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
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
say they ought to be understood as if they were written in the Singular Others confess that truly they do denote a Plurality But that Plurality consists of God and his Angels whom he joyns with himself as his Counsellors Ask but what instance they have in Scripture of such a strange way of speaking which makes God and his Angels as it were Fellows and Companions they presently alledg that one passage of Dan. iv 17. This matter is by the decree of the Watchers and the Demand of the Holy Ones Now these Watchers and these Holy Ones say they are the Holy Angels But admit they are Angels all that is said of them in this Text will not prove what they infer from it For 1. the thing that they would prove is false and contrary to Scripture Es xl 13. which expresly denies that God has any Companions or Counsellors as hath been already shewn 2. The nature of the Works consulted on in those Texts to which they would apply this is such as is infinitely above the power of any Creature such as the Creation of Man and the confounding of Languages c. 3. In this very Text their most Learned Commentators R. Saadia Gaon and Aben Ezra do not find any such Consultation of God with his Angels as these Jews imagin they do indeed find that these Watchers and Holy Ones are the Holy Angels but they say for the Decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they pronounce it from the mouth of God and it is called their Decree because they are the Ministers of God to do whatever he commands them Thus Jer. i. 10. that Prophet is said to be set over Nations and Kingdoms to destroy and to throw down to build and to plant not that God shared that power with his Prophet or took him into Councel for such things but only that he by the appointment of God as his Minister was to declare the Sentence and Judgment of God for the doing of such things 4. This appears in the very Decree here spoken of which concerns a revolution in a great Empire But the disposal of Kingdoms is that which properly belongs to the Eternal Wisdom of God as Solomon declares Prov. viii 15 16. and not to Angels any farther than they are employed by God for the publishing or for the executing of his Sentence But after all this though I have admitted it that the Angels are here called Watchers and Holy Ones yet I am rather of opinion that these words do not signifie Angels but the three Persons in the Trinity My reason is because however that Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being Angels has obtained among the Jews I do not find them called so any where in the Old Testament Scriptures But God is often said to watch over his People Gen. xxxi 49. Psal vii 6. cxxvii 1. Jer. xxxi 28. xliv 27. and even by this Prophet Dan. ix 14. And for the other word that is here joyn'd with the Watchers viz. the Holy Ones however this may be used of Angels elswhere yet here it is certainly used of God in this Chapter v. 8 9 18. and that in the Plural as it is in Josh xxiv 19. and yet as there in Joshua the Holy Gods in the Plural are the same with the Jehovah in the Singular Number so here the Watchers and the Holy Ones in the Plural are the same with the Watcher and Holy One in the Singular v. 13. and the Decree of the Watchers and Holy Ones in this verse is called the Decree of the Most High v. 24. and it is he whom Nebuchadnezzar glorifies as the sole Author of his abasement and also of his restauration I hope the Reader will easily pardon this digression if he thinks it is one It seemed necessary that I should consider this Text at large because it is as far as I know the only place in Scripture which is brought by the Jews to colour that Interpretation with which they think to elude the force of our Arguments After all that I have alledged from Philo and the Paraphrases I do not pretend to affirm that they had as distinct Notions of the Trinity as we have nor do I deny but that sometimes they put a different construction on the Texts which we have cited in proof of this Mystery Nay I own that their Ideas are often confused when they speak of these things and particularly they refer sometimes that to the second Person which should be ascribed to the third and that to the third which properly belongs to the second Nay more I acknowledg that Philo by the Spirit Gen. i. 2. understands the Wind de Gig. p. 223. which is something strange seeing the Greek Interpreters whom he followed read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Spirit of God and not simply the Spirit which might have stood for Wind here as it does in some places of the Old Testament But Philo's Error is easily accounted for He fell into it by endeavouring to accommodate Moses his Notions to the Notions of the Philosophy that makes four Elements of all things And probably for such a reason some of the Targums might come into the same Interpretation But for the other ancient Jews they expounded this Spirit not by Wind but by that Spirit which was to rest on the Messiah in Isaiah's Language Isa xi 1. See Bresh Rabba in Gen. i. 2. And truly Rashi on these words affirms that the Throne of Glory was in the Air and that it warmed the Heavens by the Spirit of the Goodness of God blessed for ever Where by the way the Spirit of Goodness is the same with the latter of Philo's two Powers above mentioned De Sacr. Ab. 108. Those among the Jews who take the Spirit of God for the Will of God as R. Abr. doth in Tzeror hammor and some mentioned in the Book Cozri p. 5. p. 329. are not far from this Opinion And this is the sense Maimonides gives to those words The Spirit of the Lord in explaining of Isa xl 13. Mor. Neb. i. 40. It appears from Psal xxxiii 6. That the Hosts of Heaven were made by the Spirit of his mouth words which no Jew has yet interpreted of the Wind. I know Philo expresses his thoughts obscurely speaking of the two Powers of God de Cherub p. 86. he saith that the Word joyns these two Powers which he afterwards calls his Principality and his Goodness But this can raise no prejudice against our Position It shews indeed that our Author who had gathered his Notions as other Jews did from reading the Books of the Old Testament together with their Traditional Interpretations was not so much a Master of them as to make them always consist with one another Others perhaps will say he was not always constant to himself nor am I concern'd to have it granted that he was so We look not on him nor any of these Writers to be inspired but esteem them only as
that this place was related to the Messias that it was used at our Saviour's Entry into Jerusalem Mat. xxi 16. Since that time it is related to the Messias as we see in the Midrash upon Cant. i. 4. where these very words are referred to God whom the Babes of Israel were to bless which shews plainly that the praises which are spoken of are praises which are acts of Adoration and so in the Midrash upon Eccl. ch ix 1. The same positive order for the Worship of the Messias is given in Psal xlv 11. He is the Lord worship thou him There is no doubt but that Psalm is to be referred to the Messias It is so acknowledged by the Targum and by all the Jewish Interpreters What then can be said against the Worship of the Messias If the Jews of old had denied that the Shekinah was to be in the Messias then it should be rational to conclude that they did not acknowledge the Worship which is to be paid to him But they have acknowledged the Divinity of the Messias as we read in Midrash Tehillim in Psal x. Stetit Divinitas Messiae praedicavit From whence it follows by necessary consequence that they thought themselves obliged to worship him We have the same Worship of the Messias setled in Psal lxviii 32. where it is said that the Princes shall extend their hands to him from Egypt All the Jews agree that such a thing is to happen at the coming of the Messias which we call the second So Rashi We read the same in Psal lxxii where it is said v. 11. that they shall fall down and worship him No body doubts but that Psalm relates to the Messias I have taken notice in the second Chapter of this Book that the Jews refer constantly to the time of the Messias all the Psalms from the xc to the c. Now in Psal xcv v. 6 7. the words seem to be spoken of Jehovah but they were understood by the Jews of the Messias who was to have the name of Jehovah as you see in Midrash in Echa i. 6. After David what saith Isaiah of the Worship of the Messias he speaks as distinctly as can be ch xlix v. 23. The Jews understand it of the Messias whom they look upon as the Redeemer to whom all people are to make their confession from their heart as you see in Breshit Rabba upon Gen. xli v. 44. where they refer these words to the Messias Isa xlv 23. You see the same in Midr. Tehin in Psal ii 2. these words when they have seen his great tribulation they shall come and shall worship the King Messias as it is said Isa xlix 23. Some perhaps shall think they can avoid the strength of this Argument drawn from the Worship to be paid to the Messias by allowing that it is spoken in those places which I have quoted of a civil worship to be paid to the Messias as a great King But it should be in vain for a Socinian to employ such an evasion because we find that the ancient Jews have prevented it by giving us instances of all the several Parts of such a Worship either Faith Vows or Prayers or Sacrifices which cannot be paid but to a true God and I have quoted so many places upon that point that I do not think fit to enlarge more upon it I shall then conclude this matter by the solemn Prayer of the Jews in the Feast of Succoth where they have these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ego ille Salva nunc p. 53. of the Venice Edit in 8 o. which words the Jews labour very much to explain who is that ille but which the most understanding explain to the two first Middoth viz. to the Father and to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have shewn before Having now produced the Sentiments of the old Jews as to several points that concern the Trinity and the Divinity of our Lord we ought next to consider how Jesus Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians did follow these Notions of the Synagogue CHAP. XIX That the New Testament does exactly follow the Notions which the Old Jews had of the Trinity and of the Divinity of the Messias WHoever shall attentively examine the method which our Saviour and his Apostles follow in the New Testament will find it exactly suited to the Notions which the Jews had entertained and which they had from the Writings of the Prophets It was absolutely necessary it should be so because the Doctrine concerning the coming of the Messias began to be more narrowly inquired into among the Jews when they saw Herod who was an Idumean setled in the Throne of Judaea it being at the just time markt out for the coming of the Messias by Jacob's Prophecy Ge. xlix 10. The Scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a Law-giver from between his feet until Shilo come and unto him shall the gathering of people be An Angel therefore appears to the Virgin Mary that was to be the Mother of Christ and shews the manner of his Conception which was to be by the operation of the Holy Ghost He names the Child who was to be born of her Jesus and declares that he should be the Son of the Highest and that of his Kingdom there should be no end Alluding to Psal ii and to many other places of Scripture where the Messias is described as one that was to be the Son of God Next the Angel appeared to Joseph who was upon parting with his betrothed Wife the Blessed Virgin and told him she should bring forth a Son and must name him Jesus because he should save his People from their sins Whereupon the Evangelist saith that this Child was he of whom the Prophet foretold he should be Emanuel God with us He was to do that for his People which none but God was able to do to save them from their sins How could he shew it better that he was the God of the Jews to whom Judea belonged as his Country and the Jews as his People as it was foretold Is vii and viii That God whose very Name Habakkuk had named Hab. iii. 18. the God of my Salvation so called saith Jonathan's Targum because of the wonderful things that God would do by his Messias Another Angel brings to the Shepherds the news of Christ's Birth and what words does he use He names him the Christ the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jehovah God's own proper name Luk. ii The Wisemen came from the East to Bethlehem guided by a new Star to worship him and amongst other Gifts presented him with Frankincense which by the Law was to be offered to God alone Shewing thereby that they owned him for that heavenly Star spoken of by their Countryman Balaam Numb xxiv 17. And for that King of whom it was foretold Psal lxxii 10 11. The Kings of Tharshish and of the Isles shall bring presents the Kings of Sheba and Seba
him or which may not from the circumstances of the Text be well explained otherwise This is his Position in examination of Gen. xlix 10. where he doth his utmost to evade the Text v. 10. The Scepter shall not depart from Judah c. 3. He looks on the Article of the Messias's Coming to be a matter of that small importance to the Jews that he leaves it doubtful whether the Messias be come since the time of Onkelos their famous Paraphrast who expresses his expectation of this Promise in many places of the Books of Moses and if he be not already come whether he shall come in the Glory of the Clouds of Heaven or whether he shall come poor and riding on an Ass and because of Men's sins not distributing those great Blessings promised at his Coming nor Men on the other hand regarding him as the Messias Certainly R. Lipman in his Nitzachon where he examines the above mentioned Text Gen. xlix 10. advances a Rule which quite overthrows all Proofs from the Holy Scripture This Rabin seeing the Jews give such opposite Interpretations of Jacob's Prophecy concerning the Scepter 's continuance in Judah as were impossible to be reconciled some understanding Empire by the Scepter and some Slavery and oppression he lays this down for a Maxim That the Law was capable of divers Explications and all of them though never so incompatible and contradictory were nevertheless the words of the Living God This is very near the Sentiment of R. Menasseh Ben Israel in his Questions on Genesis where he collects the several Jewish Expositions of this Text. But granting this once for a Principle it is in vain to consult the Scriptures or to think of ever discovering the meaning of them The sense of them must absolutely depend on the Authority of the Rabins and what they teach must be all equally received as the Word of God though they teach things contradictory to one another Such Positions put one to a loss whether their blindness or their spite is therein most to be pitied CHAP. XXVII That the Unitarians in opposing the Doctrines of the Trinity and our Lord's Divinity do go much further than the Modern Jews and that they are not fit persons to convert the Jews WHAT I have observed of the alteration made by the Modern Jews in their Belief is enough to shew that they were forced to adopt new Notions because of the evident Proofs drawn from the Opinions of their Ancestors which the Christians used against them The very same prevarication may be charged on the Socinians in their Explications of those places of Scripture that prove the Blessed Trinity and the Divinity of our Saviour And 1st They have borrowed many of the Jews answers to the Christians and often carried them much further than the Jews themselves did intend them 2dly They have invented the way of accommodation for the evading of those Quotations in the New Testament that are taken