gods ascending 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
p. 169. 3. He maintains that God spake this to his Powers as may be collected from his Exposition of this Text. De Confus Ling. p. 270. A. C. and as he saith expresly Lib. de Profug p. 357. G. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is he shews that Man only was formed by God with fellow-workers for Moses tells us that God said Let us make Man after our Image implying a Plurality in the expression Let Us make God therefore speaks here to his Powers 4. He expresses himself in so particular a manner on this head as to leave no doubt concerning his opinion of this place It is in his first Book of Questions and Solutions which is now lost all but a fragment preserv'd by Euseb Praep. Evang. vii 13. p. 322 323. His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why does God say in the Image of God made I Man and not in his own Image as if he had spoken of another God This Scripture-expression is for wise and good reasons for nothing mortal can be fashioned after the Image of the Supreme God and Father of all things but of his Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is the second God For the rational part of Man's soul ought to receive its impression from the Word or Reason of God because God himself who is Superior to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vastly beyond the nature of all Rational Beings and consequently it was not fit that any created Being should be made after his likeness whose Nature doth subsist in the highest degree of Excellence To speak next of the ancient Targums they are not unacquainted with this Notion which they shew as far as the nature of their Versions would permit God made Man by his Word saith the Jerusalem Targum Gen. i. 26. and the same thing Jonathan teaches Es xlv 12. The Jerusalem Targum Gen. i. 1. does indeed say God made all things by his Wisdom but then he shews that this is but another name for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by saying elswhere ver 27. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Word of the Lord created Man after his Image I know that in Jonathan's Targum on Gen. i. 26. God is brought in as speaking to the Angels when he said Let Us make Man But he who reads this and the following verse in the Targum of Jonathan and compares them with the Jerusalem Targum will soon see that these are not the words of the ancient Paraphrast but an Addition made to them by the Jews since Christ's time What I have said above is a convincing proof of it The Socinians cannot avoid being shockt a little with the expression Gen. xix 24. The Lord rained from the Lord out of Heaven Menasseh ben Israel confesses the place too hard for him unless by the Lord who is on Earth you understand the Angel Gabriel who as God's Ambassador bears the name of God q. 44. in Genesis But the ancient Jews found no such difficulty in it as he and the Socinians do at present find For Philo the Jew holds De Abr p◠290. B. that it was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that rained fire from Heaven de Somn. p. 449. F. As he otherwhere saith it was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that confounded the Language at Babel Again Philo saith in his History of Sodom God and his two Powers are spoken of The Targum of Onkelos though it speaks of Angels in this 19th Chap. yet it treats one as Jehova who rains fire from Heaven v. 24. and thus it Paraphrases the Text The Jehova rained from before the face of the Jehova from Heaven 3. This Notion of Plurality must have sunk deep into the minds of the Jews seeing they have constantly read the word Jehova which is singular with the Vowels of the word Adonai which is Plural instead of Adoni which is Singular And this notwithstanding their dispute with the Christians whom they accuse of Tritheism I am not ignorant that this manner of reading Jehova was long in use before the Birth of Jesus Christ But this it is that renders my Remark the more considerable For all the other names of God which represent him by some one of his Attributes are Singular as well as the name Jehova is Singular which is the proper name of God And yet the Jews all agree to forbear rendring the name Jehova by any of his many Names that are Singular but interpret it by that of Adonai whose Plural Vowels make Jehova to signifie Plurally as much as to say my Lords and that for this reason as it seems because there is more than one in the Godhead to whom the name Jehova is given in Scripture It is clear how sensible the Jews have been that there is a Notion of Plurality plainly imported in the Hebrew Text since they have forbidden their common people the reading of the History of the Creation lest understanding it literally it should lead them into Heresie Malmon Mor. Neboch p. 11. c. 29. The Talmudists as I before noted have invented this excuse for the Seventy as to their changing the Hebrew Plural into a Greek Singular they say it was for fear Ptolomy Phil. should take the Jews for Polytheists And to this they have added another Story that Moses himself was startled at God's speaking these words Let Us make Man in which he thought a Plurality was expressed and that he remonstrated to God the danger which might arise thereby and at length resolved not to write them till he had God's express order for it which God did give him notwithstanding the danger that Moses represented might follow Beresh Rab. § 8. Another thing relating to this Head which deserves our consideration is this That the Samaritans who were originally of the same Religion with the Jews but receive only the five Books of Moses have shewn that they had in the Apostles times the same Notions that are met with in Philo of a Plurality in God We have a proof of it Act. viii 9. where we read that Simon Magus had bewitched that people giving out that himself was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some great one he did not say what but gave them leave to understand it their own way And how did they take it This follows v. 10. They said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this person is the great power of God This they would not have said if they had not believed that besides the great God there was also a person called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say a Person for I suppose Mr. N. can 't think they took Simon Magus to be only an Attribute But looking yet nearer into this Text I conceive it is plain that they understood there was more than one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as it is in the Text they said this is the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seems to imply that they believed there was another power less than this It seems yet plainer
in another reading of the Text which I take to be the true reading for we find it not only in the now vulgar Latin but also in Irenaeus i. 20. which sheweth it was the current reading in his time and we find it also in several Manuscripts some of which are of the highest esteem with Learned Men as namely the Alexandrian in the King's Library and the ancient Manuscript of Lions in the Cambridge Library In all these the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This person is the power of God which is called the great power For their calling him the power of God what that means we cannot better learn than from Origen who speaking of Simon and such others as would make themselves like our Lord Jesus Christ saith they called themselves Sons of God or the Power of God which he makes to be two Titles of one and the same signification Orig. cont Celsum lib. 1. p. 44. And both these Titles are given to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Philo in more places than we can number For their calling him the Great Power of God which implies that there was another power besides this also perfectly agrees with the Notions of Philo who so often speaks of the two Powers of God describing them as true and proper Persons We have a farther proof of the Samaritans having these Notions in the account which their Country-man Justin Martyr hath