The judgement of the ancient Jewish church, against the Unitarians in the controversy upon the holy Trinity, and the divinity of our Blessed Saviour : with A table of matters, and A table of texts of scriptures occasionally explain'd / by a divine of the Church of England.

THE JUDGMENT OF THE Ancient JEWISH Church Againſt the ƲNITARIANS, &c.

CHAP. I. The Deſign of this Book, and what Matters it treats of.

IF the Doctrines of the Ever-Bleſſed Trinity, and of the Promiſed Meſſias being very God, had been altogether unknown to the Jews, before Jeſus Chriſt began to preach the Goſpel, it would be a great prejudice againſt the Chriſtian Religion. But the contrary being once ſatisfactorily made out, will go a great way towards proving thoſe Doctrines among Chriſtians. The Socinians are ſo ſenſible of this, that they give their Cauſe for loſt if this be admitted: And therefore they have uſed their utmoſt Endeavours to weaken, or at leaſt to bring under ſuſpicion, the Arguments by which this may be proved.

It is now about ſixty years ago ſince one of that Sect writ a Latin Tract about the meaning of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Chaldee Paraphraſes, in Anſwer to Wechner, who had proved that St. John uſed this word in the firſt Chapter of his Goſpel, in the ſame ſenſe that the Chaldee Paraphraſes had uſed it before Chriſt's time; and conſequently, that it is to be underſtood of a Perſon properly ſo called in the Bleſſed Trinity: which way of interpreting that word, becauſe it directly overthrew the Socinian Doctrine, which was then, that St. John by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , underſtood no other than Chriſt as Man, it is no wonder that this Author uſed all his Wit and Learning to evade it.

The Conſtruction which Socinus put upon the firſt Chapter of the Goſpel of St. John, was then followed generally by his Diſciples. But ſome years ſince, they have ſet it aſide here, as being abſurd and impertinent. And they now freely own what that Socinian Author ſtrongly oppoſed, That the Word mentioned by St. John is the eternal and eſſential Vertue of God, by which he made the World, and operated in the Perſon of Chriſt. Only they deny that Word to be a Perſon diſtinct from the Father, as we do affirm. And whereas Socinus taught, That Chriſt was made God, and therefore is a proper Object of religious Worſhip; now the Unitarians, who believe him to be no other than a meer human Creature, following the Principles of Chriſtianity better than Socinus, condemn the Religious Worſhip which is paid to him.

As they do believe, that the Jews had the ſame Notions of the Godhead and Perſon of the Meſſias which they have themſelves, ſo they think they have done the Chriſtian Religion an extraordinary ſervice in thus ridding it of this double Difficulty, which hinders the Converſion of the Jews. Mr. N. one of their ableſt Men, having read Juſtin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, in which Trypho ſays, that he did not believe that the Meſſias was to be other than Man, makes uſe of this Paſſage of Trypho for proof, that the Doctrines of the Divinity of the Meſſias, and by conſequence of the Trinity, were never acknowledged by the Jews. This he does in a Book, the Title whereof is, The Judgment of the Fathers againſt Dr. Bull.

His deſign being to prove, that Juſtin Martyr, about 140 years after Chriſt, was the firſt that held the Doctrine of Chriſt's Divinity, and by conſequence that of the Trinity, without which the other cannot be defended; he found it neceſſary to aſſert,

1ſt. That ſince the Jews, by Trypho's Teſtimony, did own the Meſſias to be nothing more than meer Man, therefore the Jewiſh Authors, quoted by Dr. Bull againſt the Socinian Opinions, muſt have lived after the Preaching of the Goſpel.

2dly, That the Books that are quoted againſt them, were written by Chriſtians in Maſquerade, that lived ſince Juſtin Martyr's time: And this he applies in particular to the Works of Philo the Jew, and to the Book of Wiſdom.

3dy. That ſince the Jewiſh Authors could not poſſibly mention any thing like the Doctrines of the Trinity, and of the Meſſias his being God too, to which they were ſuch perfect Strangers; whatſoever occurrs in any of the ancient Jewiſh Books, that favours thoſe Doctrines, muſt needs have been foiſted in by Chriſtians after Juſtin Martyr's time.

Laſtly, he ſuppoſes, That if any thing, either in the Scripture or Jewiſh Authors, ſounds that way, it probably came from the Platonics, of whom both Jews and Chriſtians borrowed many Notions, and mixed them with Chriſtian Doctrines, to perſwade the Heathens the more eaſily to embrace the Chriſtian Religion.

Now though it ſeems unneceſſary to diſpute any further againſt him, having already clearly ſhewn, in my Diſcuſſion of Mr. N's Judgment of the Fathers, that Juſtin Martyr was not the Broacher of thoſe Doctrines, as Mr. N. pretends; yet I am willing to give a more full ſatisfaction to the World about it, by examining what either Mr. N. or any others have ſaid or can ſay on this Subject, and ſhewing that the bold Anſwers to Dr. Bull's Proofs concerning the Opinion of the Jews before Chriſt about thoſe Doctrines, are no better than Mr. N's ſuppoſition, that Juſtin Martyr was the firſt that maintained thoſe Doctrines.

I was particularly induced to undertake this task, in hopes that by examining this matter to the bottom, I might ſet theſe Controverſies in their true Light; ſhewing how little credit ſome Divines do deſerve, who playing the Criticks, have favoured the new Jews and the Socinians with all their Might, and abuſe thoſe who upon ſuch ungrounded Authority too raſhly believe, that theſe Fundamental Doctrines of Chriſtianity came from the School of Plato; when on the contrary it is certain, that Plato himſelf, by converſing with the Jews in Egypt, borrowed of them his beſt Notions of God.

To do this in the beſt method I can, I will firſt of all conſider in general, what the Jewiſh Tradition was before Chriſt: Let the Reader give me leave to uſe that word as the Fathers commonly uſe it; not for a Doctrine unknown in Scripture, but for a Doctrine drawn from Scripture, and acknowledged for the Common Faith of the Church; and I ſhall ſhew, That both before Chriſt, and in his time, the Jews had a current way of expounding the Old Teſtament, which they had received from their Fathers; and that Chriſt and his Apoſtles uſed and approved this way of expounding their Scriptures in many particulars.

2dly. I will examine the Grounds the Jews went upon, to come to the underſtanding of the Old Teſtament, particularly of that part which contains the Promiſes of the Meſſias, as they had it in Chriſt's time, and ſtill have it to this day.

3dly. I will ſhew by ſome Examples, That Chriſt and his Apoſtles did prove many Articles of the Chriſtian Doctrine by this Expoſition, commonly received among the Jews; which they would hardly have done, had they had nothing elſe of their ſide, but only the Letter of thoſe places which they quoted.

This being premiſed in general as a neceſſary Foundation, I ſhall particularly examine the Authority of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Teſtament, and of the Books of Philo the Jew that are extant, and of the Targum or the Caldaick Paraphraſes on the Books of the Old Teſtament; theſe being the chief Helps by which we may find out the traditional ſenſe of the Old Teſtament as it was received in the Synagogue before Chriſt's time. This is abſolutely neceſſary to be done; for without proving the Authority of thoſe Apocryphal Books, of Philo, and of thoſe Paraphraſes, we cannot with any force and weight uſe their Teſtimony in this Controverſy, as I intend to do.

This being diſpatcht, I ſhall prove clearly, That the Jews before Chriſt's time, according to the received Expoſitions of the Old Teſtament, derived from their Fathers, had a Notion of a Plurality of Perſons in the Unity of the Divine Eſſence; And that this Plurality was a Trinity. And further, That contrary to what Mr. N. has imagined, the moſt learned amongſt them have conſtantly retained thoſe Notions, though perhaps they were divided in their Opinions about the Meſſias his Godhead, and the Doctrine of the Trinity, as we do apprehend it.

And becauſe, if it be granted that the Word was a Perſon, that goes a great way toward proving the Doctrine of the Trinity; And the Socinians affirm, that it was not the uncreated Word, but a created Angel, that appeared to Men under the Old Teſtament-diſpenſation, and was adored as being God's Repreſentative; I ſhall enquire what was the Opinion of the Old Jews concerning theſe Matters; and ſhew, that they owned the Word to be a Divine Perſon; and that it was that Word that appeared in the Old Teſtament; and conſequently, that nothing is more falſe than what ſome Socinians teach after Grotius (upon the Book of Wiſdom, ch. 18.15.) grounding it upon his Opinion of an Angel's appearing and being adored; That therefore it was lawful for the Jews under the Old Teſtament to worſhip Angels; but it was firſt forbidden to Chriſtians under the New; as namely, by St. Paul, Coloſ. 11.18.

And that the Socinians may have nothing left them to reply againſt this, I ſhall deſcend to particulars, and ſhew at large, That according to the Doctrine of the Old Synagogue, the Jews apprehended the Word as a true and proper Perſon; and held, that that Word was the Son of God; That he was the true God; That he was to be in the Meſſias; and that the Meſſias was promiſed under the Old Teſtament, as Jehovah; and accordingly the Old Synagogue expected that he ſhould be Jehovah indeed.

It is of great moment to ſatisfy the World of theſe Truths, and to make the Socinians ſenſible, that they can't truly profeſs the Chriſtian Religion without owning thoſe Doctrines, to which yet they ſeem to be ſo averſe. Therefore I will go farther, and diſtinctly ſhew, that the whole Goſpel is grounded on thoſe very Notions which the Jews before Chriſt entertained. That the firſt Chriſtians after the Apoſtles exactly followed them; And that the Jews themſelves, following generally thoſe very Notions upon the chief Texts of the Old Teſtament which Chriſtians quote in thoſe Controverſies, bear witneſs, that they were the undoubted Doctrines both of them and of the Chriſtians before Juſtin Martyr's time.

The Men that we have to do with, do very confidently affirm any thing that comes into their heads, be it never ſo little probable, ſo they may thereby give any plauſible Solutions of the Difficulties in which they find themſelves entangled and perplext: and they are much given to vaunt of their unanſwerable Arguments, ſo they call them, which are many times but weak Objections, ſuch as Men of Learning and Wit ſhould be aſhamed of.

For this reaſon I thought it neceſſary to prevent, as far as it was poſſible, all that they can object againſt my Poſition of the Opinions the Old Jews held concerning thoſe Doctrines, which were exactly followed and fully declared by the Apoſtles and firſt Chriſtians. And becauſe I foreſee ſome Objections may ariſe, I will ſhew, that nothing can be more abſurd, than to imagine, that the Jews, or the firſt Chriſtians, borrowed their Notions about the Trinity, or the Divinity of Chriſt, from Plato's Diſciples; whereas Plato hath in truth followed the Jewiſh Notions of thoſe things.

After this, I ſhall make it appear, that however ſome of the Modern Jews have changed their Opinions in theſe Articles, yet the Socinians can make no advantage thereof, becauſe the Jews have in reality much alter'd their belief ſince Chriſt's time, and are guilty of great Diſingenuity, as is common to all thoſe who are obſtinately ſet upon the maintaining of erroneous Doctrines.

In fine, I ſhall plainly ſhew, that the Socinians, to defend themſelves againſt the Orthodox, have been forced to imitate thoſe Modern Jews, and have much out done them in changing and ſhifting their Opinions when they diſpute with Chriſtians.

I hope to manage this Controverſy with the Socinians ſo plainly and fully, as to ſatisfy the Reader, That as on the one ſide they moſt falſly accuſe the Church of having corrupted the New Teſtament to favour the Doctrines of the Trinity, and of Chriſt's Godhead; So they cannot on the other ſide get any ground upon the Jews in their Diſputes with them, though they fancy they got a great way towards their Converſion by rejecting thoſe Doctrines.

In a word, both the Ancient and Modern Jews do ſo far agree in thoſe things which make on the Church's ſide againſt the Socinians, that if they appeal to the Jews, they are ſure to loſe their Cauſe; which when they have better conſidered, they will find it their beſt way for the maintaining of their Opinions to abandon the Jews altogether, as Men that underſtood not their own Scriptures, viz. the Old Teſtament, and to reject both, as they have gone a great way towards it, in rejecting that traditional ſenſe of the Old Teſtament, for which it was quoted in the New; and without which it would have ſignified little or nothing to thoſe purpoſes for which it was quoted. And ſo it will appear that for all their brags of the Aptneſs, and even Neceſſity of their way for the Converſion of the Jews, they have taken the direct way to harden them, by giving up that ſenſe of the Old Teſtament Scriptures which Chriſt and his Apoſtles made uſe of for the converting of their Forefathers.

But we have the leſs reaſon to complain of them for this, when we ſee how apt they are to queſtion the Authority of the Books of the New Teſtament, as oft as they find them ſo clearly oppoſite to their Doctrines, that they cannot obſcure the Light of them by any tolerable Expoſition. To ſhew that I do not ſay this without cauſe, I ſhall ſhow ſome inſtances in the laſt Chapter of this Book.

CHAP. II. That in the times of Jeſus Chriſt our Bleſſed Saviour, the Jews had among them a common Explication of the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament, grounded on the Tradition of their Fathers, which was in many things approved by Chriſt and his Apoſtles.

THE Jews have to this day a certain kind of Tradition received from their Forefathers, which contain many precepts of things to be done or avoided on the account of their Religion. This they call their Oral Law; by which name they diſtinguiſh it from the written Law, which God gave them by Moſes. They make five Orders of ſuch a Tradition, which are explained by Moſes de Trano in his Kiriat Sepher, Printed at Venice, Anno 1551. The firſt is, of the things which they infer from Moſes and the Prophets by a clear conſequence, and they are certainly of the ſame Authority as the reſt of the Revelation, although they call it a Tradition. We are not ſuch Enemies to Names as not to like ſuch a ſort of Tradition, and we receive it with all imaginable reverence; we like very well the Judgment of Maimonides who leaves as uncertain whatſoever the Jewiſh Doctors ſpeak upon many things, as being without ground when their Tradition is not gathered from Texts of Scripture, de Regib. c. 12. The ſecond Order is of the Ceremonies and Rites, which they keep, as coming from Mount Sinai, but of which there is not a word in the Law. The third Order is of the Judiciary Laws upon which the two Schools of Hillel and Shammai were divided. The fourth is of ſome Conſtitutions of the Ancients, which they look upon as an hedge to the Law. The laſt is of their Cuſtoms, which are various in ſeveral places of their diſperſion. Tho' in many things they cannot but ſee that thoſe laſt four Orders of Tradition do not agree with the Law of Moſes, or are quite unknown in it, yet they ſeem to like it never the worſe. Nay, their Rabbins profeſſedly aſcribe a much greater Authority to this Oral Law, than to the Law of Moſes. They ſay in the Talmud Avoda zara, c. 1. fol. 17. Col. 2. that a Man who ſtudies in the Law alone without theſe Traditions, is a Man which is without God; according to the Prophecy of Azariah, 2 Chr. 15.3. Of this ſort were all the Traditions which were condemned by our Lord Jeſus Chriſt: He plainly calls them the Commandments of Men, Mat. XV. 9. and has purpoſely directed ſeveral of his Diſcourſes againſt them; becauſe even where their obſerving theſe Traditions would not conſiſt with their Obedience to God, as particularly in the caſe of Corban, Mat. XV. 3. yet they gave Tradition the preference, and ſo as our Saviour there tells them, Ver. 9. They made the Commandments of God of no effect by their Tradition.

The Author of theſe Traditions, or new Laws, as one may term them, did almoſt all of them live ſince the time that the Jews were under the power of the Seleucidae; and they were the Leaders of thoſe ſeveral Sects that corrupted their Religion, by adding to it a great number of Obſervations which were perfectly new. We have therefore no reaſon to look upon this ſort of Tradition, as the fountain from whence the Jews in Chriſt's time took their meaſures of the ſenſe and meaning of the Writings of the Old Teſtament.

But for the Interpreting of their Scriptures, the Jews in Chriſt's time had ſome other kinds of Traditions, much different from thoſe which Chriſt ſo ſeverely condemned. And theſe I ſhall explain more particularly, giving ſome examples of their uſe, and alſo of their Authority.

1. They had by Tradition the knowledge of ſome Matters of fact, which are not recorded in their Scriptures; and of other things they had more perfect and minute accounts, than are recorded in the Writings of Moſes and the Prophets.

Particularly Philo the Jew, writing of the Life of Moſes, declares that what he had to ſay of him, was taken partly out of Scripture, and partly received by Tradition from their ForefathersDe vita Moſis pag. 468. Edit. Genev. Ib. p 470. F.. Of this latter ſort was the long account he there gives of Moſes being brought up in all the Learning of the Egyptians, for there is nothing of this in the Old Teſtament. Therefore when St. Stephen ſays the ſame thing, Act. VII. 22. we know that he alſo had it not from Scripture, but from Tradition.

Hence alſo it is that St. Paul has gathered the names of Jannes and Jambres, Magicians that reſiſted Moſes and the Truth, 2 Tim. iv. 8. for their names are no where in Scripture, but they are in Jonathan's Targum on Exod. i. 15. & vii. 11. from whence alſo they are taken into Talmud Sanhedrin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c. 9.

Hence alſo St. Paul knew that the Pot wherein Moſes laid up the Manna, was made of Gold, Heb. ix. 4. which alſo the Seventy and Philo the Jew [de congr. quaer. er. gr. pag. 375. Ed. Gen.] do aſſure us of.Mechil. fol. 20. Col. 1. & Tanchumah, fol. 29. Col. 4. And tho' the Modern Jews deny this, and ſay the Pot was of Earth; yet it is acknowledg'd by the Samaritans that is was Golden. This muſt have been from Tradition, becauſe there is no ſuch thing ſaid in Scripture.

It was from hence that the Apoſtle had that ſaying of Moſes, when he ſaw the dreadful appearance of God upon Mount Sinai, Heb. xii. 21. So terrible was the ſight, that Moſes ſaid, I exceedingly fear and quake. And another that writ ſoon after Paul's death, namely Clemens Biſhop of Rome, in his Epiſtle to the Corinthians, cap. 17. has other like words that Moſes ſaid, I am the Steam upon the Pot. Both theſe ſayings being no where in Scripture, they could not have known them otherwiſe than from the Jewiſh Tradition.

From hence alſo St. Jude ver. 9. had that paſſage of the diſpute that Michael the Arch-Angel had with the Devil about the Body of Moſes. Which Body, as Joſephus probably ſays, [Ant. iv. 8.] if any Relick of it had been kept, would have drawn the people into Idolatry. That paſſage, we are told by ſome of the Fathers, was taken out of an Apocryphal Book call'd the Analepſis of Moſes, [Clem. Alex. in Jud. & Origen. peri Archon. iii. 2.] Grotius tells us the Jews have the like things in their Midraſh on Deut. in the Aboth of R. Nathan, and in other of their Books.

It was from hence that St. Paul underſtood that ſome of the Prophets were ſawn aſunder, Origen Reſponſ. ad African. Heb. xi. 37. though he ſpoke in the Plural, he meant it only of one, ſaith Origen, namely of the Prophet Eſay, who was Sawed aſunder by the Command of Manaſſes, according to the Jewiſh Tradition. Which alſo is mentioned by Juſtin Martyr, as a thing out of diſpute between him and Tryphon the Jew; and it is taken notice of in the Gemara tr. Jevamot, Ch. iv.

It was from hence that Chriſt took what he ſaid of the Martyrdom of Zechary the Son of Berachiah, who was killed between the Temple and the Altar; Orig. Ib. p. 232, &c. Mat. xxiii. 35. which Origen there alſo mentions as a Jewiſh Tradition, tho', he ſays, they ſuppreſt it as being not for the Honour of their Nation.

I do not deny, but that there might be ſome ancient Authors, beſides the Canonical Writers, to keep up the memory of theſe names of Perſons, and other matters of fact: As for example,Joſeph. Ans. l. 10. c. •• . that there were eighteen High Prieſts who Officiated in the firſt Temple, although they are not all mention'd in Scripture. But if there were any ſuch Authors, it is very probable that they were loſt in the Captivity, or in the bloody Perſecutions of the Jewiſh Church, long before the time of our Bleſſed Saviour and his Holy Apoſtles. Joſephus, who lived in that Age, and writ the Hiſtory of the Jews, makes no mention of them, and gives a very lame account of the things which paſſed under ſeveral Kings of Perſia.

2. Beſides the Canonical Books, they had Writings of a leſs Authority, wherein were inſerted by the great Men of their Nation, ſeveral Doctrines that came from the Prophets, which were in very high eſteem and veneration, though not regarded as of equal Authority with the Writings of the Prophets. It is not improbable that St. Matthew had reſpect to ſome Book of this nature, when he quoted that which is not found in expreſs words in any of the Writings of the Prophets; That the Meſſias ſhould be called a Nazarene, Mat. ii. 23. if he doth not allude to the Idea of the Jews who referred to the Meſſias the Netzer, or Branch ſpoken of by Iſa. xi. 1. So Chriſt himſelf may ſeem to have alluded to a paſſage in one of theſe Books, Joh. vii. 38. where he ſaith, He that believeth on me, as ſaith the Scripture, out of his belly ſhall flow rivers of living water; for there is nothing perfectly like this in any of the Canonical Books that are come to our hands.

St. Paul the Apoſtle, as Jerom [in Epheſ. v. 14.] obſerves, has cited divers ſuch Apocryphal Books, accommodating himſelf, no doubt, to the Jews, who gave much deference to their Authority. Thus he did, Rom. ix. 21. and perhaps in ſome other places of his Epiſtles, from the Book of Wiſdom, which is ſtill extant in our Bibles. Elſewhere he has Quotations out of Books that are loſt, as, 1 Cor. ii. 9. out of an Apocryphal Book that went under the name of the Prophet Elias; and Epheſ. v. 14. out of an Apocryphal piece of the Prophet Jeremy, as we are told by Georgius Syncellus in his Chron. p. 27. A. But the moſt expreſs Quotation of this kind, is that which is alledged by St. James iv. 5, 6. For theſe words, The ſpirit that dwelleth in us luſteth to Envy, are not in any Books of the Old Teſtament; nor are the following words, God reſiſteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble. And yet both theſe ſayings are quoted as Scripture by the Holy Apoſtle. Of the firſt he ſaith plainly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Scripture ſaith, Then he goes on to the other, and of that he ſaith alſo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without any Nominative Caſe but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before mentioned, which implies that the Scripture ſaith this alſo. Now what Scripture could he mean? for it is certain, that neither of theſe ſayings is any where elſe in our Scriptures. He muſt therefore mean it of one or other of the Apocryphal Books. And one of the Fathers that was born within a hundred years after his death, gives us a very probable gueſs at the Book that he intended. It is Clement of Alexandria, who ſaith of the latter Quotation, Theſe are the words of Moſes, Strom. iv. p. 376. meaning in all likelihood of the Analepſis of Moſes, which Book is mentioned by the ſame Clement elſewhere on Jude v. 9. as a Book well known in thoſe times in which he lived. Therefore in all likelihood the words alſo of the former Quotation were taken from the Analepſis of Moſes, and it was that Apocryphal Book that S. James quoted and called it Scripture.

This can be no ſtrange thing to him that conſiders what was intimated before, that the Jews had probably theſe Books join'd to their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Hagiographa, and therefore they might well be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſeven or eight times in his writings, [Paed. i. 10. ii. 5. & ver. 8 vis & 10 vis iii. 3. & 11.] So it is quoted by Origen with the ſame Title, Orig. in Jerem. Hom. 16. p. 155. D.] There are many the like Inſtances to be found in the writings of the Ancienteſt Fathers. They familiarly called ſuch Books, The Scriptures, and ſometimes The Holy Scriptures; and yet they never attributed the ſame Authority to them, as to the Books that were received into the Canon of the Old Teſtament, which, as the Apoſtle ſaith, were written by Divine Inſpiration, 2 Tim. 3.16.

The ſame is to be ſaid of the Prophecy of Enoch, out of which St. Jude brings a Quotation in his Epiſtle, verſ. 14, 15. Grotius in his Annotations on the place, ſaith, This Prophecy was extant in the Apoſtles times, in a Book that went under the name of the Revelation of Enoch; and was a Book of great credit among the Jews; for it is cited in their Zohar, and was not unknown to Celſus the Heathen Philoſopher, for he alſo cited is, as appears by Origen's Anſwer to him; [Orig. in Celſ. lib. V.] Grotius alſo ſhews, that this Book is often cited by the Primitive Fathers; and he takes notice of a large piece of it that is preſerved by Georg. Syncellus in his Chronicon. And whereas in this piece there are many fabulous things, he very well judges that they might be foiſted in, as many ſuch things have been thruſt into very Ancient Books. But whether his Conjecture in this be true or no, it is certain that the piece which is quoted by St. Jude was truly the Prophecy of Enoch, becauſe we have the Apoſtle's Authority to aſſure us of the Hiſtorical truth of it.

3. It is clear that the Jews had very good and authentic Traditions, concerning the Authors, the Uſe, and the Sence of divers parts of the Old Teſtament. For Example, St. Mat. Chap. xxvii. 9. quotes Jeremy for the Author of a paſſage, which he there tranſcribes, and which we find in Zechary xi. 12. How could this be? but that it was a thing known among the Jews, that the four laſt Chapters of the Book of Zechary were written by Jeremy; Medes Works. p. 709. and 963. and 1022. as Mr. Mede has proved by many Arguments. It is by the help of this Tradition, that the Ancient Interpreters have added to the Pſalms ſuch Titles as expreſs their deſign, and their uſage in the Synagogue. Certainly theſe Titles which ſhew the deſign of many of the Pſalms, contribute much to make us underſtand the ſenſe of thoſe Pſalms; which a man that knows the occaſion of their Compoſing, will apprehend more perfectly than he can do that reads the Pſalms without theſe Aſſiſtances. And for the Titles of ſeveral Pſalms in the Septuagint, and other of the Ancient Tranſlations, which ſhew on what days they were ſung in the publick Worſhip of the Jews; as Pſ. xxiv. 48, 81, 82, 93, 94, &c. tho' theſe Titles are not in the Hebrew, and therefore are not part of the Jews Scripture; yet that they had the knowledge of this by Tradition, we find by Maimonides, who tho' a ſtranger to thoſe Tranſlations,De cultu divino tract. de ſacrificiis jugibus. c. 6. Sect. 9. yet affirms that thoſe ſeveral Pſalms were ſung on ſuch and ſuch days; and he names the very days that are prefixt to them in the ſaid Titles.

It is from the ſame Tradition, that they have theſe Rules concerning the Pſalms: I. This Rule to know the Authors of them; namely, that all Pſalms, that are not inſcribed with ſome other name, are David's Pſalms, although they bear not his name; a Maxim, owned by Aben-Ezra, Praefat. in Pſalmos and David Kimchi; and we ſee an Inſtance of this Rule in that Quotation of Pſ. xcv. 7. which is aſcribed to David in Heb. iv. 7. II. From hence they have learnt alſo another Rule, by which they diſtinguiſh between the Pſalms ſpoken by David in his own name,Tehillim. Rabbat. in Pſ. 24. Fol. 22. col. 2. and as King of Iſrael; and thoſe which he ſpoke in the name of the Synagogue, without any particular reſpect to his own time, but in a proſpect of the remoteſt future times.Tehillim. Rab. Ib. From thence they have learned to diſtinguiſh between the Pſalms in which the Holy Ghoſt ſpoke of the preſent times, and thoſe in which he ſpeaks of the times to come, viz. of the time of the Meſſias. So R. David Kimchi, and others agree that the Pſalms 93, 94. till the Pſalm 101. ſpeak of the days of the Meſſias. So they remark upon Pſ. 92. whoſe Title is for the Sabbath-day, that it is for the time to come, which ſhall be all Sabbath. Manaſſeh. Ben. Iſ. in Exod. q. 102.

By the help of Tradition alſo, they clear the Text, Ex. xii. 40. where it is ſaid, That the ſojourning of the Children of Iſrael, who dwelt in Aegypt, was 430 years. It would be a great miſtake of theſe words, to think the meaning of them ſhould be, that the Children of Iſrael dwelled in Aegypt 430 years: For in truth they dwelled there but half the time, as the Jews themſelves reckon, and all Learned men do agree to it. But the Jews underſtand by theſe words, that the ſojourning of the Children of Iſrael, all the while they dwelled in Aegypt, and in the Land of Canaan, they and their Fathers, was 430 years. Thus all the Rabbins do underſtand it, and thus it was anciently explained, by putting in words to this ſenſe, in the Samaritan Text, and in the Alexandrian LXX. That they were in the right, we ſee by the Apoſtle's reckoning the time to have been 430 years, from the promiſe made to Abraham at his coming into Canaan, till the giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai, which was but 50 days after their coming up out of Aegypt.

In like manner from Tradition they filled up that place, Gen. IV. 8. where it is ſaid, that Cain talkt with Abel his Brother, by adding the words which he ſpoke, Let us go into the field. This Inſertion is not only in the Alexandrian LXX. but the Samaritans have it in their Bibles, and they had it there in S. Hierom's time. It is alſo extant in the Jeruſalem Targum. Lib. qd. det p. 120, 124, 125. Philo the Jew Philoſophiſes on theſe words much after the ſame manner as doth the Targum.

4. It is certain that they have had very common among them the knowledge of the moſt illuſtrious Prophecies of the Meſſias. This we may ſee in the Anſwer of the Samaritan Woman to our Bleſſed Saviour, Joh. iv. 25. where ſhe ſaith, I know that when the Meſſias is come, he will tell us all things. For though it is no where plainly ſaid, yet the Samaritans knew full well, that the Meſſias ſhould explain all things, according to the Traditional ſenſe of that Prophecy in Deut. xviii. 15, 18, 19. which hath been ſo conſtantly referr'd to the Meſſiah, that we find till this day in the Midraſh upon Eccleſiaſt. c. 1.9. that the laſt Redeemer ſhall be like the firſt, that is, Moſes. And in conſequence of this knowledge commonly received among the Jews, Joh. xii. 34. did they of Chriſt's time hold for certain, that the Meſſiah ſhould remain for ever; which their Poſterity not knowing how to reconcile with their Notion of the Meſſias, they fancied that the Meſſias ſhould dye after a long Reign, and leave his Crown to his Children from Generation to Generation.

Hence it was that the Sanhedrin anſwered Herod without delay, Mat. ii. 5, 6. that the Meſſiah ſhould be born at Bethlehem, according to Micah's Prophecy, though it is not plainly ſaid in the Text of that Prophecy, Micah v. 2. Hence alſo it was that John Baptiſt, Mat. iii. 5, 6. found the people of the Jews ſo diſpoſed to repentance, that they might eſcape God's Judgments threatned on the Nation at the coming of the Meſſiah, according to Joel's prediction recited Act. ii. 26. and that other Prophecy in Malach. iv. 5.

Hence it was that when John the Baptiſt ſent his Diſciples to our Saviour to ask him, Whether he were the Meſſias or no; our Saviour gave them this Anſwer, Mat. xi. 4. Go and tell John the things which you hear and ſee; The Blind receive their ſight, the Lame walk, the Lepers are cleanſed, the Deaf hear, the Dead are raiſed, and the poor have the Goſpel preached to them. This is commonly taken to be a Quotation from Iſaiah. xxxv. 1. There ſome indeed of theſe Characters do point out the Meſſiah; But our Saviour did not content himſelf with thoſe, but added others that are not in that Text, nor in any other, but ſuch as no doubt the Jews had at that time in their common Tradition.

This Remark is of great moment to confound the boldneſs of ſome Criticks, as Grotius, who ſuppoſe that ſome places in the Apocryphal Books, which ſhew that they were exactly acquainted with the Ideas of the Prophets upon the Divinity and the Glory of the Meſſias, ſuch as we ſee in the Book of Wiſdom, in Eccleſiasticus, and in Baruch, have been foiſted in by Chriſtians in thoſe Books, when to the contrary they were to judge that the Jews have laid aſide theſe Books for that very reaſon, viz. Becauſe they were a ſtrong proof that the Apoſtles did apply the Prophecies of the Old Teſtament according to the ſenſe of the Synagogue before Jeſus Chriſt.

It was from hence that our Bleſſed Saviour in the ſame Chapter, Mat. xi. ſhew'd the multitude, that John Baptiſt was the Meſſenger promiſed by God in Malach. iii. 1. as he that ſhould be the fore-runner of the Meſſiah, and that ſhould prepare his way by exhorting the People to Repentance: and he proves that John the Baptiſt was ſo, by the great Effect of his Preaching, in the Converſion of thoſe that ſeemed the moſt corrupt of the Nation.

5. It is as certain, that they had by Tradition ſundry Explications of the Scripture grounded upon Allegories. Philo affirms this poſitively [lib. de Therapeutis, p. 691.] St. Paul gives us ſeveral Examples of it. We have one in Heb. iv. 9. where St. Paul thus argues from the Words of David in Pſal. xcv. 11. There remains therefore a Reſt for the people of God. His Argument depends upon the Jewiſh Expoſition of the ſix days of the Creation, as foreſhewing that the Age of the World ſhould be 6000 years; and underſtands the Sabbath, or Reſt, of the times after; founding their Expoſition on the Words of the 90th Pſalm, A thouſand years in thy ſight are as but one day: That is to be ſeen in R. Abraham bar Hiya Hannaſhi Megillat ha Megillat Saar. 2. in Ramban upon Gen. ii. 2. in Abarbanel Miphaloth Eloh. lib. 1. c. 4. See Menaſſeh Ben Iſ. Concil. q. 30. in Geneſ. & de Creat. Problem XI.

Another Example we have in the ſame St. Paul, Galat. iv. 24. drawn from Sarah and Hagar, as being Types of the two Covenants. Philo the Jew [de Cherub. p. 83.] found a Myſtery there before St. Paul, as we ſee in a Book of his that was much more ancient than that Epiſtle.

A third Example may be found in the ſame St. Paul, who uſes it Rom. v. 14. & 1 Corin. xv. 47. in comparing the firſt Adam with Jeſus Chriſt, whom he calls the ſecond Adam. The Jews have the ſame Idea of the Meſſias, as of the ſecond Adam, who ſhall raiſe all his Followers from the Sepulchre, as we ſee in Pirke Eliezer, ch. 32.

This method of explaining Scripture ought to be carefully conſidered, becauſe it gives us to underſtand the Reaſons why the Jews have regarded the Song of Songs as a part of Canonical Scripture, and have referred it to the Meſſias, as we ſee they do in their Targum, in Cant. i. 8. iv. 5. vii. 14. viii. 1, 4. The ſame reflection may be made on their acknowledging of the Divine Authority of the Book of Ruth, wherein their Targum mentions the Meſſias, chap. iii. 15. And the like may be ſaid of Eccleſiaſtes, certain Texts of which, as ch. i. 18. and ch. viii. 25. they refer to the Meſſias, which otherwiſe ſeem not to have much relation to him.

In truth, one cannot well deny that the Jews had this common knowledge of great Truths of their Religion, and a Traditional Expoſition of great Prophecies, from their Anceſtors, to clear their Ideas thereof, if he conſiders attentively theſe following Remarks.

Firſt, That ſince their return from the Babylonian Captivity, they were never guilty of Idolatry: Except, for a little while, in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when ſome wicked men apoſtatiz'd, and brought a force upon others, by which many were driven to Idolatry. But ſome choſe rather to die than to yield to it, 1 Mac. i. 62, 63. ii. 29, 30, 37, 38. Which is an argument, that the Rebukes of the Prophets had made great Impreſſion on their Minds, and raiſed a great Concern in them for their Religion, and for the ſtudy of the Scripture, which contained the Precepts of it. But it was impoſſible that in reading the Writings of the Prophets, and hearing them explained by their Doctors, they ſhould give no attention to the great Promiſes of the Meſſias, whoſe Coming was ſpoken of by ſome of the Prophets, as being very near at hand. See Dan. ix. Hag. ii. Malach. iii.

The Second is, That their Zeal for the Scriptures, and their Religion, was really much quickned by the cruel Perſecution which they ſuffered from Antiochus Epiphanes; whoſe Tyrannical Fury did particularly extend to the Holy Scriptures, 1 Mac. i. 56, 57. and to whatever elſe did contribute to the maintenance of their Religion.

The Third is, That it appears from Hiſtory, that there were more Writers of their Nation ſince the Captivity, than we read of at any time before: ſo ſaith Joſephus, lib. I. contr. Appion. Eſpecially ſince they came under the Power of the Ptolomeys and the Seleucidae, who being Princes of a Greek Original, were great Lovers of Learning, and did much for the improving of good Letters.

The Fourth is, That learned Men among the Jews, applying themſelves to this buſineſs, did write, either at Jeruſalem, at Babylon, or at Alexandria, ſeveral Extracts of ancient Books of Morality for the inſtruction of their People. Such were the Books of Baruch and Eſdras, which ſeem to have been written in Chaldee; and thoſe of Wiſdom and Eccleſiaſticus, which were written in Greek.

The Fifth is, That the great Buſineſs of the Jews in their Synagogues, and in their Schools, hath been ever ſince to underſtand the Books of the Prophets, and to explain them in a Language intelligible to the People; the Knowledge of the Hebrew being in great part loſt during the time of the Babylonian Captivity.

The Sixth is, That it does indeed appear, that this was the proper time in which the Jewiſh Paraphraſes began firſt to be formed. They were began and carried on inſenſibly; One adding ſome Chaldee Words in the Margin of his Book, oppoſite to the Text, which the People did not underſtand ſo well: Another adding to theſe ſome Notes in another place; till at length Jonathan and Onkelos, or ſome other Doctor of Jeruſalem, gathered together all theſe Obſervations, and made thence thoſe Paraphraſes which we have under their Name.

For the Confirmation of this Conjecture, conſider, 1. That we find in theſe Paraphraſes very many Explications, which by no means agree with the Ideas that the Jews have framed to themſelves ſince the Propagation of Chriſtianity. For ſince their Diſputes with the Chriſtians, they found themſelves obliged in many particulars to reject the Opinions, and refute the Confeſſions of their Anceſtors. 2. We ſee the very ſame thing has happened among the Chriſtians, and among the Greeks, that ſet themſelves to write Scholia, or Notes on the Scriptures: which are only Abſtracts of Authors who have written or preacht more at large on theſe Books. The ſame thing, I ſay, hapned among Chriſtians in the VIIIth Century, and the following Ages, when moſt of their Learning was reduced within this compaſs, To compile Gloſſes, and to collect the Opinion of thoſe that went before them, upon difficult places; and after that, to form out of all theſe Gloſſes one continued Paraphraſe upon the whole Book, as if it had been the Judgment and Work of one and the ſame Author. It's the Character of all the Books which they call Catenae upon Scripture.

I know well, that ſome Criticks call in queſtion the Antiquity of theſe Paraphraſes; and have remarked how ridiculous the Miracles are which the Jews ſay were wrought in favour of Jonathan the Son of Uzziel. But what does this make for their doubting the Antiquity of theſe pieces? Do we queſtion whether there was a Greek Verſion of the Old Teſtament before Chriſt's time, becauſe we can hardly believe Ariſtaeas's Hiſtory to be true, or becauſe we cannot ſay that the Greek Verſion is deliver'd down to us in the ſame purity as it was at firſt written? Ought we to ſuſpect St. Chryſoſtom's Homilies on St. Paul's Epiſtles, or thoſe of Pope Gregory the Firſt; becauſe the Greeks have ſtoried that St. Paul came to inſpire St. Chryſoſtom with the Senſe of his Epiſtles, while he was meditating an Expoſition of them; and becauſe the Latins do relate the like Fable in favour of Gregory the Firſt?

After all, the Authority of theſe Paraphraſes does ſtill further appear, in that the Works themſelves are ſpread almoſt as far as there are Jews in the World, and are highly eſteem'd in all places of their Diſperſion.

Some may perhaps imagin, that the Jews being fallen into great Corruptions about the time of our Bleſſed Saviour's coming into the World, muſt neceſſarily at that time have loſt much of that Light, which their Anceſtors received of the Prophets, and of thoſe that ſucceeded the Prophets. They may think, it may be, that their Nation being become ſubject to the Greeks, did by inſenſible degrees change their Principles, and alter their Expoſitions of the Scripture, as they adopted the Ideas of the Greek Philoſophers, whoſe Opinions they then began to borrow. In ſhort, it may be conceived by ſome, that the ſeveral Sects, which aroſe among the Jews long before Chriſt's time, did conſiderably alter the Opinions of the Synagogue, and did corrupt their Tradition, and the Notions they had received from the moſt ancient Doctors of their Schools.

In anſwer to all this. It is certain the Corruption among the Jews was principally of their Morals; for which, though they had very good Precepts in their Law; yet the true meaning of them was ſpoiled and corrupted with Gloſſes, which were deviſed, as I have ſhewn, in later times; and with theſe, being ſtampt with the Name of Tradition, they evaded the force of the Laws. There were then but very few that had not an averſion to the Greek Learning, and thoſe few applied themſelves to it, while they were in Judaea, with great Caution and Secrecy, leſt they ſhould be lookt upon as Heathens. Joſephus witneſſeth of that, Antiq. l. 20. c. ult. As to what is inferred from the many Sects among the Jews, the quite contrary is clear. For the oppoſition of one Sect to the other, hindred any one of them from becoming Maſters of the People and their Faith in ſo general a manner, as to be able to corrupt abſolutely their Traditional Notions of Religion.

Moreover, theſe Sects, all but the Sadducees, who were abhorred by the People, knew no other way to diſtinguiſh themſelves and draw eſteem, but by a ſtrict Obſervation of the Law and its Ceremonies, to which they pretended that the Rules they gave their Diſciples did very much contribute; whence they called their Traditions the Hedge and the Rampart of the Law.

To conclude, We ought carefully to take notice, 1. That St. John Baptiſt did not find it needful to correct the Errors in Opinions that reigned among the People; but only exhorted them to Repentance for their Sins and immoral Actions. 2. That one of the chief Concerns of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt in his Diſcourſes with the Jews, was to purge them of all that Corruption which their drowſy Caſuiſts had introduced into their Morals; with which he charges the Scribes and Phariſees in particular. 3. That the Doctrine of the Sadducees which he refutes on ſome occaſions, had but a few Followers. 4. That the Eſſens and their Party, who applied themſelves altogether to Piety, and the Study of the Law, had a great Authority with all the People that loved Religion. This we may learn from Philo in ſome Pieces of his Works, eſpecially Lib. quod omnis Probus ſit liber, p. 678. 5. That the Jews, though they have received very groſs Ideas concerning a Temporal Kingdom of the Meſſias; and though to ſupport theſe Ideas, they have confounded the Senſe of divers Prophecies, endeavouring to reconcile them to their carnal Notions, and in bringing in new Explications of the Old Teſtament; yet have they not been able quite to extinguiſh their ancienter Ideas and Principles: Their new Ideas paſſing for no more at beſt than the Opinions of their celebrated Doctors, which another Doctor may oppoſe if he will, eſpecially, when he is backt with thoſe that are ancienter and of greater Authority.

CHAP. III. That the Jews had certain Traditional Maxims and Rules for the Ʋnderſtanding of the Holy Scripture.

WHat I have now ſaid concerning the Traditions of the Synagogue, will, I believe, be ſcarcely diſputed by any Learned Man; I am ſure he will have leſs reaſon to oppoſe it, that conſiders the Rules, which, as appears to us, were followed by the Jews in explaining the Prophecies concerning their Promiſed Meſſias.

1. It is certain that the Jews held this as a Maxim, That all the Prophets did ſpeak of the Meſſias, and were raiſed up by God for this very end. This we find more than once in their Talmud; Beracoth. c. 1. fol. 3. Sanhed. c. 11. and that it was common among them in Chriſt's time, we ſee in many places of the Goſpel. No doubt what they did in ſetling this Rule, was not without a due and ſerious Examination of it firſt. And here we cannot but deplore the raſhneſs of ſome Criticks among Chriſtians, who inſtead of making uſe of the Confeſſions of the Old Jews upon places of the Old Teſtament, which they referr'd conſtantly to the Meſſias; whereas ſome of the Modern Jews endeavour to wreſt them in another ſenſe, not only follow the new ones, but give occaſion by theſe means to deſpiſe Prophecies, and the clearer ones, as things quite inſignificant. What was the Abſurdity of Grotius, who in the 53d of Iſaiah, by the Servant which is ſpoken of abſolutely, underſtands Jeremy the Prophet; whereas the Old Jews refer that Chapter directly to the Meſſias, as you can ſee in the Old Midraſh Chonen, in the Targum, in the Talmud Sanhed. fol. 98. c. 2. and that is acknowledg'd by R. Alſhek. in h. l. to be the ſenſe of the ancient Jews. And indeed they hold as a Maxim, That whenſoever it is ſpoken abſolutely of the Servant, the place muſt be underſtood of the Meſſias, Zohar in Exod. fol. 225. and by conſequence they explained that Prophecy of Iſaiah as concerning the Meſſias. I can ſay the ſame upon another Maxim of the Old Jews, which is of great Uſe, That whatſoever it is ſpoken of the King abſolutely, the place muſt be underſtood of the Meſſias, Zohar in Gen. fol. 235. If Grotius had known it, he never would have related the 72d Pſalm, and ſome others, to Salomon in his literal ſenſe as he hath done, but would have referred it, as it muſt be directly to the Meſſias. Certainly that ſhews us, that many of the Old Jews underſtood the Prophets much better than, to their ſhame, ſuch Criticks now do. I wonder many times Divines, who confeſs they cannot give any tolerable account of the Song of Songs, and look upon it as a Piece compoſed by Salomon upon the occaſion of his Marriage with the Daughter of Egypt; whereas the Jews look upon it conſtantly as the laſt Piece he compoſed after his Repentance; and we have reaſon enough to believe, when we compare it with the 45th Pſalm and the 5th of Iſaiah, that Salomon ſpoke then of the Meſſias, the Eſſential Word ſpoken of by him, Prov. 8. chiefly when we ſee the ancient Jews do agree to it. See Philo de Colon. apud Grot. in Prov. viii. 22. Breſch. Rabba par. 1. the firſt Words, and Midraſh in ſhir haſh. in Merceſſu. But let us come back to our Subject.

2. I ſay 2dly, That it is reaſonable to judge, that the later Prophets having conſiderably cleared the Prophecies of thoſe that went before them, by diffuſing throughout their Writings a much greater Light; they who read the later Prophets, were not ſo careleſs as to neglect theſe Helps for the underſtanding of the more ancient Prophecies, whoſe ſenſe was otherwiſe not a little obſcure. In theſe Caſes it was neceſſary to begin with the Prophets that writ laſt, and by their Light to clear the ancient Prophecies. According to this Method, the Paraphraſes aſcribe to the Meſſias, what we read of the Seed of the Woman, Gen. iii. 15. and what Balaam prophecied, Numb. xxiii. and xxiv. And no one can doubt, but that after that great Light that Iſaiah gave them concerning the Meſſias and his Unction, in his Prophecy Chap. xi. they referred to him thoſe words alſo of Moſes, Deut. xviii. 18. God ſhall raiſe thee up a Prophet like unto me, which is cited by St. Peter, as ſpoken of the Meſſias, following herein the Principles of the Synagogue, Act. iii. 22.

3. It is not to be doubted but that Experience was a great help towards their underſtanding of Prophecies. If it had not been for this, the Jews would have lookt no farther than to Iſaac, for the fulfilling of that Prophecy, Gen. xviii. 18. In thy ſeed ſhall all the nations of the Earth be bleſſed; and likewiſe to Salomon, for that which we read 2 Sam. vii. 16. and Pſal. lxxvi. But ſeeing the Prophecies were not accompliſhed in their Perſons, nor did anſwer to their Characters; and it is impoſſible that the Prophecies ſhould be falſe; the Jews were convinced, as they had reaſon, that they ought to refer theſe Prophecies to the Meſſias; as alſo St. Paul did, according to the way of his Nation.

4. It is clear there were certain general Characters of the Meſſias, which whereſoever they were found, were commonly thought to denote that that place ſhould be underſtood of the Meſſias. And it is worth obſerving, that the Light ſtill encreaſing from one Age to the other, and the Characters of the Meſſias being every day more unfolded and opened, 'twas eaſy for them that ſtudied the Prophecies to compare one with the other, and from thence to draw Rules to find out the Ideas of the Meſſias, in thoſe Promiſes which ſeemed not ſo diſtinctly and evidently to ſpeak of him.

To give ſome Examples of the Rules which they gathered for their direction in diſcovering the Prophecies that relate to the Meſſias; I ſay, that the moſt conſpicuous Character of him, and that which they moſt ſet their hearts upon, was this, That he ſhould come in the later Times to deliver his People from their Enemies, and to reign over the whole Earth in great Peace, and Proſperity, and Glory. This in Groſs will be acknowledged by all the Jews in our Age. But to conſider theſe Matters yet more particularly. It is worthy to be obſerved, that by comparing theſe Texts which ſpeak of the low Eſtate and Sufferings of one that is there alſo deſcribed, as being in the higheſt Glory and Dignity; they have been convinced, that both theſe Deſcriptions are of one and the ſame Perſon; and therefore notwithſtanding the Prophetical Deſcriptions of the Glory of their Promiſed Meſſias at his coming, they have acknowledged thoſe Prophecies to concern him alſo, which ſpeak of his Humiliation; as that in Zech. ix. 9. where he is repreſented Riding upon an Aſs: ſo you ſee in the Targum and in the Talmud; and that in Iſa. liii. where he is ſaid to be loaded with Griefs, and to be the moſt deſpiſed of Men; as you ſee in the Targum, in the Talmud, and in Midraſh Conen. To which may be added that of David, Pſal. xxii. and that of Zech. xii. 10. which treat of the ſame Matter, and were referred to the Meſſias, as I ſhall ſhew afterwards.

Thus we ſee, wherever Salvation is ſpoke of, they refer thoſe Prophecies to the Meſſias, as him who ſhould be the Author of Salvation. It is by this rule that Iſa. lii. and liii. and Hab. iii. are underſtood of the Meſſias.

Thus thoſe places wherein the Subjection and Converſion of the Nations are foretold, were by them judged, without any heſitation, to regard the Times of the Meſſias. Scadias Haggaon interprets Zech. ix. 9. of the Meſſias, becauſe v. 10. his univerſal dominion is ſpoken of. And ſo R. David Kimchi refers to the Meſſias time the place of Zech. ii. 10, 11. Upon this known foundation does St. Paul build his Interpretation of the Meſſias, Heb. i. 10. out of Pſ. cii. 25, &c. and Rom. xv. 11. out of Pſ. cxvii. 1. And, to be ſhort, all thoſe Pſalms which repreſent God as reigning over the whole Earth, do relate to the Meſſias, according to the ſenſe of the ancient Jews, as may be ſeen in the many places of their Paraphraſes, and of their Interpreters; as Raſhi Kimchi and R. Joel Aben Soeb upon the Pſalm 99. and 100.

Thus again, when the Scripture foretells the calling of the Gentiles to the knowledge of the true God, they fail not to underſtand thoſe predictions of the times of the Meſſias, who ſhould ſpread true Religion throughout the World. Hence it is that Iſa. ii. is ſo underſtood by them.Lib de profug. p. 364. & lib. de Somn. p. 872. and R. Menach. de Rekarati in Pentat. fol. 18. col. 1. & fol. 31. col. 1. Edit. Venet. Targum & Talmud in Megillah. & Abarb. in 1 Sam. 2. Sanhed. fol. 99. col. 2. Cited in the Acts.

