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
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
the Son of God in time Quod Deus sit immut p. 232. that his Word is his Image and his First-born De confus ling. p. 266. 267. B. that the Word is the Son of God before the Angels Quis rer div h. p. 397. F. G. that the Unity of God is not to be reduced to number that God is unus non unicus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Jews say in their Book of Prayers which are the very steps we take to shew that an Eternal Generation in the Divine Nature is no contradiction Nothing can be more express for to prove that there is a Son in the Godhead than what we read in the Targum of Jerusalem Gen. iii. 22. The Word of Jehovah said Here Adam whom I created is the only begotten Son in the World as I am the only begotten Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the high Heaven 3. The Prophets positively teach the Son of God who the Jews thought as under the former Head appears was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Eternal Wisdom of God to be the Messiah Thus David Psalm ii brings in God speaking of the Messiah Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee 6. V. 8. Kiss the son lest he be angry and lest you perish For thus it ought to be rendred according to Aben-Ezra and the Midrash on this Psalm and the Zohar in the place I have quoted just now which Expression is also used by Solomon Cant. i. 2. Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth which the old Jews refer to the Messias in Shir hashirim Rabba fol. 5. Col. 2 3. and in Midrash Tehillim ad Ps lxviii v. 4. I confess that we read in Tehillim Rabbathi upon this iid Psalm a kind of answer to this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he doth not say thou art a Son to me but thou art my Son and they pretend that God speaks to the Messias as a Master to his Servant The Inquisitors of Italy take great care to blot out that Answer in the Books which they give leave to the Jews to keep in their Houses But it is a ridiculous fear for the solution is so absurd that it is exploded as soon as you look upon the description of that Son which is in the Book of Proverbs Chap. xxx 4. I own also that we find not in the body of Philo's Works any formal Explication of these words This day have I begotten thee from whence we can directly conclude that he understood them of an Eternal Generation But we find something equivalent to it For speaking of these words You who were obedient to the Lord are alive this day he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De profug p. 358. E. That this is not a simple Conjecture appears from the manner of Philo's explicating of himself as he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in two places cited by Eus Praep. Ev. vii p. 323. out of Phil. de Agric. 1 11. For in the first place he calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First-born of God And in the other the Eternal Word of the Eternal God begotten by the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Title of Son is given to the Messias Psal lxxii 17. That this Psalm was understood of the Messias by the Ancient Jews 't is acknowledged by Raschi who against their unanimous Consent thinks fit to apply it to Solomon now the Hebrew word there is Innon being formed from Nin which signifies a Son Hence it is that the Jews make Innon one of the Titles of the Messias in Midrash Tillim on Psalm xciii and in the Talmud Sanhedrim c. 11. fol. 98. col 2. and in Rabboth fol. 1. col 3. And it follows in the Text that he had this Name before the Son that is before the Creation as Eternity is described Psal xc 2. Prov. viii 22 29. Again Psal lxxx 15. where the Psalmist prays God to look down and visit his Vine and the Vineyard which his right hand hath planted the Targum renders these last words and the Plant which thy right hand hath planted that is King Messias The Psalmist goes on in these words and the Branch which thou madest strong for thy self The Targum reads them even for thy Son's sake and interprets them even for the sake of King Messias So likewise in v. 17. where we render the words Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thy self the LXX have only on the Son and the Targum interprets them of King Messias God saith Psal lxxxix 25 26. I will set his hand in the sea and his right hand in the rivers He shall cry unto me thou art my father The Ancient Jews refer this to the Messias and also many of the Modern Jews finding such difficulty in applying to Solomon many of the Characters in this Psalm agree with the Ancients in their Interpretation The following Writers of the Holy Scriptures are as express as David is in this matter Prov. viii 22 23 24 25. is well worth perusing principally for this Title given Wisdom of a Son in the bosom of her Father Upon which take Philo's Reflection de Profug p. 358. A. To the Question Why is Wisdom spoken of in the Feminine he Answers it is to preserve to God the Character of a Father from whom he thought the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drew his Nature as being as he elsewhere de Agric. calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Eternal Son of the Everlasting Father And nothing is more common amongst the Jewish Writers than 1. To maintain that the Shekinah the Wisdom and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same 2dly To refer to the Messias as being the same with the Shekinah those very Places which are to be understood of the Shekinah and to the Shekinah those Places which are to be understood of the Messias If any man cast his eyes upon Jonathan Targum and the Targum Jerusalami commented by R. Mardochay and printed lately at Amsterdam he shall find that by the common consent of the Jewish Interpreters whose words he fully relates the Wisdom which is spoken Prov. iii. and Prov. viii is the same by which the World hath been created 2dly That this Wisdom is the same which is called the Shekinah the Memra it is called by Philo the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him now look upon the Places of the Prophets which are constantly spoken of the Messias and he shall find that they are referred by the best Authors of the Synagogue to the Shekinah so that it is clear they had the same Idea of the Shekinah and of the Messias and must have lookt upon the Messias as he that must have been the proper Son of God I will shew some Instances of what I advance to spare the trouble to my Reader 1st They maintain that this Wisdom by