given us of the honour they had for Simon Magus in his time which was about eighty years after the writing of the Acts of the Apostles It may seem very strange that when the charms of that Magus wherewith he had bewitched that poor people were so intirely dissolved by Philip's Preaching and Miracles that not only they but the Impostor himself had embraced the Christian Religion yet after this he could so far bewitch them a second time as to raise himself in their opinion from being the great power of God as they called him before to be in their new style the God above all power whatsoever Yet that was the Title they gave him in Justin's time as he sheweth in his Dialogue with Tryphon Justin Dial. cum Tryph. p. 349. G. elswhere Justin saith Apol. 11. p. 69. E. of Simon they confess him as the first God and as such they worship him This Notion of a first God is manifestly the same with that of Philo who called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second God Euseb Prep Evang. vii 13. p. 323. But if the Samaritans in the Apostles time took Simon to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or second God as I have shewn it more than probable that they meant it by calling him the Great power of God Who should be the second God now since Simon was so advanced in their opinion that now they accounted him to be the First Justin sheweth in the place before mentioned p. 69. E. that in his time as they called Simon the first God so they called his Companion Helen the second God His words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is that one may easily guess for certainly the first emanation from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so according to Justin himself the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies For in the same Book he interprets it of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apol. 11. p. 97. b. So that as the second God was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Philo's account so was Simon 's Companion the same in the opinion of the Samaritans This poor bewitched people were almost Singular in this opinion in Justin's time for he saith then there were but few of their way in other Nations And Origen who wrote within sixty years after saith That when he wrote there were of Simon 's Sect scarce thirty at Samaria and none any where else in the World Orig. cont Cels 1. p. 44. Possibly there might remain some of them till those times when other Writers give other accounts of their Opinions and possibly their Opinions might vary so that those later accounts are not to be much heeded we can't be certain of any thing concerning them but what we have from Justin Martyr who lived when they were at the highest and writing as he did to the Emperour an Apology for the Christians and acquainting him with the Errors of his Country-men at Samaria which as he more than intimates was not without some hazard of his being torn in pieces by the Mobb Just Dial. cum Tryphon p. 340. we may be very sure he would write nothing of them but what was so evidently true that it could not be denied by any that lived in those days But from the account that Justin Martyr gives of them together with what we read in the Acts of the Apostles I think it is sufficiently proved that the Samaritans held a Plurality in the Divine Nature which not a little confirms that which I undertook to prove of the Jews having these Notions in the times of Christ and his Apostles I shall not insist longer on the Arguments which confirm a Plurality in the Divine Nature because I shall touch on some of them again in the Sequel of this Discourse where I shall shew that those places of the Old Testament that speak of the Angel of the Lord are to be understood not of a created Angel but of a person that is truly Jehova and that this has been acknowledged by the ancient Jews which alone is proof enough of this Notion's being sufficiently known by that Nation to which God committed his Sacred Oracles Rom. ix 6. Pass we now to the second Article that the Jews did so acknowledg a Plurality in God as that at the same time they held that this Plurality was a Trinity CHAP. X. That the Jews did acknowledge the Foundations of the Belief of a Trinity in the Divine Nature and that they had the Notion of it IN pursuance of the Method laid down in the foregoing Chapter I am now to shew these two things 1. That there are in the Scriptures of the Old Testament so many and so plain Intimations of a Trinity in the Divine Nature as might very well move the Jews to take them for a sufficient ground for the Belief of this Doctrine 2. That these Intimations had that real effect on the Jews that as they found in their Scriptures a Plurality in the One Infinite Being of God so they found these Scriptures to restrain this Plurality to a Trinity of which they had though much more darkly and confusedly the same Notions that are now among Christians 1. To shew that there is ground for this Doctrine in the Scriptures of the Old Testament I might shew this oftentimes in these Scriptures where God is spoken of there is some kind of intimation given of Three in the Divine Nature But of this I shall only touch upon it my intention being chiefly to shew That there are Three that are called God
in the Old Testament and to shew who they are I need not prove it of the Father since it will not be denied that he is called God by them that will deny it of any other But I shall shew that sometimes the Son is called so whether by that name of the Son or of the Word or some other name without mention of the Spirit Next I shall shew that the Spirit is spoken of as God even he is mentioned without the Son And lastly That the Father the Son and the Spirit are all Three mentioned as God and all Three spoken of together in some Texts of the Old Testament Scriptures To keep to this order I am first to shew that there is some kind of Intimation of a Trinity in places where God is spoken of in these Scriptures I shall name but two or three Texts of many for I call it but an Intimation and it may amount to thus much that we find the Name of God repeated three times over for it was certainly no vain Repetition Thus in the Blessing of Israel Numb vi 24 25 26. 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 So Isa xxxiii 22. The Lord is our judge the Lord is our lawgiver the Lord is our king he will save us So Dan. ix 19. O Lord hear O Lord forgive O Lord hearken and do defer not for thy own sake O God The like Intimation we find in those words of the Prophet Isaiah which do both shew a Plurality in the Divine Nature and restrain it to a Trinity Isa vi 3. The Prophet heard the Seraphims cry one to another Holy Holy Holy Lord God of hosts These are Titles which taken together can belong to no one but God and the Repetition of them shews something in it which cannot but seem Mysterious especially to any one that considers those other words of God speaking in the same Chapter ver 8. Who will go for us words which clearly note a Plurality of Persons as also in Hos xii 4 5. and in some other places To shew who these are we must consider those places of the Old Testament where the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinctly spoken of as several Persons The Son is expresly spoken of by David who himself was a Type of the Messias and is so acknowledged by the Jews Psal ii 7. The Lord said unto me Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who as has been already proved is called Wisdom according to the Jewish Notions is the Son of God by Eternal Generation himself sheweth Prov. viii 23 24. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way before his works of old I was set up from everlasting from the beginning or ever the Earth was when there were no depths I was brought forth So in Prov. xxx 4. Who hath established all the ends of the earth What is his name or what is his Son's name The Son can be understood of no other than of that Eternal Wisdom that assisted in the Creation as was before mentioned Elsewhere the Son or the Word is spoken of according to the Jewish Expositions of such Texts where he is not named and yet he is called God and Lord as Psal xlv 7. O God thy God hath anointed thee And Psal cx 1. The Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool It was the same Son who appeared oftentimes under the Character of the Angel of the Lord though he was not a Created Angel but the Lord Jehovah himself This I only mention here being to treat of it largely in some of the following Chapters That the Spirit is spoken of as a Person in Scripture none can be ignorant of that reads but the beginning of Genesis where in the 2d Verse he is named the Spirit of God and said to have his part in the Work of the Creation The Jews could not make this Spirit to be an Angel because they all agree the Angels were not yet created when the Spirit moved upon the face of the Waters Nor was the Spirit of God a mighty Wind as some render it in that place for as yet there was no Air much less Exhalations till this Work was past But that Moses meant a Person sufficiently appears by that which followeth Gen. vi 3. Where God saith My Spirit shall not alway strive with man It was the Holy Spirit of God that inspired the holy Patriarchs to give those Admonitions and Warnings to the wicked World of Mankind before the Flood by which he strove to bring them to Repentance It was the same Divine Spirit whose Operations the Israelites were sensible of in his inspiring the Seventy Elders Numb xi 25 26. The Psalmist no doubt thought of those words of Moses in the beginning of Genesis when he said in speaking of the Works of the Creation Psal xxxiii 6. All the hosts of them were made by the Spirit of his mouth and this Spirit he sensibly knew to be a Person for thus he saith of himself 2 Sam. xxiii 2 3. The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and his Word was in my tongue Lastly In some places of the Old Testament there are plainly Three Persons spoken of together and especially in the beginning of Genesis where it ought to be remembred that the word Elohim Gods does naturally import a Plurality R. Bechai in Gen. chap. i. 1. and others quoted in the former Chapter Now there can be no Plural of less than Two in number and therefore at least God the Father and the Word are to be understood in the first Verse the second Verse adds the Spirit of God as it has been just now mentioned And it is very natural to think that God spake to these Two the Word and the Spirit in Verse 26. of that Chapter when he said Let Us make man after Our Image as also afterward Gen. iii. 22. Behold the man is become as one of Us And again speaking of the Builders of Babel Gen. ix 7. Let Us go down and confound their Language This must be to Two at least for had he spoke to One only he would have said in the Singular Number Come thou and let us confound their language The manner of speaking plainly imports a Plurality and they could be no other than those Three which were spoken of in the first Chapter As Moses brings in these Three Persons into his History of the first Creation so does the Evangelical Prophet in speaking of the Mission of Christ Isa xi 1 2 c. The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him i. e. upon the Messias according to the received Opinion of the Jews Isa xlviii 16. The Lord hath sent Me and his Spirit Again Isa lix 19 20 21. When the enemy shall
In particular Though he doth not directly name these Two Powers yet it is clear that by the first he means the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he saith it is the Power by which all things are created or to which God spoke when he made Man Which two Characters are ascribed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Philo in many of his Tracts The other which we call the Holy Spirit is often acknowledged by Philo Lib. Quod Deus sit immut p. 229. B. 5. These things being considered he saith it appears how God is Three and yet he is but One He sheweth how this was represented in that Vision to Abraham Gen. xviii where it is said Verse 1. That Jehovah appeared to him And Verse 2. Abraham looked and behold Three men stood by him Yet he spoke but to One Vers 3. saying My Lord if now I have found favour in thy sight pass not away I pray thee from thy servant c. This Vision according to the Literal Sense he expounds of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Two Angels as I have quoted him elsewhere * V. Phil. All. 11. p. 77. E. But he saith here was also a Mystery that lay under this Literal Sense like to Sarah's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the LXX calleth the Cakes that were hid under the Embers According to this Mystical Sense he saith here was denoted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Great Jehovah with his Two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which one is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These are Philo's words De Sacrif Ab. Cain p. 108. B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God attended with his Two Supreme Powers Principality and Goodness being himself but One in the middle of these Two makes these Three Appearances to the seeing Soul which is represented by Abraham That these words did not drop from Philo by chance the Reader may see in another place where he speaks purposely of this matter De Abrahamo p. 287. E. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In the middle is the Father of all things on each side of him are the Two Powers the oldest and the nearest to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jehovah whereof one is the Creative Power the other is the Royal Power The Creative Power is called God the Royal Power is called Lord. He therefore in the middle being attended by these Powers on each side of him represents to the seeing Faculty the appearance of sometimes One and sometimes of Three Philo after all warns his Reader that this is a Mystery not to be communicated to every one but only to them that were capable to understand and to keep it to themselves By which he sheweth that this was kept as a Cabala among the Jewish Doctors for fear if it came out the People might misunderstand it and thereby fall into Polytheism As for the Targums they likewise are very clear in this matter For besides the Lord Jehova without any addition they speak of the Word of the Lord or the Shekinah of the Lord and that so often that it will be endless to quote all the places some of them however must be cited to put the thing out of dispute 1. Where ever the words Jehovah and Elohim are read in the Hebrew There Onkelos commonly renders it in his Chaldee Paraphrase the Word of the Lord as Gen. xxviii 20 21. xxxi 49. Ex. ii 25. xvi 8. xix 17. xxxii 20. Lev xx 23. xxvi 49. Numb xi 20. xiv 9. xxiii 21. Deut. i. 30 32. ii 7. iii. 12. iv 24 27. v. 5. ix 3. xx 1. xxxi 6 8. The Targums commonly describe the same Person under the Title of Shekinah which signifies the Divine Habitation The Origin of that expression is in the Hebrew word which we find in Gen. ix 27. and is repeated in many places of the Old Testament I acknowledg freely that in some few places of the Targums it seems to be employed to express the Holy Ghost so that Eliah in his Dictionary and some others who have followed him and transcribed his Book in their Lexicons takes the Shekinah and the Holy Ghost to be the same But after all I believe that Eliah hath been mistaken by not being fully acquainted with the Ideas of the most learned of his people And indeed we see that the most famous Writers of the Synagogue put quite another sense upon the Targums and decide that question against Eliah looking upon the Memra and the Shekinah as the same So doth R. Moses Maimonides R. Menachem de Rakanaty and Ramban and R. Bachaye It is very easie to be satisfied that these famous Authors are in the right For if you consider the places where Philo the Jew speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you shall see that they are in the Targum explained either by the Memra da Jehova or by the Shekinah And on the contrary if you except very few places you shall find that the Targums employ the term of Holy Ghost as the proper name which we have in the Original And even to