In this manner did they reflect on the Prophecies that ſpake of the Meſſias's Prieſthood, after that David had enlightned them in Pſal. cx. as may be ſeen from the Notions of Philo the Jew, touching the Prieſthood of the Word, by an alluſion to the Hiſtory of Melchiſedeck.

So likewiſe did they own that the Promiſes of God to reeſtabliſh the Houſe of David, were to be accompliſhed by the Meſſias, and by this rule they affirm'd that the Song of Anna did concern the time of the Meſſias, for the words of that Song do not agree neither to Saul, nor to David, but to the time of the Meſſias. As alſo they underſtood in like manner the Prophecy of Amos ix. 11, 15, 16, 17. according to the ſenſe of the Synagogue and the Prophecy of Zechary vi. 12, &c. Rabboth. fol. 271. col. 4.

They acknowledged according to theſe rules of Interpretation, that where Aſcenſion into Heaven, and ſitting on God's right hand, was ſpoken of, they were ſpoken of the Meſſias; and thus they referred to him Pſal. cx. and Pſal. xlv. and Pſal. lxviii. and Pſal. xcvii. and what is ſaid Deut. xxxii. being all ſo many Texts inſiſted by the Writers of the New Teſtament, as paſſages which in the Judgment of the Jews did concern the Meſſias.

We ought eſpecially to obſerve that they never failed to make thoſe reflections upon thoſe particular Pſalms, whereof the Compoſers, as they underſtood them, ſpoke in the name of the Synagogue, with reſpect to future times, and who mention there a Poſterity that ſhould partake of the deliverance there promiſed. And from this allowed Maxim alſo, does St. Paul, Heb. i. refer Pſal. cii. to the Meſſias. For this Character is found expreſly in v. 22. of this Pſalm; as well as the calling of the Gentiles, and the Subjection of Kings to God is foretold, ver. 15, 16, 17.

We muſt take notice of another thing, which is a conſequence of what they obſerved in ſome eminent Propheſies, viz. they underſtood them very rationally, by the help of thoſe Ideas which they met with in other Propheſies which otherwiſe ſeem not ſo clearly to concern the ſame Meſſias which is ſpoken of in clearer Propheſies. 'Twas according to that rule that they referred the Hymn of Anna, 1 Sam. ii. 5. to the times of the Meſſias, Kimchi in h. l. compareth it with the words of Iſaiah, ch. liv. Rejoice thou barren that beareſt not, &c. 'Twas according to that method that they being convinced that the Pſal. xxii. was to be referred to the Meſſias, did refer alſo to him the Pſal. xli. as it is referred by St. Paul, Heb. x. the ſame Ideas of ſuffering being found in both Pſalms. R. Menach. de Rekam fol. 19. col. 2. in Pentat. It was according to the ſame method that they referred to the Sekinah or Meſſias all the Pſalms which have the Title, all Shoſannin, viz. Pſal. 45.69.80. as we ſee in the ſame R. Menachem fol. 106. col. 2. in Pent. The Song of Songs, as I have obſerved, was the Key which made them underſtand the ſubject of thoſe Pſalms, as the Song of Iſaiah ch. 5. made them to underſtand the Song of Songs.

I am not ignorant that the greater part of the Jewiſh Nation being oppreſſed with the Roman Yoak, and finding no comfort for it in theſe Notions, which are for the moſt part Spiritual, did therefore about our Saviour's time frame to themſelves more carnal notions concerning the Kingdom of the Meſſias: Fancying that he ſhould come as a victorious Prince, to conquer, and to avenge them of their Enemies. They removed from their thoughts the accounts of his Death, as contrary to thoſe Glorious deſcriptions which ſuited better with their minds. They expected the Meſſias ſhould come to reſtore preſently the Kingdom unto Iſrael; and, in a word, following their own Deſires and Imaginations, they confounded Chriſt's firſt coming with his ſecond; and then confirmed themſelves in this miſtake, partly, becauſe the Prophets ſeemed to deſcribe the Kingdom of the Meſſias very carnally, partly, becauſe they knew not what to think of a Coeleſtial or Spiritual Kingdom, ſuch as his ſhould be, who was to ſit on the Throne of God. And theſe falſe conceits of theirs, joined with the worldly Intereſts of their Leaders, brought them to reject the true Meſſias at his Coming.

But after all, it is certain, 1. That the contrary opinions, concerning the Spiritual ſenſe of the Prophecies, was the conſtant ancient Doctrine of their Nation. 2. That thoſe Jews that were converted to Chriſtianity by the Miniſtry of Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles, were converted upon theſe Maxims, which were then the Maxims of the wiſeſt and the Religiouſeſt part of their Nation. 3. That the Apoſtles in their Writings, as well as Chriſt Jeſus in his Diſcourſes, cited the Texts of the Old Teſtament according to the commonly received ſenſe of the Synagogue; And in truth the authority of theſe proofs in that received ſenſe did not a little contribute to the Converſion of both Jews and Gentiles.

In order to make the Reader of my mind, I intreat him to take in good part my entring a little further into the examination, of what the moſt ſtudious Jews in the Holy Scriptures do commonly propoſe under the name of Tradition. Let them be lookt upon by ſome Men as dreaming Authors, that buſie themſelves in Enquiries altogether vain and fruitleſs; yet it is no hard task to vindicate them from this hard Imputation. 1. I have this to ſay for them, That that which appears ſo phantaſtical, (becauſe not underſtood by moſt of thoſe which have been accuſtomed to the Greek Methods of Teaching,) ought not therefore to be deſpiſed and wholly rejected. None but Fools will think this a ſufficient reaſon why all Pythagoras his Doctrines ought to be contemned; becauſe that he having been a Scholar of Pherecydes the Syrian, and other learned Men in Egypt and Chaldea, did borrow thence his way of teaching Theology by Symbols, which is attainable only by few, and thoſe of no common Capacity.

2. I obſerve that moſt of the true Jewiſh Doctors that followed the Tradition of their Schools, had this deſign principally in their eye, to make Men fully underſtand the Secrets of God's Conduct for the Reſtoration of fallen Mankind. To this in particular they bend their Thoughts, and in this they endeavour'd to inſtruct their Readers, explaining to them, according to this ſenſe, ſome places of Scripture, which at firſt ſight ſeem not immediately to regard ſo important a Subject.

3. I obſerve that oftentimes, where they attribute theſe Interpretations of Scripture to a Tradition delivered down to them from their Fathers, it is only in order to render their Reflections on the Scriptures ſo much the more venerable to their Hearers. For it is plain enough in ſome places, that an attentive Meditation on the Words might have diſcover'd the ſame things which they refer to Tradition.

For Example. They remark that God ſaid concerning Adam, See Reuchlin Cabalae, l. 1. p. 628. Gen. iii. 22. And now leſt he ſtretch out his hand, and eat of the tree of life, and live for ever; therefore God, as it follows, drove him out Paradiſe. From hence they infer, that God gave Adam hopes of becoming one day immortal, by eating of the Tree of Life, which they thought ſhould be obtained for him by the Meſſias. Now it appears that our Bleſſed Saviour did allude to this common Opinion of the Jews, which was then eſteemed as a Tradition, Rev. ii. 7. To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the Tree that is in the Paradiſe of God. And this Notion is repeated, Rev. xxii. 2, 14.

Again they remark that God ſaid, Behold, Adam is become like one of us, Gen. iii. 22. And they maintain that he ſpeaks not this to the Angels, who had no common likeneſs to the Unity or Eſſence of God, but to him who was the Celeſtial Adam, who is one with God. As Jonathan has alſo obſerved in his Targum on theſe words of Geneſis, calling him the only-begotten in Heaven. Now it is plain that St. Paul has deſcribed Jeſus Chriſt as this Heavenly Adam, 1 Cor. xv.

They aſſert that the firſt Prophecy, Gen. iii. 15. was underſtood by Adam and Eve of the Saviour of the World; and that Eve, in proſpect of this, being delivered of her firſt Son,Gen. iv. 1. Reuchl. Ibid. p. 629. ſhe called him Cain, ſaying, I have got a man, or this man from the Lord; believing that he was the Promiſed Meſſias. They tell us farther, that Eve being deceived in this expectation, as alſo in her hopes from Abel, asked another Son of God, who gave her Seth; of whom it is ſaid, that Adam begot another Son after his own Image, another with reſpect to Abel that was killed, not to his Poſterity by Cain, for they bear the Image of the Devil, rather than that of God. They maintain the Name of Enos to have been given Seth's Son upon the ſame account,Reuchl Ibid. p. 630, & 631. becauſe they thought him that excellent man whom God had promiſed. They make the like Remarks on Enoch, Noa, and Sem, and Noah's Bleſſing of Sem they look'd on as an Earneſt Wiſh, that God in his Perſon would give them the Redeemer of Mankind.

They affirm that Abraham had not been ſo ready to offer up his Son Iſaac a Sacrifice,Reuchl Ibid. p. 632. but that he hoped God would ſave the World from Sin by that Means; and that Iſaac had not ſuffered himſelf to be bound, had he not been of the ſame belief. And they obſerve that it was ſaid to Abraham, and afterwards to Iſaac, on purpoſe to ſhew them the miſtake of this Opinion, In thy Seed ſhall all the nations of the Earth be bleſſed. A plain Argument that the Jews anciently thought that theſe words did relate to the Meſſias, as did alſo St. Paul, Gal. iii. 16.

They maintain,Reuchl. Ib. p. 633. that Jacob believed that God would fulfil to him the firſt Promiſe made to Adam, till God undeceived him by inſpiring him with a Prophecy concerning Judah, Gen. xlix. 10. and by ſignifying to him; which alſo Jacob tells his Sons, that the Meſſias ſhould not come but in the laſt days, v. 1. when the Scepter was departed from Judah, and the Law-giver from between his Feet, v. 10.

Reuchl. Ib. p. 633. They declare that ever ſince this Prophecy, the Coming of the Meſſias for the Redemption of Mankind has been the Entertainment of all the Prophets to their Diſciples, and the Object of David's and all other Prophet's Longings and Deſires.

Reuchl. Ib. p. 634. They maintain that David did not think himſelf to be the Meſſias, becauſe he prays for his Coming, Pſal. xliii. 3. Send out thy Light, i. e. the Meſſias, as R. Salomon interprets it. And from hence they conclude, that he ſpeaks alſo of the Meſſias in Pſal. lxxxix. 15.

They did think Iſaiah ſpake of him, ch. ix. 6. So R. Joſe Galilaeus praefat. in Eccha Rabbati, as it is to be ſeen in Devarim Rabba Paras. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the end of it; and in Jalk. in Iſ. §. 284. And indeed what he there ſaith could not be meant of Hezekiah, who was born 10 years before; nor was his Kingdom ſo extenſive, nor ſo laſting, as is there foretold the Meſſias's ſhould be, but was confined to a ſmall part of Paleſtine, and ended in Sedecias his Succeſſor not many Generations afterwards.

And it is the general and conſtant Opinion of the Jews that Malachi, the laſt of the Prophets, ſpake of him, ch. 4. under the Name of the Son of Righteouſneſs: for this ſee Kimchi.

4. It ought to be well conſidered, that we owe the Knowledge of the Principles on which the Holy Ghoſt has founded the Doctrine of Types, to the Jews, who are ſo devoted to the Traditions of their Anceſtors; which Types, however they who read the Scripture curſorily, do ordinarily paſs by, as things light and inſignificant; yet it is true what St. Paul hath ſaid 1 Cor. x. 11. That all things happened to the Fathers in Types, and were written for their inſtruction, upon whom the ends of the World are come, or who live in the laſt Times, as the Oeconomy of the Goſpel is called, and the laſt days by Jacob, Gen. xlix. 1. That is, acknowledged by the Wiſemen of the Nation in Shemoth Rabba Paraſha 1, and by Menaſſeh ben Iſrael q. 6. in Iſaiah, p. 23.

Indeed the Jews, beſides the literal ſenſe of the ancient Scriptures, did acknowledge a myſtical or ſpiritual Senſe, which St. Paul lays down for a Maxim, 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, 3, &c. Where he applies to things of the New Teſtament all theſe following Types; namely the Coming of Iſrael out of Egypt, their paſſage through the Red Sea, the Hiſtory of the Manna, and of the Rock that followed them by its Water.

We ſee in Philo the figurative ſenſe which the Jews gave to a great part of the ancient Hiſtory: He remarks exactly, (and often with too much ſubtilty, perhaps,) the many Divine and Moral Notions which the common prophetical Figures do ſuggeſt to us.

We ſee that they turned almoſt all their Hiſtory into Allegory. It plainly appears from St. Paul's way of arguing, Gal. iv. 22, &c. which could be of no force otherwiſe.

Wee ſee that they reduced to an Anagogical ſenſe all the Temporal Promiſes, of Canaan, of Jeruſalem, of the Temple; in which St. Paul alſo followed them, Heb. iv. 4, 9. quoting theſe words. If they ſhall enter into my reſt, from Pſ. xcv. 11. which words he makes the Pſalmiſt ſpeak of the Jeruſalem that is above; and this alſo is acknowledged by Maimonides de poen. c. 8.

This Remark ought to be made particularly on the myſtical Signification which Philo the Jew gives of ſeveral Parts of the Temple; of which the Apoſtle St. Paul makes ſo great uſe in his Epiſtle to the Hebrews. Joſephus in thoſe few words which he has concerning the Signification of the Tabernacle, Antiq. iii. 9. gives us reaſon enough to believe, that if he had lived to finiſh his deſign of explaining the Law according to the Jewiſh Midraſhim, he would have abundantly juſtified this way of Explication, followed by St. Paul, with reſpect to the Tabernacle of the Covenant.

It is hard to conceive how the Apoſtles could ſpeak of things which came to paſs in Old time, as Types of what ſhould be accompliſhed in the Perſon of the Meſſias, without any other proof than their ſimple affirmation: As for inſtance, that St. Peter ſhould repreſent Chriſt as a New Noah, 1 Pet. iii. 21. and that St. Paul ſhould propoſe Melchiſedeck as a Type of the Meſſias in reſpect to his Sacerdotal Office, Heb. vi, vii. unleſs the Jews did allow this for a Maxim, which flows naturally from the Principle we have been eſtabliſhing; namely, that theſe Great Men were look'd on as the Perſons in whom God would fulfil his firſt Promiſe; but that not being completely fulfilled in them, it was neceſſary for them that would underſtand it aright to carry their View much farther, to a Time and Perſon without compariſon more auguſt; in whom the Promiſe ſhould be perfectly completed.

It may be demanded, why the Prophecies ſeem ſometime ſo applied to Perſons then living, that one would think he ſhould not need to look any farther to ſee the fulfilling of them; as namely the prophetical Prayer, as in behalf of Solomon, which is in Pſalm lxxii. as the Birth of a Son promiſed to Iſaiah, ch. vii. and ch. ix. 6. and where Iſaiah ſeems to ſpeak of himſelf, when he ſaith, Iſa. lxi. 1. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, and the like. But it is not hard to give a reaſon for this; with which the ancient Jews were not unacquainted. And it is this, That though all theſe Predictions had been directed to thoſe perſons, yet they had by no means their accompliſhment in them, nor theſe perſons were in any degree intended and meant in the Prophecy. To be particular, Solomon was in Wars during the latter part of his Life; and ſo he could not be that King of Peace ſpoken of in the Prophecy; and his Kingdom was rent in his Son's time, the ſmaller part of it falling to his ſhare, as the greater was ſeized by Jeroboam; ſo far was the Kingdom of Solomon from being univerſal or everlaſting, Iſai. vii. 14. The Son born to Iſaiah, neither had the Name of Emanuel, nor could he be the Perſon intended by it; as neither was his Mother a Virgin, as the word in that Prophecy ſignifies: And for the Prophet himſelf, though the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and ſpoke by him, as did it by all the other Prophets, 2 Pet. 1.21. Yet that the Unction here ſpoken of,Saadia Gaon Emunoth c. 18 & D. Kimchi in rad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Iſaiah lxi. 1. did not belong to him, but to the Meſſias, is acknowledged by the Jewiſh Writers, and ſeems to have been ſo underſtood by thoſe that heard our Saviour apply this Prophecy to himſelf, Luk. iv. 22. So that nothing was more judiciouſly done, and more agreeable to the known Principles of the Synagogue, than the Queſtion propoſed to Philip by the Eunuch, who reading the liii. of Iſaiah, asked from him, Of whom did he ſpeak, of himſelf, or of another?

Again, It may be asked, Why the Prophets called the Meſſias, David? and John Baptiſt, Elias? Not to trouble the Reader with any more than a mention of that fancy of ſome of the Jews that held the Tranſmigration of Souls; and ſay particularly, That the Soul of Adam went into David, and the Soul of David was the ſame with that of the Meſſias. I ſay, to paſs by that, the true Reaſon of ſuch uſe of the Names of David and Elias, is this; becauſe David was an excellent Type of the Meſſias that was to come out of his Loins, Act. ii. 30, 31. And for John Baptiſt, he came in the Spirit and Power of Elias, Luk. 1.17. That is, he was inſpired with the ſame Spirit of Zeal and holy Courage that Elias was formerly acted with, and employ'd it, as Elias did, in bringing his People to Repentance and Reformation.

5. We ought to do the Jews that Juſtice as to acknowledge, that from them it is, that we know the true ſenſe of all the Prophecies concerning the Meſſias in the Old Teſtament. Which ſenſe ſome Criticks ſeem not to be ſatisfied with, ſeeking for a firſt accompliſhment in other perſons than in the Meſſias. The Jews meaning and applying thoſe Prophecies to the Meſſias in a myſtical or a ſpiritual ſenſe, is founded upon a Reaſon that offers it ſelf to the Mind of thoſe that ſtudy Scripture with attention.

Before Jacob's Prophecy, there was no time fixed for the Coming of the Meſſias; but after the giving of that Prophecy, Gen. xlix. 10. there was no poſſibility of being deceived in the ſenſe of thoſe Prophecies which God gave from time to time, full of the Characters of the Meſſias. It was neceſſary, 1. That the Kingdom ſhould be in Judah, and not ceaſe till the time about which they expected the Coming of the Meſſias. 2. That the leſſer Authority, called here the Law-giver, ſhould be alſo eſtabliſhed in Judah, and deſtroyed before the Coming of the Meſſias, which we knew came to paſs by the Reign of Herod the Great, and ſome years before the Death of our Saviour. And indeed the Talmudiſt ſay, that forty years before the Deſolation of the Houſe of the Sanctuary, Judgments of Blood were taken away from Iſrael. Talm. Jeruſ. l. Sanhedr. c. dine. mammonoth. & Talm. Bab. C. Sanhedr. c. Hajou Bodekim. And Raymondus Martini, who writ this Pugio at the end of the XIIIth Century, quotes Part III. Diſt. 3. c. 16. §. 46. One R. Rachmon, who ſays, that when this happened, they put on ſackcloth, and pull'd off their hair, and ſaid, Wo unto us, the Scepter is departed from Iſrael, and yet the Meſſias is not come.

And therefore they who had this Prophecy before them, could not miſtake David, nor Solomon, nor Hezekiah, for the Meſſias: Nor could they deceive themſelves ſo far as to think this Title was applicable to Zorobabel, or any of his Succeſſors.

In ſhort, there appeared not any one among the Jews before the Times of our Bleſſed Saviour, that dared aſſume this Title of Meſſias; although the Name of Anointed, which the word Meſſias ſignifies, had been given to ſeveral of their Kings; as to David in particular. But ſince Jeſus Chriſt's coming, many have pretended to it. Theſe things being ſo, it is clear, that the Prophecies which had not, and could not have their accompliſhment in thoſe, upon whoſe occaſion they were firſt delivered, were to receive their accompliſhment in the Meſſias, and conſequently thoſe Prophecies ought neceſſarily to be referred to him.

We ought by all means to be perſwaded of this. For we cannot think the Jews were ſo void of Judgment as to imagine that the Apoſtles, or any one elſe in the World, had a right to produce the ſimple words of the Old Teſtament, and to urge them in any other ſenſe, than what was intended by the Writer, directed by the Holy Ghoſt: It muſt be his Senſe, as well as his Words, that ſhould be offered for proof to convince reaſonable Men. But we ſee that the Jews did yield to ſuch Proofs out of Scripture concerning the Meſſias, in which ſome Criticks do not ſee the force of thoſe Arguments that were convincing to the Jews. They muſt then have believed that the true ſenſe of ſuch places was the literal ſenſe in regard of the Meſſias, whom God had then in view at his inditing of theſe Books; and that it was not literal in reſpect of him, who ſeems at firſt-ſight to have been intended by the Prophecy.

And now I leave it to the Conſideration of any unprejudiced Reader that is able to judge, Whether, if theſe Principles and Maxims I have treated of were unknown to the Jews, the Apoſtles could have made any uſe of the Books of the Old Teſtament for their Conviction, either as to the Coming of the Meſſias, or the Marks by which he was diſtinguiſhable from all others, or as to the ſeveral parts of his Miniſtry. But this is a matter of ſo great importance, as to deſerve more pains to ſhew that Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles did build upon ſuch Maxims as I have mentioned: And therefore any that call themſelves Chriſtians, ſhould take heed how they deny the force and authority of that way of Traditional interpretation, which has been anciently received in the Jewiſh Church.

CHAP. IV. That Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles proved divers points of the Chriſtian Doctrine by this common Traditional Expoſition received among the Jews, which they could not have done, (at leaſt, not ſo well,) had there been only ſuch a Literal Senſe of thoſe Texts which they alledged, as we can find without the help of ſuch Expoſition.

IF we make ſome reflections which do not require a great deal of Meditation, it is clear, that Jeſus Chriſt was to prove to the Jews, that he was the Meſſias which they did expect many Ages ago, and whoſe Coming they look'd on as very near. He could not have done ſo if they had not been acquainted with their Prophetical Books, and with thoſe ſeveral Oracles which were contained in them. Perhaps there might have been ſome difference amongſt them concerning ſome of thoſe Oracles, becauſe there were in many of them ſome Ideas which ſeem contrary one to another. And that was almoſt unavoidable, becauſe the Holy Ghoſt was to repreſent the Meſſias in a deep humiliation and great ſuffering, and in a great height of Glory. But after all, the method of calling the Jews was quite different from the method of calling the Gentiles. They had the diſtinct knowledge of the chief Articles of Religion, which the Heathen had not. They had all preparations neceſſary for the deciding this great queſtion, Whether Jeſus of Nazareth was the Meſſias, or not. They had the Sacred Books of the Old Teſtament, they were acquainted with the Oracles as well as with the Law. They longed after the coming of the Meſſias. They had been educated all along, and trained up in the expectation of him. They had not only thoſe Sacred Books in which the Meſſias was ſpoken of, but many among them had gathered the Ideas of the Prophets upon that ſubject, as we ſee by the Books of Wiſdom and Eccleſiaſticus. And indeed we ſee that Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles ſpake to the Jews according to the Notions which were received among them. What I ſay will clearly appear, if we reflect on ſome of the Citations made by Chriſt and his Apoſtles from the Old Teſtament. For altho Jeſus Chriſt had in himſelf all the Treaſures of Wiſdom, and altho his Apoſtles were divinely inſpired, yet they ought 〈◊〉 proportion what they ſaid to the capacity of their hearers. Their Miracles were to move and diſpoſe them to the receiving of the Truth, but their proofs and arguments were the proper means to convince their hearers of it.

1. The Doctrines of the Immortality of the Soul, and the Reſurrection from the Dead, being deny'd by the Sadducees, who required an expreſs Text of Moſes for the proof of thoſe Doctrines, and affirmed that there was not any ſuch to be found in the Writings of Moſes; our Saviour proves it againſt them by theſe words, which ſtopped their mouths, and raiſed the admiration of the multitude, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Iſaac, and the God of Jacob; but God is not the God of the dead but of the living, Mat. xxii. 32. His proof was by a known and neceſſary conſequence from that Text out of the Law, which he inferred according to the received method among the Jews. For the Jews at this day do gather the ſame Doctrines from the ſame words, Vid. Mede his Works, p. 801. Exod. iii. 6, 15, 16. which Jeſus Chriſt alledged to prove them by. The aſtoniſhment of the people on this occaſion did not proceed from the newneſs of his argument, as if they had never heard the like before; for they gathered alſo the Doctrine of the Reſurrection from Moſes his Song, as we ſee in Joſephus de Macchab. p. 1012. But it aroſe from another cauſe, to wit, his giving them ſuch a Spiritual notion of the Reſurrection as was not clogged with the difficulties drawn from that inſtance of a Woman's Marriage to more Husbands than one, which the Sadducees juſtly urged againſt that groſs Idea of a Reſurrection that many of them had, wherein Marriage and other actions of mortal life ſhould have place.

2. Our Bleſſed Saviour in the ſame 22th. ch. of St. Matth. asked the Phariſees whoſe Son the Meſſias was to be? they anſwered, the Son of David, i. e. the Scripture ſaith, he ſhould deſcend from the Line of David. Againſt which Chriſt raiſes this Objection, How then does David in ſpirit, or inſpired by the Spirit, call him Lord? And he alledges for proof that David calls him Lord, the words of Pſal. cx. 1. The Lord ſaid to my Lord ſit thou at my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footſtool. If then David by the Spirit called him Lord, how is he then his Son? It appears that Jeſus Chriſt in making this Objection, did take theſe three things as granted by the Jews at that time. 1. That Pſal. cx. was the work of the Prophet David. 2. That this Pſalm concerned the Meſſias. 3. That the name Adonai is in this place equivalent to the name Jehovah. There is not any of theſe things which the Jews will not diſpute at this day. But that their Forefathers did hold that theſe words were ſpoken to the Meſſias, it appears by their Midraſh on the Pſalms, and Saadia Gaon on Dan. vii. 13. Indeed their Targum juſtifies all that our Saviour ſaid in this place, not only in acknowledging that this Pſalm was compoſed by David, but alſo that it was written for the Meſſias, who is therefore inſtead of Adonai called Memra, or the Word, according to Fagius his reading, which is moſt natural to the place. But that Memra, the Word, denotes the Meſſias, ſhall be ſhown in the ſequel of this Diſcourſe.

St. Paul has taken the ſame way, Act. xiii. 24. where he quotes theſe words from Iſa. lv. 3. I will give you the ſure mercies of David. He refers this paſſage to the ſending of the Meſſias, altho the Text ſeems obſcure enough for ſuch a reference. But he does it in purſuance of the explication given of it by the ancient Jews, who underſtood this Chapter of the Meſſias. So does R. David Kimchi upon this verſe, and Aben Ezra, and Sam. Laniado, and R. Meir Ararma and Abarvanel. Upon the ſame ground he applies to the Meſſias in the ſame Chapter, the words of Pſal. xvi. 10. Thou wilt not leave thy holy One to ſee corruption. He proves that they could not be underſtood of David, ſeeing that his Sepulchre, the Monument of his Corruption, remained till that day. He ought firſt to have proved that this Pſalm was ſpoken of the Meſſias, and then have proved that it could not belong to David. But this method was needleſs, ſince he went on this known Maxim among the Jews, That whatever Pſalm was not fulfilled in David, ought to be underſtood of the Meſſias.

Let us proceed to another clear proof of this Propoſition: St. Paul in Heb. i. 6. quotes a Text from Moſes Song, Deut. xxxii. 43. according to the LXXth Verſion. 'Tis commonly believed that the Quotation is out of Pſal. xcvii. 8. but the very words, Let all the Angels of God worſhip him, are not found in that Pſalm. They are in the Greek of Moſes Song without the leaſt alteration, though it muſt be confeſſed they are not there in the Hebrew Text. I will not diſpute, whether the Jews have loſt out of their Bibles this part of the ancient Text, ſince St. Paul's time. They may in their Vindication ſhew, that neither the Samaritans have in their Text this Quotation, which is extant in the LXX. It ſeems therefore that this Song of Moſes was copied ſeparately from the reſt of the Pentateuch, for their convenience who were to learn it by heart; to which ſome pious People added a few Verſes out of the Pſalms that concerned the ſame Subject. Which Copy, with the Additions, was tranſlated by the LXX, becauſe the People had generally committed this to their Memory. What I conclude from hence is this, That St. Paul made no difficulty to quote words that were only in the LXX Verſion, becauſe they contained things conformable to the ancient Sentiments of the Jews: and following the Genius and Doctrine prevailing in his Nation, he referrs theſe words to the ſecond Appearance of the Meſſias, when all the Angels of God ſhall pay him adoration.

If we read St. Paul's Citation, Gal. iii. 8, 16 of the Promiſe God made to Abraham, that in his ſeed all the nations of the Earth ſhould be bleſſed, which he underſtands of the Promiſe of the Meſſias; we ſhall quickly judge that he followed herein the ſenſe of the ancient Synagogue. I know the greateſt part of the Modern Jews do underſtand it of Iſaac: As if God had ſaid, All the Nations of the Earth ſhall wiſh their Friends the Bleſſing which God gave to Iſaac. But the Ancients underſtood it otherwiſe, as we can judge by the Book of Eccleſiaſticus, ch. xliv. 25. They referred it to the Calling of Gentiles by the Meſſias, as we ſee in Sepher Chaſidim, §. 961. and to the abode of the Sekinah or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as it is explained by R. Joſeph de Carniſol Saare Iſider, fol. 3. col. 4. & fol. 4. col. 1. And ſo St. Peter ſuppoſes it to be ſpoken of the Meſſias, Act. iii. 25.

We may reflect in like manner on the promiſe God made the People, Deut. xviii. 15. To raiſe them up a Prophet like unto Moſes: St. Peter makes uſe of it as being ſpoken of the Meſſias, that he ſhould give a new Law, Act. iii. 22. But the Modern Jews do all they can to evade this Application. Nevertheleſs, it appears to have been the Idea of the ancient Synagogue, becauſe we read that they ſpeak of the Law which was to be given by the Meſſias, as of a Law, in compariſon to which all other Law was to be lookt upon as meer Vanity. So Coheleth Rabba in c. ii. and in c. xi.

It is not without ſome ſurprize that we read the Application St. Mat. ii. 15. has made of theſe words in Hoſ. xi. 1. Out of Egypt have I called my ſon; which ſeem only to be ſpoken of the Children of Iſrael, and not of the Meſſias. And yet in the Book Midraſh Tehillim Rabba on Pſ. ii. we may ſee the Jews referred to the Meſſias what is written of the People of Iſrael, Exod. iv. 22. Which is an argument that St. Matthew cited this paſſage from Hoſea, according to the ſenſe the Jews gave it with reſpect to the Meſſias. The Actions of the Meſſias are related in the Law, in the Prophets, and in the Books called Hagiographa [or in the Pſalms.] In the Law, Exod. iv. 22. Iſrael is my firſt-born: In the Prophets, Iſai. lii. 13. Behold my ſervant ſhall deal prudently. In the Pſalms, as it is written, The Lord ſaid to my Lord, Pſal. cx. i.

St. Matth. viii. 17. referrs the words of Iſai. liii. 4. to the miraculous Cures that Chriſt wrought. And he follows herein the ancient Tradition of the Jews, which taught that the Meſſias, ſpoken of in this Chapter of Iſaiah, ſhould pardon Sins, and conſequently heal their diſtempers, which were the effects and puniſhments of their Sins. From hence it follows, that, according to their Tradition, the Meſſias ſhould be God, even as Jeſus Chriſt did then ſuppoſe, when he healed the Paralytick Man by his own power, Matth. ix. 6. and proves that he did not blaſpheme in forgiving Sins, which the Jews thought belonged only to God.

St. Matth. i. 23. applies the words of Iſai. vii. 14. to Chriſt's being born of a Virgin. Behold a Virgin ſhall conceive, and bring forth a ſon, &c. This he did likewiſe according to the ancient Idea of the Jews, which was not quite loſt in the time of Adrian the Emperor. For R. Akiba, who lived and died under his Reign, makes the following Reflection on this Prophecy. He had conſidered that Iſaiah, in the beginning of the following Chapter, received Order from God to take to him two Witneſſes, Uriah the Prieſt who lived in his time, and Zechary the Son of Berachiah, who lived not (as he thought) till under the ſecond Temple. Upon which he ſaith, that God commanded the Prophet to do thus, to ſhew, that as what he had foretold concerning Maher-ſhalal-haſh-baz was true by the Witneſs of Uriah, who ſaw it accompliſh'd; ſo what he had foretold concerning the Conception and Delivery of a Virgin, muſt be accompliſhed under the ſecond Temple by the Witneſs of Zechary, who lived then. See Gemara. tit. Maccoth. c. 3. fol. 24.

3. We ſee that Jeſus Chriſt, Joh. iv. 21, &c. alludes tacitly to the Prophecy of Mal. i. 11. concerning the Sacrifices of the New Teſtament. This is a matter at preſent controverted between Chriſtians and Jews. But Chriſt deliver'd the ſenſe of the Synagogue, as it is evident from the Targum on thoſe words of Malachy, which applies them to the Times of the Meſſias.

4. One would think it were only by way of Similitude that Chriſt applied to himſelf the Hiſtory of the Brazen Serpent, in ſaying, Joh. iii. 14. As Moſes lifted up the Serpent in the Wilderneſs, ſo muſt the Son of Man be lifted up. But there appears to be more in it than ſo. The ancient Jews lookt upon the Brazen Serpent as a Type of the Meſſias, ſo we find by their Targum on Numb. xxi. 8. which expounds this Serpent which Moſes lifted up, by the Word of the Lord, who is alſo called God, Wiſd. xvi. 7. compared with chap. xv. 1. Although Philo, while he hunts for Allegories, gives another Idea of it, de Agric. p. 157.

5. It may alſo ſeem to be only by way of Alluſion, that Chriſt calls himſelf the Bread that came down from Heaven, alluding to the Manna which came down from Heaven, as we read Exod. xvi. But he that looks into the ancient Jewiſh Writers ſhall find that herein alſo our Saviour followed the common Jewiſh Idea. For Philo, who writ in Egypt before Jeſus Chriſt began to preach, tells us poſitively that the Word or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was the Manna. Lib. quòd Deter. pot. inſid. p. 137.

St. Paul, Heb. 1.5. cites God's Words to David concerning one that ſhould come out of his Loins, 2 Sam. vii. 14. I will be to him a Father, and he ſhall be to me a Son, as if they reſpected the Meſſias. How could he do thus? When on the one hand he calleth Jeſus Chriſt holy, undefiled, harmleſs, ſeparate from Sinners; and on the other hand in that Promiſe to David, God takes it for granted that that Son of his might be a Sinner, and thereupon threatens in the very next words, 2 Sam. vii. 14. If he commit iniquity, I will chaſten him with the rod of men; which ſuits well with Solomon, but not at all with the Meſſias. The reaſon is, St. Paul followed the ſenſe of this place, which was commonly received among the Jews, who as they refer to the Meſſias, the Pſal. lxxii, cx. and cxxxii. where the ſame Ideas occur, ſo they muſt have referred to the Meſſias, whatever is great in this Prophecy; and to others, whatever therein denotes humane infirmities. And Indeed it was not very hard to give to that Oracle a further proſpect, viz. to the Meſſias; 1ſt. Becauſe Solomon was made King in the Life of his Father; whereas the Son which God ſpeaks of was to be born after David's Death. 2dly. Becauſe it is ſpoken of a Seed not born from David, but from David's Children. 3dly. Becauſe the Mercy of God was to make the Kingdom of David laſt for ever; whereas the Kingdom of Solomon was divided ſoon after his Death, and but two parts of twelve were left to Rehoboam his Son.

St. Paul, Gal. iv. 29. alludes to the Hiſtory in Gen. xxi. 9. as a Type of the Perſecutions which the Jews ſhould exerciſe on the Chriſtians. Whereon does he build this? Firſt having proved it his way, that the Chriſtian Church was typified in Iſaac, the Son of the Free-woman, and Iſrael according to the Fleſh, by Iſhmael the Son of the Bondwoman; and having thus brought unbelieving Iſrael into Iſhmael's place, he proceeds upon the Old Jewiſh Nation recited in Baal-Hatturim, that Iſhmael ſhould pierce Iſaac with an Arrow, which they illuſtrate by Gen. xvi. 12. inſtead whereof the Text ſaith only, that he laughed at, or mocked Iſaac.

We ſee St. Paul, Rom. x. 6. applies to the Goſpel thoſe words of Deut. xxx. 11, 12, 13, 14. which ſeem to be ſpoken of the Law given by Moſes to the Jews. But then the Old Synagogue applied theſe words of Moſes to the times of the Meſſias, as is clear from Jonathan's Targum on the place, which is enough to juſtify St. Paul's Uſage of the words.

We read in the Song of Zacharias, Luk. 1.69. that theſe words are referred to the Meſſias, he hath exalted the horn of his Anointed. The very ſame words are pronounced by Hannah, the Mother of Samuel, 1 Sam. ii. 10. where the Targum referrs them in like manner as the ſenſe of the Synagogue.

The ſame Targum underſtands of the Meſſias that paſſage 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. And the lxx have the like Idea with the Targum, which is a farther Confirmation of the Tradition of the Synagogue.

It is certain this Notion of the Meſſias was very common among the Jews; otherwiſe they would not have thruſt it into their Targums on places where naturally it ought not to come in. For inſtance. It is ſaid 1 Kings iv. 33. That Solomon diſcourſed of all the Trees, from the Cedar of Libanus, even to the Hyſſop that ſpringeth out of the Wall. Now the Remark of the Targum hereupon is this, And he prophecied touching the Kings of the Houſe of David, which ſhould rule in this preſent World, as alſo in the World to come of the Meſſias.

6. We ſee our Lord Jeſus Chriſt was careful to inſtruct the Phariſees of the two different Characters of the Coming of the Meſſias, Luk. xvii. 20. Of which the one was to be obſcure, and followed with the Death of the Meſſias; the other was to be glorious, and acknowledged by the whole World. Chriſt inſtructed them in this the rather, to remove their miſtakes through which they confounded his two Comings. Though in truth they were both of them confeſſed by the Jews for ſome time after Chriſt's aſcenſion into Heaven.

7. We ſee that Chriſt himſelf, Matth. xxi. 16. and alſo his Apoſtle St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 27. Eph. i. 21. Heb. ii. 6, 7, 8. apply the words of Pſal. viii. to the Meſſias. How could they do it, were it not before the ſenſe of the Synagogue? Now that ſuch was the ſenſe of the Synagogue, ye ſee till this day, if we read what they ſay in their Rabboth upon the Song of Songs, ch. iv. 1. and upon Eccleſiaſtes, ch. ix. 1. that the Children were to make Acclamations at the Coming in of the Meſſias, the ſecond Redeemer, according to thoſe words of Pſal. viii. 3. Ex ore infantium, &c.

Laſtly, We ſee St. Paul, Rom. x. 18. does refer the words of Pſal. xix. 4. to the Preaching of the Apoſtles; and ſaith, Their ſound went over all the Earth, and their words to the end of the World. What would an unbelieving Jew have ſaid to this, that Paul ſhould apply the Pſalmiſt's words in this manner? But the Apoſtle was ſecure againſt this or any other Objection from the Jews, if he uſed the words in the ſenſe of their Synagogue. And that he did ſo, there is little reaſon to doubt. The Encomiums which David gave to the Law of Moſes, they would moſt readily apply to the Law of the Meſſias: And they expected he ſhould have his Apoſtles to carry his Law throughout the World. To this expectation of theirs the Pſalmiſt's words were very applicable. That the Divine Word is called the Sun, Philo plainly affirms; and if I take R. Tanchum aright, he underſtands that it was the Meſſias that was called the Sun of Righteouſneſs, Mal. iv. 2. St. John ſaw Chriſt in that figure of the Sun, and his Apoſtles as twelve Stars, and that in Heaven, which to him is the ſtate of the Goſpel, Rev. xxi. 1.

According to this figure, in this Pſalm, the Sun of Righteouſneſs is deſcribed as a Giant, which rejoyceth to run a Race, v. 5. And here is a deſcription of his Courſe, together with that of his Diſciples, and of the manner by which they made their Voices to be heard. This Idea ſhocked R. Samuel in a Book he writ before his Converſion, ch. 18. which he communicated with a Rabin of Morocco. And whoever conſiders that Idea of the Writer of the Book of Wiſdom xviii. 5. ſhall find it is no other than that of this xixth Pſalm, mixed a little with that Idea in the Canticles, which the Old Jews refer to the Meſſias, and with that of the Song of Iſaiah v. touching the Meſſias, which ſerved the Jews for a Commentary to underſtand the Song of Solomon by.

I could gather a much greater number of Remarks on this Head; but having brought as many here together, as I take to be ſufficient for the proving of what I have ſaid, I think I ought not to enlarge any further. So I come next to ſearch out the Storehouse, where we may find theſe Traditions of the Jews, which Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles made uſe of, either in explaining or confirming the Doctrines of the Goſpel.

They muſt be found in the ancient Books of the Jews which remain among us, ſuch as the Apocryphal Books, the Books of Philo the Jew, and the Chaldee Paraphraſes on the Old Teſtament. The Authority of all theſe ought to be well eſtabliſhed. Let us begin by the Apocryphal Books, ſome of which Mr. N. hath ridiculed very boldly. Then we ſhall conſider what he has ſaid to Philo, whoſe Writings Mr. N. hath endeavoured to render uſeleſs in this Controverſy: How juſtly, we ſhall conſider in the next Chapters.

CHAP. V. Of the Authority of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Teſtament.

ALthough the Proteſtants have abſolutely rejected the Apocryphal Books of the Old Teſtament, which the Church of Rome make uſe of in Controverſies, as if they were of the ſame authority with the Books of the Law and Prophets, notwithſtanding they keep them as Books of a great antiquity. And we make uſe of their authority, not to prove any Doctrine which is in diſpute, as if they contained a Divine Revelation, and a deciſion of an inſpired Writer, but to witneſs what was the Faith of the Jewiſh Church in the time when the Authors of thoſe Apocryphal Books did flouriſh. Any body who ſees the Socinians making uſe of the Authorities of Artemas, or of Paulus Samoſatenus to prove that the Chriſtian Church was in their opinion, muſt grant the ſame authority to the Books of Wiſdom, Eccleſiaſticus, and the like, touching the Sentiment of the Jewiſh Church in the age of thoſe Writers.

Grotius, a great Author for the Socinians, was 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 'tis 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 Eſdras, ſo I am reſolved not to make any uſe of it.

The Antiquity and the Jewiſh Origin of all theſe Books that we call Apocryphal, being ſo ſettled, there is nothing to be done but to conſider what is the ground of the Conjecture of Grotius, who pronounces boldly in his Preface to the Book of Wiſdom: Eum librum nactus Chriſtianus aliquis Graecè non indoctus in Graecum vertit, libero nec ineleganti dicendi genere, & Chriſtiana quaedam commodis locis addidit, quod & libro Syracidae quem dixi evenit, ſed in Latino huic magis quam in Graeco, non quod neſciam poſt Eſdram explicatius proponi caepiſſe patientiam piorum, judicium univerſale, vitam aeternam, ſupplicia gehennae, ſed quia locutiones quaedam magis Evangelium ſapiunt quam vetuſtiora tempora.

But to ſpeak my mind plainly, this Conjecture of Grotius is abſolutely falſe and without any ground. 1. Whence had he this particular account of the Jewiſh Faith and Religion in the time of Eſdras, ſo as to be able to judge by it which was written long after Eſdras, and to ſhew that the Notions of theſe Books are clearer than the Ideas which were among the Jews before Jeſus Chriſt? He goes only upon that Principle, that the Jews ſince they were under the Greek Empire began to be more acquainted with the Ideas of the Eternal Life, and of Eternal Puniſhment, and of the laſt Judgment, than they were before, which is the Principle of Socinus, and of his Followers, but that Chriſtians had much clearer Ideas of thoſe Notions than the Jews had ſince Eſdras his time.

2ly. Is it not an intolerable boldneſs to accuſe thoſe Books of having been ſo interpolated, without giving any proof of it, but his meer Conjecture? I confeſs there are ſeveral various Readings in thoſe Books as there are in Books which having been of a general uſe, were tranſcribed many times by Copiſts of different induſtry, one more exact and more learned than the other. But to ſay that a Chriſtian hath interpolated them deſignedly, is a thing which can no more be admitted than to ſuppoſe that they have corrupted the Greek Verſion of the Books of the Old Teſtament, to which thoſe Books were joined in the Greek Bible as ſoon as it came into the hands of the Chriſtians.

3ly. To ſuppoſe that a Chriſtian hath been the Author of the Tranſlation of ſome of thoſe Books, is a thing advanced with great abſurdity, ſince there was a Tranſlation of theſe Books quoted by Philo and by St. Paul in his Epiſtles. Now I would ask from Grotius how he can prove that there was a ſecond Verſion of the Book of Wiſdom made by a Chriſtian after Jeſus Chriſt? what was the need of it, ſince there was one before Jeſus Chriſt? And if any Chriſtian did undertake ſuch a new one without neceſſity, how it came to paſs that it was received inſtead of the Verſion which was in uſe amongſt the Jews, and was added to the Books of Scripture, and of the Copies which were in the hands of Chriſtians?

I need not to urge many other abſurdities againſt Grotius his Conjecture. I take notice only, 1. That Grotius was far from ridiculing the Book of Wiſdom, as the Socinian Author of the Book againſt Dr. Bull hath done in his Judgment of the Fathers.

2ly. That the ridiculing of ſuch an Author as the Book of Wiſdom ſheweth very little Judgment in Mr. N. He had better have made uſe of the Gloſſes of Grotius, than to venture upon ſuch rough handling of an Author quoted by St. Paul, whoſe quoting him giveth him more credit, than he can loſe by a thouſand cenſures of a Man who writes ſo injudiciouſly.

3ly. That the very place which Mr. N. ridicules is ſo manifeſtly taken from the Pſalm xix. which contains a Prophecy touching the Meſſias, and from the Song of Iſaiah, ch. 5. that whoſoever reflects ſeriouſly upon ſuch a ridiculing of the Book of Wiſdom made by Mr. N. can't but have a mean notion of his ſenſe of Religion.

After all let Mr. N. do what he can with the Conjecture of Grotius, I am very little concerned in his Judgment; Firſt, becauſe the matter which we are to handle is not the matter which Grotius ſuſpects to have been foiſted in by ſome Chriſtian Interpreter. 2ly. Becauſe I am reſolved to make uſe in this Controverſie only of thoſe places of the Apocryphal Books in which they expreſs the ſenſe of the Old Synagogue before Jeſus Chriſt, as I ſhall juſtifie they have done by the conſent of the ſame Synagogue after Jeſus Chriſt; and no body can ſuſpect with any probability of the Old Synagogue that they have borrowed the Ideas of Chriſtians, and have inſerted them in their ancient Books, written ſo long time before Jeſus Chriſt's Birth.

CHAP. VI. That the Works which go under the name of Philo the Jew, are truly his; and that he writ them a long while before the time of Chriſt's Preaching the Goſpel; and that it does not appear in any of his Works that ever he had heard of Chriſt, or of the Chriſtian Religion.

TO ſhew the Judgment of the Ancient Synagogue in the Points controverted between us, and the Unitarians, we make great uſe of the Writings of Philo the Jew; which if they are his, it cannot be denied, do put this matter out of Queſtion. Our Adverſaries therefore, as it greatly concerns them, do deny that thoſe Works which bear his name, were written by Philo the Jew.

By whom then were they written? They ſay by another Philo a Chriſtian, who lived toward the end of the ſecond Century, and who, as Mr. N. ſaith, counterfeited the Writings of the famous Philo of Alexandria, who was ſent Embaſſadour to Caligula by thoſe of his own Nation in the year of Chriſt 40.

It is eaſie to refute this Suggeſtion of theirs. And yet I cannot but acknowledge it has ſome kind of colour, from that which we read in Euſebius and Jerome, who tell us, that Philo has given a Character of the Apoſtolick Chriſtians in his Book de Therapeutis: To which ſome have added, that at his ſecond coming to Rome under Claudius, to be Embaſſadour at his Court, as he was before at Caligula's, he then became acquainted with St. Peter the Apoſtle of Chriſt.

I am therefore to prove theſe Propoſitions.

1. That thoſe Books we have under the name of Philo, are the Works of a Jew, of whom there is not the leaſt appearance in his Writings that he knew any thing of Chriſtianity, nor that he ever heard of Jeſus Chriſt or his Apoſtles.

2. That it appears by the Books themſelves that they were written before Jeſus Chriſt began to Preach.

3. That there is no foundation for what Euſebius ſays, and alſo St. Jerome, who Copied from Euſebius, concerning Philo's account of a ſort of Chriſtians, whom he deſcribes under the name of Therapeutae.

4. That the Hiſtory of the Converſation between St. Peter and Philo is a ridiculous Fable, which Euſebius took upon hear-ſay, from he knew not whom, or from an Author, whom he did not think fit to name, for fear it ſhould give no credit to his Story.

The firſt Propoſition, namely, That theſe Pieces were written by one that was a Jew by Religion, this one cannot doubt of, if he conſiders theſe following things.

1. That in all theſe Pieces of Philo, whereever he has occaſion to make uſe of Authority, he fetches it only out of the Jewiſh Scriptures. And thoſe are the only Scriptures that he takes upon him to explain. He quotes Moſes (whom he uſually calls the Law-giver), as we do the Sayings of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. And ſometimes, tho very rarely, he quotes other Writings of the Old Teſtament. But I dare affirm that in all his Treatiſes, he cites not one paſſage from the New Teſtament, which thing alone is ſufficient to prove that he was no Chriſtian. For the firſt Chriſtians uſed to cite the New Teſtament with as much care, and even affection, as the Jews did the Old.

But, Secondly, one had need have an Imagination as ſtrong as Mr. N. to fancy that a Chriſtian Author in the end of the Second Century could write, as Philo does, upon moſt part of the Books of Moſes without mixing ſome touches at leaſt at the Chriſtian Religion. And yet there is no ſuch thing in all Philo's Works. He takes it for his buſineſs to make the Jews underſtand their Law, according to their Midraſhim in an Allegorical way, and to teach the Heathens that their prejudices againſt the Law of Moſes were unjuſt, and that they ought to acknowledg the Divinity of this Law, which he explained to them. This is the end or deſign of this Author in all his Works.

3dly. It appears that he, according to the opinion of the Jewiſh Nation, did expect the Meſſias as a great Temporal King yet to come, as is evident from the Interpretation he gives of Balaam's Prophecy touching the Meſſias in his Book de Praemiis, p. 716.

4thly. In all his Works there is nothing peculiar to Chriſt that Mr. N. can alledg, except in what is written of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is the very thing in diſpute between us and him; but even that doth not hinder, but that the Jews themſelves finding every thing in Philo ſo agreeable to the Notions that their Anceſtors had in his Age, do own them to be the Writings of a Jew, and of Philo in particular. As we ſee in Manaſſeh ben Iſrael, who in many places alledges his Authority,In Exod. p. 137. and ſhews that his Opinions do generally agree with thoſe of their moſt ancient Authors.

