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
thus 1. we find in many places the connexion of one History with another which is very often the imagination of a Rabbin who fancied what he pleased and fathered it upon Moses 2. We find Explications in these later Targums different from the former ones yet added to the former with an impudence not to be endured and this in several places 3. We there find long Narrations which have no other foundation than their method of explaining Scripture by the way of Notarikon as they call it as where we read of the five Sins of Esau which he committed on the same day in which he sold his birthright to Jacob and in pursuance of their manner of explaining Scripture by Gematria of which Rittangel on Jetzira has given some examples p. 31 32 33. But all this makes nothing against the authority of those places in the Paraphrase where they do little more than render the Text out of Hebrew into Chaldee In them there was no occasion to shew any more than the sense of the words such as the Paraphrasts had received by Tradition from their Forefathers Whereas the Authors of those Additions thereby made a shew of Learning out of the common road and gave themselves the pleasure to see their own fictions come into such credit that they were received as the Oracles of God But beyond that we must take notice that as on one hand those Targums have been enlarged by so many Additions so on the other hand they have been altered in many places and new Ideas substituted to the old To shew the alteration which was made in those Targums by Modern Jews we can remark a thing which hath been often taken notice of by Buxtorf in his Lexicon Talmud viz. that there are many places cited from those Targums 500 years ago by the Author of Aroule that are not to be found in them as they are now in Print So we can prove clearly that new Ideas have been put in instead of the old chiefly upon the points controverted between Jews and Christians For in many places where St. Jerome in his Comments upon the Prophets brings the common explication of the Jews as agreeing with the explication of Christians we find the Targum brings an explication quite different from what it was to be according to St. Jerome's account It appears by this the Jews have done in their Books the same thing which Papists have done in the Books of the Fathers They have added many things to help their Cause and they have cut out many places which might have done great service to Truth As for the Additions then I will scarce cite any of them but when it is evident that they speak the sense of the Ancients and truly whatever one may say of the Corruptions of these Jewish Paraphrases I will maintain that it is as easie for an attentive Reader to distinguish these Corruptions from the ancient Text which it seems Arias Montanus had a design to do in a particular Treatise as it is for one that looks on an old Pot or Kettle to tell where the Tinker has been at work and to distinguish his Clouts from the Original metal The ancient pieces have a sort of simplicity that makes them to be valued and which easily shews their antiquity The Additions are the rambling fancies of bold Commentators which they devised in later times as occasion required and thrust them upon the ancient Paraphrasts who lived in those times when there was no such occasion nor could they foresee that there would be any such in after-times As for example we do not find that the Jews before Christ's time ever spoke of two Messias the one the Son of David who was to reign gloriously the other a suffering Messias the Son of Joseph of the Tribe of Ephraim The reason is plain for they had no occasion for that fancy of a suffering Messias That arose upon their Disputes with the Christians who proved that the Sufferings of Christ were no other than what the Messias was to suffer according to the Prophecies of Scripture At first the Jews tried other ways to avoid the force of these Prophecies but when no other would do they came to this to devise another Messias the Son of Joseph and to give him the Sufferings which the Scripture attributes to the Messias the Son of David In a word all these Conceits of which the greatest part of these Additions do consist do so evidently demonstrate their Novelty that when one is acquainted with a little of the History of the World as well as that of the Jews it is scarce possible that he should take them for the Text of Jonathan or of the ancient Paraphrasts Besides all this in the Modern Paraphrases themselves we find very often these words Another Targum and sometimes yet Another Targum which shews that the following words are not the ancient Targum but are the Additions of some Modern Authors whom the Copyers of the Paraphrasts have joyned as a new light to the ancient Whether the Jews's inserting such things into their Paraphrases has been out of fondness of these Discoveries which appeared to them new or whether they have found it turn to account to insert these Additions in the Body of their ancient Paraphrases thereby to enhance the value of them or whether they thought by publishing them under the Names of those ancient Commentators whose Authority is so venerable to wrest from the Christians all the advantages they might draw from any thing in their Paraphrases the things that they added being oftentimes contrary to what the Ancients did teach is a secret among the Jews but a secret little worth since the Providence of God has preserved the Apocryphal Books and the Books of Philo which can give us so much light into the knowledg of what is ancient and what is modern in these Paraphrases I will add nothing upon this matter but this that we see in the most ancient Books of the Jews as in the Books call'd Rabboth Mechista and in their old Midrashim almost all composed before the 7th Century and in the Talmud of Babylon the same Ideas and the same Doctrine which we meet in the Apocryphal Books and in Philo's Writings And those Ideas have been constantly followed by the most considerable part of the Jews those very Men who have their name from their constant sticking to the old Tradition of their Forefathers CHAP. VIII That the Authors of the Apocryphal Books did acknowledg a Plurality and a Trinity in the Divine Nature HAving finished our General Reflexions on the Traditional Sense of the Scriptures which was receiv'd among the Jews before the time of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Books wherein we can find such a Tradition it is time we should come to the chief matter we designed to treat of The Question is Whether the Jews before Christ's time had any notion of a Trinity For the Socinians would make us believe that Justin
have to do with do very confidently affirm any thing that comes into their heads be it never so little probable so they may thereby give any plausible Solutions of the Difficulties in which they find themselves entangled and perplext and they are much given to vaunt of their unanswerable Arguments so they call them which are many times but weak Objections such as Men of Learning and Wit should be ashamed of For this reason I thought it necessary to prevent as far as it was possible all that they can object against my Position of the Opinions the Old Jews held concerning those Doctrines which were exactly followed and fully declared by the Apostles and first Christians And because I foresee some Objections may arise I will shew that nothing can be more absurd than to imagine that the Jews or the first Christians borrowed their Notions about the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ from Plato's Disciples whereas Plato hath in truth followed the Jewish Notions of those things After this I shall make it appear that however some of the Modern Jews have changed their Opinions in these Articles yet the Socinians can make no advantage thereof because the Jews have in reality much alter'd their belief since Christ's time and are guilty of great Disingenuity as is common to all those who are obstinately set upon the maintaining of erroneous Doctrines In fine I shall plainly shew that the Socinians to defend themselves against the Orthodox have been forced to imitate those Modern Jews and have much out done them in changing and shifting their Opinions when they dispute with Christians I hope to manage this Controversy with the Socinians so plainly and fully as to satisfy the Reader That as on the one side they most falsly accuse the Church of having corrupted the New Testament to favour the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ's Godhead So they cannot on the other side get any ground upon the Jews in their Disputes with them though they fancy they got a great way towards their Conversion by rejecting those Doctrines In a word both the Ancient and Modern Jews do so far agree in those things which make on the Church's side against the Socinians that if they appeal to the Jews they are sure to lose their Cause which when they have better considered they will find it their best way for the maintaining of