Veritatis Besides it is so palpable that the ancient Jews particularly Philo have given the Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being a Divine Person that Maimonides his answer can be no other than an Evasion Nay it is observable that the word Davar which in Hebrew signifies Word is sometimes explained by that which is a true Person in the Books of the Old Jewish Authors who lived since Christ even in those whose authority Maimonides does acknowledge One of their ancient Books namely R. Akiba's Letters has these words on the Letter Gimel God said Thy Word is setled for ever in Heaven and this Word signifies nothing else but the healing Angel as it is written Psal cvii. 20. He sent his Word and he healed them He must needs mean a Person namely an Angel though perhaps he might mistake him for a created Angel Lastly The Notion which Maimonides does suggest can never be applied to Psal cx 1. which is thus rendred by the Paraphrast The Lord said to his Word where the Word does manifestly denote the Messias as the ancient Jews did fairly acknowledge It is true that in the common Edition that place of the Targum is rendered thus The Lord said in his Word or by his Word but it is a poor shift For in his Word does certainly signifie to his Word or of his Word the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Chaldeans having naturally that double signification as appears from many places Thus it signifies concerning or of Deut. vi 7. Jer. xxxi 20. Cant. viii 8. Job xix 18. Psal l. 20. It signifies to in Hos i. 2. Hab. ii 1. Zech. i. 4 9 13 14. Numb xii 2 6. 1 Sam. xxv 39. You may to this observation about Psal cx 1. add that of the Text of Jonathan's Targum on Isa xxviii 5. where the Messias is named in the room of the Lord of Hosts The second Evasion used by Moses Maimonides is More Nevoch pag. 1. c. 23. where he tells us in what sense Isaiah said that God comes out of his place namely that God does manifest his Word which before was hidden from us For says he all that is created by God is said to be created by his Word as Psal xxxiii By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the breath of his mouth By a comparison taken from Kings who do what they have a mind to by their word as by an Instrument For God needs no Instrument to work by but he works by his bare Will neither has he any Word properly so called Thus far Maimonides But it is not true as I shewed before that the Word in the Chaldee Paraphrase signifies no more than the manifestation of the Will of God I have quoted so many places out of the Apocryphal Books out of Philo and out of the Paraphrase it self which shew the contrary that Maimonides is not to be believed upon his bare word against so many formal proofs It is not true neither that Psal xxxiii 6. expresses only the bare act of the Will of God as Maimonides does suppose I shewed before that the great Authors of the Jewish Traditions which Maimonides was to follow when he writ his More Nevochim give another sense to those words and do acknowledge that they do establish the Personality of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Holy Ghost which they do express by the second and third Sephira or Emanation in the Divine Essence That which made Maimonides stumble was that he believed that Christians made the Word to be an Instrument different from God which is very far from their opinion For they do as well as Philo apprehend the Word as a Person distinct from the Father but not of a different nature from his but having the same Will and Operation common to him and the Father and this they have by Divine Revelation A famous Socinian whom I mentioned already being hard put to it by the Authority of the Targums has endeavoured in a Tract which he writ and which has this Title Disceptatio de Verbo vel Sermone Dei cujus creberrima fit mentio apud Paraphrast as Chaldaeos Jonathan Onkelos Targum Hierosolymitanum to shake it off by boldly affirming that the Word of the Lord is barely used by them to express the following things The Decree of God His Commands His inward Deliberation His Promise His Covenant and his Oath to the Israelites His design to punish or to do good A Prophetick Revelation The Providence which protected good Men. In short the Word by which God does promise or threaten and declare what he is resolved to do Of which the said Author pretendeth to give many instances I have already proved how false this is what that Author so positively affirms that the term Word is never found to be used by the Paraphrasts to denote a Person The very place which I just now quoted out of R. Akiba's Alphabet were enough to confute him I need not repeat neither what I said that supposing all were true which he affirms of the use of the word Memra in the Paraphrasts yet he could not but acknowledge that Philo gives quite another Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely as of a real Person in which he visibly follows the Author of the Book of Wisdom The Unitarians of this Kingdom do for that reason reject Philo's Works as being Supposititious and written after our Saviour's time I say therefore that the sense which he puts upon the Targums is very far from the true meaning of the words which they use when they speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in many places I shall not examine whether in any place of the Targums the word Memra is used instead of that of Davar which in Hebrew signifies the Word or Command of God Rittangel positively denies it And the truth is that the Targums commonly render the word Davar by Pitgama and not by Memra To be fully satisfied of it one needs but take an Hebrew Concordance upon the word Davar and search whether the Paraphrasts ever rendered it by Memra But supposing Rittangel should deny the thing too positively however the Targumists do so exactly distinguish the Word when they mention him as a Divine Person that it is impossible to mistake him in all places by putting upon them those senses which the Socinian Author endeavours to affix to them that he may destroy the Notion which they give of the Word as being a Divine Person And though I have already alledged many proofs of it yet this being a matter of great moment I will again briefly speak to it to confute that Author and those who shall borrow his Arguments Let an impartial Reader judge whether any of the Socinian Author's senses can be applied to the word Memra in Onkelos his Targum Gen. iii. 8. They heard the voice of the Word of the Lord. And Gen. xv 1 5 9.