The ſecond thing I have to ſhew is, that it appears from the Books themſelves and other wiſe that many of them were compoſed before Jeſus Chriſt began to Preach the Goſpel. Chriſt's Preaching began in Paleſtine in the year of the Building of Rome 783. But the Author of the Book, Quod omnis probus ſit Liber, which has always been accounted undoubtely Philo's, does note, that the obſtinate reſiſtance of thoſe of Xanthus in Lycia againſt M. Brutus, was an affair freſh in memory, as having happened, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not much before the writing of that Book. Now this which he tells us of the Xanthians, happened not long after the death of Julius Caeſar, who was killed on the 13th. of March in the year of Rome 709, for Brutus himſelf was kill'd at the time of the Battel of Philippi, which was in Autumn in the year 712. Therefore Philo could not ſay, it happened not long ſince, if he writ ſo long after as in the year, Urb. Con. 783. when Chriſt began to Preach; for according to the common manner of ſpeaking, no man could ſay a thing happened not long ſince, that happened before the remembrance of any man then living.

But if that Book was writ before Chriſt began to preach the Goſpel, much more were all thoſe Books which we make uſe of againſt the Unitarians: for according to the Order, in which theſe Books are rankt by Euſebius, this Book, Quod omnis probus eſt Liber, was one of the laſt that Philo writ. The firſt that Euſebius names were the Three Books of Allegories; after which he goes on to the Books of Queſtions and Anſwers upon Geneſis, and upon Exodus; he tells us beſides, That Philo took pains to examine particular difficulties, which might ariſe from ſeveral Hiſtories in thoſe Books; and names the ſeveral Books that Philo writ of this ſort. This Order of his Books was obſerved in the Manuſcripts, which Euſebius hath exactly followed; and it is agreeable enough to the Jewiſh Method of handling the Scripture by way of Queſtions and Anſwers, which is ſtill the Title of many Jewiſh Books of this Nature.

We may gather the ſame truth from another part of Philo, which tells us expreſly that he ſtudi'd the Scriptures, Primâ aetate, when he was young; and he complains of being called afterwards to publick buſineſs; and that he had not now leiſure to attend to the ſtudy of the Scriptures, as formerly [Lib. de Leg. ſpec. p. 599.] Therefore all his Books before were written in his younger days, and eſpecially his Three Books of Allegories, which Euſebius placeth firſt before any of the reſt.

Joſephus in his Antiq. Lib. xviii. c. 10. aſſures us, That Philo was the Chief and moſt conſiderable of the Jews employed by thoſe of Alexandria, in the Embaſſy to Caligula. This man, ſaith he, eminent among thoſe of his Nation, appeared before Caligula his Death, which was, A. U. C. 793. That is to ſay, in the 40th year of our Lord. Now Philo, in the Hiſtory of his Legation to Caligula, ſays of himſelf, That he was at that time all grey with Age, that is, 70 years old, according to the Jewiſh Notion of a man with grey hair, Pirke Avoth. c. 5. Suppoſe then that he was 70 years old when he appeared before Caligula, it follows that he was born in the year of Rome 723. Suppoſe alſo that he began to write at 30 years old, it will fall in with the year of Rome 793. That is to ſay 30 years before Chriſt preach'd in Judaea. For Jeſus Chriſt began not to preach till the year of Rome 783.

The Third Aſſertion is as eaſy to be juſtified. For though Baronius makes much of that fancy of Euſebius, who, to prove the Antiquity of Monaſtic Life, held that Philo's Therapeutae were Chriſtians; and who was herein followed by St. Hierom without Examination; yet others of the moſt Learned Papiſts, as particularly Lucas Holſtenius, and Hen. Valeſius have confeſt, that herein Euſebius was miſtaken. Indeed one need only read the Book de Therapeutis it ſelf, or even the firſt period of it, to be convinced that thoſe whom Philo there deſcribes, were the Jews of the Eſſen Sect, and the Eſſens were, as Joſephus plainly ſhews in the account he gives of them, as much Jews by Religion, as the Phariſees were. Photius, who was a better Critic than Euſebius, has very well corrected his miſtake, and ſhewn, That the Book de Therapeutis deſcribes the Life of a Sect of the Jews, and not of the Chriſtians. It is a ſurprizing thing that Euſebius ſhould commit ſuch a miſtake, becauſe he himſelf in his Books de Praep. Evang. do's cite a long paſſage from Porphyry taken out of Joſephus, in the tranſcribing whereof Euſebius could not but ſee many thing related of the Eſſens, ſuch as Philo brought into his account of the Therapeutae.

But to this it may be Objected; do's not Photius report that Philo being at Rome in Claudius his time, met with St. Peter there, and contracted a friendſhip with him, which occaſioned his writing that Book de Therapeutis, as of the Diſciples of St. Mark, who was himſelf the Diſciple of St. Peter? Doth not Euſebius fix this meeting of Philo with St. Peter to the reign of Claudius, when he ſaith he read in full Senate his Book, Intituled, The Virtues of Caius Caligula; (Tho it was the ſcope of that Book to ſhew the impiety of that Monſter that would be worſhipped as a God) for which Philo was ſo much admired, that not only this but his other pieces were ordered to be put into the publick Library, as pieces of ſuch great value, that they were worthy to be preſerved for ever?

I know all this, and do believe that Euſebius did not invent all this Hiſtory. But if there be any truth in it, they might be thoſe Books of Philo, which he writ againſt Flaccus (who died A. D. 38.) and the account of his Embaſſy to Caius, with three other Treatiſes containing the Sufferings of the Jews under Caius, now loſt, that were put in the Publick Library. For I cannot imagine, that the Roman Senate ſhould lay up in their publick Archives his other pieces, which regarded only the Laws of the Jews.

But as for that which he tells us, that Philo ſaw St. Peter at Rome, and there made an acquaintance with him, it is a meer dream of Euſebius, who fancying that his Book de Therapeutis was written in praiſe of the firſt Chriſtians of Alexandria, and that they were Diſciples of St. Mark, did go on to imagine, that he might poſſibly have ſome converſation with St. Peter, and St. Mark, and ſo came to write in commendation of theſe firſt Chriſtians. This meeting of St. Peter and Philo at Rome, in Claudius his time, (howſoever Euſebius fancied it as a thing that would give ſome colour to his Opinion concerning the Therapeutae) could not be true, becauſe, as it appears by the Writings of the New Teſtament, St. Peter was as far from being at Rome in the 42d. year of our Lord, that is, in the ſecond year of Claudius, who ſucceeded caligula, that he did not leave Judaea or Syria till after the Death of Agrippa (the ſame that impriſoned St. Peter, and) who died in the fourth of Claudius. All the Learned now a days know that St. Peter came not to Rome before the firſt year of Nero (if he came thither ſo early) i. e. A. D. 55. at which time it is neceſſary that Philo who was all Grey A. D. 40. and conſequently was then about ſeventy years of age, ſhould be full eighty five years old, which is an age very unfit for travel or buſineſs, or even for living ſo far from ones own home, as Rome was from Alexandria.

This ſhews what credit may be given to this report in Photius, that Philo was a Chriſtian, but afterward turned Apoſtate. So it is, all Errors are fruitful, and from one Fable there uſes to ariſe many more.

As for Euſebius he is the leſs to be excuſed for writing what he doth of St. Mark's Goſpel, which he ſaith was firſt approved by St. Peter at this time of his being at Rome, and then made uſe of by St. Mark at Alexandria for the converting of thoſe Jews whom Philo deſcribes under the name of Therapeutae. When as Euſebius ſheweth us himſelf elſwhere in his Hiſtory, he had ſo great an Authority as that of Irenaeus to aſſure him, that St. Mark's Goſpel was not written till after St. Peter's Death. [Euſeb. Hiſt. v. 8.] All that can be ſaid for him, is only this, that when he was writing this paſſage of Philo, he did not think of what he had writ before. Indeed if he had thought of it, he had not been that man we take him for, if he had ſuffered it to paſs, as it ſtands now in his Hiſtory.

I thought it was proper to enter into this diſquiſition concerning the Writings of Philo, and the time when they were written, that I might leave no doubt in the minds of my Readers, concerning the Authority of Philo, whom I intend to produce as an authentick Teſtimony of the Opinions of the Synagogue before our Lord, in the matters diſputed between us and the Unitarians.

Proceed we to the Chaldee Paraphraſes.

CHAP. VII. Of the Authority and Antiquity of the Chaldee Paraphraſes.

I Shall have occaſion, in many points, to cite the Paraphraſes of the Jews upon the Books of the Old Teſtament; and perhaps it may appear ſtrange to ſome, that I oftentimes cite them without diſtinguiſhing between thoſe which paſs for ancient, and thoſe which are reputed by Criticks altogether modern. Therefore I think my ſelf obliged once for all to give the reaſons of my doing thus, and to ſatisfie my Reader thereupon.

I ſhall not ſpend time to diſcover the Original of theſe Paraphraſes. It is enough to mind the Reader, that the Jews having almoſt forgot their Hebrew in the Babylonian Captivity, 'twas needful for the People's underſtanding the Holy Scriptures, which were read in the Synagogue every Sabbath-day, that ſome perſons skilful both in the Hebrew and Chaldee ſhould explain to the People every Verſe in Chaldee, after that they had read it to them in Hebrew. The Jews make this Practice as ancient as the times of their return from the Babylonian Captivity, Neh. viii. 8. as one may ſee in the Talmud, Title Nedarim, ch. 4.

The Jews all agree, that this way of Tranſlating the Scriptures was made by word of mouth only for a long time. But it is hard to conceive that they which interpreted in that manner did write nothing for the uſe of Poſterity. It ſeems much more probable to believe, that from time to time theſe Interpreters writ ſomething, eſpecially on the moſt difficult places, and thoſe which were leaſt underſtood.

The firſt, according to the Jewiſh Writers,Magill. c. 3. who attempted to put into Writing his Chaldee Verſion of the Prophets firſt and laſt according to the Jewiſh diſtinction, (except Daniel) or rather, who interpreted the whole Text in order, was Jonathan the Son of Uzziel; who alſo not contenting himſelf always to render the Hebrew, word for word, into Chaldee, does often mix the Traditional explication of the difficulteſt Prophecies with his ſimple Tranſlation.

The Jews ſeem to agree that this Jonathan lived a 100. years before the deſtruction of Jeruſalem; that is to ſay, he lived in the reign of Herod the Great, about thirty years before the Birth of our Lord. And ſome Criticks believe our Saviour does cite his Chaldee Paraphraſe Luc. iv. 18. in quoting the Text Iſa. lx. 2. Thus much may at leaſt be ſaid for it, that all that which is there cited, does agree better with his Targum, than with the Original Text.

Onkelos a Proſelyte, was he according to their common account, who turned the five Books of Moſes into Chaldee. This Work is rather a pure ſimple Tranſlation, than a Paraphraſe; notwithſtanding it muſt be allowed, that in divers places he does not endeavour ſo much to give us the Text word for word, as to clear up the ſenſe of certain places, which otherwiſe could not well be underſtood by the people. This Onkelos according to the common opinion of the Jews, ſaw Jonathan, and lived in the time of that ancient Gamaliel, who was Maſter of the Apoſtle St. Paul, as ſome would have it.

We find in Megillah, c. 1. that he Compoſed his Targum under the Conduct of R. Eliezer, and of R. Joſua, after the year of our Lord 70, and that he died in the year of our Lord 108, and that his Targum was immediately received into the publick uſe of the Jews; what other Targums there were on the five Books of Moſes, having almoſt wholly loſt their credit and their authority.

As to the other Sacred Books which the Jews call Cetouvim, or Hagiographes, they aſcribe the Targums of the Pſalms, the Proverbs, and Job, to R. Joſeph Caeeus, and affirm that he lived a long time after Onkelos. And for the Targums of the other Books, they look on them as works of Anonymous Authors. However the moſt part of theſe Targums have been Printed under the name of Jonathan, as if he had been Author of them all.

There are moreover ſome ſcraps of a Paraphraſe upon the five Books of Moſes, which is called the Jeruſalem Targum; and there is another that bears the name of Jonathan upon the Pentateuch, and which ſome Learned Jews have ſaid to be his. As doth R. Azaria (Imrebinah, c. 25.) and the Author of the Chain of Tradition, p. 28. after R. Menahem de Rekanati, who cites it under the name of Jonathan, following ſome Ancient MSS. Theſe Targums ordinarily exceed the bounds of a Paraphraſe, and enter into Explications, ſome of which are ſtrange enough, and appear to be the work of divers Commentators, who among ſome good things have very often mixed their own idle Fancies and Dreams.

Beckius nineteen years ago, publiſhed a Paraphraſe on the two Books of Chronicles, of which alſo there is a MSS. at Cambridge. This deſerves almoſt the ſame Character with theſe Paraphraſes I ſpoke of laſt. For the Author of this, as well as thoſe before mentioned, does often intermingle ſuch Explications as taſte of the Commentator, with thoſe which appear to have been taken from the Ancient Peruſhim, or Explications of the moſt Eminent Authors of the Synagogue. A Man muſt be mighty credulous if he gives credit to all the fables which the Jews bring in their Talmud to extoll the authority of Jonathan his Targum, and he muſt have read theſe Pieces with very little attention or judgment, who ſhould maintain that they are entirely and throughout the Works of the Authors whoſe names they bear, or that they are of the ſame antiquity in reſpect of all their parts.

Onkelos is ſo ſimple that it ſeems nothing, or very little, has been added to him, and he has been in ſo great eſteem among the Jews, that they have commonly inſerted his Verſion after the Text of Moſes, verſe for verſe, in the Ancient Manuſcripts of the Pentateuch. And from thence we may judge if there is any ground for the Conjecture of ſome Jews who would perſuade us that it is only an Abridgment of the Targum of Jonathan upon the Pentateuch. Certainly Jonathan his Targum upon the Pentateuch muſt be of a very dubious origin, ſince we ſee that the Zohar cites from it the firſt words which are not to be found in it, but in the Targum of Jeruſalem, (fol. 79. col. 1. l. 17.) It is uncertain if the Targum of Jeruſalem hath been a continued Targum, or only the Notes of ſome Learned Jew upon the Margent of the Pentateuch, or an abridgment of Onkelos, for it hath a mixture of Chaldaick, Greek, Latin and Perſian words, which ſheweth it hath been written in latter times according to the judgment of R. Elias Levita.

Jonathan, who explained the former and the latter Prophets, has not been ſo happy as Onkelos, for it ſeems thoſe that Copied his Targum have added many things to it, ſome of which diſcover their Authors to have lived more than 700 years after him; one may alſo ſee there a medly of different Targum, of which the Targum on Iſai. xlix. is a plain inſtance.

As to the Targums on all the other Holy Books which the Jews call the firſt Prophets, it is viſible that all their parts are not equally ancient. Thoſe which we have on Joſhua and Judges are ſimple enough and Literal. That on Ruth is full of Talmudical Ideas. The ſame judgment may be made of thoſe on the two Books of Samuel. Thoſe which we have on the two Books of Kings, are a little freer from additions. But that on Eſther is rather a Commentary, that collects ſeveral Opinions upon difficult places, than a Paraphraſe. In that on Job attributed to R. Joſeph in the Jews Edition at Venice in Folio, Anno 1515. there are divers Targums cited in expreſs Terms, as there are alſo in the Targum on the Pſalms, which bears the name of R. Joſeph in the aforeſaid Edition of Venice. One may alſo obſerve many Additions in the Targums on the Proverbs and Eccleſiaſtes, but eſpecially in that upon the Canticles, all which have been publiſhed under the name of R. Joſeph. I have ſaid almoſt as much of that on the two Books of Chronicles, which Beckius publiſhed about eighteen or nineteen years ago.

This being ſo, one may very well ask, with what juſtice do you aſcribe theſe Books to thoſe, who as the Jews now ſay, were the Authors of them? when by their own confeſſion Onkelos on the five Books of Moſes, is perhaps the only Tranſlator in whom you find none of theſe marks of corruption, which you acknowledg in the other Targums you quote. For the other Targums, it may be ſaid, that we ought to leave them out of the Diſpute; unleſs we would impoſe the new Sentiments of the Jews that lived long after Chriſt's time, under the pretence of producing the opinions of the ancient Synagogue before Jeſus Chriſt. One may inſiſt upon it that we are to quote the Books of Onkelos only, and lay the other aſide as Books of no authority, ſince we do confeſs, that they are full of Additions, in which there are many Fables and Viſions borrowed from the Talmudical Jews.

I might hope to ſatisfie any reaſonable Reader, that ſticks at this difficulty, by telling him: Firſt, in few words, that I will ſcarce ever cite any of theſe Targums, but when they ſay the ſame thing that Onkelos doth. And, ſecondly, that theſe as well as Onkelos are owned by the Jews. And it cannot with any colour of reaſon be imagined, that the Jews ſince Chriſt's time have adopted Books contrary to their Religion, and uſed them in their common reading, as true Verſions of the Law and the Prophets. It is certain that the Jews many Centuries ago have taken them for ſuch. And therefore theſe Books in whatſoever time they were written, are ſufficient teſtimonies of the Opinions of the Synagogue.

But I have ſomething more conſiderable to offer for the eſtabliſhing of the Authority of theſe Paraphraſes, as well as of that of Onkelos in our diſpute with our Unitarians, againſt whom we ſhall have occaſion to make uſe of the Teſtimony of theſe Paraphraſes. For this one needs only examine theſe Paraphraſes with an ordinary attention. I pray therefore the Reader to conſider.

1. That whatſoever has been ſaid in general, for the neceſſity that there was, for the making of theſe Chaldee Paraphraſes, the ſame does alſo confirm the antiquity of all theſe Paraphraſes; if not, as to every part of them, yet at leaſt, as to the main of theſe Paraphraſes, ſuch as we now have them almoſt on every Book of the Old Teſtament.

2ly. We ſee in the Miſna a clear mention made of ſome Targums upon the Law and the firſt Prophets, Megillah, cap. 4. Sect. 9, & 10. which muſt be Onkelos and Jonathan.

3ly. We read in the Gemarah of Sabbath, cap. 16. fol. 115. col. 1. an account of the Targum upon Job which Raban Gamaliel (the Grand-father to R. Judah, who compiled the Miſna) had read. Now if the Paraphraſe on the Books of Job was in common uſe ſo anciently; who can doubt, but that they had the like Verſions alſo on the Books of Moſes, and on the Prophets? Nay we ſee that Jeſus Chriſt upon the Croſs cites the xxii. Pſalm according to the Chaldee Paraphraſe, and not according to the Hebrew. This he did, that he might be underſtood by them that were preſent at that time; from whence it follows that the Jews in Judea had a Paraphraſe of the Book of Pſalms, and that that Paraphraſe was already received among them, before the time of our Bleſſed Saviour.

I know ſome Criticks will not allow the Miſnah which ſpeaks of the Targums to be ſo ancient as I do. Their great reaſon is, that this Book is cited by none of the Fathers who lived juſt after it was written, and that it is mentioned by no body before Juſtinian the Emperour his time. But this Objection proceeds only from an overſight of theſe Criticks, who have not obſerved, that although I ſhould grant, what they ſuppoſe to be true, it would not weaken the Authority of the Miſnah, when the Author of the Miſnah does witneſs the antiquity of the Targums; becauſe the Miſnah is not a Book of a common form, but a collection of many old Deciſions, as the Book of Juſtinian, which is called Digeſtum, which is not Juſtinian his work, but his Collection; or as the Book of Gratian, which is called Decretum, which is nothing but the Compilation of Canons, or Deciſions of Fathers, who lived ſix or ſeven hundred years before Gratian. That hath been judiciouſly remark'd by Paul Archbiſhop of Burgos in the Preface to his Scrutinium, and in this judgment he follows Maymonides in his Preface upon his Jad Kazaka. And indeed we muſt obſerve that almoſt all the famous Rabins which are mentioned in the Miſnah are the very Men which are mentioned by St.Com. on Iſa. 8.14. Jerome as the great Authors of the Judaick Traditions.

If the Learned Men do not like the Conjecture of R. Elias Levita upon the Targum of Jeruſalem, but would have it to be the reſt of an entire work upon the Pentateuch; Let them examine how it came to paſs that the Jeruſalem Paraphraſe on the Pentateuch is almoſt all loſt. So that there remain only ſome few bits of it here and there on ſome Texts; and then they will find that perhaps it is not loſt, but that it ſubſiſts in great meaſure in that which is under Jonathan his name on the Pentateuch. Whence it is probably that in ſome MSS. it bears the name of the Targum of Jeruſalem, and in other's the name of Jonathan's Targum: It is eaſie to judge how this came to paſs. The Jeruſalem Targum differed from that of Jonathan but in ſome places; or perhaps it was the very Targum of Jonathan which was augmented from time to time by divers Explications. Then when the Jews came to make their Paraphraſe no longer than their Text, that they might have the Text and the Paraphraſe both together in their Bibles, they did not give themſelves the trouble to tranſcribe the Jeruſalem Paraphraſe all at length; But they contented themſelves with tranſcribing thoſe parts where it appeared to have ſome difference from that of Jonathan; and this they did after ſo ſcrupulous a manner, that they tranſcribed the Paſſages of the Jeruſalem Targum, that agree in the ſenſe, and differ only in the words, as well as thoſe that have a different ſenſe from that of Jonathan.

I know very well that the Jews ſpeak of ſeveral Paraphraſes, beſides that of Jonathan on the Prophets, and that of Onkelos on the Books of Moſes. As for inſtance, they ſpeak of a Targum of R. Joſeph, who they ſay, has tranſlated the Books of the Prophets.

But as to this it ought to be conſidered: 1. That it was the Jews Cuſtom to teach their Scholars theſe Paraphraſes not from a Book, but from their memory, and by heart; and ſo the Scholars might very well aſcribe to their Maſters, that which they had learnt from their mouths, and their verbal inſtructions, as well as if it had been delivered to them in writing. 2. That the ſame places, which are quoted from the Paraphraſe of R. Joſeph on ſome Books of the Prophets, are to be found in expreſs terms in Jonathan's Paraphraſe, which the Jews eſteem more ancient than Onkelos who writ on the Law. 3. R. Joſeph, whom they quote, does himſelf cite the Chaldee Paraphraſe, as being of Authority in his time, and therefore it was not his work. And this appears from his Confeſſion, that he could never have underſtood the words of Iſai. viii. 6. without the help of the Chaldee Paraphraſe, Gemara, ch. xi. tit. Sanbedr. fol. 95.

But notwithſtanding the antiquity of theſe Paraphraſes, I own they contain Additions very new, which ſhew that after they were written, they were in ſuch places enlarged with the Gloſſes of Doctors that applied themſelves to the Study of the Law, and took pains to ſhew how one part of it depended upon another; of which we find nothing in Onkelos, which is almoſt a verbal tranſlation of the Hebrew Text into Chaldee. And thus, 1. we find in many places the connexion of one Hiſtory with another, which is very often the imagination of a Rabbin who fancied what he pleaſed, and fathered it upon Moſes. 2. We find Explications in theſe later Targums different from the former ones yet added to the former with an impudence not to be endured, and this in ſeveral places. 3. We there find long Narrations, which have no other foundation, than their method of explaining Scripture by the way of Notarikon, (as they call it) as where we read of the five Sins of Eſau which he committed on the ſame day in which he ſold his birthright to Jacob; and in purſuance of their manner of explaining Scripture by Gematria, of which Rittangel on Jetzira has given ſome examples, p. 31, 32, 33.

But all this makes nothing againſt the authority of thoſe places in the Paraphraſe, where they do little more than render the Text out of Hebrew into Chaldee. In them there was no occaſion to ſhew any more than the ſenſe of the words, ſuch as the Paraphraſts had received by Tradition from their Forefathers. Whereas the Authors of thoſe Additions thereby made a ſhew of Learning out of the common road, and gave themſelves the pleaſure to ſee their own fictions come into ſuch credit, that they were received as the Oracles of God. But beyond that, we muſt take notice, that, as on one hand thoſe Targums have been enlarged by ſo many Additions, ſo on the other hand they have been altered in many places, and new Ideas ſubſtituted to the old. To ſhew the alteration which was made in thoſe Targums by Modern Jews, we can remark a thing which hath been often taken notice of by Buxtorf, in his Lexicon Talmud, viz. that there are many places cited from thoſe Targums 500 years ago by the Author of Aroule; that are not to be found in them as they are now in Print. So we can prove clearly that new Ideas have been put in inſtead of the old, chiefly upon the points controverted between Jews and Chriſtians. For in many places where St. Jerome in his Comments upon the Prophets brings the common explication of the Jews as agreeing with the explication of Chriſtians, we find the Targum brings an explication quite different from what it was to be according to St. Jerome's account.

It appears by this the Jews have done in their Books the ſame thing which Papiſts have done in the Books of the Fathers. They have added many things to help their Cauſe, and they have cut out many places which might have done great ſervice to Truth.

As for the Additions then I will ſcarce cite any of them, but when it is evident that they ſpeak the ſenſe of the Ancients; and truly whatever one may ſay of the Corruptions of theſe Jewiſh Paraphraſes, I will maintain that it is as eaſie for an attentive Reader to diſtinguiſh theſe Corruptions from the ancient Text (which it ſeems Arias Montanus had a deſign to do in a particular Treatiſe) as it is for one that looks on an old Pot or Kettle to tell where the Tinker has been at work, and to diſtinguiſh his Clouts from the Original metal. The ancient pieces have a ſort of ſimplicity, that makes them to be valued, and which, eaſily ſhews their antiquity. The Additions are the rambling fancies of bold Commentators, which they deviſed in later times as occaſion required, and thruſt them upon the ancient Paraphraſts who lived in thoſe times when there was no ſuch occaſion, nor could they foreſee that there would be any ſuch in after-times.

As for example, we do not find that the Jews before Chriſt's time ever ſpoke of two Meſſias; the one the Son of David, who was to reign gloriouſly; the other a ſuffering Meſſias, the Son of Joſeph, of the Tribe of Ephraim. The reaſon is plain, for they had no occaſion for that fancy of a ſuffering Meſſias. That aroſe upon their Diſputes with the Chriſtians, who proved that the Sufferings of Chriſt were no other than what the Meſſias was to ſuffer according to the Prophecies of Scripture. At firſt the Jews tried other ways to avoid the force of theſe Prophecies, but when no other would do, they came to this, to deviſe another Meſſias the Son of Joſeph, and to give him the Sufferings which the Scripture attributes to the Meſſias the Son of David.

In a word, all theſe Conceits, of which the greateſt part of theſe Additions do conſiſt, do ſo evidently demonſtrate their Novelty, that when one is acquainted with a little of the Hiſtory of the World as well as that of the Jews, it is ſcarce poſſible that he ſhould take them for the Text of Jonathan, or of the ancient Paraphraſts. Beſides all this, in the Modern Paraphraſes themſelves we find very often theſe words, Another Targum, and ſometimes yet, Another Targum, which ſhews that the following words are not the ancient Targum, but are the Additions of ſome Modern Authors, whom the Copyers of the Paraphraſts have joyned as a new light to the ancient.

Whether the Jews's inſerting ſuch things into their Paraphraſes, has been out of fondneſs of theſe Diſcoveries which appeared to them new; or whether they have found it turn to account, to inſert theſe Additions in the Body of their ancient Paraphraſes, thereby to enhance the value of them; or whether they thought, by publiſhing them under the Names of thoſe ancient Commentators whoſe Authority is ſo venerable, to wreſt from the Chriſtians all the advantages they might draw from any thing in their Paraphraſes; the things that they added being oftentimes contrary to what the Ancients did teach; is a ſecret among the Jews; but a ſecret little worth, ſince the Providence of God has preſerved the Apocryphal Books, and the Books of Philo, which can give us ſo much light into the knowledg of what is ancient, and what is modern, in theſe Paraphraſes.

I will add nothing upon this matter, but this, that we ſee in the moſt ancient Books of the Jews, as in the Books call'd Rabboth, Mechiſta, and in their old Midraſhim almoſt all compoſed before the 7th. Century, and in the Talmud of Babylon, the ſame Ideas, and the ſame Doctrine which we meet in the Apocryphal Books, and in Philo's Writings. And thoſe Ideas have been conſtantly followed by the moſt conſiderable part of the Jews, thoſe very Men who have their name from their conſtant ſticking to the old Tradition of their Forefathers.

CHAP. VIII. That the Authors of the Apocryphal Books did acknowledg a Plurality, and a Trinity in the Divine Nature.

HAving finiſhed our General Reflexions on the Traditional Senſe of the Scriptures, which was receiv'd among the Jews before the time of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and of the Books wherein we can find ſuch a Tradition, it is time we ſhould come to the chief matter we deſigned to treat of. The Queſtion is, Whether the Jews before Chriſt's time had any notion of a Trinity. For the Socinians would make us believe, that Juſtin Martyr having been formerly a Platoniſt, and then turning Chriſtian, was the firſt that invented this Doctrine, or rather adopted it out of the Platonick into the Chriſtian Divinity; and that neither the Jewiſh nor the Chriſtian Church had ever before conceived any Notion of a Trinity, or of any Plurality in the Divine Eſſence.

The Doctrine of the Trinity ſuppoſes the Divine Eſſence to be common to three Perſons, diſtinguiſhed from one another by incommunicable Properties. Theſe Perſons are called by St. John, 1 Joh. v. 7. the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. There are Three (ſaith he) that bear Witneſs in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and theſe Three are One.

This Perſonal diſtinction ſuppoſes the Father not to be the Son, nor the Holy Ghoſt, and that the Son is not the Father, nor the Holy Spirit; Revelation teaching that the Son is begotten of the Father, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father by the Son. And this diſtinction is the foundation of their Order, and of their Operations.

For although the Unity of the Divine Nature makes it neceſſary that theſe three Perſons ſhould all co-operate in the Works of God ad extra, as we call them, nevertheleſs there being a certain order among the Perſons, and a diſtinction founded in their Perſonal Properties, the Holy Scripture mentioneth an Oeconomy in their Operations; ſo that one work ad extra is aſcribed to the Father, another to the Son, and a third to the Holy Spirit.

But this diſtinction of Perſons, all partaking of the ſame common Nature and Majeſty, hinders not their being equally the Object of that Worſhip, which Religion commands us to pay to God.

I touch this matter but very briefly, becauſe my buſineſs is only to examine whether the Jews had any notion of this Doctrine. And our Opinion is this, that though the Goſpel has propoſed that Doctrine more clearly and diſtinctly, yet there were in the Old Teſtament ſufficient notices of it, ſo that the Jews before Chriſt's time did draw from thence their Notions concerning it.

On the contrary the Socinians maintain, that this Doctrine is not only alike foreign to the Books of the Old and New Teſtament, but that it was altogether unknown to the Jews before and after Chriſt, till Juſtin Martyr firſt brought it into the Church.

In oppoſition to which, I affirm for truth, 1. That the Jews before Jeſus Chriſt, had a notion of a Plurality in God, following herein certain Traces of this Doctrine that are to be found in the Books of Moſes, and the Prophets.

2. That the ſame Jews following the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament did acknowledg a Trinity in the Divine Nature.

I begin the Examination of this Subject by conſidering the Notions of the Authors of the Apocryphal Books. Now one cannot expect that theſe Authors ſhould have explained their mind with relation to the notions of a Plurality, and of a Trinity in the Godhead, as if they had been Interpreters of the Books of the Old Teſtament. But they expreſs it ſufficiently without that, and ſpeak in ſuch a manner, that no body can deny that they muſt have had thoſe very Notions, when it appears that their Expreſſions in ſpeaking of God, ſuppoſes the Notions of a Plurality in the Godhead, and of a Trinity in particular. Let us conſider ſome of thoſe Expreſſions.

1. They were ſo full of the notion of a Plurality, which is expreſſed in Gen. i. 26. that the Author of Tobith hath uſed it as the Form of Marriage among the Jews of old, Let us make unto him an aid. So Chap. 8.6. Thou madeſt Man, and gaveſt him Eve his Wife for an helper and ſtay; of them came Mankind: Thou haſt ſaid, It is not good that Man ſhould be alone; Let us make unto him an aid like unto himſelf; whereas in the Hebrew it is only, I ſhall make.

2ly. We ſee that they acknowledg the Creation of the World by the Word of God, and by the Holy Ghoſt; as David, Pſal. xxxiii. 6. So the Book of Wiſdom, Ch. ix. 1. O God of my Fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hath made all things with thy Word, or more properly by thy Word, as it is explained in the 2. verſ. and ver. 4. he asketh Wiſdom in theſe words, Give me Wiſdom that ſitteth by thy Throne. And v. 17. Thy counſel who hath known? except thou give Wiſdom, and ſend thy Holy Spirit from above. Where he diſtinguiſheth the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Wiſdom, and the Holy Spirit, from God, to whom he directs his Prayer. And ſo the Book of Judith, ch. xvi. 13, 14. I will ſing unto the Lord a new Song. O Lord, thou art great and glorious, wonderful in ſtrength, and invincible. Let all creatures ſerve thee, for thou ſpeakeſt, and they were made, thou didſt ſend forth thy Spirit, and it created them, and there is none that can reſiſt thy voice.

3ly. They ſpeak of the Emanation of the Word from God: Thoſe are the words of the Book of Wiſdom, ch. vii. 25. For ſhe is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty; therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. That deſcription of Wiſdom deſerves to be conſidered, as we have it in the ſame place, ver. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. For Wiſdom which is the worker of All things, taught me; for in her is an underſtanding ſpirit, holy, one only, manifold, ſubtil, lively, clear, undefiled, plain, not ſubject to hurt, loving the thing that is good, quick, which cannot be letted, ready to do good. Kind to man, ſtedfaſt, ſure, free from care, having all power, over-ſeeing all things, and going through all underſtanding, pure, and moſt ſubtil Spirits; For Wiſdom is more moving than any motion; ſhe paſſeth and goeth through all things, by reaſon of her pureneſs. For ſhe is the brightneſs of the everlaſting Light, the unſpotted mirrour of the power of God, and the image of his Goodneſs. And indeed St. Paul, Heb. i. 3. hath borrowed from thence what we read touching the Son, that he is the brightneſs of God's glory, and the expreſs Image of his Perſon. So the Book of Eccleſiaſticus ſaith, ch. xxv. 3. That it is come out of the mouth of the moſt High.

4ly. There are ſeveral Names in Scripture which ſerve to expreſs the ſecond Perſon, the Son, the Word, the Wiſdom, the Angel of the Lord, but who is the Lord indeed. Now thoſe Authors uſe all theſe Names to expreſs a ſecond Perſon.

For they acknowledge a Father; and a Son, by a natural conſequence: Thus the Author of Eccleſiaſticus, ch. li. 10. I called upon the Lord the father of my Lord, in the ſame way as David ſpeaks of the Meſſias, Pſal. ii. and Pſal. cx. and as Solomon in his Proverbs, ch. viii. 25. as of a Son in the boſom of his Father, and ch. xxx. 4. What is his Sons name, if thou canſt tell?

They ſpeak of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the Creator of all things, ſo the Author of Wiſdom, ch. ix. 1. O God of my Fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hath made all things with thy word. Or more properly by thy Word. And ſo they call that Wiſdom the Worker of all things, Wiſd. ch. vli. 22.

They ſpeak of the Wiſdom in the ſame words as Solomon doth, Prov. iii. and ch. viii. 22. where he expreſſeth the true notion of Eternity. And indeed they attribute to her, to have been eternal, Eccluſ. ch. iv. 18.

They refer conſtantly to God himſelf, that is, to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of God, as we ſhall hereafter ſhew at large, what is attributed to the Angel of the Lord in many places of the Books of Moſes, as to have delivered the Iſraelites from the Red Sea, ſo Wiſd. ch. xix. 9. They went at large like horſes, and leaped like lambs, praiſing thee, O Lord, who hadſt delivered them. Again, to have had his Throne in a cloudy Pillar, Eccluſ. xxiv. 4. To have been cauſed by the Creator of all things to reſt and to have his dwelling in Jacob, and to have his inheritance in Iſrael, Ibid. v. 8. and ſo to have given his memorial to his Children, which is the Law commanded for an heritage into the Congregation of Jews, Ib. 23.

So they attribute to him to have ſpoken with Moſes, Eccluſ. ch. xlv. 5. He made him to hear his voice, and brought him into the dark cloud, and gave him commandments before his face, even the Law of life and knowledg, that he might teach Jacob his Covenants, and Iſrael his Judgments.

Again, to come down from Heaven to fight againſt the Egyptians, Wiſd. ch. xviii. 15, 16, 17. Thine Almighty Word leapt down from Heaven, out of thy Royal Throne, as a fierce man of war into the midſt of a land of deſtruction. And brought thine unfeigned Commandment as a ſharp ſword, and ſtanding up filled all things with death, and it touched the Heaven, but it ſtood upon the Earth.

So they maintain that the Angel who appeared to Joſhuah, ch. 5. was the Lord himſelf, ſo the Author of Eccleſiaſticus, ch. xlvi. 5, 6. He call'd upon the moſt high Lord when the enemies preſſed upon him on every ſide, and the great Lord heard him. And with hailſtones of mighty power he made the battle to fall violently upon the Nations, and in the deſcent [of Bethoron] he deſtroyed them that reſiſted, that the Nations might know all their ſtrength, becauſe he fought in the ſight of the Lord, and he followed the mighty one. They refer the Miracles wrought by Elias to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as you ſee in Eccleſiaſticus, ch. xlviii. 3, 4, 5. By the Word of the Lord he ſhut up the Heaven, and alſo three times brought down fire. O Elias, how waſt thou honoured in thy wondrous deeds! and who may glory like unto thee! Who didſt raiſe up a dead man from death, and his ſoul from the place of the dead by the Word of the moſt High.

As there is nothing more common in the Old Teſtament than to call the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Angel of the Lord, becauſe the Father ſent him to do all things under the Old Diſpenſation, ſo one can ſee that there is nothing more ordinary in the Apocryphal Books, than to ſpeak of an Angel in particular, to whom is attributed all things, which could not be performed, but by God.

Three things prove clearly that they did not conceive a created Angel, but an Angel who is God.

1. Becauſe they have this Maxim, according to the conſtant Divinity of the Jews, built upon Scripture, Deut. xxxii. 9. that God did take Iſrael for his Portion among all the Nations of the World, as if he had left other Nations to the conduct of Angels; ſo Eſth. ch. xiii. 15.

2ly. Becauſe they refer to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſome Hiſtories of the Old Teſtament, which the Jews till this day refer to an Uncreated Angel, or to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Shekina or Memra da Jehova, as I ſhall prove afterwards. We ſee that Wiſd. ch. xvi. 12. For it was neither herb, nor mollifying Plaiſter that reſtored them to health, but thy Word, O Lord, which healeth all things. So Wiſd. ch. xviii. 15, 16, 17. Thine Almighty Word leapt down from Heaven, out of thy Royal Throne, as a fierce man of war, into the midſt of a land of deſtruction, and brought thine unfeigned commandment as a ſharp ſword, and ſtanding up filled all things with death, and it touched the Heaven, but it ſtood upon the earth. I thought fit to repeat this place here, to make Mr. N. aſhamed, who hath expoſed thoſe Ideas, and laught at them, which I believe he would not have done if he had reflected upon two things; one is, That this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who is ſpoken of, is that very man of war mentioned in Moſes his Canticle, Exod. xii. 3. and in Ju • lith, ch. ix. 7. The other is, that St. Paul hath followed the Notions of the Book of Wiſdom, ſpeaking of a ſharp ſword, which is to be underſtood not of the Goſpel, but of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Heb. x. 12. But Mr. N. was in the right to laugh at ſuch an authority, which deſtroys to the ground the Unitarians Principles; for nothing can be more clear, than that this Author acknowledges a Plurality in God; that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 muſt be a Perſon, and a Perſon equal to the Father, being ſet upon the Royal Throne.

3ly. Becauſe they bring ſuch appearances of that Angel, which ſhew they conceived him as the God who ruled Iſrael, and who had taken their Temple for the place of his abode. And on the contrary, they ſpeak of God, whom they conſidered as dwelling in the Temple, in the ſame words which are uſed in Scripture, when it is ſpoken of the name of God, Exod. xxiii. 21. and 1 Sam. viii. 16. of the Angel of the Covenant, Malach. iii. 1. and ſuch expreſſions. So you ſee in the 1. Book of Eſdras, ch. ii. 5, 7. If therefore there be any of you that are of his people, let the Lord even his Lord be with him, and let him go up to Jeruſalem that is in Judea, and build the Houſe of the Lord of Iſrael; for he is the Lord that dwelleth in Jeruſalem. And ch. iv. v. 58. Now when this young man was gone forth he lifted up his face to Heaven, toward Jeruſalem, and praiſed the King of Heaven. And Judith ch. v. 18. and ch. ix. 8. and 2 Macch. i. 25. The only giver of all things, the only juſt, Almighty and Everlaſting, thou that deliveredſt Iſrael from all trouble, and didſt chuſe the fathers, and ſanctifie them. And ch. ii. 17. We hope alſo that the God that delivered all his people, and gave them all on heritage, and the Kingdom, and the Prieſthood, and the Sanctuary. And ch. xiv. 35. Thou, O Lord, of all things, who haſt need of nothing, was pleaſed that the Temple of thine habitation ſhould be among us.

I can add 4ly, that they diſtinguiſh exactly the Angel of God from the Prophets, although they are call'd by the ſame name of Angels or Meſſengers, and they diſtinguiſh him from Angels, which as creatures they exhort to praiſe God, as in the Song of Azaria, v. 36. O ye Angels of the Lord, bleſs ye the Lord, praiſe and exalt him above all for ever. Such a diſtinction appears in the 1. of Eſdras, ch. i. 50, 51. Nevertheleſs, the God of their Fathers ſent by his Meſſenger to call them back, becauſe he ſpared them and his Tabernacle alſo. But they had his Meſſengers in deriſion; and look when the Lord ſpake unto them, they made a ſport of his Prophets. So in Tobith, ch. v. 16. So they were well pleaſed. Then ſaid he to Tobias, prepare thy ſelf for the journey, his father ſaid, Go thou with this man, and God which dwelleth in heaven, proſper your journey; and the Angel of God keep you company. Juſt according to the Prayer of Jacob, Gen. 48.16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bleſs the lads. And that very Angel is called God by Jacob in the verſe before. So in Eccluſ. ch. xvli. 17. For in the diviſion of the Nations of the whole earth, he ſet a ruler over every people, but Iſrael is the Lord's portion. So in the Epiſtle of Jeremy, v. 5, 6. But ſay ye in your hearts, O Lord, we muſt worſhip thee. For mine Angel is with you, and I my ſelf caring for your ſouls. Where in the Greek that caring for their ſouls is referred to the ſame Angel. So 2 Mac. xi. 6. Now they that were with Maccabeus heard that he beſieged the holds, they and all the people with lamentation and tears beſought the Lord that he would ſend a good Angel to deliver Iſrael.

To ſhew that the Jews before Jeſus Chriſt had ſuch a notion of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who was to ſave his people, we muſt take notice of two things: the firſt is, that the Author of the three Books of Maccabees ſpeaks of God at the end of his Book in the ſame terms which are uſed by Jacob, Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. and are to be referred to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not to a created Angel, as I have explained it in a particular diſcuſſion of that very place of Geneſis.

The ſecond is, that the Greek Interpreters of Scripture have uſed ſuch method in tranſlating ſome places of the Prophets, which ſheweth they underſtood that the Meſſias ſhould be the very Angel of the Lord who is called the Counſellor, and that the Angel of the Lord was the Lord himſelf. Two examples will ſhew that clearly; the firſt is in that famous Oracle of Iſaiah, ch. ix. 6. they have theſe words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Angel of the Great Counſel, whereas in the Hebrew it is ſaid, he ſhall be called the admirable 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which is the very Word that the Angel of the Lord gives to himſelf, Judg. xiii. 18.) the Counſellor of the mighty God; and it is clear that they did underſtand theſe words of the Meſſias, who is ſpoken of as the Son of David, v. 7. in the ſame words which are uſed in Pſalm lxxii. The other example is in this other famous place of Iſai. lxiii. 9. they have tranſlated neither an Angel, but himſelf ſaved them; as if they had read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , inſtead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which we read now. Some of the new Jews are mightily intangled in explaining that place, but it appears that theſe Interpreters of Iſaiah look'd upon the face of God to have been God himſelf, which is the reaſon of their tranſlation, and ſhews that they underſtood the face of the Lord, which is ſo often ſpoken of by Moſes, to be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is Jehovah. I can add a reflection upon their Verſion of the 3d of Daniel, v. 25. Species quarti ſimilis filio Dei, as ſaith Aquila a Jew, who lived under Hadrian, but the ancient Greeks had tranſlated it ſimilis Angelo Dei, as ſaith an old Scholion, related by Druſius in Fragmentis, p. 1213. which ſhews that the ancient Helleniſt had the ſame Notion of the Angel of God as of the Son of God. But all thoſe things ſhall be more cleared, when we come to the authority of the other Jews, which we are to produce.

Some perhaps may think that the Book of Eccleſiaſticus ſuppoſeth the Wiſdom which we maintain to be eternal, to have been created; and ſo ſaith that Author, ch. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and ch. xxiv. 9. But I take notice of three things, 1. That ſuch an Objection may be good in the mouth of an Arian, but not at all in the mouth of a Socinian, and much leſs in the mouth of an Unitarian of this Kingdom, after their Writers have owned that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Word of God ſignifies the eſſential vertue of God. 2ly, That the Author of Eccleſiaſticus follows in that expreſſion the very words of the Greek Verſion of Proverbs, ch. viii. 22. in which it anſwers to the word poſſeſſed, which is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 3ly, That the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , although we ſhould ſuppoſe it to be the true reading, hath a very large ſignification; and indeed Ariſtobulus a Jew of Alexandria, who lived about the ſame age of the Authors of thoſe Apocryphal Books, and whoſe words are quoted by Euſebius de Praep. Ev. L. vii. §. 14. p. 324. declares that the Wiſdom which Solomon ſpeaks of in the Book of Proverbs was before the Heaven and Earth, and the very Author of Eccleſiaſticus calls it poſitively eternal, ch. xxiv. 18.

There is another Objection which is backed by the authority of Grotius, who by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Wiſdom, underſtands a created Angel, but I ſhall ſhew afterwards the abſurdity of that opinion of Grotius; and his error is ſo plain that Mr. N. and the Unitarian Authors have been aſhamed to follow his authority in this point, daring not to maintain that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the firſt of St. John ſignified an Angel, which they would have done, if they could have digeſted the abſurdity of Grotius his Notions upon that place of Wiſdom, ch. xviii. 15.

As for the Holy Ghoſt, that they acknowledged him for a Perſon, and for a Divine one, there is as much evidence from the ſame Apocryphal Books.

1. I have noted they attributed to him the Creation of the World, as you ſee in Judith, ch. xvi. 14. Thou didſt ſend forth thy Spirit and it created them; which is an imitation of David's Notions, Pſal. xxxiii. 6.

2ly. They call him the mouth of the Lord; ſo in the 3d Book of Eſdras, ch. i. 28. and 47, and 57. Howbeit Joſias did not turn back his chariot from him, but undertook to fight with him, not regarding the words of the Prophet Jeremy, ſpoken by the mouth of the Lord. And 47. And he did evil alſo in the ſight of the Lord, and cared not for the words that were ſpoken unto him by the Prophet Jeremy from the mouth of the Lord.

3ly. They ſpeak of the Bina, or Underſtanding, by which is to be underſtood the Holy Spirit, from Prov. iii. and viii. So in Eccleſ. c. i. 4. Wiſdom hath been created before all things, and the underſtanding of prudence from everlaſting. So the Book of Wiſdom, chap. i. 4, 5, 6, 7. For into a malicious ſoul wiſdom ſhall not enter; nor dwell in the body that is ſubject unto ſin. For the Holy Spirit of diſcipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without underſtanding, and will not abide, when unrighteouſneſs cometh in. For Wiſdom is a loving ſpirit, and will not acquit a blaſphemer of his words; for God is witneſs of his reins, and a true beholder of his heart, and a hearer of his tongue. For the Spirit of the Lord filleth the world, and that which containeth all things hath knowledge of the voice.

4ly. They acknowledg him as the Counſellor of God which knew all his Counſels. So you read in the Book of Wiſdom, ch. ix. 17. And thy counſel who hath known, except thou give wiſdom, and ſend thy Holy Spirit from above?

5ly. They ſpeak of him as of he that diſcovers the ſecrets of God; ſo Eccluſ. ch. 39.8. He ſhall ſhew forth that which he hath learned and ſhall glory in the law of the covenant of the Lord. And ch. 48.24, 25. He ſaith of Iſaiah, He ſaw by an excellent ſpirit what ſhould come to paſs at the laſt, and he comforted them that mourned in Sion. He ſhewed what ſhould come to paſs for ever, and ſecret things or ever they came.

6ly. They acknowledg him to be ſent from God, Wiſdom, ch. ix. 17. And thy counſel who hath known, except thou give wiſdom, and ſend thy Holy Spirit from above?

After all, if we conſider what Notions they had of the Meſſias which was promiſed to them, we ſhall find that they had much nobler Ideas than thoſe which are now entertained by the laſt Jews, and more like to them which we find among the Prophets.

1. It is clear that they lookt upon him as the Perſon which was to ſit upon the Throne of God; the Title of my Lord which is given by the Author of Eccluſ. ch. li. 10. ſhews that beyond exception by ſo clear an alluſion to the Pſal. cx. and ii. which both ſpeak of the Meſſias.

2ly. They did not look upon it as an abſurd thing to ſuppoſe that God is to appear in the earth, as you ſee in Baruch, ch. iii. 37. Afterward did he ſhew himſelf upon earth, and converſed with men. For they refer that either to his appearance upon Sinai, or to the Incarnation of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

3ly. They ſuppoſe another coming of the Meſſias, and then the Saints are to judge the Nations, and have dominion over the people, and their Lord ſhall reign for ever. Wiſd. ch. iii. 8. which words have been borrowed by St. Paul, 1 Cor. vi. 2.

4ly. They acknowledg ſuch Appearances of God, as we have an example in 2 Macc. ch. xi. 6. and ch. xxi. 22, 23. Now when they that were with Maccabeus heard that he beſieged the holds, they and all the people with lamentation and tears beſought the Lord that he would ſend a good Angel to deliver Iſrael.

5ly. They ſpeak of the Appearances of God as an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is the very word uſed by St. Paul for the firſt and ſecond Appearance of Jeſus Chriſt. So the 2. of Macc. ch. xv. 27. and 34. So every man praiſed toward the even that glorious Lord, ſaying, Bleſſed be he that hath kept his own place undefiled. So that fighting with their hands, and praying unto God with their hearts, they ſlew no leſs than thirty and five thouſand men; for through the appearance of God they were greatly cheared.

6ly. They expected at the ſecond coming of the Meſſias ſuch a manifeſtation of his Glory as in the Conſecration of the Temple. So 2 Macc. ch. ii. 8. Then ſhall the Lord ſhew them theſe things, and the glory of the Lord ſhall appear, and the cloud alſo as it was ſhewed under Moſes, and as when Solomon deſired that the place might be honourably ſanctified.

I believe theſe Proofs are ſufficient to demonſtrate, 1. That there was before Jeſus Chriſt's time a Notion of Plurality in the Godhead. 2ly, That they believed that ſuch a Plurality was a Trinity. 3ly, That they look'd upon the Son or the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the Holy Ghoſt, as not created Beings, but as Beings of the ſame Divine Nature with the Father, by an Eternal Emanation from him, as having the ſame Power, and the ſame Majeſty.

But theſe Ideas of the Apocryphal Books will appear more clear, when we take them in conjunction with the explication of the like Notions among other Hebrew Writers, which I ſhall now conſider more particularly. And withal thoſe places of Scripture on which they ground their Explications.

