come in like a flood the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him and the Redeemer shall come unto Sion Again Isa lxi 1. The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon Me because the Lord hath anointed me They are the words which Christ applied to himself Luke iv 18. It may not be amiss here to answer an Objection against the use that we have made of those Texts wherein God saith WE and US in the Plural which manner of speaking the Jews cannot but see does denote a Plurality R. Kimchi on Isa vi 8. makes that Observation But then he fancies it is spoken with relation to Angels whom God is pleased to call in by way of Consultation In the Text Isa vi those whom God consults with are to send as well as he and those in Gen. i. 26. are to make Man as well as he And surely God would not join the Angels with himself in the sending of his Prophets much less would he give Angels a share in the Glory of making Man the Master-piece of the Creation Angels are Creatures as well as Man and were but a Day elder than he according to some of the Jews a Week older than he they could not be And at the making of Man it is believed with very good reason that those Angels were not yet fallen whom we now call Devils It seems not very likely that as soon as they were made God should call them into Council for making of another of his Creatures much less that he should make them Creators together with himself especially when this gives them a Title to the Worship of Intelligent Beings such as Man who if this had been true ought to have worshipp'd not only Angels but Devils as being his Creators together with God But the Truth is so far on the contrary that as at first Man was made but a little lower than the Angels so there is a Man since made Lord both of Angels and Devils whom they are to worship This I know our Unitarians will now deny But to come to an end of this matter It is certainly below the Infinite Majesty of God in any of his works whatever to say to any of his Creatures Let us make or Let us do this or that And for that idle Fancy of a Consultation it is not only absurd in it self but it is contrary to the holy Scripture that asks Isa xl 13. Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord or who hath been his Counsellor Which in effect is a flat denial that there is any Creature to be call'd into Consultation with God And therefore whoever they were to whom God said this Let us make or Let us do this or that they could be no Creatures they must be uncreated Beings like himself if there were any such then in being But that then at the Creation such there were even the Word and the Spirit has been shewn from the beginning of that History I think beyond contradiction Thus we have collected a number of Places from the Old Testament which speak of a Trinity and consequently do reduce the Plurality which we proved before to a Trinity in the Unity of the Divine Nature We see there Three distinct Characters of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit We see the Generation of the Son express'd and the Mission of the Holy Spirit upon the Son when he came to live in our Nature We see the number Three still observed in begging Pardon of Sins of Blessings and in returning Praises to God intimating there were Three from whom all good things come and who are therefore the Objects of Prayer It remains that we enquire whether the like Inferences which we draw from these Texts were made by the Jews before Jesus Christ which is the second Particular of our proposed Method I shall not repeat here what in the preceding Chapters I proved That both Philo and the Chaldee Paraphrasts had such Notions of the Unity of God as were not repugnant to his Plurality The Reader can't have forgotten already a thing of such importance My business now is to shew that the Ancient Jews plainly own Two Powers in God which they distinguish from God and yet call each of them God the one being the Son of God the other the Holy Spirit who is called the Spirit of God Notwithstanding that I take the Chaldee Paraphrasts to be ancienter than Philo yet I chuse to begin with Philo's Testimonies rather than theirs for three Reasons First Because he writ in the way of Treatises and therefore much larger and clearer than they did that writ only in the way of Translation or Paraphrase adding nothing of their own but only sometimes a very short Note on the Text And therefore their Writings are much likelier to be explained by his than his by theirs 2dly Because the Passages in Philo for the Existence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Person coeternal with the Father are so evident as to leave the Socinians no other way of answering them but to deny with Mr. N. that the Books that contain them were written by Philo the Jew 3dly A third Reason is because these Passages of Philo being written at Alexandria and abounding with Expressions used by the Apostles when they speak of