this day the Jews do oftner call the Spirit as by his proper name Ruach hakkodesh the Holy Spirit That the Targumists had the same Notions of these two that Philo had is I think plain if we compare what Philo saith of the two Powers of God De Plant. Noae p. 172. whereof as we shewed before he hath one on each side of himself with what we read of the two Hands of God in Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targum on Ex. xv 17. The like expressions are to be found in other places too many to be here collected but we shall consider them afterwards The mean while we cannot but take notice how that Doctrine of the Trinity past current among the Jews of the ancient Synagogue though they were as zealous Asserters of the Unity of the Godhead as our Socinians can pretend to be at this day No doubt the ancient Jews could have found as many Contradictions in these two Doctrines of Trinity and Unity as the Socinians do if they had not been more disposed to study how to reconcile them together being satisfied that both these Doctrines were part of the Revelation which God had made to their Fathers We cannot say so altogether of the Modern Jews who are very much alienated from the Doctrine of the Trinity by seeing much clearer Revelations of it in the New Testament and especially since they are treated with disputes against the Christians that make Christ to be the Messias or second Person in the Trinity which they can by no means endure now to hear This has set them to hunt for ways to avoid the Evidence of these Texts that speak of a Plurality in the Divine Nature and in this pursuit they forsake their ancient Guides and strangely intangle themselves and contradict one another Some of them flatly deny that any of those Plural words do denote any Plurality in God but
Eminent Divines of the old Jewish Church and consequently as subject to several weaknesses and oversights which are common to the greatest as well as to the meanest men Even the most Learned Men in all Ages though they agree in the truth of certain Doctrines are yet often divided in their ways of expressing them and also in their grounding them on this or that place of Scripture For the Jews since Christ's time we are less concern'd what they say because when they had once rejected their Messias the Lord Jesus Christ they soon found that if they stood to their Traditional Expositions of Scripture it could not be denied but he whom they had rejected was the Word the Son of God whom their Fathers expected to come in our Flesh but rather than yield to that they would alter their Creed and either wholly throw out the Word the Son of God or bring him down to the state of a created Angel as we see some of them do now in their ordinary Comments on Scripture And so they deal with the Shekinah likewise confounding the Master with the Servant as we see that some few perhaps one or two Cabalists have done in their Books In consequence of this alteration they are forc'd to acknowledg the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob worshipped a created Angel and have left themselves no way to excuse them from Idolatry therein but by corrupting their Doctrine concerning Religious Worship and teaching that it is lawful to pray to these Ministring Spirits which is effectually the setting up of other Gods plainly contrary to the first Commandment of their Law Some of themselves are so sensible of this that they cannot deny it to be Idolatry Which is certainly the more inexcusable in the Jews because on other occasions they constantly affirm that when God charged the Angels with the care of other Nations he reserved to himself the sole Government of his people Israel Deut. xxxii 8 9. And therefore it must be a grievous sin in them to worship Angels howsoever they should imagin it might be permitted to other Nations After all this they have not been able so totally to suppress the ancient Tradition but that in their Writers since Christ's time there appear some footsteps of it still And that it is so I am next to shew that notwithstanding their aversness to the Christian Doctrine they yet have a Notion distinct enough both of a Plurality and Trinity in the Divine Nature which will be the whole business of my next Chapter CHAP. XI That this Notion of a Trinity in the Divine Nature has continued among the Jews since the time of our Lord Jesus Christ TO begin with the Jewish Authors who have writ Medrashim that is a sort of Allegorical Commentaries upon Scripture and the Cabalistical Jews whom their people look upon as the wisest Men of their Nation viz. those that know the truth more than all others among them this truth passes for undoubted I know very well that the method of those Cabalistical Men who seek for Mysteries almost in every Letter of the words of Scripture hath made them justly ridiculous And indeed one cannot imagin an occupation more vain or useless than the prodigious labour which they undergo in their way of Gematria Notarikon and Tsirouph But besides that Vice is not so general among the Jews I am fully resolved to lay aside in this Controversie all such remarks my design being only to shew that the ancient Tradition hath been kept among those Authors who have their Name from their firm adherence to the Tradition of their Forefathers So I am not willing to deny that some of the Books of those Cabalistical Authors which the Jews who are not great Criticks look upon as very ancient are not as to all their parts of such an antiquity as the Jews suppose them to be But I take notice that those who attack the antiquity of those Books are not aware that notwithstanding some additions which are in those Books as for example in the Zohar and in the Rabboth the very Doctrine of the Synagogue is to be found there and the same as it is represented to us by the Apocryphal Authors by Philo or those who had occasion to mention the Doctrine of the Jews After all let us suppose that almost all those Books have been written since the Talmud and that the Talmud was written since the beginning of the seventh Century that could not be a prejudice against the Doctrine which the Jews propose as the ancient Doctrine of the Synagogue But to the contrary it would be a strong proof of the constancy of those Authors in keeping the Tradition of their Ancestors in so strange a dispersion and among so many Nations chiefly since in the Articles upon which I shall quote their Authorities they so exactly follow the steps of the Authors of the Apocryphal Books of Philo the Jew and of their ancient Paraphrast who had more penetrated into the sense of Scripture I say then that both the Authors of the Midrashim and the Cabalistical Authors agree exactly in this that they acknowledg a Plurality in the Divine Essence and that they reduce such a Plurality to three Persons as we do To prove such an assertion I take notice first That the Jews do judg as we do that the word Elohim which is Plural expresses a Plurality Their ordinary remark upon that word is this that Elohim is as if one did read El hem that is They are God Bachajè a famous Commentator of the Pentateuch who brings in his work all the senses of the four sorts of Interpreters among the Jews speaks to this purpose upon the Parascha Breschit fol. 2. col 3. 2ly It is certain that they make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express those Persons as they use to express the two first human Persons viz. Adam and Eve Thus speaks of them the same Bachaje Ibid. fol. 13. col 2. 3ly They fix the number of three Persons in the Divine Essence distinguishing their Personal Characters and Actions which serve to make them known 4ly They speak of the emanation of the two last from the first and that the last proceeds by the second 5ly They declare that this Doctrine contains a Mystery that is incomprehensible and above human reason and that in such an unsearchable secret we must acquiesce with the Authority of the Divine Revelation 6ly They ground this Doctrine upon the very same Texts of Scripture which we alledg to prove the several Positions of ours which deserves a great deal of consideration And indeed those things being so we must necessarily conclude either that they mock their Readers or that they do not understand what they say or one must acknowledg that the consequences and conclusions which Christians draw from the Scriptures to this subject of Trinity are not so easie to be avoided as the Socinians believe Let the Reader reflect upon each of those Articles while I