CHAP. IX. That the Jews had good Grounds to acknowledg ſome kind of Plurality in the Divine Nature.

AFter what I have quoted from the Authors of the Apocryphal Books which are in the hand of all people, to prove, 1. That the Jews before Jeſus Chriſt had a Notion of a Plurality in God, following herein certain Traces of this Doctrine that are to be found in the Books of Moſes and the Prophets; And, 2ly, that the ſame Jews did acknowledg a Trinity in the Divine Nature; I will proceed to conſider in particular the Grounds which they build upon to admit ſuch Notions.

I begin with the firſt of thoſe two Articles, which is, That the Stile of God in the Jewiſh Scriptures gave them a Notion of a Plurality in God. To eſtabliſh this Propoſition I do not intend to gather all the Texts of the Old Teſtament, which might be brought to prove a Plurality in the Divine Nature; nor will I anſwer the ſeveral Solutions which the Unitarians have invented to darken this truth, which they oppoſe.

It ſhall ſuffice me to do two things: 1. To ſhew that the Stile of God in Scripture, and of the Sacred Authors, leads one naturally to the Notion of a Plurality of Perſons in the Divine Eſſence. 2. That this Stile made the like Impreſſion on the Jews before Jeſus Chriſt, as was made by it anciently, and is ſtill made on it by the generality of Chriſtians. So that the Jews generally have acknowledged, that the Divine Nature, which is otherwiſe perfectly one, is diſtinguiſhable into certain Properties, which we call Perſons.

For the proof of the firſt Point, to wit, that the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament ſuppoſe a Plurality in God; I make theſe following Reflections.

1. Moſes, the chief End of whoſe Writings was to root out of the minds of Men the conceit of Polytheiſm, does yet deſcribe the Creation of the World in words that inſinuate a Plurality. In the beginning (ſaith he) Bara Elohim, the Gods created, Gen. i. 1. He might have ſaid, Jehovah Bara, Jehovah being the proper name by which God made himſelf know to Moſes, and by him to his People, Ixod. iii. 15. or he might have ſaid, Eloah Bara, and ſo he had joyned the Singular Number of Elohim, which ſignifies God, with the Verb Bara, which is alſo the Singular Number, and ſignifies created. But Moſes uſes the Plural word Elohim with a Verb of the Singular Number, and he repeats it thirty times in the Hiſtory of the Creation only, although this word denotes a Plurality in the Divine Nature, and not one ſingle Perſon.

Had Moſes joyned always the Noun Elohim, which is Plural, with a Verb or Adjective in the Singular, we might have judged, that by calling God by a name in the Plural, he had followed the corrupt cuſtom which then obtained among the Heathens, of ſpeaking of the Gods in the Plural, and that he deſigned to rectifie it by expreſſing the ſingle action of God by a Singular Verb or Adjective.

But here this Excuſe will not ſerve; for, 1. he had the word, Eloah, God, in the Singular, which he uſes Deut. xxxii. 15, 17. and in other places: He had alſo ſeveral other Names of God, which he uſes in other places, all of them Singular, and conſequently any of them had been fitter for his uſe to root out Polytheiſm. 2. Moſes himſelf ſometimes joyns the Noun Elohim with Verbs and Adjectives in the Plural. There are ſeveral examples of this in his Books, and more in the other Sacred Writers that imitated him in it, you may ſee it in Gen. xx. 13. & xxxv. 7. Job xxxv. 10. Joſ. xxiv. 19. Pſal. cxlix. 1. Eccleſ. xii. 3. 1 Sam. vii. 23. Eſ. liv. 5. which ſhews the impudence of Abarbanel, who to elude the force of this Argument, maintains that the word Elohim is a Singular. In Pent. fol. 6. col. 3.

6. Another Reflection on the Stile of Moſes, which ought to be every where Singular, and yet intimates a Plurality, is this, That Moſes in the Hiſtory of the Creation brings in God ſpeaking to ſome one, thus, Let ſuch a thing be made, and it follows, it was made; and again, God ſaid — and — God ſaid — This expreſſion is repeated no leſs than eight times within the compaſs of one Chapter, which is a thing very ſurprizing in ſo conciſe an Hiſtory. For to whom did God then ſpeak? to whom did he iſſue out his Orders? or who was he that did execute them? There were then neither Men nor Angels to obey him, nor to hear him ſpeak.

3. There is no one that reads the account of Man's Creation, but, if he conſiders what he reads, is ſtruck with theſe words of God, Gen. i. 26. Let Us make man after our Image and likeneſs. Theſe words in the Plural Number denote plainly a Plurality. Let US make, and OUR Image, are too lively Characters of Plurality to be paſſed over without particular regard.

4. We may make the ſame reflection on thoſe words, Gen. iii. 5. which point out a Plurality of Perſons, And you ſhall be as Gods; and a little after, Adam is become as one of Us? ver. 22. We find a like example, Gen. xi. 7. where God ſaith, Let Us go down and confound their Language. Again, Gen. xx. 13. When God cauſed me to wander from my Father's houſe; the Hebrew is, when the Gods cauſed me to wander. Again, Gen. xxxv. 7. Jacob built an Altar, and called the place El-Bethel, becauſe there God (or Gods, as it is in Hebrew) appeared unto him.

All this is contained within one Book only, that of Geneſis. We meet with the ſame Notion in theſe words of Deuteronomy, ch. iv. 7. Who have the Gods ſo nigh unto them?

We may trace the Idea of Plurality ſtill further in the following Books; as in Joſhua, xxiv. 19. And Joſhua ſaid, You cannot ſerve the Lord, for he is an holy God—where in the Hebrew it is, the Holy Gods. So Solomon, Prov. xxx. 3. I neither learned wiſdom, nor have the knowledg of the Holies, inſtead of the Holy. And Eccl. xii. 1. Remember thy Creators.

Upon the whole we ſhould remark, 1. That this Plurality is expreſſed in ſeveral paſſages of the Old Teſtament, and not in one place only.

2. That there is no kind of ſpeaking, by which a Plurality in God may be ſignified but is uſed in the Old Teſtament. A Plural is joyned with a Verb Singular, Gen. i. 1. In the beginning the Gods created Heaven and Earth. A Plural is joyned with a Verb Plural, Gen. xxxv. 7: And Jacob called the name of the place Beth-El, becauſe the Gods there appeared to him: A Plural is joyned with an Adjective Plural, Joſ. xxiv. 19. You cannot ſerve the Lord, for he is the holy Gods. 2 Sam: vii. 23: What one nation in the earth is like thy people, like Iſrael, whom the Gods went to redeem for a people to himſelf. So Eccleſ. v. 8. There be higher than they, Heb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which ſtands for Gods, God being called the Moſt High. And in Eccleſ. xii. 1. Remember thy Creators in the days of thy Youth. In conformity to which manner of ſpeaking, Iſaiah ſays, ch. liv. 5. For thy Makers are thy Husbands, the Lord of Hoſts is his name. A Verb in the Plural is joyned with a name in the Singular; as you read, Eccleſ. ii. 12. as it has been obſerved by R. Bachaie in Paraſh breſch. fol. 11. col. 2. of the Edit. in fol. from which he infers that God and the houſe of his Judgment are expreſſed there; for by the King which is there ſpoken of he doth not underſtand Solomon, but God; as they do in the Targum upon 1 Chron. iv. 23. which hath been followed by R. Bachaje, Ibid. fol. 11. col. 3. and by Lombroſo in his Heb. Bible, you have the ſame remark of St. Jerome upon Jer. xxiii. 36. when you read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Living Gods, and from which he draws an argument for the Doctrine of the Trinity.

3. That though there is but one only Jehovah, yet in the Holy Scripture we meet with ſeveral Elohim to whom the Title of Jehovah is given; this we ſee in a hundred places in the Law, where the words are Jehovah Eloheka, i. e. the Lord thy Gods, which does certainly deſerve to be conſidered.

This alſo we more particularly ſee in the Hiſtory of the deſtruction of Sodom, Gen. 30.24. where it is written, That Jehovah rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimſtone and fire from Jehovah out of Heaven. There is Jehovah, and Jehovah; and if they do not make two, I know not what will expreſs a Plurality. But we ſhall have more to ſay of this afterwards.

I have given in ſhort ſome Marks of a Plurality in the Divine Nature, which may be gathered out of the Writings of the Old Teſtament: For the fuller ſatisfaction of my Reader, I am next to ſhew that the ancient Jews made the ſame Reflections, and formed the ſame Notions that we have of the Divine Nature. To do this with the more clearneſs, I ſhall obſerve this Method: 1. To ſhew what were their Reflections on the Unity of the Divine Nature. 2. To ſhew what their Reflections were on thoſe paſſages of the Scripture which note a Plurality in the Unity of the Divine Eſſence.

As to the firſt, Philo, who left a great many Pieces behind him, is beſt able to inſtruct us; and he aſſerts that the Nature of God is incomprehenſible, i. e. that we cannot form a juſt Idea of it. Alleg. 1. p. 43. F. G. De Profug. p. 370. C.

That God's Providence and Exiſtence are known to us; but as to his Eſſence, we are altogether ignorant of it. De Mund. p. 889. D.

And having in ſeveral places of his Writings obſerved, 1. That Moſes, the Lawgiver of the Jews, made this his chief End to deſtroy the Notion of Polytheiſm. He then, 2. Affirms, that though it is ſaid, God is one; yet this is not to be underſtood with reſpect to Number. Alleg. L. III. p. 841. Not that Philo would have it thought that there is more than one God, but hereby he intimates the Unity of God to be tranſcendent, to have nothing common with that of other Beings which fall under Number.

3. And indeed he acknowledges a Generation in God. If you ask him what he begets, he will tell you—

4. That God begets his Word. Who is therefore ſaid to be not unbegotten like God, and yet not begotten like his Creatures? Quis rerum Divin. haereſ. p. 398. A. And on account of this Generation, he calls him the Firſt-born of God. De Agricult. p. 152. De Confuſ. Ling. p. 267.

Again, he will tell you, that God begets his Wiſdom, De Temul. p. 190. E. And that his Wiſdom is the ſame with his Word. Alleg. 1. p. 39. F. following, no doubt, Solomon's Notion, Prov. viii. 22. But did he own that this Generation was made in time?

No: For, 5. He aſſerts, that this Generation was from all Eternity; For he ſaith, the Word of God is the Eternal Son of God. De Confuſ. Ling. p. 255. D. p. 267. C.

6. When he would explain, in what reſpect, or for what reaſon God is called in Scripture, The God of Gods; he ſaith not, that it is in reſpect of the Angels, whoſe God he is, and who ſometimes are called Elohim, or Gods, even by Philo himſelf. De Opif. p. 4. F. But he ſaith it is in relation to his two Powers, Lib. de Victim. off. p. 661. G. which would be a ridiculous thing, had he thought theſe two Powers were no other than two Attributes of God.

Indeed Philo is ſo far from thinking them meer ſimple Attributes, that he maintains, 1. That theſe Powers made the World, or by them God created the World. De Victim. off. p. 663. F. de Confuſ. Ling. p. 270. B. de Plant. Noae. p. 176. E. Quis rer. div. Haer. p. 393. G. 2. That theſe eternal Powers appeared, acted, and ſpoke as real Perſons, and in a viſible and ſenſible manner. Lib. de Cherub. p. 97. D. De Sacr. Ab. p. 108. B. C. Quod Deus ſit immutab. p. 229. B. p. 241. C. D. p. 242. B. de Plant. Noae. p. 176. D. E. Quod rer. div. haer. p. 393. G. De Somn. p. 457. G. de Mund. p. 888. B.

He alſo maintains, that the two Cherubins which were over the Ark, were the Symbols of the two eternal Powers of God. De Vit. Moſ. III. p. 517. F. Quis rerum Divin. Haer. p. 393. G.

Theſe are in general, the Notions which the Jews had of a Plurality in the Divine Eſſence, which is otherwiſe ſingle and one. I ſhall hereafter ſhew, that the very ſame Notions are ſpred throughout the ancient Targums, as far as the Nature of the Works, which for the moſt part are only naked Tranſlations of the Hebrew into Chaldee, does give occaſion to the Authors of theſe Targums to explain themſelves on theſe Heads.

Now let us go on to examine the Foundations on which the ancient Jews grounded this Notion of a Plurality in God: For it is not to be imagined that they would have believed thus without ſome Authority for it in the Books of the Old Teſtament, upon which alone they pretended to found the Doctrines of their Religion.

Secondly then, As to the firſt Words of Moſes. In the beginning the Gods created: I muſt own that Philo, writing in Greek, did not expreſs his Notion of Plurality in expounding this Text: For he followed the Verſion of the LXX, which reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Singular, inſtead of the Hebrew Elohim in the Plural. But then he more than hints that this Reflexion was common among the Jews, ſeeing that he rarely ſpeaks of God without mentioning his two Powers, as I have newly obſerved to you. And in one place he gives this reaſon why the Name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is uſed throughout the Hiſtory of the Creation; becauſe that was the Appellation of one of God's Powers by which he made the World: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . de Plant. Noae. p. 176. D. E. Which ſhews evidently, that the Notion of Plurality did ſtill remain among the Greek Jews, when the Plural Elohim, which was the Ground of it, was taken away by their Tranſlators, for a reaſon that I ſhall ſhortly mention.

But to ſhew that the word Elohim in the Plural has always made this impreſſion on the Minds of the Jews, we muſt obſerve, 1. That long before Juſtin Martyr's time, there was a ſort of Men who imagined that the Angels did create the World, grounding it upon this place, compared with thoſe other Texts where the Angels are ſometimes called Elohim, as Pſal. viii. 6. & Pſal. xcvii. 7. Such was the Opinion of Menander, the Scholar of Simon Magus in particular.

2. That the Talmudiſts themſelves were ſo perſwaded of a Plurality expreſſed in the word Elohim, as to teach in Title Megilla, c. 1. fol. 11. That the LXX Interpreters did purpoſely change the Notion of Plurality, couched in the Hebrew Plural, into a Greek Singular; as they did alſo on Gen. 1.26. and xi. 7. leſt Ptolom. Philadelph. ſhould conclude, that the Jews, as well as himſelf, had a belief of Polytheiſm. That was taken notice of by St. Jerom in his Preface to the Book De Quaeſt. Hebr.

3. That however the Conſtruction of a Noun Plural, with a Verb Singular, may render it doubtful to ſome, whether theſe words expreſs a Plurality or no; yet certainly there can be no doubt in thoſe places, where a Verb or Adjective Plural are joyned with the word Elohim; and ſuch places, as I already have made appear, are often to be found in the Writings of the Old Teſtament. That the word Elohim is to be underſtood Plurally, this the Jews, ſince Chriſt's time, have acknowledged to be agreeable to their ſenſe of the word. For in 1 Sam. xxviii. 13. where the Witch of Endor ſaith, I ſee the Gods aſcending, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as to leave himſelf nothing more to add on that Subject. According to him, it is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in whom were repreſented the firſt Ideas of all things, and who afterwards ſtampt the impreſſions of them on matter: Whence he is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , De opif. p. 4. G. & p. 24. C. It is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and not by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Word, for his fellow-worker. De Opif. p. 24, & p. 25. 2. That Man was created after the Image of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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. p. 169.

3. He maintains, that God ſpake this to his Powers, as may be collected from his Expoſition of this Text. De Confuſ. Ling. p. 270. A. C. and as he ſaith expreſly, Lib. de Profug. p. 357. G. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — That is, he ſhews that Man only was formed by God with fellow-workers; for Moſes tells us that God ſaid, Let us make Man after our Image, implying a Plurality in the expreſſion, Let Us make. God therefore ſpeaks here to his Powers.

4. He expreſſes himſelf in ſo particular a manner on this head, as to leave no doubt concerning his opinion of this place. It is in his firſt Book of Queſtions and Solutions, which is now loſt, all but a fragment preſerv'd by Euſeb. Praep. Evang. vii. 13. p. 322, 323. His words are theſe: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Why does God ſay in the Image of God made I Man, and not in his own Image, as if he had ſpoken of another God? This Scripture-expreſſion is for wiſe and good reaſons, for nothing mortal can be faſhioned after the Image of the Supreme God and Father of all things, but of his Word or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who is the ſecond God. For the rational part of Man's ſoul, ought to receive its impreſſion from the Word or Reaſon of God, becauſe God himſelf who is Superior to his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is vaſtly beyond the nature of all Rational Beings; and conſequently it was not fit that any created Being ſhould be made after his likeneſs, whoſe Nature doth ſubſiſt in the higheſt degree of Excellence.

To ſpeak next of the ancient Targums, they are not unacquainted with this Notion, which they ſhew as far as the nature of their Verſions would permit. God made Man by his Word, ſaith the Jeruſalem Targum, Gen. i. 26. and the ſame thing Jonathan teaches, Eſ. xlv. 12.

The Jeruſalem Targum, Gen. i. 1. does indeed ſay, God made all things by his Wiſdom, but then he ſhews that this is but another name for the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by ſaying elſwhere, ver. 27. the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the Word of the Lord created Man after his Image.

I know that in Jonathan's Targum on Gen. i. 26. God is brought in as ſpeaking to the Angels, when he ſaid, Let Us make Man. But he who reads this and the following verſe in the Targum of Jonathan, and compares them with the Jeruſalem Targum, will ſoon ſee that theſe are not the words of the ancient Paraphraſt, but an Addition made to them by the Jews ſince Chriſt's time. What I have ſaid above is a convincing proof of it.

The Socinians cannot avoid being ſhockt a little with the expreſſion, Gen. xix. 24. The Lord—rained from the Lord out of Heaven. Menaſſeh ben Iſrael confeſſes the place too hard for him, unleſs by the Lord who is on Earth, you underſtand the Angel Gabriel, who, as God's Ambaſſador, bears the name of God. q. 44. in Geneſis. But the ancient Jews found no ſuch difficulty in it, as he and the Socinians do at preſent find.

For Philo the Jew holds,De Abr p • 290. B. that it was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that rained fire from Heaven, de Somn. p. 449. F. As he otherwhere ſaith, it was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that confounded the Language at Babel. Again, Philo ſaith in his Hiſtory of Sodom, God and his two Powers are ſpoken of.

The Targum of Onkelos, though it ſpeaks of Angels in this 19th. Chap. yet it treats one as Jehova who rains fire from Heaven, v. 24. and thus it Paraphraſes the Text, The Jehova rained from before the face of the Jehova from Heaven.

3. This Notion of Plurality muſt have ſunk deep into the minds of the Jews, ſeeing they have conſtantly read the word Jehova, which is ſingular, with the Vowels of the word Adonai, which is Plural, inſtead of Adoni, which is Singular: And this notwithſtanding their diſpute with the Chriſtians, whom they accuſe of Tritheiſm. I am not ignorant that this manner of reading Jehova was long in uſe before the Birth of Jeſus Chriſt. But this it is that renders my Remark the more conſiderable. For all the other names of God, which repreſent him by ſome one of his Attributes are Singular, as well as the name Jehova is Singular, which is the proper name of God; And yet the Jews all agree to forbear rendring the name Jehova by any of his many Names that are Singular, but interpret it by that of Adonai, whoſe Plural Vowels make Jehova to ſignifie Plurally, as much as to ſay my Lords; and that for this reaſon, as it ſeems, becauſe there is more than one in the Godhead, to whom the name Jehova is given in Scripture.

It is clear how ſenſible the Jews have been that there is a Notion of Plurality plainly imported in the Hebrew Text, ſince they have forbidden their common people the reading of the Hiſtory of the Creation, leſt underſtanding it literally, it ſhould lead them into Hereſie. Malmon. Mor. Neboch. p. 11. c. 29. The Talmudiſts, as I before noted, have invented this excuſe for the Seventy, as to their changing the Hebrew Plural, into a Greek Singular; they ſay it was for fear Ptolomy Phil. ſhould take the Jews for Polytheiſts. And to this they have added another Story, that Moſes himſelf was ſtartled at God's ſpeaking theſe words, Let Us make Man, in which he thought a Plurality was expreſſed, and that he remonſtrated to God the danger which might ariſe thereby; and at length reſolved not to write them, till he had God's expreſs order for it, which God did give him, notwithſtanding the danger that Moſes repreſented might follow. Bereſh. Rab. §. 8.

Another thing relating to this Head, which deſerves our conſideration, is this; That the Samaritans who were originally of the ſame Religion with the Jews, but receive only the five Books of Moſes, have ſhewn that they had in the Apoſtles times the ſame Notions that are met with in Philo of a Plurality in God. We have a proof of it, Act. viii. 9. where we read that Simon Magus had bewitched that people, giving out that himſelf was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſome great one; he did not ſay what, but gave them leave to underſtand it their own way. And how did they take it? This follows v. 10. They ſaid, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , this perſon is the great power of God. This they would not have ſaid, if they had not believed, that beſides the great God, there was alſo a perſon called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I ſay a Perſon, for I ſuppoſe Mr. N. can't think they took Simon Magus to be only an Attribute.

But looking yet nearer into this Text, I conceive it is plain, that they underſtood there was more than one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for as it is in the Text, they ſaid this is the great 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which ſeems to imply that they believed there was another power leſs than this. It ſeems yet plainer in another reading of the Text, which I take to be the true reading, for we find it not only in the now vulgar Latin, but alſo in Irenaeus, i. 20. which ſheweth it was the current reading in his time, and we find it alſo in ſeveral Manuſcripts, ſome of which are of the higheſt eſteem with Learned Men, as namely, the Alexandrian in the King's Library, and the ancient Manuſcript of Lions in the Cambridge Library: In all theſe the words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This perſon is the power of God which is called the great power. For their calling him the power of God, what that means we cannot better learn than from Origen, who ſpeaking of Simon, and ſuch others as would make themſelves like our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, ſaith, they called themſelves, Sons of God, or the Power of God; which he makes to be two Titles of one and the ſame ſignification. [Orig. cont. Celſum, lib. 1. p. 44.] And both theſe Titles are given to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by Philo in more places than we can number. For their calling him the Great Power of God, which implies that there was another power beſides; this alſo perfectly agrees with the Notions of Philo, who ſo often ſpeaks of the two Powers of God, deſcribing them as true and proper Perſons.

We have a farther proof of the Samaritans having theſe Notions, in the account which their Country-man Juſtin Martyr hath given us of the honour they had for Simon Magus in his time, which was about eighty years after the writing of the Acts of the Apoſtles. It may ſeem very ſtrange that when the charms of that Magus, wherewith he had bewitched that poor people, were ſo intirely diſſolved by Philip's Preaching and Miracles, that not only they but the Impoſtor himſelf had embraced the Chriſtian Religion, yet after this he could ſo far bewitch them a ſecond time as to raiſe himſelf in their opinion from being the great power of God, (as they called him before) to be, in their new ſtyle, the God above all power whatſoever. Yet that was the Title they gave him in Juſtin's time, as he ſheweth in his Dialogue with Tryphon, [Juſtin. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 349. G.] elſwhere Juſtin ſaith [Apol. 11. p. 69. E.] of Simon, they confeſs him as the firſt God, and as ſuch they worſhip him. This Notion of a firſt God is manifeſtly the ſame with that of Philo, who called the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the ſecond God. [Euſeb. Prep. Evang. vii. 13. p. 323.] But if the Samaritans in the Apoſtles time took Simon to be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or ſecond God, as I have ſhewn it more than probable that they meant it by calling him the Great power of God, Who ſhould be the ſecond God now, ſince Simon was ſo advanced in their opinion, that now they accounted him to be the Firſt? Juſtin ſheweth in the place before mentioned [p. 69. E.] that in his time as they called Simon the firſt God, ſo they called his Companion Helen, the ſecond God. His words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , what is that? one may eaſily gueſs; for certainly the firſt emanation from the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And ſo according to Juſtin himſelf, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſignifies. For in the ſame Book he interprets it of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , [Apol. 11. p. 97. b.] So that as the ſecond God was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Philo's account, ſo was Simon's Companion the ſame in the opinion of the Samaritans.

This poor bewitched people were almoſt Singular in this opinion in Juſtin's time; for he ſaith, then there were but few of their way in other Nations. And Origen who wrote within ſixty years after, ſaith, That when he wrote, there were of Simon's Sect ſcarce thirty at Samaria, and none any where elſe in the World, [Orig. cont. Celſ. 1. p. 44.] Poſſibly there might remain ſome of them till thoſe times when other Writers give other accounts of their Opinions, and poſſibly their Opinions might vary, ſo that thoſe later accounts are not to be much heeded; we can't be certain of any thing concerning them, but what we have from Juſtin Martyr, who lived when they were at the higheſt, and writing as he did to the Emperour an Apology for the Chriſtians, and acquainting him with the Errors of his Country-men at Samaria, which as he more than intimates was not without ſome hazard of his being torn in pieces by the Mobb, [Juſt. Dial. cum Tryphon. p. 340.] we may be very ſure he would write nothing of them, but what was ſo evidently true that it could not be denied by any that lived in thoſe days.

But from the account that Juſtin Martyr gives of them, together with what we read in the Acts of the Apoſtles, I think it is ſufficiently proved, that the Samaritans held a Plurality in the Divine Nature; which not a little confirms that which I undertook to prove of the Jews having theſe Notions in the times of Chriſt and his Apoſtles.

I ſhall not inſiſt longer on the Arguments which confirm a Plurality in the Divine Nature, becauſe I ſhall touch on ſome of them again in the Sequel of this Diſcourſe, where I ſhall ſhew that thoſe places of the Old Teſtament, that ſpeak of the Angel of the Lord, are to be underſtood not of a created Angel, but of a perſon that is truly Jehova; and that this has been acknowledged by the ancient Jews; which alone is proof enough of this Notion's being ſufficiently known by that Nation, to which God committed his Sacred Oracles, Rom. ix. 6.

Paſs we now to the ſecond Article, that the Jews did ſo acknowledg a Plurality in God, as that at the ſame time they held that this Plurality was a Trinity.

CHAP. X. That the Jews did acknowledge the Foundations of the Belief of a Trinity in the Divine Nature; and that they had the Notion of it.

IN purſuance of the Method laid down in the foregoing Chapter, I am now to ſhew theſe two things: 1. That there are in the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament ſo many and ſo plain Intimations of a Trinity in the Divine Nature, as might very well move the Jews to take them for a ſufficient ground for the Belief of this Doctrine. 2. That theſe Intimations had that real effect on the Jews, that as they found in their Scriptures a Plurality in the One Infinite Being of God; ſo they found theſe Scriptures to reſtrain this Plurality to a Trinity; of which they had, though much more darkly and confuſedly, the ſame Notions that are now among Chriſtians.

1. To ſhew that there is ground for this Doctrine in the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament; I might ſhew this oftentimes in theſe Scriptures where God is ſpoken of, there is ſome kind of intimation given of Three in the Divine Nature: But of this I ſhall only touch upon it; my intention being chiefly to ſhew, That there are Three that are called God in the Old Teſtament, and to ſhew who they are.

I need not prove it of the Father, ſince it will not be denied that he is called God, by them that will deny it of any other. But I ſhall ſhew that ſometimes the Son is called ſo, whether by that name of the Son, or of the Word, or ſome other name, without mention of the Spirit. Next I ſhall ſhew that the Spirit is ſpoken of as God; even he is mentioned without the Son. And laſtly, That the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are all Three mentioned as God, and all Three ſpoken of together in ſome Texts of the Old Teſtament Scriptures.

To keep to this order, I am firſt to ſhew that there is ſome kind of Intimation of a Trinity, in places where God is ſpoken of in theſe Scriptures. I ſhall name but two or three Texts of many; for I call it but an Intimation, and it may amount to thus much, that we find the Name of God repeated three times over; for it was certainly no vain Repetition. Thus in the Bleſſing of Iſrael, Numb. vi. 24, 25, 26. The Lord bleſs thee and keep thee; The Lord make his face ſhine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee and give thee peace. So Iſa. xxxiii. 22. The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king, he will ſave us. So Dan. ix. 19. O Lord hear, O Lord forgive, O Lord hearken and do — defer not for thy own ſake, O God.

The like Intimation we find in thoſe words of the Prophet Iſaiah, which do both ſhew a Plurality in the Divine Nature, and reſtrain it to a Trinity. Iſa. vi. 3. The Prophet heard the Seraphims cry one to another, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hoſts. Theſe are Titles which taken together can belong to no one but God; and the Repetition of them ſhews ſomething in it which cannot but ſeem Myſterious, eſpecially to any one that conſiders thoſe other words of God ſpeaking in the ſame Chapter, ver. 8. Who will go for us? words which clearly note a Plurality of Perſons, as alſo in Hoſ. xii. 4, 5. and in ſome other places.

To ſhew who theſe are, we muſt conſider thoſe places of the Old Teſtament where the Son and the Holy Spirit are diſtinctly ſpoken of as ſeveral Perſons.

The Son is expreſly ſpoken of by David, (who himſelf was a Type of the Meſſias, and is ſo acknowledged by the Jews), Pſal. ii. 7. The Lord ſaid unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. That the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who, as has been already proved, is called Wiſdom according to the Jewiſh Notions, is the Son of God by Eternal Generation, himſelf ſheweth, Prov. viii. 23, 24. The Lord poſſeſſed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old; I was ſet up from everlaſting, from the beginning, or ever the Earth was; when there were no depths, I was brought forth. So in Prov. xxx. 4. Who hath eſtabliſhed all the ends of the earth? What is his name, or what is his Son's name? The Son can be underſtood of no other than of that Eternal Wiſdom that aſſiſted in the Creation, as was before mentioned.

Elſewhere the Son or the Word is ſpoken of according to the Jewiſh Expoſitions of ſuch Texts, where he is not named, and yet he is called God and Lord; as Pſal. xlv. 7. O God, thy God hath anointed thee. And Pſal. cx. 1. The Lord ſaid unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thy enemies thy footſtool.

It was the ſame Son who appeared oftentimes under the Character of the Angel of the Lord, though he was not a Created Angel, but the Lord Jehovah himſelf. This I only mention here, being to treat of it largely in ſome of the following Chapters.

That the Spirit is ſpoken of as a Perſon in Scripture, none can be ignorant of, that reads but the beginning of Geneſis, where in the 2d Verſe he is named the Spirit of God, and ſaid to have his part in the Work of the Creation. The Jews could not make this Spirit to be an Angel, becauſe they all agree the Angels were not yet created, when the Spirit moved upon the face of the Waters. Nor was the Spirit of God a mighty Wind, as ſome render it in that place; for as yet there was no Air, much leſs Exhalations, till this Work was paſt. But that Moſes meant a Perſon, ſufficiently appears by that which followeth, Gen. vi. 3. Where God ſaith, My Spirit ſhall not alway ſtrive with man. It was the Holy Spirit of God that inſpired the holy Patriarchs to give thoſe Admonitions and Warnings to the wicked World of Mankind before the Flood, by which he ſtrove to bring them to Repentance. It was the ſame Divine Spirit whoſe Operations the Iſraelites were ſenſible of, in his inſpiring the Seventy Elders, Numb. xi. 25, 26.

The Pſalmiſt, no doubt, thought of thoſe words of Moſes in the beginning of Geneſis, when he ſaid, in ſpeaking of the Works of the Creation, Pſal. xxxiii. 6. All the hoſts of them were made by the Spirit of his mouth; and this Spirit he ſenſibly knew to be a Perſon; for thus he ſaith of himſelf, 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3. The Spirit of the Lord ſpake by me, and his Word was in my tongue.

Laſtly; In ſome places of the Old Teſtament there are plainly Three Perſons ſpoken of together, and eſpecially in the beginning of Geneſis, where it ought to be remembred, that the word Elohim, Gods, does naturally import a Plurality. [R. Bechai in Gen. chap. i. 1. and others quoted in the former Chapter.] Now there can be no Plural of leſs than Two in number, and therefore at leaſt God the Father, and the Word, are to be underſtood in the firſt Verſe; the ſecond Verſe adds the Spirit of God, as it has been juſt now mentioned. And it is very natural to think that God ſpake to theſe Two, the Word and the Spirit, in Verſe 26. of that Chapter, when he ſaid, Let Us make man after Our Image; as alſo afterward, Gen. iii. 22. Behold the man is become as one of Us: And again, ſpeaking of the Builders of Babel, Gen. ix. 7. Let Us go down and confound their Language: This muſt be to Two at leaſt; for had he ſpoke to One only, he would have ſaid in the Singular Number, Come thou, and let us confound their language: The manner of ſpeaking plainly imports a Plurality; and they could be no other than thoſe Three which were ſpoken of in the firſt Chapter.

As Moſes brings in theſe Three Perſons into his Hiſtory of the firſt Creation, ſo does the Evangelical Prophet in ſpeaking of the Miſſion of Chriſt, Iſa. xi. 1, 2, &c. The Spirit of the Lord ſhall reſt upon him, i. e. upon the Meſſias, according to the received Opinion of the Jews, Iſa. xlviii. 16. The Lord hath ſent Me and his Spirit. Again, Iſa. lix. 19, 20, 21. When the enemy ſhall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord ſhall lift up a ſtandard againſt him, and the Redeemer ſhall come unto Sion. Again, Iſa. lxi. 1. The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon Me, becauſe the Lord hath anointed me. They are the words which Chriſt applied to himſelf, Luke iv. 18.

It may not be amiſs here to anſwer an Objection againſt the uſe that we have made of thoſe Texts wherein God ſaith WE and US in the Plural; which manner of ſpeaking, the Jews cannot but ſee does denote a Plurality. R. Kimchi on Iſa. vi. 8. makes that Obſervation: But then he fancies it is ſpoken with relation to Angels, whom God is pleaſed to call in by way of Conſultation.

In the Text Iſa. vi. thoſe whom God conſults with are to ſend as well as he; and thoſe in Gen. i. 26. are to make Man as well as he. And ſurely God would not join the Angels with himſelf in the ſending of his Prophets; much leſs would he give Angels a ſhare in the Glory of making Man, the Maſter-piece of the Creation. Angels are Creatures as well as Man, and were but a Day elder than he, according to ſome of the Jews; a Week older than he they could not be: And at the making of Man it is believed with very good reaſon, that thoſe Angels were not yet fallen, whom we now call Devils. It ſeems not very likely, that as ſoon as they were made God ſhould call them into Council for making of another of his Creatures; much leſs that he ſhould make them Creators together with himſelf; eſpecially when this gives them a Title to the Worſhip of Intelligent Beings, ſuch as Man; who if this had been true, ought to have worſhipp'd not only Angels but Devils, as being his Creators together with God. But the Truth is ſo far on the contrary, that as at firſt Man was made but a little lower than the Angels, ſo there is a Man ſince made Lord both of Angels and Devils, whom they are to worſhip: This I know our Unitarians will now deny. But to come to an end of this matter; It is certainly below the Infinite Majeſty of God, in any of his works whatever to ſay to any of his Creatures, Let us make, or, Let us do this or that. And for that idle Fancy of a Conſultation, it is not only abſurd in it ſelf, but it is contrary to the holy Scripture, that asks Iſa. xl. 13. Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, or who hath been his Counſellor? Which in effect is a flat denial that there is any Creature to be call'd into Conſultation with God. And therefore whoever they were to whom God ſaid this, Let us make, or, Let us do this or that, they could be no Creatures, they muſt be uncreated Beings like himſelf, if there were any ſuch then in being. But that then at the Creation ſuch there were, even the Word and the Spirit, has been ſhewn from the beginning of that Hiſtory, I think beyond contradiction.

Thus we have collected a number of Places from the Old Teſtament, which ſpeak of a Trinity, and conſequently do reduce the Plurality which we proved before, to a Trinity in the Unity of the Divine Nature. We ſee there Three diſtinct Characters of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We ſee the Generation of the Son expreſs'd, and the Miſſion of the Holy Spirit upon the Son, when he came to live in our Nature. We ſee the number Three ſtill obſerved in begging Pardon of Sins, of Bleſſings, and in returning Praiſes to God, intimating there were Three from whom all good things come, and who are therefore the Objects of Prayer. It remains that we enquire whether the like Inferences which we draw from theſe Texts, were made by the Jews before Jeſus Chriſt; which is the ſecond Particular of our propoſed Method.

I ſhall not repeat here what in the preceding Chapters I proved, That both Philo and the Chaldee Paraphraſts had ſuch Notions of the Unity of God, as were not repugnant to his Plurality. The Reader can't have forgotten already a thing of ſuch importance. My buſineſs now is to ſhew that the Ancient Jews plainly own Two Powers in God, which they diſtinguiſh from God, and yet call each of them God; the one being the Son of God, the other the Holy Spirit, who is called the Spirit of God.

Notwithſtanding that I take the Chaldee Paraphraſts to be ancienter than Philo, yet I chuſe to begin with Philo's Teſtimonies rather than theirs, for three Reaſons. Firſt, Becauſe he writ in the way of Treatiſes, and therefore much larger and clearer than they did that writ only in the way of Tranſlation or Paraphraſe, adding nothing of their own but only ſometimes a very ſhort Note on the Text: And therefore their Writings are much likelier to be explained by his, than his by theirs. 2dly. Becauſe the Paſſages in Philo for the Exiſtence of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God, the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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. In particular; Though he doth not directly name theſe Two Powers, yet it is clear that by the firſt he means the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; for he ſaith it is the Power by which all things are created, or to which God ſpoke when he made Man: Which two Characters are aſcribed to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by Philo in many of his Tracts. The other, which we call the Holy Spirit, is often acknowledged by Philo, [Lib. Quod Deus ſit immut. p. 229. B.]

5. Theſe things being conſidered, he ſaith, it appears how God is Three, and yet he is but One: He ſheweth how this was repreſented in that Viſion to Abraham, Gen. xviii. where it is ſaid, Verſe 1. That Jehovah appeared to him. And Verſe 2. Abraham looked, and behold Three men ſtood by him: Yet he ſpoke but to One, Verſ. 3. ſaying, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy ſight, paſs not away, I pray thee, from thy ſervant, &c. This Viſion according to the Literal Senſe he expounds of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Two Angels, as I have quoted him elſewhere V. Phil. All. 11. p. 77. E.. But he ſaith here was alſo a Myſtery that lay under this Literal Senſe, like to Sarah's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſo the LXX. calleth the Cakes that were hid under the Embers: According to this Myſtical Senſe, he ſaith, here was denoted, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Great Jehovah, with his Two 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of which one is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theſe are Philo's words, [De Sacrif. Ab. & Cain, p. 108. B.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . God attended with his Two Supreme Powers, Principality and Goodneſs, being himſelf but One in the middle of theſe Two, makes theſe Three Appearances to the ſeeing Soul, which is repreſented by Abraham. That theſe words did not drop from Philo by chance, the Reader may ſee in another place, where he ſpeaks purpoſely of this matter. [De Abrahamo p. 287. E.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. In the middle is the Father of all things, on each ſide of him are the Two Powers, the oldeſt and the neareſt to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Jehovah; whereof one is the Creative Power, the other is the Royal Power: The Creative Power is called God, the Royal Power is called Lord. He therefore in the middle, being attended by theſe Powers on each ſide of him, repreſents to the ſeeing Faculty the appearance of ſometimes One, and ſometimes of Three. Philo after all, warns his Reader that this is a Myſtery, not to be communicated to every one, but only to them that were capable to underſtand and to keep it to themſelves: By which he ſheweth that this was kept as a Cabala among the Jewiſh Doctors: for fear, if it came out, the People might miſunderſtand it, and thereby fall into Polytheiſm.

As for the Targums, they likewiſe are very clear in this matter. For beſides the Lord Jehova without any addition, they ſpeak of the Word of the Lord, or the Shekinah of the Lord, and that ſo often, that it will be endleſs to quote all the places: ſome of them however muſt be cited, to put the thing out of diſpute.

1. Where ever the words Jehovah and Elohim are read in the Hebrew; There Onkelos commonly renders it in his Chaldee Paraphraſe, the Word of the Lord, as Gen. xxviii. 20, 21. xxxi. 49. Ex. ii. 25. xvi. 8. xix. 17. xxxii. 20. Lev: xx. 23. xxvi. 49. Numb. xi. 20. xiv. 9. xxiii. 21. Deut. i. 30, 32. ii. 7. iii. 12. iv. 24, 27. v. 5. ix. 3. xx. 1. xxxi. 6, 8.

The Targums commonly deſcribe the ſame Perſon under the Title of Shekinah, which ſignifies, the Divine Habitation.

The Origin of that expreſſion is in the Hebrew word which we find in Gen. ix. 27. and is repeated in many places of the Old Teſtament. I acknowledg freely that in ſome few places of the Targums it ſeems to be employed to expreſs the Holy Ghoſt; ſo that Eliah in his Dictionary, and ſome others who have followed him, and tranſcribed his Book in their Lexicons, takes the Shekinah and the Holy Ghoſt to be the ſame. But after all I believe that Eliah hath been miſtaken by not being fully acquainted with the Ideas of the moſt learned of his people. And indeed we ſee that the moſt famous Writers of the Synagogue put quite another ſenſe upon the Targums, and decide that queſtion againſt Eliah. looking upon the Memra and the Shekinah as the ſame. So doth R. Moſes Maimonides, R. Menachem de Rakanaty, and Ramban, and R. Bachaye.

It is very eaſie to be ſatisfied that theſe famous Authors are in the right: For if you conſider the places where Philo the Jew ſpeaks of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , you ſhall ſee that they are in the Targum explained either by the Memra da Jehova, or by the Shekinah. And on the contrary if you except very few places you ſhall find that the Targums employ the term of Holy Ghoſt as the proper name which we have in the Original. And even to this day the Jews do oftner call the Spirit as by his proper name Ruach hakkodeſh, the Holy Spirit.

That the Targumiſts had the ſame Notions of theſe two that Philo had, is, I think, plain, if we compare what Philo ſaith of the two Powers of God, [De Plant. Noae. p. 172.] (whereof as we ſhewed before he hath one on each ſide of himſelf) with what we read, of the two Hands of God, in Jonathan and the Jeruſalem Targum on Ex. xv. 17. The like expreſſions are to be found in other places, too many to be here collected; but we ſhall conſider them afterwards.

The mean while, we cannot but take notice, how that Doctrine of the Trinity paſt current among the Jews of the ancient Synagogue, though they were as zealous Aſſerters of the Unity of the Godhead as our Socinians can pretend to be at this day. No doubt the ancient Jews could have found as many Contradictions in theſe two Doctrines of Trinity and Unity, as the Socinians do, if they had not been more diſpoſed to ſtudy how to reconcile them together, being ſatisfied that both theſe Doctrines were part of the Revelation which God had made to their Fathers.

We cannot ſay ſo altogether of the Modern Jews, who are very much alienated from the Doctrine of the Trinity, by ſeeing much clearer Revelations of it in the New Teſtament, and eſpecially ſince they are treated with diſputes againſt the Chriſtians, that make Chriſt to be the Meſſias, or ſecond Perſon in the Trinity, which they can by no means endure now to hear. This has ſet them to hunt for ways to avoid the Evidence of theſe Texts that ſpeak of a Plurality in the Divine Nature, and in this purſuit they forſake their ancient Guides, and ſtrangely intangle themſelves, and contradict one another.

Some of them flatly deny that any of thoſe Plural words do denote any Plurality in God, but ſay, they ought to be underſtood as if they were written in the Singular.

Others confeſs, that truly they do denote a Plurality. But that Plurality conſiſts of God and his Angels, whom he joyns with himſelf as his Counſellors. Ask but what inſtance they have in Scripture of ſuch a ſtrange way of ſpeaking, which makes God and his Angels as it were Fellows and Companions, they preſently alledg that one paſſage of Dan. iv. 17. This matter is by the decree of the Watchers, and the Demand of the Holy Ones. Now theſe Watchers, and theſe Holy Ones, ſay they, are the Holy Angels. But admit they are Angels, all that is ſaid of them in this Text, will not prove what they infer from it. For, 1. the thing that they would prove is falſe and contrary to Scripture, Eſ. xl. 13. which expreſly denies, that God has any Companions or Counſellors, as hath been already ſhewn.

2. The nature, of the Works conſulted on in thoſe Texts to which they would apply this, is ſuch, as is infinitely above the power of any Creature, ſuch as the Creation of Man, and the confounding of Languages, &c.

3. In this very Text their moſt Learned Commentators R. Saadia Gaon, and Aben Ezra, do not find any ſuch Conſultation of God with his Angels, as theſe Jews imagin; they do indeed find that theſe Watchers and Holy Ones, are the Holy Angels; but they ſay for the Decree 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , they pronounce it from the mouth of God, and it is called their Decree, becauſe they are the Miniſters of God to do whatever he commands them. Thus Jer. i. 10. that Prophet is ſaid to be ſet over Nations and Kingdoms to deſtroy and to throw down, to build and to plant; not that God ſhared that power with his Prophet, or took him into Councel for ſuch things, but only that he by the appointment of God, as his Miniſter, was to declare the Sentence and Judgment of God for the doing of ſuch things.

4. This appears in the very Decree here ſpoken of, which concerns a revolution in a great Empire: But the diſpoſal of Kingdoms is that which properly belongs to the Eternal Wiſdom of God, as Solomon declares, Prov. viii. 15, 16. and not to Angels any farther, than they are employed by God for the publiſhing, or for the executing of his Sentence.

But after all this, though I have admitted it that the Angels are here called Watchers, and Holy Ones, yet I am rather of opinion that theſe words do not ſignifie Angels, but the three Perſons in the Trinity. My reaſon is, becauſe however that Notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being Angels has obtained among the Jews, I do not find them called ſo any where in the Old Teſtament Scriptures. But God is often ſaid to watch over his People, Gen. xxxi. 49. Pſal. vii. 6. & cxxvii. 1. Jer. xxxi. 28. & xliv. 27. and even by this Prophet, Dan. ix. 14. And for the other word that is here joyn'd with the Watchers, viz. the Holy Ones, however this may be uſed of Angels elſwhere, yet here it is certainly uſed of God in this Chapter, v. 8, 9, 18. and that in the Plural, as it is in Joſh. xxiv. 19. and yet as there in Joſhua the Holy Gods in the Plural are the ſame with the Jehovah in the Singular Number; ſo here the Watchers and the Holy Ones in the Plural are the ſame with the Watcher and Holy One in the Singular, v. 13. and the Decree of the Watchers and Holy Ones in this verſe, is called the Decree of the Moſt High, v. 24. and it is he whom Nebuchadnezzar glorifies as the ſole Author of his abaſement, and alſo of his reſtauration. I hope the Reader will eaſily pardon this digreſſion, if he thinks it is one: It ſeemed neceſſary that I ſhould conſider this Text at large, becauſe it is as far as I know, the only place in Scripture which is brought by the Jews to colour that Interpretation with which they think to elude the force of our Arguments.

After all that I have alledged from Philo, and the Paraphraſes, I do not pretend to affirm that they had as diſtinct Notions of the Trinity as we have; nor do I deny but that ſometimes they put a different conſtruction on the Texts which we have cited in proof of this Myſtery; Nay, I own that their Ideas are often confuſed when they ſpeak of theſe things, and particularly they refer ſometimes that to the ſecond Perſon which ſhould be aſcribed to the third, and that to the third which properly belongs to the ſecond; Nay, more, I acknowledg that Philo by the Spirit, Gen. i. 2. underſtands the Wind, [de Gig. p. 223.] which is ſomething ſtrange; ſeeing the Greek Interpreters whom he followed read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. the Spirit of God, and not ſimply the Spirit, which might have ſtood for Wind here, as it does in ſome places of the Old Teſtament.

But Philo's Error is eaſily accounted for; He fell into it by endeavouring to accommodate Moſes his Notions to the Notions of the Philoſophy, that makes four Elements of all things. And probably for ſuch a reaſon ſome of the Targums might come into the ſame Interpretation. But for the other ancient Jews they expounded this Spirit, not by Wind, but by that Spirit which was to reſt on the Meſſiah in Iſaiah's Language, Iſa. xi. 1. See Breſh. Rabba in Gen. i. 2. And truly Raſhi on theſe words affirms, that the Throne of Glory was in the Air, and that it warmed the Heavens by the Spirit of the Goodneſs of God bleſſed for ever. Where by the way the Spirit of Goodneſs is the ſame with the latter of Philo's two Powers above mentioned. De Sacr. Ab. 108.

Thoſe among the Jews who take the Spirit of God for the Will of God, as R. Abr. doth in Tzeror hammor, and ſome mentioned in the Book Cozri, [p. 5. p. 329.] are not far from this Opinion: And this is the ſenſe Maimonides gives to thoſe words, The Spirit of the Lord, in explaining of Iſa. xl. 13. [Mor. Neb. i. 40.] It appears from Pſal. xxxiii. 6. That the Hoſts of Heaven were made by the Spirit of his mouth; words which no Jew has yet interpreted of the Wind.

I know Philo expreſſes his thoughts obſcurely, ſpeaking of the two Powers of God, [de Cherub. p. 86.] he ſaith, that the Word joyns theſe two Powers, which he afterwards calls his Principality and his Goodneſs.

But this can raiſe no prejudice againſt our Poſition. It ſhews indeed that our Author, who had gathered his Notions, as other Jews did, from reading the Books of the Old Teſtament, together with their Traditional Interpretations, was not ſo much a Maſter of them, as to make them always conſiſt with one another. Others perhaps will ſay, he was not always conſtant to himſelf; nor am I concern'd to have it granted that he was ſo. We look not on him, nor any of theſe Writers to be inſpired; but eſteem them only as 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 ſhall bring him witneſſes to eſtabliſh them.

I know that they pretend commonly the name of Elohim, which is Plural, is given to God to expreſs his ſeveral Virtues: But beyond that, they maintain that Scripture hath affected this ſtyle of Plurality becauſe of thoſe two, the Cochma or Wiſdom, and the Bina or underſtanding which are ſpoken Prov. 3.19. where Solomon reflects upon the Author of the Creation, and they alledg upon this Subject, the place of Eccleſiaſtes, ch. xii. 1. where Creators are mentioned. Bachaje in Pentat. fol. 4. col. 2. & col. 4. & R. Joſeph de Karnitol in Saare Tſedec. fol. 7. col. 2.

As they ſtudy in a ſpecial manner the Hiſtory of the Creation, and conſider very nicely every expreſſion thereof, they take notice that the Jeruſalem Targum hath tranſlated thoſe words in the beginning, Bereſhit, God created Heaven and Earth; by theſe, God created by his Wiſdom, which is call'd the beginning, Prov. viii. and ſo that Onkelos hath not tranſlated the word Bereſchit, by the word Kadmita, which ſignifies the beginning of time; but by the word Bekadmin, which ſignifies the ancient or the firſt, which is the Title they give to Wiſdom, according to the ſame place of Solomon, which I have quoted. This is the Notion of the Book Habbahir, of the Zohar, of the Rabboth, whoſe words are related at large by R. Menachem de Rekanati in Pentat. fol. 1. col. 1, & 2. of the Venice Edit. by Bombergue.

They maintain the Wiſdom which is ſpoken of by Solomon to be the cauſe by which all particular Beings have been formed, and they call it the ſecond number, which proceeds from the firſt, as from his ſpring, and brings from it the influx of all bleſſings. This is the Doctrine of R. Nechouniah ben Cana, and of the Author of Rabboth, which R. Menachem quotes at large, Ibid. fol. 1. col. 1.

