King as he hath been the first which they infer from Psal lxxii 8. and Dan. ii 35.44 in Bresh Rabba ad Gen. xlii 6. Now it is the very description of the Word of God as you see in Jonathan's Targum upon Deut. xxxii 39. Quando revelaverit se Sermo Domini ad redimendum populum suum dicet omnibus populis Videte quod ego nunc sim qui sum fui ego sum qui futurus sum nec alius Deus praeter me 4thly Jonathan on Micah vi 14. has the same Notion The Text runs Feed thy people with thy Rod the flock of thy heritage which dwell solitarily in the wood in the midst of Carmel let them feed in Bashan and Gilead as in the days of old But Jonathan paraphrases it thus Feed thy People by thy Word the People of thy Heritage in the Age to come a Term always used to denote the Times of the Messias and consequently shews that the Word shall be in the Messias 5thly The same Jonathan who affirms that the Word gave the Law on Horeb and made a Covenant with Israel refers to the Messias what Philo saith of the Word Zech. vi 12. as we see him on Mal. iv 2. We might infer the same thing from those Prophecies that speak of God as anointed as Psal xlv 7. Of God as sent Isa xl 9. Of God for the sake of whom God forgives Dan. ix 17. For the Targum in many places applies these Expressions to the Word though the Passages themselves are supposed by them to concern the Messias The same Truth may be also collected from hence That the Word is clearly distinguâ—â—hed from God who sends him and from the Holy Spirit who is to rest on the Messias in respect of his Human Nature Which is a good Argument that the Word and the Messias according to the common Notion of the Ancient Jews was to be one and the same Person That Sense was so well known in the Synagogue that you see in Midrash Tehillim upon Psal xxxiii that the Shekinah which was in Heaven was to leave them and to be upon the Earth and that although it was not possible for any Mortal to see her in this Life in the future Age which is the second coming of the Messias she is to be seen by Israel who are then to live for ever and to say as you see in Isa xxv 9. Here is your God And according to Psal xlviii 15. He is God our God as it is observed by Tanchuma and many others But this I shall shew more distinctly in evincing 2dly That the Jews who esteemed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Son of God did likewise believe the Messias should be the Son of God CHAP. XVII That the Jews did acknowledge the Messias should be the Son of God GOD having by a great Number of Appearances settled it in the Minds of the Jews That there was a true distinction between the Lord and the Angel of the Lord to whose care they were committed did afterwards more plainly intimate to them than he had done to the Ancient Patriarchs who and what this Angel was I mean he gave them Revelation in Scripture concerning the Nature of the Messias in the expectation of whom he had trained them up by so many extraordinary Appearances For this purpose he raised David to the Throne and made him a Prophet that his Dignity might cause attention to his Prophecies and his Authority establish the Psalms which he writ by Inspiration into a Form of Worship most acceptable to God We therefore find in his Psalms all the Passions which the Promise and hope of the Messias naturally produce arising from more distinct Notions of him than were formerly given And afterwards God raised up other Prophets until Malachi who all tread in David's steps and pursue his Notions as far as they concern the Messias It might be gathered from several things in the Writings of Moses as Gen. iii. 15. that the Messias should be more than a man because he was to destroy the Works of the Devil and whosoever did that must be stronger than he as our Saviour shews in the Parable of the strong man Matth. xii 29. Because God respecting the coming of the Messias promised to dwell in the Tabernacles of Sem Gen. ix 27. which the Ancient Jews understood of the Shekina Talm. Babyl Joma fol. 9. col 2. Because he was to bless all Nations as was promised Abraham Gen. xii 3. as it is acknowledged by the Author of the Book Chasidim § 961. and that could not be done but by the Shekinah dwelling among them as the Jews acknowledge it Because he was to be King of all Nations of the Earth as Jacob prophecied Gen. xlix 10. and as Balaam foretold of the Messias according to Onkelos he was to smite the corners of Moab and destroy all the Children of Seth or as Onkelos renders it to have dominion over all the Children of men Num. xxiv 17. But it was necessary that the notion of the Messias should be yet more distinct And to this end there was a constant Succession of Prophets from David to Malachi who by their particular Characters of the Messias excited a more ardent desire in the Jews that God would fulfil his promise concerning him Let us enquire a little by what degrees this Light became more distinct and shew what impression it caused in the Jews before the coming of our Lord. I lay it down then as a truth that the Prophets from David do constantly represent the Messias as the proper Son of God one begotten by a proper and not a figurative Generation That God hath a Son is declared in Solomon's Question Prov. xxx 4. What is his name and what is his Son's name For it appears clearly by the description of God's Works and Attributes which goes before these words that this Question cannot be understood but of the true God and of his true Son the same which is spoken of Prov. viii 22. as being Eternal and Verses 24 and 25. as being begotten by God And indeed although the Author of the Zohar refers sometimes those words What is his Son's name to the People of Israel who is called the first-born of God nevertheless he gives them their true sense in referring them to the Messias who is spoken of in Psalm ii in these words Thou art my Son and kiss the Son Part 3. fol. 124. col 3. Philo in his Pieces hath preserved the sense of the Ancient Jews in this matter that this Son was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as where he saith that the Word by whom they swear was begotten All. 11. p. 76. B. that God begat his Wisdom according to Solomon Prov. viii 24. De temul p. 190. D. which Wisdom is no other than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. p. 194. that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the most Ancient Son the Eternal Spirit of God but the World is
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
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
so well satisfied of the truth of what I advance that he thought fit to Comment those very Apocryphal Books and to shew that they followed almost always the Ideas and the very words of the Authors of the Old Testament But as he was a Man of a deep sense seeing that they might be turned against the Socinian cause which he favoured too much he did things which he judged fit to make their authority useless against the Socinians And first he advanced without any proof that those things which were so like to the Ideas of the New Testament had been inserted in those Books by Christians according to their notions and not according to the notions of the Synagogue 2ly He endeavoured to give another sense to the places which some Fathers in the second and third Century had quoted from these Books to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of our Saviour Now since the Socinian Authors have employed against the authority of these Apocryphal Books the very Solutions which Grotius made use of to lessen their authority it is necessary being resolved to quote them for the settling of the Jewish Tradition to shew how much Grotius whose steps the Socinians trod in was out in his Judgment 1. Then I suppose with Grotius that those Apocryphal Books were written by several Jewish Authors many years before Jesus Christ appeared The third Book of the Macchabees which is indeed the first hath been written by a Jew of Egypt under Ptolomaeus Philopater that is about two hundred years before the Birth of our Saviour It contains the History of the Persecution of the Jews in Egypt and was cited by Josephus in his Book de Macchabaeis The first Book of Macchabees as we call it now hath been written in Judea by a Jew and originally in Hebrew which is lost many Centuries ago We have the translation of it which hath been quoted by Josephus who gives often the same acccount of things as we have in that Book It hath been written probably 150. years before the Birth of our Saviour The second Book of Macchabees hath originally been written in Greek in Egypt and is but an extract of the four Books of Jason the Grecian a Jew of Egypt who had writ the History of the Persecutions which the Jews of Palestina suffered under the Reign of Antiochus Epiphanés and his Successors The Book of Ecclesiasticus hath been written Originally in Hebrew by Jesus the Son of Syrac about the time of Ptolomy Philadelphus that is about 280. years before Jesus Christ and was Translated in Greek by the Grandson of Jesus the Son of Syrac under Ptolomy