out of the Old Testament as finding this the most effectual means to escape those difficulties which they can no other way resolve 3dly The Unitarians especially those of England to make short work do not stick to assert that the Christians have foisted those Texts into the Gospel which speak of the Trinity and the Divinity of our Lord. It is fit I should give particular Instances of each of these in proof of what I say Smalcius * De Divin Chr. c. 10. maintains in the general That the Books of the Old Testament are of little use for the Conversion of the Jews He gives this reason for it That almost all that which is said to be spoken of the Messias in the Old Testament must be interpreted mystically before it can appear to be spoken of him and by consequence very remotely from what the words do naturally signify Then in particular When we would prove a Plurality of Persons in the Deity against the Jews from those Expressions of Scripture that speak of God in the Plural Number although the Jews as you may see in their Comments on Gen. i. 26. xi 7. and especially on Isa vi 8. are forced to own that a Plurality is imported in those Expressions and therefore pretend that the Number is Plural because God speaks of himself and the Angels his Counsellors yet the Socinians as Enjedinus witnesses for them do deny that these Plural Expressions do denote any Plurality in the Deity no more than Expressions in the Singular Number do As for Socinus he solves it by a Figure by which as he saith a single Person speaks plurally when he excites himself to do any thing A Figure of which we have no Example in the Writings of the Old Testament Socinus has followed the Jews Evasion on the words Gen. iii. 22. Behold the Man is as one of Us in maintaining that God does herein speak of himself and of the Angels And Smalcius has followed him in this Solution The very same Eplication they give of the words Gen. xi 7. Let us go down and confound their Language borrowing entirely the Subterfuge of the Jews who at this day teach that God spoke it to the Angels Crellius on Gal. iii. 8. espouses the Jewish Sense of the Text Gen. xii 3. In thee shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed by which he overthrows the force of St. Paul's Citation and makes it nothing to the purpose He supposes that St. Paul did herein allude only to the Passage in Genesis but on the contrary it appears that he followed the Literal Sense as we have it Gen. xii 3. xviii 18. xxii 18. xxvi 4. xxviii 14. and as the Ancient Cabalists do acknowledge at large in Reuchlin L. 1. Smalcius ch 2. Ib. asserts That the Promise of the Seed of the Woman Gen. iii. 5. can very hardly be understood of the Messias And yet the Ancient Jews acknowledged it in their Targum of Jerusalem and by the Cabalists Tikunzoh 21. fol. 52. col 2. Bachaie fol. 13. col 3. in Gen. Schlichtingius affirms that Psal xlv does literally relate to Solomon and that this is its first and principal sense Altho the Ancient Jews do all agree that it treats of the Messias and cannot be understood of Solomon Socinus persuading himself that St. Paul cites Heb. i. 6. from Psal xcvii 8. And let all the Angels of God worship him does maintain that he cites it in the mystical Sense because Jesus Christ could not be adored by the Angels before he was advanced to be their Head And yet the Jews of old did refer it to the Messias adding these words in the end of Moses's Song Deut. xxxii as we see there in the LXX Version from whence it was indeed that St. Paul took the words in Heb. i. 6. Again Socinus to rid himself of Psal xxiv where according to the Ancient Jews Opinion the Messias is spoken of does pretend that the Messias is not meant here in this Psalm or at least he is
THE JUDGMENT OF THE Ancient JEWISH Church Against the VNITARIANS IN The Controversy upon the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour With a Table of Matters and a Table of Texts of Scripture Occasionally Explain'd By a Divine of the Church of England LONDON Printed for Ri. Chiswell and are to be sold at the Rose and Crown and at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCXCIX THE PREFACE ALTHOVGH the Jews by mistaking the Prophecies of Scripture concerning the Kingdom of their Messias expected he should have a Temporal Kingdom and because our Lord Jesus was not for that therefore they would not acknowledge him fâ—â— their Messias yet all things considered there is no essential difference between our Religion and theirs We own the very same God whom they formerly Worshipp'd the Maker of the World and their Lawgiver We receive that very Messias whom God promised them by his Prophets so many Ages before his coming We own no other Spirit of God to have Inspired the Apostles besides the Holy Ghost who spoke by the Prophets and by whose manifold Gifts the Messias was to be known as one in whom all Nations should be Blessed This plainly appears in the way and method which both Christ and his Apostles followed in preaching the Gospel They endeavoured to take off the prejudices the then Jews laboured under concerning the Nature of the Messias and the Characters by which he was to be known For they argued all along from the Books of Moses and the Prophets and never proposed any thing to their Disciples but what was declared in those Writings which the Jews acknowledged as the Standard of their Religion which may be seen in Christ's Discourse to the Jews John v. 46. and to his Disciples after his Resurrection Luke xxiv 47 and 44. in the words of St. Peter Acts x. 43. and of St. Paul Acts xxvi 22. The truth is in those Sacred Books although One only God be acknowledged under the Name of Jehovah which denotes his Essence and therefore is incommunicable to any other yet not only that very Name is given to the Messias but also all the Works Attributes and Characters peculiar to Jehovah the God of Israel and the only true God are frequently bestowed on him This the old Jewish Authors as Philo and the Targumists do readily acknowledge For in their Exposition of those places of the Old Testament which relate to the Messias they generally suppose him to be God whereas the Modern Jews being of a far different Opinion use all Shifts imaginable to evade the force of their Testimonies The Apostles imitated in this the Synagogue by applying to Christ several places of the Old Testament which undoubtedly were primarily intended of the God of Israel But because they sometimes only touch at places of the Old Testament without using them as formal Proofs of what they then handled Socinus and his Disciples have fancied that those Citations out of the Old Testament which are made use of by the Apostles though they represent the Messias as being the same with the God of Israel yet for all this are but bare Allusions and Accommodations made indeed by them to Subjects of a like nature but not at all by them intended as Arguments and Demonstrations Nothing can be more injurious to the Writings of the New Testament than such a Supposition And there can hardly be an Opinion more apt to overthrow the Authority of Christ and his Apostles and to expose the Christian Religion to the Scorn both of Jews and Heathens For the bare Accommodation of a place of Scripture cannot suppose that the Holy Ghost had any design in it to intimate any thing sounding that way and consequently the Sense of that Scripture so accommodated is of no Authority Whereas it is a most certain truth that Christ and his Apostles did design by many of those Quotations to prove that which was in dispute between them and the Jews To what purpose should Christ exhort the Jews to search the Scriptures of the Old Testament because they testified of him John v. 39. if those Scriptures could only give a false Notion of him by intimating that the Messias promised was the God of Israel This were to suppose that Christ and his Apostles went about to prove a thing by that which had no Strength and no Authority to prove it And that the Citations out of the Old Testament are like the Works of the Empress Eudoxia who writ the History of Christ in Verses put together and borrowed from Homer under the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that of Proba Falconia who did the same in Verses and Words taken out of Virgil. It follows at least from such a Position That in the Gospel God gave a Revelation so very new that it has no manner of Affinity to the Old although he caused this old Revelation to be carefully written by the Prophets and as carefully preserved by the Jews to be the Standard of their Faith and the Ground of their Hopes till he should fulfil his Promises contained in it and although Christ and his Apostles bid the Jews have recourse to it to know what they were to expect of God's promises The Christian Church ever rejected this pernicious Opinion And although her first Champions against the Ancient Hereticks did acknowledge that the new Revelation brought in by Christ and his Apostles had made the Doctrines much clearer then they were before which the Jews themselves do acknowledge when they affirm that hidden things are to be made plain to all by the Messias yet they ever maintained that those Doctrines were so clearly set down in the Books of the Old Testament that they could not be opposed by them who acknowledge those Books to come from God especially since the Jews are therein told that the Messias when he came should explain them and make them clearer This Observation is particularly of force against those who formerly opposed the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity and that of our Saviour's being God These Hereticks thought they followed the Opinion of the old Jews Therefore they that confuted them undertook to satisfy them that the Christian Church had received nothing from Christ and his Apostles about those two Articles but what God had formerly taught the Jews and what necessarily followed from the Writings of Moses and the Prophets so that those Doctrines could not be rejected without accusing the Divine Spirit the Author of those Books of shortness of Thought in not foreseeing what naturally follows from those Principles so often laid down and repeated by him These old Writers solidly proved to those Hereticks That God did teach the Jews the Vnity of his Essence yet so as to establish at the same time a Distinction in his Nature which according to the Notion which himself gives of it we call Trinity of Persons And that when he promised that the Messias to come was to be Man at the very same time he
those which Christ so severely condemned And these I shall explain more particularly giving some examples of their use and also of their Authority 1. They had by Tradition the knowledge of some Matters of fact which are not recorded in their Scriptures and of other things they had more perfect and minute accounts than are recorded in the Writings of Moses and the Prophets Particularly Philo the Jew writing of the Life of Moses declares that what he had to say of him was taken partly out of Scripture and partly received by Tradition from their Forefathers * De vita Mosis pag. 468. Edit Genev. Ib. p 470. F. Of this latter sort was the long account he there gives of Moses being brought up in all the Learning of the Egyptians for there is nothing of this in the Old Testament Therefore when St. Stephen says the same thing Act. VII 22. we know that he also had it not from Scripture but from Tradition Hence also it is that St. Paul has gathered the names of Jannes and Jambres Magicians that resisted Moses and the Truth 2 Tim. iv 8. for their names are no where in Scripture but they are in Jonathan's Targum on Exod. i. 15. vii 11. from whence also they are taken into Talmud Sanhedrin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 9. Hence also St. Paul knew that the Pot wherein Moses laid up the Manna was made of Gold Heb. ix 4. which also the Seventy and Philo the Jew de congr quaer er gr pag. 375. Ed. Gen. do assure us of Mechil fol. 20. Col. 1. Tanchumah fol. 29. Col. 4. And tho' the Modern Jews deny this and say the Pot was of Earth yet it is acknowledg'd by the Samaritans that is was Golden This must have been from Tradition because there is no such thing said in Scripture It was from hence that the Apostle had that saying of Moses when he saw the dreadful appearance of God upon Mount Sinai Heb. xii 21. So terrible was the sight that Moses said I exceedingly fear and quake And another that writ soon after Paul's death namely Clemens Bishop of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians cap. 17. has other like words that Moses said I am the Steam upon the Pot. Both these sayings being no where in Scripture they could not have known them otherwise than from the Jewish Tradition From hence also St. Jude ver 9. had that passage of the dispute that Michael the Arch-Angel had with the Devil about the Body of Moses Which Body as Josephus probably says Ant. iv 8. if any Relick of it had been kept would have drawn the people into Idolatry That passage we are told by some of the Fathers was taken out of an Apocryphal Book call'd the Analepsis of Moses Clem. Alex. in Jud. Origen peri Archon iii. 2. Grotius tells us the Jews have the like things in their Midrash on Deut. in the Aboth of R. Nathan and in other of their Books It was from hence that St. Paul understood that some of the Prophets were sawn asunder Origen Respons ad African Heb. xi 37. though he spoke in the Plural he meant it only of one saith Origen namely of the Prophet Esay who was Sawed asunder by the Command of Manasses according to the Jewish Tradition Which also is mentioned by Justin Martyr as a thing out of dispute between him and Tryphon the Jew and it is taken notice of in the Gemara tr Jevamot Ch. iv It was from hence that Christ took what he said of the Martyrdom of Zechary the Son of Berachiah who was killed between the Temple and the Altar Orig. Ib. p. 232 c. Mat. xxiii 35. which Origen there also mentions as a Jewish Tradition tho' he says they supprest it as being not for the Honour of their Nation I do not deny but that there might be some ancient Authors besides the Canonical Writers to keep up the memory of these names of Persons and other matters of fact As for example Joseph Ans. l. 10. c. â—â— that there were eighteen High Priests who Officiated in the first Temple although they are not all mention'd in Scripture But if there were any such Authors it is very probable that they were lost in the Captivity or in the bloody Persecutions of the Jewish Church long before the time of our Blessed Saviour and his Holy Apostles Josephus who lived in that Age and writ the History of the Jews makes no mention of them and gives a very lame account of the things which passed under several Kings of Persia 2. Besides the Canonical Books they had Writings of a less Authority wherein were inserted by the great Men of their Nation several Doctrines that came from the Prophets which were in very high esteem and veneration though not regarded as of equal Authority with the Writings of the Prophets It is not improbable that St. Matthew had respect to some Book of this nature when he quoted that which is not found in express words in any of the Writings of the Prophets That the Messias should be called a Nazarene Mat. ii 23. if he doth not allude to the Idea of the Jews who referred to the Messias the Netzer or Branch spoken of by Isa xi 1. So Christ himself may seem to have alluded to a passage in one of these Books Joh. vii 38. where he saith He that believeth on me as saith the Scripture out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water for there is nothing perfectly like this in any of the Canonical Books that are come to our hands St. Paul the Apostle as Jerom in Ephes v. 14. observes has cited divers such Apocryphal Books accommodating himself no doubt to the Jews who gave much deference to their Authority Thus he did Rom. ix 21. and perhaps in some other places of his Epistles from the Book of Wisdom which is still extant in our Bibles Elsewhere he has Quotations out of Books that are lost as 1 Cor. ii 9. out of an Apocryphal Book that went under the name of the Prophet Elias and Ephes v. 14. out of an Apocryphal piece of the Prophet Jeremy as we are told by Georgius Syncellus in his Chron. p. 27. A. But the most express Quotation of this kind is that which is alledged by St. James iv 5 6. For these words The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to Envy are not in any Books of the Old Testament nor are the following words God resisteth the proud but giveth grace to the humble And yet both these sayings are quoted as Scripture by the Holy Apostle Of the first he saith plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture saith Then he goes on to the other and of that he saith also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any Nominative Case but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before mentioned which implies that the Scripture saith this also Now what Scripture could he mean for it is certain that neither of these