to the Memra or Shekinah as you may see in the same Comment of Menachem I shall only point at some of them not to enlarge too much in this Chapter So they give to the Shekinah the Character of Ruler and Conducter of the Animals of Glory who receive their Virtue from the Shekinah and live by his Glory fol. 65. col 2. fol. 66. col 4. According as we read in Ezek. i. 13. So R. Menachem following the Zohar fol. 5. col 3. fol. 8. col 1. They call the Shekinah the Adam of above after whose Image Adam was created And they give to him the Titles of Exalted and Blessed which they give only to the True God R. Men. fol. 14. col 3. They say That 't was he to whom Noah offered his Sacrifice Ibid. fol. 27. col 1. fol. 34. col 4. They pretend that the Shekinah is the Bridegroom of the Synagogue according to the Idea of God by Isaiah lxii 3. R. Men. fol. 15. col 1. And that God having committed to Angels the Care of other Nations the Shekinah alone was intrusted with the Care and Conduct of Israel fol. 28. col 3. fol. 153. col 2. They pretend that he hath been in Captivity with their Fathers R. Men. fol. 17. col 2. col 4. fol. 51. col 2. That he hath smote the Egyptians fol. 56. col 4. without the help of Angels although the Angels attended him as their King fol. 59. col 1. col 2. fol. 61. col 3. They pretend that the Temple was built to the Honour of the Shekinah fol. 63. col 1. fol. 70. col 2. And that it was to him and not to the Ark that the Levites said Arise O Lord into thy rest Thou and the Ark of thy strength Psal cxxxii 8. fol. 121. col 4. In a word they look upon the Shekinah as the Living God fol. 2. col 1. The God of Jacob R. Men. fol. 38. col 3. And they acknowledge him to be that very Angel whom Jacob looks upon as his Redeemer his Shepherd and whom the Prophets call the Angel of the Presence and the Angel of the Covenant Ibid. fol. 73. col 1. fol. 83. col 4. They are no less positive when they speak of the Third Sephira which they call Binah and which we take justly to be the Holy Ghost For they teach that it proceeds from the First by the Second and who can conceive that the Spirit of God is not God And 't is also the Doctrine of the Zohar and of the Book Habbahir related by R. Menachem fol. 1. col 3. The very Book of Zohar saith That the word Jehovah expresses both the Wisdom and the Binah and calls them Father and Mother R. Men. fol. 3. col 3. fol. 10. col 4. This Idea is grounded upon what is said Thou art our Father which they refer to the Shekinah fol. 22. col 2. col 3. And they call her upon that account the Mother of Israel and her Tutor R. Men. fol. 62. col 3. fol. 64. col 4. That Idea of the Holy Ghost as a Mother which R. Menachem hath fol. 114. col 2. is so ancient among the Jews that St. Jerom witnesses that it was the name which the Nazarenes gave to the Holy Ghost Hicronym in Ezek. xvi in Isa viii in Matth. xiii They speak of the Spirit as of a Person when they look upon a Man as a Prophet who is sent by God and by his Spirit Isa chap. xlviii R. Menach fol. 34. col 2. fol. 56. col 1. And by whom the Holy Ghost hath spoken fol. 122. col 2. And who for that reason is called the mouth of God fol. 127. col 4. Which is now turned by some other Jews as signifying only a Created Angel as you see in Bachaje at the end of the Parasha Breschith fol. 18. col 1. So they speak of the Holy Ghost as being the mouth of God fol. 127. col 4. And that the Angels have been created by the Mouth of God fol. 143. col 3. I acknowledg that sometimes some of them seem to take the Shekinah for the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost for the Shekinah although they commonly call one the Second Sephira and the other the Third viz. the Binah that is to be seen in R. Men. fol. 80. col 2. So some of them refer to the Binah the Title of King of Israel which occurs so often in Scripture See Men. fol. 132. col 3. Although it is the common Name of the Shekinah fol. 113. col 1. Some other refer to the Shekinah the Name of the Spirit of God which is mentioned Gen. i. 1. So says the Author of the Book Jetzira in R. Menachem fol. 3. col 2. But if some are mistaken in their Ideas I can say that they are very few and almost not worth taking notice of And indeed if we consider a little what is the general Sense of those Authors about the Emanations which are spoken of in Scripture as by which the Divine Nature is communicated to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Shekinah and to the Holy Ghost we shall know evidently that they had as distinct a Notion of a true Trinity as they have of the Plurality of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence And first the Author of the Zohar and the Author of the Book Habbahir pronounce that the Third Sephira proceeds from the First by the Second and R. Men. follows their Doctrine fol. 1. col 3. 2dly They attribute equally the Name of Jehovah to the Second and the Third Sepâ—â—â—a viz. the Wisdom and the Binah or Understanding So does the Zohar in R. Men. fol. 3. col 3. fol. 10. col 4. 3dly They propose the manner in which Eve was Taken from Adam as an Image of the manner of Emanation of the Wisdom from the En soph that is Infinite Ib. fol. 105. col 3. fol. 14. col 1. 4thly They propose the Image of the two Cherubims who were drawn from the Ark to give the Idea of the Two last Persons for the distinction of the Cherubims was evident although there was an Unity of them with the Ark. So R. Men. fol. 74. col 3. But we must add some of their Expressions upon this matter so much contradicted by the Socinians And first R. Menachem with the Jewish Authors suppose that not only the Three Persons which they call Sephiroth are spoken of in the History of the Creation but that they are also express'd in the first Command of the Law See him fol. 66. col 3. fol. 68. col 1. 2dly They acknowledge those Three Sephiroth and attribute to every one his Operations Ibid. fol. 139. col 4. 3dly The Author of Zohar is a Voucher of great Authority and he cites these words of R. Jose a famous Jew of the second Century where examining the Text Deut. iv 7. Who have their Gods so near to them What saith
and the same thing is to be found in their Manuscripts which are more rare because the Jews have not yet Printed them Of this sort is Iggereth Hassodoth cited by Galatinus whose Authority is vindicated by Plantavitius Bibl. Rabb p. 549. Of this sort also is the Manuscript called Sod Mercava Eliona quoted by Ritt p. 35. where are mentioned the three Modes of Existence in God Notwithstanding which they are all unanimous that the Lord is one and his Name is one If you would know on what foundations it was that the Cabalists built this Doctrine you need but look over the Texts on which they have reflected and you 'l find them almost all the same with those that were quoted to the same purpose by the Apostles and Apostolical Men in their Writings Particularly if you would know their opinion to whom it was that God did speak at the Creation Gen. i. 26. R. Juda will tell you God spoke to his Word If you would know of them who is the Spirit of whom we read Gen. i. 2. that he moved on the face of the Waters Moses Botril will inform you it is the Holy Spirit If you would learn of them to whom it was that God spoke Gen. i. 26. saying Let Us make Man Moses Botril tells us that these words are directed to the Wisdom of God If you would know what Spirit it was that is spoken of Job xxviii 12. Again Moses Botril will tell you it is the Holy Spirit If you would know of whom they understand those words in Psal xxxvi 6. They say plainly that they are spoken of that very Trinity If you would know what they think of that Wisdom Psal civ 24. R. Moses Botril describes it to you as a Person and not an Attribute If you would know to whom that is to be referr'd which we read of Isa xl 14. R. Abraham ben David will tell you to the Three Sephiroth All this is to be found in their several Comments on the Book Jetzira which were printed at Mantua in the last Century A. D. 1562. 