their Opinions to abandon the Jews altogether as Men that understood not their own Scriptures viz. the Old Testament and to reject both as they have gone a great way towards it in rejecting that traditional sense of the Old Testament for which it was quoted in the New and without which it would have signified little or nothing to those purposes for which it was quoted And so it will appear that for all their brags of the Aptness and even Necessity of their way for the Conversion of the Jews they have taken the direct way to harden them by giving up that sense of the Old Testament Scriptures which Christ and his Apostles made use of for the converting of their Forefathers But we have the less reason to complain of them for this when we see how apt they are to question the Authority of the Books of the New Testament as oft as they find them so clearly opposite to their Doctrines that they cannot obscure the Light of them by any tolerable Exposition To shew that I do not say this without cause I shall show some instances in the last Chapter of this Book 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 THE Jews have to this day a certain kind of Tradition received from their Forefathers which contain many precepts of things to be done or avoided on the account of their Religion This they call their Oral Law by which name they distinguish it from the written Law which God gave them by Moses They make five Orders of such a Tradition which are explained by Moses de Trano in his Kiriat Sepher Printed at Venice Anno 1551. The first is of the things which they infer from Moses and the Prophets by a clear consequence and they are certainly of the same Authority as the rest of the Revelation although they call it a Tradition We are not such Enemies to Names as not to like such a sort of Tradition and we receive it with all imaginable reverence we like very well the Judgment of Maimonides who leaves as uncertain whatsoever the Jewish Doctors speak upon many things as being without ground when their Tradition is not gathered from Texts of Scripture de Regib c. 12. The second Order is of the Ceremonies and Rites which they keep as coming from Mount Sinai but of which there is not a word in the Law The third Order is of the Judiciary Laws upon which the two Schools of Hillel and Shammai were divided The fourth is of some Constitutions of the Ancients which they look upon as an hedge to the Law The last is of their Customs which are various in several places of their dispersion Tho' in many things they cannot but see that those last four Orders of Tradition do not agree with the Law of Moses or are quite unknown in it yet they seem to like it never the worse Nay their Rabbins professedly ascribe a much greater Authority to this Oral Law than to the Law of Moses They say in the Talmud Avoda zara c. 1. fol. 17. Col. 2. that a Man who studies in the Law alone without these Traditions is a Man which is without God according to the Prophecy of Azariah 2 Chr. 15.3 Of this sort were all the Traditions which were condemned by our Lord Jesus Christ He plainly calls them the Commandments of Men Mat. XV. 9. and has purposely directed several of his Discourses against them because even where their observing these Traditions would not consist with their Obedience to God as particularly in the case of Corban Mat. XV. 3. yet they gave Tradition the preference and so as our Saviour there tells them Ver. 9. They made the Commandments of God of no effect by their Tradition The Author of these Traditions or new Laws as one may term them did almost all of them live since the time that the Jews were under the power of the Seleucidae and they were the Leaders of those several Sects that corrupted their Religion by adding to it a great number of Observations which were perfectly new We have therefore no reason to look upon this sort of Tradition as the fountain from whence the Jews in Christ's time took their measures of the sense and meaning of the Writings of the Old Testament But for the Interpreting of their Scriptures the Jews in Christ's time had some other kinds of Traditions much different from
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
1. p. 16. l. 4. p. 198. l. 6. p. 275 279 308. l. 7. p. 351 and 371. Thirdly The very Heathen Authors own that Plato borrowed his Notions from Moses as Numenius who as Theodoret tells us did acknowledge that Plato had learnt in Egypt the Doctrine of the Hebrews during his stay there for 13 years Theod. Serm. 1. If any of the Ancient Fathers have quoted any thing out of Plato concerning the Trinity they look'd upon it not as Plato's Invention but as a Doctrine which he had either from Moses or from those who had it from him Not to say That in what manner soever Plato proposed this Doctrine it is much at one For his Notions about it are not very exact and no wonder since it was natural enough for a Greek to mix fabulous Notions with what he had from others and they to adulterate it The truth which we profess and draw from a Divine Original in this matter is not at all concerned with Plato's Visions And yet since the Notion of the Trinity could not possibly be framed by any mortal Man Two considerable Uses may be made of Plato's Notion about it First To shew That this Doctrine is not of Justin Martyr's Invention since Plato who lived five hundred Years before Justin had scattered some Notions of it in his Books which he had probably learned from the Jews or from some other Philosophers who conversed with the Jews And Secondly To make Men sensible that the greatest Scholars among the Heathens did not find so many Absurdities in it as the now Socinians do There is an Objection of greater moment than all the Objections which the Unitarian Authors can oppose to my using the Authority of the Judgment of the Old Synagogue and I will not dissemble it although they have not been sensible of it It is the Authority of St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy and Titus where he rejects with an abhorrence the Jewish Fables and Genealogies as the fruits of the falsly named Knowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. vi 20 21. which he compares with a Cancer I acknowledg freely that Ireneus Lib. 1. c. 20. and Tertul. adv Valentin understood those expressions of St. Paul against the Gnosticks of their time who were come from Simon Magus And I acknowledge with Grotius upon 1 Tim. i. 4. that by those infinite Genealogies which are spoken of by St. Paul as coming from a vain Philosophy and controverted by some of the Heretick Jews Saint Paul had a mind to speak against several Notions of the then new Jewish Cabbala which was in truth a mixture of the true Tradition of the Synagogue and of the Notions of the Platonists and Pythagoreans who had borrowed their Notions from the Egyptians And I will not insist now too much upon the judgment of those who think probably enough that the Egyptians had borrowed their Notions from the Jews But after all I maintain that this Objection against this part of the new Jewish Cabala which I mention as having such an impure birth and having been corrupted amongst the Jews doth not abate the authority of the proofs of the Trinity and of the Notions of the Messias which I have brought from all the Jewish Writers and which hath nothing common with those innumerable aeones which are mention'd by Ireneus and Tertullian as received by the Valentinians and which the Apostle St. Paul hath condemned in some of the Doctors of the Synagogue Let us suppose that there had been in the Body of the Synagogue before Jesus Christ some Sadducees and some Baithusaei whose Birth the Jews say was as old as that of the Sadducees but who seem not so ancient but to have their Origin from one Simon Boethus an Alexandrian Jew mentioned by Josephus Let us suppose that from the time of the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes some amongst the Jews had adopted some Platonick or Pythagorean Notions What is that to the Body of the Jewish Nation which was not included in Palestina or Egypt but spread every where To the contrary I maintain justly that when Saint Paul condemns the Jewish Genealogies he confirms all my Proofs from the Jewish Writers who did not ground their Ideas upon the Doctrine of Pythagoras or Plato but upon the Text of the Old Testament When St. Paul hath used the same Notions which are in the Apocryphal Books in Philo and in the Chaldee Paraphrases which no body accuses to have used those foolish Genealogies which were found amongst the Valentinians and are to be found now amongst some of the Cabbalists he hath secured my Argument taken from the pure Traditional Exposition of the Ancient Jews this is all I have a mind to contend for in this matter leaving those Cabbalists who have mixed some heathenish Notions with the Ancient Divinity of the Fathers to shift for themselves and being not concerned in all their other Speculations although since they have quite forgot this impure Origin they have very much laboured to uphold them upon some Texts of Scripture but not