Euergetes Some dispute if that Ptolomy is the first or the second which is not very material since there is but a difference of 100. years R. Azaria de Rubeis in his Book Meor Enaiim ch 22. witnesseth that Ecclesiasticus is not rejected now by the Jews but is received among them with an unanimous consent and David Ganz saith that they put it in old times among the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Hagiographes So in his Tsemac David ad A. 3448. The Book of Wisdom according to Grotius his Judgment is more ancient having been written in Hebrew under Simon the High-Priest who flourished under Ptolomeus Lagus Grotius thinks that the Greek Translation we have of that Book was made by some Christian who hath foisted into that Book many things which belong more to a Christian Writer than a Jew He raises such an accusation against the Translator of Ecclesiasticus But it is very easie to confute such a bold Conjecture First because that Book was in Chaldaick among the Jews till the Thirteenth Century as we see by Ramban in his Preface upon the Pentateuch and they never objected such an Interpolation but lookt upon it as a Book that was worthy of Salomon and probably his Works It was the Judgment of R. Azarias de Rubeis in the last Century Imre bina ch 57. The Epistle of Baruch and of Jeremy seem to Grotius the Writings of a Pious Jew who had a mind to exhort his People to avoid Idolatry And 't is very probable that it was Penned under the Persecutions of Antiochus when it was not sure to any to write in favour of the Jewish Religion under his own name The Book of Tobith seems to have been writ originally in Chaldaick and was among the Jews in St. Jerom's time who knowing not the Chaldaick Tongue called for a Jew to his assistance to render it into Hebrew that so he might render it in Latin as he saith in his Preface to Chromatius and Heliodorus Grotius supposes the Book to be very ancient Others believe but without any ground that it was Translated into Greek by the Seventy So that it would have been writ more than 250. years before Jesus Christ Whatsoever Conjecture we may form upon the Antiquity of it it is certain it was in great esteem among Christians in the second Century since we see that Clemens Alexandrinus and Irenaeus have followed his fancy of seven created Angels about the Throne of God and took that Doctrine for a Truth although we see no such Idea among the Jews who have the Translation of that Book but do not now consider it very much Grotius thinks that the Book of Judith contains not a true History but an Ingenious Comment of the Author who lived under Antiochus Epiphanés before the Profanation of the Temple by that Tyrant to exhort the Jewish Nation to expect a wonderful Deliverance from such a Tyranny which they groaned under And we see no reason to discard such a Conjecture although R. Azarias thinks Imre bina ch 51. that this History was alluded to in the Book of Esdras ch 4.15 He judges the same of the Additions to the Book of Daniel viz. the Prayer of Azaria the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace and of the History of Susanna he looks upon them as written by some Hellenist Jew So the Additions to the Book of Esther he judges to be the work of some Hellenist who invented the Story which were afterwards admitted among the Holy Writings because they were Pious and had nothing which could be lookt upon as contrary to the Jewish Religion Grotius saith nothing of the third and fourth of Esdras and hath not judged them fit to be Commented probably because they are not accounted in the Canon of the Church of Rome And indeed the fourth is only extant in Latin But after all a Man must have viewed the third with very little judgment who cannot perceive first that it is certainly the work of an ancient Jew before Jesus Christ his time 2ly That it was among the Jews as a Book of great Authority Josephus p. 362. follows the Authority of that third Book of Esdras in the History of Zorobabel We have not ancienter Writers than Clemens Alexandrinus St. Cyprian and St. Ambrose who have quoted the 4th Book of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they conclude that there were two persons that appeared to her and so they think Moses and Samuel to be the Persons Midrash Sam. Rabbatha cap. 27. Tanchuma fol. 63. col 2. It is natural for Christians to conceive that where it is said so often Gen. i. And God said there God spoke to his Word by which St. John writes that all things were made Joh. i. 3. Socinus will not have it that St. John speaking of the Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does mean it of the first Creation but of the second His Disciples here being convinced that this cannot be maintained have forsaken him in it and do now agree in what he denied But then they suppose the Word signifies no more than the virtue and power of God and therefore by this Phrase Let it be done and it was so no more is imported than God's exciting of himself to do this or that thing or that God said to himself Let such a thing be done and he did it accordingly But if this Evasion can satisfie an Unitarian as it easily may one that cannot maintain his opinion without it yet it cannot satisfie an impartial Reader For this we have the judgment of the ancient Synagogue which looked on the Word of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a true Cause and Agent to whom God spoke and who by an infinite power wrought the several works of the six days Now that this was the judgment of the ancient Synagogue and consequently that they acknowledged a Plurality in God will be evident to any one that will be at the pains to consult Philo and the ancient Targums For Philo he hath drawn so full a System of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to leave himself nothing more to add on that Subject According to him it is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom were represented the first Ideas of all things and who afterwards stampt the impressions of them on matter Whence he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De opif. p. 4. G. p. 24. C. It is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that created the World as I shall have occasion to shew from several parts of his Works in the following part of this Discourse And for the Targums to cite all the passages in them that confirm this truth would be a trouble next to that of transcribing those Books I shall therefore collect only some of the principal places Jonathan on Isa xlv 12. declares his opinion that the Word created the Earth and again on Isa xlviii 13. Thus Onkelos assures that the Heavens were made by the Word of the Lord on Deut. xxxiii 27. And he almost constantly distinguishes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as another Person from the Father of which I shall in the following Chapters produce many proofs Indeed in this Paraphrase of the History of the Creation he uses not the Word Memra which in Chaldee answers to that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek Nor was there any need since he used all along the Verb Amar from whence comes the Noun Memra and so interprets the Text word for word which seems to be his chief design in this Paraphrase And here I must take notice of one thing which is of great moment in this Question viz. that the Jews make a great difference between that word Vajomer which is found in the History of the Creation and this word Vajedabber the first having a natural and necessary relation to the Memra and the last signifying no more than the speech of God or of any Man R. Menach de Rekan in Pent. fol. 124. col 2. fol. 152. col 1 2. But Onkelos does three things which are equivalent to it the one is that instead of Elohim he uses the word Jehova which the Jews read Adonai because it has the Vowels of the word Adonai and both the word Adonim which is the Plural out of Regimen so as God uses it in speaking of himself Mal. i. 6. and the Vowels of the word Adonai in regimen which they put under the Letters of Jehova being also Plural both these things do express a Plurality in God as much as the word Elohim did in the Hebrew Text. The second is that he doth render the words in the beginning not by the Chaldaick word which answers to the Hebrew but by another which signifies the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is observed by all the Jewish Writers who make the same reflection upon the Translation of the Targum Jerusalami in which we read not in the beginning but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Wisdom As you see in a Comment upon the Targums Printed at Amsterdam not long ago where he follows those Notions as the ancient and the common Doctrine of the Synagogue The third is that in the sequel of his Paraphrase he uses the word Memra as signifying a Person by whom God acts and speaks in all his Appearances to Men. That these words Let us make Man after our Image c. have made a like impression on the ancient Jews appears clearly from the pains they take to explain them I am sure Philo was convinced that they note a Plurality when he writing on this Text maintained that God had fellow-workers in the Creation of Man De opif. p. 12. B. E. It is true he sometimes advances that God spoke these words to the Angels or to the Elements and he has been followed herein by some Jews after Jesus Christ as we see in the Explication of them in Bresh Rab. § 8. and in Jalkut § 12 13. wherein they pretend that God consulted the Angels also in the Creation of the World although according to the Talmudical Jews the Angels were not created till the second or the fifth day and such a consultation between God and his Creatures is rejected with scorn by Abarbanel in Pental Fol. 19. Col. 4. But it is to be observed that Philo's reason for this Exposition was to give the better account of the Original of Sin which after the manner of divers of the Philosophers with whom he was much conversant he searched for in the matter of which Man was composed in respect of his Body as may be seen in the place which I have now quoted For in other places he maintains 1. That God took his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word for his fellow-worker De Opif. p. 24 p. 25. 