1592. and have been quoted in Latin by Rittangelius But it may be said That the Jews have adopted this Doctrine inconsiderately without reflecting upon the Absurdity of it For how is it possible to conceive such Emanations in God who is Immutable and Eternal and such an Idea of Plurality and of Trinity in God who is over and above all Ideas of Composition But I answer 1. All these they have considered and yet have owned this Distinction in the Divine Essence as a Truth not to be contested But assert these Three Sephiroth which they call sometimes Spirits to be Eternal and Essential in God which they say we ought not to deny because we can't easily conceive it For the Divine Nature is Incomprehensible far exceeding the Limits of our narrow Understandings And the Revelation God hath given us does no more put us in a capacity to judge of the nature of the things revealed than the borrowed Light of the Moon which is all that the Owls can behold does render them able to judge of the Sun 's far more glorious Light Such are the Thoughts of R. Sabtay in Rit on Jetz p. 78 79 80. Such are the Reflections of R. Menach who cites Job xxviii 7. to this purpose and the Caution of the Jewish Doctors who forbid to undertake the Examination of things that are incomprehensible 2. They have expressed their Notions of this matter much after the same manner as the Thomists have done theirs The Book Jetzira chap. 1. distinguishes in God Sopher Sepher and Sippour which R. Abraham explaining says they answer to Him that understands to the Act of Understanding and to the Thing understood All this is still the more remarkable 1. Because the common Jews have well nigh quite lost the Notion of the Messias being God and they generally expect no other than a mere common Man for their Redeemer 2. Because the main Body of the Jews are such zealous Asserters of the Unity of God that they repeat every day the words of Deut. vi 4. The Lord our God is One Lord. It is a Practice which though now they have turn'd against the Christians yet doubtless was taken up first in opposition to the Gentiles whose Polytheism was renounced in this short Confession of the Jewish Faith And hence it is that they do so much celebrate R. Akiba's Faith who died in Torments with the last Syllables of the word Echad in his Mouth which signifies the Unity of God 3. Because the Jews at the same time dispute against the Christians Doctrine of the Trinity as doth R. Saadia for instance in his Book entituled Sepher Emunah chap. 2. 4. Because from the beginning of Christianity some Rabbins have applied themselves to find out other Senses of those Passages which the Christians urge against them This we see in Gem. of Sanhedr chap. 4. sect 2. And yet notwithstanding all this opposition the Cabalists have past and do still pass for Divines among the Jews and the Targumists for Inspired Men. Nor is it to be imagined that these Notions of the Cabalistical Jews are new things which they pick'd up since their more frequent Converse with the Christians For we find them in the Book Zohar the Author of which is reputed one of the chief Jewish Martyrs Jebhamoth tr 1. fol. 5. col 2. and to have lived in the Second Century I know some have suspected that this Book is a counterfeit and falsly fathered on R. Simeon whose Name it bears The Zohar was not known say they till about the time of R. Moses Bar Nachman So saith the Book Juchazin p. 42. R. D. Ganz in Tzemach David p. 106. But we find these Notions in the beginning of the Rabboth which Books they will have to be more Ancient than the Talmud Furthermore we see in the Gemara of Sabbath that R. Simeon was dispensed with the necessity of his being present at Prayers in the Synagogue because he and his Scholars were at work upon the Study of the Laws which supposes that he was writing some such Comments as we have now although 't is probable that they have been increased in following Ages Besides who can imagine that in all places the Jews should have adopted Opinions unknown to their Religion and in effect destructive of those Points for which they then zealously contended if they had not been convinced of the Truth of such a Doctrine And now give me leave to propose one Argument to the Unitarians which I believe they will not be able to answer and adhere to their new-advanced Position That the Nazarenes were the true Primitive Christians and the only Depositaries of the Apostolick Doctrine It is a Passage taken from the Gospel of the Nazarenes as cited by St. Jerome on Ezek. xvi Where after noting that the word Ruach Spirit in the Hebrew Tongue is Feminine he adds In Evangelio quoque Hebraeorum quod
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
have already quoted Being by Judas's Treason apprehended he declared that the Angels were his Ministers had he been pleased to make use of their Service Matt. 26.53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father And he shall presently give me more than twelve Legions of Angels For what he said about his asking his Father for them was because he was then in a state of Humiliation He did not ask when he came attended with them at his giving of the Law on Mount Sinai nor when Isaiah saw his Glory in the Temple and heard them sing Holy Holy Holy They were then in their Duty which as the Jews understand their Prophets say is to adore the Messias Being brought before Caiaphas at whose House the Counsel of the Jews was met upon Caiaphas his adjuring him by the living God to tell them whether he was the Christ the Son of God Matth. xxvi 63. Jesus said unto him v. 64. Thou hast said Nevertheless I say unto you Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven Upon which he was condemned to dye as a Blasphemer From whence it appears what notion the Jews had of the Messias And that they believed that Son of man spoken of Dan. vii 13 14. to be the very Son of God who had a second Throne set for him and came with the Clouds of Heaven as God This being the ordinary description the Prophets make of him Being condemned as a Blasphemer for taking the Title of Jehovah and of the Son of God the People by way of mockery called him the King of the Jews the Son of God and Saviour which justified his Pretension Luke xxiii 35 36 37 38. And the people stood beholding and the rulers also with them derided him saying He saved others let him save himself if he be Christ the chosen of God And the Souldiers also said If thou be the King of the Jews save thy self And a superscription was written over him This is the King of the Jews And Matt. xxvii 39 40 41 42 43. They that passed by reviled him saying Save thy self If thou be the Son of God come down from the Cross Likewise also the Chief Priests said He saved others himself he cannot save If he be the King of Israel let him now come down from the Cross and we will believe him He trusted in God let him deliver him now if he will have him For he said I am the Son of God He cried upon the Cross with a loud voice Eli Eli Lamma sabachthani My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Mat. xxvii 46. These words are the beginning of the 22th Psalm and very agreeable to those words in Psal xlv where he that is God himself or the Psalmist for him does nevertheless call the Father his God saying O God thy God has anointed thee Accordingly the Centurion that guarded him having heard this Cry and also that with which he expired saying Father into thy hands I commend my Spirit said Truly this was the Son of God Mark xiv 39. After his Death his side was run through that the Scripture might be fulfilled Joh. xix 37. relating to that Prophecy Zech. xii 10. which the Ancient Jews understood of the Messias Breshit Rabba on Gen. xxviii and Rabbi Abenezra on this Text. And yet the words of that Prophecy come from the mouth of the Lord Jehovah Zech. xii 1 4. saying I will pour upon the House of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication and they shall look upon ME whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for his only Son Being risen from the Dead the third day as he had foretold the Angel that gave the Women the first news of it called him Lord that is Jehovah Mat. xxviii 6. as the Angel had done who gave the Shepherds the tidings of his Birth Luk. ii 11. Soon after he appeared to his Disciples and did constitute them Heralds of the New Covenant which he had made with Mankind in his Blood of which Covenant Jehovah is said to be the Author Jer. xxxii 40. I will make an everlasting Covenant with them And I will put my fear in their hearts they shall not depart from me Afterwards he did promise to send them the Holy Ghost Luk. xxiv 46 47 48 49. He said to them Thus it is written and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day And that repentance and remission of sins should be preacht in his name among all Nations beginning at Jerusalem And ye are witnesses of these things And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you But tarry ye in the City of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high Before his Ascension he gave them Symbolically the Holy Ghost which he was to send fully upon them forty days after Joh. xx 22. He breathed on them and said receive the Holy Ghost Thomas not being then present nor believing what others told him that they had seen the Lord Jesus Christ appear'd to him and so throughly satisfied him of the truth of his Resurrection that thereupon he remarkably owned him his Lord and his God v. 28. He bids them Baptize in the Name of the Trinity Mat. xxvii 18 19 20. All power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth Go ye therefore and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you And lo I am with you always even unto the end of the World In which words he visibly relates to many Persons and where he represents himself as the Shekinah that was always with the people under his conduct Being ready to go up into Heaven he received their Adorations Luk. xxiv 51 52. While he blest them he was parted from them and carried up into Heaven And they worshipt him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy And St. John declares that the end for which he writ his Gospel was That we might believe that Jesus is Christ the Son of God and that believing we might have life through his Name Joh. xx 31. I thought it necessary thus in short to sum up the chief Particulars which the Four Evangelists have observed about the Life of our Saviour To shew plainly and briefly to the Reader that the Gospel follows the same Notions which the Old Testament had given of the Messias and which the Jews in Christ's days had generally received First That in the Divine Nature there is a Father a Son and a Holy Ghost Secondly That the Son which was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the promised Messias Thirdly That the Holy Ghost was to be given by the Messias and to come being sent both by the Father and the Son as the Son was sent
from him These words have another sense in the Targum but which seems an addition For they are thus rendered I will not give my Glory to another Nation That is my Shekinah shall not go from the Jews to another people I shall not mention here that which relates to our Saviour's Office especially his estate of Humiliation which Justin proves by Texts taken out of the Old Testament I shall only observe 1st That he quotes all the places of Scripture which he uses as relating to the Messias by the confession of the Jews and thus he shews by the circumstances of those places which had obliged the Jews to apply them to the promised Messias 2ly That he confutes the false Explications which the Jews gave to many places of Scripture for instance that which understands Isa ix of King Hezekiah for this mistake was older than Justin some Jews in his days had revived it and the Author of it was not Rabbi Hillel who lived after Justin but he made himself famous by propagating it That Rabbi by the destruction of Jerusalem having lost all hopes of the Messias whom God had promised them made this a Maxim There is to be no Messias in Israel because they had him in the days of Hezekiah King of Judah Gemara ad Sanhedr cap. Chelek It may be Mr. N. will be something disposed from the method which Justin used to believe that he advanced nothing new against Trypho the Jew who probably was that famous R. Tarphon so often mentioned in the Mishnah but whose Name the latter Jews have corrupted But I will if possible go further to convince him and prevent all his Objections To that end I will make it appear that most places of Scripture which Justin used were objected to the Jews by the Christians before Justin's Birth I prove it thus Justin was born at soonest 105. years after Christ But it appears by the Testimony of the Jews that long before their Doctors were divided amongst themselves about the manner in which those Objections were to be answered which the Christians made to them drawn from the Old Testament R. Eliezer who lived under Trajan had this Maxim Study the Law with diligence that thou mayst be able to answer the Epicureans Beth Israel fol. 105. col 3. R. Jochanan explains that Maxim of R. Eliezer as regarding not only Heathens but chiefly the Jews who had renounced their Religion And who could these Apostate Jews be It is easie to guess by the Objections which they made to the Jews and by the Maxim which R. Jochanan proposes to prevent the Jews from being overseen in their disputes with these Jews In a word they were Christians who proved that there was a Plurality and a Trinity in the Divine Nature Alledging to this effect against the Jews those places out of the Law and of the Prophets where mention is made of God in the Plural Number As Gen. i. 26. Let us make Man in our Image Gen. xi 7. Let us go down and confound their Language Gen. xxxv 7. where Elohim that is the Gods appeared to Jacob. Deut. iv 7. What Nation has the Gods so near unto them 2 Sam. vii 23. What Nation is like Israel whom the Gods went to redeem Dan. vii 9. Till the Thrones or Seats were set and the Ancient of days did sit Exod. xxiv 1. where God bids Moses come up to the Lord. Exod. xxiii 21. where God having promised to send his Angel bids them beware of him because he would not pardon their transgressions for Gods name was in him And Gen. xix 24. The Lord rained upon Sodom fire from the Lord. These nine Arguments the Christians made use of to prove a Plurality in the Godhead And we find that they were grounded upon the exact quotation of the Hebrew Text not the Greek Version For the Greek leaves room only to few of these remarks which shews that Justin who was born a Heathen had them from Men bred among the Jews who had read the Bible in Hebrew and had made their Observations upon the Original Text of Moses and other Sacred Writers Beth Isra Ibid. If a Man should ask how ancient were those Objections about a Plurality in God I answer that they were as old as the Preaching of the Gospel amongst the Jews For R. Meir R. Akiba's Master had endeavoured to answer in his Sermons the Objection taken out of Gen. xix 24. now R. Meir was born under Nero and Akiba died in Hadrian's days about 120. years after Christ Neither were the Jews agreed in the manner of answering those Objections about a Plurality in the Divine Nature 1st They thought they might answer most of them by this general Maxim That God never did any thing without consulting with his Family above that is the Angels And this they pretended to prove by these words Dan. iv 17. This matter is by the decree of the watchers and the demand by the word of the Holy Ones Which answer was destroyed by what others said that God spoke of himself in the Plural Number that Moses did also speak of God they having regard to his Sovereign dignity Though at the same time they observed that in those places Moses joined a Verb in the Singular with that Noun in the Plural to assert the Unity of God and for fear the Reader should think there were many Gods Thus when Men dispute against the Truth what one of them builds up is