well understood and taken in another sense CHAP. XXIV An Answer to some Objections of the Modern Jews and of the Unitarians THAT the Reader may be fully satisfied of the Truth which I have asserted by so many proofs taken out of the Apocryphal Books of the Chaldee Paraphrasts and out of Philo the most ancient Jewish Author we have as to expounding the Scripture I must solve some difficulties made by the Modern Jews and Socinians about the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so frequent amongst the ancient Interpreters of Scripture Moses Maimonides who lived about the end of the Twelfth Century affirms that the word Memra which in Chaldaick is the same as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek was made use of by the ancient Paraphrasts on purpose to prevent Peoples thinking God had a Body More Nevoch Lib. 1. c. 21. He says also that for the same reason they often used the words Jekara Glory Shekinah Majesty or habitation But he does manifestly wrong them For if it had been so they would have used that caution on other occasions whereas they often render places of Scripture where mention is made only of the Lord by these words before the face of the Lord which are apt to make people fancy God as being Corporeal Besides if what he says were true they would have used the same caution where ever the Notion of his being Corporeal might be attributed to God But it is certain that in many places as apt to give that Notion of God they do not use the word Memra or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as certain that in many others they use it where there is no danger of fancying God as having a Body As Gen. xx 21. Exod. ii 25. Exod. vi 8. Exod. xix 17. Lev. xxvi 46. Numb xi 20. Numb xxiii 21. and in many more quoted by Rittangel on Jetzira pag. 96. and in his Book Libra
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
the Son of the Free-woman and Israel according to the Flesh by Ishmael the Son of the Bond-woman and having thus brought unbelieving Israel into Ishmael's place he proceeds upon the Old Jewish Nation recited in Baal-Hatturim that Ishmael should pierce Isaac with an Arrow which they illustrate by Gen. xvi 12. instead whereof the Text saith only that he laughed at or mocked Isaac We see St. Paul Rom. x. 6. applies to the Gospel those words of Deut. xxx 11 12 13 14. which seem to be spoken of the Law given by Moses to the Jews But then the Old Synagogue applied these words of Moses to the times of the Messias as is clear from Jonathan's Targum on the place which is enough to justify St. Paul's Usage of the words We read in the Song of Zacharias Luk. 1.69 that these words are referred to the Messias he hath exalted the horn of his Anointed The very same words are pronounced by Hannah the Mother of Samuel 1 Sam. ii 10. where the Targum referrs them in like manner as the sense of the Synagogue The same Targum understands of the Messias that passage 2 Sam. xxiii 3. And the lxx have the like Idea with the Targum which is a farther Confirmation of the Tradition of the Synagogue It is certain this Notion of the Messias was very common among the Jews otherwise they would not have thrust it into their Targums on places where naturally it ought not to come in For instance It is said 1 Kings iv 33. That Solomon discoursed of all the Trees from the Cedar of Libanus even to the Hyssop that springeth out of the Wall Now the Remark of the Targum hereupon is this And he prophecied touching the Kings of the House of David which should rule in this present World as also in the World to come of the Messias 6. We see our Lord Jesus Christ was careful to instruct the Pharisees of the two different Characters of the Coming of the Messias Luk. xvii 20. Of which the one was to be obscure and followed with the Death of the Messias the other was to be glorious and acknowledged by the whole World Christ instructed them in this the rather to remove their mistakes through which they confounded his two Comings Though in truth they were both of them confessed by the Jews for some time after Christ's ascension into Heaven 7. We see that Christ himself Matth. xxi 16. and also his Apostle St. Paul 1 Cor. xv 27. Eph. i. 21. Heb. ii 6 7 8. apply the words of Psal viii to the Messias How could they do it were it not before the sense of the Synagogue Now that such was the sense of the Synagogue ye see till this day if we read what they say in their Rabboth upon the Song of Songs ch iv 1. and upon Ecclesiastes ch ix 1. that the Children were to make Acclamations at the Coming in of the Messias the second Redeemer according to those words of Psal viii 3. Ex ore infantium c. Lastly We see St. Paul Rom. x. 18. does refer the words of Psal xix 4. to the Preaching of the Apostles and saith Their sound went over all the Earth and their words to the end of the World What would an unbelieving Jew have said to this that Paul should apply the Psalmist's words in this manner But the Apostle was secure against this or any other Objection from the Jews if he used the words in the sense of their Synagogue And that he did so there is little reason to doubt The Encomiums which David gave to the Law of Moses they would most readily apply to the Law of the Messias And they expected he should have his Apostles to carry his Law throughout the World To this expectation of theirs the Psalmist's words were very applicable That the Divine Word is called the Sun Philo plainly affirms and if I take R. Tanchum aright he understands that it was the Messias that was called the Sun of Righteousness Mal. iv 2. St. John saw Christ in that figure of the Sun and his Apostles as twelve Stars and that in Heaven which to him is the state of the Gospel Rev. xxi 1. According to this figure in this Psalm the Sun of Righteousness is described as a Giant which rejoyceth to run a Race v. 5. And here is a description of his Course together with that of his Disciples and of the manner by which they made their Voices to be heard This Idea shocked R. Samuel in a Book he writ before his Conversion ch 18. which he communicated with a Rabin of Morocco And whoever considers that Idea of the Writer of the Book of Wisdom xviii 5. shall find it is no other than that of this xixth Psalm mixed a little with that Idea in the Canticles which the Old Jews refer to the Messias and with that of the Song of Isaiah v. touching the Messias which served the Jews for a Commentary to understand the Song of Solomon by I could gather a much greater number of Remarks on this Head but having brought as many here together as I take to be sufficient for the proving of what I have said I think I ought not to enlarge any further So I come next to search out the Store-house where we may find these Traditions of the Jews which Jesus Christ and his Apostles made use of either in explaining or confirming the Doctrines of the Gospel They must be found in the ancient Books of the Jews which remain among us such as the Apocryphal Books the Books of Philo the Jew and the Chaldee Paraphrases on the Old Testament The Authority of all these ought to be well established Let us begin by the Apocryphal Books some of which Mr. N. hath ridiculed very boldly Then we shall consider what he has said to Philo whose Writings Mr. N. hath endeavoured to render useless in this Controversy How justly we shall consider in the next Chapters CHAP. V. Of the Authority of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament ALthough the Protestants have absolutely rejected the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament which the Church of Rome make use of in Controversies as if they were of the same authority with the Books of the Law and Prophets notwithstanding they keep them as Books of a great antiquity And we make use of their authority not to prove any Doctrine which is in dispute as if they contained a Divine Revelation and a decision of an inspired Writer but to witness what was the Faith of the Jewish Church in the time when the Authors of those Apocryphal Books did flourish Any body who sees the Socinians making use of the Authorities of Artemas or of Paulus Samosatenus to prove that the Christian Church was in their opinion must grant the same authority to the Books of Wisdom Ecclesiasticus and the like touching the Sentiment of the Jewish Church in the age of those Writers Grotius a great Author for the Socinians was