2. That Man was created after the Image of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word De Plant. Noae p. 199. D. But he saith nothing of the Image of Angels or of Matter which yet he ought to have spoken of had he writ coherently and suitably to that other Explication I say it again that in many of his Pieces he asserts The Word made Man and after the Image of the Word was Man created which he shews very largely Alleg. 11. p. 60. C. D. De Plant. Noae
Eminent Divines of the old Jewish Church and consequently as subject to several weaknesses and oversights which are common to the greatest as well as to the meanest men Even the most Learned Men in all Ages though they agree in the truth of certain Doctrines are yet often divided in their ways of expressing them and also in their grounding them on this or that place of Scripture For the Jews since Christ's time we are less concern'd what they say because when they had once rejected their Messias the Lord Jesus Christ they soon found that if they stood to their Traditional Expositions of Scripture it could not be denied but he whom they had rejected was the Word the Son of God whom their Fathers expected to come in our Flesh but rather than yield to that they would alter their Creed and either wholly throw out the Word the Son of God or bring him down to the state of a created Angel as we see some of them do now in their ordinary Comments on Scripture And so they deal with the Shekinah likewise confounding the Master with the Servant as we see that some few perhaps one or two Cabalists have done in their Books In consequence of this alteration they are forc'd to acknowledg the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob worshipped a created Angel and have left themselves no way to excuse them from Idolatry therein but by corrupting their Doctrine concerning Religious Worship and teaching that it is lawful to pray to these Ministring Spirits which is effectually the setting up of other Gods plainly contrary to the first Commandment of their Law Some of themselves are so sensible of this that they cannot deny it to be Idolatry Which is certainly the more inexcusable in the Jews because on other occasions they constantly affirm that when God charged the Angels with the care of other Nations he reserved to himself the sole Government of his people Israel Deut. xxxii 8 9. And therefore it must be a grievous sin in them to worship Angels howsoever they should imagin it might be permitted to other Nations After all this they have not been able so totally to suppress the ancient Tradition but that in their Writers since Christ's time there appear some footsteps of it still And that it is so I am next to shew that notwithstanding their aversness to the Christian Doctrine they yet have a Notion distinct enough both of a Plurality and Trinity in the Divine Nature which will be the whole business of my next Chapter CHAP. XI That this Notion of a Trinity in the Divine Nature has continued among the Jews since the time of our Lord Jesus Christ TO begin with the Jewish Authors who have writ Medrashim that is a sort of Allegorical Commentaries upon Scripture and the Cabalistical Jews whom their people look upon as the wisest Men of their Nation viz. those that know the truth more than all others among them this truth passes for undoubted I know very well that the method of those Cabalistical Men who seek for Mysteries almost in every Letter of the words of Scripture hath made them justly ridiculous And indeed one cannot imagin an occupation more vain or useless than the prodigious labour which they undergo in their way of Gematria Notarikon and Tsirouph But besides that Vice is not so general among the Jews I am fully resolved to lay aside in this Controversie all such remarks my design being only to shew that the ancient Tradition hath been kept among those Authors who have their Name from their firm adherence to the Tradition of their Forefathers So I am not willing to deny that some of the Books of those Cabalistical Authors which the Jews who are not great Criticks look upon as very ancient are not as to all their parts of such an antiquity as the Jews suppose them to be But I take notice that those who attack the antiquity of those Books are not aware that notwithstanding some additions which are in those Books as for example in the Zohar and in the Rabboth the very Doctrine of the Synagogue is to be found there and the same as it is represented to us by the Apocryphal Authors by Philo or those who had occasion to mention the Doctrine of the Jews After all let us suppose that almost all those Books have been written since the Talmud and that the Talmud was written since the beginning of the seventh Century that could not be a prejudice against the Doctrine which the Jews propose as the ancient Doctrine of the Synagogue But to the contrary it would be a strong proof of the constancy of those Authors in keeping the Tradition of their Ancestors in so strange a dispersion and among so many Nations chiefly since in the Articles upon which I shall quote their Authorities they so exactly follow the steps of the Authors of the Apocryphal Books of Philo the Jew and of their ancient Paraphrast who had more penetrated into the sense of Scripture I say then that both the Authors of the Midrashim and the Cabalistical Authors agree exactly in this that they acknowledg a Plurality in the Divine Essence and that they reduce such a Plurality to three Persons as we do To prove such an assertion I take notice first That the Jews do judg as we do that the word Elohim which is Plural expresses a Plurality Their ordinary remark upon that word is this that Elohim is as if one did read El hem that is They are God Bachajè a famous Commentator of the Pentateuch who brings in his work all the senses of the four sorts of Interpreters among the Jews speaks to this purpose upon the Parascha Breschit fol. 2. col 3. 2ly It is certain that they make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express those Persons as they use to express the two first human Persons viz. Adam and Eve Thus speaks of them the same Bachaje Ibid. fol. 13. col 2. 3ly They fix the number of three Persons in the Divine Essence distinguishing their Personal Characters and Actions which serve to make them known 4ly They speak of the emanation of the two last from the first and that the last proceeds by the second 5ly They declare that this Doctrine contains a Mystery that is incomprehensible and above human reason and that in such an unsearchable secret we must acquiesce with the Authority of the Divine Revelation 6ly They ground this Doctrine upon the very same Texts of Scripture which we alledg to prove the several Positions of ours which deserves a great deal of consideration And indeed those things being so we must necessarily conclude either that they mock their Readers or that they do not understand what they say or one must acknowledg that the consequences and conclusions which Christians draw from the Scriptures to this subject of Trinity are not so easie to be avoided as the Socinians believe Let the Reader reflect upon each of those Articles while I