sayings is any where else in our Scriptures He must therefore mean it of one or other of the Apocryphal Books And one of the Fathers that was born within a hundred years after his death gives us a very probable guess at the Book that he intended It is Clement of Alexandria who saith of the latter Quotation These are the words of Moses Strom. iv p. 376. meaning in all likelihood of the Analepsis of Moses which Book is mentioned by the same Clement elsewhere on Jude v. 9. as a Book well known in those times in which he lived Therefore in all likelihood the words also of the former Quotation were taken from the Analepsis of Moses and it was that Apocryphal Book that S. James quoted and called it Scripture This can be no strange thing to him that considers what was intimated before that the Jews had probably these Books join'd to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hagiographa and therefore they might well be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any addition The Apocryphal Books that are in our Bibles were commonly call'd so by the Primitive Fathers Thus Clement before mention'd Strom. v. p. 431. B. quotes the words that we read in Wisdom vii 24. from Sophia in the Scriptures And the Book of Ecclesiasticus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven or eight times in his writings Paed. i. 10. ii 5. ver 8 vis 10 vis iii. 3. 11. So it is quoted by Origen with the same Title Orig. in Jerem. Hom. 16. p. 155. D. There are many the like Instances to be found in the writings of the Ancientest Fathers They familiarly called such Books The Scriptures and sometimes The Holy Scriptures and yet they never attributed the same Authority to them as to the Books that were received into the Canon of the Old Testament which as the Apostle saith were written by Divine Inspiration 2 Tim. 3.16 The same is to be said of the Prophecy of Enoch out of which St. Jude brings a Quotation in his Epistle vers 14 15. Grotius in his Annotations on the place saith This Prophecy was extant in the Apostles times in a Book that went under the name of the Revelation of Enoch and was a Book of great credit among the Jews for it is cited in their Zohar and was not unknown to Celsus the Heathen Philosopher for he also cited is as appears by Origen's Answer to him Orig. in Cels lib. V. Grotius also shews that this Book is often cited by the Primitive Fathers and he takes notice of a large piece of it that is preserved by Georg. Syncellus in his Chronicon And whereas in this piece there are many fabulous things he very well judges that they might be foisted in as many such things have been thrust into very Ancient Books But whether his Conjecture in this be true or no it is certain that the piece which is quoted by St. Jude was truly the Prophecy of Enoch because we have the Apostle's Authority to assure us of the Historical truth of it 3. It is clear that the Jews had very good and authentic Traditions concerning the Authors the Use and the Sence of divers parts of the Old Testament For Example St. Mat. Chap. xxvii 9. quotes Jeremy for the Author of a passage which he there transcribes and which we find in Zechary xi 12. How could this be but that it was a thing known among the Jews that the four last Chapters of the Book of Zechary were written by Jeremy Medes Works p. 709. and 963. and 1022. as Mr. Mede has proved by many Arguments It is by the help of this Tradition that the Ancient Interpreters have added to the Psalms such Titles as express their design and their usage in the Synagogue Certainly these Titles which shew the design of many of the Psalms contribute much to make us understand the sense of those Psalms which a man that knows the occasion of their Composing will apprehend more perfectly than he can do that reads the Psalms without these Assistances And for the Titles of several Psalms in the Septuagint and other of the Ancient Translations which shew on what days they were sung in the publick Worship of the Jews as Ps xxiv 48 81 82 93 94 c. tho' these Titles are not in the Hebrew and therefore are not part of the Jews Scripture yet that they had the knowledge of this by Tradition we find by Maimonides who tho' a stranger to those Translations De cultu divino tract de sacrificiis jugibus c. 6. Sect. 9. yet affirms that those several Psalms were sung on such and such days and he names the very days that are prefixt to them in the said Titles It is from the same Tradition that they have these Rules concerning the Psalms I. This Rule to know the Authors of them namely that all Psalms that are not inscribed with some other name are David's Psalms although they bear not his name a Maxim owned by Aben-Ezra Praefat. in Psalmos and David Kimchi and we see an Instance of this Rule in that Quotation of Ps xcv 7. which is ascribed to David in Heb. iv 7. II. From hence they have learnt also another Rule by which they distinguish between the Psalms spoken by David in his own name Tehillim Rabbat in Ps 24. Fol. 22. col 2. and as King of Israel and those which he spoke in the name of the Synagogue without any particular respect to his own time but in a prospect of the remotest future times Tehillim Rab. Ib. From thence they have learned to distinguish between the Psalms in which the Holy Ghost spoke of the present times and those in which he speaks of the times to come viz. of the time of the Messias So R. David Kimchi and others agree that the Psalms 93 94. till the Psalm 101. speak of the days of the Messias So they remark upon Ps 92. whose Title is for the Sabbath-day that it is for the time to come which shall be all Sabbath Manasseh Ben. Is in Exod. q. 102. By the help of Tradition also they clear the Text Ex. xii 40. where it is said That the sojourning of the Children of Israel who dwelt in Aegypt was 430 years It would be a great mistake of these words to think the meaning of them should be that the Children of Israel dwelled in Aegypt 430 years For in truth they dwelled there but half the time as the Jews themselves reckon and all Learned men do agree to it But the Jews understand by these words that the sojourning of the Children of Israel all the while they dwelled in Aegypt and in the Land of Canaan they and their Fathers was 430 years Thus all the Rabbins do understand it and thus it was anciently explained by putting in words to this sense in the Samaritan Text and in the Alexandrian LXX That they were in the right we see by the Apostle's reckoning
brought a force upon others by which many were driven to Idolatry But some chose rather to die than to yield to it 1 Mac. i. 62 63. ii 29 30 37 38. Which is an argument that the Rebukes of the Prophets had made great Impression on their Minds and raised a great Concern in them for their Religion and for the study of the Scripture which contained the Precepts of it But it was impossible that in reading the Writings of the Prophets and hearing them explained by their Doctors they should give no attention to the great Promises of the Messias whose Coming was spoken of by some of the Prophets as being very near at hand See Dan. ix Hag. ii Malach iii. The Second is That their Zeal for the Scriptures and their Religion was really much quickned by the cruel Persecution which they suffered from Antiochus Epiphanes whose Tyrannical Fury did particularly extend to the Holy Scriptures 1 Mac. i. 56 57. and to whatever else did contribute to the maintenance of their Religion The Third is That it appears from History that there were more Writers of their Nation since the Captivity than we read of at any time before so saith Josephus lib. I. contr Appion Especially since they came under the Power of the Ptolomeys and the Seleucidae who being Princes of a Greek Original were great Lovers of Learning and did much for the improving of good Letters The Fourth is That learned Men among the Jews applying themselves to this business did write either at Jerusalem at Babylon or at Alexandria several Extracts of ancient Books of Morality for the instruction of their People Such were the Books of Baruch and Esdras which seem to have been written in Chaldee and those of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus which were written in Greek The Fifth is That the great Business of the Jews in their Synagogues and in their Schools hath been ever since to understand the Books of the Prophets and to explain them in a Language intelligible to the People the Knowledge of the Hebrew being in great part lost during the time of the Babylonian Captivity The Sixth is That it does indeed appear that this was the proper time in which the Jewish Paraphrases began first to be formed They were began and carried on insensibly One adding some Chaldee Words in the Margin of his Book opposite to the Text which the People did not understand so well Another adding to these some Notes in another place till at length Jonathan and Onkelos or some other Doctor of Jerusalem gathered together all these Observations and made thence those Paraphrases which we have under their Name For the Confirmation of this Conjecture consider 1. That we find in these Paraphrases very many Explications which by no means agree with the Ideas that the Jews have framed to themselves since the Propagation of Christianity For since their Disputes with the Christians they found themselves obliged in many particulars to reject the Opinions and refute the Confessions of their Ancestors 2. We see the very same thing has happened among the Christians and among the Greeks that set themselves to write Scholia or Notes on the Scriptures which are only Abstracts of Authors who have written or preacht more at large on these Books The same thing I say hapned among Christians in the VIIIth Century and the following Ages when most of their Learning was reduced within this compass To compile Glosses and to collect the Opinion of those that went before them upon difficult places and after that to form out of all these Glosses one continued Paraphrase upon the whole Book as if it had been the Judgment and Work of one and the same Author It 's the Character of all the Books which they call Catenae upon Scripture I know well that some Criticks call in question the Antiquity of these Paraphrases and have remarked how ridiculous the Miracles are which the Jews say were wrought in favour of Jonathan the Son of Uzziel But what does this make for their doubting the Antiquity of these pieces Do we question whether there was a Greek Version of the Old Testament before Christ's time because we can hardly believe Aristaeas's History to be true or because we cannot say that the Greek Version is deliver'd down to us in the same purity as it was at first written Ought we to suspect St. Chrysostom's Homilies on St. Paul's Epistles or those of Pope Gregory the First because the Greeks have storied that St. Paul came to inspire St. Chrysostom with the Sense of his Epistles while he was meditating an Exposition of them and because the Latins do relate the like Fable in favour of Gregory the First After all the Authority of these Paraphrases does still further appear in that the Works themselves are spread almost as far as there are Jews in the World and are highly esteem'd in all places of their Dispersion Some may perhaps imagin that the Jews being fallen into great Corruptions about the time of our Blessed Saviour's coming into the World must necessarily at that time have lost much of that Light which their Ancestors received of the Prophets and of those that succeeded the Prophets They may think it may be that their Nation being become subject to the Greeks did by insensible degrees change their Principles and alter their Expositions of the Scripture as they adopted the Ideas of the Greek Philosophers whose Opinions they then began to borrow In short it may be conceived by some that the several Sects which arose among the Jews long before Christ's time did considerably alter the Opinions of the Synagogue and did corrupt their Tradition and the Notions they had received from the most ancient Doctors of their Schools In answer to all this It is certain the Corruption among the Jews was principally of their Morals for which though they had very good Precepts in their Law yet the true meaning of them was spoiled and corrupted with Glosses which were devised as I have shewn in later times and with these being stampt with the Name of Tradition they evaded the force of the Laws There were then but very few that had not an aversion to the Greek Learning and those few applied themselves to it while they were in Judaea with great Caution and Secrecy lest they should be lookt upon as Heathens Josephus witnesseth of that Antiq. l. 20. c. ult As to what is inferred from the many Sects among the Jews the quite contrary is clear For the opposition of one Sect to the other hindred any one of them from becoming Masters of the People and their Faith in so general a manner as to be able to corrupt absolutely their Traditional Notions of Religion Moreover these Sects all but the Sadducees who were abhorred by the People knew no other way to distinguish themselves and draw esteem but by a strict Observation of the Law and its Ceremonies to which they pretended that the Rules they gave their Disciples