which God hath founded the Earth as David tells us Psal ciii 24. is the same which is spoken by Solomon Prov. iii. 19. 't is the sense of all the Targums Midrashim and Cabalistic Authors upon the first of Genesis as you see in R. Mardochay and in Menachem de Rakanati upon the 1st of Genesis 2dly They take indifferently this Wisdom and the Shekinah or the Memra or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the same Person referring to it the same Actions the same Power the same Worship the same Majesty 3dly They understand the Wisdom which rules the World as it is said Prov. viii to be the same which is spoken of Prov. iii. 19. and to be the Son of the living God the same who spoke by Ezek. xxii 2. see R. Menach in Pent. fol. 1. col 2. from Bereshit Rabba and from Zohar Ibid. fol. 2. col 1. fol. 35. col 1. fol. 44. col 1. And fourthly They refer many Places to that Wisdom which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Shekinah and the Son to the Messias for example it is clear that Psalm xlv belongs to the Messias as being the Bridegroom of the Church Now they suppose that the Shekinah is the Bridegroom of the Synagogue R. Menach in Pent. fol. 15. col 1. and they refer to the Shekinah the place of Isaiah chap. lxii 3. which is nothing but the same Idea of Psalm xlv So they refer the Song of Solomon to the Shekinah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. Menach de Rekan in Pent. fol. 58. col 4. fol. 76. col 1. col 3. which is manifestly to be understood of the Messias and so they pretend that the Kiss which is mentioned there Cant. i. 1. signifies mystically the Shekinah R. Menach fol. 44. col 1. It is notorious that the Goel that famous Redeemer which is promised in so many Prophets to the Synagogue is the Messias Now the constant Idea of the Jewish Writers is that the Shekinah is to be that very Redeemer Rab. Menach de Rekanati in Pent. fol. 58. col 4. fol. 59. col 1. fol. 83. col 4. fol. 97. col 4. So that nothing is more evident than that the Jews who took the Wisdom to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the proper Son of God and look upon the Shekinah or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being to be the Messias must have lookt upon the Messias as being the proper Son of God In Isaiah iv 2. the Messias is called the branch of the Lord no doubt as properly as he is called the branch of David Jerem. xxiii 5. In that day saith he the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious which is in Jonathan's Paraphrase interpreted of the Messias From which it is natural to conclude that the proper Son of God was to be the Messias and the Messias was to be the proper Son of God In Isaiah ix 6 7. we read of a Son given and what are the Characters of this Son they follow His name shall be Wonderful Counsellor the mighty God the everlasting Father the Prince of Peace The Jews long after Christ understood this place of the Messias and Solomon Jarchi who dyed in the Year 1180. is perhaps the first after R. Hillel that fell from the common Traditional Sense of his Nation in referring these Titles to God and not the Messias But I have taken notice before in speaking of the several appearances of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Angel who appeared to Gideon and who was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did take the same name of Wonderful which is given here to the Messias Jeremiah keeps to the same notion of a branch to denote a Son Jerem. xxiii 5. xxxiii 15. and the Targum explains it of the Messias Zachary ch vi 12. doth also call him the branch which not only the Jews before Christ as we have shewn from Philo but those after Christ Echa Rabbathi p. 58. col 2. interpreted of the Messias as being the Word And here let me remark to you a few of Philo's Notions which may serve for a Key to the right understanding of the Sentiments of Philo concerning divers Prophecies in the Old Testament One while he saith Lib. de conf Ling. 267. that God is one but without excluding his Word who is his Image and first-born from being one with him Another time he calls the Word an Archangel a Man he that sees Israel c. Whence comes this but that he saw the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was sometimes represented as Head of the Angels in respect of his Divinity and at other times as a Man with regard to his intended coming in the Flesh To this coming he seems to apply the Promise Levit. xxvi 11 12. I will walk among you and be your God De nom mut p. 840. C. I am sure the later Jews as Ramban upon that place after the Author of Torath Cohanim do build here the opinion of a real habitation of the Divinity amongst them in the times of the Messias and that they derive from one of their most ancient Traditions that the Salvation of Israel shall be made by God himself which they prove by Zech. ix 9. where it is spoken of the Messias by the confession of the Jews till this day Again Philo calls the Word of the Lord the Shepherd and quotes for it Psal xxiii 1. The Lord is my Shepherd De nom mut p. 822. 823. A. De Agric. in Euseb p. 323. Now the Word being the same with the Messias c. 13. it is plain this Psalm was in his days applied to the Messias who consequently is the Lord Jehovah and the people his sheep I have before observed the rules by which the Jews were led to the knowledg of this Truth and therefore it is unnecessary to touch again on them It suffices to remark here first that the Synagogue in Philo's time held it a Maxim that the name Jehovah express'd the Essence of God Philo Lib. Deter pot in s p. 143. C. Secondly that the name Jehovah was the proper name of God the name of the first Cause and consequently communicable to no Creature Philo de Abrahamo p. 280. a Truth of great moment which is confessed also by Manass ben Israel q. in Exod. 3. Thirdly that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he takes to be meant by the Branch in Zech. vi 12. was to become the Messias and therefore that the Messias is justly called in this respect the Son of God And now it is easie to judge of the sense the ancient Synagogue had of the Person of the Messias It acknowledges this Son and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Person subsisting from all Eternity Of this if we had no other the Text of Mic. v. 2. is a good proof which the Jews in Christ's time expounded of the Messias Mat. ii 7. Joh. vii 42. But the Notions of Philo
than he usually rendered which yet he did for great reasons One great Objection of the Socinian Author which he much insists upon is that the Christians never quoted the Authority of the Targum against the Jews before Galatinus who lived at the beginning of the 16th Century But that since him Heinsius Vechnerus and some others followed him in that fancy Supposing this to be true I cannot see what advantage it would be to him Put case the Ancients were not capable Scholars enough to peruse the Jewish Books can this ever prejudice truth And ought not they to be received how late soever they come by whose care soever they be vindicated and asserted But it is absolutely false that Christians before Galatinus have nothing of the Jewish Opinions about this matter I shewed in the vii Chap. of this Book that Ribera and others which would have these Paraphrases to be written after St. Jerome are much mistaken And consequently this Socinian Author who followed them and Vorstius in his Notes on Tsemach David was also mistaken about the Antiquity of the Targums But our Socinian says if they are so ancient how comes it to pass that they have not been quoted by the Christians that disputed against the Jews in ancienter Times They were very few of ancient Christians that writ upon these matters And of them yet fewer understood the Chaldee or even the Hebrew Tongue most of them rested upon the Authority of Philo of the Book of Wisdom and of other Authors who were famous among the Jews before Christ and who had writ full enough upon this Subject as may be seen by what Eusebius quotes out of them And no doubt those places of Philo and those other Jewish Writers were well known to Clemens of Alexandria and to Origen whose Work Eusebius much followed as appears by reading his Books and as he himself does acknowledge The Socinian Author affirms too positively that Galatinus is the first that used that Authority of the Targums He must not suppose a thing which is absolutely false Origin lib. 4. in Celsum speaks of a Dispute between Jason and Papiscus in which saith Origin Christianus ex Judaicis Scriptoribus cum Judaeo describitur disputans plane demonstrans quae de Christo extant vaticinia Jesu ipsi congruere c. What were those Writings of the Jews but the Targums who had translated Becocma for Breschith according to the Jewish Notion which I have explained so many times and for which St. Jerome reflects upon Jason who hath quoted the Targums as if he hath read them in Hebrew Besides it appears by Justin the Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho That in his time some Jews had already endeavoured to invalidate the Proofs taken out of Scripture in their so frequent Stile about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we see them in the Targums For Justin undertakes to prove that the Word is not barely an Attribute in God nor an Angel but a Person and a true Principle of Action And this he proves by his Apparitions and by other Characters and Signs of a real Person such as are his executing his Father's Counsels his being his Off-spring and his Son properly so called Here I must add one thing which is that St. Jerome hath express'd the Sense of the Targum in many places especially upon the Prophets which Sense he had no doubt from the learned Jews whom