by the Prophets did assume our flesh Joh. i. 14. The second is that the Jews of old did acknowledge the Messias should be the proper Son of God The last is that the Messias was represented in the Old Testament as being Jehovah that should come and that the ancient Synagogue did believe him to be so I begin with the first of these three Articles And upon this I must put my Reader in mind that it should not be a just subject of admiration if we could not prove such a thing by many of the Jewish Books It is clear that when the Jewish Authors did consider the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they considered him as the true Lord of Heaven and Earth and chiefly of their own Nation Whereas the Messias is often represented to the Prophets as one that should appear in a very mean condition and whatsoever glory is attributed to him in other places of the Ancient Revelation which brought them to believe till the last times that the Shekinah was to be in him there were some Characters which could hardly be applied to him as being Personally the Word himself Such are his Sufferings described Psal xxii and Isa liii Such is his riding upon an Ass and coming to Jerusalem which they refer constantly to the Messias as you may see in their Ceremonial Book or Aggada of Pesach But altho we should suppose that the places we are going to cite cannot expresly convince the Reader of this truth yet we might establish it by necessary consequences from them For example It is universally received that Jacob speaks of the Messiah Gen. xlix 10. Onkelos Paraphrases it the People shall obey him And yet Gen. xlix 24. he makes the Word the Governour of the People The ancient Jews hold that the Word delivered Israel out of Egypt and to the Word they apply all the Appearances ascribed to the Angel of the Lord. Does it not follow from hence that they understood the Messiah by the Word since they confess the Messiah is called the Angel of his Presence Isa lxiii 10. the Angel of the Covenant Mal. iii. 1. which words they refer constantly to the Messias The ancient Jews affirm that it was upon the motion of the Word that their Ancestors were to move and that He ordered them to prepare themselves for a sight of God Onk. on Exod. xix 17. And is not this it which Amos demands of the People with respect to the Messiah ch iv 12. The Jews relate that the Temple was built for the Word as was also the Tabernacle where the Majesty of the Word resided After this whom could they understand but the Word of the Lord of whom Malachy promised that he should come to his Temple chap. iii. 1. which words relate constantly to the Messias The Jews thought him to be the Messias that is spoken of by Zech. ch vi 22. And whom else could they think him but the Word who is named by Zechariah the East and the Sun of Righteousness by Mal. iv 2. Especially since Philo interprets that place of Zechariah of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Confus Linguar p. 278. where he speaks of him as of the first-born of God and of the Creator of the World The Jews held that it is said of the Word God is a consuming fire Onk. on Deut. iv 24. which renders it natural to understand him what is to the same sense spoken of the Messias Mal. iii. 2. iv 1. The Jews believed a promise of the Messias Deut. xviii 15. But Onkelos notes here that the Word shall revenge himself of them that disobey the Messias They maintained with Philo de Agric. p. 152. B. de Somn. p. 267. B. that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the first begotten of God Could they then imagin that any other but he was meant in the places where the like Titles are owned even down to our times to be given the Messias as Psal ii 7. lxxxix 28. lxxii 1. They held as did Philo that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 led the People through the desert and referred to him Psalm xxiv wherein he is called the Shepherd And could they do this without reflecting how often this Title of Shepherd is given by the Prophets to the Messias They held that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was adored in his Appearances to the Patriarchs and could they doubt whether the Messias whom all the Kings of the Earth must adore Psal lxxii 11. had any affinity with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They assert that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the great High Priest Phil. de Somn. p. 463. F. And how could they deny that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be the Messias when they constantly ascribed to the Messias what we read of his Priesthood Psal cx 4. Whom did Isaiah see in that Vision ch vi but the Messiah And yet the Targum there calls him the Word of the Lord. When Isaiah speaks of the Messias ch viii 14. that the Lord shall be a stone of stumbling the Targum reads the Word of the Lord using it as one of the Names of the Messias The like it does on ch xxviii 16. where it is manifest the Messias is spoken of Isaiah saith ch xii 2. Behold God my Saviour I will trust in him Jonathan renders him I will trust in the Word of Salvation i. e. in the Word the Saviour The same Prophet ch xli 4. having called Jehovah the First and the Last he attributes to the Word the Title of Redeemer v. 13 14 16. which Title properly belongs to the Messias And so the whole is applied by Jesus Christ to himself Rev. i. 8 17. xxii 13. God is called Isa xlv 15. the Saviour of Israel and the same thing is said of the Word v. 17 22 24. where the Messias is treated of But I foresee these consequences will not seem strong enough to a Socinian Let us therefore produce out of Philo and the Targums some places where the Notions of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Messias do appear positively the same For Philo 1. He declares that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the first begotten of God in Euseb Praep. vii 13. p. 323. which he had from Prov. viii 25. Psal ii 7. But this proves unanswerably that in the judgment of the Old Jews the Messias should be the same Person with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing the Messias is called the first-born Psal lxxxix 28. 2. He explains the last Zech. vi 12. by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Text runs thus Thus speaks the Lord of Hosts saying behold the man whose name is the Branch or as the Greek has it the East he shall grow up out of his place and he shall build the Temple of the Lord. This is understood by the Jews of the Messias But Philo plainly says that this East here spoken of is the Word the first-born of God the Creator of the World
the Jews the reality of his humane Nature Had he said plainly I am God the Jews who in their Scriptures were so much used to Divine Appearances might have had just Grounds of doubting the truth of the Incarnation of the Word They had lookt upon his Flesh as a Phantasm which persuasion of theirs would have destroyed the Notion of his Humane Nature Therefore to persuade them of the truth of his Humane Nature he was born as other Men are he grew by degrees as other Men do he suffered hunger and thirst was subject to weariness and to all the other infirmities incident to a real Man growing even in Knowledg and Wisdom by degrees as other Men do It was absolutely necessary it should be so because he was to be like his Brethren in all things sin only excepted as St. Paul says applying to him that place of Psal xxii where the Messias says he would declare the Name of God to his Brethren and of Psal xlv 7. where he mentions his fellows And also because he was to be the seed of the woman spoken of Genesis iii. 15. And if for all these real marks his being a true Man some Hereticks called the Valentinians believed his Body to have been only a Phantasm without any reality And others named the Apollinarians affirmed that the Word supplied in Christ the functions of a Rational Soul though he had really no such Soul Had Christ expresly stiled himself God he had given the Jews and Hereticks occasion of fancying that his Humane Nature was not a reality but that this last Apparition of God in a Humane Body was like the old ones when God appeared in the form of a Man and wrestled with Jacob though it was without a true Incarnation the thing being done by a Body made of Air on purpose or by the Body of a real Man but borrowed only for the time and presently after put off Secondly Let it be considered that Christ used that caution that he might not give the utmost provocation to the Jews who were much offended to see him in so mean a condition For though they might perhaps have owned such a despicable Man to be a Prophet yet they could by no means own him to be the Messias of whom they expected that he should be a Temporal and a great King Therefore they could hardly bear our Saviour's discourse about the Dignity of his Person they took up stones to throw at him when he told them he was greater than Abraham and before Abraham Joh. viii They said he had a Devil when he told them he had power to raise himself from the dead and also those who did believe in him How then could they have heard from him an express declaration that he was God Maker of Heaven and Earth Thirdly It must be also observed that there being many Prophecies by the fulfilling of which the Messias was to be known Christ declared himself by degrees and fulfilled those Prophecies one after another that the Jews might have a competent time to examine every particular To this end he did for some years Preach the Gospel He wrought his Miracles at several times and in several places He wrought such and such Miracles and not others imitating herein the Sun which by degrees appears and enlightens the World This might easily be shewn more at large but that the thing is plain to any