They teach that becauſe God hath created by his Wiſdom, as the Soul acts by her Body, they cannot ſay there was not an abſolute and perfect unity in the work of the Creation. This is the Doctrine of the Zohar, followed by R. Menachem de Rekanat. Ibid. col. 2.

And indeed they acknowledg not only that Wiſdom to have been the efficient cauſe of the Word, but they acknowledg alſo the Bina, as ſuch an efficient cauſe with God; from hence they pretend that God hath founded the World by his two Hands, as it is ſaid by Iſa. ch. xlviii. 13. ſo Bachaje in Gen. fol. 3. col. 2.

And this Notion agreeth exactly with what is ſaid by Moſes that the Spirit of God moved it ſelf upon the face of the Abyſs. For it was not of a created wind, but of a Divine and Increated Being which Moſes ſpeaks there, and which is ſpoken of by David, Pſal. xxxiii. 6. as it is acknowledged by Leo Hebraeus Dial. de Amore, and by Menaſſeh ben Iſrael Concil. in Gen. Q. 2. §. 7. and by many others.

It is to be noted, as the firſt Chriſtians make uſe of the word Number, when they ſpeak of the Divine Wiſdom, acknowledging that it differs in Number, but not in Subſtance from the Eternal Father; So Juſtin doth againſt Tryphon; and do acknowledge ſome degrees between the Three Perſons: So doth Tertullian in ſome places; and afterwards they have made uſe of the word Perſon: So the Ancient Jews have among them the ſame Terms, which ſhews they had the ſame Ideas: They ſpeak of the Sephiroth, that is, of the Numbers in the Godhead; they ſpeak of the ſeveral Madregoth, which is Degrees; they ſpeak of Proſopin, which is Perſons, as I have ſhewn before.

They cannot expreſs their mind more diſtinctly, than when they diſtinguiſh, 1. He and Thou, which is the Characteriſtical diſtinction of Perſons, and when they apply theſe Pronouns to the Perſons which they conceive in the Godhead: So they ſay that Thou belongs to Wiſdom, and He to the God which is abſconded. R. Menach. Ibid. fol. 22. col. 2. & fol. 45. col. 1.

They give to them their Characteriſtical Names; ſo they make the name Anochi to belong to God abſconded; they refer the name of any to the Shekinah or Memra, which is the ſame to them, as I ſhall ſhew afterwards. See R. Menach. in Pent. fol. 149. col. 4.

They refer to theſe Perſons the Conſultations and Speeches of God, as directed to many; as, Let us make man, which contains a deep Myſtery, as ſays Bachaje; (but which others would elude, by maintaining that God ſpeaks to Angels): So doth R. Menach. de Rek. fol. 35. col. 4. So they conceive that when it is ſaid in Scripture that God ſpeaks with his Heart, then God ſpeaks with his Shekinah: 'Tis their Remark upon Gen. xi. Let us come down. R. Men. fol. 27. col. 2. & fol. 28. col. 2. So they acknowledge diſtinctly in theſe words, Gen. xix. 24. And Jehovah rained upon Sodom from Jehovah; that thoſe Two Jehovah are Two Perſons, which they call expreſly Two Proſopin. R. Menach. fol. 11. col. 1. & fol. 63. col. 4. So in the Hiſtory of the Tower of Babel. Ibid. fol. 28. col. 3.

They diſtinguiſh exactly the Characteriſtical Actions which belong to theſe Perſons. So they attribute to the God abſconded, to have acted in the Creation by his Wiſdom, and by his Underſtanding. R. Menach. fol. 1. from Breſchit Rabba; and that according to Solomon, Prov. iii. and to David, Pſal. xxxiii. 6.

They ſay that this Wiſdom is called the Beginning, although ſhe is but the ſecond Sephira, becauſe beyond her they can know nothing, the firſt Sephira being unknown to all Creatures. 'Tis the Doctrine of the Book Jetzira, and of the Zohar related by R. Men. fol. 1. col. 3. They maintain that 'tis the Shekinah or Wiſdom which rules the World, according to Solomon's words, Prov. viii. R. Men. fol. 35. col. 1.

I ſhall ſhew in one of the next Chapters, that they refer to the Shekinah or Memra, almoſt all the Appearances of God which are mentioned in Scripture, according to the Ideas of the Targum. That can be ſeen in the Comments of Ramban and of Bachaje upon the Pentateuch. I quote here only R. Menachem, becauſe he brings the very Words of the Authors who lived before him; ſo that his Authority is not alone, but upheld by the Conſent of old Authors.

Now he and his Authors teach conſtantly, That 'twas the Shekinah which appeared to Adam after his Sin, and made him ſome Cloaths, fol. 59. col. 4. That it appeared to Abraham, fol. 35. col. 2. That it appeared to Jacob at Night, fol. 36. col. 2. And to the ſame upon the Ladder, fol. 41, & 42. That it appeared to Moſes, Exod. iii. fol. 55. col. 2. And to the People upon Mount Sina, fol. 56. col. 2. That it ſpake to Moſes, and gave the Law to the People, fol. 57. col. 2, & 3. fol. 58. col. 1. & fol. 84. col. 1. & col. 2.

There are many other ſpecial Acts which they refer conſtantly to the Memra or Shekinah; as you may ſee in the ſame Comment of Menachem. I ſhall only point at ſome of them; not to enlarge too much in this Chapter.

So they give to the Shekinah the Character of Ruler and Conducter of the Animals of Glory, who receive their Virtue from the Shekinah, and live by his Glory, fol. 65. col. 2. & fol. 66. col. 4. According as we read in Ezek. i. 13. So R. Menachem, following the Zohar, fol. 5. col. 3. & fol. 8. col. 1.

They call the Shekinah the Adam of above, after whoſe Image Adam was created: And they give to him the Titles of Exalted and Bleſſed, which they give only to the True God, R. Men. fol. 14. col. 3. They ſay, That 'twas he to whom Noah offered his Sacrifice, Ibid. fol. 27. col. 1. & fol. 34. col. 4.

They pretend that the Shekinah is the Bridegroom of the Synagogue, according to the Idea of God by Iſaiah lxii. 3. R. Men. fol. 15. col. 1. And that God having committed to Angels the Care of other Nations, the Shekinah alone was intruſted with the Care and Conduct of Iſrael, fol. 28. col. 3. & fol. 153. col. 2.

They pretend that he hath been in Captivity with their Fathers, R. Men. fol. 17. col. 2. & col. 4. & fol. 51. col. 2. That he hath ſmote the Egyptians, fol. 56. col. 4. without the help of Angels, although the Angels attended him as their King, fol. 59. col. 1. & col. 2. & fol. 61. col. 3.

They pretend that the Temple was built to the Honour of the Shekinah, fol. 63. col. 1. & fol. 70. col. 2. And that it was to him, and not to the Ark, that the Levites ſaid, Ariſe, O Lord, into thy reſt, Thou and the Ark of thy ſtrength, Pſal. cxxxii. 8. fol. 121. col. 4.

In a word, they look upon the Shekinah as the Living God, fol. 2. col. 1. The God of Jacob, R. Men. fol. 38. col. 3. And they acknowledge him to be that very Angel whom Jacob looks upon as his Redeemer, his Shepherd, and whom the Prophets call the Angel of the Preſence, and the Angel of the Covenant, Ibid. fol. 73. col. 1. & fol. 83. col. 4.

They are no leſs poſitive, when they ſpeak of the Third Sephira, which they call Binah, and which we take juſtly to be the Holy Ghoſt. For they teach that it proceeds from the Firſt by the Second; and who can conceive that the Spirit of God is not God? And 'tis alſo the Doctrine of the Zohar, and of the Book Habbahir, related by R. Menachem, fol. 1. col. 3. The very Book of Zohar ſaith, That the word Jehovah expreſſes both the Wiſdom and the Binah, and calls them Father and Mother, R. Men. fol. 3. col. 3. & fol. 10. col. 4.

This Idea is grounded upon what is ſaid, Thou art our Father, which they refer to the Shekinah, fol. 22. col. 2. & col. 3. And they call her upon that account the Mother of Iſrael, and her Tutor, R. Men. fol. 62. col. 3. fol. 64. col. 4. That Idea of the Holy Ghoſt as a Mother, which R. Menachem hath, fol. 114. col. 2. is ſo ancient among the Jews, that St. Jerom witneſſes that it was the name which the Nazarenes gave to the Holy Ghoſt, Hicronym. in Ezek. xvi. in Iſa. viii. & in Matth. xiii.

They ſpeak of the Spirit as of a Perſon, when they look upon a Man as a Prophet, who is ſent by God, and by his Spirit, Iſa. chap. xlviii. R. Menach. fol. 34. col. 2. & fol. 56. col. 1. And by whom the Holy Ghoſt hath ſpoken; fol. 122. col. 2. And who for that reaſon is called the mouth of God, fol. 127. col. 4. (Which is now turned by ſome other Jews, as ſignifying only a Created Angel; as you ſee in Bachaje, at the end of the Paraſha Breſchith, fol. 18. col. 1.) So they ſpeak of the Holy Ghoſt as being the mouth of God, fol. 127. col. 4. And that the Angels have been created by the Mouth of God, fol. 143. col. 3.

I acknowledg that ſometimes ſome of them ſeem to take the Shekinah for the Holy Ghoſt, and the Holy Ghoſt for the Shekinah, although they commonly call one the Second Sephira, and the other the Third, viz. the Binah, that is to be ſeen in R. Men. fol. 80. col. 2. So ſome of them refer to the Binah the Title of King of Iſrael, which occurs ſo often in Scripture: See Men. fol. 132. col. 3. Although it is the common Name of the Shekinah, fol. 113. col. 1. Some other refer to the Shekinah the Name of the Spirit of God, which is mentioned Gen. i. 1. So ſays the Author of the Book Jetzira, in R. Menachem, fol. 3. col. 2.

But if ſome are miſtaken in their Ideas, I can ſay that they are very few, and almoſt not worth taking notice of. And indeed if we conſider a little what is the general Senſe of thoſe Authors about the Emanations which are ſpoken of in Scripture, as by which the Divine Nature is communicated to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Shekinah, and to the Holy Ghoſt, we ſhall know evidently that they had as diſtinct a Notion of a true Trinity, as they have of the Plurality of Perſons in the Unity of the Divine Eſſence.

And firſt the Author of the Zohar, and the Author of the Book Habbahir, pronounce that the Third Sephira proceeds from the Firſt by the Second; and R. Men. follows their Doctrine, fol. 1. col. 3.

2dly. They attribute equally the Name of Jehovah to the Second and the Third Sep ••• a, viz. the Wiſdom, and the Binah, or Underſtanding. So does the Zohar in R. Men. fol. 3. col. 3. & fol. 10. col. 4.

3dly. They propoſe the manner in which Eve was Taken from Adam, as an Image of the manner of Emanation of the Wiſdom from the En ſoph, that is, Infinite, Ib. fol. 105. col. 3. & fol. 14. col. 1.

4thly. They propoſe the Image of the two Cherubims who were drawn from the Ark, to give the Idea of the Two laſt Perſons; for the diſtinction of the Cherubims was evident, although there was an Unity of them with the Ark. So R. Men. fol. 74. col. 3.

But we muſt add ſome of their Expreſſions upon this matter, ſo much contradicted by the Socinians.

And firſt, R. Menachem, with the Jewiſh Authors ſuppoſe that not only the Three Perſons, which they call Sephiroth, are ſpoken of in the Hiſtory of the Creation, but that they are alſo expreſs'd in the firſt Command of the Law. See him, fol. 66. col. 3. & fol. 68. col. 1.

2dly. They acknowledge thoſe Three Sephiroth, and attribute to every one his Operations, Ibid. fol. 139. col. 4.

3dly. The Author of Zohar is a Voucher of great Authority; and he cites theſe words of R. Joſe (a famous Jew of the ſecond Century), where examining the Text, Deut. iv. 7. Who have their Gods ſo near to them? What, ſaith he, may be the meaning of this? It ſeems that Moſes ſhould have ſaid, Who have God ſo near them? But (ſaith he) there is a Superior God, and there is the God who was the Fear of Iſaac, and there is an Inferior God; and therefore Moſes ſaith, The Gods ſo near. For there are many Virtues that come from the only One, and all they are one.

See how the ſame Author ſuppoſes that there are Three Degrees in the Godhead, in Levit. col. 116. Come and ſee the Myſtery in the word Elohim, viz. There are Three degrees, and every degree is diſtinct by himſelf; and notwithſtanding, they are all One, and tied in One, and one is not ſeparated from the other. And again, in Exod. col. 75. Upon the words of Deut vi. 4. Hear, O Iſrael, the Lord our God is one Lord; they muſt know that thoſe Three (viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) are One unum; and that is a Secret which we learn in the Myſtery of the Voice which is heard: The Voice is One unum, but it contains Three Modes, viz. the Fire, the Air, and the Water. Now theſe Three are One in the Myſtery of the Voice, and they are but One unum. So in this place, Jehovah, our Lord, Jehovah, are one unum.

You have this Remark of the ſame Author in Gen. fol. 54. col 2. de Litera ש, That the Three Branches of that Letter denote the Heavenly Fathers, who are there named Jehovah, our Lord, Jehovah.

R. Hay Hagahon, who lived Seven hundred Years ago, ſaid there are Three Lights in God; the Ancient Light, or Kadmon; the Pure Light, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; the Purified Light, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and that theſe make but One God: And that there is neither Plurality nor Polytheiſm in this. The ſame Idea is followed by R. Shem Tov. in his Book Emunoth, part. 4. cap. 8. p. 32. col. 2.

See again R. Hamay Hagaon in his Book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Speculation cited by Reuchlin, p. 651. Hi tres qui ſunt unum inter ſe proportionem habent ut 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unum uniens & unitum. He ſaid before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſunt principium & medium & finis, & haec ſunt unus punctus & eſt dominus univerſi.

R. Joſeph ben Gekatilia, and the other Cabaliſts are in effect for three Elohims when they treat of the three 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or three firſt Sephiroth. For they agree that the three firſt Sephiroth were never ſeen by any body, and that there is no diſcord, no imperfection among them.

The Note of this R. Joſeph Gekatilia is very remarkable. The Jews, ſaith he, have been under the ſeverity of judgment, and ſhall continue ſo till the coming of the Meſſias, who ſhall be united (ſaith he) with the ſecond Sephirah, which is Wiſdom, according as it is written Iſa. xi. 2. And the Spirit of the Lord ſhall reſt upon him, the Spirit of Wiſdom, &c. And he ſhall cauſe the Spirit of Grace and Clemency to deſcend from the firſt Sephirah, who is called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Infinite; and he follows in that Rabbi Salomon Jarchi, who ſaith upon Iſa. xi. that the Cochma which is the ſecond Sephira ſhall be in the middle of the Meſſias.

In a word this Notion of Plurality and Trinity expreſſed in the Writings of Moſes and the Prophets hath not only been obſerved by the Jews, but they have found and acknowledged it as well as the Chriſtians to be a great and profound myſtery. And for the explaining of it the Jews have employed very near the ſame Ideas that the Chriſtians uſe in ſpeaking of the three Perſons of the Bleſſed Trinity. For they conceive in God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Faces, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Subſiſtences, which we call Perſons, as one may ſee in Sepher Jetzirah.

Moreover, we may obſerve, 1. That when they ſpeak of the three firſt Sephiroth, they underſtand the ſame thing by them, as we do by three Perſonalities, three Modes of Exiſtence, active or paſſive Emanations or Proceſſions, which are the foundation of the Perſonalities.

2ly. That though they hold ten Sephiroth in all, yet they make a great difference between the three firſt Sephiroth, and the ſeven laſt. For they regard the firſt as Perſons, but the laſt as Attributes, according to which God acts in the ordinary courſe of his Providence, or according to his ſeveral diſpenſations towards his Creatures. Hence they call the ſeven laſt, Middoth, or Meaſures, that is to ſay, the Attributes and Characters which are viſible in the Works of God, namely, his Juſtice and Mercy, &c. And this is confeſſed in plain words by the great Cabaliſt R. Menachem de Rekanati: Tres primariae numerationes, quae ſunt intellectuales, non vocantur menſurae, i.e. they are not Attributes, as are the ſeven laſt which he explains under that Notion. Rittangel hath already quoted that place in his Notes upon Sepher Jetzira, p. 193.

It may be objected, that the ancient Jews were ignorant of the Names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which Names the Chriſtians give to the three Perſons in the Deity. But this, if it were true, would not weigh much with a reaſonable mind. For who can doubt but a new Revelation may diſtinguiſh thoſe Notions clearly by proper and ſuitable Names, which the Jews by what Revelation they had, knew but more confuſedly. And yet to remove the Objection wholly, it is certain the ancient Cabaliſts were acquainted with the Names of Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt.

They gave the Name of Father to the firſt of their Sephiroth, whom they called En Soph, i. e. Infinite, to expreſs his Incomprehenſibility. This we have in Zohar, from whence it is eaſie to conclude that they muſt own the Son alſo, the Name of Father being relative to the Son. But further they knew that ſecond Perſon by the name Coema Wiſdom, even that Wiſdom by which the Word was created, &c. according to Prov. 3.19. The Lord by Wiſdom hath founded the Earth. This Notion was ſo ancient among the Jews, that the Jeruſalem Targum hath rendred the firſt verſe of Geneſis thus, The Lord created by his Wiſdom. The Chriſtians call'd him the Word, and Wiſdom, alluding to divers places, eſpecially Pſal. xxxiii. 6. and Prov. viii. 14. The Jews commonly call him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the ſecond Glory, and the Crown of the Creation. Rittanget. brings their Authorities for this in Seph. Jetzira p. 4, & 5.

They knew the third Perſon by the name of Binah, or Intelligence, becauſe they thought it was he that gave Men the knowledg of what God was pleaſed to reveal to them. In particular, they called him the Sanctifier, and the Father of Faith: nor is any thing more common among them than to give him the name of the Spirit of Holineſs, or the Holy Spirit.

The ſame Doctrine is to be found in ſeveral other Books of the Cabaliſts which are known to moſt Chriſtians, becauſe they are Printed; and the ſame thing is to be found in their Manuſcripts, which are more rare, becauſe the Jews have not yet Printed them. Of this ſort is Iggereth Haſſodoth, cited by Galatinus, whoſe Authority is vindicated by Plantavitius Bibl. Rabb. p. 549. Of this ſort alſo is the Manuſcript called Sod Mercava Eliona quoted by Ritt. p. 35. where are mentioned the three Modes of Exiſtence in God. Notwithſtanding which they are all unanimous, that the Lord is one, and his Name is one.

If you would know on what foundations it was that the Cabaliſts built this Doctrine, you need but look over the Texts on which they have reflected, and you'l find them almoſt all the ſame with thoſe that were quoted to the ſame purpoſe by the Apoſtles and Apoſtolical Men in their Writings.

Particularly if you would know their opinion to whom it was that God did ſpeak at the Creation, Gen. i. 26. R. Juda will tell you God ſpoke to his Word.

If you would know of them who is the Spirit of whom we read, Gen. i. 2. that he moved on the face of the Waters. Moſes Botril will inform you, it is the Holy Spirit.

If you would learn of them to whom it was that God ſpoke, Gen. i. 26. ſaying, Let Us make Man. Moſes Botril tells us that theſe words are directed to the Wiſdom of God.

If you would know what Spirit it was that is ſpoken of, Job xxviii. 12. Again Moſes Botril will tell you, it is the Holy Spirit.

If you would know of whom they underſtand thoſe words in Pſal. xxxvi. 6. They ſay plainly that they are ſpoken of that very Trinity.

If you would know what they think of that Wiſdom, Pſal. civ. 24. R. Moſes Botril deſcribes it to you as a Perſon, and not an Attribute.

If you would know to whom that is to be referr'd, which we read of, Iſa. xl. 14. R. Abraham ben David will tell you, to the Three Sephiroth.

All this is to be found in their ſeveral Comments on the Book Jetzira, which were printed at Mantua in the laſt Century, A. D. 1562. & 1592. and have been quoted in Latin by Rittangelius.

But it may be ſaid, That the Jews have adopted this Doctrine inconſiderately, without reflecting upon the Abſurdity of it. For how is it poſſible to conceive ſuch Emanations in God, who is Immutable and Eternal; and ſuch an Idea of Plurality and of Trinity in God, who is over and above all Ideas of Compoſition?

But I anſwer, 1. All theſe they have conſidered, and yet have owned this Diſtinction in the Divine Eſſence, as a Truth not to be conteſted. But aſſert theſe Three Sephiroth, which they call ſometimes Spirits, to be Eternal and Eſſential in God; which they ſay we ought not to deny, becauſe we can't eaſily conceive it: For the Divine Nature is Incomprehenſible, far exceeding the Limits of our narrow Underſtandings: And the Revelation God hath given us does no more put us in a capacity to judge of the nature of the things revealed, than the borrowed Light of the Moon, which is all that the Owls can behold, does render them able to judge of the Sun's far more glorious Light. Such are the Thoughts of R. Sabtay in Rit. on Jetz. p. 78, 79, 80. Such are the Reflections of R. Menach. who cites Job xxviii. 7. to this purpoſe; and the Caution of the Jewiſh Doctors, who forbid to undertake the Examination of things that are incomprehenſible.

2. They have expreſſed their Notions of this matter much after the ſame manner as the Thomiſts have done theirs. The Book Jetzira, chap. 1. diſtinguiſhes in God, Sopher, Sepher, and Sippour; which R. Abraham explaining, ſays they anſwer to Him that underſtands, to the Act of Underſtanding, and to the Thing underſtood.

All this is ſtill the more remarkable, 1. Becauſe the common Jews have well nigh quite loſt the Notion of the Meſſias being God; and they generally expect no other than a mere common Man for their Redeemer.

2. Becauſe the main Body of the Jews are ſuch zealous Aſſerters of the Unity of God, that they repeat every day the words of Deut. vi. 4. The Lord our God is One Lord. It is a Practice which though now they have turn'd againſt the Chriſtians, yet doubtleſs was taken up firſt in oppoſition to the Gentiles, whoſe Polytheiſm was renounced in this ſhort Confeſſion of the Jewiſh Faith. And hence it is that they do ſo much celebrate R. Akiba's Faith, who died in Torments, with the laſt Syllables of the word Echad in his Mouth, which ſignifies the Unity of God.

3. Becauſe the Jews at the ſame time diſpute againſt the Chriſtians Doctrine of the Trinity; as doth R. Saadia, for inſtance, in his Book entituled Sepher Emunah, chap. 2.

4. Becauſe from the beginning of Chriſtianity ſome Rabbins have applied themſelves to find out other Senſes of thoſe Paſſages which the Chriſtians urge againſt them. This we ſee in Gem. of Sanhedr. chap. 4. ſect. 2.

And yet notwithſtanding all this oppoſition, the Cabaliſts have paſt and do ſtill paſs for Divines among the Jews, and the Targumiſts for Inſpired Men.

Nor is it to be imagined that theſe Notions of the Cabaliſtical Jews are new things, which they pick'd up ſince their more frequent Converſe with the Chriſtians: For we find them in the Book Zohar, the Author of which is reputed one of the chief Jewiſh Martyrs (Jebhamoth, tr. 1. fol. 5. col. 2.), and to have lived in the Second Century. I know ſome have ſuſpected that this Book is a counterfeit, and falſly fathered on R. Simeon, whoſe Name it bears. The Zohar was not known, ſay they, till about the time of R. Moſes Bar Nachman: So ſaith the Book Juchazin, p. 42. & R. D. Ganz in Tzemach David, p. 106. But we find theſe Notions in the beginning of the Rabboth, which Books they will have to be more Ancient than the Talmud. Furthermore, we ſee in the Gemara of Sabbath, that R. Simeon was diſpenſed with the neceſſity of his being preſent at Prayers in the Synagogue, becauſe he and his Scholars were at work upon the Study of the Laws; which ſuppoſes that he was writing ſome ſuch Comments as we have now, although 'tis probable that they have been increaſed in following Ages. Beſides, who can imagine that in all places the Jews ſhould have adopted Opinions unknown to their Religion, and in effect deſtructive of thoſe Points for which they then zealouſly contended, if they had not been convinced of the Truth of ſuch a Doctrine?

And now give me leave to propoſe one Argument to the Unitarians, which I believe they will not be able to anſwer, and adhere to their new-advanced Poſition, That the Nazarenes were the true Primitive Chriſtians, and the only Depoſitaries of the Apoſtolick Doctrine. It is a Paſſage taken from the Goſpel of the Nazarenes, as cited by St. Jerome on Ezek. xvi. Where after noting that the word Ruach, Spirit, in the Hebrew Tongue is Feminine; he adds, In Evangelio quoque Hebraeorum, quod lectitant Nazaraei, Salvator inducitur l • 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and ſhewing what thoughts the ancient Jews had concerning it.

Socinus confeſſes that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Perſon, for he owns that St. John did deſcribe the Man Chriſt Jeſus by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 ImageLib. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from the word Pithgama, which ſignifies a Matter or a Diſcourſe, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 21.

The Word cauſed that miraculous Heat which diſpoſed Pharaoh's Daughter to go and bathe her ſelf in the Nile, Exod. ii. 5.

It was He that ſpake, and the World was made, according to Jonathan's Targum; or the Word of the Lord, according to the Jeruſalem Targum, that ſpoke to Moſes, Exod. iii. Which clearly ſhews that they made uſe of the word Memra, to expreſs what is ſo often repeated, Gen. i. And God ſaid.

It is the Word who, as God promiſed Moſes, was to be his Mouth, Exod. iv. 12, 15.

According to the Jeruſalem Targum, the Word appear'd to Abraham by the Name of the God of Heaven; and the Name of his Word was not declared to the Patriarchs, Exod. vi. 3.

The Word of the Lord ſlew the Firſt-born of Egypt, Exod. xii. 29.

The Word of the Lord hath appeared on Three remarkable Occaſions: Firſt, At the Creation of the World: Secondly, To Abraham: Thirdly, At Iſrael's departure out of Egypt: And a Fourth time he ſhall appear at the coming of the Meſſiah. Thus Jonathan, and Targ. Jeruſalem, Exod. xii. 42.

The Word wrought Miracles by Moſes, Exod. xiii. 8.

The Word raiſed up thoſe Iſraelites which were killed by the Philiſtines, that left Egypt Three Years before the Departure of their Brethren out of Egypt, Exod. xiii. 17.

For the neglect of the Commands of the Word were the Iſraelites killed, Exod. xiii. 17.

It is the Word that looked on the Hoſt of the Egyptians, and to him the Iſraelites cried, Exod. xiv. 24, 31.

It is the Word that gives the Law concerning the Sabbath, Exod. xvi. 25. and he againſt whom Iſrael murmur'd, ver. 8.

The Iſraelites hear the voice of the Word, Exod. xix. 5. who ſpeaks, v. 9. and pronounces the Law, xx. 1. being the ſame that redeemed Iſrael from Egypt, Ib. and Lev. i.

God promiſes to ſend his Word with his People, and Iſrael is ſtrictly enjoyned to obey him, Exod. xxiii. 20, 21, 23.

The Word puniſhes Iſrael for the Golden Calf, Exod. xxxii. 35.

The Word talks with Moſes in the Tabernacle, and the People worſhip him, Exod. xxxiii. 9, 11. Lev. i.

It is the Word whoſe Appearance is promiſed Moſes, Exod. xxxiii. 19. and the Word is diſtinguiſhed from the Angels that attend him, Exod. xxxiii. 23.

It is the Word to whom Moſes prays, and who is called the Name of the Lord, Exod. xxxiv. 5.

The Word makes Statutes, Lev. xxiv. 11. Numb. xxii. 18. according to the ſame Jonathan.

It is the Word of whom the Jeruſalem Targum underſtands what is ſpoken by Jonathan of the Face of the Lord, Numb. ix. 8.

By the order of the Word of the Lord the Iſraelites Encamp, Numb. ix. 19, 23.

It is the Word to whom Prayer is made upon removing the Ark of the Covenant, Numb. x. 35, 36.

The Word ſpoke to all the Prophets before Moſes, Numb. xii. 6.

The Word gives Anſwer, Numb. xiv. 20.

The Word ſent fiery Serpents, and thoſe that were healed, were healed by the Name of the Word of the Lord, Numb. xxi. 6, 9, 10.

It is before the Word that the Idolatrous Iſralites were hanged, Numb. xxv. 4.

It is the Word that wrought Wonders in the Deſert in behalf of Iſrael, Deut. i. 1. iv. 34. vi. 22. and whom the Iſraelites provoked, Deut. i. 1.

The Word multiplied Iſrael, and fought for them, yet they believed not in him, Deut. i. 10, 30, 32. and iii. 2. both in Jonathan, and the Jeruſalem Targum.

The Word puniſhed Iſrael for the Buſineſs of Peor, Deut. iv. 3.

The Word ſits on a raiſed Throne, and hears the People's Prayers, and ſpeaks from the midſt of the fire, and gives the Law, Deut. iv. 7, 12, 33. v. 23, 24, 25.

Moſes is a Mediator between the Word and the People, Deut. v.

It is by the Name of the Word that Iſrael ought to ſwear, Deut. vi. 13.

The Word was to drive out the Nations before Iſrael, Deut. xi. 23.

The Word choſe the Levites for his Service, Deut. xxi. 5. and the whole People of Iſrael, Deut. xxvi. 18.

The Word protected Jacob from Laban, Deut. xxvi. 5.

The Word deſtroyed Sodom, Deut. xxix. 23.

The Word ſware to the Patriarchs, Deut. xxxi. 7.

The Word ſhall Judge the People, Deut. xxxii. 36.

The Word ſaith of himſelf, that he was, is, and is to come, v. 32, 39.

The Word takes Moſes up to Mount Abarim; and Moſes prays to him for a Sight of the Land of Canaan, Deut. xxxii. 49.

The Word ſhews Moſes the Generations of the Great Men of Iſrael, Deut. xxxiv. 1.

The Word ſaid, he had ſworn to give Iſrael the Land of Canaan, xxxiv. 4.

To conclude, Moſes dies according to the decree of the Word of the Lord; that is to ſay, the Word recalls his Soul with a Kiſs; and with a huge Train of Angels Inters his Body; being the ſame Word that had appeared to him, and ſent him into Egypt, and by ſo many Miracles redeemed Iſrael from thence, Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6, 10, 11, 12.

There is no need of making any profound Reflections on theſe many places of Philo, and the Chaldee Paraphraſes, to convince the Reader, that the Jews before Jeſus Chriſt did regard the Word as a true and real Perſon. The conſequence is eaſily drawn by him that looks them over but with half an eye.

I know the word Memra in Hebrew is ſometimes taken in another ſenſe, as well as that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in the Greek. But all the Perſonal Characters of Action, of Commanding, of Speaking, of Anſwering, of giving Laws, of Iſſuing out Decrees, of being prayed to, of receiving Worſhip, and the like, are ſo expreſly given that Word we now Treat of, as render it abſurd to take it for any thing elſe but a Perſon.

Let us next enquire into the Nature of this Perſon, according to the ſame Teſtimonies of the ancient Jews, whether it be Angelical, or Divine, and conſequently whether this Perſon be truly God.

I propoſe this, not that I think there is any neceſſity of proving it after all that I have already obſerved from the ancient Jews touching the Word; but for the clearer manifeſtation of the abſurdity into which our Adverſaries fall, in their ſtriving to force another ſenſe upon the word, as the more knowing Men among them cannot but ſee, when they conſider theſe Proofs with attention.

He who writ againſt Vechnerus Endeavours in general to perſwade us, that in thoſe places of the Targums where the Memra is ſpoken of, it is uſed to expreſs the Divine Providence over the Faithful of ancient times; or elſe in particular it ſignifies the Attributes of God, his Affections or Actions, his Miracles, his Appearances, his Inſpirations, and the like. This he repeats in ſeveral parts of his diſſertation, and at the end of his work he trys to apply it to ſeveral Texts in the Targum.

One might reaſonably doubt whether he himſelf were ſatisfied with his own performance in this. I have two great reaſons to think he was not. The firſt is, that it ſeems he never conſulted Philo's Notions of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before he made this Judgment, notwithſtanding that he could not but ſee them in Grotius on St. John's Goſpel, which he quotes; and he could not but know how much they were inſiſted upon by thoſe Writers whom he pretended to anſwer. They do indeed ſo diſtinctly and clearly eſtabliſh the Perſonality of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that they render uſeleſs and unſuitable all the Interpretations he has found out for the Texts in the Targums.

The ſecond is, that he himſelf, though he fitted his Interpretations to divers paſſages in the Targum, thereby to break the force of them when turned againſt him, is yet forced to acknowledg, that ſometimes the word Memra ſignifies a Perſon properly ſo called, according to our ſenſe of it. The ſeveral places where the Word is ſaid to create the World, give him much trouble to elude them. And though he endeavours to rid his hands of them, by aſſerting the Word does there ſignifie the Power of God; nevertheleſs he lets you underſtand that if you are not pleaſed with that Solution, you may have his conſent to take it in the Arian ſenſe of the word, for a created God, by whom, as by a real and Inſtrumental cauſe, God did truly create the Univerſe.

This is the ſtrangeſt anſwer that could be returned to ſo great an Objection. For he muſt have loſt his Reaſon, who imagins that God can make a Creature capable of creating the Univerſe. Grant this, and by what Character will you diſtinguiſh the Creature from the Creator? By what right then could God appropriate, as he doth very often in the Old Teſtament, the work of the World's Creation to himſelf, excluding any other from having to do in it but himſelf? Why ſhould God upon this ſcore forbid the giving worſhip to the Creature which is due to the Creator? The Arians who worſhip Jeſus Chriſt, though they eſteem him a Creature, and thoſe Papiſts who ſwallow whole the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantion; they may teach in their Schools that a Creature may be inabled by God to become a Creator. But for us, who deny that any thing but God is to be adored, as Philo did before us, de Decal. p. 581. de Monarch. p. 628. We reject all ſuch vain conceits of a Creature being any way capable to receive the Infinite Power of a Creator.

There are other places alſo which he found he could not eaſily evade, ſo at length he conſents that the Memra does often denote a Perſon in the Language of the Targums; as where we read, the Word ſpake, and the Word ſaid. But what kind of Perſon? An Angel, a Created Angel in his Judgment, that ſpeaks in the Name of God. And thus he thinks the Word is to be underſtood in thoſe Paraphraſes, when they aſcribe to the Word the leading of Iſrael through the Deſert.

The Reader may judge how many Texts this Anſwer will fit, by reviewing what has been ſaid in the two foregoing Chapters. He will find I have there prevented this Anſwer, and ſhewed that Philo and the Targums did not take this for a created Angel, but for a Divine Perſon; who was called an Angel in reſpect of the Office he diſcharged according to the Oeconomy between the three Perſons of the Bleſſed Trinity; and of whom the Targums generally make expreſs mention in places where the Hebrew Text hath Jehovah Elohim, or the Angel of the Lord; and ſometimes where it hath ſimply the Name Jehovah.

However, to leave no doubt in this matter, we will undertake to prove further, that the Word doth not ſignifie a Created Angel in Philo, or in the Targums, but a truly Divine Perſon.

It is true, that Philo ſometimes calls the Angels 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Plural. But elſwhere he ſpeaks of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſingularly in terms that expreſs his acknowledgment of him for the Creator of Angels, and conſequently for God: This he does in his Book de Sacrif. Abel. p. 202. where he declares him to be the Word that appeared to Moſes, and ſeparates him from the Angels, which are the Hoſts of God.

Again, he deſcribes the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 under the Name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as true God, as Creator of the World, Lib. de Temulentia, p. 190. D. 194. B. But the Angels after another manner, de Plant. Noae, p. 168. F. G. de Gigant. p. 221. E. de Mundo, p. 391.

It is true, he calls the Word an Archangel, de Conf. Linguar. p. 267. B. But in the ſame place he calls him the firſt-born of God, the Image of God, the Creator of the World, p. 258. A. And in another place, the Son of God, that conducted Iſrael through the Wilderneſs, Quis rer. Divin. Haeres, p. 397. F.G.

He was ſo far from taking the Word to be an Angel, that he affirmed, the Word uſed to appear to Men under the form of an Angel; thus ſaith he, the Word appeared to Jacob, de Somn. p. 465. D. And to Hagar, p. 466. B. We are to obſerve this carefully, that we may make Philo agree with Philo. For one while he ſaith an Angel appeared to the Patriarchs, and another time he ſaith the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 appeared to them; his deſign being to acquaint us that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is named an Angel, becauſe he appeared as an Angel in theſe kinds of Manifeſtations of himſelf.

Now as to the Targums, they likewiſe underſtand by this Angel a Perſon that is truly God. For,

1. Could they aſcribe the Creation of the World to the Word, as they do, and yet think him to be a Creature? Could they profeſs him the Creator of Mankind, without aſſerting his Divinity? Could they think him to be no better than an Angel, and yet make him to be Worſhipped by Men, whom they know to be little lower than Angels? Could they imagin him to have given the Law on Mount Sinai, and not reflect on the Preface of the Law; wherein the great Law-giver ſays, I am Jehovah, thy God that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt? The Word is not ſo often called an Angel in the Targums, as he is ſet forth with theſe Characters of God; as the Reader may ſee eſpecially in Jonathan's Targum, and in that of Jeruſalem, Exod. iii. 14. xii. 42. and in many other places.

2. The Targums always diſtinguiſh the Word from the Angels; repreſenting them as Meſſengers employed by the Word, as the Word himſelf is often deſcribed as God's Meſſenger. Thus the Targ. on 1 King. xix. 11, 12. on Pſal. lxviii. 13, 18. on 2 Chron. xxxii. 21.

They ſay the Word was attended with Angels, when he gave the Law, Targ. on 1 Chron. xxix. 11. and when he aſſiſted at the Interment of Moſes. Jonathan on Deut. xxxiv. 6.

3. The Targums repreſent the Word, as ſitting on a High Throne, and hearing the Prayers of the People. Jon. on Deut. iv. 7.

4. Jonathan ſaith expreſly, that the Word that ſpake to Moſes, was 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Philo calls him many times; and if the Expreſſion be allowable, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Iſrael, or that is worſhipp'd, ſpoken of in the Old Teſtament, were not referred by the Ancient Jews to created Angels, who perſonated God. And further, I maintain, That generally the Ancient Jews referred theſe Appearances to the Word, whom they diſtinguiſh'd from Angels, as they do God from the Creature; and thereby juſtified the Patriarchs in paying him that appeared to them Divine Worſhip and Adoration.

To prove this, I muſt return to Philo's Opinion, which I have had occaſion to alledge in ſeveral places. I would willingly ſpare my ſelf the Trouble, and my Reader the Nauſeouſneſs of repeating the ſame things. But this is a matter of ſuch Importance, as neceſſarily obliges me, by a particular Enumeration of Paſſages, to produce Philo's Judgment in this Point, as I have done in the former. He is indeed ſo ample, and ſo much ours in his Teſtimony concerning the Dignity of the Angel that appeared to the Fathers, as more he could not well be, if we had hired him to depoſe on our ſide.

In general, he aſſerts, That it was the Word that appeared to Adam, Jacob, and Moſes; although in the Books of Moſes it is only an Angel that is ſpoken of, [De Somn. p. 461.]

It was the Word that appeared to Abraham, Gen. xviii. 1. according to Philo; for he ſaith, It was the Word that promiſed Sarah a Son in her Old Age, and that enabled her to conceive and bring forth, [Lib. 11. Alleg. p. 77. E.]

It was the Word that appeared to Abraham as an Angel, and that called to him not to hurt his Son, when he was about to ſacrifice him, [De Somn. p. 461. A—E.

It was the Word that appeared to Hagar, [De Cherub. p. 83. C. De Profug. p. 352. De Somn. p. 446. B.]

It was the Word that appeared ſo many times to Jacob, although he be called the Angel that delivered him out of all his Trouble, Alleg. 11. p. 71. D. E.] It was the Word that appeared to Jacob in Bethel, [Lib. de Migr. Abr. p. 304. E. p. 305. A. De Somn. p. 460. G.] And afterwards directed him how to manage Laban's Flock, [De Somn. p. 461. F.] and adviſed him to return to the Land of his Kindred, [De Somn. p. 460. G.] It was the Word that appeared to Jacob in the form of an Angel, and wreſtled with him, [De Somn. p. 454. E.] and changed his Name to Iſrael, [De nom. mut. p. 819. C.]

It was the Image of God, which in other places is the ſame with the Word, that appeared to Moſes in the Buſh, [De Vit. Moſis, 1. p. 475. E.] It was God that called to him at the ſame time, [De Somn. p. 461. D.] Even the Word, [p. Ib. A.] Whom Moſes deſired to ſee, [Alleg. 11. p. 61. A. De Sacr. Ab. p. 102. A. C.]

It was the Word who led Iſrael through the Wilderneſs, Exod. xxiii. [De Agric. p. 152. B.] He was the Angel in whom God placed his Name, [De Migr. Abr. p. 324. E. F.] That Word which is called the Prince of Angels, and who was within the Cloud, [Quis rer. Divin. Haer. p. 397. F. G.] and is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , [De Vit. Moſis, p. 534. G.] And this Angel was he that appeared to Moſes and the Elders of Iſrael on Mount Sinai, Exod. xxiv. [De Confuſ. p. 261. E. De Somn. p. 447. C.] It was the Word whom thoſe Jews rejected, that ſaid, Let us make a Captain and return into Egypt, Num. xiv. 4. [Alleg. 11. p. 71. B.]

It was the Word that governs the World, that appeared to Balaam like an Angel, [De Cherub. p. 87. F. G. Quod Deus ſit immut. p. 248. G. 249. A.]

It was the Word by whom Moſes when he was to dye was tranſlated, [De Sacr. Abr. p. 162. C. D.

II. Let us come next to the Chaldee Paraphraſes, and ſee how they render thoſe Texts that ſpeak of the Divine Appearances in Scripture; and let the Reader take theſe Remarks along with him: 1. That whatſoever he finds in thoſe Paraphraſes, he may be aſſured that it was the General Senſe of the Jewiſh Church in Ancient Times. 2. That any Judicious Writer can juſtly ſuſpect thoſe who firſt publiſhed thoſe Targums, to have cut many parts of them, to favour the new Method of their laſt Writers, which I have explained in the beginning of this Chapter.

The firſt Appearance of God to Man was when having created our firſt Parents, Gen. i. 27. He bleſſed them, and ſaid unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and repleniſh the earth, Gen. i. 28. He that gave them this Bleſſing was he that created them, as we read in the Jeruſalem Targum on Gen. i. 27. The Word of the Lord created Man in his own Image. For his giving them the Bleſſing, we have it in that Targum on Gen. xxxv. 9. We have theſe following words, O Eternal God, thou haſt taught us the Marriage-bleſſing of Adam and his Wife; for thus the Scripture ſaith expreſly, And the Word of the Lord bleſſed them, and the Word of the Lord ſaid to them, Be ye fruitful, and multiply, and repleniſh the earth.

God appeared again to our firſt Parents after their Sin, Gen. iii. 8. Where it is ſaid, that they heard the Voice of the Lord God walking in the midſt of the garden. Now as Philo ſaid to us, that it was the Word of the Lord that appeared to Adam; ſo both Onkelos and Jonathan have it, that Adam and his Wife heard the Voice of the Word of the Lord God walking in the garden. Likewiſe in the Jeruſalem Targum, ver. 9. it is ſaid, The Word of the Lord called to Adam, &c. And again, ver. 10. Where Adam makes this Anſwer to God, I heard thy Voice in the garden; both Onkelos and Jonathan have it, I heard the Voice of thy Word in the garden.

In the Hiſtory of the Deluge, we ſee that there was a Revelation to Noah the Preacher of Righteouſneſs, to build the Ark, and to warn others while that was preparing, 1 Pet. iii. 20. But who gave Noah that warning? Jonathan ſaith, That the Lord ſaid this by his Word. And the Jeruſalem Targum, It was the Word of the Lord that ſaid this. And accordingly Jonathan has it in Gen. vi. 6. That the Lord judged them by his Word; and ſaid, I will deſtroy them by my Word. Likewiſe for the ſaving of Noah, Gen. vii. 16. all the Paraphraſts attributed this to the Word: The Jeruſalem Targum ſaith, The Word of the Lord ſpared Noah. And Gen. viii. 1. Jonathan has it, That the Word of the Lord remembred Noah. Laſtly, according to Onkelos and Jonathan, The Lord ſaid by his Word, I will not again curſe the ground any more for man's ſake, Gen. viii. 21.

After the Flood, God appeared often to Abraham. Now according to Jonathan on Gen. xv. 6. a Promiſe being made unto Abraham, that his Seed ſhould be as the Stars of Heaven for Number, Abraham's believing in the Word of the Lord, was accounted to him for Righteouſneſs: Therefore it was the Word of the Lord that came to him in a Viſion, ver. 1. and that made him that Promiſe, ver. 5. It followeth, ver. 7. that he ſaid to Abraham, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees. Who ſaid this to Abraham? Even the Word of the Lord, according to Jonathan's Targum; for there is no other Nominative Caſe of the Verb in his Paraphraſe. You ſee the ſame upon Abraham's dividing the Beaſts, in order to his making a Covenant with God; it was done at God's Command, who thereupon did appear between the Pieces to Abraham, and did ſolemnly enter into a Covenant with Abraham, Gen. xv. 9, &c. Now ſaith the Jeruſalem Paraphraſe on Exod. xii. 42. It was the Word of the Lord that appeared to Abraham between the Pieces. And according to Onkelos and Jonathan, Exod. vi. 8. It was by his Word that God made this Covenant with Abraham.

We muſt take notice that he that appeared then to Abraham, ſaith, I am El Shaddai, which is here tranſlated, The Almighty God: For according to Onkelos on Gen. xlix. 25. in the Bleſſing of Jacob to his Son Joſeph, theſe Names, The Word of God, and El Shaddai, are of the ſame Extent: Thus it runs according to Onkelos, The Word of the God of thy Father ſhall help thee; and El Shaddai ſhall bleſs thee: Where plainly El Shaddai is the ſame that is called, The Word of the God of thy Father.

As Philo taught us that the Appearance of God to Abraham, mentioned Gen. xviii. 1. was an Appearance of the Word, Alleg. 11. p. 77. E. where he calls one of the Three Angels that appeared to Abraham the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Word of God; and Joſephus L. 1. Ant. c. 12. calls him God: So the Jeruſalem Paraphraſe has it in the end of the next Verſe; The Word of the Lord appeared to Abraham in the Valley of Viſion, as he ſat warming himſelf in the Sun, becauſe of his Circumciſion. Elſewhere the ſame Paraphraſe quotes theſe Words as being the Words of Scripture; ſaying on Gen. xxxv. 9. The Scripture hath declared, and ſaid, And the Word of the Lord appeared to him in the Valley of Viſion. Jonathan alſo in his Paraphraſe on Deut. xxxiv. 6. hath theſe words, The Lord hath taught us to viſit the Sick, in that he revealed himſelf by the Viſion of his Word to Abraham, when he was ſick of the cutting of Circumciſion.

When God gave him a Command for the ſacrificing of his Son, Gen. 22.2. then, as Abraham was doing it, the Angel of the Lord called to him out of Heaven, and told him, Now I know thou feareſt God, ſeeing thou haſt not withheld thy Son, thine only Son from ME. This laſt word plainly ſheweth that this Angel was God himſelf, even the ſame that ſpake to Abraham, and gave him that Command, ver. 1, 2. And that Command was given by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Word, according to Philo, as it has been already ſhewn. The Jeruſalem Paraphraſe hath the ſame on ver. 8. where, upon Iſaac's enquiring for the Lamb that was to be ſacrificed, Abraham anſwereth him, My Son, the Word of the Lord will prepare me a ſheep. And ſo when Abraham found that the Word did provide him a Sheep, and accepted of that for a Sacrifice inſtead of his Son, Abraham worſhipped, and pray'd to the Word of the Lord, ſaying (among many other things), Thou, O Lord, didſt ſpeak to me, that I ſhould offer up Iſaac my Son. In the other Targums, ver. 16, 17. where the Angel of the Lord calls to Abraham out of Heaven the ſecond time (which laſt word ſheweth that this Angel was God himſelf, for it was God that called to him out of Heaven the firſt time, as it has been already ſhewn), and ſaith to Abraham, By my ſelf I have ſworn, ſaith the Lord, becauſe thou haſt done this thing, and haſt not withheld thine only ſon from me, From me, is in the Samaritan and LXX. therefore in bleſſing I will bleſs thee, &c. There both Onkelos and Jonathan have it, By my Word I have ſworn, ſaith the Lord. What ſhould be their meaning in this? For the manner of ſpeaking, Thus ſaith the Lord, it was properly uſed by the Word appearing here as an Angel, and not according to his own Natural Being: But for the Form of the Oath, where, according to the Hebrew Text, chap. xx. God ſwore by Himſelf; the Paraphraſts render it, that God ſwore by his Word; and well they might, who underſtood that the Word was God. And indeed theſe Targums ſhew elſewhere, That where this Form of Swearing was uſed, it was the Word of the Lord that ſwore, and held himſelf obliged to perform what was ſworn: Compare Exod. vi. 8. with Deut. xxvi. 3. And Numb. xiv. 30. with Deut. xxxi. 7.

We read of an Angel appearing to Hagar in the Wilderneſs, Gen. xvi. 7. He bid her return and ſubmit to Sarah her Miſtreſs, ver. 9. telling her withal what a numerous Iſſue ſhe ſhould have by the Child ſhe now went with, and what ſort of man he ſhould be. But as this Angel ſpoke in the Stile of God, ſaying, I will multiply thy ſeed exceedingly, ver. 10. So ſhe owned it was the Lord that ſpake to her, and ſhe ſaid to him, Thou God ſeeſt me, ver. 13. 'Tis clear that it was God himſelf that appeared, tho he is called an Angel in the Text. And therefore not only Philo calleth him the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in thoſe places above-mentioned, but the Targums likewiſe ſhew that he was the Word of the Lord, according to the Senſe of the Jewiſh Church; for ſo Jonathan renders ver. 13. She confeſſed before the Lord Jehovah, whoſe Word had ſpoken to her. And the Jeruſalem Targum; She confeſſed and prayed to the Word of the Lord who had appeared to her.

Again, an Angel called to Hagar out of Heaven, Gen. xxi. 16. But he alſo ſaid to her that which no created Angel could ſay; ſpeaking of her Son Iſhmael, I will make him a great Nation, ver. 18. Philo ſaith that it was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And who perform'd it? 'Twas God the Word, according to the Targums: For whereas the Text ſaith, ver. 20. God was with the Lad; it is thus rendred both by Onkelos and Jonathan, The Word of the Lord was his Support or Aſſiſtance.

We read alſo of Two Divine Appearances to Iſaac; one in Gerar, Gen. xxvi. 2. and the other at Beerſheba, ver. 24.

In the former of theſe places, Iſaac being ready to have gone down into Egypt, God bid him continue in Canaan, and gave him a Promiſe in theſe words, Gen. xxvi. 3. I will be with thee, and will bleſs thee; for unto thee and thy Seed I will give all theſe Countries, and I will perform the Oath which I ſware unto Abraham thy Father. So then, he that appeared now to Iſaac, is the ſame that ſwore this to Abraham; ſo much we learn from this Text: But according to the Targums, it was God the Word that ſwore all this to Abraham: Elſewhere they alſo tell us, That it was the Word that ſwore as well to Iſaac as to Abraham, that he would give them the promiſed Land, Exod. vi. 8. xxxii. 13.