he had consulted and they from the Targums I confess that Jerome never made his business to write against the Jews nor did any other Christian that was ever able to make use of the Targums Some indeed of the Fathers took the pains to learn Hebrew because the Old Testament was writ in that Language but those were very few and none of them ever troubled himself with the Chaldee St. Jerome himself how skilful soever in the Hebrew understood not the Chaldee as appears by his Writings The first that set himself to beat the Jews with their own Weapons was Raimundus Martini a convert Jew who lived about the Year of Christ 1260. He writ a Book against them call'd Pugio Fidei which shews he had well studied their Rabbins and he makes use of their Targums to very good purpose Out of this Book there was another compos'd and call'd Victoria adversus Judaeos by Porchetus Salvaticus that is said to have lived in the next Century Neither of their Books was much considered in those ignorant times wherein they lived So that when Learning came more in request one might venture to make use of their labours and set them forth as his own with little danger of being discover'd This very thing was done by Galatinus who lived about the end of the Fifteenth Century He did with great Impudence almost transcribe his Notions and the Arguments against the Jews out of that Work of Porchetus without so much as mentioning his Name That Socinian mentions the Pugio in the close of that Book against Vechner by which it may be supposed he read that Book of Raimundus above mentioned Which if he did and consider'd it with Galatinus he could not but see that this Work of Galatinus was as to the main of it a Stream from that Fountain of Raimund's Pugio And if he saw it he did very disingenuously in making Galatinus the first among Christians that made use of the Jewish Notions The last Objection of the Unitarians against what I have proved about the Word's being a Person from the consent of the Chaldee Paraphrases when they speak of the Memra of the Lord and his Actions is made by the same Socinian Author who affirms that in the Targums the Memra implies no more than that God works by himself because the word Memra is used of Men as well as of God I will not deny but that here and there in the Targums the word Memra has that Sense as Hacspan well observes in his Notes on Psalm cx and produces many Instances of it to which many more might be added But when all is done this Objection much the same with that of Moses Maimonides can't absolutely take away that force of those Texts where the Memra is used of God and to be satisfied of this it is but making the following Reflexions First That Philo one of the most famous Jews of Egypt very well apprehended and clearly declared That by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answers to the Hebrew Memra the old Jews understood a real Principle of Action such as we call a Person Secondly That the Jewish Authors more ancient than Philo had the very same Notion of it as may be seen in the Book of Baruch and in that of Wisdom the Notions of which Philo has clearly followed in his Book de Agric. apud Euseb de Proepar Evang. pag. 323. And Lastly That even since Christ the Cabalistical Authors followed and to this day do follow the same Notion making use of those places where the Memra and the Cochma that is
mouths and which was near really in their hearts Come let us kill him and let us seise on his inheritance And not only out of hatred but out of policy also they opposed him that they might keep themselves safe and quiet They lookt for a Conquering Messias who should subdue all Nations and bring all their Enemies under them But here they saw Christ a Man destitute of all human succours necessary to bring about so great a design They thought it therefore more advisable to set him aside without following his Doctrine than to espouse a Quarrel which might incense the Romans against them and cause the ruin of their Nation This they meant by saying The Romans shall come and take away both our place and Nation To be satisfied of this one ought to observe that Speculative Doctrines are not the common Rules of publick Deliberations and Counsels Let the Papists be an instance of it They proceed in their decisions upon the Principle of the Pope's Infallibility when at the same time hardly any one of them believes it and many do confute it both by reasons and matters of fact not to be answered The Jews likewise though they knew themselves to be fallible enough yet Papists like they acted in their publick Assembly as if they had been infallible And this was enough to satisfie those who could not distinguish or would not further inquire into the business which was the case of most ordinary people Accordingly of the two Thieves that were Crucifyed with Christ one had observed the Injustice of that violent hatred the Jews had for him But the other curs'd him looking on him as a false Prophet justly condemned by the greatest Authority known to him in the World Lastly It is certain that when a decision is once made the People for the most part do not much inquire into the justice or reasonableness of it but quietly acquiesce in it and relye upon the Authority of those who made it The Jews had a particular reason to do so being assured that their Religion came from God and not seeing any danger in professing it as it was delivered to them by their Forefathers And this is now the only reason they have for professing Judaism Neither is it to be wondered at that the Notions the old Jews had of it should make but little impression on their minds no more than the Doctrines of their Doctors which they call Cabalists because they follow the Traditions of the old Synagogue For their late Teachers moved by a spirit of contradiction have raised many new Questions about the Characters of the Messias and other like Articles of Religion controverted between them and the Christians by which they have plunged their People into inextricable difficulties and they are so exasperated now against us that they can hardly be calm enough to take notice of those visible Contradictions which may be seen between their ancient Writers and their now Doctors writing upon the same subject They deny now adays what the old Jews freely granted and their whole study is to keep their People in a blind submission to their Authority Insomuch that they have this Maxim amongst them that the People are obliged to believe that the right Hand is the left when their Rabbies have once so declared But I shall make some more particular Reflections upon the proceedings of the now Jews and shew that their obstinacy is altogether unreasonable and that there is no fairness at all in their way of disputing against Christians CHAP. XXIII That the Jews have laid aside the Old Explications of their Forefathers the better to defend themselves in their Disputes with the Christians Eus dem Ev. Lib. iv 1. IT hath been long since observed by Eusebius that the Jews have varied from the belief of their Fathers as to the sense of several places in the Old Testament and it is no more than they themselves freely own in their Disputes with us The spirit of Disputation hath wrought much the same effect among the Papists as Maldonat was not ashamed to confess on St. John ch vi Of this alteration in the Jewish Sentiments which is acknowledged by one of the Socinian Writers viz. Volzogeniùs in Luc. xxiv 27. R. Salomon Jarchi fully witnesses He was the most famous Commentator the Jews had about five hundred years ago yet he in his Exposition of Psal xxi 1. hath these words Our Masters did understand this Psalm of the Messias as indeed they did Gemar on Talm. tr Massechet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ch v. Targ. on this Psalm ver 8 18. but it is better to understand it of David himself that we may the more easily reply to the Hereticks that abuse some passages in it But this is not the only place where the Jews have changed the faith of their ancient Masters There are many others examples of it some of the chief of which I shall produce after I have observed the several degrees by which they arrived to so wide a disagreement with their Ancestors 1. Their Doctors as I have already noted did early introduce new Notions of several Texts of the Old Testament I speak not now of their Fabulous fancies only such as that of Philo who Lib. de Septenar supposes the Voice of God uttered on Mount Sinai to have been heard in all parts of the World to which the Jews Pirke Eliez c. 41. Tankuma fol. 73. col 1. have added many more new conceits but I speak of such their Explications as were contrary to and in effect did overthrow the ancient Notions of the Prophets As for instance where Philo seems in some manner to maintain the Transmigration * Lib. de Somn. pag. 455. of Souls where he delivers the Doctrine of the Souls Preexistence before the Body †De Mund. p. 891. where he seems to hint the Eternity of Matter according to Plato * Mund. op p. 214. De mund Incor pag. 728. A. De Viat off p. 669. F. although it is certain in his Treatise of Providence he doth assert the Creation of Matter 2ly It is observable that after the Emperour Hadrian's time some of the Jews who expected the Messias according to Daniel's Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks but were out in their Accounts of those Weeks had almost intirely lost the hopes of his coming This we gather from the History of R. Hillel in Gemara tit Sanhed fol. 98. col 2. fol. 99. col 1. who maintained that the Promise of the Messias was accomplished in the Person of Hezekiah and that there was no more Messiah to be expected by the Jews Now they say that this Hillel was the Grandson to R. Juda the Compiler of the Misna 3. We see how careless they have been in preserving the Apocryphal Books formerly in esteem with them and which indeed but for the Christians had totally perished Philo has borrowed some of his Notions in his 2d Book of Agriculture and let any