that have attentively read the Gospel What I have noted is sufficient to shew that Jesus Christ was not to assume the Name of God in the time of his Humiliation although he hath done the equivalent in so many places where he speaks of himself as of the Son of God the Memra the Shekinah the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is God 2ly That it was more fit for him to let it be concluded from his performing all the Ministry of the Messias as it was by Thomas Joh. xx 18. Not that they knew then and not before that he was he from whom Life and an Eternal Life should be expected Upon which Grotius seems to Ground his Godhead in h. l. but because then they saw in him a full demonstration that he was the true God the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whom the Life of all Creatures is derived as is said Joh. i. A second Objection is taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. John has used in the first Chapter of his Gospel to denote our Saviour's Divinity For if we hear the Unitarians First it is not clear that any other of the Writers of the New Testament has used it in that sense And then the Notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be grounded only on the Greek Expressions and not on the Hebrew Tongue as it is used in the Original of the Old Testament To answer that Objection I must take notice 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not unknown to the Jews before Jesus Christ to express the Shekinah that is the Angel of the Covenant So we see in the Book of Wisdom chap. xviii 15. Omnipotens sermo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tuus de coelo à regalibus sedibus durus debellator and so in some other places of the Book of Ecclesiasticus as chap. i. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know that Grotius pretends upon the place of Wisdom that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies a created Angel and quotes Philo to confirm his Explication But I maintain that no body but Grotius could have advanced such a false Explication and be so bold as to quote Philo for it whose Testimonies which I have quoted before are so clearly against him and distinguish so exactly the Angels from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I pray the Reader only to remark this that if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies here a created Angel then it was the current Notion of the Synagogue concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that when St. John speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his first Chapter either 't was only his meaning that such a created Angel was made Flesh and the Hellenist Jews could not understand it otherwise or St. John was to explain the sense of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to a new an unknown and unheard signification that he never did and so he help'd the Arians and confounded the Orthodox Some body will perhaps excuse Grotius who saith in the Preface to his Annotations upon this Book that such a piece hath been inserted by a Christian who hath fobb'd in many other things and it was the sense of Mr. N. in his Judgment of the Fathers But Grotius who believes the Works of Philo true hath shut that Door against this Evasion when he confirms the truth of that Saying of the Author by the Authority of Philo the Jew and 't is so strange an Accusation and without any ground that it came in no body's head before Grotius 2dly I answer That according
1. p. 16. l. 4. p. 198. l. 6. p. 275 279 308. l. 7. p. 351 and 371. Thirdly The very Heathen Authors own that Plato borrowed his Notions from Moses as Numenius who as Theodoret tells us did acknowledge that Plato had learnt in Egypt the Doctrine of the Hebrews during his stay there for 13 years Theod. Serm. 1. If any of the Ancient Fathers have quoted any thing out of Plato concerning the Trinity they look'd upon it not as Plato's Invention but as a Doctrine which he had either from Moses or from those who had it from him Not to say That in what manner soever Plato proposed this Doctrine it is much at one For his Notions about it are not very exact and no wonder since it was natural enough for a Greek to mix fabulous Notions with what he had from others and they to adulterate it The truth which we profess and draw from a Divine Original in this matter is not at all concerned with Plato's Visions And yet since the Notion of the Trinity could not possibly be framed by any mortal Man Two considerable Uses may be made of Plato's Notion about it First To shew That this Doctrine is not of Justin Martyr's Invention since Plato who lived five hundred Years before Justin had scattered some Notions of it in his Books which he had probably learned from the Jews or from some other Philosophers who conversed with the Jews And Secondly To make Men sensible that the greatest Scholars among the Heathens did not find so many Absurdities in it as the now Socinians do There is an Objection of greater moment than all the Objections which the Unitarian Authors can oppose to my using the Authority of the Judgment of the Old Synagogue and I will not dissemble it although they have not been sensible of it It is the Authority of St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy and Titus where he rejects with an abhorrence the Jewish Fables and Genealogies as the fruits of the falsly named Knowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. vi 20 21. which he compares with a Cancer I acknowledg freely that Ireneus Lib. 1. c. 20. and Tertul. adv Valentin understood those expressions of St. Paul against the Gnosticks of their time who were come from Simon Magus And I acknowledge with Grotius upon 1 Tim. i. 4. that by those infinite Genealogies which are spoken of by St. Paul as coming from a vain Philosophy and controverted by some of the Heretick Jews Saint Paul had a mind to speak against several Notions of the then new Jewish Cabbala which was in truth a mixture of the true Tradition of the Synagogue and of the Notions of the Platonists and Pythagoreans who had borrowed their Notions from the Egyptians And I will not insist now too much upon the judgment of those who think probably enough that the Egyptians had borrowed their Notions from the Jews But after all I maintain that this Objection against this part of the new Jewish Cabala which I mention as having such an impure birth and having been corrupted amongst the Jews doth not abate the authority of the proofs of the Trinity and of the Notions of the Messias which I have brought from all the Jewish Writers and which hath nothing common with those innumerable aeones which are mention'd by Ireneus and Tertullian as received by the Valentinians and which the Apostle St. Paul hath condemned in some of the Doctors of the Synagogue Let us suppose that there had been in the Body of the Synagogue before Jesus Christ some Sadducees and some Baithusaei whose Birth the Jews say was as old as that of the Sadducees but who seem not so ancient but to have their Origin from one Simon Boethus an Alexandrian Jew mentioned by Josephus Let us suppose that from the time of the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes some amongst the Jews had adopted some Platonick or Pythagorean Notions What is that to the Body of the Jewish Nation which was not included in Palestina or Egypt but spread every where To the contrary I maintain justly that when Saint Paul condemns the Jewish Genealogies he confirms all my Proofs from the Jewish Writers who did not ground their Ideas upon the Doctrine of Pythagoras or Plato but upon the Text of the Old Testament When St. Paul hath used the same Notions which are in the Apocryphal Books in Philo and in the Chaldee Paraphrases which no body accuses to have used those foolish Genealogies which were found amongst the Valentinians and are to be found now amongst some of the Cabbalists he hath secured my Argument taken from the pure Traditional Exposition of the Ancient Jews this is all I have a mind to contend for in this matter leaving those Cabbalists who have mixed some heathenish Notions with the Ancient Divinity of the Fathers to shift for themselves and being not concerned in all their other Speculations although since they have quite forgot this impure Origin they have very much laboured to uphold them upon some Texts of Scripture but not well understood and taken in another sense CHAP. XXIV An Answer to some Objections of the Modern Jews and of the Unitarians THAT the Reader may be fully satisfied of the Truth which I have asserted by so many proofs taken out of the Apocryphal Books of the Chaldee Paraphrasts and out of Philo the most ancient Jewish Author we have as to expounding the Scripture I must solve some difficulties made by the Modern Jews and Socinians about the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so frequent amongst the ancient Interpreters of Scripture Moses Maimonides who lived about the end of the Twelfth Century affirms that the word Memra which in Chaldaick is the same as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek was made use of by the ancient Paraphrasts on purpose to prevent Peoples thinking God had a Body More Nevoch Lib. 1. c. 21. He says also that for the same reason they often used the words Jekara Glory Shekinah Majesty or habitation But he does manifestly wrong them For if it had been so they would have used that caution on other occasions whereas they often render places of Scripture where mention is made only of the Lord by these words before the face of the Lord which are apt to make people fancy God as being Corporeal Besides if what he says were true they would have used the same caution where ever the Notion of his being Corporeal might be attributed to God But it is certain that in many places as apt to give that Notion of God they do not use the word Memra or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as certain that in many others they use it where there is no danger of fancying God as having a Body As Gen. xx 21. Exod. ii 25. Exod. vi 8. Exod. xix 17. Lev. xxvi 46. Numb xi 20. Numb xxiii 21. and in many more quoted by Rittangel on Jetzira pag. 96. and in his Book Libra