did very much contribute whence they called their Traditions the Hedge and the Rampart of the Law To conclude We ought carefully to take notice 1. That St. John Baptist did not find it needful to correct the Errors in Opinions that reigned among the People but only exhorted them to Repentance for their Sins and immoral Actions 2. That one of the chief Concerns of our Lord Jesus Christ in his Discourses with the Jews was to purge them of all that Corruption which their drowsy Casuists had introduced into their Morals with which he charges the Scribes and Pharisees in particular 3. That the Doctrine of the Sadducees which he refutes on some occasions had but a few Followers 4. That the Essens and their Party who applied themselves altogether to Piety and the Study of the Law had a great Authority with all the People that loved Religion This we may learn from Philo in some Pieces of his Works especially Lib. quod omnis Probus sit liber p. 678. 5. That the Jews though they have received very gross Ideas concerning a Temporal Kingdom of the Messias and though to support these Ideas they have confounded the Sense of divers Prophecies endeavouring to reconcile them to their carnal Notions and in bringing in new Explications of the Old Testament yet have they not been able quite to extinguish their ancienter Ideas and Principles Their new Ideas passing for no more at best than the Opinions of their celebrated Doctors which another Doctor may oppose if he will especially when he is backt with those that are ancienter and of greater Authority CHAP. III. That the Jews had certain Traditional Maxims and Rules for the Vnderstanding of the Holy Scripture WHat I have now said concerning the Traditions of the Synagogue will I believe be scarcely disputed by any Learned Man I am sure he will have less reason to oppose it that considers the Rules which as appears to us were followed by the Jews in explaining the Prophecies concerning their Promised Messias 1. It is certain that the Jews held this as a Maxim That all the Prophets did speak of the Messias and were raised up by God for this very end This we find more than once in their Talmud Beracoth c. 1. fol. 3. Sanhed c. 11. and that it was common among them in Christ's time we see in many places of the Gospel No doubt what they did in setling this Rule was not without a due and serious Examination of it first And here we cannot but deplore the rashness of some Criticks among Christians who instead of making use of the Confessions of the Old Jews upon places of the Old Testament which they referr'd constantly to the Messias whereas some of the Modern Jews endeavour to wrest them in another sense not only follow the new ones but give occasion by these means to despise Prophecies and the clearer ones as things quite insignificant What was the Absurdity of Grotius who in the 53d of Isaiah by the Servant which is spoken of absolutely understands Jeremy the Prophet whereas the Old Jews refer that Chapter directly to the Messias as you can see in the Old Midrash Chonen in the Targum in the Talmud Sanhed fol. 98. c. 2. and that is acknowledg'd by R. Alshek in h. l. to be the sense of the ancient Jews And indeed they hold as a Maxim That whensoever it is spoken absolutely of the Servant the place must be understood of the Messias Zohar in Exod. fol. 225. and by consequence they explained that Prophecy of Isaiah as concerning the Messias I can say the same upon another Maxim of the Old Jews which is of great Use That whatsoever it is spoken of the King absolutely the place must be understood of the Messias Zohar in Gen. fol. 235. If Grotius had known it he never would have related the 72d Psalm and some others to Salomon in his literal sense as he hath done but would have referred it as it must be directly to the Messias Certainly that shews us that many of the Old Jews understood the Prophets much better than to their shame such Criticks now do I wonder many times Divines who confess they cannot give any tolerable account of the Song of Songs and look upon it as a Piece composed by Salomon upon the occasion of his Marriage with the Daughter of Egypt whereas the Jews look upon it constantly as the last Piece he composed after his Repentance and we have reason enough to believe when we compare it with the 45th Psalm and the 5th of Isaiah that Salomon spoke then of the Messias the Essential Word spoken of by him Prov. 8. chiefly when we see the ancient Jews do agree to it See Philo de Colon. apud Grot. in Prov. viii 22. Bresch Rabba par 1. the first Words and Midrash in shir hash in Mercessu But let us come back to our Subject 2. I say 2dly That it is reasonable to judge that the later Prophets having considerably cleared the Prophecies of those that went before them by diffusing throughout their Writings a much greater Light they who read the later Prophets were not so careless as to neglect these Helps for the understanding of the more ancient Prophecies whose sense was otherwise not a little obscure In these Cases it was necessary to begin with the Prophets that writ last and by their Light to clear the ancient Prophecies According to this Method the Paraphrases ascribe to the Messias what we read of the Seed of the Woman Gen. iii. 15. and what Balaam prophecied Numb xxiii and xxiv And no one can doubt but that after that great Light that Isaiah gave them concerning the Messias and his Unction in his Prophecy Chap. xi they referred to him those words also of Moses Deut. xviii 18. God shall raise thee up a Prophet like unto me which is cited by St. Peter as spoken of the Messias following herein the Principles of the Synagogue Act. iii. 22. 3. It is not to be doubted but that Experience was a great help towards their understanding of Prophecies If it had not been for this the Jews would have lookt no farther than to Isaac for the fulfilling of that Prophecy Gen. xviii 18. In thy seed shall all the nations of the Earth be blessed and likewise to Salomon for that which we read 2 Sam. vii 16. and Psal lxxvi But seeing the Prophecies were not accomplished in their Persons nor did answer to their Characters and it is impossible that the Prophecies should be false the Jews were convinced as they had reason that they ought to refer these Prophecies to the Messias as also St. Paul did according to the way of his Nation 4. It is clear there were certain general Characters of the Messias which wheresoever they were found were commonly thought to denote that that place should be understood of the Messias And it is worth observing that the Light still encreasing from one Age to the other and
Prince to conquer and to avenge them of their Enemies They removed from their thoughts the accounts of his Death as contrary to those Glorious descriptions which suited better with their minds They expected the Messias should come to restore presently the Kingdom unto Israel and in a word following their own Desires and Imaginations they confounded Christ's first coming with his second and then confirmed themselves in this mistake partly because the Prophets seemed to describe the Kingdom of the Messias very carnally partly because they knew not what to think of a Coelestial or Spiritual Kingdom such as his should be who was to sit on the Throne of God And these false conceits of theirs joined with the worldly Interests of their Leaders brought them to reject the true Messias at his Coming But after all it is certain 1. That the contrary opinions concerning the Spiritual sense of the Prophecies was the constant ancient Doctrine of their Nation 2. That those Jews that were converted to Christianity by the Ministry of Jesus Christ and his Apostles were converted upon these Maxims which were then the Maxims of the wisest and the Religiousest part of their Nation 3. That the Apostles in their Writings as well as Christ Jesus in his Discourses cited the Texts of the Old Testament according to the commonly received sense of the Synagogue And in truth the authority of these proofs in that received sense did not a little contribute to the Conversion of both Jews and Gentiles In order to make the Reader of my mind I intreat him to take in good part my entring a little further into the examination of what the most studious Jews in the Holy Scriptures do commonly propose under the name of Tradition Let them be lookt upon by some Men as dreaming Authors that busie themselves in Enquiries altogether vain and fruitless yet it is no hard task to vindicate them from this hard Imputation 1. I have this to say for them That that which appears so phantastical because not understood by most of those which have been accustomed to the Greek Methods of Teaching ought not therefore to be despised and wholly rejected None but Fools will think this a sufficient reason why all Pythagoras his Doctrines ought to be contemned because that he having been a Scholar of Pherecydes the Syrian and other learned Men in Egypt and Chaldea did borrow thence his way of teaching Theology by Symbols which is attainable only by few and those of no common Capacity 2. I observe that most of the true Jewish Doctors that followed the Tradition of their Schools had this design principally in their eye to make Men fully understand the Secrets of God's Conduct for the Restoration of fallen Mankind To this in particular they bend their Thoughts and in this they endeavour'd to instruct their Readers explaining to them according to this sense some places of Scripture which at first sight seem not immediately to regard so important a Subject 3. I observe that oftentimes where they attribute these Interpretations of Scripture to a Tradition delivered down to them from their Fathers it is only in order to render their Reflections on the Scriptures so much the more venerable to their Hearers For it is plain enough in some places that an attentive Meditation on the Words might have discover'd the same things which they refer to Tradition For Example They remark that God said concerning Adam See Reuchlin Cabalae l. 1. p. 628. Gen. iii. 22. And now lest he stretch out his hand and eat of the tree of life and live for ever therefore God as it follows drove him out Paradise From hence they infer that God gave Adam hopes of becoming one day immortal by eating of the Tree of Life which they thought should be obtained for him by the Messias Now it appears that our Blessed Saviour did allude to this common Opinion of the Jews which was then esteemed as a Tradition Rev. ii 7. To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the Tree that is in the Paradise of God And this Notion is repeated Rev. xxii 2 14. Again they remark that God said Behold Adam is become like one of us Gen. iii. 22. And they maintain that he speaks not this to the Angels who had no common likeness to the Unity or Essence of God but to him who was the Celestial Adam who is one with God As Jonathan has also observed in his Targum on these words of Genesis calling him the only-begotten in Heaven Now it is plain that St. Paul has described Jesus Christ as this Heavenly Adam 1 Cor. xv They assert that the first Prophecy Gen. iii. 15. was understood by Adam and Eve of the Saviour of the World and that Eve in prospect of this being delivered of her first Son Gen. iv 1. Reuchl Ibid. p. 629. she called him Cain saying I have got a man or this man from the Lord believing that he was the Promised Messias They tell us farther that Eve being deceived in this expectation as also in her hopes from Abel asked another Son of God who gave her Seth of whom it is said that Adam begot another Son after his own Image another with respect to Abel that was killed not to his Posterity by Cain for they bear the Image of the Devil rather than that of God They maintain the Name of Enos to have been given Seth's Son upon the same account Reuchl Ibid. p. 630 631. because they thought him that excellent man whom God had promised They make the like Remarks on Enoch Noa and Sem and Noah's Blessing of Sem they look'd on as an Earnest Wish that God in his Person would give them the Redeemer of Mankind They affirm that Abraham had not been so ready to offer up his Son Isaac a Sacrifice Reuchl Ibid. p. 632. but that he hoped God would save the World from Sin by that Means and that Isaac had not suffered himself to be bound had he not been of the same belief And they observe that it was said to Abraham and afterwards to Isaac on purpose to shew them the mistake of this Opinion In thy Seed shall all the nations of the Earth be blessed A plain Argument that the Jews anciently thought that these words did relate to the Messias as did also St. Paul Gal. iii. 16. They maintain Reuchl Ib. p. 633. that Jacob believed that God would fulfil to him the first Promise made to Adam till God undeceived him by inspiring him with a Prophecy concerning Judah Gen. xlix 10. and by signifying to him which also Jacob tells his Sons that the Messias should not come but in the last days v. 1. when the Scepter was departed from Judah and the Law-giver from between his Feet v. 10. Reuchl Ib. p. 633. They declare that ever since this Prophecy the Coming of the Messias for the Redemption of Mankind has been the Entertainment of all the Prophets to
their Disciples and the Object of David's and all other Prophet's Longings and Desires Reuchl Ib. p. 634. They maintain that David did not think himself to be the Messias because he prays for his Coming Psal xliii 3. Send out thy Light i. e. the Messias as R. Salomon interprets it And from hence they conclude that he speaks also of the Messias in Psal lxxxix 15. They did think Isaiah spake of him ch ix 6. So R. Jose Galilaeus praefat in Eccha Rabbati as it is to be seen in Devarim Rabba Paras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the end of it and in Jalk in Is § 284. And indeed what he there saith could not be meant of Hezekiah who was born 10 years before nor was his Kingdom so extensive nor so lasting as is there foretold the Messias's should be but was confined to a small part of Palestine and ended in Sedecias his Successor not many Generations afterwards And it is the general and constant Opinion of the Jews that Malachi the last of the Prophets spake of him ch 4. under the Name of the Son of Righteousness for this see Kimchi 4. It ought to be well considered that we owe the Knowledge of the Principles on which the Holy Ghost has founded the Doctrine of Types to the Jews who are so devoted to the Traditions of their Ancestors which Types however they who read the Scripture cursorily do ordinarily pass by as things light and insignificant yet it is true what St. Paul hath said 1 Cor. x. 11. That all things happened to the Fathers in Types and were written for their instruction upon whom the ends of the World are come or who live in the last Times as the Oeconomy of the Gospel is called and the last days by Jacob Gen. xlix 1. That is acknowledged by the Wisemen of the Nation in Shemoth Rabba Parasha 1 and by Menasseh ben Israel q. 6. in Isaiah p. 23. Indeed the Jews besides the literal sense of the ancient Scriptures did acknowledge a mystical or spiritual Sense which St. Paul lays down for a Maxim 1 Cor. x. 1 2 3 c. Where he applies to things of the New Testament all these following Types namely the Coming of Israel out of Egypt their passage through the Red Sea the History of the Manna and of the Rock that followed them by its Water We see in Philo the figurative sense which the Jews gave to a great part of the ancient History He remarks exactly and often with too much subtilty perhaps the many Divine and Moral Notions which the common prophetical Figures do suggest to us We see that they turned almost all their History into Allegory It plainly appears from St. Paul's way of arguing Gal. iv 22 c. which could be of no force otherwise Wee see that they reduced to an Anagogical sense all the Temporal Promises of Canaan of Jerusalem of the Temple in which St. Paul also followed them Heb. iv 4 9. quoting these words If they shall enter into my rest from Ps xcv 11. which words he makes the Psalmist speak of the Jerusalem that is above and this also is acknowledged by Maimonides de poen c. 8. This Remark ought to be made particularly on the mystical Signification which Philo the Jew gives of several Parts of the Temple of which the Apostle St. Paul makes so great use in his Epistle to the Hebrews Josephus in those few words which he has concerning the Signification of the Tabernacle Antiq. iii. 9. gives us reason enough to believe that if he had lived to finish his design of explaining the Law according to the Jewish Midrashim he would have abundantly justified this way of Explication followed by St. Paul with respect to the Tabernacle of the Covenant It is hard to conceive how the Apostles could speak of things which came to pass in Old time as Types of what should be accomplished in the Person of the Messias without any other proof than their simple affirmation As for instance that St. Peter should represent Christ as a New Noah 1 Pet. iii. 21. and that St. Paul should propose Melchisedeck as a Type of the Messias in respect to his Sacerdotal Office Heb. vi vii unless the Jews did allow this for a Maxim which flows naturally from the Principle we have been establishing namely that these Great Men were look'd on as the Persons in whom God would fulfil his first Promise but that not being completely fulfilled in them it was necessary for them that would understand it aright to carry their View much farther to a Time and Person without comparison more august in whom the Promise should be perfectly completed It may be demanded why the Prophecies seem sometime so applied to Persons then living that one would think he should not need to look any farther to see the fulfilling of them as namely the prophetical Prayer as in behalf of Solomon which is in Psalm lxxii as the Birth of a Son promised to Isaiah ch vii and ch ix 6. and where Isaiah seems to speak of himself when he saith Isa lxi 1. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me and the like But it is not hard to give a reason for this with which the ancient Jews were not unacquainted And it is this That though all these Predictions had been directed to those persons yet they had by no means their accomplishment in them nor these persons were in any degree intended and meant in the Prophecy To be particular Solomon was in Wars during the latter part of his Life and so he could not be that King of Peace spoken of in the Prophecy and his Kingdom was rent in his Son's time the smaller part of it falling to his share as the greater was seized by Jeroboam so far was the Kingdom of Solomon from being universal or everlasting Isai vii 14. The Son born to Isaiah neither had the Name of Emanuel nor could he be the Person intended by it as neither was his Mother a Virgin as the word in that Prophecy signifies And for the Prophet himself though the Spirit of the Lord was upon him and spoke by him as did it by all the other Prophets 2 Pet. 1.21 Yet that the Unction here spoken of Saadia Gaon Emunoth c. 18 D. Kimchi in rad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isaiah lxi 1. did not belong to him but to the Messias is acknowledged by the Jewish Writers and seems to have been so understood by those that heard our Saviour apply this Prophecy to himself Luk. iv 22. So that nothing was more judiciously done and more agreeable to the known Principles of the Synagogue than the Question proposed to Philip by the Eunuch who reading the liii of Isaiah asked from him Of whom did he speak of himself or of another Again It may be asked Why the Prophets called the Messias David and John Baptist Elias Not to trouble the Reader with any more than a mention of that fancy of
some of the Jews that held the Transmigration of Souls and say particularly That the Soul of Adam went into David and the Soul of David was the same with that of the Messias I say to pass by that the true Reason of such use of the Names of David and Elias is this because David was an excellent Type of the Messias that was to come out of his Loins Act. ii 30 31. And for John Baptist he came in the Spirit and Power of Elias Luk. 1.17 That is he was inspired with the same Spirit of Zeal and holy Courage that Elias was formerly acted with and employ'd it as Elias did in bringing his People to Repentance and Reformation 5. We ought to do the Jews that Justice as to acknowledge that from them it is that we know the true sense of all the Prophecies concerning the Messias in the Old Testament Which sense some Criticks seem not to be satisfied with seeking for a first accomplishment in other persons than in the Messias The Jews meaning and applying those Prophecies to the Messias in a mystical or a spiritual sense is founded upon a Reason that offers it self to the Mind of those that study Scripture with attention Before Jacob's Prophecy there was no time fixed for the Coming of the Messias but after the giving of that Prophecy Gen. xlix 10. there was no possibility of being deceived in the sense of those Prophecies which God gave from time to time full of the Characters of the Messias It was necessary 1. That the Kingdom should be in Judah and not cease till the time about which they expected the Coming of the Messias 2. That the lesser Authority called here the Law-giver should be also established in Judah and destroyed before the Coming of the Messias which we knew came to pass by the Reign of Herod the Great and some years before the Death of our Saviour And indeed the Talmudist say that forty years before the Desolation of the House of the Sanctuary Judgments of Blood were taken away from Israel Talm. Jerus l. Sanhedr c. dine mammonoth Talm. Bab. C. Sanhedr c. Hajou Bodekim And Raymondus Martini who writ this Pugio at the end of the XIIIth Century quotes Part III. Dist 3. c. 16. § 46. One R. Rachmon who says that when this happened they put on sackcloth and pull'd off their hair and said Wo unto us the Scepter is departed from Israel and yet the Messias is not come And therefore they who had this Prophecy before them could not mistake David nor Solomon nor Hezekiah for the Messias Nor could they deceive themselves so far as to think this Title was applicable to Zorobabel or any of his Successors In short there appeared not any one among the Jews before the Times of our Blessed Saviour that dared assume this Title of Messias although the Name of Anointed which the word Messias signifies had been given to several of their Kings as to David in particular But since Jesus Christ's coming many have pretended to it These things being so it is clear that the Prophecies which had not and could not have their accomplishment in those upon whose occasion they were first delivered were to receive their accomplishment in the Messias and consequently those Prophecies ought necessarily to be referred to him We ought by all means to be perswaded of this For we cannot think the Jews were so void of Judgment as to imagine that the Apostles or any one else in the World had a right to produce the simple words of the Old Testament and to urge them in any other sense than what was intended by the Writer directed by the Holy Ghost It must be his Sense as well as his Words that should be offered for proof to convince reasonable Men. But we see that the Jews did yield to such Proofs out of Scripture concerning the Messias in which some Criticks do not see the force of those Arguments that were convincing to the Jews They must then have believed that the true sense of such places was the literal sense in regard of the Messias whom God had then in view at his inditing of these Books and that it was not literal in respect of him who seems at first-sight to have been intended by the Prophecy And now I leave it to the Consideration of any unprejudiced Reader that is able to judge Whether if these Principles and Maxims I have treated of were unknown to the Jews the Apostles could have made any use of the Books of the Old Testament for their Conviction either as to the Coming of the Messias or the Marks by which he was distinguishable from all others or as to the several parts of his Ministry But this is a matter of so great importance as to deserve more pains to shew that Jesus Christ and his Apostles did build upon such Maxims as I have mentioned And therefore any that call themselves Christians should take heed how they deny the force and authority of that way of Traditional interpretation which has been anciently received in the Jewish Church CHAP. IV. That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of the Christian Doctrine by this common Traditional Exposition received among the Jews which they could not have done at least not so well had there been only such a Literal Sense of those Texts which they alledged as we can find without the help of such Exposition IF we make some reflections which do not require a great deal of Meditation it is clear that Jesus Christ was to prove to the Jews that he was the Messias which they did expect many Ages ago and whose Coming they look'd on as very near He could not have done so if they had not been acquainted with their Prophetical Books and with those several Oracles which were contained in them Perhaps there might have been some difference amongst them concerning some of those Oracles because there were in many of them some Ideas which seem contrary one to another And that was almost unavoidable because the Holy Ghost was to represent the Messias in a deep humiliation and great suffering and in a great height of Glory But after all the method of calling the Jews was quite different from the method of calling the Gentiles They had the distinct knowledge of the chief Articles of Religion which the Heathen had not They had all preparations necessary for the deciding this great question Whether Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias or not They had the Sacred Books of the Old Testament they were acquainted with the Oracles as well as with the Law They longed after the coming of the Messias They had been educated all along and trained up in the expectation of him They had not only those Sacred Books in which the Messias was spoken of but many among them had gathered the Ideas of the Prophets upon that subject as we see by the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus And indeed we see that Jesus
Critic than Eusebius has very well corrected his mistake and shewn That the Book de Therapeutis describes the Life of a Sect of the Jews and not of the Christians It is a surprizing thing that Eusebius should commit such a mistake because he himself in his Books de Praep. Evang. do's cite a long passage from Porphyry taken out of Josephus in the transcribing whereof Eusebius could not but see many thing related of the Essens such as Philo brought into his account of the Therapeutae But to this it may be Objected do's not Photius report that Philo being at Rome in Claudius his time met with St. Peter there and contracted a friendship with him which occasioned his writing that Book de Therapeutis as of the Disciples of St. Mark who was himself the Disciple of St. Peter Doth not Eusebius fix this meeting of Philo with St. Peter to the reign of Claudius when he saith he read in full Senate his Book Intituled The Virtues of Caius Caligula Tho it was the scope of that Book to shew the impiety of that Monster that would be worshipped as a God for which Philo was so much admired that not only this but his other pieces were ordered to be put into the publick Library as pieces of such great value that they were worthy to be preserved for ever I know all this and do believe that Eusebius did not invent all this History But if there be any truth in it they might be those Books of Philo which he writ against Flaccus who died A. D. 38. and the account of his Embassy to Caius with three other Treatises containing the Sufferings of the Jews under Caius now lost that were put in the Publick Library For I cannot imagine that the Roman Senate should lay up in their publick Archives his other pieces which regarded only the Laws of the Jews But as for that which he tells us that Philo saw St. Peter at Rome and there made an acquaintance with him it is a meer dream of Eusebius who fancying that his Book de Therapeutis was written in praise of the first Christians of Alexandria and that they were Disciples of St. Mark did go on to imagine that he might possibly have some conversation with St. Peter and St. Mark and so came to write in commendation of these first Christians This meeting of St. Peter and Philo at Rome in Claudius his time howsoever Eusebius fancied it as a thing that would give some colour to his Opinion concerning the Therapeutae could not be true because as it appears by the Writings of the New Testament St. Peter was as far from being at Rome in the 42d year of our Lord that is in the second year of Claudius who succeeded caligula that he did not leave Judaea or Syria till after the Death of Agrippa the same that imprisoned St. Peter and who died in the fourth of Claudius All the Learned now a days know that St. Peter came not to Rome before the first year of Nero if he came thither so early i. e. A. D. 55. at which time it is necessary that Philo who was all Grey A. D. 40. and consequently was then about seventy years of age should be full eighty five years old which is an age very unfit for travel or business or even for living so far from ones own home as Rome was from Alexandria This shews what credit may be given to this report in Photius that Philo was a Christian but afterward turned Apostate So it is all Errors are fruitful and from one Fable there uses to arise many more As for Eusebius he is the less to be excused for writing what he doth of St. Mark 's Gospel which he saith was first approved by St. Peter at this time of his being at Rome and then made use of by St. Mark at Alexandria for the converting of those Jews whom Philo describes under the name of Therapeutae When as Eusebius sheweth us himself elswhere in his History he had so great an Authority as that of Irenaeus to assure him that St. Mark 's Gospel was not written till after St. Peter's Death Euseb Hist v. 8. All that can be said for him is only this that when he was writing this passage of Philo he did not think of what he had writ before Indeed if he had thought of it he had not been that man we take him for if he had suffered it to pass as it stands now in his History I thought it was proper to enter into this disquisition concerning the Writings of Philo and the time when they were written that I might leave no doubt in the minds of my Readers concerning the Authority of Philo whom I intend to produce as an authentick Testimony of the Opinions of the Synagogue before our Lord in the matters disputed between us and the Unitarians Proceed we to the Chaldee Paraphrases CHAP. VII Of the Authority and Antiquity of the Chaldee Paraphrases I Shall have occasion in many points to cite the Paraphrases of the Jews upon the Books of the Old Testament and perhaps it may appear strange to some that I oftentimes cite them without distinguishing between those which pass for ancient and those which are reputed by Criticks altogether modern Therefore I think my self obliged once for all to give the reasons of my doing thus and to satisfie my Reader thereupon I shall not spend time to discover the Original of these Paraphrases It is enough to mind the Reader that the Jews having almost forgot their Hebrew in the Babylonian Captivity 't was needful for the People's understanding the Holy Scriptures which were read in the Synagogue every Sabbath-day that some persons skilful both in the Hebrew and Chaldee should explain to the People every Verse in Chaldee after that they had read it to them in Hebrew The Jews make this Practice as ancient as the times of their return from the Babylonian Captivity Neh. viii 8. as one may see in the Talmud Title Nedarim ch 4. The Jews all agree that this way of Translating the Scriptures was made by word of mouth only for a long time But it is hard to conceive that they which interpreted in that manner did write nothing for the use of Posterity It seems much more probable to believe that from time to time these Interpreters writ something especially on the most difficult places and those which were least understood The first according to the Jewish Writers Magill c. 3. who attempted to put into Writing his Chaldee Version of the Prophets first and last according to the Jewish distinction except Daniel or rather who interpreted the whole Text in order was Jonathan the Son of Uzziel who also not contenting himself always to render the Hebrew word for word into Chaldee does often mix the Traditional explication of the difficultest Prophecies with his simple Translation The Jews seem to agree that this Jonathan lived a 100. years before the destruction of Jerusalem
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
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
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.