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
described only as the Messenger of God A Salvo as ridiculous as his Answer For most of the Characters and Works of God are ascribed to him that is there spoken of and he is expresly called the Lord of Hosts But this is not all For our Socinians not only follow the Jews but exceed them in the bold ways they take to get over those Authorities which make against them Because that the words of Psal xl 7. Thou hast bored my ears are cited by St. Paul in this manner A Body hast thou prepared me Heb. x. 5. who follows herein the LXX Text which thus paraphrases the Psalmist's words from thence Enjedinus takes occasion to accuse the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews for not having cited the Original and to traduce him as an Apocryphal Writer They go further than the Jews do on Psal xlv 6. Thy throne O God is for ever and ever A Text cited by St. Paul and applied to Jesus Christ Heb. i. 7 8. The LXX translate it as we do But the Jews have tried all ways to deliver themselves of this Authority which proves so evidently that the Messias is God As for Socinus he pretends to reject the Jews Solutions But his Disciples have invented another which is worse than that of the Jews as may be seen in Enjedinus and Ostorodius Psalm xc throughout relates to the Messias Jesus Christ applies it to himself Matth. xxii and from thence proves that he is David's Lord although he is the Son of David But Enjedinus refutes this Argument of Jesus Christ And Schlichtingius treats it as absurd This is a thing that deserves to be reflected on because these Gentlemen pretend that among them only true Christianity is continued The like way they take to answer what the Apostle saith of Christ's creating the Heavens and the Earth Heb. i. 10 11. and his Proof of it from Psal cii 27 28. And with the same Impudence do they elude the Citation from Psal cxviii 22. which is quoted Mat. xxi 42. Altho R. D. Kimchi among other Jews refers it to the Messias It is strange to see how they take the Jews part in explaining as they do Isa vii 14. A Virgin that is say they a Prophetess Crell on Matt. i. The only reason of this Explication is the word Immanuel which there follows to their great perplexity They therefore say that Immanuel is spoken of the Father in Isaiah's Prophecy and of Jesus Christ in St. Matthew's Gospel in a Mystical Sense Isaiah chap. xxxv 5. has distinctly noted the Miracles which the Messias should work and has given us a clear Character of his Person R. Solomon Jarchi endeavours to shift off this Text and to explain it of the deliverance of the People out of Babylon Socinus who could not but know how the Evangelists have referred it to the Miracles of Jesus Christ does nevertheless establish as well as he can the Explication of the Modern Jews And this he does for no other reason but because the Appearance of God himself is spoken of in the 4th Verse of this Chapter How audaciously does Crellius destroy the Proof of the Place where Christ should be born Matth. ii 5. taken out of Micah v. 2. Saith he The Jews cited it only according to the Mystical Sense But we know the Jews took it to be the Literal Sense as appears by their Targum The viiith Chapter of Proverbs was understood by Philo of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And indeed such Attributes are given to Wisdom in that Chapter as belong only to a Person such as being conceived born creating governing exercising of Mercy and the like But Socinus is not content it should go so He will have all this attributed to the Wisdom of God by a Prosopopeia just as our later Jews do interpret it of the Law Jer. xxiii 5 6. relates to the Messias in the Judgment of all the Ancient Jews Our Socinians will not allow this but rather than own that the Messias is named God they refer the Title of The Lord our Righteousness to the People there spoken of We have a remarkable Prophecy for the Proof of the Divinity of the Messias in Zech. xii 10. They shall look on him whom they have pierced The Jews anciently did and still do understand it of the Messias And Jesus Christ does apply it to himself Rev. i. 7. What saith Socinus to this He declares that this Text which is so like Psal xxii has been corrupted by the Jews and thus he trys to render its Authority useless Here you have a Sample of their conduct in rejecting the Literal and setting up a Mystical sense But there are other Quotations cited in the New Testament from which it is manifest that our Lord Jesus Christ is the God spoken of in the Old Testament the Authority of which Texts cannot so easily be eluded And to take away the evidence of these they have invented the way of accommodation David speaking of the God of Israel has these words Psal lxviii 19. Thou art ascended on high c. Hence we conclude that Jesus Christ is the God of Israel because St. Paul saith they had their accomplishment in our Lord's Ascension into Heaven Ephes iv 8. The Jews say those words in the Psalm were spoken of Moses The Socinians cannot deny they were spoken of God but deny they were spoken of the Messias literally But say they these words were applied to Jesus Christ by St. Paul only by way of accommodation Strange Is it not plain that David saith no more in this lxviii Psalm of the Messias than he saith in Psal cx which the Jews do refer to the Messias Is not the calling of the Gentiles here clearly foretold v. 33 34. which is owned on all hands to be the work of the Messias Is it not then visible that St. Paul in citing these words has followed the sense of the Ancient Synagogue who understood Psal cx of the Messias according to the Literal sense Socinus owns that the words Psal xcvii 7. which are applied to Jesus Christ Heb. i. 6. do respect the Supreme God He cannot therefore deny Jesus Christ to be the Supreme God to whom they are applied But he does it as he pleases by this way of accommodation which he saith the Sacred Author used in applying this Text to Jesus Christ And so the Adoration commanded to be given him terminates not in him but is referrable to the Supreme God who commanded this Adoration Isa ch viii 13 14. has these words Sanctifie the Lord of Hosts The Jews interpret them of the Messias Gemar Massech Sanhedr in ch iv and they are cited by St. Paul Rom. ix 32. St. Luke ii 34. St. Peter 1 Pet. ii 7. who apply them to Jesus Christ The Socinians whose Cause will not bear this that Jesus Christ should be called the Lord of Hosts do therefore deny that the Massias is here treated of or that any one else is here meant
Cat. xii the Concil Sirm. c. 13. Gregor Baet tr de fide Theodor. Q. 5. in Exod. Leo. i. Ep. 13. ad Pulch. and many others In like manner they refer to the Word those Appearances of God which be vouchsafed to Abraham Isaac and Jacob himself as you may see in Just Mart. Apol. for those to Abraham and Isaac and for those to Jacob in Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7. Novat I. de Trin. c. 26 27. Proc. Gaz. in h. l. The ancient Christians did in this no more than the ancienter Jews did before them who by Elohim in this place did not understand a created Angel but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom the Targumists and the strictest Followers of their Fathers Traditions are wont to express by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo makes all the Appearances which we meet with in the Books of Moses to belong to the Word and the latter Cabalists since Christ's time not only do the same but deny that the Father ever appeared saying it was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only that manifested himself to their Fathers whose proper name is Elohim For this consult R. Menachem de Rekanati from Beres Rabba on the Parasch Breschit f. 14. c. 3. Ed. Ven. and on Par. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f. 30. c. 1. I have often wondred how it came to pass that most of the Divines of the Church of Rome who would seem to have the greatest veneration for Antiquity should so much despise it in this Question wherein the ancient Jewish and Christian Church do agrees Sanctius in his Notes on the Acts ch 7. says it is a difficult question among Divines whether God's Appearances in Scripture were performed immediately by God himself or by his Angels And then having cited several ancient Fathers who thought it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that appeared he adds Sed Theologis jam illa sententia placet quae statuit Angelorum ministerio antiquis hominibus oblatam esse divinam speciem quae est sententia Dionys de caelest Hier. c. 4 c. To the same purpose Lorinus another Jesuit speaks in Act. vii 31. But this is not the worst of it that they forsake the judgment of the Ancients they do herein make bold to contradict the plain words of Christ himself Joh. i. 18. Christ saith thus No man hath seen God at any time the only begotten who is in the bosom of the Father he hath declared him And parallel to this Text is Joh. vi 46. Certainly he must be very blind who does not see that Christ in these words not only denies the Father to have shewn himself in those Appearances that were made to the ancient Patriarchs but also asserts them to himself and not to the Angels Away then with such Divines who setting aside the Authority of Christ do chuse to Theologize in the principal Heads of Religion according to the sense and prejudices of the Moderns We desire to be no wiser in these matters than the Primitive Christians were among whom it passed for an establisht truth that the Elohim in Jacob's Prayer was the very Jehovah of the Jews termed by them sometime Shekinah and sometime Memra SECT III. As to the second Question it would be no Question at all but for the obstinacy of some latter Jews He that reads the Hebrew Text without prejudice cannot but see the Elohim in v. 15. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the following verse whence it follows that this Redeeming Angel is Jehovah But because this opinion is contradicted by some of the chief Modern Jews as Abarbanel and Alshek on this place and by most of the Popish Divines as well as some few of the Reformed that have not sifted this matter accurately we will offer some proofs for the conviction of them that are not obstinately bent against it And 1. If Jacob had had two Persons then in his mind so different as God and a created Angel are he would have coupled them together by the particle ז which is not only conjunctive but very proper to distinguish the Persons of whom we speak and said God before whom my Fathers walked God who fed me from my youth and the Angel that delivered me bless the Lads But Jacob is so far from doing thus that on the contrary he puts a ה demonstrative as well before the Angel as before God without any Copulative between which sufficiently demonstrates he means the same Person by God and the Angel Munster was well aware of this and therefore being willing to distinguish the Redeeming Angel from God he Translates it with an addition the Angel also 2. It cannot be easily supposed That Jacob would in a Prayer use the Singular Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in common to Persons in Nature so very different the Creator and a Creature He certainly ought to have said God and the Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may they bless the Lads if he had spoken of two But his speaking in the the Singular may he bless is an Argument of his having in his Eye one Person alone whose Blessing he prayed for on his Seed Otherwise it would have been a Prayer of a strange Composition For according to Athanasius we do no where find that one prays to God and the Angel or any other created Being at the same time for any thing Nor is there any like instance of such a Form as this God and an Angel give thee this 3. But setting aside those Rules with which the contrary Opinion can never be reconciled consider the thing it self in Jacob's Prayer and you will find it absurd to distinguish between the Offices of God and those of a created Angel toward Jacob. The Office ascribed to God is feeding him from his Youth the Office ascribed to the Angel is delivering him from all Evil which must be very distinct Offices if the Persons be distinguished And so R. Jochanan accounts them Gem. Pesasch f. 118. Tho he believes the Angel to be the same with Elohim yet he contends that feeding the greater Work is attributed to God and delivering the lesser Work to an Angel The same thing is said by the Author of Jalkut on this place and R. Samule on the Book Rabboth abovementioned But in the Phrase of these Jewish Masters this Distinction is very insipid it is harshly formed without considering that Jacob in this Blessing reflected on the Words of the Vow which he made at Luz afterwards called Bethel because of God's appearing to him there Now these were the Words of Jacob's Vow If God will be with me and keep me in the way in which I shall walk if he will give meat to eat and cloathing to put on and bring me home in safety to the house of my Father then shall the Lord be my God Gen. xxvii 20 21. Here you see it is from God that Jacob expects to be kept in his way i. e. to be redeemed from
Doctrine it was natural to conclude that the Messias being the same with the Word was to be the High Priest of the New Testament as St. Paul explains it at large in his Epistle to the Hebrews Philo says that the Word is Mediator between God and Man Lib. Quis divin rer haer pag. 398. A. That he makes Attonement with God Lib. de Somniis p. 447. E.F. From this it was easie to see that the Messias was to be indued with a Noble Priesthood especially David having mentioned it Psal cx representing the Messias whom the Chaldaick Paraphrase often calls the Word of God as being a Priest after the order of Melchisedec And this St. Paul affirms likewise in his Epistle to the Hebrews Philo says that God having appeared by the Word to the Patriarchs and to Moses spoke by the same Word to the Israelites and that he was the Prince of Angels Lib. Quis rer divin haer pag. 397. F. G. And the Light and the Doctor of his people Lib. de Somn. pag. 448. calling the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dei de Nom. Mutat pag. 810. E. It was therefore but agreeably to these Notions that the Apostles applied to the Messias those places of the Old Testament where God promised to speak to his new people by the Messias as Deut. xviii 15 16. which St. Peter Act. iii. 22. and St. Stephen Act. vii 37. apply to our Saviour and that St. John calls him the Light of the World Joh. i. It is necessary to take notice of these Principles of the Old Jews First that we may well understand the reason for which Jesus Christ and his Apostles quoted several places as relating to the Messias which are meant of Jehovah in the Old Testament Secondly That we may see for what reason they supposed as a thing owned by the Jews for whom they writ that those places related to the Messias though the Jews applied them to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Thirdly That we may understand how naturally they applied to the Messias those places of the Old Testament which by the confession of the Old Jews related to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And certainly the meanest capacity may apprehend that if under the Old Testament God acted by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though that Dispensation was much below that of the New much more he was to act under the New by that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his own Son as St. Paul concludes Heb. i. What I said of the Apostles and the other Writers of the New Testament that they exactly followed the Doctrines of the Old Jews which followed the Divine Revelation in the Old Testament may justly be said of Justin Martyr and of those who both before and after him writ in defense of our Saviour's Divinity I need not quote many of them to shew that they went upon the same Grounds with the Jews before Christ It will be enough to examine Justin's Writings for he disputed with a Jew who received no other Scripture besides the Old Testament and therefore he could not convince him but by the Authority of those Books And if his method be well examined it will be found that he argues all along as the Apostles did viz. from the sense received by the Jews supposing that such and such places of Scripture from which he draws consequences were applied to the Messias by them Justin having proved that nothing certain can be learned from Philosophy by Plato's example who entertained gross Errors about the Nature of God and of the Soul And declared that he came to the knowledg of the Truth only by the help of Divine Revelation He affirms in general that the Christian Religion which he had imbraced is all grounded upon the Doctrine of Moses and the Prophets He does particularly instance in that of our Saviour's Person and Office though the Jews lookt upon it as impious that Christians as they reckoned trusted in a Man Crucified He lays for foundation that the Scripture speaks of two Comings of Christ the one indeed Glorious mentioned Dan. vii and Psal cx and Psal lxxii But to be