Veritatis Besides it is so palpable that the ancient Jews particularly Philo have given the Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being a Divine Person that Maimonides his answer can be no other than an Evasion Nay it is observable that the word Davar which in Hebrew signifies Word is sometimes explained by that which is a true Person in the Books of the Old Jewish Authors who lived since Christ even in those whose authority Maimonides does acknowledge One of their ancient Books namely R. Akiba's Letters has these words on the Letter Gimel God said Thy Word is setled for ever in Heaven and this Word signifies nothing else but the healing Angel as it is written Psal cvii. 20. He sent his Word and he healed them He must needs mean a Person namely an Angel though perhaps he might mistake him for a created Angel Lastly The Notion which Maimonides does suggest can never be applied to Psal cx 1. which is thus rendred by the Paraphrast The Lord said to his Word where the Word does manifestly denote the Messias as the ancient Jews did fairly acknowledge It is true that in the common Edition that place of the Targum is rendered thus The Lord said in his Word or by his Word but it is a poor shift For in his Word does certainly signifie to his Word or of his Word the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Chaldeans having naturally that double signification as appears from many places Thus it signifies concerning or of Deut. vi 7. Jer. xxxi 20. Cant. viii 8. Job xix 18. Psal l. 20. It signifies to in Hos i. 2. Hab. ii 1. Zech. i. 4 9 13 14. Numb xii 2 6. 1 Sam. xxv 39. You may to this observation about Psal cx 1. add that of the Text of Jonathan's Targum on Isa xxviii 5. where the Messias is named in the room of the Lord of Hosts The second Evasion used by Moses Maimonides is More Nevoch pag. 1. c. 23. where he tells us in what sense Isaiah said that God comes out of his place namely that God does manifest his Word which before was hidden from us For says he all that is created by God is said to be created by his Word as Psal xxxiii By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the breath of his mouth By a comparison taken from Kings who do what they have a mind to by their word as by an Instrument For God needs no Instrument to work by but he works by his bare Will neither has he any Word properly so called Thus far Maimonides But it is not true as I shewed before that the Word in the Chaldee Paraphrase signifies no more than the manifestation of the Will of God I have quoted so many places out of the Apocryphal Books out of Philo and out of the Paraphrase it self which shew the contrary that Maimonides is not to be believed upon his bare word against so many formal proofs It is not true neither that Psal xxxiii 6. expresses only the bare act of the Will of God as Maimonides does suppose I shewed before that the great Authors of the Jewish Traditions which Maimonides was to follow when he writ his More Nevochim give another sense to those words and do acknowledge that they do establish the Personality of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Holy Ghost which they do express by the second and third Sephira or Emanation in the Divine Essence That which made Maimonides stumble was that he believed that Christians made the Word to be an Instrument different from God which is very far from their opinion For they do as well as Philo apprehend the Word as a Person distinct from the Father but not of a different nature from his but having the same Will and Operation common to him and the Father and this they have by Divine Revelation A famous Socinian whom I mentioned already being hard put to it by the Authority of the Targums has endeavoured in a Tract which he writ and which has this Title Disceptatio de Verbo vel Sermone Dei cujus creberrima fit mentio apud Paraphrast as Chaldaeos Jonathan Onkelos Targum Hierosolymitanum to shake it off by boldly affirming that the Word of the Lord is barely used by them to express the following things The Decree of God His Commands His inward Deliberation His Promise His Covenant and his Oath to the Israelites His design to punish or to do good A Prophetick Revelation The Providence which protected good Men. In short the Word by which God does promise or threaten and declare what he is resolved to do Of which the said Author pretendeth to give many instances I have already proved how false this is what that Author so positively affirms that the term Word is never found to be used by the Paraphrasts to denote a Person The very place which I just now quoted out of R. Akiba's Alphabet were enough to confute him I need not repeat neither what I said that supposing all were true which he affirms of the use of the word Memra in the Paraphrasts yet he could not but acknowledge that Philo gives quite another Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely as of a real Person in which he visibly follows the Author of the Book of Wisdom The Unitarians of this Kingdom do for that reason reject Philo's Works as being Supposititious and written after our Saviour's time I say therefore that the sense which he puts upon the Targums is very far from the true meaning of the words which they use when they speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in many places I shall not examine whether in any place of the Targums the word Memra is used instead of that of Davar which in Hebrew signifies the Word or Command of God Rittangel positively denies it And the truth is that the Targums commonly render the word Davar by Pitgama and not by Memra To be fully satisfied of it one needs but take an Hebrew Concordance upon the word Davar and search whether the Paraphrasts ever rendered it by Memra But supposing Rittangel should deny the thing too positively however the Targumists do so exactly distinguish the Word when they mention him as a Divine Person that it is impossible to mistake him in all places by putting upon them those senses which the Socinian Author endeavours to affix to them that he may destroy the Notion which they give of the Word as being a Divine Person And though I have already alledged many proofs of it yet this being a matter of great moment I will again briefly speak to it to confute that Author and those who shall borrow his Arguments Let an impartial Reader judge whether any of the Socinian Author's senses can be applied to the word Memra in Onkelos his Targum Gen. iii. 8. They heard the voice of the Word of the Lord. And Gen. xv 1 5 9.
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