At the ſecond Appearance that God made to Iſaac, Gen. xxvi. 24. he told him, I am the God of Abraham thy Father: But as the Jeruſalem Targum on Gen. xxii. 16. ſaith, That Abraham worſhipped and prayed to the Word of the Lord: So according to Jonathan's Targum on Gen. xxvii. 28. Iſaac prayed for his Son Jacob in theſe Words, The Word of the Lord give thee of the Dew of Heaven: And in the ſame Targum on Gen. xxxi. 5. where Jacob ſaith, The God of my Father hath been with me; Of thy Father; ſo the Samaritan and LXX. it is rendred, The Word of the God of my Father; or, The Word being the God of my Father.

Amongſt the Divine Appearances to Jacob, thoſe two at Bethel were more remarkable than the reſt; one at his going to Padan-Aram, Gen. xxviii. 13. the other at his Return from thence, Gen. xxxv. 9. where it is ſaid expreſly, that then God appeared to him the ſecond time.

The Hiſtory of the firſt of theſe is given us at large, Gen. xxviii. 13,—16. Jacob himſelf gives this account of the laſt to his Son Joſeph, Gen. xlviii. 3, 4. God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and bleſſed me, and ſaid unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, &c. That it was the Word that appeared to him, we have ſhewn already from Philo in ſeveral places; and that this was the Senſe of the Jewiſh Church in his time, we have reaſon to believe: For as to this firſt Appearance; in the Introduction, ver. 10. where the Text ſpeaks of Jacob's ſetting out from Beerſheba to go to Haran, there both Jonathan and the Jeruſalem Targum tell us of the Sun's making haſte to go down before his time, becauſe the Word had a deſire to ſpeak with Jacob. Again, in the Concluſion of this Hiſtory, Gen. xxviii. 20, 21. Where Jacob vowed a Vow, ſaying, If God will be with me, &c. then ſhall the Lord be my God: Here we read in Jonathan's Targum, That Jacob vowed a Vow to the Word, ſaying, If the Word of the Lord will be my help, &c, then ſhall the Lord be my God. Why ſhould the Paraphraſt ſay, That Jacob made this Vow to the Word; and not rather, to God, as it is in the Hebrew Text; but that they believed that it was the Word that appeared to him? And this being ſo, we cannot be to ſeek who that Angel was that ſpake to Jacob, Gen. xxxi. 11. for he declares, ver. 13. I am the God of Bethel—where thou vowedſt a Vow unto me. We ſee in the Targum on Gen. xxviii. 20. That it was the Word to whom Jacob vowed a Vow at Bethel; therefore according to this Targum it muſt be the Word that is called an Angel in the place next before mentioned.

The ſecond time that God appeared to Jacob was in his Return from Padan-Aram, Gen. xxxv. 9. and it is expreſly ſaid in the Jeruſalem Targum, The Word of the Lord appeared to Jacob the ſecond time, when he was coming from Padan-Aram, and bleſſed him; which is as clear a Teſtimony as can be deſired for our purpoſe.

Whoſoever will reflect with ſome attention upon thoſe Appearances of God to Jacob, and compare them with what we read Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. and with what Hoſea the Prophet ſaith, ch. xii. concerning the Angel who was God, could not but take notice of two things: The firſt is, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is call'd an Angel was God indeed. The ſecond is, that the wreſtling of that Angel with Jacob was a preparation for the belief of the Myſtery of the Incarnation by which the Apoſtles were made able to ſay, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life, this is our Meſſage, 1 Joh. i. 1.5. But we muſt go on upon ſuch important a Subject.

CHAP. XIV. That all the Appearances of God, or of the Angel of the Lord, which are ſpoken of in Moſes his time, have been referred to the Word of God by the ancient Jewiſh Church.

WE read of no other Appearance of God, or of an Angel of the Lord, till that which Moſes ſaw on Mount Horeb, Exod. iii. 2. There we read that the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midſt of a Buſh. This is the only place where Moſes calleth him an Angel that now appeared. Elſwhere he always calleth him God, as particularly v. 4. where he ſaith that upon his turning aſide to ſee why the Buſh was not burnt, When the Lord ſaw this, God called to him out of the midſt of the Buſh, and ſaid to him, I am the God of thy Father, the God of Abraham, and the God of Iſaac, and the God of Jacob, v. 6. whereupon Moſes ſaith of himſelf, that he hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. After this he goeth on ſtill calling him God, as we read almoſt in every verſe; ſo ver. 16. He ſaith God commanded him to go to the Elders of Iſrael, and ſay to them, The Lord God of your Fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Iſaac, and the God of Jacob, appeared to me. God would not have him tell them that which was not true, and therefore we may be ſure that it was not a Created Angel, but God that appeared to him. But why then ſhould Moſes once call him an Angel? as we ſee he did in the ſecond verſe. A created Angel he could not be, for the reaſons now mentioned; he muſt therefore be God, and yet he muſt appear as an Angel that came on a Meſſage from God. This is what Philo ſaith in one word, He was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Word, who is both God, and the Meſſenger of God, as we have ſhewn from him in ſeveral places.

As for the Targums the matter is clear, for when Moſes was ſent to the Children of Iſrael, to tell them that their God had appeared to him, and ſent him to bring them forth out of Egypt, and that Moſes askt him his Name; and that God ſaid unto Moſes, tell them, I AM THAT I AM, or in fewer words ſay, I AM, has ſent me unto you; that which here God calls himſelf, is the ſenſe of the Name Jehovah, that ſignifieth the Eternal Being. Now ſee how this is rendred in the Jeruſalem Targum. There we read, that the Word of the Lord ſaid to Moſes, He that ſaid to the World, let it be, and it was, and ſhall ſay, Let it be, and it ſhall be. Here Moſes askt God, and the Word anſwereth his queſtion. But certain it is, that he that anſwered the queſtion, was the ſame that he had been ſpeaking with all this while; even the ſame that appeared to him in the Buſh.

Moſes being thus employ'd by the Word of God, as his Meſſenger to the Children of Iſrael, for the diſcharge of his Miniſtry, had both his Inſtructions and Credentials from the Word, according to the Targums.

For the firſt of theſe, God appeared to him oftener than to any before him. R. Akiba, who lived ſince Chriſt's time, ſaith that Moſes acted as Mediator between the Gevura, that is, the Word of God, and the People of Iſrael; and obſerveth, that God ſpake to him 175 times. They were times without number that God ſpake to him, from off the Mercy-ſeat, upon the Ark of Teſtimony, from between the two Cherubims, Numb. vii. 89. But thoſe which R. Akiba reckons, were Appearances upon extraordinary occaſions. In both theſe Appearances ordinary and extraordinary, it was the Word of God that ſpake to Moſes according to the Targums; Thus of God's ſpeaking to him from the Mercy-ſeat to appoint my Word for thee, as God promiſed there according to Onkelos and Jonathan on Exod. xxv. 22. xxx. 36. So Numb. vii. 89. Jonathan ſaith it was the Word that ſpake to him. And thus likewiſe in thoſe Occaſional Appearances, both Jonathan and the Jeruſalem Targums tell us, once for all, Deut. xxxiv. 10. The Word of the Lord knew Moſes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſpeaking to Moſes, as oft as Moſes ſpake to him on any occaſion. For his Credentials were as we ſee, Deut. xxxiv. 11. All the Signs and Wonders which the Lord ſent him to do, or according to the Targums which the Word of the Lord ſent him to do, in Egypt, to Pharaoh, and his Servants, and all his Land; and in all that mighty Land, and that great terrour, which Moſes ſhewed in the ſight of all Iſrael.

For the Acts of his Miniſtry, they were chiefly theſe three: 1. His bringing the People out of Egypt. 2. His giving them Laws and Statutes, and Judgments from God. 3. His Leading them through the Wilderneſs to the Confines of Canaan. In each of theſe was the Word that appeared to him according to the Targums.

His bringing the People out of Egypt is wholly aſcribed to the Word, by Onkelos and Jonathan on Deut. xx. 1. and by Jonathan on Deut. xxiv. 18. The People were commanded to teach this to their Children, that it was the Word of the Lord that did all thoſe Signs and Wonders in Egypt, ſaith Jonathan on Exod. xiii. 8. It was the Word that ſent all thoſe Plagues on Pharaoh, and his Servants, and all the Land of Egypt, ſaith Jonathan on Deut. xxviii. 6. and xxix. 2. Eſpecially, it was the Word that gave that ſtroke which finiſht the work, according to the Jeruſalem Targum, Exod. xii. 29. namely, It was the Word of the Lord that appeared againſt the Egyptians at midnight; and his right hand kill'd the firſt-born of the Egyptians, and delivered his own firſt-born the Children of Iſrael.

After this, the Word of the Lord led the People through the Deſert to the Red-Sea, ſaith the ſame Targum on Exod. xiii. 18. The Word of the Lord being their Leader, in a Pillar of Fire by night, and of a Cloud by day, ſaith Onkelos on Deut. i. 32, 33. And when the People being come to the Red-Sea, and ſeeing Pharaoh with his Army behind them, were in a rage againſt Moſes, and he cried to God, Exod. xiv. 15. according to the Jeruſalem Targum, the Word of the Lord ſaid to Moſes, How long doſt thou ſtand and pray before me?—Bid the Children of Iſrael come forward, and do thou reach out thy Rod, and divide the Red Sea; He did ſo, and according to the Jeruſalem Targum on Deut. i. 1. The Word divided the Sea before them. So that the Children of Iſrael went into the midſt of the Sea on dry ground, Exod. xiv. 22. the Egyptians following them. And at morning, v. 24. according to the Jeruſalem Targum, The Word of the Lord lookt upon the Army of the Egyptians, and threw upon them Bitumen, and Fire, and Hail out of Heaven; and v. 25. The Egyptians ſaid, Let us fly from before the People of Iſrael, for this is the Word of the Lord that gets them victory; But their flight was in vain, for by the Word of the Lord, the waters were made heaps, according to Onkelos on Exod. xv. 8. And according to him alſo, when God ſpoke by his Word, the Sea covered them, v. 10. Thus, as the whole work of the People of Iſrael's Deliverance out of Egypt, ſo every part of it, has been aſcribed to the Word of the Lord by the Targums.

For the giving of the Laws, by which they were to be formed into a Church and Kingdom; Firſt, immediately after their coming out of the Red-Sea, Exod. xv. 25. according to the Jeruſalem Targum, the Word of the Lord gave them Precepts and Orders of Judgments; particularly, as Jonathan has it, the Word of the Lord gave them there the Law of the Sabbath, and that of Honouring Father and Mother, and Judgments concerning Bruiſes and Wounds, and for the Puniſhment of Tranſgreſſours. Afterwards, when they were come into the Wilderneſs of Sinai, Exod. xix. 3. the Text ſaith, Moſes went up to God, and the Lord called to him out of the Mount, ſaying, Thus ſhalt thou ſay to the Houſe of Iſrael, &c. there Onkelos ſaith, according to one of Clark's various Readings, Moſes went up to meet the Word of the Lord, Exod. xix. 8. Moſes returns with the People's Anſwer to the Lord, then, v. 9. according to the Jeruſalem Targum, the Word of the Lord ſaid to Moſes, Go to the People, and ſanctifie them to day and to morrow, and let them waſh their Clothes, and be ready againſt the third day, for the third day the Lord will come down in the ſight of all the People upon Mount Sinai. Accordingly the People having prepared themſelves, on the third day, according to Onkelos, Exod. xix. 17. Moſes brought the People out of the Camp to meet the word of God; Yet the People only ſaw Thunder and Lightning, and the Mountain ſmoking, and felt the Earth quake under them: They alſo heard the noiſe of the Trumpet, which ſo affrighted them, that they removed and ſtood at a diſtance, and ſaid to Moſes, Speak thou to us, and we will hear, but let not the Word from before the Lord ſpeak with us, leſt we die, Exod. xx. 19. according to Onkelos, in one of Clark's various Readings. Moſes therefore according to Jonathan on Deut. v. 5. Stood between them and the Word of the Lord, to ſhew them the Pithgama, the matter and words that were ſpoken to him from the Lord. What they were, we read Exod. xx. 1, &c. where, according to the Jeruſalem Targum, the Word of the Lord ſpoke the tenor of all theſe words, ſaying, I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the Houſe of Bondage; then follow the Ten Commandments, commonly called the Decalogue. That it was God the Word that ſpoke this to the People, the ancient Church could not doubt, as we ſee in the Book of Deuteronomy, where Jonathan tells us, that thus Moſes minded his People of what they had heard and ſeen at the giving of the Law, Deut. iv. 33. Is it poſſible that a People ſhould have heard the voice of the Word of the Lord, the Living God, ſpeak out of the middle of the fire, as you have heard, and yet live? Again, v. 36. Out of Heaven he hath made you hear the voice of his Word, —and ye have heard his words out of the midſt of the fire. Again, he puts them in mind of the fright they were in, Deut. v. 23. After ye had heard the voice of the Word out of the midſt of the Darkneſs on the Mount burning with fire, all the Chiefs of you came to me, and ſaid, Behold the Word of the Lord our God has ſhewed us the Divine Majeſty of his Glory, and the Excellence of his Magnificence, and we have heard the voice of his Word out of the midſt of the fire, why ſhould we die? as we muſt, if we hear any more of the voice of the Word of the Lord our God; for who is there living in fleſh, that hears the voice of the Word of the Living God ſpeaking out of the middle of the fire, as we do, and yet live? Again, Deut. xviii. 16. he minds them of the ſame thing in ſome of the ſame Words. Many more ſuch Quotations might be added, but theſe are ſufficient, to prove that it was the undoubted Tradition of the ancient Jewiſh Church, That their Law was given by the Word of God, and that it was he that appeared to Moſes for this purpoſe.

As the Word gave the Law, it was he that made thoſe many Appearances to Moſes throughout his whole Conduct of the People of Iſrael through the Wilderneſs.

To begin with that Divine Appearance, which was continually in ſight of all the People of Iſrael for forty years together throughout their whole Travel in the Wilderneſs; namely, the Pillar which they ſaw in the Air day and night. Where this Pillar is firſt ſpoken of, namely, at the coming of the People of Iſrael up out of Egypt, there it is expreſly ſaid, That the Lord went before them in the Pillar of Cloud by day, and fire by night, Exod. xiii. 21. Afterward indeed he is called the Angel of God, Exod. xiv. 19. where we read that the People being come to the Red-Sea, and being there in imminent danger of being overtaken by the Egyptians, by whom they were cloſely purſued, the Angel which had gone before the Camp of Iſrael all day, removed at night, and went behind them.— That this Angel was God, it is certain, not only becauſe he is called God, Exod. xiii. 21. xiv. 24. Numb. xii. 5. But alſo becauſe he was Worſhipped, Exod. xxxiii. 10. which was a ſure Proof of his Divinity. Being therefore God himſelf, and yet the Meſſenger of God, it muſt be that this was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Word; and that this was the Tradition of the ancient Church, we are taught not only by Philo in the place above mentioned,Quis rer. Div. haeres: p. 397. F.G. but alſo by the Jeruſalem Targum on Exod. xiv. 24. and Jonathan on Exod. xxxiii. 9. and by Onkelos on Deut. i. 32, 33. as has been mentioned.

When the Children of Iſrael after the firſt three days march, found no other Waters but what were too bitter for them to drink; at which they murmured, Moſes cried unto the Lord, who thereupon ſhewed him a Tree, which they threw into the Waters, and thereby made them ſweet, Exod. xv. 25. Here was a Divine Appearance, and it was of the Word of the Lord according to the Jeruſalem Targum.

A Month after their coming out of Egypt, for want of Bread they murmured againſt Moſes and Aaron; at which God ſhewed himſelf ſo much concerned, that he made his Glory appear to them in the Pillar of Cloud, Exod. xvi. 7, 10: That according to the ſenſe of the ancient Church, this was the Shekinah of the Word, has been newly ſhown, both from Philo, and from all the Targums; and the ſame we find here in this place, v. 8. where Moſes tells them, your murmurings are not againſt us, but againſt the Word of the Lord, according to Onkelos and Jonathan.

When, Exod. xvii. 8, &c. the Amalekites came againſt this poor people that had never ſeen War; and ſmote the hindmoſt of them, God not only gave his people a Victory over them, but alſo ſaid unto Moſes, write this for a Memorial in a Book,—That I will utterly put out the Remembrance of Amalek from under Heaven, Exod. xvii. 14. See how Moſes performs this, v. 15. In the place where they had fought he ſet up an Altar inſcribed, Jehovah Niſſi, The Lord is my Standard; meaning that it was the will of God they ſhould be in perpetual War againſt Amalek; and this reaſon for it he entreth in his Book, v. 16. according to Jonathan, for the Word of the Lord has ſworn by his Glory, that he will have war againſt Amalek for all Generations.

The next Divine Appearance we read of, was at the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai; whereof enough has been already ſaid, and we muſt avoid being too long. For which reaſon we omit much more that might be ſaid of the following Appearances in the Wilderneſs, which are all aſcribed to the Word in one or other of the Targums. But I ought not to omit to take notice of ſome ſpecial things.

So for their places of Worſhip, God promiſed according to the Jeruſalem Targum, Exod. xx. 24. Whereſoever you ſhall mention my Holy Name, my Word ſhall appear to you, and ſhall bleſs you; and the Temple is called, the place which the Word of the Lord your God will chuſe to place his Shekinah there, according to Jonathan's and the Jeruſalem Targums on Deut. xii. 4. Eſpecially at the Altar for Sacrifice, which was before the Door of the Tabernacle, God promiſed Moſes, both for himſelf and the People, according to Onkelos and Jonathan on Exod. xxix. 42. I will appoint my Word to ſpeak with thee there, and I will appoint my Word there for the Children of Iſrael. Above all, at the Mercy-ſeat, where the Ark ſtood, God promiſed to Moſes, according to thoſe Targums on Exod. xxv. 22. xxx. 36. Numb. xxvii. 4. I will appoint my Word to ſpeak with thee there. And in ſum, of all the Precepts in Leviticus, it is ſaid at the end of that Book, according to thoſe Targums on Levit. xxvi. 46. Theſe are the Statutes, and Judgments, and Laws which the Lord made between his Word and the Children of Iſrael.

When they entred into Covenant with God, obliging themſelves to live according to his Laws; Hereby they made the Word to be their King, and themſelves his Subjects. So Moſes tells them, Deut. xxvi. 17. according to the Jeruſalem Targum, You have made the Word of the Lord King over you this day, that he may be your Glory. And v. 18. The VVord of the Lord is become King over you in his own Name, as over his beloved and peculiar people. In conſequence hereof, as being their King, he ordered them by his chief Miniſter Moſes, to make him a Royal Pavilion or Tabernacle, and to ſet it up in the midſt of their Camp. Both that, and all the furniture of it, he ordered Moſes to make according to the Pattern ſhow'd him in the Mount, Exod. xxv. 40. Eſpecially for the Preſence of the great King, there muſt be an Apartment in the inner part of the Tabernacle ſeparated from the reſt with a Veil Embroidered with Cherubims, Exod. xxvii. 31. which part was called the Moſt Holy Place, or the Holy of Holies, Exod. xxvi. 33. There was to be placed the Ark overlay'd with pure Gold, and having a Crown of Gold round about it. In the Ark were contain'd the Tables of the Law. Upon it was placed the Mercy-ſeat, overſhadowed with the Wings of two Cherubims that ſtood on the two Ends of the Mercy-ſeat, Exod. xxxvii. 9. looking each of them toward the other, and both of them toward the Mercy-ſeat. This Proviſion being made for the place of his Shekinah, the Word, which ſhewed it ſelf before in a Pillar of Cloud by day, and fire by night, that ſtood over the Camp; now from thence came to take poſſeſſion of his Royal Seat in the Tabernacle over the Ark; from whence, out of the void ſpace between theſe Cherubims, it was, that the Word uſed to ſpeak to Moſes, and to give him Orders from time to time for the Government of his People, according to the Paraphraſts on Exod. xxv. 22. xxx. 36. Numb. xvii. 4. and eſpecially Numb. vii. 8, 9. as has been above mentioned. Henceforward, throughout their whole Journey through the Wilderneſs, the Pillar was conſtantly over the Tabernacle, and the People attended his motion. But whenſoever he gave the Commandment, then the Pillar removed, and ſhewed which way the Camp was to go. Upon notice of that, then Moſes firſt gave the word, in a ſet form of Prayer, which we have in the firſt ſix verſes of the lxviii Pſalm. The firſt verſe of it is Numb. x. 35. in theſe words, according to the Jeruſalem Targum, Ariſe now Oh Word of the Lord in the might of thy ſtrength. According to Jonathan's Paraphraſe, Appear now Oh Word of the Lord in the ſtrength of thy wrath. In both the Targums it followeth, as in the Hebrew Text, and the enemies of thy people ſhall be ſcattered, and they that hate thee ſhall flee before thee. When they had performed their Journey according to the will of their King, which they knew by ſeeing the Pillar ſtand ſtill, then Moſes uſed the Form for the reſting of the Ark, Numb. x. 36. according to the forementioned Targums, Return now Oh Word of the Lord to thy people Iſrael, make the Glory of thy Shekinah dwell among them, and have mercy on the Thouſands of Iſrael. This being ſaid, the Prieſts (who carried the ſeveral • ins of the Tabernacle) took down their Burdens, and ſet up all things as before; and the Pillar returned to its place over the midſt of the Tabernacle.

In this State of Theocracy, their keeping of God's Laws is called by their Targums, The believing and obeying of the Word; their breaches of his Laws are called, their deſpiſing and rebelling againſt the Word. Of the uſe of both theſe manners of ſpeaking there might be given more inſtances than can be eaſily numbred.

The Targums likewiſe aſcribe to the Word both the rewarding of their Obedience, and the puniſhing of their Tranſgreſſions. On their Obedience, according to the Targums, it was the uſual promiſe, that the Word ſhould be their help or ſupport, Numb. xxiii. 8, 21. that he ſhould bleſs them and multiply them, Deut. xxiv. 19. that he ſhould rejoice over them to do them good, Deut. xxviii. 63. xxx. 9. They were told that he would be a conſuming fire to their enemies, Deut. iv. 24. particularly, that he was ſo to the Anakims, Deut. ix. 3. That it was he that delivered Og into their hands, Deut. iii. 2. That it was he that would caſt out all the Nations before them, Deut. xi. 22.

On the other hand, according to the ſenſe of the ancient Church, it was the Word that puniſhed them for their diſobedience, and alſo it was he that forgave them upon their Repentance. Of both theſe kinds there are many remarkable inſtances, as particularly, of the puniſhing of their diſobedience, according to Jonathan on Exod. xxxii. 35. It was the Word that deſtroyed the people for worſhipping the Calf that Aaron made. For their luſting at Kibroth-hattaava, Moſes told them whom they provoked by it, Numb. xi. 20. according to Onkelos and Jonathan, You have deſpiſed the Word of the Lord, whoſe Shekinah dwelleth among you. Their refuſing to go forward toward the promiſed Land upon the Spies evil report of it, Moſes tells them, according to thoſe Targums, Deut. i. 26. It was rebelling againſt the Word of the Lord. Afterward, when they would go up contrary to order, Numb. xiv. 41. Moſes asks them, Why do you tranſgreſs the decree of the Word of the Lord? In their murmuring at Zalmona, Polyglot. Vol. IV. Numb. xxi. 5. according to Onkelos in one of Clerk's various Readings, They ſpoke againſt the Word of the Lord, and againſt Moſes. Wherefore v. 6. according to the Jeruſalem Targum, The Word of the Lord ſent fiery Serpents among the People. Upon their Whoring with Baal-Peor, Numb. xxv. 4. according to the Jeruſalem Targum, The Word of the Lord ſaid to Moſes, take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord. In ſhort, according to the Targums on Deut. xxviii. 20, 21, 22, &c. It was the Word of the Lord that would ſend all his Judgments and Curſes that are there denounced againſt impenitent Sinners.

But on the other hand, according to thoſe Targums, the Word had the diſpencing of pardon to them that were Qualified for it. So when Moſes beg'd pardon for his People that had ſinned beyond mercy, if it had not been infinite, Numb. xiv. 20. according to the Jeruſalem Targum, the Word of the Lord anſwered him, and ſaid, behold I have forgiven, and pardoned according to thy word. And in caſe, upon the inflicting of God's Judgments above mentioned, God's People ſhould be thereby brought to repentance; It was promiſed, Deut. xxx. 3. according to Jonathan's Targum, that then the Word ſhould accept their repentance according to his good pleaſure, and ſhould have mercy on them, and gather them out of all Naons, &c. So likewiſe c. xxxii. 36. according to the ſame Targum, it is promiſed that the Word of the Lord by his mercy ſhould judge the judgment of his people, and ſhould repent him of the evil that he had decreed againſt his Servants. It were eaſie to add many more ſuch Inſtances out of the Targums, but theſe are abundantly enough to ſhew the ſenſe of the ancient Church, what they thought of him that ſo often appeared to their Fathers in the Wilderneſs, and ſpoke to them by his Servant Moſes.

When Moſes underſtood that God was not willing he ſhould live to bring his People into the Promiſed Land; thereupon he beſought God to ſend him a Succeſſor, in theſe words, according to Jonathan's Targum, Numb. xxvii. 16. Let the Word of the Lord, who has dominion over the ſouls of men,—appoint a faithful man over the Congregation of his People. God having appointed Joſhua in his ſtead, Moſes gave him this Charge in the hearing of the People, Deut. iii. 21, 22. according to Onkelos and Jonathan, Thy eyes have ſeen what the Lord hath done to Og and Sihon, ſo ſhall he do to all the kingdoms where thou art to paſs; therefore fear them not, for the Word of the Lord your God ſhall fight for you. The ſame he repeated afterward to all the People, telling them firſt, Deut. xxxi. 2, 3. according to Jonathan, The Word of the Lord hath ſaid to me, Thou ſhalt not paſs over this Jordan, but the Lord your God, and his Shekinah will go before you, Joſh. iv. He addeth, And Joſhua will go over before you, as the Lord has ſpoken: And for all your Enemies, ver. 5. The Word of the Lord ſhall deliver them up before you; therefore ſaith he, ver. 6. according to Onkelos, Fear them not, for the Word of the Lord your God goes before you; he will not fail nor forſake you. After this he calleth to Joſhua, and ſaith to him before them all, ver. 7. according to Jonathan, Be ſtrong and of a good Courage, for thou muſt go with this People into the Land which the Word of the Lord has ſworn to their Fathers that he would give them— and the Shekinah of the Word of the Lord ſhall go before thee, and his Word ſhall be thy help; he will not leave thee nor forſake thee; fear not therefore, neither be diſmay'd. He repeats it again from God to Joſhua, ver. 23. according to Onkelos and Jonathan, Thou ſhalt bring the Children of Iſrael into the Land which I have ſworn to them, and my Word ſhall be thy help.

It was the ſame day, that together with this Charge, Moſes gave to Joſhua his Prophetical Song, Deut. xxxi. 22, 23. And the ſelfſame day, xxxii. 48. God bade him Get thee up into Mount Nebo, and dye: After which Moſes ſtaid no longer than to give the Tribes of Iſrael his Bleſſing before his Death, xxxiii. 1. That being done, he went up to Mount Nebo, xxxiv. 1. There, according to Jonathan, It was the Word of the Lord that gave that Satiſfaction to his Bodily Eyes, to ſee all the Land of Canaan before they were cloſed: So ver. 5. Moſes the Servant of the Lord died there— according to the Word of the Lord. He was tranſlated by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,De Sacr. Abr. p. 162. C. D. according to Philo. It was certainly the current Tradition of the Church in his Age, that his Soul was taken out of his Body by a Kiſs of the Word of the Lord, as Jonathan renders it; or according to the Jeruſalem Targum, at the Mouth of the Decree of the Word of the Lord.

After his Death, Joſhua entred into the Government, ver. 9. and according to the Jeruſalem Targum, the Children of Iſrael obeyed Joſhua, and they did as the Word of the Lord had commanded Moſes.

Beſides all theſe Divine Appearances to Moſes and the Children of Iſrael, there are alſo ſome few that were made to Balaam on their account, and are therefore recorded in the ſame Sacred Hiſtory. Where theſe are firſt mentioned, Numb. xxii. 9. both Onkelos and Jonathan have, That the Word came from before the Lord to Balaam, and ſaid what followeth in that place. So again the ſecond time, ver. 20. according to the ſame Targums, The Word came from before the Lord to Balaam by night, and ſaid to him what followeth in that ſecond place. It is plain that ſo far the Ancient Jewiſh Church took theſe Appearances to have been made by the Word.

But what Opinion had they of the Angel's appearing to Balaam, ver. 22.? Others may ask what they thought of the Dialogue between Balaam and the Aſs that he rode upon, occaſioned by the Fright that the Beaſt was in at the Angel's appearing to him. All this, as Maimonides More Nebochim 11. p. 42. ſaith, happened only in Viſion of Prophecy: But that it was a thing that really happened, we are aſſured by St. Peter, who tells us, 2 Pet. ii. 16. God opened the mouth of the dumb beaſt to rebuke the madneſs of the Prophet. As it cannot be doubted that Balaam was uſed to have Communication with Devils that ſpake to him in divers manners; ſo there is reaſon to believe they ſpoke to him ſometimes by the mouth of dumb Beaſts; and if ſo, then to hear the Aſs ſpeak could not be ſtrange to him. And why God ſhould order it ſo, there is a reaſon in Jonathan and the Jeruſalem Targum: The Reader may ſee other Reaſons elſewhereMuis Varia, p. 95. , but they are not proper for this place. But we are here to conſider, whether this that appeared to Balaam was a created Angel or no. It appears by the words, ver. 35. to have been the Lord himſelf that appeared as an Angel to Balaam; for thus he ſaith to him, Go with the men, but only the word that I ſhall ſpeak to thee, that thou ſhalt ſpeak. Now it doth not appear after this, that any other ſpoke to him from God, but God himſelf. Therefore Philo ſaith plainly, that this Appearance was of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as has been already ſhown. And that this was the Senſe of the Church in his Age, we may ſee in the two following Appearances to Balaam; where as well as in the two that were before this, the Targums ſay, It was the Word that met Balaam, and ſpoke to him. Thus both Onkelos and Jonathan, on Num. xxiii. 4, and 16.

CHAP. XV. That all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of the Lord, which are ſpoken after Moſes his time in the Books of the Old Teſtament, have been referred to the Word of God by the Jews before Chriſt's Incarnation.

THUS far it has been our buſineſs to ſhew, that it was the Word that made all thoſe Appearances, either of God, or of an Angel of God that was worſhipt, in any part of the five Books of Moſes. We have been much larger in this than was neceſſary for our preſent occaſion. But whatſoever may ſeem to have been too much in this Chapter, it is hoped the Reader will not wiſh it had been ſpared, when he comes to reflect upon the uſe of it, to prove that the Word was a Perſon, and that he was God. At preſent there will be ſome kind of amends for the prolixity hitherto, in the ſhortneſs of what we have to ſay in the following part of this Chapter. For being now to treat of thoſe Divine Appearances that are recorded in the other Books of Scripture after the Pentateuch, we ſhall find thoſe Appearances fewer and fewer, till they come quite to ceaſe in the Jewiſh Church. For when once the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was ſetled as the King of Iſrael between the Cherubims, He is not to be look'd for in other places. And of thoſe Books of Scripture in which the following Appearances are mentioned, we have not ſo many Paraphraſes as we have of the five Books of Moſes. One Paraphraſe is all that we have of moſt of the Books we now ſpeak of. But after all, we have reaſon to thank God, that that Evidence of the Divine Appearances of the Word of God has been ſo abundantly ſufficient, that we have no need of any more. So that of the following Appearances of God, or of a Worſhipt Angel, it will be enough to ſhew that the ancient Jewiſh Church had the ſame Notion that they had of thoſe already mentioned out of the five Books of Moſes.

We read but of one Divine appearance to Joſhua, and that is of one that came to him as a man with a drawn-ſword in his hand, calling himſelf the Captain of the Lord's Hoſt, Joſh. v. 13, 14. Some would have it that this was a created Angel: But certainly Joſhua did not take him to be ſuch, otherwiſe he would not have fallen down on his face and worſhipped him, as he did, v. 14. Nor would a created Angel have taken it of him without giving him a preſent reproof, as the Angel did to St. John in the like Caſe, Rev. xix. 10. xxii. 9. But this Divine Perſon was ſo far from reproving him for having done too much, that he commanded him to go on, and do yet much more, requiring of him the higheſt acknowledgment of a Divine Preſence that was uſed among the Eaſtern Nations, in theſe words, Looſe thy Shoo from off thy foot, for the ground whereon thou ſtandeſt is holy. Now conſidering that theſe are the very ſame words that God uſed to Moſes in Exod. iii. 2, 3. We ſee a plain reaſon why God ſhould command this to Joſhua. It was for the ſtrengthening of his faith, to let him know that, as he was now in Moſes's ſtead, ſo God would be the ſame to him that he had been to Moſes. And particularly with reſpect to that trial which required a more than ordinary meaſure of faith, the difficulty of taking the ſtrong City of Jericho with ſuch an Army as he had, without any proviſion for a Siege, the Lord ſaid unto him, Joſh. vi. 2. See I have given Jericho into thy hand. None but God could ſay and do this; and the Text plainly ſaith, It was the Lord. And that the Lord who thus appeared as a Warrier, and called himſelf Captain of the Lord's Hoſt, was no other than the Word, this was plainly the ſenſe of the ancient Jewiſh Church; as appears by what remains of it in their Paraphraſe on Joſh. x. 42. xxiii. 3, 10. which ſaith, It was the Word of the Lord that fought for them; and v. 13. which ſaith, It was the VVord which caſt out the Nations before them.

And indeed this very judgment of the Old Synagogue is to be ſeen not only in their Targums till this day, but in their moſt ancient Books, as Rabboth fol. 108. col. 3. Zohar par. 3. fol. 139. col. 3. Tanch. ad Exod. 3. Ramb. ad Exod. 3. Bach. fol. 69. 2. The learned Maſius in Joſh. v. 13.14. hath tranſlated the words of Ramban, and he hath preferred his Interpretation, which is the moſt ancient amongſt the Jews, to the ſenſe of the Commentators of the Church of Rome.

Of Divine Appearances in the Book of Judges, we read of one to Gideon, that ſeems to have been of an Angel of God, for ſo he is called, Judg. vi. 11, 12. And again, v. 20, 21, 22. In this laſt place it is alſo ſaid that Gideon perceived he was an Angel of the Lord, (i. e.) He ſaw that this was an Heavenly Perſon that came to him, with a Meſſage from God. And yet that he was no created Angel it ſeems by his being oftner called the Lord, v. 14, 16, 23, 24, 25, 27. And Gideon in that whole Hiſtory never addreſs'd himſelf to any other but God. The Meſſage delivered from God by this Angel to Gideon, ver. 16. is thus rendred in the Targum, Surely my Word ſhall be thy help, and thou ſhalt ſmite the Midianites as one man. The Word that help'd Gideon againſt the Midianites, was no other than he that appeared to Joſhua with a Sword in his hand, Joſh. v. 13. That was now the Sword of the Lord, and of Gideon, Judg. vii. 18, 20. And what the Ancient Jewiſh Church meant by the Word of the Lord in this place, one may gueſs by their Targum on Judg. vi. 12, 13. Where the Angel ſaying to Gideon, The Word of the Lord is thy help; he anſwered, Is the Shekinah of the Lord our help; whence then hath all this happen'd to us? It is plain by this Paraphraſe that they reckoned the Word of the Lord to be the ſame with the Shekinah of the Lord, even him by whom God ſo gloriouſly appeared for their deliverance. And indeed they could hardly be miſtaken in the Perſon of that Angel, who ſaith that his Name is Pele, the Wonderful, which is uſed Iſaiah ix. amongſt the Names of the Meſſias, which Name the Jews make a ſhift to appropriate to God, excluſively to the Meſſias.

The Angel that appeared to Manoah, Judg. xiii. could ſeem to have been no other than a created Angel; but the Name which he takes of Pele, the Wonderful, ſhews that he was the Word of the Lord, or the Angel of the Lord, l. lxiii. 8.

In the firſt Book of Samuel we read of no other ſuch Appearance, but that which God made to Samuel, 1 Sam. iii. 21. and that was only by a Voice from the Temple of the Lord, where the Ark was at that time, ver. 3, 4. The ſame word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſignifieth a Temple and a Palace, and ſo the Tabernacle was called in which the Ark was then in Shiloh. There it was that God revealed himſelf to Samuel by the Word of the Lord, ver. 21. But that in the Opinion of the Ancient Jewiſh Church the Word of the Lord was their King, and the Tabernacle was his Palace, where his Throne was upon the Ark between the Cherubims; and that from thence the Word gave his Oracles; all this has been ſo fully proved before in this Chapter, that to prove it here again would be ſuperfluous; and therefore I take it for granted, that in their Opinion it was the Word of the Lord from whom this Voice came to Samuel.

In the Second Book of Samuel we read how upon David's Sin in numbring the People, •• d ſent the Prophet Gad to give him his choice of Three Puniſhments, either Three Years Famine, or Three Months Deſtruction by Enemies, or Three Days Peſtilence throughout all the Coaſt of Iſrael. This laſt being a Judgment from Heaven, that falls as ſoon upon the Prince as the Peaſant, David made choice of it rather than either of the other; ſaying withal, Let me not fall into the hands of Man, but into the hands of the Lord; for great are his Mercies, 1 Chron. xxi. 13. Thereupon God ſent a Peſtilence upon all the Coaſts of Iſrael, by which there fell Seventy thouſand Men, 2 Sam. xxiv. 15. And to repreſent to David's Bodily Eyes an extraordinary Inſtance, as well of God's Juſtice in puniſhing Sinners, as of his Mercy to them upon their Repentance and Prayer, God made him ſee an Angel ſtanding between the Earth and the Heaven, having a drawn Sword in his hand ſtretch'd out over Jeruſalem to deſtroy it, 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, 17. And 1 Chron. xxi. 16. And when at this Sight David fell upon his face, and prayed, as it followeth, ver. 17. God ſaid to the deſtroying Angel, It is enough, ſtay now thy hand: Then the Angel came down, and ſtood by the Floor of Ornan the Jebuſite, (on which Place God deſigned that Solomon ſhould build his Temple, and declared it to David upon this occaſion.) There, according to the Angel's Order by the Prophet Gad, David now built an Altar, and ſacrificed thereon; upon which the Lord commanded the Angel, and he put up his Sword into his ſheath, 2 Sam. xxiv. 17. This was no other than a Created Angel, whom God that employ'd him in that Service, appointed to appear in that manner, for all thoſe purpoſes before-mentioned.

What the Ancient Church thought of all this Paſſage of Hiſtory, we may eaſily gueſs by what has been already ſhewn, of their aſcribing all Rewards and Puniſhments to the Word, that had the Conduct and Government over God's People. And though it ſeems that Care has been taken to conceal this Notion of theirs, as much as was poſſible, in the Targums of the Books now before us; yet here is a Paſſage that ſeems to have eſcaped the Correctors, by which we may perceive the Church's Senſe here was agreeable to what we find of it in all other places. For in 2 Sam. xxiv. 14. where we find in the Text that David ſaid, ver. 6. Let us fall now into the •• nd of the Lord, for his Mercies are great; the Targum thus renders theſe words, Let me be delivered into the hand of the Word of the Lord, for great are his Mercies. It was therefore the Word of the Lord into whoſe hands David fell: It was his Angel by whom the Judgment was executed: And it was alſo his Mercy by which the Judgment was ſuſpended and revoked. The Targum on this Text ſufficiently ſhews that all this was the Senſe of the Jewiſh Church.

In ſhort, the Ancient Church conſidered the Word as being their Sovereign Lord and King of the People of Iſrael. All thoſe Kings whoſe Acts are deſcribed in the Two Books of Kings, they look'd upon as his Lieutenants or Deputies, that held their Title from and under him by his Covenant with David their Father. This Solomon declared in theſe words, 1 Kings viii. 15. Bleſſed be the Lord God of Iſrael, who by his Word made a Covenant with David my Father. Whatſoever God did for his People under their Government, in protecting and delivering them from their Enemies; they own'd that it was for his Word's ſake, and for his Servant David's ſake, 2 Kings xix. 34. xx. 6. When they had quite broken his Covenant, then God removed them from before his Word, and gave them up to be a Scorn to all Nations, as he threatned he would, 1 Kings ix. 7. according to their Targum.

In theſe Books we read of no more but Two Divine Appearances in Solomon's time, and both theſe were made to Solomon himſelf, 1 Kings ix. 2.

The firſt was at Gibeon, chap. iii. 5. where the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, and ſaid to him, Ask what I ſhall give thee. He asked nothing but Wiſdom; which ſo pleaſed the Lord, that he gave him not only that, but alſo Riches and Honour above all the Kings then in the Word. The Targum, as it is come to our hands, doth not ſay, It was the Word of the Lord that appeared to him, and that gave him all this. But that it was ſo according to the Senſe of their Church, may be gathered from the Text, which tells us, ver. 15. That as ſoon as Solomon was awake, he went preſently to Jeruſalem (which was about ſeven Miles diſtant) and there he ſtood before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (which was there in the Tabernacle ſet up by David his Father;) and he offered up both Burnt-Offerings and Peace-Offerings, and made a Feaſt to all his Servants. The haſte in which all this was done, brings us preſently to the Occaſion of it; for of all Peace-Offerings for Thankſgiving to God, the ſame day that they were offered, the Fleſh muſt be eaten, Lev. vii. 15. the Breaſt and Right Shoulder by the Prieſts, all the reſt by the Offerer, and thoſe that he had to eat with him. It is plain therefore that this was a Sacrifice of Thankſgiving to God. But why ſhould not Solomon have ſtaid at Gibeon, and there paid this Duty where he had received the Obligation? Eſpecially ſince there at Gibeon was the Tabernacle which Moſes made by God's Command; and there was the Brazen Altar which Bezaleel made, 2 Chron. i. 2, 3, 4. and Solomon had come on purpoſe to Gibeon to ſacrifice upon that Altar at that time. The very day before this Appearance of God he had offered a thouſand Burnt-Offerings upon it, ver. 6. and in that very night did God appear to him, ver. 7. Now Solomon having found that good Succeſs of his ſacrificing at Gibeon, that preſently God appeared to him, and gave him ſo great a Boon, would certainly have ſtaid there to have paid his Thankſgiving in that Place, but that he underſtood that he that appeared to him was the Word, whoſe eſpecial Preſence was with the Ark at Jeruſalem, as we have abundantly proved. To Him therefore he haſten'd immediately to pay his Burnt-Offerings, and Peace-Offerings of Thankſgiving to the Word of the Lord. This we cannot doubt was the Senſe of the Ancient Jewiſh Church, though it doth not appear now in their Targums.

And if it was the Word that made that firſt Appearance to Solomon, then it muſt be He that made the ſecond alſo; for both theſe Appearances were of the ſame Perſon. So it is ſaid expreſly in the Text, 1 Kings ix. 2. The Lord appeared to Solomon the ſecond time, as he had appeared to him at Gibeon. But of this ſecond Appearance, that it was of the Word of the Lord, there is a clearer Proof than of the former; as the Reader will certainly judge, if he conſiders the Circumſtances of this ſecond Appearance, and the Words which God ſpake to Solomon on this occaſion. Firſt, the time of this Divine Appearance to Solomon, was when he had finiſh'd the building of the Houſe of the Lord, 1 Kings ix. 1. He had brought the Ark into the moſt Holy Place, even under the Wings of the Cherubims, 1 Kings viii. 6. The Glory of the Lord had taken poſſeſſion of this Houſe, ver. 10, 11. and Solomon had made his Prayer and Supplication before it, ver. 12,—61. Thereupon God appears, and tells him, I have heard thy Prayer and Supplication that thou haſt made before me. I have hallowed this Houſe which thou haſt built, ix. 3. that is, I have taken it for my own to put my name there for ever, 1 Chron. vii. 12. I have choſen this place to my ſelf for a Houſe of Sacrifice. This was a plain declaration from God, that it was of this Houſe that he had ſpoken by Moſes in theſe words, Deut. xii. 5, 11. There ſhall be a place which the Lord your God ſhall chuſe to place his Name there; thither ſhall you bring all that I command you, your Burnt-offerings and your Sacrifices, &c. Now ſee how thoſe words of Moſes are rendred in Jonathan's Targum on Deuteronomy: There will be a place which the Word of the Lord will chuſe to place his Shekinah there: Thither ſhall you bring your Offerings, &c. Here the Reader cannot but ſee that he that appeared to Solomon, and ſaid to him, I have choſen this place, &c. all along in the Firſt Perſon, is the ſame of whom Moſes ſaid all the ſame things, ſpeaking of him in the Third Perſon. And that as it appears in Jonathan's Targum both ver. 5. and ver. 11. of that Chapter, this was no other than the Word, according to the mind of the Ancient Jewiſh Church; though in their Targum on 1 Kings ix. (which alſo is called Jonathan's, but how truly, the Reader may ſee by this Inſtance) there is not the leaſt mention of the Word upon this occaſion.

The Word of the Lord being now in his Reſting-place in Solomon's Temple, 1 Chron. viii. 41. and having put an end to his Theocracy, by ſetting up Kings of Solomon's Race, that came in by Hereditary Succeſſion, and governed after the manner of the Kings of other Nations; after this, in the Scripture-Hiſtory of thoſe Times, while the firſt Temple was ſtanding, we read of no more ſuch Divine Appearances as we had formerly.

There is only one to be excepted, namely, that which was made to Elias in a ſmall ſtill Voice, 1 Kings xix. Of which ſomething ought to be ſaid more particularly. It may be obſerved that this was in that part of Iſrael which had no Communion with the Temple. It was in Ahab's time, when the Children of Iſrael had not only caſt off the Seed of David, but ſeem'd to have quite forſaken the Covenant which God had made with their Fathers by his Servant Moſes. To reduce them to their duty, God had now ſent Elias, who was a kind of ſecond Moſes. God ſhewed he was ſo, by putting him into ſo many of Moſes his Circumſtances. After a Faſt of Forty Days, ſuch as none but Moſes had ever kept before him, he comes to Horeb the Mount of God, 1 Kings xix. 8. So called firſt, Exod. iii.i. in the Hiſtory of God's firſt appearing to Moſes in that place. And as there, ver. 6. Moſes hid his Face, being afraid to look upon God; ſo did Elias in this place, 1 Kings xix. 13. He wrapt his Face in his Mantle; and then God ſpoke to him as he had done at firſt unto Moſes. He that ſpoke now was the ſame that ſpoke then, as appears by comparing the Circumſtances; and he that ſpoke then, was God the Word, as we have proved before in this Chapter. This muſt needs have been the Senſe of the Ancient Jewiſh Church. And to us Chriſtians it cannot but look very agreeable, That as when Moſes and Elias were upon the Earth, the Word appeared to them, and ſpoke with them on Mount Horeb: So when he was made Fleſh, and dwelt among us, Moſes and Elias came to him on Mount Tabor, and ſpoke with him at his Transfiguration.

Of thoſe Appearances of Angels to Elias, 1 Kings xix. 5, 7. 2 Kings i. And of the Angel that made that Slaughter in Sennacherib's Army, 2 Kings xix. 35. we have no more to ſay in this place; becauſe they ſeem to have been no other but Created Angels, and neither of them is called the Word of the Lord in their Targum.

But we are concerned for that Viſion of God which was ſeen by the Prophet Micaiah, 1 Kings xxii. 19. although he doth not ſay that God appeared to him, nor that he ſaw any thing more of God than a meer reſemblance of a King ſitting in State, which was at that time viſibly repreſented before him. For we muſt take notice of one thing, which is of ſome moment, that is, that when he ſaith, I ſaw the Lord ſitting on his Throne, and all the Hoſt of Heaven ſtanding by him on his right hand and on his left, &c. the moſt Learned Jews conceive that he ſaw the Shekinah with the Angels of his Attendance, and that this Viſion of Micaiah is the ſame which was ſhewn to Iſaiah, ch. vi. and to ſome other Prophets.

In the Prophetical Books of Iſaiah and Ezekiel, there are two Appearances of God, or of the Shekinah in his Temple, which we are obliged to give ſome account of. And of theſe, as I ſhall ſhew, we have no reaſon to doubt but that it was the Word that appeared to thoſe Prophets according to the ſenſe of the ancient Jewiſh Church.

Firſt for that in Iſai. vi. 1, &c. The Prophet ſaith, I ſaw the Lord ſitting upon a Throne, high, and lifted up, and his Train filled the Temple; above it ſtood the Cherubims, &c. crying one to another, and ſaying, Holy, Holy, Holy Lord of Hoſts, the whole Earth is full of thy glory:— and the Houſe was filled with ſmoke. That this Houſe was the Temple is expreſly ſaid in the end of the firſt verſe. And the ſmoke was the token of the Shekinah of God, with which the Temple was filled now, as it was at his firſt entrance into it, 1 King. viii. 10, 11. So that here, the Lord ſitting upon his Throne, was no other than God ſitting upon his Mercy-ſeat over the Ark; that is, He was the Word of the Lord, according to the opinion of the ancient Jewiſh Church, as has been abundantly proved before in this Chapter. Of which here is alſo ſome remain in their Paraphraſe; for whereas the Prophet ſpeaking ſtill of the Lord whom he ſaw ſitting on his Throne, v. 1. ſaith, v. 8. Alſo I heard the voice of the Lord, ſaying, whom ſhall I ſend? The Targum thus renders it, I heard the Voice of the Word of the Lord, ſaying, Whom ſhall I ſend? We Chriſtians need not thank them for this, being fully aſſured as we are by what the Apoſtle ſaith, Joh. xii. 41. that this was no other than our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. For there the Apoſtle having quoted the words that Iſaiah heard from the Lord that ſpoke to him, Iſai. vi. 9, 10. tells us, Theſe things ſaid Iſaiah when he ſaw his Glory, and ſpoke of him. That the Apoſtle here ſpeaks of the Word made fleſh, is clear enough from the Text. But beſides it has been proved by our Writers beyond all contradiction.See Plac. lib. ii. Diſput. 1.