preceded by another altogether mean and despicable as David had also foretold Psal cx at the end He maintains that the Messias is clearly described as God Psal xlvii where he is called the Lord our King and the King of all the Earth Psal xxiv where he is called the Lord strong and mighty and the King of Glory Psal xcix where it is said that he spoke to the Israelites in the cloudy Pillar And Psal xlv where he is named God's anointed the Lord God and proposed as the object of our Adoration He affirms that Christ was to be God and though the same in nature yet a different person from him who made Heaven and Earth He proves by the several Apparitions where a true God is mentioned appearing to Abraham in the Plains of Mamre Gen. xviii 1. To Jacob in a Dream Gen. xxxi with whom he wrestled in the figure of a Man Gen. xxxii and assisted him in his Journey to Padan Aram. And to Moses he appeared in the Burning-bush Exod. iii. He maintains that he was to be God because he executed the Counsel of God Hence he is named by Joshua the Prince of the Army and an Angel which is the Lord. And because the Scripture describes him as begotten of God and called the Son the Wisdom of God and the Word Prov. viii He affirms that God spoke to the Word when he said Let us make Man in our image Gen. i. 26. And Behold the Man is become as one of us Gen. iii. 22. which also clearly argues a Plurality He proves from Psal ii This day have I begotten thee that his Generation is from all Eternity And from Psal xv that the Church ought to adore Christ because it is said He is thy Lord worship thou him He repeats the same things towards the end of his Dialogue where he proves that the Messias appeared to Moses Exod. vi 2. To Jacob Gen. xxxii 30. To Abraham Gen. xviii 16 17. To Moses Numb xi 3. and Deut. iii. 18. and to all the Patriarchs and Prophets He prevents an Objection that this was not a Person but a Vertue from the Father which is called sometimes an Angel sometimes his Glory sometimes a Man sometimes the Word By shewing that the Scripture makes out first a real distinction between the Son and the Father as between Jehovah and Jehovah Gen. xix 24. 2ly a true Plurality as Gen. iii. 22. the Man is become as one of Us. 3ly a true Filiation as Prov. viii whence he concludes that he that is begotten is different from him who begot him He answers Mr. N.'s Objection borrowed from the Jews who quote those words of Isaiah where God says He will not give his Glory to another By saying that the Son is the Glory of the Father and that in this respect he is not another Being
from him These words have another sense in the Targum but which seems an addition For they are thus rendered I will not give my Glory to another Nation That is my Shekinah shall not go from the Jews to another people I shall not mention here that which relates to our Saviour's Office especially his estate of Humiliation which Justin proves by Texts taken out of the Old Testament I shall only observe 1st That he quotes all the places of Scripture which he uses as relating to the Messias by the confession of the Jews and thus he shews by the circumstances of those places which had obliged the Jews to apply them to the promised Messias 2ly That he confutes the false Explications which the Jews gave to many places of Scripture for instance that which understands Isa ix of King Hezekiah for this mistake was older than Justin some Jews in his days had revived it and the Author of it was not Rabbi Hillel who lived after Justin but he made himself famous by propagating it That Rabbi by the destruction of Jerusalem having lost all hopes of the Messias whom God had promised them made this a Maxim There is to be no Messias in Israel because they had him in the days of Hezekiah King of Judah Gemara ad Sanhedr cap. Chelek It may be Mr. N. will be something disposed from the method which Justin used to believe that he advanced nothing new against Trypho the Jew who probably was that famous R. Tarphon so often mentioned in the Mishnah but whose Name the latter Jews have corrupted But I will if possible go further to convince him and prevent all his Objections To that end I will make it appear that most places of Scripture which Justin used were objected to the Jews by the Christians before Justin's Birth I prove it thus Justin was born at soonest 105. years after Christ But it appears by the Testimony of the Jews that long before their Doctors were divided amongst themselves about the manner in which those Objections were to be answered which the Christians made to them drawn from the Old Testament R. Eliezer who lived under Trajan had this Maxim Study the Law with diligence that thou mayst be able to answer the Epicureans Beth Israel fol. 105. col 3. R. Jochanan explains that Maxim of R. Eliezer as regarding not only Heathens but chiefly the Jews who had renounced their Religion And who could these Apostate Jews be It is easie to guess by the Objections which they made to the Jews and by the Maxim which R. Jochanan proposes to prevent the Jews from being overseen in their disputes with these Jews In a word they were Christians who proved that there was a Plurality and a Trinity in the Divine Nature Alledging to this effect against the Jews those places out of the Law and of the Prophets where mention is made of God in the Plural Number As Gen. i. 26. Let us make Man in our Image Gen. xi 7. Let us go down and confound their Language Gen. xxxv 7. where Elohim that is the Gods appeared to Jacob. Deut. iv 7. What Nation has the Gods so near unto them 2 Sam. vii 23. What Nation is like Israel whom the Gods went to redeem Dan. vii 9. Till the Thrones or Seats were set and the Ancient of days did sit Exod. xxiv 1. where God bids Moses come up to the Lord. Exod. xxiii 21. where God having promised to send his Angel bids them beware of him because he would not pardon their transgressions for Gods name was in him And Gen. xix 24. The Lord rained upon Sodom fire from the Lord. These nine Arguments the Christians made use of to prove a Plurality in the Godhead And we find that they were grounded upon the exact quotation of the Hebrew Text not the Greek Version For the Greek leaves room only to few of these remarks which shews that Justin who was born a Heathen had them from Men bred among the Jews who had read the Bible in Hebrew and had made their Observations upon the Original Text of Moses and other Sacred Writers Beth Isra Ibid. If a Man should ask how ancient were those Objections about a Plurality in God I answer that they were as old as the Preaching of the Gospel amongst the Jews For R. Meir R. Akiba's Master had endeavoured to answer in his Sermons the Objection taken out of Gen. xix 24. now R. Meir was born under Nero and Akiba died in Hadrian's days about 120. years after Christ Neither were the Jews agreed in the manner of answering those Objections about a Plurality in the Divine Nature 1st They thought they might answer most of them by this general Maxim That God never did any thing without consulting with his Family above that is the Angels And this they pretended to prove by these words Dan. iv 17. This matter is by the decree of the watchers and the demand by the word of the Holy Ones Which answer was destroyed by what others said that God spoke of himself in the Plural Number that Moses did also speak of God they having regard to his Sovereign dignity Though at the same time they observed that in those places Moses joined a Verb in the Singular with that Noun in the Plural to assert the Unity of God and for fear the Reader should think there were many Gods Thus when Men dispute against the Truth what one of them builds up is presently pulled down by another 2ly They were also divided about the Thrones set Dan. vii 9. For to what purpose many Thrones if there were but one Person Beth. Isr ibid. R. Akiba maintained that there was one for God and another for David He seems by David to have understood the Messias But R. Jose lookt upon this as impious and affirmed that one of these Thrones was set for God's Justice the other for his Mercy R. Akiba was at last convinced and received this explication which R. Eliezer Son of Azaria hearing was so far from approving of that he sent away Akiba with indignation and told him Why dost thou meddle with expounding the Scripture Go to the army and fight this he said because Akiba had followed Barcosba As for R. Eliezer himself he said that these two Thrones signified only that there was one for God and a footstool to it 3ly They were hard put to it by the Objections drawn from Exod. xxiii 21. about that Angel whom God had promised to guide Israel in whom God's Name was to be and who is called by the Jews Metatron For said the Christians If the name of Jehovah was in him he was to be adored This the Jews evaded by altering the Text and reading with the LXX Thou shalt not rebell against him or Thou shalt not change me with him that is to say for him When the Christians objected that this Angel must needs be God because God said of him he shall not pardon thy transgressions