Jesus Christ as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will contribute to explain some of the Quotations we shall take out of the Paraphrases in use at Babylon and Jerusalem These three great Cities Babylon Jerusalem and Alexandria were the three great Academies of the Jews till the destruction of the Temple under Vespasian So that whatever was received among the Jews in these three Cities before our Saviour's time may well pass for the Opinion of the Jewish Church at that time Let us proceed then to some of those Passages in Philo the Jew wherein he declares that there are Two such Powers in God as we call Two Persons and no one shall make sense of those Passages that calls them otherwise 1. In general he acknowledges that God hath Two Chief Supreme Powers one of which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord. De Abrah p. 286 287. F. De vit Mos iii. p. 517. F. 2. That these Two Powers are Uncreated Quod Deus sit immut p. 238. A. Eternal De Plant. Noae 176. D. and Infinite or Immense and Incomprehensible De Sacr. Ab. p. 168. B. 3. On many occasions he speaks of these Two Powers as De Cherub p. 86. F. G. 87. A. De Sacr. Ab. p. 108. A. B. De Plant. Noae p. 176. D. E. Quod Deus est immut p. 229. B. De Confus Ling. p. 270. E. 271. Lib. de Prof. p. 359. G. and especially p. 362 and p. 363. B. C. D. Quis rerum divin Haer. p. 393. G. p. 394. A. C. De Somn. p. 457. F. De Monar p. 631. A. B. C. De Vict. Offeren p. 661. B. De Mund. p. 888. B. 4.
the same who spake and the World was made and who was God of Abraham Exod. iii. 14 15. vi 4. So then if he who was the God of Abraham was only an Angel that Personated God then he who created the World was a created Angel which as I have shewed is absurd 5. It is impossible to explain otherwise what the Jews so unanimously affirm that God revealed himself face to face to Moses which is more than he granted any Prophet besides unless the Word that appeared to Moses was true God and not a meer Angel See Onk. on Deut. xxxiv 10 11. and the other Targums But what say they may not an Angel bear the Name of God when he sustains the Person of God was not the Ark called Jehovah because it was a Symbol of his Person Does not Jonathan on Numb xi 35 36. say to the Ark Revelare Sermo Domini redi This is indeed a Notion which the Socinians have borrowed of Abenezra on Exod. iii. and Joseph Albo de fund c. 8. And so they pretend that the Pillar of Cloud is called the Lord Exod. xiii 21. xiv 19. that the Ark is called the Lord Numb x. 35. that the Angel is called the Lord Judg. vi 15. The Name being given to the Symbol viz. the Ark and to the second Cause namely the Angel because of their representing God But to the great displeasure of our Modern Jews and Socinians that borrow their Weapons we have still enough of the ancient Jewish Pieces left to shew their quite contrary Sentiments in these matters For 1. they as has been already observed believed that the Angel spoken of in Judg. vi 15. was the Word and that this Word created the World as has been largely proved 2. Just the reverse of what our Moderns say did the Ancients hold as we gather from Philo. For instead of an Angel's taking the place of God he saith the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 took the place of an Angel De Somn. p. 466. As to the Ark it is folly to imagin that because God promised to dwell and to hear Prayers there and enjoyned Worship toward it therefore the Ark was called Jehovah The ancient Jews spoke not to the Ark but to God who resided between the Cherubims This is plainly expressed in those words of Jonathan Numb xi 35 36. Revelare Sermo Domini c. where the words are not addressed to the Ark it self but to him that promised to give them some Tokens of his Presence namely to the Word who created the World who redeemed Israel from Egypt who heard their Prayers over the Ark and who had shut up therein the Tables of the Law which he had given them on Mount Sinai And thus the Targum on 1 Chron. xiii 6. David and all Israel went up to remove the Ark of the Lord that dwelleth between the Cherubims whose Name is called on it or as 2 Sam. vi 2. Whose Name is called by the Name of the Lord of Hosts that dwelleth between the Cherubims In short the Scripture never gives to any Place or Creature the Name Jehovah in the Nominative Case either singly or joined with any other Noun in apposition But either in an Oblique Case as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or with a Verb Substantive understood as Jehovah Nissi Jehovah Shamma What the Socinians have to say more against this the Reader may see fully answered by Buxt Hist of the Ark c. 1. And the Reader shall have a full Satisfaction upon it out of the following Chapters It remains therefore certain That the Word mentioned in Philo and the Paraphrases is not an Angel but a Divine Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Philo calls him many times and if the Expression