In like manner that which the Prophet Ezekiel ſaw, was an Appearance of God, repreſented to him as a Man ſitting on a Throne of Glory, Ezek. i. 26, 27, 28. x. 1. Which Throne was then upon Wheels, after the manner of a Sella Curulis. They were living Wheels, animated and ſupported by Cherubims, i. 21. each of which had four Faces, i. 6. ſuch as were carved on the Walls of the Temple, xli. 19. In ſhort, that which Ezekiel ſaw, though he was then in Chaldea, was nothing elſe but the Appearance of God as yet dwelling in his Temple at Jeruſalem; but quite weary of it, and now about to remove, and to leave his dwelling-place to be deſtroyed by the Chaldeans. To ſhew that this was the meaning of it, he ſaw this Glorious Appearance of God, firſt, in his place, iii. 12. (i. e.) on the Mercy-ſeat in the Temple, ix. 3. Next, he ſaw him gone from his place, to the Threſhold of the Houſe. Judges uſe to give Judgment in the Gate; ſo there over the Threſhold of his Houſe God gave Sentence againſt his rebellious people, v. 5, 6, 7. Afterward, from the Threſhold of the Houſe, x. 4. the Prophet ſaw the Glory departed yet farther, and mounted up from the Earth over the midſt of the City, x. 18, 19. And laſtly, he ſaw it go from thence, and ſtand upon the Mountain on the Eaſt-ſide of the City, xi. 23. That is, on Mount Olivet, which is before Jeruſalem on the Eaſt, Zech. xiv. 4. and ſo the Targum has it on this place. After this departure of the Divine Preſence, Ezekiel ſaw his forſaken Temple and City deſtroyed, and his People carried away into Captivity, xxxiii. 21, &c. After this he ſaw no more Appearance of God, till his People's return from Captivity. And then the Temple being rebuilt according to the meaſures given from God, xl, xli, xlii, the Prophet could not but expect that God would return to it as of old. So he ſaw it come to paſs in his Viſion, xliii. 2. Behold the Glory of the God of Iſrael came from the way of the Eaſt, (where the Prophet ſaw it laſt, at M. Olivet.) So again, v. 4. The Glory of the Lord came into the Houſe by the way of the Gate whoſe proſpect is toward the Eaſt, And v. 5. Behold the Glory of the Lord filled the Houſe. So again, xliv. 4. It filled the Houſe now, as it had done in Solomon's time, 1 King. viii. 11. All along in this Prophecy of Ezekiel, it was but one Perſon that appeared, from the beginning to the end. In the beginning of this Prophecy, it was God that appeared in his Temple over the Cherubims; and there we find him again in the end of this Prophecy. But that it was no other but the Word that ſo appeared in the Temple, according to the ſenſe of the ancient Jewiſh Church, has been proved ſo fully out of their Targums elſwhere, that we need not trouble our ſelves about that any farther, though we cannot find it in the Targum on this Book.

In the Books of Chronicles there is nothing remarkable of this kind, but what has been conſidered already, in the account that we have given of the Divine Appearances in the Books of Kings. And there is no mention of any ſuch Appearance in any of the other Books that were written after the Babylonian Captivity, except on the Books of Daniel and Zechariah. Of Daniel the Jews have not given us any Targum, therefore we have nothing to ſay of that Book. They have given us a Targum, ſuch as it is, of the Book of Zechariah, which is the laſt we have to conſider.

In this Book of Zechariah we read of three Angels that appeared to the Prophet. The firſt appeared to him as a Man, i. 8,-10. But is called an Angel, v. 9. In Zechary's words, The Angel that talked with me: By which Title he is often diſtinguiſht from all others in the ſame Book, i. 13, 14, 19. ii. 3. v. 5, 6. vi. 4. A ſecond Angel appeared to him alſo as a Man with a Meaſuring Line in his hand, ii. 1. But whoſoever compares this Text with Ezek. xl. 3, 4, 5, &c. will find that this, who appeared as a Man, was truly an Angel of God. Next, the firſt Angel going forth from the place where he appeared, ii. 3. Another Angel comes to meet him, and bids him, Run, ſpeak to this young man, (whether to the Angel Surveyor, or whether to Zechary himſelf) and tell him, Jeruſalem ſhall be inhabited, &c. ii. 4. He that commands another ſhould be his Superior. And yet this Superior owns himſelf ſent from God. But he own'd it in ſuch terms as ſhew'd that he was God himſelf. This the Reader will ſee more than once in his ſpeech, which is continued from v. 4. to the end of the Chapter. It appears eſpecially in v. 8, 9, 11. of this Chapter. Firſt in v. 5. having declared what God would do for Jeruſalem, in theſe words according to the Targum, The Lord hath ſaid, my Word ſhall be a wall of fire about her, and my Glory will I place in the midſt of her; He goes on to v. 8. and there he delivers a Meſſage from God to his People, in theſe words, Thus ſaith the Lord of Hoſts, After the Glory After the Glory of his Shekinah being returned into the Temple, when that was rebuilt, they ſhould ſoon after ſee Babylon it ſelf taken, and ſpotled by their ancient Servants the Perſians. hath he ſent me to the Nations that ſpoiled you, &c. Here the ſenſe is ambiguous, for it ſeems ſtrange that the Lord of Hoſts ſhould ſay, another hath ſent me. But ſo it is again, and much clearer expreſt in v. 9. where he ſaith, Behold, I will ſhake my hand upon them, and they ſhall be a ſpoil to their Servants. This none but God could ſay: But he addeth in the next words, And ye ſhall know that the Lord of Hoſts hath ſent me; which words plainly ſhew that, though he ſtiled himſelf God, yet he came as a Meſſenger from God. This is plainer yet, v. 11. where he ſaith, Many Nations ſhall be joyned to the Lord in that day, and ſhall be my people, and I will dwell in the midſt of thee, Thee, Thou, Thee, are all Feminines in the Hebrew, and therefore all three refer to Zion. (Thee, Oh Zion, v. 10.) This again none but God could ſay: And yet it followeth, Thou (Oh Zion) ſhalt know that the Lord of Hoſts hath ſent me to Thee, (Oh Zion.) Here are plainly two Perſons called by the name of Jehovah; namely, one that ſends, and another that is ſent; So that this ſecond Perſon is God, and yet he is alſo the Meſſenger of God.

So likewiſe in the next Chapter, v. 1. the Angel that uſed to talk with the Prophet ſhewed him Joſhua the High Prieſt, ſtanding before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan ſtanding over againſt Joſhua as his Adverſary. And v. 2. the Prophet hears the Lord ſay unto Satan twice over, The Lord rebuke thee, for being ſo maliciouſly bent againſt Joſhua, that was come out of the Captivity as a brand pluckt out of the fire. He that was called the Angel, v. 1. is here called the Lord, v. 2. and this Lord intercedes with the Lord for his Protection of Joſhua againſt Satan. That which gave the Devil advantage againſt Joſhua was his Sins; which, as the Targum ſaith, were the Marriages of his Sons to ſtrange Wives. His Sins, whatſoever they were, are here called filthy Garments; and Joſhua ſtanding in theſe before the Angel, v. 3, 4. The Angel commands them that ſtood about him, ſaying, take away the filthy garments from him. Here again, by commanding the Angels, he ſheweth himſelf their Superior. Afterward, when the filthy Cloaths were taken off, this Angel ſaith to Joſhua, Behold I have cauſed thy Iniquity to paſs from thee; words, that if one Man had ſaid to another, the Jews would have accounted Blaſphemy, Mat. ix. 2, 3. For who (ſay they) can forgive Sins but God only? But here was one that exerciſed that Authority over the High Prieſt himſelf. This could be no other than he that was called of God, a Prieſt for ever after, the order of Melchizedek, Pſal. cx. 4. of whom the Jewiſh High Prieſt, even Joſhua himſelf, was but a figure. But he goes farther, adding, I will cloth thee with change of raiment, that is, according to the Targum, I will cloth thee with righteouſneſs. ver. 5. And he 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And he ſaid, Jon. Targ. ſaid, (again commanding the Angels) Let them ſet a fair Miter on his head, and they did ſo, and clothed him with Garments, and the Angel of the Lord ſtood by. Here again he is called an Angel, at laſt, as he was at firſt, ii. 3. It is an Angel's Office to be the Meſſenger of God; and ſo he often owned himſelf to be, in ſaying, The Lord ſent me. And yet this Meſſenger of God commands the Angels, ii. 4. iii. 4, 5. and himſelf ſtands by to ſee them do his commands, v. 5. This Angel calleth Iſrael his People, and ſaith, he will dwell among them, ii. 10, 11. He takes upon him to protect his People, v. 5. and to avenge them on their enemies, v. 10. He intercedes with God, iii. 2. He forgives ſin, and confers Righteouſneſs, iii. 4. If all theſe things cannot be truly ſaid of one and the ſame Perſon; then here are two Chapters together that are each of them half Nonſenſe, and there is no way to reconcile them with ſenſe, but by putting ſome kind of force upon the Text, whether by changing the words, Socin. in Wiek 1. ii. p. 565. or by putting in other words, as Socinus honeſtly confeſſeth he has done in his Interpretation. And he ſaith, they muſt do it that will make ſenſe of the words. It is certain they muſt do ſo that will interpret the words as he would have it. But he and his followers bring this neceſſity upon themſelves. They that will ſet up new Opinions muſt defend them with new Scriptures. For our parts we change nothing in the words; and in our way of underſtanding them we follow the Judgment of the ancient Jewiſh Church, that makes all theſe things perfectly agree to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This we ſee in Philo, who often calleth the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 De Somn. p. 466. B. Euſ. praep. vii. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Philo L. 1. Quaeſt. & Sol. as Philo calls the Father, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , De migr. Abr. p. 416. B. 418. C. Quis rer. Divin. haeres, B. p. 397. G. De Somn. p. 457. B. Quod Deus ſit immut. p. 249. B. Quis rer. Divin. haer. p. 397. G. God; and yet as often calleth him anDe Somn. p. 463. F. De Prof. p. 364. B. Angel, the Meſſenger of God; and ‖ our High-Prieſt, andDe profug. 466. B. De Somniis, p. 594. E. Quis rer. Divin. p. 397. G. Vit. Moſ. iii. p. 521. B. our Mediator with God. The ſame hath been ſhewed of the Word elſwhere out of the Targums. And here in this Targum, though no doubt it hath been carefully purged, yet by ſome overſight it is ſaid, ii. 5. That the Word ſhall be a wall of fire about Jeruſalem. And if the Modern Jews had not changed the third Perſon into the firſt, it would have followed, that his Shekinah ſhould be in the midſt of her; as himſelf ſaith afterward, v. 10, 11. He would dwell in the midſt of her; meaning in the Temple, where the Word of God had his dwelling-place always before its deſtruction, as has been abundantly ſhewn in this Chapter, and as we ſhewed from Ezekiel it was promiſed he ſhould dwell there again after its Reſtauration.

CHAP. XVI. That the Ancient Jews did often uſe the Notion of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Word, in ſpeaking of the Meſſias.

I Hope what I have ſaid upon the Appearances of the Word in the Old Teſtament, proves beyond exception that the Word, which is ſpoken of in the ancient Books of the Jews, is a Perſon and a Divine one. From thence it is natural to conclude that St. John and the other Holy Writers of the New Teſtament who made uſe of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , could not rationally give to that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , any other Idea, than that which was commonly received in the Jewiſh Nation.

Nothing more can be required from me than to refute fully the Unitarians, who pretend that the Word ſignifies no more than an Attribute or the eternal vertue of God, and who to confirm this aſſertion of theirs obſerve that in the Targums the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is never employed when they ſpeak of the Meſſias. The Socinian Author who wrote againſt Wecknerus inſiſts very much upon this obſervation.

Let us therefore examine how true that is which he affirms, and ſuppoſing it true, how rational the conſequence is which he draws from thence in oppoſition to it I lay down theſe three Propoſitions, which I ſhall conſider in as many Chapters: The firſt is, that in ſeveral places of the Ancient Jewiſh Authors the Memra or the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is put for the Meſſias. And ſo that it is certain that St. John hath followed the Language of the Jews before Jeſus Chriſt in taking the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a Divine Perſon that in the fulneſs of time, as it was foretold 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ?

They aſſert, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the great High Prieſt, Phil. de Somn. p. 463. F. And how could they deny that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the Meſſias, do appear poſitively the ſame.

For Philo, 1. He declares that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſeeing the Meſſias is called the firſt-born, Pſal. lxxxix. 28.

2. He explains the laſt, Zech. vi. 12. by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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. De Confuſ. Ling. p. 258. A.

This place of Philo deſerves a very particular conſideration. For it teaches us what Notion the Jews had of the Meſſias before our Lords Miniſtry; and diſcovers the Tricks and Fopperies of the modern Jews, who having a mean opinion of the Perſon of the Meſſias, have invented quite another ſenſe of the Memra, ſo frequent in their Paraphraſes, than what the ancient Jews had of it.

Nor is it of leſs uſe to confound the Socinians. For it is a proof not to be denied of St. John's following the Language of the old Synagogue, when he ſpeaks of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the firſt Chapter of his Goſpel; and ſhews that they have no other anſwer to the many Teſtimonies of the Targum objected againſt them, but what they borrow of the Jews.

3. Another place of Philo in the ſame Book, p. 266. F. is much to the ſame purpoſe, where he calls the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Man. We know the Meſſias is intimated to be a Man in many places; as Pſal. xxii. 22. I will declare thy name to my Brethren. Pſal. lxix. 9. I am become a ſtranger to my Brethren. Pſal. cxxii. 8. For my Brethrens ſake. For theſe Pſalms do all regard the Meſſias. So alſo where he is called David, Ezek. xxvii. 25. as the Targum and the Modern Jews do own he is, Hoſ. iii. 5. and where he is called Solomon, as in the Targum on Canticles.

But ſaith Philo, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is called a Man, which muſt be underſtood either upon account of his frequent Appearances as a Man, and ſo he is called, Exod. xv. 3. or to his intended manifeſtation in human ſhape, as a Servant. This latter is the Notion of Pſal. xxii. above quoted, and of Iſa. xlii. 1. Behold my Servant, which Jonathan refers to the Meſſias. And again of Iſa. liii. where the Meſſias is repreſented as a Man afflicted and tormented; which has been their ſenſe ſo conſtantly, that from hence the Jews ſince Jeſus Chriſt have taken occaſion to aſſert that the Meſſias was Leprous.

As for the Chaldee Paraphraſe, it is viſible from Iſa. xlix. where the Meſſias is ſpoken of throughout, that the Memra ſhould become the Meſſias: Theſe are the words of Iſaiah, v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Liſten, O Iſles unto me, and hearken you people from far. The Lord hath called me from the womb, from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name, and he hath made my mouth like a ſharp ſword, in the ſhadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a poliſhed ſhaft, in his quiver hath he hid me, and ſaid unto me, Thou art my Servant, O Iſrael, in whom I will be glorified: Then I ſaid, I have laboured in vain—yet ſurely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God. And now ſaith the Lord that formed me from the womb, to be his ſervant, to bring Jacob again to him; tho Iſrael be not gathered, yet ſhall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God ſhall be my ſtrength. And he ſaid, is it a light thing that thou ſhouldſt be my Servant to raiſe up the Tribes of Jacob, and to reſtore the preſerved of Iſrael? I will alſo give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou maiſt be my Salvation unto the end of the Earth. Now as Philo hath obſerved that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not only called a Man, but Iſrael. De Confuſ. Ling. p. 266. which hath a natural relation to this place of Iſaiah, ſo the Targum expreſly aſcribes v. 5. as alſo v. 16. to the Word, which ſpeaks of the calling of the Gentiles. And ſo every Jewiſh Writer confeſſes that the Reſtauration of the Ten Tribes which is foretold there ſhall be the work of the Meſſias.

We read Iſa. lxiii. 14. As a beaſt goeth down into the valley, the Spirit of the Lord cauſeth him to reſt, ſo didſt thou lead thy people to make thy ſelf a Glorious name. Where, notwithſtanding the Text hath the Spirit of the Lord, the Targum reads the Word, whom it treats as Redeemer, v. 14. that guided them through the Wilderneſs, that is in the Heavens, v. 15. and hath the name of Redeemer from everlaſting, v. 16.

Indeed, that the Word ſhould become the Meſſias, i. e. ſhould reveal himſelf in him, according to the judgment of the old Jewiſh Church, may be gathered from the method of the Jews in explaining certain places of the Meſſias which they referred to the Word of the Lord. Till now they do agree, that Moſes ſpake of the Meſſias, Exod. iv. 13. Send I pray thee by the hand of him whom thou wilt ſend: R. Meyr Aldabi ſo interprets it, as he treats of the Meſſias, in his Book Sevile Emunoth, ch. 10. But the Jews formerly referred it to the Word of the Lord, as we ſee in Onkelos on Exod. iii. 12. And God ſaid, certainly I will be with thee, and this ſhall be a token unto thee that I have ſent thee, when thou haſt brought forth the people out of Egypt, you ſhall ſerve God upon this mountain. On which words Onkelos obſerves, that God promiſed Moſes to aſſiſt him by his Word in the truſt committed to him, and repeats it on Exod. iv. 12, 15. from which it is to be concluded, that it is whom he intends, v. 13. The like remarks are made by Jonathan's Targum on the ſame Texts, from whence the like inference may be drawn.

I ſhall only mention a few more places: as, 1. It was the Word that promiſed to march among the Iſraelites, and to be their God, Philo de Nom. mutat. p. 840. this, ſaith Philo in an 100 places, it was the Word that promiſed Iſrael his Preſence, ſaith Onkelos on Levit. xxvi. 9, 11, 12. But it is certain the Word was to manifeſt himſelf in the Meſſias, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the middle of him, as ſaith Raſhi, whom I have quoted before.

2dly, The Ancient Targums acknowledge that the Meſſias ſhould be a Prophet. So Jonathan owns on Iſ. xi. 2. The ſame Iſaiah declares, liv. 13. That they ſhall be all taught of God: which is explained by Jonathan of the Meſſias, as alſo Iſ. liii. 5.10, 11, 12. From whence it is evident, that they took the Meſſias and the Word of God to be the ſame.

3dly, You ſee that God having ſaid, Hoſ. i. 7. that he would ſave his people by Jehova their God, which is tranſlated by the Targum, by the word of the Lord, the Jews kept always for a Maxim, that the Eternal Salvation was to come to them by the Meſſias. Raſhi refers to that which we read in Iſaiah, ch. xlv. 17. and he follows in this the Targum of Jeruſalem upon Gen. xlix. 18. where the Salvation by the Meſſias is called by Jacob the Salvation by the Word of the Lord. 'Tis upon the ſame foundation that they refer to the Meſſias which is ſpoken Iſai. xliv. 6. that the Meſſias ſhall be the laſt 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 diſtingu •• 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ibid. p. 194. that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the moſt Ancient Son, the Eternal Spirit of God; but the World is the Son of God in time, Quod Deus ſit immut. p. 232. that his Word is his Image, and his Firſt-born. De confuſ. ling. p. 266. 267. B. that the Word is the Son of God, before the Angels, Quis rer. div. h. p. 397. F. G. that the Unity of God is not to be reduced to number, that God is unus non unicus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the Jews ſay in their Book of Prayers, which are the very ſteps we take to ſhew that an Eternal Generation in the Divine Nature is no contradiction.

Nothing can be more expreſs for to prove that there is a Son in the Godhead, than what we read in the Targum of Jeruſalem, Gen. iii. 22. The Word of Jehovah ſaid, Here Adam, whom I created, is the only begotten Son in the World, as I am the only begotten Son 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the high Heaven.

3. The Prophets poſitively teach the Son of God (who, the Jews thought (as under the former Head appears) was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Eternal Wiſdom of God) to be the Meſſiah. Thus David, Pſalm ii. brings in God ſpeaking of the Meſſiah, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, 6. V. 8. Kiſs the ſon leſt he be angry, and leſt you periſh. For thus it ought to be rendred according to Aben-Ezra, and the Midraſh on this Pſalm, and the Zohar in the place I have quoted juſt now, which Expreſſion is alſo uſed by Solomon, Cant. i. 2. Let him kiſs me with the kiſſes of his mouth, which the old Jews refer to the Meſſias in Shir haſhirim Rabba, fol. 5. Col. 2, & 3. and in Midraſh Tehillim ad Pſ. lxviii. v. 4.

I confeſs that we read in Tehillim Rabbathi upon this iid Pſalm, a kind of anſwer to this place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he doth not ſay, thou art a Son to me, but thou art my Son; and they pretend that God ſpeaks to the Meſſias as a Maſter to his Servant. The Inquiſitors of Italy take great care to blot out that Anſwer in the Books which they give leave to the Jews to keep in their Houſes: But it is a ridiculous fear, for the ſolution is ſo abſurd, that it is exploded as ſoon as you look upon the deſcription of that Son which is in the Book of Proverbs, Chap. xxx. 4.

I own alſo, that we find not in the body of Philo's Works any formal Explication of theſe words, This day have I begotten thee; from whence we can directly conclude, that he underſtood them of an Eternal Generation. But we find ſomething equivalent to it. For ſpeaking of theſe words, You who were obedient to the Lord, are alive this day; he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . De profug. p. 358. E.

That this is not a ſimple Conjecture, appears from the manner of Philo's explicating of himſelf, as he ſpeaks of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in two places cited by Euſ. Praep. Ev. vii. p. 323. out of Phil. de Agric. 1, & 11. For in the firſt place, he calls the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Firſt-born of God: And in the other, the Eternal Word of the Eternal God, begotten by the Father. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

The ſame Title of Son is given to the Meſſias, Pſal. lxxii. 17. That this Pſalm was underſtood of the Meſſias by the Ancient Jews, 'tis acknowledged by Raſchi, who againſt their unanimous Conſent thinks fit to apply it to Solomon; now the Hebrew word there is Innon, being formed from Nin, which ſignifies a Son. Hence it is that the Jews make Innon one of the Titles of the Meſſias in Midraſh Tillim on Pſalm xciii. and in the Talmud Sanhedrim, c. 11. fol. 98. col. 2. and in Rabboth, fol. 1. col. 3. And it follows in the Text, that he had this Name before the Son, that is, before the Creation, as Eternity is deſcribed, Pſal. xc. 2. Prov. viii. 22, 29.

Again Pſal. lxxx. 15. where the Pſalmiſt prays God to look down and viſit his Vine, and the Vineyard which his right hand hath planted; the Targum renders theſe laſt words, and the Plant which thy right hand hath planted, that is, King Meſſias. The Pſalmiſt goes on in theſe words, and the Branch which thou madeſt ſtrong for thy ſelf. The Targum reads them, even for thy Son's ſake, and interprets them, even for the ſake of King Meſſias. So likewiſe in v. 17. where we render the words, Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the ſon of man whom thou madeſt ſtrong for thy ſelf, the LXX. have only, on the Son; and the Targum interprets them of King Meſſias.

God ſaith, Pſal. lxxxix. 25, 26. I will ſet his hand in the ſea, and his right hand in the rivers. He ſhall cry unto me, thou art my father. The Ancient Jews refer this to the Meſſias, and alſo many of the Modern Jews finding ſuch difficulty in applying to Solomon many of the Characters in this Pſalm, agree with the Ancients in their Interpretation.

The following Writers of the Holy Scriptures are as expreſs as David is in this matter, Prov. viii. 22, 23, 24, 25. is well worth peruſing, principally for this Title given Wiſdom, of a Son in the boſom of her Father. Upon which take Philo's Reflection de Profug. p. 358. A. To the Queſtion, Why is Wiſdom ſpoken of in the Feminine, he Anſwers, it is to preſerve to God the Character of a Father; from whom he thought the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 drew his Nature; as being, as he elſewhere, de Agric. calls him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Eternal Son of the Everlaſting Father. And nothing is more common amongſt the Jewiſh Writers, than 1. To maintain that the Shekinah, the Wiſdom, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are the ſame. 2dly, To refer to the Meſſias, as being the ſame with the Shekinah, thoſe very Places which are to be underſtood of the Shekinah, and to the Shekinah thoſe Places which are to be underſtood of the Meſſias. If any man caſt his eyes upon Jonathan Targum and the Targum Jeruſalami commented by R. Mardochay, and printed lately at Amſterdam, he ſhall find that by the common conſent of the Jewiſh Interpreters, whoſe words he fully relates, the Wiſdom which is ſpoken, Prov. iii. and Prov. viii. is the ſame by which the World hath been created. 2dly, That this Wiſdom is the ſame which is called the Shekinah, the Memra, it is called by Philo the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Let him now look upon the Places of the Prophets which are conſtantly ſpoken of the Meſſias, and he ſhall find that they are referred by the beſt Authors of the Synagogue to the Shekinah; ſo that it is clear they had the ſame Idea of the Shekinah and of the Meſſias, and muſt have lookt upon the Meſſias as he that muſt have been the proper Son of God. I will ſhew ſome Inſtances of what I advance, to ſpare the trouble to my Reader.

1ſt, They maintain that this Wiſdom by which God hath founded the Earth, as David tells us, Pſal. ciii. 24. is the ſame which is ſpoken by Solomon, Prov. iii. 19. 'tis the ſenſe of all the Targums, Midraſhim and Cabaliſtic Authors upon the firſt of Geneſis, as you ſee in R. Mardochay, and in Menachem de Rakanati upon the 1ſt of Geneſis.

2dly, They take indifferently this Wiſdom and the Shekinah, or the Memra or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for the ſame Perſon, referring to it the ſame Actions, the ſame Power, the ſame Worſhip, the ſame Majeſty.

3dly, They underſtand the Wiſdom which rules the World, as it is ſaid, Prov. viii. to be the ſame which is ſpoken of, Prov. iii. 19. and to be the Son of the living God, the ſame who ſpoke by Ezek. xxii. 2. ſee R. Menach. in Pent. fol. 1. col. 2. from Bereſhit Rabba, and from Zohar. Ibid. fol. 2. col. 1. & fol. 35. col. 1. & fol. 44. col. 1.

And fourthly, They refer many Places to that Wiſdom which is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Shekinah, and the Son, to the Meſſias; for example, it is clear that Pſalm xlv. belongs to the Meſſias, as being the Bridegroom of the Church. Now they ſuppoſe that the Shekinah is the Bridegroom of the Synagogue, R. Menach. in Pent. fol. 15. col. 1. and they refer to the Shekinah the place of Iſaiah, chap. lxii. 3. which is nothing but the ſame Idea of Pſalm xlv.

So they refer the Song of Solomon to the Shekinah or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , R. Menach. de Rekan in Pent. fol. 58. col. 4. & fol. 76. col. 1. & col. 3. which is manifeſtly to be underſtood of the Meſſias, and ſo they pretend that the Kiſs which is mentioned there, Cant. i. 1. ſignifies myſtically the Shekinah R. Menach. fol. 44. col. 1.

It is notorious that the Goel, that famous Redeemer which is promiſed in ſo many Prophets to the Synagogue, is the Meſſias. Now the conſtant Idea of the Jewiſh Writers is, that the Shekinah is to be that very Redeemer. Rab. Menach. de Rekanati in Pent. fol. 58. col. 4. & fol. 59. col. 1. & fol. 83. col. 4. & fol. 97. col. 4.

So that nothing is more evident, than that the Jews, who took the Wiſdom to be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the proper Son of God, and look upon the Shekinah or the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as being to be the Meſſias, muſt have lookt upon the Meſſias as being the proper Son of God.

In Iſaiah iv. 2. the Meſſias is called the branch of the Lord, no doubt as properly as he is called the branch of David, Jerem. xxiii. 5. In that day, ſaith he, the branch of the Lord ſhall be beautiful and glorious, which is in Jonathan's Paraphraſe interpreted of the Meſſias. From which it is natural to conclude, that the proper Son of God was to be the Meſſias, and the Meſſias was to be the proper Son of God.

In Iſaiah ix. 6, 7. we read of a Son given, and what are the Characters of this Son? they follow. His name ſhall be Wonderful, Counſellor, the mighty God, the everlaſting Father, the Prince of Peace. The Jews long after Chriſt underſtood this place of the Meſſias; and Solomon Jarchi, who dyed in the Year 1180. is perhaps the firſt after R. Hillel that fell from the common Traditional Senſe of his Nation in referring theſe Titles to God, and not the Meſſias.

But I have taken notice before in ſpeaking of the ſeveral appearances of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that the Angel who appeared to Gideon, and who was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , did take the ſame name of Wonderful which is given here to the Meſſias.

Jeremiah keeps to the ſame notion of a branch to denote a Son, Jerem. xxiii. 5. xxxiii. 15. and the Targum explains it of the Meſſias.

Zachary, ch. vi. 12. doth alſo call him the branch, which not only the Jews before Chriſt, as we have ſhewn from Philo, but thoſe after Chriſt (Echa Rabbathi, p. 58. col. 2.) interpreted of the Meſſias, as being the Word.

And here let me remark to you a few of Philo's Notions, which may ſerve for a Key to the right underſtanding of the Sentiments of Philo concerning divers Prophecies in the Old Teſtament. One while he ſaith, Lib. de conf. Ling. 267. that God is one, but without excluding his Word who is his Image and firſt-born, from being one with him. Another time, he calls the Word an Archangel, a Man, he that ſees Iſrael, &c. Whence comes this, but that he ſaw the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was ſometimes repreſented as Head of the Angels in reſpect of his Divinity, and at other times as a Man with regard to his intended coming in the Fleſh? To this coming he ſeems to apply the Promiſe, Levit. xxvi. 11, 12. I will walk among you, and be your God, De nom. mut. p. 840. C. I am ſure the later Jews, as Ramban upon that place after the Author of Torath Cohanim, do build here the opinion of a real habitation of the Divinity amongſt them in the times of the Meſſias, and that they derive from one of their moſt ancient Traditions, that the Salvation of Iſrael ſhall be made by God himſelf which they prove by Zech. ix. 9. where it is ſpoken of the Meſſias by the confeſſion of the Jews till this day.

Again, Philo calls the Word of the Lord the Shepherd, and quotes for it, Pſal. xxiii. 1. The Lord is my Shepherd, De nom. mut. p. 822. & 823. A. De Agric. in Euſeb. p. 323. Now the Word being the ſame with the Meſſias, c. 13. it is plain this Pſalm was in his days applied to the Meſſias, who conſequently is the Lord Jehovah, and the people his ſheep. I have before obſerved the rules by which the Jews were led to the knowledg of this Truth, and therefore it is unneceſſary to touch again on them.

It ſuffices to remark here, firſt that the Synagogue in Philo's time held it a Maxim, that the name Jehovah expreſs'd the Eſſence of God. Philo Lib. Deter. pot. inſ. p. 143. C. Secondly, that the name Jehovah was the proper name of God, the name of the firſt Cauſe, and conſequently communicable to no Creature. Philo de Abrahamo, p. 280. a Truth of great moment, which is confeſſed alſo by Manaſſ. ben Iſrael, q. in Exod. 3. Thirdly, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whom he takes to be meant by the Branch in Zech. vi. 12. was to become the Meſſias, and therefore that the Meſſias is juſtly called in this reſpect the Son of God.

And now it is eaſie to judge of the ſenſe the ancient Synagogue had of the Perſon of the Meſſias. It acknowledges this Son and this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as a Perſon ſubſiſting from all Eternity: Of this, if we had no other, the Text of Mic. v. 2. is a good proof, which the Jews in Chriſt's time expounded of the Meſſias, Mat. ii. 7. Joh. vii. 42. But the Notions of Philo every where do confirm it. Euſebius remarks it, De Praep. xi. 15. p. 533. and his Book de Somn. de confuſ. Ling. & de prof. p. 466. are full to this purpoſe.

To conclude, Let it be obſerved that the Sanhedrim calls the Meſſias the Son of God, Mat. xxvi. 63. and when Jeſus applied to himſelf a Prophecy of the Meſſias in Dan. vii. 13. Hereafter ſhall you ſee the Son of Man coming in the Clouds of Heaven, Mat. xxvi. 64. We are told by St. Luke what they replied, Then ſaid they all, art thou then the Son of God? Luk. xxii. 70. which is an argument that though the Title of Son of Man did very well expreſs the humble eſtate of the Meſſias, yet they were not ignorant that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſhould be the Meſſias, and that the Meſſias ſhould be the proper Son of God; ſuch a Son, as for whom the Clouds, the Chariot of the Divinity, ſhould be prepared to attend his Triumph, in the time when he ſhould reveal himſelf from Heaven.

2. That this Notion is ſo deeply riveted into the minds of the Jews even ſince Chriſt's time, that becauſe the word Anan, the Clouds is ſpoken of in this paſſage of Daniel, therefore they have aſſerted, in conſequence of this opinion, that the Meſſias ſhall be called by this name. This we ſee in Targum on 1 Chron. iii. 34. where ſpeaking of the Children of Elioenai, it adds, the ſeventh which is Anani is the King Meſſias. And thus it is explained in Sanhedrim, fol. 62. in the Comments of Saadia and Jarchi on Dan. vii. 13. and in Jalkut on Zech. iv. 7.

But having ſhew'd that the Word is God, and that this Word ſhould be the Meſſias, we will now ſhew, that the Jews in conformity to their Scriptures did believe that the Meſſias, as being Jehovah, ſhould appear for the Salvation of Men.

CHAP. XVIII. 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 Have ſhewed, that from David's time the Notion of the Meſſias was conſiderably cleared by ſeveral Prophets, whom God raiſed up, to exerciſe and increaſe the deſires of his people. It is no leſs certain, that the ſame Prophets do deſcribe the Meſſias as the true Jehovah, and that the ancient Jews ſo underſtood them.

This we may diſcern in the earneſt longings of the Faithful, ſo frequent in all the Writings of the Prophets, and in thoſe ſeveral paſſages of the Old Teſtament, which the Jews conſtantly interpret of the Meſſias; although ſome of them ſeem not to be ſpoken of Jehovah, but of the Meſſias, others to be ſpoken of Jehovah only, without mention of the Meſſias; but all have a particular regard to that Salvation which the Jews expected from the Meſſias.

Jacob bleſſing his Sons burſts out in Prayer to God, I look for thy Salvation, O Lord, Gen. xlix. 18. which the Jews by their Targums are taught to underſtand of the Meſſias. Of him likewiſe they underſtand thoſe words of Moſes, praying that God would ſend him whom he would ſend, Exod. iv. 13. which words Raſchi himſelf refers to the Redeemer to come, in h. l. and ſo Ramban and others. So they underſtand David's uſing this expreſſion, Pſal. lxxx. 2, 3. Stir up thy ſtrength and come and ſave us, bring back, O God, and cauſe thy face to ſhine and we ſhall be ſaved. The Targum, and Rabbi Salomon Jarchi underſtand it of the Meſſias bringing back his people from the preſent Captivity.

The Ground which they built upon, to refer thoſe words to the Meſſias, is clearly ſeen to thoſe who ſhall reflect upon the conſtant Notion of the Synagogue, which believes:

1. That the Shekinah is Jehovah, a ſecond Jehovah to whom God ſpake in ſaying, Let us make Man. R. Menach. fol. 8. col. 3. the Jehovah merciful, the Wiſdom which hath founded the Earth. R. Men. fol. 145. col. 3.

2ly. That it is the only Ruler of Iſrael, R. Men. fol. 153. col. 2.

3ly. That it is the Shekinah, to which all the Prayers of the Jews were directed, R. Men. fol. 159. col. 2.

4ly. That as they look upon the Shekinah as the Angel, the Redeemer, ſo all their Ideas of the Redemption, and of their Salvation have a neceſſary relation to that Redeemer who is Jehovah; ſo that all that is ſpoken of in all the Prophets, of the Redemption by the Meſſias, muſt by a neceſſary conſequence be referred by them to Jehovah's being the Meſſias, or to the Meſſias, as being Jehovah indeed: Iſaiah, ch. lxiv. 1. begs, Oh that thou wouldſt rent the Heavens, that thou wouldſt come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy preſence. Who doth not ſee that he ſpeaks of the coming of God in the time of the Meſſias, by an alluſion to the time of the coming of God to give the Law upon Mount Sinai; and now the Jews confeſs 'twas the Shekinah who gave the Law upon Mount Sinai. R. Menach. fol. 57. col. 2. & fol. 48. col. 1. and who can imagin that a meaner perſon than the ſame, and the very Shekinah it ſelf, ſhould raiſe ſuch deſires and ſuch Prayers?

Micah ſpeaks with great aſſurance, Ch. vii. 7. I will look unto the Lord, I will wait for the Lord of my Salvation. Again, v. 19. He will again have compaſſion upon us, he will ſubdue our iniquities, and will caſt all our ſins into the depths of the Sea. So Hab. ii. 3. Though he tarry, wait for him, becauſe he will ſurely come, he will not tarry. And ch. iii. 13. Thou wenteſt forth for the Salvation of thy people, even for Salvation with thine Anointed: Thou woundeſt the head out of the houſe of the wicked, by diſcovering the foundation unto the neck.

So Ezek. iii. 15, 17. The Lord hath taken away thy judgment, he hath caſt out thine enemy: the King of Iſrael even the Lord is in the midſt of thee; thou ſhalt not ſee evil any more—The Lord thy God in the midſt of thee is mighty: he will ſave, he will rejoyce over thee with joy: he will reſt in his love, he will joy over thee with ſinging.

So Zech. viii. 13. And it ſhall come to paſs, that as you were a curſe among the heathen, O houſe of Judah, and houſe of Iſrael; ſo will I ſave you, and you ſhall be a bleſſing.

So Mal. iv. 2. But to you that fear my name, ſhall the Sun of Righteouſneſs ariſe with healing in his wings. Which the Jews refer to the Shekinah. R. Menach. fol. 54. col. 2.

Theſe are the places that have exerciſed the thoughts of the Jews, and all theſe are by their Targum referred to the Word, or to the times of the Meſſias, and moſt of them (of ſuch a force is Truth) are ſtill applied ſo, by the greateſt part of their Writers, as may be ſeen in the famous Book of Ginnath Eggoz, from which Reuchlin hath almoſt extracted his Books de Cabala.

But eſpecially we ought to remark, 1. That the Targum plainly owns on Pſal. xlv. 6. Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever. And ver. 7. O God, thy God hath anointed thee with the oyl of gladneſs above thy fellows; That the Meſſias is God. This Truth is yet more clear in Iſa. ix. 6. applied to the Meſſias by Jonathan; and the preſent Jews cannot ſatisfie themſelves with any anſwer they make to it, as appears by their different ways of evaſion, and their changing the very Text to avoid the evidence of it.

2ly. The Targum on Iſa. xxviii. 5. hath theſe conſiderable words, In that day the Meſſias of the Lord of Hoſts ſhall be crowned with joy, inſtead of the Lord of Hoſts, as it is in the Text.

3ly. The Targum on Jer. xxiii. acknowledges the Meſſias to be there treated of, and yet he is called in this place, the Lord of our Righteouſneſs. See to the ſame purpoſe the Targum on Jer. xxxiii. 14. The learned M. Edzardi has proved that the ſame Interpretation of theſe words of Jeremy hath continued among the Jews from the time of Jeſus Chriſt without interruption till theſe latter days; and this he hath done from a great number of Jewiſh Authors, and even their Liturgies themſelves which I have no mind to tranſcribe. His Book was Printed at Hamburgh, A. 1670.

4ly. They have been ſo ſenſible that the Meſſias is repreſented by the Prophets as God, that in Pſal. cx. where it is ſaid of the Meſſias, that he ſhall be a Prieſt according to the order of Melchiſedeck, they refer the Prieſthood of the Meſſias to God, or to the Shekinah which is Jehovah. So doth R. Menach. fol. 18. col. 1. & fol. 31. col. 1.

Without that, it is hard to conceive how Philo ſhould ſo often mention the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as a Prieſt and Prophet of God, and at the ſame time believe the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be God, unleſs he gathered it from Pſal. cx. 1. where the Meſſias, that is repreſented as ſitting at the right hand of God, and equal to God, is alſo deſcribed as an High Prieſt of a new Order; and from Iſa. xi. 2. where the Meſſias is promiſed to receive the Spirit of Prophecy in the higheſt degree.

I need not cite the Paraphraſts any further on this Subject. What I have already quoted out of them is more than enough to ſhew how common this Idea was among their Nation.

For the Jews in the Ages next to theſe Paraphraſes I ought to obſerve this one thing of Pirke Eliezer, ch. xiv. There they aſſert that God deſcended nine times, and that the tenth time he ſhall deſcend in the Age to come, i. e. in the time of the Meſſias. The firſt time was in the Garden of Eden. The ſecond at the Confuſion of Tongues. The third at the deſtruction of Sodom. The fourth at his talking with Moſes on Mount Horeb. The fifth at his appearance on Sinai. The ſixth and ſeventh where he ſpake to Moſes in the hollow of the Rock. The eighth and ninth in the Tabernacle. The tenth will be, when he ſhall appear in the times of the Meſſias. Such is their ancient Opinion.

The Prophecies that ſpeak of it, as one end of the coming of the Meſſias, to judge his People and the Nations, do conſtantly aſcribe the Name of God, or of Jehovah, to the Meſſias. We ſee it in Pſalm lxxxii. 8. Ariſe, O God, and judge the earth, for thou ſhalt inherit all nations. Which is followed by Daniel, ch. vii. 13, 14. in theſe words; I ſaw in the night viſions, and behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the ancient of days, and there was given him dominions, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations and languages ſhould ſerve him: His dominion is an everlaſting dominion that ſhall not paſs away, and his kingdom that which ſhall not be deſtroyed.

The Jews confeſs three things; one is, that Pſalm lxxii. is to be underſtood of the Meſſias; The ſecond is, That in the Viſion of Ezech. ch. i. that form of a man ſitting upon the Throne, ſignifies the true God; the third, That the Viſion of Daniel, ch. vii. is the ſame in ſubſtance with that of Ezek. i. So that the Meſſias, as a Man, receives an abſolute Empire upon all Nations, and ſits upon a Throne as God. Now it ſhould be the moſt abſurd thing in the World, to conceive the Meſſias as only a Man, when he is inveſted with ſuch an Empire which cannot be governed but by a true God, and by Jehovah, whoſe Character is repreſented ſo often as the Ruler of all Nations; See Gen. xviii. 25.

The Prophecies that ſpeak of Jehovah as the King and Bridegroom of his Church, are conſtantly interpreted of the Meſſias. For example, where God ſaid to his People, Hoſ. ii. 19, 20. I will betroth thee unto me for ever, I will betroth thee unto me in righteouſneſs, and in judgment, and in loving-kindneſs, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulneſs, and thou ſhalt know the Lord. This the Jews generally underſtand of the Meſſias. 'Tis the judgment of R. Menachem in Geneſ. fol. 15. col. 1. where he reflects upon Iſaiah, ch. lxii. 3. And it is agreeable to what is ſaid Pſal. xlv. 7, 9, 10, 11. Thy throne, O God, is for ever, and ever, the ſcepter of thy kingdom is a ſcepter of righteouſneſs; thou loveſt righteouſneſs and hateſt iniquity, wherefore, O God, thy God hath anointed thee with the oyl of gladneſs above thy fellows. Kings daughters were among thy honourable women; upon thy right hand did ſtand the Queen in gold of Ophir. Hearken, O daughter, and conſider, forget thy own people, and thy father's houſe. So ſhall the King greatly deſire thy beauty; for he is thy Lord, and worſhip thou him. Whereas the Targum, v. 2. interprets it all of the Meſſias; ſo R. Meir Arama ſays, all agree that that Pſalm is to be underſtood of the Meſſias.

We cannot have a better proof that the Meſſias ſhould be Jehovah, than Zech. xii. 10. which the Targum alſo interprets of the Meſſias, and the new Jews would refer to the feigned Meſſias, Son of Joſeph. The words are theſe; I (Jehovah) will pour upon the houſe of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jeruſalem, the ſpirit of grace and ſupplication, and they ſhall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they ſhall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only ſon.

In Malach. iii. 1. we find this expreſſion, Behold, I will ſend my meſſenger, and he ſhall prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you ſeek, ſhall ſuddenly come to his temple, even the meſſenger, or the Angel, of the Covenant, whom you delight in. Now take notice, that whereas it is ſaid after in the Hebrew, here he is coming, the Greeks have read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Now ſince it is certain that he is the Jehovah to whom the Temple is here ſaid to be built and dedicated, and who is worſhip'd in it; and ſince the Jews underſtand this place of the Meſſias, it muſt follow that the Meſſias is Jehovah.

It is evident, that the Lord, and the Meſſenger or the Angel of the Covenant, are the ſame Perſon, whoſe coming is promiſed to the Jews as a thing very near. But it is no leſs evident, that this Angel of the Covenant is the ſame which is ſpoken by Jacob, Geneſ. xlviii. 15, 16. as the Redeemer, and is named by Iſaiah, ch. lxiii. the Angel of the face. Now all the Ancient Jews agree, that that Angel, or Meſſenger, is the Shekinah, or Jehovah himſelf; as we ſee in R. Menachem de Rekanati, fol. 54. col. 2. & fol. 66. col. 2. fol. 72. col. 4. & fol. 73. col. And they agree all that the Shekinah and Jehovah is the ſame. It is a Point agreed by the Talmudiſt, and by the Cabaliſt, as it is explained by R. Menach. fol. 73. col. 3. & fol. 77. col. 4. & fol. 79. col. 3. This being ſo, who can deny that the Text of Malachi is an undeniable proof that the Meſſias was to be Jehovah himſelf, according to the Ideas of the moſt Ancient Jews?

If we had not ſuch Confeſſions of the Jews, 'twill be eaſy to ſupply the want of them, by the help of the general Tradition that reigns among them, and proves clearly that the Meſſias was to be Jehovah himſelf.

They hold that the Meſſias ſhall be greater than all the Patriarchs, and even the Angels themſelves. Neve ſhalom, l. 9. c. 5. How can this be, unleſs he be truly Jehovah? And whence could they take this Notion, except from Pſalm xcvii. 7. where the Angels are commanded to worſhip him?

It is very eaſy to reconcile that Idea with the Notions of the old Jews, touching the Meſſias, ſuppoſing him to be the Shekinah and Jehovah, and that this Shekinah or Jehovah was to be the ſame Perſon with the Meſſiah, as they confeſs. R. Menach. fol. 73. col. 3. and fol. 77. col. 4. and fol. 79. col. 3. They teach conſtantly that Angels receive their virtue from the Shekinah, R. Menach. fol. 8. col. 1. and fol. 12. col. 1. They teach that the Shekinah is the God of Jacob, R. Men. fol. 38. col. 3. that he appeared to him at Bethel, and promiſed him to govern him without the Miniſtry of Angels, R. Menach. fol. 41, & 42. They ſaid the Shekinah is the Jehovah who appeared to the Patriarchs, R. Menach. fol. 56. col. 1. They maintain that the Temple was built to worſhip the Shekinah, R. Menach. fol. 63. col. 1. & fol. 70. col. 2. & fol. 73. col. 4. & fol. 74. col. 2. They maintain on the other ſide, that 'tis not lawful to pay any religious worſhip to Angels, although ſent by God as Meſſengers of him, or as Mediators. R. Menach. fol. 68. col. 2. They deny that the Ancient Patriarchs have paid other worſhip than a civil one to an Angel, when he appeared to them, R. Menach. Ibidem col. 3. But it is impoſſible to reconcile thoſe Ideas with the Opinion of the Meſſias, being only a meer Man.

Indeed, he that will reflect on all theſe Prophecies, will very hardly think, that then, when the High-Prieſt demanded of Jeſus whether he was the Son of God, and Jeſus anſwered that he was ſo; the Jews did underſtand only that he made himſelf a great Prophet. Both the Jews and Socinians own that in this Anſwer he made himſelf the Meſſias, which, according to both of them, is more than a great Prophet, and the High-Prieſt was ſo ſenſible of it, that he called it Blaſphemy.

In ſhort, the Angels who are God's Miniſters, could not ſerve nor obey one that was only, as well as themſelves, a Creature. He muſt be God, to have the Angels Subjects to him. He muſt be God, to govern the World, and to diſcern the thoughts of the heart, without which he could not be a competent Judge. And they that imagine a Creature could be made capable to know hearts, and to exerciſe thoſe other Acts, which are the Characters of the Divinity, do form to themſelves the greateſt Chimera in the World.

It is therefore neceſſary, that the Ancient Jews, having theſe Notions of the Meſſias, ſhould have conceived an intimate and cloſe habitation of the Word in his Perſon, by which, all theſe Prophecies ſhould receive their accompliſhment, and all the Promiſes of God, concerning the Meſſias ſhould be perfectly fulfilled.

The Unitarians conceive they have done a great ſervice to the Chriſtian Religion, when to court the Jews favour they deny the Divinity of the Meſſias, and condemn as Idolatry the Worſhip which Chriſtians pay to Jeſus Chriſt. In this they argue more conſiſtently than Socinus himſelf, as I have ſaid in my Preface to this Book. But after all I can ſay that beſides they cannot anſwer Socinus his Argument for the Worſhip of Jeſus Chriſt, they ſhall not get from the Jews what they pretend by their opinion: Indeed the Jews would be in the right to condemn us as Idolaters, if we did worſhip Jeſus Chriſt as a meer Creature. But they cannot do that juſtly, if they reflect ſeriouſly upon the Grounds which we lay for the Adoration of the Meſſias.

As it is a thing which I hope ſhall be of ſome uſe to undeceive the Unitarians, I am willing to add to the foregoing obſervations upon the Trinity and Divinity of the World the ſenſe of the Synagogue to this Article. And indeed it would be unconceivable that the Jews ſhould have believed the Meſſias to be true God, and ſhould not be ready to worſhip him.

It is a thing which Chriſtians and Jews are agreed upon that there is but one God, who is to be Worſhipped. The Jews and the ancient Chriſtians did agree that Angels muſt not be Worſhipped. From which it follows that if the Jews acknowledged that the Meſſias is to be Worſhipped, they muſt have acknowledged him to be God, and vice verſa.

Now there are poſitive Orders of God to Worſhip the Meſſias, as Pſal. ii. 12. Kiſs the Son. Who is that Son ſpoken in this place, it is the Meſſias, as it is granted by the ancient Synagogue, as we ſee in Eccleſiaſticus, I called upon the Lord the Father of my Lord. And Tehillim Rabba, with many others, uſe this place of Pſal. ii. to the Meſſias. So the Breſhit Rabba in Gen. xlix. ſo the Talmud in Succa, c. 5. Saadias in Dan. vii. 13. with the ancient, witneſs R. Salom Jarchi in his Comment.

I know well that the Greek Interpreters have Tranſlated thoſe words of the ſecond Pſalm, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But that Verſion is rejected by the Jews who read now in their Spaniſh Tranſlation Printed at Ferrara, Beſad hiio pro que non ſe inſanne, which is the ſenſe of Lombroſo in his ſhort Notes upon that place. So it is underſtood by R. Abenſueb in h. l.

We read in Pſal. viii. 3. From the mouth of babes, &c. It was ſo well known that this place was related to the Meſſias, that it was uſed at our Saviour's Entry into Jeruſalem, Mat. xxi. 16. Since that time it is related to the Meſſias as we ſee in the Midraſh upon Cant. i. 4. where theſe very words are referred to God, whom the Babes of Iſrael were to bleſs, which ſhews plainly that the praiſes which are ſpoken of are praiſes which are acts of Adoration, and ſo in the Midraſh upon Eccl. ch. ix. 1.

The ſame poſitive order for the Worſhip of the Meſſias is given in Pſal. xlv. 11. He is the Lord, worſhip thou him. There is no doubt but that Pſalm is to be referred to the Meſſias; It is ſo acknowledged by the Targum, and by all the Jewiſh Interpreters. What then can be ſaid againſt the Worſhip of the Meſſias? If the Jews of old had denied that the Shekinah was to be in the Meſſias, then it ſhould be rational to conclude that they did not acknowledge the Worſhip which is to be paid to him. But they have acknowledged the Divinity of the Meſſias, as we read in Midraſh Tehillim in Pſal. x. Stetit Divinitas Meſſiae & praedicavit. From whence it follows by neceſſary conſequence that they thought themſelves obliged to worſhip him.

We have the ſame Worſhip of the Meſſias ſetled in Pſal. lxviii. 32. where it is ſaid that the Princes ſhall extend their hands to him from Egypt. All the Jews agree that ſuch a thing is to happen at the coming of the Meſſias which we call the ſecond. So Raſhi.