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
the same who spake and the World was made and who was God of Abraham Exod. iii. 14 15. vi 4. So then if he who was the God of Abraham was only an Angel that Personated God then he who created the World was a created Angel which as I have shewed is absurd 5. It is impossible to explain otherwise what the Jews so unanimously affirm that God revealed himself face to face to Moses which is more than he granted any Prophet besides unless the Word that appeared to Moses was true God and not a meer Angel See Onk. on Deut. xxxiv 10 11. and the other Targums But what say they may not an Angel bear the Name of God when he sustains the Person of God was not the Ark called Jehovah because it was a Symbol of his Person Does not Jonathan on Numb xi 35 36. say to the Ark Revelare Sermo Domini redi This is indeed a Notion which the Socinians have borrowed of Abenezra on Exod. iii. and Joseph Albo de fund c. 8. And so they pretend that the Pillar of Cloud is called the Lord Exod. xiii 21. xiv 19. that the Ark is called the Lord Numb x. 35. that the Angel is called the Lord Judg. vi 15. The Name being given to the Symbol viz. the Ark and to the second Cause namely the Angel because of their representing God But to the great displeasure of our Modern Jews and Socinians that borrow their Weapons we have still enough of the ancient Jewish Pieces left to shew their quite contrary Sentiments in these matters For 1. they as has been already observed believed that the Angel spoken of in Judg. vi 15. was the Word and that this Word created the World as has been largely proved 2. Just the reverse of what our Moderns say did the Ancients hold as we gather from Philo. For instead of an Angel's taking the place of God he saith the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 took the place of an Angel De Somn. p. 466. As to the Ark it is folly to imagin that because God promised to dwell and to hear Prayers there and enjoyned Worship toward it therefore the Ark was called Jehovah The ancient Jews spoke not to the Ark but to God who resided between the Cherubims This is plainly expressed in those words of Jonathan Numb xi 35 36. Revelare Sermo Domini c. where the words are not addressed to the Ark it self but to him that promised to give them some Tokens of his Presence namely to the Word who created the World who redeemed Israel from Egypt who heard their Prayers over the Ark and who had shut up therein the Tables of the Law which he had given them on Mount Sinai And thus the Targum on 1 Chron. xiii 6. David and all Israel went up to remove the Ark of the Lord that dwelleth between the Cherubims whose Name is called on it or as 2 Sam. vi 2. Whose Name is called by the Name of the Lord of Hosts that dwelleth between the Cherubims In short the Scripture never gives to any Place or Creature the Name Jehovah in the Nominative Case either singly or joined with any other Noun in apposition But either in an Oblique Case as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or with a Verb Substantive understood as Jehovah Nissi Jehovah Shamma What the Socinians have to say more against this the Reader may see fully answered by Buxt Hist of the Ark c. 1. And the Reader shall have a full Satisfaction upon it out of the following Chapters It remains therefore certain That the Word mentioned in Philo and the Paraphrases is not an Angel but a Divine Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Philo calls him many times and if the Expression be allowable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he speaks in Euseb Praep. vii 13. p. 322 323. But we must now go on to that which will remove all difficulties from this Subject and convince the Reader if any thing can do it That the Jews looked upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Divine Person I speak of the Appearances of an Angel who is called God and worshipped as God under the Old Testament And I thought fit for this very reason to enlarge more upon this Subject to prevent at once all the Objections of the New Jews and of the Unitarians CHAP. XIII That all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of the Lord which are spoken of in the Books of Moses have been referred to the Word by the Jews before Christ's Incarnation SOME of the late Jewish Commentators that have had Disputes with the Christians particularly those whose Comments are collected in the Hebrew Bible printed by Bomberg at Venice do oppose this Proposition with all their Might They have laid it down for a Rule That whereever God is said to be present there all the Celestial Family is with him i. e. the Angels by whose Ministry as they say God has ordinarily acted in his Appearances to men So saith Rabbi Solom Jarchi on Gen. xix 24. Whereas those Old Jews who followed the Tradition of their Forefathers being not biassed by the Spirit of Dispute understood it of the Cochma and Bina viz. of the Wisdom and of the Holy Ghost as we were admonished by R. Joseph de Karnitol in his Saare Tsedec fol. 25. col 4. fol. 26. col 2. This Collection of Commentators being of great use for the interpreting the Scriptures several Divines that have applied themselves to the Study of the Rabbins Comments have been led by them unwarily into this Opinion The renowned Grotius fell into this Snare and has had but too many Followers We have no cause to wonder that Papists do the same being concern'd as they are to find Examples in the Old Testament of Religious Worship paid to Angels the better to cover their Idolatry But in truth the Modern Jews do in this quite abandon the Ancient Sentiments of their Fathers And they who follow the Modern Jews herein do weaken I hope without thinking of it the Proofs of the Godhead of Jesus Christ by yielding up to the Modern Jews as an agreed Point between them and the Christians that which is quite contrary to what the Apostles and Primitive Christians supposed in their Disputes with the Jews of their Times and which our later Jews themselves would never have submitted to if they had known any other way to avoid the Arguments that were brought against them out of their own Scriptures It behoves us therefore to give their just Force to those Arguments that were used by the Apostles and Fathers and to recover to Truth all her Advantages by shewing how bad Guides our Modern Jews are in the matters now before us and how they have deviated from the constant Doctrine of their Ancestors to find out ways to defend themselves against the Christians I affirm then for certain That the Appearances of God or of any Angel that is called Jehovah or the God of
the 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
and the property of God is to forgive sins as the Jews did object to Christ They answered This is our opinion therefore we did not receive him as Ambassador 4ly In time they took this prudent method in their divisions they forbad their people to dispute with Christians upon those Subjects unless they were well used to the Controverversie Let him dispute with Hereticks that can answer them as R. Idith But if a man can't answer them let him forbear disputing This was the Counsel or Law of Rab. Nachman one of the Authors cited in the Ghemara de Sanhedrin ch 4. § 11. In Beth Israel For R. Eliezer who lived under Trajan had observed that the reading of the Old Testament made the Jews turn Hereticks i. e. Christians Himself was suspected to be inclinable that way So that in after times they preferred much the study of the Mishna that is to say of their Traditions before that of the Law it self 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 ALtho what I have said shews clearly that all the Notions which are in the New Testament are exactly agreeable to those that are in the Old Jewish Church yet I believe that I can add some light to it by some particular remarks upon some places of the New Testament which are mightily cleared if compared with the Ideas of the Jews since Jesus Christ his time And this I hope will serve to shew that the Apostles did advance nothing but what was commonly received by the Learned Men of the Synagogue and that they have offered no violence to the Sacred Context of the Old Testament but that they quoted it according to its natural sense those very Ideas being common till this day among the Learned Jews and among those very Men who applying themselves fully to the Studies of the Holy Scripture are lookt upon as the Keepers and Depositaries of Tradition I will bring those remarks without an exact niceness or care as to their order choosing to follow only the order of the New Testament If any one would know why St. Matthew ch ii 18. has quoted the words of Jeremy ch xxxi 15. Rachel weeping for her children because they were not He may conceive the reason of such a quotation if he knows that the Jews do look upon the Messias as the servant which is spoken of by Isaiah ch liii See Zohar fol. 235 in Genesis and the Messias being described there as a Sheep that is called Rachel in Hebrew by the Prophet they have taken occasion to apply that Oracle of Rachel's weeping not to the Wife of Jacob but to the Shekinah which they call Rachel See R. Menach of Reka fol. 41. col 2. fol 42. col 4. No body can read the 5th of St. Matthew but he must take notice with what authority Jesus Christ speaks upon the Mount in that famous Sermon in which he vindicates the Law from the corruption of the Pharisees But I say unto you But he will be more sensible of that if he reflects upon the common Notion of the Synagogue in which the proper name of the Shekinah is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I the Lord have spoken R. Menach fol. 33. col 4. fol. 40. col 4. and that 't was the Shekinah which gave the Law upon Mount Sinai R. Menach fol. 67. col 3. 68. col 1. They cannot but take notice of the Title of the Bridegroom which is given by John Baptist to Jesus Christ and which Jesus Christ assumes Mat. ix 15. It is evident that they make an allusion to Psal 45. and to the Song of Songs which is of the same argument But this will be clearer to those that know that the Jews maintain that 't is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Shekinah which gave the Law and then sought after Israel as his Bride that St. John Baptist speaks of himself as the Paranymph and as Moses who said that he came out to meet God Exod. xix 17. as it is noted in Pirke Eliezer ch 41. and that 't is the Shekinah that is spoken of in that Psal xlv under the name of the King that the name of the King exprest the Messias when absolutely used Zohar in Exod. fol. 225. and that they acknowledg in this an inexplicable mystery R. Menach fol. 7. col 3. fol. 143. col 4. Jesus Christ saith to the people who followed him Mat. xi 29. Take my yoke upon you for my yoke is easie If a Man ponders that expression he shall find that Jesus Christ speaks as God And indeed nothing is more common than to see the Prophets reproach the Jews that they have cast off the yoke of God Jer. ii 20. and ch v. 5. But who doth not see that he speaks as the very Son of God who is spoken of Psal ii 3. the Shekinah who gave the Law upon Mount Sinai and so had the Sovereign Authority to bring Men under his Law let their authority be never so great We see Mat. xxi 13. why Jesus Christ speaks of the Temple as the House of his Father and as his own House and the Jews perceived well enough that he made himself God But he did that according to the Notions of the Jews who maintain till this day that the Shekinah or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same and that the Temple was dedicated to God and to his Shekinah R. Men. fol. 63. col 1. fol. 70. col 2. fol. 73. col 3. 4. fol. 79. col 3. So in the same Chapter v. 42. Jesus Christ quotes these words from Psal cxviii 22. The stone which the builders refused c. and applies them to himself But he did that to shew them that he was the true Shekinah For this is the constant Title that they give to the Shekinah or to the Messias See R. Menach fol. 8. col 2. fol. 53. col 1. 3. He is the Stone and the Shepherd of Israel How often saith Jesus Christ Mat. xxiii 37. would I have gathered thy Children together even as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her wings What signifies that expression A Jew understands it very well that Jesus Christ had a mind to tell them that he was the Shekinah For 't is the common Notion of the Jews till this day That the people of Israel is under the Wings of the Shekinah R. Men. fol. 107. col 4. Jesus Christ speaks to his Disciples Matth. xxvi 53. He shall presently give me more than twelve Legions of Angels Those who read those words do not understand them well if they do not know that Jesus Christ speaks as the Shekinah in the Camp of Israel and that he hath the twelve Legions of Angels as the twelve Armies of the twelve Tribes at his Command and under his Authority this is the Doctrine of the
after his example to worship â— Brick by which they understood the figure of a Cross Sanhedrin fol. 107. Sota fol. 47. Lastly It may be observed that the many Heresies which arose in after-times among Christians concerning our Saviour's Person and Natures gave the Jews very great prejudices against the Gospel The Arians for two hundred years then the Nestorians and Eutychians but chiefly the Tritheists visibly taught Doctrines contrary to truth In particular the Writings of John Philoponus who was a Tritheist were much perused by the Mahometans and Jews because they begun to study Philosophy at which John Philoponus was very good as Maimonides tells us More Nevochim pag. 1. ch 71. Now this Heresie destroying the Unity of God which is the fundamental Article of the Jewish Religion could not but give the Jews just matter of horror and detestation for Christianity Besides the Jews themselves confess that in their dispersion they have lost the knowledge of many of the Mysteries of their Religion One cannot think how it could be otherwise if one considers 1. The long time they have been dispersed which confounds the most distinct and darkens the clearest matters 2. Their extreme misery in so long a captivity which subjected them to so many different Nations and many of them such as had a particular hatred both of their Nation and Religion 3. But chiefly if one considers that those Mysteries were communicated only to a few Learned Men and kept from the knowledge of the common people as Maimonides does acknowledg and proves by many Reflections worth considering in More Nevoch p. 1. ch 71. After this the Jews having still great aversion to Christians it ought not to seem strange that the Cabalists should be so few in number among them and that most of the Jewish Doctors should follow in their Disputes against Christians Explications and Notions contrary to Scripture about the Trinity and the Divinity of the Messias For even before Christ there were amongst them many Errors crept amongst some of them about those matters so that they that lived after Christ did easily follow the worst Explication and prefer it before the better in the heats of their Disputes against Christians Neither is it to be wondered at that the same Men should maintain contrary Propositions and defend them equally in their turns as they come ta have to do with different adversaries The Papists are a remarkable instance of this when they dispute and write against the Eutychians to prove the Truth of Christ's Human Nature one would admire at the strength and soundness of their Arguments But when they are upon the manner of our Saviour's existence in the Sacrament as to his Flesh and Blood nothing can be more contrary to their former Positions than what they affirm on this occasion they destroy quite what they said before and one would think they had forgot themselves The Jews do perfectly like the Papists in this and having less knowledg and labouring under greater prejudices than they no wonder if they maintain contrary Principles one to another This may be seen in some of the old Hereticks which sprung from amongst the Jews and brought their Opinions into the Christian Religion the Cerinthians for instance who owned that the Word had dwelt in Christ but did imagin that it was but for a certain time And if the Patripassians and afterwards the Sabellians who had the clear Revelation of the Gospel yet for all this opposed the Doctrine of the Trinity as contrary to the Unity of God and affirmed that there was in God but one Person which had appeared under three differing Names It ought not to appear strange that the Jews blinded by their hatred against Christians should through their prejudices apprehend that what their old Masters taught about the three Sephiroth did not signifie three Persons in God but only the three different manners in which God works by one and the same Person I have already hinted that the Jews even about the end of the fourth Century had great offence given them by the Christians in their Worship of Saints and Relicks which being at last as Idolatrous as the Heathenish made the Jews look upon them as no other than Heathens This may be seen in many places of the Talmud which they pretend was finisht about five hundred years after Christ But especially in their Additions to those Books which they made when Idolatry was so ripe both in the East and the West One might make a Book of those too just Accusations of the Jews against the Christians which caused them to be Banisht out of many Kingdoms The Dominican Friers made a Collection of most of them in the Thirteenth Century when Christians going much into the Holy Land did something retrieve their lost knowledg of the Greek and other Eastern Languages Since that time the Jews transcribing their Talmud and their other ancient Books begun to use the words of Samaritans instead of those of Apostates and Hereticks which they used before in speaking of Christians against whom in the old Times they had made many Rules Besides the violent and Antichristian methods which some Christian Princes used against them by a false Principle of Religion to make them against their Will profess Christianity made them look upon Christians as no better than savage Beasts which besides their outward Form had nothing of Humanity and regarded neither Justice nor Religion For though their own Jewish Principles are persecuting enough yet they can't but condemn the same Principles when used against them nothing being more apt to make Men reject Truth than Persecution because Conscience ought to be instructed not inslaved as Experience in all Ages does abundantly confirm It cannot be denied but that the Jews Crucified Christ for affirming himself to be the Son of God Neither can it be supposed that he meant no more by it but that he was God's adoptive Son as the Jews were or some of their Kings For he spoke in an ordinary plain intelligible sense He meant therefore by it not only that he was the Messias but that the Word of God dwelt in him the same which the Jews acknowledged to be the Off-spring of God And for this the Jews Crucifyed him as he hints plainly enough in the Parable of the Husbandmen for he designs the Prophets by the name of meer Servants and himself he calls the Son in opposition to the Prophets and tells the Scribes and Pharisees that though they knew him to be such yet would they for all this put him to death So that by Crucifying him they did purpose to destroy a Person whom they knew to be the true Messias but by whom they were like to have lost their credit with the People He having called them a parcel of Hypocrites who made a Trade of Religion who in their hearts laught at it and only endeavoured to get by it This is the meaning of those words which Christ puts in their