be allowable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he speaks in Euseb Praep. vii 13. p. 322 323. But we must now go on to that which will remove all difficulties from this Subject and convince the Reader if any thing can do it That the Jews looked upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Divine Person I speak of the Appearances of an Angel who is called God and worshipped as God under the Old Testament And I thought fit for this very reason to enlarge more upon this Subject to prevent at once all the Objections of the New Jews and of the Unitarians CHAP. XIII That all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of the Lord which are spoken of in the Books of Moses have been referred to the Word by the Jews before Christ's Incarnation SOME of the late Jewish Commentators that have had Disputes with the Christians particularly those whose Comments are collected in the Hebrew Bible printed by Bomberg at Venice do oppose this Proposition with all their Might They have laid it down for a Rule That whereever God is said to be present there all the Celestial Family is with him i. e. the Angels by whose Ministry as they say God has ordinarily acted in his Appearances to men So saith Rabbi Solom Jarchi on Gen. xix 24. Whereas those Old Jews who followed the Tradition of their Forefathers being not biassed by the Spirit of Dispute understood it of the Cochma and Bina viz. of the Wisdom and of the Holy Ghost as we were admonished by R. Joseph de Karnitol in his Saare Tsedec fol. 25. col 4. fol. 26. col 2. This Collection of Commentators being of great use for the interpreting the Scriptures several Divines that have applied themselves to the Study of the Rabbins Comments have been led by them unwarily into this Opinion The renowned Grotius fell into this Snare and has had but too many Followers We have no cause to wonder that Papists do the same being concern'd as they are to find Examples in the Old Testament of Religious Worship paid to Angels the better to cover their Idolatry But in truth the Modern Jews do in this quite abandon the Ancient Sentiments of their Fathers And they who follow the Modern Jews herein do weaken I hope without thinking of it the Proofs of the Godhead of Jesus Christ by yielding up to the Modern Jews as an agreed Point between them and the Christians that which is quite contrary to what the Apostles and Primitive Christians supposed in their Disputes with the Jews of their Times and which our later Jews themselves would never have submitted to if they had known any other way to avoid the Arguments that were brought against them out of their own Scriptures It behoves us therefore to give their just Force to those Arguments that were used by the Apostles and Fathers and to recover to Truth all her Advantages by shewing how bad Guides our Modern Jews are in the matters now before us and how they have deviated from the constant Doctrine of their Ancestors to find out ways to defend themselves against the Christians I affirm then for certain That the Appearances of God or of any Angel that is called Jehovah or the God of
and forced sense on them But with what face the Mahometans can object this I know not when they themselves do so grosly pervert the passages in Deut. xxxiii 33. Hab. iii. 3. Deut. xviii and xxxiv in favour of Mahomet and his Law and in favour of Mahomet only many Texts in Isaiah Ezekiel Zephany and other Prophets as you may see them alledged by Hazzadaula in his Fourth Book but especially when they urge all those places in St. John's Gospel where the Paraclete is spoken of as so many Promises of Mahomet's coming I must confess some warm indiscreet Mahometans in dispute with the Christians have given them occasion to believe that the Mahometans generally accused the Christians with falsifying their Scriptures Just as the petty Controvertists of the Church of Rome have impudently averred the Scripture to be corrupt in many places the better to establish their Church's Authority And thus we find Ahmed the Mahometan charging both Jews and Christians with altering of their Bibles Hotting Hist p. 364. But as there are in the Roman Church Men wiser and calmer that see the consequences of so rash an Accusation and have therefore proved unanswerably the Integrity of the Sacred Text so are there among the Mahometans more wary and cautious Disputants who despise and disallow those false Charges advanced by some of their party against the Jews and Christians Such a one was Hazzadaula in the Book before cited who solidly proves that by the care the Masorite Jews took to ascertain the Text of the Old Testament it was impossible they should be willing to corrupt it and that if they had been willing yet they were divided into so many Sects of unreconcileable hatred to one another as rendred it impossible for them to do it He then shews that the difference which is between the several Versions as between the Seventy and