presently pulled down by another 2ly They were also divided about the Thrones set Dan. vii 9. For to what purpose many Thrones if there were but one Person Beth. Isr ibid. R. Akiba maintained that there was one for God and another for David He seems by David to have understood the Messias But R. Jose lookt upon this as impious and affirmed that one of these Thrones was set for God's Justice the other for his Mercy R. Akiba was at last convinced and received this explication which R. Eliezer Son of Azaria hearing was so far from approving of that he sent away Akiba with indignation and told him Why dost thou meddle with expounding the Scripture Go to the army and fight this he said because Akiba had followed Barcosba As for R. Eliezer himself he said that these two Thrones signified only that there was one for God and a footstool to it 3ly They were hard put to it by the Objections drawn from Exod. xxiii 21. about that Angel whom God had promised to guide Israel in whom God's Name was to be and who is called by the Jews Metatron For said the Christians If the name of Jehovah was in him he was to be adored This the Jews evaded by altering the Text and reading with the LXX Thou shalt not rebell against him or Thou shalt not change me with him that is to say for him When the Christians objected that this Angel must needs be God because God said of him he shall not pardon thy transgressions
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
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
with the Generality of Papists though they cannot be ignorant they therein dissent from the Divinity of the ancient Jews and the Fathers of the Christian Church and even the more Learned and candid Romanists such as Masius was I might add which perhaps they have not considered though they therein contradict the whole strain of the New Testament See Mercerus ad Pagnini Lexicon p. 1254. The intended shortness of this Treatise will not permit me to enlarge on this Head However one thing I must not pass over which is worthy the examination of the less cautious Divines It is very certain that the God that appeared to Jacob in Bethel was the very God that fed Israel in the Desert and against whom the Israelites in the Wilderness did rebel Now the Apostle is express 1 Cor. x. that he was Christ whom the Jews tempted in the Wilderness i. e. that he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not a meer Angel The Apostle takes it for granted it was a thing undisputed by the Synagogue in his time And indeed unless this be allowed St. Paul's reasoning in this Chapter is trifling and groundless Well! what can Bellarmine say to this he who asserts a created Angel to be spoken of Gen. xlviii 16. He has forgot what he said on that Text when he is come to this place He here strenuously urges it against the Socinians to prove that Christ was then in being when the Jews tempted him in the Wilderness And since hereby he owns that Christ in his Divine Nature was he that led Israel through the Wilderness who is sometimes called God and sometimes an Angel he inconsiderately grants what he had denied before that the Angel who redeemed Jacob from all evil being the same Angel that conducted Israel was also God SECT VI. You see what Contradictions Bellarmine falls into out of his zeal to promote the Doctrine of Invocation of Saints I wish there were not something as bad in our Divines that carries them in the like Contradictions The best I can say for their excuse is only this They have not carefully attended to the Stile of Holy Scripture Two or three things therefore I will mention which occur frequently in Scripture that methinks would have suggested higher thoughts of this Angel to one that considered what he read He that considers how often our Lord Christ is called in the New Testament the Spouse or Husband of the Church and compares it with the same Title that God appropriates to himself under the Old Testament Estate will make little doubt that it was the same Christ who was then married to Israel By the same rule one may infer that our Lord Christ in calling himself a Shepherd had a respect to that Title by which he is so often ascribed in his dealings with Jacob and his Posterity This the ancienter Jews were sensible of and therefore both here Gen. xlviii 15. and ch xlix 24. where God is mentioned as a Shepherd they understand it of the Shekinah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. Menachem de Rekanah from the Book Habbahir in Pent. f. 84. c. 2. Of this also the Jews in Christ's time were not ignorant who hearing Christ in one of his Sermons likening himself to the good Shepherd Joh. x. did presently apprehend that he would be thought the Messias and therefore took up stones to stone him And then in the process of his Discourse to maintain this Character he made himself one with the Father As Christ called himself a Shepherd to shew that he was the God that had fed Jacob and his Posterity like sheep so also is Christ most frequently represented in the New Testament under the Notion of a Redeemer intimating thereby that he was the same Redeeming Angel of whom Jacob had spoken It was he that was called * Isa lxiii 9. the Angel of his Presence by whom God redeem'd his ancient People And he is also called the Angel of the Covenant †Mal. iii. 1. in the promise of his coming in the time of the Gospel Here I should have put an end to this Tract but for two Objections that lye in my way and seem to require some kind of Answer The first is taken from the Jews who many of them expound this Redeeming Angel by Metatron and Metatron according to them being a created Angel or as some say no other than Enoch that was Translated there seems to be as many Authorities against us as for us But let it be observed 1. Though the Jews have several Names of Angels which are not mentioned in Scripture yet they are all formed out of the Names of God according to the Rules of their Cabala and that with respect to the Ten Sephiroth as Buxtorf has noted Lex Talm. p. 828. 2. This is plain from the word Actariel which is at the head of the Jewish forms of Excommunication * v. Bartolocci f. 4. 450. This is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name of the first of the Ten Sephiroth whence the Talmudists place Actariel upon the Throne Beracoth f. 7. c. 1. and distinguish him from the Ministring Angels that stand before the Throne But I refer the curious Reader that would know more of this to the ancient Jewish Book Intituled Berith Menucha c. 1. 3. This is no less plain of the Angel Metatron who as they say was he that discoursed with Moses Exod. iii. and the Angel in whom God placed his Name So that they acknowledge though it is framed from the Latin Tongue yet it expresses the same that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does as R. S. Jarchi on Exod. xxiii confesses Now St. Hierome on Ezek. i. 24. notes that the Greek Interpreters sometimes render God's Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which leads us into the meaning of those ancient Jews that accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Metatron to be the same 4. The Generality of Jews are so far from believing Metatron to be Enoch that they believe him to be the Messias the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before his Incarnation in our phrase but in theirs the Soul of the Messias which they look on as something between God and the Angels whom nothing separates from the Living God See Reuchlin l. i. de Cabala p. 651. where he proves Metatron to be the Messias from their Writings Or in short take the confession of Menasse ben Israel Q. 6. in Gen. § 2. And truly if one would compare all those places of the Old Testament that mention the Angel whom the later Jews call Metatron he would find such Properties belonging to this Angel as are incommunicable to a Creature And this shews that they who have departed in this point from the Tradition of their Fathers did it on this ground because they were loth to acknowledge the Divinity of the Messias which seemed to be clear upon allowing Metatron to be the Messias They were more