one compare Job xxviii 20. Psal xxxiii 6. Prov. viii 12 22. with what is written Wisdom vi 24 22. and so on till Chap. viii 11. and he will find a great likeness if not the very same Notions and words 4. Through the same neglect they have quite lost the Works of other ancient and famous Jews as namely of Philo the Jew who was in such reputation amongst them as to be chosen the Agent or Deputy of the Alexandrian Jews in their Embassy to the Roman Emperour and of Aristobulus who lived in the time of the Ptolomees and Dedicated to one of them his Explication of the Law of which we have a fragment in Eusebius which shews that his Notions were the same with Philo's and that they did generally prevail in Egypt before Christ's Incarnation as well in the time of Philo. It is no hard matter to give some reasons of this neglect For 1. their first destruction by Titus and after by Hadrian involved with it a great part of their Books They thought then only of saving their Bibles with which it seems their Targum was joined and so this came to be preserved with the Scriptures This was by the great care of Josephus as he himself relates desiring of Titus this favour alone that he might preserve the Sacred Books 2. After their second destruction by Hadrian they applied themselves straight to gather their Traditions and Customs which now make the Body of their Misna or Second Law as they call it This spent them a deal of time For to compose such a work it was necessary to collect the several pieces in the hands of several men who had drawn certain Memoirs for the observation of every Law that did more immediately concern them 3. They then began to increase their hatred for the study of the Greek Tongue abandoning themselves wholly to the study of their Traditions This we see in the Misna Mas sota c. 9. § 14. 4. About this time being pressed with Arguments out of these Books by the Christians that disputed against them they thought best to reject the Works themselves And because the Christians used the LXX Version against them they invented several Lyes to discredit it as we see in the Gemara of Megilla and lest that should not do they made it their business to find out some that were able to make a new Version such as Aquila in the time of Hadrian and Symmachus and Theodotion who turn'd Jews toward the end of the Second Century These Three Interpreters were designed to change the Sense of those Texts which the Christians according to the Old Jewish Traditions did refer to the Messias Of this Justin Martyr has given some Instances in his Dialogue with Trypho R. Akiba's great Friend and we see that St. Jerom Ep. 89. complains of the same And now what wonder is it if the Jews in this humour did neglect or rather rejected those Apocryphal Books whose Authority in some points were set up against them by the Christians as were the Books of Baruch Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus As for Philo tho he wrote in a lofty Stile and after an Allegorical way and therefore we find in the Rabboth several Thoughts common to him and the Cabalists and other Allegorical Authors whose Notions are gathered in the Rabboth yet the Jews soon lost all esteem for his Works First Because he writ in Greek which was a Language most despised by them at this time they having establish'd it as a Maxim That he who brought up his Children in the Greek Tongue was cursed as he who fed Swine Bava kama fol. 82. col 1. Sota fol. 49. col 2. Secondly Because some Christians challenged him for their own For finding some of his Principles to be agreeable to those of the Christian Religion it came into their head tho it is a Fancy without any Foundation that he while he was at Rome was converted by St. Peter The same thing befel Josephus as soon as the Christians began to use his Authority against the Jews notwithstanding that the Jews have no better Historian than Josephus Thirdly Because the Jews had then almost forsaken the study of the Holy Scriptures and given themselves up entirely to the study of their Traditions or Second Law as they call it The Catalogue of their Ancient Commentators is very small Their first literal Commentator is R. Saadiah who writ his Comments on the Scripture in the beginning of the Tenth Century As for the others that were long before him as Zohar Siphre and Siphri Siphra Mechilta Tanchuma and the Rabboth they all make it their business to explain allegorically or to establish their Traditions As to the Targum we see how heat of Dispute hath carried the Jews to such strange extremities that now they reject no small part of those Interpretations that were Authentick with their Forefathers It may not be amiss to give some Proofs of this to shew that we do not accuse them without cause And in general there is not a more idle Romance than that which the Jews have devised touching two Messias's that are to come unto the World One must be of the Race of Joseph by Ephraim and called Nehemiah the Son of Husiel who as they will have it after a Reign of many Years at Jerusalem and after having sack'd Rome is at last to be killed himself at Jerusalem by a King of Persia The other Messias is to be Menahem the Son of Hammiel who is to appear for the delivery of the Jews being sent from God on that Errand according to Moses's Prayer Exod. iv 13. For the time of this second Messias's coming shall be when the Mother of the deceased Messias the Son of Joseph having gathered the Jews dispersed from Galilee to Jerusalem shall be there besieged by one Armillus the Son of Satan who is to proceed out of a Marble Statue in Rome and who in this close Siege shall be at the very point of destroying them Then they say Messias the Son of David shall come with seven Shepherds to wit the Three Patriarchs Moses David and Elias and eight of the principal Fathers or Prophets who are to rise before the rest They say That Moses at the head of them shall convert the Jews without working any Miracle and then all the Jews shall rise at the sound of a Trumpet passing under ground till they come to Mount Olivet which shall cleave in two to let them out Then the Jews shall come from all Quarters to form the Messias's Army and the Messias the Son of Joseph shall be raised from the dead to come in among the rest and so the two Messias's shall reign without jealousy of one another only the Son of David shall have the chief Power reigning from one end of the Earth to the other and that for Forty Years All this time the Jews shall continue in Feasting and Jollity using the other Nations as Slaves And then Gog the King of
Magog with the Kingdoms of the North shall come to attack the Jews in Palestine but he and they shall be destroyed by Rain and Hail after which the Land shall be purged of the dead Bodies and they shall build the Third Temple and then the Ten Tribes shall return and offer Sacrifices to God in the Temple and God shall pour out his Spirit on all Israel and make them Prophets as Joel hath foretold chap. xi 28. This is the Notion in short of the Two Messias's which R. Meyr Aldabi gives us in his Book Intituled Sevile Emuna ch 10. p. 123. But it is certain 1. the ancient Jews knew but of one Messias Trypho knew not of two as we see in Justin Martyr's Dialogue which is a clear proof that those passages of the Targum which speak of two Messias's are Additions to the ancient Text made since the Jews invented the conceit of a double Messias 2. It is certain the Talmudists did not believe firmly the Return of the Ten Tribes Tr. Sanh c. 10. § 3. Some did hope for it as doth also R. Eliezer Massech Sanh c. 30. § 3. But R. Akiba was of quite another opinion And yet their Posterity hath been so much inclined for R. Eliezer his opinion that one of their greatest Objections against Jesus being the Messias is this that if he had been the Messias he would have gathered the Ten Tribes 3. Their confining of the Messias's Reign to forty years is contrary to the opinion of their Fathers who held that the Messias should reign for ever Some afterward thought that he was to reign forty years others that he was to reign seventy years as you see in the Gemara of Sanhedrim ch 11. fol. 97. col 2. 4. They suppose now that the Messias shall build a third Temple Whereas Haggai describing the second Temple as that under which the Messias should appear expresly calls it the last Hag. ii 9. And this R. David Kimchi and R. Azariah and the Talmud of Jerusalem Megillah fol. 72. col 4. The Talmud of Babylon Tit. Baba batra fol. 3. col 1. and several others do acknowledg Though some few suppose Haggai's Prophecy to have reference to a third Temple See Abarbanel Men. ben Israel on Hagg. 5. It is the remark of one of the most celebrated Authors of the Talmud and received amongst the other Jews that all the times noted by the Prophets for the coming of the Messias are past Dixit Rav Omnes termini de adventu Messiae transierunt nec jam remanet nisi in conversione si Israel convertatur redimetur quod si non convertatur non redimetur Since that they have been forced to quit that miserable shift and now they maintain that all the Promises of the coming of the Messias were conditional and that he shall come when his People the Jews shall be by Repentance prepared to receive him Manas Ben. Isr q. 27. on Es And yet the Ancient in the same place before did affirm that the Messias must come in the most corrupt Age fol. 97. col 1. To be a little more particular the Jews did maintain that all the Prophets spoke of the Messias See Bethlem Juda in the word Goel At present they dispute almost every Text that we urge for the Messias so that instead of convincing them we can only shame them by laying before them the Authorities of their Fathers who understood these Texts in the same sense that the Apostles did The Modern Jews are very sensible of the Notion of a Plurality of Persons in the words Let us make Man after our Image Gen. i. Some of them therefore are for changing the reading and instead of Let Us make Man would have it Let Man be made though the Samaritan Text the Old Seventy Version and the Talmudists and all their Ancient and Modern Translations read as we do See Aben Ezra on the place and R. David Kimchi in Michlol p. 9. They will scarcely allow the Messias to be spoken of in Gen. iii. 15. Although Jonathan's Targum and that of Jerusalem do clearly understand it of the Messias The Old Jews affirmed that the Angel who appeared Gen. xix and in other places and who is called the Lord was as I have before shewed the Word of the Lord but many of their Disciples do say it was a created Angel as we learn from R. Shem Tov in his Book Emun Men. ben Israel q. 64. on Genesis Such a thing cannot be done but by an extream impudence since we see that they profess just the contrary in their own Prayers where you read in their Office of Pesach And he brought us out of Egypt Not say they by the hand of an Angel neither by the hand of a Seraphim nor by the hand of an Envoy but the Holy Blessed by his Glory and by himself as the Scripture saith Exod. xii 12. And so there they refer almost all the appearances of the Angel of the Lord to God himself exclusively to any created Angel And such are those Appearances Gen. xiv 15. Gen. xx 6. Gen. xxxi 24. Gen. xxxii 24. where they say that Israel wrestled with God Exod. xii 29 c. The present Jews are not for applying the Text Gen. xlix 10. to the Messias but some refer the words to Moses himself as R. Bechay others to David others to Ahijah the Shilonite and others to Nebuchadnezzar Notwithstanding both Jonathan's and the Jerusalem Targum note expresly this Prophecy to be spoken of the Messias And thus in the same Text the Scepter there spoken of was explained in the Old Talmudists by Power and Dominion which should not depart from Judah till the coming of the Messias Though now among some of the Modern Jews it signifies only Affliction and Calamities R. Joel aben Sueb At this day the Jews do obstinately deny any Promise to be made of the Messias Deut. xviii 18 19. And some of them will have it spoken of Joshua some of David So the Author of Midrash Tehil in Psal i. and some of Jeremy But it is visible that in and before the times of Jesus Christ they were of another opinion as may be gathered from 1 Mâ—c xiv 41. and is clear from what the multitude say Joh. vi 14. This is that Prophet who was to come into the world See also Luc. vii 16. Joh. i. 19. Mat. xxi It was not questioned in St. Paul's time whether the 2d Psalm did relate to the Messias else St. Paul could not have applied it to Christ as he doth Act. xiii 33. nor was it questioned for some Ages after the Talmudical Doctors agreeing to it You see that in the Gemara of Succoth c. 5. in Jalkuth in Psal ii in Midrash Tehillim But their new Expositors have done their utmost to make it belong to David only or to apply these words Thou art my Son Psal ii to the People of Israel So doth R. Mose Israel Mercadon upon that Psalm in his