Syriack for Example was no prejudice to the Purity of the Text it self but that this arose from the several Views the Interpreters then had from the different Notions and senses they affixed to the Original words He then passes to the Examination of the various Readings which our Unitarians triumph in and shews that neither their number nor variety ought to diminish the Authority of the Originals He gives Reasons for his preference of the Jewish Bible to that of the Samaritans He proves the corruption of the Books of the Old Testament could not be made before Jesus Christ's time since he never reproached them for it which he would certainly have done had they been guilty of it nor could the corruption come in after Christ's time because the Jews and Christians who are such mortal Enemies have had these Books in keeping and daily read them though they interpret them very differently In a word we cannot easily meet with a more perfect Treatise on this Subject nor one more proper to refute the bold insinuations of some who under the name of Christians and Men skilled in Critical knowledg have undertaken to shake the Foundations of the Christian Religion and for this purpose would discredit the Authority of the Holy Scripture under the disguise of making it rest on the Authority of Tradition The Reader will I hope reflect on what I have said concerning the conduct of the Socinians in their Disputes with us relating to the Divinity of Christ To which I may add that some of them less modest though more sincere than Socinus being convinced that no Answer could be given to the Quotations from the Old Testament that were used in Proof of our Lord's Divinity thought fit to reject the Epistle to the Hebrews which contains those Quotations as an Apocryphal Piece This Enjedinus has done and thought it a quick way to deliver himself at once of many difficulties from which otherwise he could not extricate himself For had he believed Socinus's Answers Satisfactory he had never betaken himself to this last and desperate shift Others of whom Mr. N. is one do suppose that whatever makes for the advantage of the Trinitarians Cause is all forged And so they abandon the fanciful Explications Socinus has given of the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel as having no need of them so long as they can make one believe that the Trinitarians have foisted into the New Testament whatever they pleased This is still a shorter answer than the former The first rendred one particular Book only useless to the Trinitarians but this makes all those Books of the New Testament useless from whence any Objection may be drawn against the Unitarians What end the Socinians have in these dangerous attempts whether to facilitate the Conversion of the Jews as they pretend or to do service to the Atheists and Deists as it seems to be their real design is worthy every Christian 's serious enquiry If they intend the Conversion of the Jews we may well demand of them what way they will take to effect it Smalcius one of their chief Writers has affirmed that the Books of the Old Testament are of little use to convert the Jews De Div. Chr. c. x. already quoted His reason is because if we interpret any Text in the Old Testament of Jesus Christ we must interpret it Mystically that is according to quite another sense than that which the words do naturally import And now admitting this to be true what use can a Socinian make of the Old Testament against the Jews Sommerus and Francis David whose Opinions as to the denial of the Worship of Jesus Christ are embraced by Mr. N. being forced to own that the Author of the Book of Proverbs did ascribe a Son to God ch xxx 4. and yet being not willing to acknowledg it as a truth took the readiest way to defeat the Authority of this Book and placed it among the Apocryphal Writings One should wonder how such Socinians are like to be Converters who call the Jews Canon of the Scriptures into question and consequently leave no Books from whence as from a common Principle they may on each side deduce their reasonings As for the Books of the New Testament what use can they make of them Yes very great saith the Socinian If the Books of the New Testament were reformed and those Patches intirely taken from them which were never written by the Apostles though added under their Names such as the Epistle to the Hebrews which was brought in after the year 140. of Christ and stuffed with Doctrines of a Trinity and Christ's Divinity contrary to the Faith of Jesus Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians then we might hope to have success in the Conversion of the Jews But in truth they are not likely to succeed with their reformed Socinian Gospel so well as they would have us believe For 't is reasonable to think that every Jew of common sense would retort the Book on themselves and tell them frankly This is not the Christians Gospel from whence you offer to convince me this