all Evils that might happen and that he esteems this to be no less a benefit than Sustenance or Cloathing which he mentions in the second place Here is no Angel spoken of here and since the redeeming Angel is to be expounded from this place he cannot be a created Angel for here is no other spoken of but the Lord. 4. By fancying him a created Angel who delivered Jacob from all Evil they make Jacob to be a mere Idolater as ascribing that to a Creature which belongs only to the Lord of the Creation The Scripture appropriates to God the Title of Redeemer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor do godly Men ever say of a Creature that it delivers them from all Evil. David I am sure never does but when he speaks of the Tribulations of the Righteous he adds but the Lord delivers him out of all Ps xxxiv 20. And Jacob on another occasion directs his Prayer to the Lord that appeared to him at Luz saying Save me from the hand of my brother Esau for I fear him much Gen. xxxii 9 10 11. 5. God as I said has so appropriated the Name of Redeemer to himself that Jacob could not without Sacriledge communicate this Title to any Creature though never so excellent We cannot be ignorant that David makes this the proper Name of God Psal xix 14. as does Isaiah Chap. xliii 14. xlvii 4. And this Jonathan confesses on Isa lxiii 16. in these words Thou art our redeemer thy name is from everlasting i. e. this is the Name that was designed for God from the beginning which yet can't hold true if in this place Gen. xlviii 16. it be ascribed by Jacob to a created Angel 6. It appears plainly from Gen. xlix that Jacob neither desired nor expected any Blessing from a created Angel but only from God Thus he prays c. The God of thy Father shall be thy helper and the Almighty shall bless thee with the Blessings of Heaven above c. Not a word of a mere Angel that redeemed him from all Evil so far was the Patriarch in his former Blessing from begging of an Angel the Multiplication of his Seed which was the only thing which he could now expect of God as the Jews own Bechai Praef. in Pent. f. 1. c. 1. 7. The same Conclusion may be drawn from the very Order of Jacob's Prayer Had Jacob intended a created Angel by him whom he names in the last place as a Redeemer from Evil and whose Intercession with God he bespeaks in behalf of his Children would he not have prayed to the Angel in the first place It is most rational so to do He that wants the Interest of a great Man to introduce him to the King he does not in the first place direct his Petition to the King immediately but first to the great Man and afterwards by him to the King Let the Papists therefore look to the Absurdity of their proceeding while they first pray to God and then to Saints and Angels Let those Jews who are of the mind of Isaac Abarbanel and Franco Serrano in his Spanish Notes on this place and stickle for Angel-worship see how they can clear themselves of this difficulty as well as reconcile themselves with those ancienter Jews who abhor this sort of Idolatry Maim Per. Misna ad tit Sanh c. xi SECT IV. How firm these Reasons are to shew the Angel here spoken of to be an uncreated and not a created Angel is I hope evident to every one Something however of great importance may be still added to illustrate this weighty Argument and that is the Judgment of the Ancient Synagogue The most ancient Jewish Writers and they that received the Traditionary Doctrine from them though mortal Enemies of the Christian Religion yet agree with the Christians in the Sense of this Text. For God be thanked such Truths were not renounced all at once by these Enemies of our Faith but they began to dissemble them by degrees as they found them turning against them in their Disputes with the Christians To begin with the Writings of the Jews before Christ we find it is God the Word ver 12. who is described as he that delivers from all Evil in the Book of Wisd xvi 8. no doubt with respect to this place where he takes the Angel that delivered Jacob from all Evil to be God The same Doctrine is to be met with in Philo the Jew that lived before Christ and in Christ's time He * Allegor ii p. 71. D. expresly affirms of the Angel that delivered Jacob from all Evil that he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so does Onkelos in his Chaldee Paraphrase translating the Words of Jacob simply as they lie in the Text without any Addition Jonathan indeed seems to be of another mind in his Paraphrase that runs thus God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac worshipped the Lord that fed me from the time I began to be till this day may be pleas'd that the Angel may bless the Lads whom thou hast ordained to deliver me from all Evil. Here he distinguishes the Angel from God but that he did not mean a Creature by this Angel is clear for that in other places he translates this Angel by the Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and especially in that remarkable place where the same Angel is treated of Isaiah lxiii 8 9 10. he saith it was the Word that redeemed Israel out of all their Afflictions Let us pass to the Jews after Christ's time and shew that they did not immediately renounce the Doctrine of their Forefathers The Author of the Book Zohar in Par. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fol. 123. hath these words which he repeats often afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come see the Angel that redeemed me is the Shekinah that went along with him This is sufficiently intimated by the ancient Author Tanchuma in his Book Jelammedenu who notes on Exod. xxxiii that the Jews would not have a created Angel go before them but God himself in these words Moses answered I will not have an Angel but thy own self Now the Jewish Commentators on this place of Exod. xxxiii explain of the Shekinah the words thy own self and always distinguish the Shekinah from all created Beings R. Salomon in his Notes on this Text has these words The Angel that delivered me i. e. the Angel who was wont to be sent to me in my affliction as it is said Gen. xxxi 11 13. And the Angel of God spake to me in a dream saying Jacob I am the God of Bethel c. The Note of R. Moses Ben Nachman on this Text Gen. xlviii 16. is very remarkable The Redeeming Angel saith he is he that answered him in the time of his affliction and who said to him I am the God of Bethel c. he of whom it is said that my name is in him The like he has on Exod. iii. where the appearance in the Bush
lectitant Nazaraei Salvator inducitur lâ—quens Modo me arripuit Mater mea Spiritus Sanctus This Passage of the Nazarene's Gospel would never have been understood if we had not known that the Jews call the Holy Spirit Imma Mother as well as Binah Understanding as we see in Zohar and other Cabalists And perhaps from hence Philo de Temul calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of the World Nor are we to fancy that the Talmudists oppose the Cabalists herein No Maimonides who is a Talmudist agrees in this with the Cabalists as appears from his Book de fundament legis ch 2. Mor. Neb. p. 1. ch 68. Lastly Nor is it to be urged against what I have said that the Jews have formal Disputes against the Doctrine of the Trinity as Saadiah Sepher Emunoth ch 2. Maim Mor. Neb. p. 1. c. 71. For we may remember 1. That all their Disputes with the Christians are built on this wrong bottom That the Christians are Tritheists and deny the Unity of the Deity 2. That almost all those who dispute against the Christians on this Head contradict themselves in their Writings that are not Polemical but are drawn up in cool Blood out of the heat of dispute of which Saadiah Haggaen as I have shewed before is a Proof 3. The Study of their Rites having been the great business of the Jews for many Centuries it hath happen'd that their greatest Authors have applied themselves but little to the Study of the Traditions concerning their Doctrines In Maimonides one of the greatest Men the Jews ever had we have a plain Example of it He tells us That it was towards the declension of his Life before he could turn himself to study their Traditions and he laments his Misfortune in that he could not begin this Study sooner This is related by R. Elias Chaiim who saith he had it from a Letter of Maimonides to one of his Scholars I have said before that these Notions of the Cabalist Jews are received in all parts of the World where the Jews are found in any numbers And I say it not without good reason For 1. The Rabboth are Books received whereever there are Jews Now this Book begins with the Notion of a Second Person 2. For the Cabalists they are dispersed with the other Jews and in all places where Learning is cultivated and Study encouraged there they are to be found 3. We may well infer the Universality of this Tradition from the several different Authors that have written alike on this Subject without any Consent or Communication together that we know of R. Saadiah Hagaon writ in Babylon in the Tenth Century He was an Egyptian by Birth and the Translator of the Pentateuch into Arabick and wrote a bitter Book against the Christians which hath been printed at Thessalonica and since at Amsterdam where he disputes against the Christians Trinity yet he teaches not only the Unity but this distinction from everlasting in the Deity R. Moses Bar Nachman in the Thirteenth Century and R. Judas the Levite writ in Spain and yet we see how they agree in their Notions with the Cabalists which flourished other-where R. Aaron writ at Babylon and yet his Notions are as exactly like those of Spain as if he had trod in their Steps R. Moses Botril writ in France and he teaches the same things He that would see the Places at large may consult their Comment on the Book Jetzira It is now time to return to the Judgment of the Ancient Synagogue and to consider how it agrees or differs with us in the other Matters we have in hand CHAP. XII That the Jews had a distinct Notion of the Word as of a Person and of a Divine Person too A Great part of the Dispute we have with the Socinians depending on the true meaning of the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is spoken of as being he that created the World and was at length made Flesh and whom we Christians look upon as the promised Messias I think I can't do the Truth a greater service than in clearing this Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and