but God only adding that the Holy Writers of the New Testament in applying them to Jesus Christ turned these Texts to quite another sense than was intended by the Holy Spirit at the inditing of them The Prophet Isaiah again has these words ch xxxv 4 5 6. Behold your God will come and save you c. Sal Jarchi and D. Kimchi expound them of the Deliverance from Babylon contrary to the ancient Jews opinion who as these Rabbins confess understood them of the Messias The Socinians will not deny that Jesus Christ assumed them to himself but to shew how little ground he had for so doing they insist on it that he only accommodated the words to himself The same Isaiah writes thus ch xli 4. I am the first and the last and Jesus Christ has the same expressions of himself Rev. i. 17. The Chaldee Paraphrast thought they belonged so properly to the True God as to Paraphrase them in this manner I am the Lord Jehovah who created the World in the beginning and the Ages to come are all mine Joseph Albo makes this Text a proof of the Eternity of God and notes that it is a parallel Text to Isa xliv 6. But if you 'l have Socinus opinion of the place when it is applied to our Lord Jesus Christ it does not at all regard his Eternity Once more we read Isa xlv 23. I have sworn by my self the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness that unto me every knee shall bow every tongue shall swear St. Paul refers these words to Jesus Christ Rom. xiv 11. nay he proves our standing before Christ's Judgment-seat by this Quotation Notwithstanding the Socinians believe them only a simple accommodation and not the prime scope of the Text. I know the Apostles have sometimes cited Texts from the Old Testament which have not their exact accomplishment in that sense wherein they are used As for example 2 Cor. viii 15. St. Paul exhorting the Corinthians to supply the wants of their Brethren with their abundance addeth As it is written He that had gathered much had nothing over and he that had gathered little had no lack Thus alluding to the History of the Manna Exod. xvi 18. it is plain that he accommodates that Story to the Beneficence of the Christians without any thing either from Letter or Allegory to justifie this accommodation They who think that John ch xix 37. does allude to Exod. xii 46. Neither shall you break a bone thereof go upon this ground that Christ was typified by the Paschal Lamb and therefore what was spoken of the Paschal Lamb is truly applicable to Christ But some others believe that St. John cited this passage from Psal xxxiv 21. and applies what David saith of all the just in general to the Messias who is often called the Just One as being eminently so I know that some think that a Prophecy which has been already accomplish'd literally was accommodated by the Holy Penmen to a like event And thus they think St. Matthew ch ii 17. applies the voice that was heard at Ramah and Rachel's weeping for her Children to those Expressions of sorrow used by the Women of Bethlehem when Herod slew their Children Although this Prophecy was before accomplished in the Captivity of Judah and Benjamin under Nebuchadnezzar But besides what I have said upon such places the Examples of this nature are but few and those may be easily discerned by a careful Reader from such Citations as are not Accommodations but Proofs and for the Texts which are commonly and generally quoted by the Holy Writers they expose the Books of the New Testament to the scorn and contempt of Jews who suppose that the Apostles went about to make Converts from the Synagogue by such passages of the Old Testament as had nothing of strength or reason to convince any Man for such are the places quoted by way of Accommodation and let any one but consult the Writings of the Jews against Christianity and he will find that the main Argument they make use of against the Proofs brought by the Apostles is that the passages they cite were never designed by the Spirit to that purpose Literally taken but were only made use of by them by way of Accommodation But the most wonderful thing of all in the Unitarians management of this Controversie especially in our English Unitarians is this that they do not only side with the Jews and dress up their sense of those Texts of the Old Testament which are cited in the New as Proofs of our Lords Divinity or which are objected in confirmation of the Holy Trinity and that they have not been content to bring in the Notion of Accommodation to elude the force of those Quotations on which the Apostles grounded several Doctrines but for the most part they give broad intimations as if the New Testament Writings were on purpose falsified by the Christians and many things there inserted which were never thought of by the Authors of those Writings If they could have made good this accusation it would have saved them a great deal of pains which it has cost them to find out Answers to the several Objections proposed to them 'T is the most easie natural and shortest way to joyn with the Deists in destroying the Authority of the Gospel and to endeavour to shew that nothing certain can be drawn from thence seeing that since the Apostles Times the Christian Faith hath been corrupted and new Doctrines have been foisted into their Books which from the beginning were not there For my part I see no other way left them for the defence of their bad Cause But by ill luck Socinus has stopped their retreat even to this last Refuge by the Treatise he writ concerning the Authority of the Holy Scriptures When they have solidly refuted this Book of their great Leader it will be then time to take their Charge against the Sacred Books into more particular consideration Let them do this when they will We promise them when they have done it to reproach them no more with Socinus's Authority in defence of the Integrity of the Scripture But for the present we refer them to the Book of a famous Mahometan called Hazzadaula who has handled this matter with length and force enough to confound both the Unitarians and Deists I mean his third Book of the comparison of the three Laws the Jewish Christian and Mahometan of which there is an Extract in Jos de Voisin de Lege Divina in a Letter from Gabriel Syonita It has been thought by some that Mahomet and his Followers did accuse the Jews and Christians of corrupting the Old and New Testament Writings But we see this Accusation is proved false by such as have managed the Controversie against Mahometanism And the more knowing Mahometans do insult the Christian Missionaries for charging it on them when Mahomet accused the Christians only for wresting several passages in Scripture and putting a false
and forced sense on them But with what face the Mahometans can object this I know not when they themselves do so grosly pervert the passages in Deut. xxxiii 33. Hab. iii. 3. Deut. xviii and xxxiv in favour of Mahomet and his Law and in favour of Mahomet only many Texts in Isaiah Ezekiel Zephany and other Prophets as you may see them alledged by Hazzadaula in his Fourth Book but especially when they urge all those places in St. John's Gospel where the Paraclete is spoken of as so many Promises of Mahomet's coming I must confess some warm indiscreet Mahometans in dispute with the Christians have given them occasion to believe that the Mahometans generally accused the Christians with falsifying their Scriptures Just as the petty Controvertists of the Church of Rome have impudently averred the Scripture to be corrupt in many places the better to establish their Church's Authority And thus we find Ahmed the Mahometan charging both Jews and Christians with altering of their Bibles Hotting Hist p. 364. But as there are in the Roman Church Men wiser and calmer that see the consequences of so rash an Accusation and have therefore proved unanswerably the Integrity of the Sacred Text so are there among the Mahometans more wary and cautious Disputants who despise and disallow those false Charges advanced by some of their party against the Jews and Christians Such a one was Hazzadaula in the Book before cited who solidly proves that by the care the Masorite Jews took to ascertain the Text of the Old Testament it was impossible they should be willing to corrupt it and that if they had been willing yet they were divided into so many Sects of unreconcileable hatred to one another as rendred it impossible for them to do it He then shews that the difference which is between the several Versions as between the Seventy and Syriack for Example was no prejudice to the Purity of the Text it self but that this arose from the several Views the Interpreters then had from the different Notions and senses they affixed to the Original words He then passes to the Examination of the various Readings which our Unitarians triumph in and shews that neither their number nor variety ought to diminish the Authority of the Originals He gives Reasons for his preference of the Jewish Bible to that of the Samaritans He proves the corruption of the Books of the Old Testament could not be made before Jesus Christ's time since he never reproached them for it which he would certainly have done had they been guilty of it nor could the corruption come in after Christ's time because the Jews and Christians who are such mortal Enemies have had these Books in keeping and daily read them though they interpret them very differently In a word we cannot easily meet with a more perfect Treatise on this Subject nor one more proper to refute the bold insinuations of some who under the name of Christians and Men skilled in Critical knowledg have undertaken to shake the Foundations of the Christian Religion and for this purpose would discredit the Authority of the Holy Scripture under the disguise of making it rest on the Authority of Tradition The Reader will I hope reflect on what I have said concerning the conduct of the Socinians in their Disputes with us relating to the Divinity of Christ To which I may add that some of them less modest though more sincere than Socinus being convinced that no Answer could be given to the Quotations from the Old Testament that were used in Proof of our Lord's Divinity thought fit to reject the Epistle to the Hebrews which contains those Quotations as an Apocryphal Piece This Enjedinus has done and thought it a quick way to deliver himself at once of many difficulties from which otherwise he could not extricate himself For had he believed Socinus's Answers Satisfactory he had never betaken himself to this last and desperate shift Others of whom Mr. N. is one do suppose that whatever makes for the advantage of the Trinitarians Cause is all forged And so they abandon the fanciful Explications Socinus has given of the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel as having no need of them so long as they can make one believe that the Trinitarians have foisted into the New Testament whatever they pleased This is still a shorter answer than the former The first rendred one particular Book only useless to the Trinitarians but this makes all those Books of the New Testament useless from whence any Objection may be drawn against the Unitarians What end the Socinians have in these dangerous attempts whether to facilitate the Conversion of the Jews as they pretend or to do service to the Atheists and Deists as it seems to be their real design is worthy every Christian 's serious enquiry If they intend the Conversion of the Jews we may well demand of them what way they will take to effect it Smalcius one of their chief Writers has affirmed that the Books of the Old Testament are of little use to convert the Jews De Div. Chr. c. x. already quoted His reason is because if we interpret any Text in the Old Testament of Jesus Christ we must interpret it Mystically that is according to quite another sense than that which the words do naturally import And now admitting this to be true what use can a Socinian make of the Old Testament against the Jews Sommerus and Francis David whose Opinions as to the denial of the Worship of Jesus Christ are embraced by Mr. N. being forced to own that the Author of the Book of Proverbs did ascribe a Son to God ch xxx 4. and yet being not willing to acknowledg it as a truth took the readiest way to defeat the Authority of this Book and placed it among the Apocryphal Writings One should wonder how such Socinians are like to be Converters who call the Jews Canon of the Scriptures into question and consequently leave no Books from whence as from a common Principle they may on each side deduce their reasonings As for the Books of the New Testament what use can they make of them Yes very great saith the Socinian If the Books of the New Testament were reformed and those Patches intirely taken from them which were never written by the Apostles though added under their Names such as the Epistle to the Hebrews which was brought in after the year 140. of Christ and stuffed with Doctrines of a Trinity and Christ's Divinity contrary to the Faith of Jesus Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians then we might hope to have success in the Conversion of the Jews But in truth they are not likely to succeed with their reformed Socinian Gospel so well as they would have us believe For 't is reasonable to think that every Jew of common sense would retort the Book on themselves and tell them frankly This is not the Christians Gospel from whence you offer to convince me this
meorum Abraham Isaac c. You see there is little or no difference between these Versions and the Hebrew with which also agrees the Spanish Version of Athias and Usquez which was Printed in the last Age at Ferrara and which is of great Authority with the Jews and serves instead of the Text for them that know not Hebâ—â—â— It renders indeed The God which fed me by El Dio governan a mi and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hath redeemed me by El redimien a mi or my Redeemer but the sense is not altered thereby Drusius notes in his Fragments of the ancient Interpreters of the Old Testament that the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here attributed to the Angel is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Greek Translators in Ruth iv 8. which imports the next of kin to whom the right of inheritance belongs and with it the Relict of his deceased Relation From this Translation of the word St. Hierom and after him many other Divines taking this Angel to be the Messias have collected a relation peculiar of this Angel to the Family of Jacob of which the Messias was to be born Christ saith he * Hier. on Isa 59. shall come and redeem us with his Blood who as the Hebrew has it is of kin to Sion and is descended from the stock of Israel for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies But there is another sense of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to which the Greek Interpreters do more commonly render them I mean that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which confirms the use of the like word in the Spanish Version If you would see the places you may consult Kircher's Concordance The whole difficulty therefore of the place may be reduced to three Heads which I shall propose by way of Question I. Whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of v. 15. is the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom the Jews acknowledge for their God II. Whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned in v. 16. is the same with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15. or differs from him as a Creature doth from its Creator III. Whether the Prayer contain'd in Jacob's Blessing be made to God alone or to the Redeeming Angel together with him SECT II. In Answer to the first Question we need not be much to seek For Onkelos in his Chaldee Paraphrase Expounds the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The like Jonathan has done in his Version Nor do I know any Christian that ever blamed them for it How should they since it is evident to them that consider this Text carefully as the Christians generally do the Holy Scriptures that these Targumists have herein faithfully exprest the mind of Jacob. Jacob had been newly remembring that Appearance in which God had blessed him at Luz in these words * Genesis xlviii 3 4. God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me and said Behold I will make thee fruitful and multiply thee and I will make of thee a multitude of people and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession Now what can be more absurd than to imagin that Jacob when he blesses Joseph's Sons and prays for the encrease of his Posterity by them should direct his Prayers to any other than him whose kindnesses he had so abundantly experimented and whose Promises for the multiplication of his seed were even now fresh in his Memory This I thought fit to observe against those of the Jews that doubt it following as they think the Author of the Book Rabboth who notes that a lesser Title is given to the Angel than to him that is call'd Elohim as if he had a mind thereby to * Matthenot Kehun f. 23. col 4. f. 108. col 3. tell us that by the Angels here mention'd Jacob intended an Angel and not God If the Author of the Rabboth had understood this of a created Angel he had certainly been in a very great mistake For besides the absurdity of this it is a wicked thing to suppose that Abraham and Isaac did walk before the Angel as Jacob asserts they did before God God saith he v. 15. before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk For the word walk in this place comprehends all the acts of their Religion throughout their whole lives and so Moses uses the word to describe the intire obedience of Enoch Gen. v. 22. This a Modern Jew R. Salomon Aben Melek acknowledges in his Michlol Jophi on this place where he says the word walk denotes the worship of the heart which a Creature owes to God But that the Author of the Rabboth understood it of an uncreated Angel who often is called in the Old Testament Elohim and Jehovah and Jehovah Elohim I little doubt because he quotes the same authority in this place which we meet with in the Bab. Talm. Pesachim c. x. f. 118. col 1. and which makes this Angel to be God But if he was of another mind we should have other Jews to confront him of no less Authority that understand it our way particularly we have the Prayers of the Jewish Church many of which alluding to this and the like places in Genesis do refer to God only exclusively to a created Angel the Title of Redeemer who delivers from all evil See Talm. Hier. tr Berac c. 4. f. 8. c. 1. and their Liturgies I know Cyril of Alexandria * Lib. vi in Gen. p. 210. would have Jacob to understand God the Father by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15. and the Eternal Son of God by the Redeeming Angel which Explication he would confirm by Ephes i. 2. Grace be to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ Because Grace is nothing but the Blessing of God communicated to the Church by the Father and the Son Chrys Hom. 66. in Gen. p. 7. But St. Chrysostom's Opinion is much more probable to me who asserts Elohim to be the Eternal Son of God that is described in both the 14 and 15 verses by different Titles And herein he followed all the ancient Christians who used to ascribe to the Son all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of Jehovah that are mentioned by Moses and in particular they teach that the Blessing of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was prayed for by Jacob in this place I scruple not to assert that the ancient Christians ascribed all the Appearances of God in Moses Writings to the Eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having the following Authorities for my assertion Just Mart. cont Tryph. Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7. Tertul. cont Jud. cap. 9. Orig. in Isa 6. Cyprian cont Jud. ii 5. Constit Apost v. 21. Euseb H. E. i. 3. Cyr. Hieros
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