shewing what thoughts the ancient Jews had concerning it Socinus confesses that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Person for he owns that St. John did describe the Man Christ Jesus by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and attributed to him the Creation of the Church which is according to him the new World But here in England the followers of Socinus will not stand by this Exposition but understand by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that virtue by which God created Heaven and Earth as Moses relates Gen. i. They obstinately deny this Virtue to be a Person i. e. an Intelligent Subsistence and rather look upon it as a Divine Attribute which they say was particularly discovered in the Mission of Jesus Christ for the Salvation of Mankind It cannot be denied us that St. John being one of the Circumcision did write with an especial respect to the Jews that they might understand him and receive benefit by it and therefore it cannot be doubted but that when he called Jesus Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he used a word that was commonly known among the Jews of those times in which he lived Otherwise if he had used this word in a sense not commonly known to the Jews he would have signified to them the new Idea he had affixed to it But he gives not the least intimation of any thing new in it though he uses the word so many times in the very beginning of his Gospel It is certain therefore that he used it in the sense wherein it was then commonly understood by the Jews Now the Idea the Jews had of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the same they had of a real and proper Person that is a living Intelligent free Principle of Action That this was their Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word we shall prove by the Works of Philo and the Chaldee Paraphrases To begin with Philo He conceives the Word to be a true and proper cause For he declares in about a hundred places that God created the World by his Word He conceived the Word to be an Intelligent Cause Because in him according to Philo are the Original Ideas of all things that are expressed in the Works of the Creation De Opif. p. 3. G. 4. C.D. He makes the Word a Cooperator with God in the Creation of Man and says that God spake those words to him Let Us make Man Gen. i. 26. It may be added that he calls the Word the Image of God and makes Man the Image of this Image * Lib. Quis rer Divin Haer. p. 400. E. F. These are some of the Characters that represent the Word as a true Person But there are others no less demonstrative of this Truth As 1. where Philo asserts that the 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is begotten of God Alleg. ii p. 76. B. Which can agree only to a Person And 2. where he proves that the Word acted and spoke in all the Divine Appearances that are mentioned in the Old Testament which certainly supposes a Person 3. Where he describes the Word as presiding over the Empires of the World and determining the Changes that befall them Lib. quod Deus sit Immutab p. 248. D. 4ly Where he brings in the Word for a Mediator between God and Men Quis rer Div. haer p. 393. that renders God propitious to his Creatures de Somn. p 447. E. F. That is the Instructer of Men Ib. p. 448. and their Shepherd alluding to Psal xxiii 1. The Chaldee Paraphrases are full of Notions and Expressions relating to the Word conformable to those of Philo touching the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that he must wink hard who does not see that in their sense the word is truly a Person And 1. they almost always distinguish the Memra or Word of the Lord which answers to Philo's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the word Pithgama which signifies a Matter or a Discourse as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does in Greek 2. They ascribe the Creation of the World to the Word 3. They make it the Word that appeared to the Ancients under the name of the Angel of the Lord. 4. The Word that saved Noah in the time of the Flood and made a Covenant with him Onkelos on Gen. vii viii 5. They say that Abraham believed in the Word which thing was imputed to him for Righteousness Onkel on Gen. xv 6. 6. That the Word brought Abraham out of Chaldea Onk. on Gen. xv 7. and commanded him to Sacrifice Gen. xv 9. and gave him the Prophecy related v. 13. 7. That Abraham swore by the Word Onk. on Gen. xxi 23. 8. That the Word succoured Ishmael Gen. xxi 21. and Joseph in his Bondage Gen. xxxix 2 3. The like Notions has Onkelos in his Targum on Exodus 1. It is the Word's assistance that God promises Moses Exod. iii. 12. iv 12. xviii 19. 2. It is the Word in whom Israel believed as well as in Moses Exod. xiv 32. 3. It is the Word that redeems Israel out of Egypt Exod. xv 2. 4. It is the Word against whom Israel murmur'd in Sin Exod. xvi 8. 5. It is the Word before whom the People marched to receive the Law Exod. xix 17. 6. It is the Word whose Presence is promised in the Tabernacle Exod. xxx 6. xxxvi 42. which is repeated Numb viii 29. 7. It is the Word between whom and Israel the Sabbath is made a Sign Exod. xxxi 13 17. and so Lev. xxxvi 46. 8. It is the Word whose Protection was promised Moses when he desired to see God Exod. xxxiv 22. Much the same has Onkelos on Leviticus and Numbers 1. It is the Word whose Commandments the Israelites were to observe carefully Lev. viii 35. xviii 30. xxii 9. Numb ix 19. xx 23. 2. It is spoken of the Word that he will not forsake the People if they continue in their Obedience Lev. xxviii 11. 3. By the Word God regards his People Ib. 4. The Majesty of the Word did rest among the Israelites Numb xi 20. 5. It is the Word whom Moses exhorts the Jews not to rebell against Numb xiv 9. xx 24. 6. They believed in the Word Num. xiv 11. xx 12 7. The Word meets Balaam Numb xxiii and opens his Eyes xxii 31. The same things or the like we find in Onkelos on Deuteronomy 1. The Word brought Israel out of Egypt and fought for them Deut. i. 30. iii. 22. viii 2. xx 1. 2. The Word led Israel in the Pillar of a Cloud Ch. i. 32. 3. The Word spake out of the fire at Horeb V. 34 36. Moses was Mediator between the Word and his People V. 5. 5. Moses Exhorts the Jews to obey the Word xiv 18. xv 5. xxvii 14. xxviii 1 3 15 45 62. xxx 8 19 20. 6. The Word conducts Israel under Joshua to the Land of Canaan xxxi 6 8. 7. The Word created the World Chap. xxxiii 27. So agreeable as you see are the Notions of Onkelos to those of Philo though the one writ in Egypt the other in Palestine and both before the time of our Lord Jesus Christ But besides Onkelos on the Pentateuch we have two other Paraphrases the one which is very diffuse is said to be Jonathan's the other which is called the Jerusalem Targum and is short and as it seems imperfect The Reader may soon judg by comparing them whether they differ from Philo and Onkelos or no. The Jerusalem Targum saith That God Created the World by his Wisdom which he grounds on the word Bereshith Gen. i. 1. And Philo means the same things when he calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Emanation de Confus Ling. p. 267. B. The same Targum saith the Word made Man after his Image Gen. i. 27. Jonathan's affirms the Garden of Eden was planted by the Word for the Just before the Creation of the World Gen. ii 8. And both Jonathan's and the Jerusalem Targum say the Word spoke to Adam in the Garden Gen. iii. 9. the Word lifted up Enoch to Heaven Gen. v. 24. Jonathan's affirms that the Word protected Noah and shut the Door of the Ark upon him Gen. vii 16. That the Word threw down the Tower at Babel Gen. xi 6. And both have it That God promised Abraham that his Word should protect him Gen. xv 1. Jonathan's makes it the Word that plagued Pharaoh for Abraham's sake Gen. xii 17. The Jerusalem Targum saith it was the Word that appeared to Abraham at the Door of the Tent Gen. xviii 1. And that the Word rained Fire from before the Lord Gen. xix 24. And both that Targum and Jonathan's say That Abraham taught his People to hope in the Name of the Word of the Lord Gen. xxi 33. The Jerusalem Targum makes Abraham say The Word of the Lord will prepare a Sacrifice Gen. xxii 8. And asserts that Abraham invoked the Word and called him Lord in his Prayer Gen. xxii 14. Jonathan's Targum brings in Abraham swearing by the Word of the Lord Gen. xxiv 3. And God promising his Word should succour Isaac Gen. xxiii 24 28. repeated Gen. xxxi 3 5 42. xxxii 9. The same Targum says That the Word of the Lord made Rachel bear a Child Gen. xxx 22. Which is consonant to what Philo saith That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 caused Isaac to be born Alleg. l. 2. p. 77. According to this Targum the Word sent Michael to save Thamar Gen. xxxviii 25. The Word went down with Jacob into Egypt Gen. xlvi 1 2 3 4. The Word succours Joseph Gen. xlix 25. Which Joseph acknowledges Gen. l. 20. We may trace the same Notions in their Targums on Exodus According to Jonathan's The Word built Houses for the Midwives that feared God Exod. i.