We read the ſame in Pſal. lxxii. where it is ſaid v. 11. that they ſhall fall down and worſhip him. No body doubts but that Pſalm relates to the Meſſias.

I have taken notice in the ſecond Chapter of this Book that the Jews refer conſtantly to the time of the Meſſias all the Pſalms from the xc. to the c. Now in Pſal. xcv. v. 6, & 7. the words ſeem to be ſpoken of Jehovah, but they were underſtood by the Jews of the Meſſias who was to have the name of Jehovah, as you ſee in Midraſh in Echa. i. 6.

After David what ſaith Iſaiah of the Worſhip of the Meſſias? he ſpeaks as diſtinctly as can be, ch. xlix. v. 23.

The Jews underſtand it of the Meſſias, whom they look upon as the Redeemer to whom all people are to make their confeſſion from their heart, as you ſee in Breſhit Rabba upon Gen. xli. v. 44. where they refer theſe words to the Meſſias, Iſa. xlv. 23. You ſee the ſame in Midr. Tehin. in Pſal. ii. 2. theſe words, when they have ſeen his great tribulation, they ſhall come and ſhall worſhip the King Meſſias as it is ſaid Iſa. xlix. 23.

Some perhaps ſhall think they can avoid the ſtrength of this Argument, drawn from the Worſhip to be paid to the Meſſias, by allowing that it is ſpoken in thoſe places which I have quoted of a civil worſhip to be paid to the Meſſias as a great King.

But it ſhould be in vain for a Socinian to employ ſuch an evaſion, becauſe we find that the ancient Jews have prevented it by giving us inſtances of all the ſeveral Parts of ſuch a Worſhip, either Faith, Vows, or Prayers, or Sacrifices, which cannot be paid but to a true God, and I have quoted ſo many places upon that point, that I do not think fit to enlarge more upon it.

I ſhall then conclude this matter by the ſolemn Prayer of the Jews in the Feaſt of Succoth, where they have theſe words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ego, & ille, Salva nunc, p. 53. of the Venice Edit. in 8o. which words the Jews labour very much to explain who is that ille, but which the moſt underſtanding explain to the two firſt Middoth, viz. to the Father and to his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as we have ſhewn before.

Having now produced the Sentiments of the old Jews, as to ſeveral points that concern the Trinity and the Divinity of our Lord, we ought next to conſider how Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and the Primitive Chriſtians, did follow theſe Notions of the Synagogue.

CHAP. XIX. That the New Teſtament does exactly follow the Notions which the Old Jews had of the Trinity, and of the Divinity of the Meſſias.

WHoever ſhall attentively examine the method which our Saviour and his Apoſtles follow in the New Teſtament, will find it exactly ſuited to the Notions which the Jews had entertained, and which they had from the Writings of the Prophets.

It was abſolutely neceſſary it ſhould be ſo, becauſe the Doctrine concerning the coming of the Meſſias, began to be more narrowly inquired into among the Jews, when they ſaw Herod who was an Idumean, ſetled in the Throne of Judaea; it being at the juſt time markt out for the coming of the Meſſias by Jacob's Prophecy, Ge. xlix. 10. The Scepter ſhall not depart from Judah, nor a Law-giver from between his feet, until Shilo come, and unto him ſhall the gathering of people be. An Angel therefore appears to the Virgin Mary that was to be the Mother of Chriſt, and ſhews the manner of his Conception, which was to be by the operation of the Holy Ghoſt. He names the Child who was to be born of her, Jeſus, and declares that he ſhould be the Son of the Higheſt, and that of his Kingdom there ſhould be no end: Alluding to Pſal. ii. and to many other places of Scripture, where the Meſſias is deſcribed as one that was to be the Son of God.

Next the Angel appeared to Joſeph, who was upon parting with his betrothed Wife, the Bleſſed Virgin, and told him, ſhe ſhould bring forth a Son, and muſt name him Jeſus, becauſe he ſhould ſave his People from their ſins. Whereupon the Evangeliſt ſaith, that this Child was he of whom the Prophet foretold he ſhould be Emanuel, God with us. He was to do that for his People, which none but God was able to do, to ſave them from their ſins. How could he ſhew it better that he was the God of the Jews, to whom Judea belonged as his Country, and the Jews as his People, as it was foretold, Iſ. vii. and viii? That God, whoſe very Name Habakkuk had named, Hab. iii. 18. the God of my Salvation, ſo called, ſaith Jonathan's Targum, becauſe of the wonderful things that God would do by his Meſſias.

Another Angel brings to the Shepherds the news of Chriſt's Birth; and what words does he uſe? He names him the Chriſt, the Lord, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Jehovah, God's own proper name, Luk. ii.

The Wiſemen came from the Eaſt to Bethlehem, guided by a new Star, to worſhip him; and amongſt other Gifts, preſented him with Frankincenſe, which by the Law was to be offered to God alone: Shewing thereby that they owned him for that heavenly Star ſpoken of by their Countryman Balaam, Numb. xxiv. 17. And for that King of whom it was foretold, Pſal. lxxii. 10, 11. The Kings of Tharſhiſh, and of the Iſles, ſhall bring preſents; the Kings of Sheba and Seba ſhall offer gifts: Yea all Kings ſhall fall down before him, all Nations ſhall ſerve him.

Simeon inſpired by the Spirit of Prophecy, ſaid, that Chriſt was to be a light to lighten the Gentiles, Luk. i. 79. alluding to Iſaiah xlii. 6. and lx. 1. which ſpeaks of the Meſſias.

He ſaid further, that this Child was to prove the fall of many in Iſrael, according to that Prophecy, Iſ. viii. 13, 14. Sanctify the Lord of Hoſts himſelf, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread: And he the Lord of Hoſts ſhall be for a ſanctuary: but for a ſtone of ſtumbling, and a rock of offence to both the houſes of Iſrael; for a gin and for a ſnare to the inhabitants of Jeruſalem. In which place the Prophet ſpeaks of the Lord of Hoſts, and clearly points out the Meſſias, or the Word according to Jonathan's Targum.

And becauſe the Angels had celebrated the Nativity of Chriſt with their Acclamations, St. Paul, Heb. i. 6. applies to him what the Jews had added to the Song of Moſes in the LXX. Deut. xxxii. 43. Let all the Angels of God worſhip him, at his coming into the World: which words are alſo found Pſal. xcvii. 7. from whence they had added them; as well as ſome others borrowed from other places of Scripture, which the Jews underſtand of the Meſſias.

Hitherto a judicious Reader will find no notion, but what is perfectly like to thoſe of the Old Teſtament, and of the Writings of the Jews, about thoſe places of Scripture which call the Meſſias Jehovah, or repreſent Jehovah as him that ſhould be the Meſſias.

Mr. N. who does ſuſpect the Primitive Chriſtians to have added theſe words, Matt. xxviii. 19. Go and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt, to favour the new Doctrine of the Trinity, might as well at one blow have cut off thoſe places in St. Matthew, Matth. i. 20. and St. Luke, Luk. i. 79. which do more ſtrongly aſſert that Doctrine. For there we find the Higheſt, the Son of the Higheſt, and the Holy Ghoſt, three Perſons as diſtinct as words could make them: And the Meſſias is as plainly called Jehovah as can be. Both Angels and Prophets either ſhew or own the Ancient Prophets to have been fulfilled in Chriſt. There is nothing in all this that looks like a Colluſion.

John the Baptiſt, Luk. iii. 3. preacht Repentance, as it is written, Iſ. xl. 3. The voice of one crying in the wilderneſs, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths ſtrait; and all fleſh ſhall ſee the ſalvation of God; owning the Meſſias to be God and Jehovah. When the Jews took him to be the Meſſias, he told them, that he was not worthy to unlooſe the latchet of his ſhoes; that he was before him; that he ſhall baptize them with the Holy Ghoſt, and with fire. And that he was ſpoken of, Mal. iii. 1. Now Malachi calls him Jehova, though he alſo calls him the meſſenger of the Covenant, as I obſerved before.

Chriſt is baptized by John, who at firſt refuſed to baptize him, knowing the dignity of his Perſon, whoſe Forerunner he only was. But God the Father cries from Heaven, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleaſed; confirming what he had ſaid of the Meſſias, Iſ. xliii. 10.

The Holy Spirit deſcended upon him in the form of a Dove, to fulfil the Prophecy of David, Pſal. xlv. 7. O God, thy God has anointed thee with the oil of gladneſs above thy fellows: And that of Iſ. xi. 2. And the ſpirit of the Lord ſhall reſt upon him. The three Perſons of the Trinity did then ſo viſibly manifeſt themſelves, that the Ancients took from thence occaſion to bid the Arians, Go to the river Jordan, and you ſhall ſee the Trinity.

He was in the Wilderneſs tempted by the Devil, but the main ſtreſs of his Temptation the Devil laid on theſe words, if, or rather, ſince thou art the Son of God: For, knowing the illuſtrious Teſtimony which was given him at Jordan, and by John the Baptiſt, Joh. i. 34. I ſaw, and bare record that this is the Son of God, He took from thence occaſion to tempt him.

In his converſation with Nathanael he begins to diſcover to him the Myſtery of his being God, by comparing himſelf to the Ladder which Jacob ſaw in a Dream, Joh. i. 51. Hereafter you ſhall ſee heaven open, and the Angels of God aſcending and deſcending upon the Son of man. And I obſerved before, that Philo attributed that Apparition to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Reſtorer of intercourſe between God and Man.

At a Marriage in Cana, to ſhew that his Commiſſion was much above the meanneſs of his Education and Trade, he ſpoke ſomething ſharply to his Mother, Joh. ii. 4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Much as he had done, being yet but Twelve years old, when upon her complaining that his Father and her ſelf had ſought him ſorrowing, he gave her this Anſwer; How is it that you ſought me? wiſt ye not that I muſt be about my Father's buſineſs, Luk. ii. 49?

Soon after he went to Jeruſalem, and drove out of the Temple the Sellers and Money-Changers, and told them, Take theſe things hence, make not my Father's houſe a houſe of merchandiſe, Joh. ii. 16. The Jews ſurprized at that commanding Style, askt him a Sign, to ſhew his Authority: To whom he anſwered, Deſtroy this Temple, and in three days I'll raiſe it up, ver. 19. foretelling his Reſurrection, and declaring that he was to be the Author of it, v. 21. which, in the opinion of the Jews themſelves, is the proper Character of God, who has, ſay they, the Key of the Womb to make it fruitful, the Key of the Heavens to ſend down Rain, and the Key of the Grave to raiſe the Dead out of it. Beth Iſrael ex Sanhedrim, fol. 140. col. 3.

To ſatisfy Nicodemus, a Ruler of the Jews, about the greatneſs of his Perſon, he tells him, contrary to the opinion of ſome Jews, Pirke R. Eliezer. c. 41. who believed that Moſes had aſcended up into Heaven from Mount Sina; That no man had aſcended up thither, but he that was come from thence, even the Son of man which was there, Joh. iii. 13. But how could he be in Heaven, and have deſcended from thence? Becauſe he was the Son of God, whom God had ſent to ſave the world, v. 17. In which Expreſſions he alludes to the Prayers of the Old Jews, before mentioned, where the Church begs, that a Saviour would come down from Heaven, even the true Jehovah. Iſ. lxiv. 1.

When John's Diſciples came to their Maſter to complain that he whom he had lately baptized, did himſelf baptize, and draw the Multitude after him: To give them a nobler notion of Chriſt than they had before, he told them plainly, that he was only the friend of the bridegroom, but that Chriſt was the bridegroom himſelf, Joh. iii. 29. Intimating by that Similitude that Chriſt was God, according to the Prophecy in Hoſea, ch. ii. 19, 20. I will betroth thee unto me for ever. This John's Diſciples well knew; and that the Meſſias was ſpoken of, Pſal. xlv. in which he is expreſly named God: That Solomon's Song did ſpeak of him: And the Jews believe to this day, that God was ſpoken of there by Solomon. And this has obliged the Holy Writers to give to the Meſſias the name of Bridegroom, and to the Church that of a Bride, as may be ſeen in St. Paul, and in the Revelation.

John the Baptiſt further tells his Diſciples that Chriſt was before him in Dignity, becauſe he was in being before him, Joh. i. 15, 30. and yet John was born ſix Months before our Bleſſed Saviour.

Jeſus tells them that he came from above, whereas himſelf, though inſpired and a Prophet, was only of the Earth: That Chriſt was come from Heaven, and above all, That God was his Father, and that he had given all things into his hand, Joh. iii. 31, 35. ſhewing thereby, that it was he whom God ſpoke of, Pſal. ii. 8. Ask of me, and I ſhall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermoſt parts of the earth for thy poſſeſſion.

Chriſt ſaid, Luk. v. 20, 21, 24. to a man ſick of the Palſie, thy ſins are forgiven thee; which the Phariſees taking ill, becauſe as they told him, God alone could forgive ſins; he cured the poor man, to ſhew that he had power to forgive ſins; and conſequently, that he was God by their own confeſſion. And he performed that according to the Prophecies which attribute to God, and to the Meſſias, the forgiveneſs of ſins, Jer. xxxi. 34.

The Jews being angry with him, becauſe he had cured an impotent man on the Sabbath-day, Joh. v. 16. he tells them, to juſtify what he had done, My Father works hitherto, and I work, v. 17. At which words they ſought more to kill him, becauſe he had not only broken the ſabbath, but ſaid alſo that God was his Father, making himſelf equal with God, v. 18. What would a good man have done in this caſe, one that had been only Man as we are? He would certainly have declared his abhorrence of ſuch Blaſphemy as was contain'd in theſe words. But then he would have told them theſe were not his words, but theirs. He would have them underſtand him aright, by ſaying, he did not make himſelf equal with God, but that in working a Miracle on the Sabbath, he only acted as the Prophets did, to whom, ſay the Jews, it was lawful to break ſome one Precept of the Law.

But inſtead of making any ſuch Interpretation, he goes on in the ſame tenor of words, and a ſecond time gives himſelf the title of the Son of God, and tells them, that whatever his Father did, he might do likewiſe, v. 19. That he would raiſe the dead, to prove himſelf equal with God, That as the Father raiſed up the dead, and quickens them, even ſo the Son quickens whom he will, v. 21. That that extraordinary Power was given him by his Father, it being his will that all men ſhould honour the Son, even as they did the Father, v. 23. He proves again that he was the Son of God, by the power he had to raiſe up the dead; As the Father has life in himſelf, ſo has he given to the Son to have life in himſelf: And has given him authority to execute judgment alſo, becauſe he is the Son of man, v. 26, 27. He applies to himſelf what was ſaid in Daniel xii. 2. concerning the Reſurrection of the Dead, v. 28, 29. The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves ſhall hear his voice, and ſhall come forth: They that have done good, unto the reſurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the reſurrection of damnation. He appeals to John the Baptiſt, who had teſtified he was the Son of God, v. 33. At laſt he bids them ſearch the Scriptures, v. 39. in which they would find that he was that Son of Man deſcribed Dan. vii. 13, 14. and conſequently equal with God: For who can ſit on God's Throne beſides the true God, as it is declared Pſal. cx. 1. The Lord ſaid unto my Lord, ſit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footſtool. Which words the Jews underſtood of the Meſſias, agreeably to other Prophecies, in which he is ſo often called Jehovah, and the Son of God.

He juſtified his curing Sick People on the Sabbath-day, becauſe he the Son of man was Lord of the Sabbath. But how could he be ſo, but becauſe he was that Word which had given the Law to the Jews; that Son of God equal with his Father, who conſequently was Maſter of his own Laws?

He opened the Eyes of the Blind, and made the Lame to walk, to fulfil the Prophecy, Iſ. xxxv. 4, 5, 6. Behold your God will come, he will come and ſave you; then the eyes of the blind ſhall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unſtopt: Then ſhall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb ſing.

He multiply'd the Loaves in the Deſert, to ſhew that he was that ſame Word, to which the Jews attributed the Miracle of Manna in the Wilderneſs. He tells the Jews, to the ſame purpoſe, that he was the Bread come down from Heaven, Joh. vi. 51. upon which it may be obſerved that Philo maintains that the Word was Manna, or at leaſt Manna the Type of the Word. Lib. quod deterior. p. 137.

Having wrought ſo many great Miracles before the Jews, he askt his Diſciples, what People ſaid and thought of him? To which St. Peter anſwering according to the People's various Opinions, and at laſt confeſſing the Faith of himſelf and the other Diſciples, that he was Chriſt the Son of the living God, he commends this Confeſſion in Peter, though he had before refuſed to receive it from the Devil; and tells Peter, that God, even his Father, had revealed it to him, and therefore it muſt be true, Matth. xvi. 16, 17. And ſo it was, for God had ſpoken of it by many of his Prophets, as I ſhewed before, by the very confeſſion of the Jews.

He ſhews his Diſciples how Elijah was come in the Perſon of John the Baptiſt, Matt. xvii. That therefore himſelf, to whom John had born witneſs, was the Meſſias, the true Jehovah, whoſe Fore-runner Elias was to be, according to the Prophecy, Mal. iii. 1. Behold, I will ſend my meſſenger, and he ſhall prepare the way before ME; and the Lord whom ye ſeek, ſhall ſuddenly come to his Temple, even the Meſſenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in, ſaith the Lord of hoſts.

He gives his Diſciples the power of Binding and Looſing, that is, of forbidding ſome things which Moſes had permitted, and permitting ſome which he had forbidden; reſerving ſtill to himſelf the power of directing them infallibly by his Spirit in thoſe Acts of their Miniſtry; To ſhew that he was that very God who was to make a new Covenant, as Jeremiah had foretold, chap. xxxi. 33. And that he had in him the Authority of a Supream Law-giver. For, who can give Laws to mens Conſciences but the only true God?

In the Treaſury of the Temple he tells the Jews that God was his Father; that he did nothing of himſelf, but as his Father had taught him, Joh. viii. 28. That he had ſpoke that which he had ſeen with his Father, v. 38. naming thus God, his Father, many times, which no Prophet ever had done, nor no meer Man could do without the higheſt preſumption.

He tells the Jews (who objected to him, that by ſaying that they who believed in him ſhould never ſee death, v. 51. he made himſelf greater than Abraham, v. 53.) That Abraham had ſeen his day, and was glad, v. 56. And as they replied, that what he ſaid was impoſſible, becauſe Abraham had been dead many hundred years, whereas himſelf was not yet fifty years old, v. 57. he anſwers with a repeated Aſſeveration, Verily, verily, I ſay unto you, before Abraham was, I AM, v. 58. plainly affirming two things, firſt, that he was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which had appeared to Abraham, and ſecondly, that he was God, whoſe name is, I AM, Exod. iii. 14. which the Jews apprehending, took up ſtones to caſt at him, v. 59. as a Blaſphemer, who made himſelf God, and equal with God.

Soon after he reſtored ſight to one that was born blind, and had this confeſſion from him, which he had before ſuggeſted to him, that he was the Son of God; and accordingly accepted his Adoration, Joh. ix. 35, 38.

He ſaid, he was the good Shepherd, that he gave his life for the ſheep, Joh. x. 11. That he had other ſheep whom he would bring into his Fold, v. 16. that is to ſay, that both Jews and Gentiles belonged to him. That he laid down his life for them; and that he had power to lay it down, and to take it again, v. 18. ſhewing by all theſe Expreſſions, that he was God, and the Meſſias, for the Title of Shepherd is given to God, Pſ. xxiii. 1. and in many other places, which the Jews underſtood of the Meſſias.

Being in the Temple of Jeruſalem at the Feaſt of the Dedication, the Jews deſired him to tell them plainly whether he was Chriſt, Joh. x. 24. To whom he anſwered from v. 25. to v. 37. I told you, and ye believed not. The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witneſs of me: But ye believe not, becauſe ye are not of my ſheep, as I ſaid unto you. My ſheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life, and they ſhall never periſh, neither ſhall any pluck them out of my hand. My Father which gave them me, is greater than all, and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up ſtones again to ſtone him. Jeſus anſwered them, Many good works have I ſhewed you from my Father, for which of thoſe works do you ſtone me? The Jews anſwered him, ſaying, For a good work we ſtone thee not, but for blaſphemy; and becauſe thou being a man, makeſt thy ſelf God. Jeſus anſwered them, Is it not written in your Law, I ſaid ye are Gods? If he called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; ſay ye of him whom the Father has ſanctified, and ſent into the world, thou blaſphemeſt, becauſe I ſaid I am the Son of God? It may be obſerved from theſe laſt words, that having been already accus'd of Blaſphemy, becauſe he made himſelf equal with God, not only he affirms it ſtill, but proves it beſides by an Argument from a leſſer thing to a greater. For, ſays he, If God names Magiſtrates Elohim, becauſe they are his Deputies; how much more may his Son be called ſo, whom he has conſecrated and ſent into the World? Alluding to the Pſalms ii. and cx. in both which Pſalms mention is made of the Meſſias, as the Son of God, and God.

Some days before his Paſſion he declared that the death of Lazarus had happened, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby, Joh. xi. 4. He affirmed that he had power to raiſe the dead, v. 25. I am the reſurrection and the life, he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet ſhall he live. And he received Martha's Confeſſion in theſe words; Lord, I believe, that thou art the Chriſt the Son of God, which ſhould come into the world, v. 27.

Having kept his laſt Paſſeover with his Diſciples, he promiſed them the Holy Ghoſt, as another Comforter, Paraclet, or Menahem, (by which laſt Name the Jews mean the Meſſias) which ſhews the Holy Ghoſt to be another Perſon. He ſpeaks of this very emphatically, Joh. xiv. 16, 17. I will pray the Father, and he ſhall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever: Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, becauſe it ſees him not, neither knows him: but you know him, for he dwells with you, and ſhall be in you. And again, v. 26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghoſt, whom the Father will ſend in my Name, he ſhall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance. And John xv. 12, 13, 14, 15. He gives the very ſame Notion about him which the Jews had.

He expreſt himſelf ſo plainly concerning his coming from above, that his Diſciples had no further doubts or difficulties about it. John xvi. 27, 28, 29, 30. The Father himſelf loves you, becauſe ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the World. Again, I leave the World, and go to the Father. His Diſciples ſaid unto him, Lo, now ſpeakeſt thou plainly, and ſpeakeſt no proverb. Now are we ſure that thou knoweſt all things, and needeſt not that any man ſhould ask thee. By this we believe that thou cameſt forth from God.

Finding them ſo well informed in the ſpace of four years Diſcipline under him, he puts up a Prayer to God in their behalf, John xvii. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son may alſo glorify thee. As thou haſt given him power over all fleſh, that he ſhould give eternal life to as many as thou haſt given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jeſus Chriſt whom thou haſt ſent. I have glorified thee on the Earth, I have finiſhed the work which thou gaveſt me to do: And now, O Father, glorify thou me, with thine own ſelf, with the glory which I had with thee before the World was. He could not more clearly expreſs his eternal Pre-exiſtence, and ſhew he was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which had appeared to Abraham, but was before Abraham, becauſe he was God. As Philo affirms it in divers places which I have already quoted.

Being by Judas's Treaſon apprehended, he declared that the Angels were his Miniſters, had he been pleaſed to make uſe of their Service, Matt. 26.53. Thinkeſt thou that I cannot now pray to my Father? And he ſhall preſently give me more than twelve Legions of Angels. For, what he ſaid about his asking his Father for them, was, becauſe he was then in a ſtate of Humiliation. He did not ask, when he came attended with them at his giving of the Law on Mount Sinai, nor when Iſaiah ſaw his Glory in the Temple, and heard them ſing, Holy, Holy, Holy. They were then in their Duty, which, as the Jews underſtand, their Prophets ſay is to adore the Meſſias.

Being brought before Caiaphas, at whoſe Houſe the Counſel of the Jews was met, upon Caiaphas his adjuring him by the living God to tell them, whether he was the Chriſt the Son of God, Matth. xxvi. 63. Jeſus ſaid unto him, v. 64. Thou haſt ſaid: Nevertheleſs I ſay unto you; Hereafter ſhall ye ſee the Son of man ſitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Upon which he was condemned to dye as a Blaſphemer. From whence it appears what notion the Jews had of the Meſſias: And that they believed that Son of man ſpoken of, Dan. vii. 13, 14. to be the very Son of God; who had a ſecond Throne ſet for him, and came with the Clouds of Heaven as God: This being the ordinary deſcription the Prophets make of him.

Being condemned as a Blaſphemer, for taking the Title of Jehovah, and of the Son of God, the People, by way of mockery, called him the King of the Jews, the Son of God, and Saviour; which juſtified his Pretenſion. Luke xxiii. 35, 36, 37, 38. And the people ſtood beholding, and the rulers alſo with them derided him, ſaying, He ſaved others, let him ſave himſelf, if he be Chriſt the choſen of God. And the Souldiers alſo ſaid, If thou be the King of the Jews, ſave thy ſelf. And a ſuperſcription was written over him, This is the King of the Jews. And Matt. xxvii. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. They that paſſed by reviled him, ſaying, Save thy ſelf: If thou be the Son of God, come down from the Croſs. Likewiſe alſo the Chief Prieſts ſaid, He ſaved others, himſelf he cannot ſave: If he be the King of Iſrael, let him now come down from the Croſs, and we will believe him. He truſted in God, let him deliver him now, if he will have him; For, he ſaid, I am the Son of God.

He cried upon the Croſs with a loud voice, Eli, Eli, Lamma ſabachthani, My God, my God, why haſt thou forſaken me, Mat. xxvii. 46. Theſe words are the beginning of the 22th. Pſalm, and very agreeable to thoſe words in Pſal. xlv. where he that is God himſelf, or the Pſalmiſt for him, does nevertheleſs call the Father his God; ſaying, O God thy God has anointed thee. Accordingly the Centurion that guarded him, having heard this Cry, and alſo that with which he expired, ſaying, Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit; ſaid, Truly this was the Son of God, Mark xiv. 39.

After his Death, his ſide was run through, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, Joh. xix. 37. relating to that Prophecy, Zech. xii. 10. which the Ancient Jews underſtood of the Meſſias. [Breſhit Rabba on Gen. xxviii. and Rabbi Abenezra on this Text.] And yet the words of that Prophecy come from the mouth of the Lord Jehovah, Zech. xii. 1, 4. ſaying, I will pour upon the Houſe of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jeruſalem, the Spirit of grace and ſupplication, and they ſhall look upon ME whom they have pierced, and they ſhall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only Son.

Being riſen from the Dead the third day, as he had foretold, the Angel that gave the Women the firſt news of it, called him Lord, that is, Jehovah, Mat. xxviii. 6. as the Angel had done, who gave the Shepherds the tidings of his Birth, Luk. ii. 11.

Soon after, he appeared to his Diſciples, and did conſtitute them Heralds of the New Covenant, which he had made with Mankind in his Blood; of which Covenant Jehovah is ſaid to be the Author, Jer. xxxii. 40. I will make an everlaſting Covenant with them: And I will put my fear in their hearts, they ſhall not depart from me. Afterwards he did promiſe to ſend them the Holy Ghoſt, Luk. xxiv. 46, 47, 48, 49. He ſaid to them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Chriſt to ſuffer, and to riſe from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remiſſion of ſins ſhould be preacht in his name, among all Nations, beginning at Jeruſalem. And ye are witneſſes of theſe things. And behold I ſend the promiſe of my Father upon you: But tarry ye in the City of Jeruſalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Before his Aſcenſion he gave them Symbolically the Holy Ghoſt, which he was to ſend fully upon them forty days after, Joh. xx. 22. He breathed on them, and ſaid, receive the Holy Ghoſt.

Thomas not being then preſent, nor believing what others told him, that they had ſeen the Lord Jeſus, Chriſt appear'd to him, and ſo throughly ſatisfied him of the truth of his Reſurrection, that thereupon he remarkably owned him his Lord and his God, v. 28.

He bids them Baptize in the Name of the Trinity, Mat. xxvii. 18, 19, 20. All power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth, Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt, Teaching them to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded you. And lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the World. In which words he viſibly relates to many Perſons, and where he repreſents himſelf as the Shekinah that was always with the people under his conduct.

Being ready to go up into Heaven, he received their Adorations, Luk. xxiv. 51, 52. While he bleſt them he was parted from them, and carried up into Heaven: And they worſhipt him, and returned to Jeruſalem with great joy.

And St. John declares that the end for which he writ his Goſpel, was, That we might believe, that Jeſus is Chriſt the Son of God; and that believing we might have life through his Name, Joh. xx. 31.

I thought it neceſſary, thus in ſhort, to ſum up the chief Particulars which the Four Evangeliſts have obſerved about the Life of our Saviour. To ſhew plainly and briefly to the Reader, that the Goſpel follows the ſame Notions which the Old Teſtament had given of the Meſſias, and which the Jews in Chriſt's days had generally received. Firſt, That in the Divine Nature there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghoſt. Secondly, That the Son, which was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is the promiſed Meſſias, Thirdly, That the Holy Ghoſt was to be given by the Meſſias, and to come, being ſent both by the Father and the Son, as the Son was ſent by the Father to ſave the World.

This is a Subject of moment; our Adverſaries are Men of Parts and Wit. And becauſe, to rid themſelves of all Difficulties in theſe Myſteries, they maintain that the Goſpel propoſes only this one fundamental Article of Faith, That Jeſus, as man, is the Meſſias. It will be convenient to add to what has been obſerved out of the Goſpels, ſome more Obſervations drawn from the Writings of the Apoſtles, and the firſt Chriſtian Writers, to ſhew what Notions they had of theſe things: Namely, the very ſame which are expreſt in the Goſpels, and were then acknowledged by the Jews.

CHAP. XX. That both the Apoſtles and the firſt Chriſtians ſpeaking of the Meſſias, did exactly follow the Notions of the Old Jews, as the Jews themſelves did acknowledge.

IT being of great moment to ſhew that the Apoſtles did not make a new Platform out of their own heads, when they Preached the Goſpel; I will examin ſeveral Hypotheſes of Philo, which the Apoſtles did follow in their Doctrine and ordinary Expreſſions, when they ſpoke of our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt.

Philo maintains that the Ideas of the World were in the Word of God; therefore he calls him the Vertue which made the World, which came out of the True Good, as its Original. De Opif. p. 3, 4, 5.

That the World was made by the Word. Lib. 2. All. Seq. p. 60. and Lib. quod Deus ſit Immut. p. 255. F. He ſays, he is Sermo omnium artifex. Lib. Quis rerum divin. haereſ. p. 388. F. That by it as by an Inſtrument God made the World, Lib. de Cherubim, pag. 100. That it is the Word of him who is not begotten, which made all things. Lib. de Sacr. Abel. pag. 109. That he is the Wiſdom which created all things, and that the Wiſdom is the Word; manifeſtly alluding to the 3d. and 8th. chap. of Proverbs. Lib. de Temul. pag. 190. E.F. and pag. 144. B. and Alleg. Lib. 1. pag. 36. F. and de eo quod deterior. pag. 128.

And theſe very things are taught by St. Paul, Col. ii. and Heb. i. and by St. John in the firſt chap. of his Goſpel.

Philo affirms that the Word of God governs the World. Lib. de Cherub. p. 87. F. G. Lib. de Agric. pag. 152. And he affirms according to the Notion which Solomon gives Prov. 8. that he preſides over the Revolutions which happen in Kingdoms. Lib. Quod Deus ſit Immut. p. 248.

And this very thing St. Paul affirms, Heb. i. 2, 3. where he ſays, he is the heir of all things, and upholds all things; that is, guides and governs them.

Philo ſays, that the Eternal Word appeared to Abraham. Lib. de Sacrif. Abel. pag. 108. And elſe where he names that Angel or Word Jehovah. Lib. de Confuſ. Ling. pag. 290. In the ſame ſenſe St. John ſaith that he was the Eternal Word, though made fleſh in time, chap. i. v. 14.

Philo maintains that Wiſdom (which according to him is the ſame with the Word) was the Rock in the Wilderneſs. Lib. 3. Alleg. Seg. p. 853. A. In the ſame ſenſe St. Paul affirms that the Rock was Chriſt, 1 Cor. x. 4.

Philo ſaith that it was the Word which appeared to the Jews upon Mount Sinai. Lib. de Conf. Ling. pag. 265. D. That God ſpoke to the Jews when he gave them his Laws. Lib. de Migr. Abrah. pag. 309. D. E. F. That himſelf immediately gave his Law, Lib. de Decal. pag. 576. and 592. And Lib. de Praem. p. 705. That he created the Voice which was heard by the Jews, Lib. de Decal. pag. 577. F. And this very thing St. Paul affirms, Heb. xii. 25, 26. where he ſuppoſes that Chriſt uttered that Voice upon Mount Sinai.

R. Solomon owns that the Meſſias is pointed at Pſal. xxxvi. 10. by the Light of which the Pſalmiſt there ſpeaks: And Pſal. cxix. 105. Iſaias likewiſe means him, ch. lx. 1. and v. 19, 20. he ſays that the Lord was to be that Light, naming him God. Micah alſo, ch. xii. 18. ſays that the Lord was to be a Light to his people. Daniel ſays, ch. i. 22. that the Light dwells with God. And Malachi, ch. iv. 2. names him the Sun of Righteouſneſs.

Theſe very Expreſſions St. John has followed ch. 1. becauſe the Meſſias was to be God indeed; becauſe he was that Jehovah who had gone before Iſrael, Exod. xiii. 21. whom the Jews affirm to have been the Word, as we obſerved before.

If any one deſires to know how the Apoſtles came to apply to the Meſſias thoſe things which the Jews underſtood of God's Word.: He may for his ſatisfaction obſerve the following things.

Philo owns that the Word was the Eternal Son of God, Lib. Quod Deus ſit Immut. p. 232. F. G. But withal that this Eternal Word is ſpoken of Zech. v. 12. Behold the Man whoſe name is the Branch, or the Eaſt acccording to the Greek Tranſlation, Ibid. He calls him the firſt-born, and the Creator of the World, Lib. de Confuſ. Ling. pag. 258.

Now the Jews did unanimouſly underſtand that place of Zechary of the Meſſias, as appears by their Targum, by their moſt ancient Midraſhim, and by the conſent of the latter Jews, as Abarbanel, who confutes R. Solomon Jarchi, by whom they were applied to Zorobabel.

This being ſo, what could be more natural for the Apoſtles, than to teach that the Meſſias was to be that Eternal Word; and that that Word was to appear as the true Meſſias?

Another Ground upon which they applied to the Meſſias what the Old Jews underſtood of the Word was this: The Old Jews did own that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which guided the Iſraelites in the Deſert, was their Shepherd. Philo de Agric. pag. 152. From whence they concluded that the 23d. Pſalm, The Lord is my Shepherd, was to be underſtood of the Meſſias, Phil. de Mutat. Nom. pag. 822, 823.

The Apoſtles therefore did of courſe apply to the Word, as him who was to be the Meſſias, thoſe Propheſies which mention the Meſſias as the Shepherd, whom God was to ſend to his people. Iſa. xl. 10, 11. Jer. xxxi. 10. Ezek. xxxiv. 11, 12. and ch. xxxiv. 24. Mich. ii. 12. Zech. xiii. 7. For all theſe places are underſtood of the Meſſias, by the Ancient Paraphraſes, and by the Midraſhim.

The Old Jews did own that that Word was God, that he had made the World; and that he was to be the promiſed Meſſias. Upon this Ground the Apoſtles applied to the Meſſias thoſe places of the Old Teſtament, which ſay that Jehovah made Heaven and Earth, as St. Paul did, Heb. i. where he applys to Jeſus Chriſt, as the confeſſed Meſſias, the words of Pſal. cii. 26.

Philo affirms that the Word was the true and Eternal Prieſt, Lib. de Profug. pag. 364, 365. That it was he that divided the Victims, when he appeared to Abraham, Lib. Quis divin. rerum haer. pag. 390. A. 399. and 401. That he is God's Prieſt, Lib. de Somn. p. 463.

From this common Doctrine it was natural to conclude that the Meſſias being the ſame with the Word, was to be the High Prieſt of the New Teſtament, as St. Paul explains it at large in his Epiſtle to the Hebrews.

Philo ſays that the Word is Mediator between God and Man, Lib. Quis divin. rer. haer. pag. 398. A. That he makes Attonement with God, Lib. de Somniis, p. 447. E.F.

From this it was eaſie to ſee that the Meſſias was to be indued with a Noble Prieſthood, eſpecially David having mentioned it, Pſal. cx. repreſenting the Meſſias, whom the Chaldaick Paraphraſe often calls the Word of God, as being a Prieſt after the order of Melchiſedec. And this St. Paul affirms likewiſe in his Epiſtle to the Hebrews.

Philo ſays that God having appeared by the Word to the Patriarchs, and to Moſes, ſpoke by the ſame Word to the Iſraelites; and that he was the Prince of Angels, Lib. Quis rer. divin. haer. pag. 397. F. G. And the Light and the Doctor of his people, Lib. de Somn. pag. 448. calling the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dei, de Nom. Mutat. pag. 810. E.

It was therefore but agreeably to theſe Notions, that the Apoſtles applied to the Meſſias, thoſe places of the Old Teſtament, where God promiſed to ſpeak to his new people, by the Meſſias, as Deut. xviii. 15, 16. which St. Peter, Act. iii. 22. and St. Stephen, Act. vii. 37. apply to our Saviour; and that St. John calls him the Light of the World, Joh. i.

It is neceſſary to take notice of theſe Principles of the Old Jews: Firſt, that we may well underſtand the reaſon for which Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles quoted ſeveral places as relating to the Meſſias, which are meant of Jehovah in the Old Teſtament.

Secondly, That we may ſee for what reaſon, they ſuppoſed, as a thing owned by the Jews, for whom they writ, that thoſe places related to the Meſſias, though the Jews applied them to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

And, Thirdly, That we may underſtand how naturally they applied to the Meſſias thoſe places of the Old Teſtament, which by the confeſſion of the Old Jews, related to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

And certainly the meaneſt capacity may apprehend that if under the Old Teſtament God acted by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (though that Diſpenſation was much below that of the New) much more he was to act under the New, by that ſame 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by his own Son, as St. Paul concludes, Heb. i.

What I ſaid of the Apoſtles, and the other Writers of the New Teſtament, that they exactly followed the Doctrines of the Old Jews, which followed the Divine Revelation in the Old Teſtament, may juſtly be ſaid of Juſtin Martyr, and of thoſe who both before and after him writ in defenſe of our Saviour's Divinity. I need not quote many of them, to ſhew that they went upon the ſame Grounds with the Jews before Chriſt.

It will be enough to examine Juſtin's Writings; for, he diſputed with a Jew, who received no other Scripture beſides the Old Teſtament, and therefore he could not convince him, but by the Authority of thoſe Books. And if his method be well examined, it will be found that he argues all along as the Apoſtles did; viz. from the ſenſe received by the Jews; ſuppoſing that ſuch and ſuch places of Scripture, from which he draws conſequences, were applied to the Meſſias by them.

Juſtin having proved that nothing certain can be learned from Philoſophy, by Plato's example, who entertained groſs Errors about the Nature of God, and of the Soul: And declared that he came to the knowledg of the Truth only by the help of Divine Revelation. He affirms in general that the Chriſtian Religion which he had imbraced, is all grounded upon the Doctrine of Moſes and the Prophets. He does particularly inſtance in that of our Saviour's Perſon and Office, though the Jews lookt upon it as impious, that Chriſtians, as they reckoned, truſted in a Man Crucified.

He lays for foundation, that the Scripture ſpeaks of two Comings of Chriſt; the one indeed Glorious, mentioned, Dan. vii. and Pſal. cx. and Pſal. lxxii. But to be preceded by another altogether mean and deſpicable, as David had alſo foretold, Pſal. cx. at the end.

He maintains that the Meſſias is clearly deſcribed as God, Pſal. xlvii. where he is called the Lord, our King, and the King of all the Earth. Pſal. xxiv. where he is called the Lord ſtrong and mighty, and the King of Glory. Pſal. xcix. where it is ſaid that he ſpoke to the Iſraelites in the cloudy Pillar. And Pſal. xlv. where he is named God's anointed, the Lord God, and propoſed as the object of our Adoration.

He affirms that Chriſt was to be God, and though the ſame in nature, yet a different perſon from him who made Heaven and Earth: He proves by the ſeveral Apparitions, where a true God is mentioned, appearing to Abraham in the Plains of Mamre, Gen. xviii. 1. To Jacob in a Dream, Gen. xxxi. with whom he wreſtled in the figure of a Man, Gen. xxxii. and aſſiſted him in his Journey to Padan Aram. And to Moſes he appeared in the Burning-buſh, Exod. iii.

He maintains that he was to be God, becauſe he executed the Counſel of God: Hence he is named by Joſhua the Prince of the Army; and an Angel which is the Lord. And becauſe the Scripture deſcribes him as begotten of God, and called the Son, the Wiſdom of God, and the Word, Prov. viii.

He affirms that God ſpoke to the Word, when he ſaid, Let us make Man in our image, Gen. i. 26. And, Behold the Man is become as one of us, Gen. iii. 22. which alſo clearly argues a Plurality.

He proves from Pſal. ii. This day have I begotten thee; that his Generation is from all Eternity.

And from Pſal. xv. that the Church ought to adore Chriſt, becauſe it is ſaid, He is thy Lord, worſhip thou him.

He repeats the ſame things towards the end of his Dialogue, where he proves that the Meſſias appeared to Moſes, Exod. vi. 2. To Jacob, Gen. xxxii. 30. To Abraham, Gen. xviii. 16, 17. To Moſes, Numb. xi. 3. and Deut. iii. 18. and to all the Patriarchs and Prophets.

He prevents an Objection, (that this was not a Perſon, but a Vertue from the Father, which is called ſometimes an Angel, ſometimes his Glory, ſometimes a Man, ſometimes the Word.) By ſhewing that the Scripture makes out firſt a real diſtinction between the Son and the Father, as between Jehovah and Jehovah, Gen. xix. 24. 2ly, a true Plurality, as Gen. iii. 22. the Man is become as one of Us. 3ly, a true Filiation, as Prov. viii. whence he concludes, that he that is begotten is different from him who begot him.

He anſwers Mr. N.'s Objection, borrowed from the Jews, who quote thoſe words of Iſaiah, where God ſays, He will not give his Glory to another. By ſaying that the Son is the Glory of the Father, and that in this reſpect he is not another Being from him. Theſe words have another ſenſe in the Targum, but which ſeems an addition. For they are thus rendered, I will not give my Glory to another Nation: That is, my Shekinah ſhall not go from the Jews to another people.

I ſhall not mention here that which relates to our Saviour's Office, eſpecially his eſtate of Humiliation, which Juſtin proves by Texts taken out of the Old Teſtament. I ſhall only obſerve: 1ſt. That he quotes all the places of Scripture which he uſes, as relating to the Meſſias by the confeſſion of the Jews; and thus he ſhews by the circumſtances of thoſe places, which had obliged the Jews to apply them to the promiſed Meſſias.

2ly. That he confutes the falſe Explications which the Jews gave to many places of Scripture; for inſtance that which underſtands (Iſa. ix.) of King Hezekiah; for this miſtake was older than Juſtin; ſome Jews in his days had revived it, and the Author of it was not Rabbi Hillel, who lived after Juſtin, but he made himſelf famous by propagating it. That Rabbi by the deſtruction of Jeruſalem having loſt all hopes of the Meſſias whom God had promiſed them, made this a Maxim, There is to be no Meſſias in Iſrael, becauſe they had him in the days of Hezekiah King of Judah. Gemara ad Sanhedr. cap. Chelek.

It may be Mr. N. will be ſomething diſpoſed from the method which Juſtin uſed to believe, that he advanced nothing new againſt Trypho the Jew, who probably was that famous R. Tarphon, ſo often mentioned in the Miſhnah, but whoſe Name the latter Jews have corrupted. But I will if poſſible go further to convince him, and prevent all his Objections. To that end I will make it appear that moſt places of Scripture which Juſtin uſed, were objected to the Jews by the Chriſtians before Juſtin's Birth. I prove it thus. Juſtin was born at ſooneſt 105. years after Chriſt. But it appears by the Teſtimony of the Jews, that long before, their Doctors were divided amongſt themſelves about the manner in which thoſe Objections were to be anſwered, which the Chriſtians made to them, drawn from the Old Teſtament.

R. Eliezer, who lived under Trajan, had this Maxim, Study the Law with diligence, that thou mayſt be able to anſwer the Epicureans. Beth Iſrael. fol. 105. col. 3. R. Jochanan explains that Maxim of R. Eliezer, as regarding not only Heathens, but chiefly the Jews who had renounced their Religion. And who could theſe Apoſtate Jews be? It is eaſie to gueſs, by the Objections which they made to the Jews, and by the Maxim which R. Jochanan propoſes, to prevent the Jews from being overſeen in their diſputes with theſe Jews.

In a word, they were Chriſtians, who proved that there was a Plurality, and a Trinity, in the Divine Nature; Alledging to this effect againſt the Jews thoſe places out of the Law and of the Prophets, where mention is made of God in the Plural Number.

As Gen. i. 26. Let us make Man in our Image. Gen. xi. 7. Let us go down and confound their Language. Gen. xxxv. 7. where Elohim, that is, the Gods appeared to Jacob. Deut. iv. 7. What Nation has the Gods ſo near unto them?

2 Sam. vii. 23. What Nation is like Iſrael, whom the Gods went to redeem.

Dan. vii. 9. Till the Thrones or Seats were ſet, and the Ancient of days did ſit.

Exod. xxiv. 1. where God bids Moſes come up to the Lord.

Exod. xxiii. 21. where God having promiſed to ſend his Angel, bids them beware of him, becauſe he would not pardon their tranſgreſſions, for Gods name was in him.

And Gen. xix. 24. The Lord rained upon Sodom fire from the Lord.

Theſe nine Arguments the Chriſtians made uſe of to prove a Plurality in the Godhead. And we find that they were grounded upon the exact quotation of the Hebrew Text, not the Greek Verſion. For the Greek leaves room only to few of theſe remarks, which ſhews that Juſtin, who was born a Heathen, had them from Men bred among the Jews, who had read the Bible in Hebrew, and had made their Obſervations upon the Original Text of Moſes, and other Sacred Writers.

Beth Iſra. Ibid.If a Man ſhould ask, how ancient were thoſe Objections about a Plurality in God. I anſwer that they were as old as the Preaching of the Goſpel amongſt the Jews. For, R. Meir, R. Akiba's Maſter, had endeavoured to anſwer in his Sermons the Objection taken out of Gen. xix. 24. now R. Meir was born under Nero, and Akiba died in Hadrian's days, about 120. years after Chriſt.

Neither were the Jews agreed in the manner of anſwering thoſe Objections, about a Plurality in the Divine Nature.

1ſt. They thought they might anſwer moſt of them by this general Maxim, That God never did any thing without conſulting with his Family above, that is, the Angels. And this they pretended to prove by theſe words, Dan. iv. 17. This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the Holy Ones. Which anſwer was deſtroyed by what others ſaid, that God ſpoke of himſelf in the Plural Number; that Moſes did alſo ſpeak of God, they having regard to his Sovereign dignity. Though at the ſame time they obſerved that in thoſe places, Moſes joined a Verb in the Singular with that Noun in the Plural, to aſſert the Unity of God, and for fear the Reader ſhould think there were many Gods. Thus when Men diſpute againſt the Truth, what one of them builds up, is preſently pulled down by another.

2ly. They were alſo divided about the Thrones ſet, Dan. vii. 9. For to what purpoſe many Thrones? if there were but one Perſon?Beth. Iſr. ibid. R. Akiba maintained that there was one for God, and another for David. He ſeems by David to have underſtood the Meſſias. But R. Joſe lookt upon this as impious, and affirmed that one of theſe Thrones was ſet for God's Juſtice, the other for his Mercy. R. Akiba was at laſt convinced, and received this explication, which R. Eliezer Son of Azaria hearing, was ſo far from approving of, that he ſent away Akiba with indignation, and told him, Why doſt thou meddle with expounding the Scripture? Go to the army and fight; this he ſaid, becauſe Akiba had followed Barcosba. As for R. Eliezer himſelf, he ſaid that theſe two Thrones ſignified only that there was one for God, and a footſtool to it.

3ly. They were hard put to it by the Objections drawn from Exod. xxiii. 21. about that Angel whom God had promiſed to guide Iſrael, in whom God's Name was to be, and who is called by the Jews, Metatron. For, ſaid the Chriſtians, If the name of Jehovah was in him, he was to be adored. This the Jews evaded by altering the Text, and reading with the LXX. Thou ſhalt not rebell againſt him; or, Thou ſhalt not change me with him; that is to ſay, for him. When the Chriſtians objected that this Angel muſt needs be God, becauſe God ſaid of him, he ſhall not pardon thy tranſgreſſions, and the property of God is to forgive ſins, as the Jews did object to Chriſt; They anſwered, This is our opinion, therefore we did not receive him as Ambaſſador.

4ly. In time they took this prudent method in their diviſions, they forbad their people to diſpute with Chriſtians upon thoſe Subjects, unleſs they were well uſed to the Controververſie; Let him diſpute with Hereticks, that can anſwer them; as R. Idith. But if a man can't anſwer them, let him forbear diſputing. This was the Counſel or Law of Rab. Nachman, one of the Authors cited in the Ghemara, de Sanhedrin, ch. 4. §. 11. In Beth Iſrael. For, R. Eliezer, who lived under Trajan, had obſerved that the reading of the Old Teſtament made the Jews turn Hereticks: i. e. Chriſtians; Himſelf was ſuſpected to be inclinable that way. So that in after times they preferred much the ſtudy of the Miſhna, that is to ſay, of their Traditions, before that of the Law it ſelf.

CHAP. XXI. That we find in the Jewiſh Authors, after the time of Jeſus Chriſt, the ſame Notions which Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles grounded their Diſcourſes on to the Jews.

ALtho what I have ſaid ſhews clearly that all the Notions which are in the New Teſtament are exactly agreeable to thoſe that are in the Old Jewiſh Church, yet I believe that I can add ſome light to it by ſome particular remarks upon ſome places of the New Teſtament, which are mightily cleared, if compared with the Ideas of the Jews ſince Jeſus Chriſt his time. And this (I hope) will ſerve to ſhew that the Apoſtles did advance nothing but what was commonly received by the Learned Men of the Synagogue, and that they have offered no violence to the Sacred Context of the Old Teſtament, but that they quoted it according to its natural ſenſe; thoſe very Ideas being common till this day among the Learned Jews, and among thoſe very Men who applying themſelves fully to the Studies of the Holy Scripture, are lookt upon as the Keepers and Depoſitaries of Tradition. I will bring thoſe remarks without an exact niceneſs or care as to their order, chooſing, to follow only the order of the New Teſtament.

If any one would know why St. Matthew, ch. ii. 18. has quoted the words of Jeremy, ch. xxxi. 15. Rachel weeping for her children becauſe they were not. He may conceive the reaſon of ſuch a quotation, if he knows that the Jews do look upon the Meſſias as the ſervant which is ſpoken of by Iſaiah, ch. liii. See Zohar, fol. 235, in Geneſis, and the Meſſias being deſcribed there, as a Sheep, that is called Rachel in Hebrew by the Prophet; they have taken occaſion to apply that Oracle of Rachel's weeping, not to the Wife of Jacob, but to the Shekinah, which they call Rachel. See R. Menach. of Reka, fol. 41. col. 2. & fol: 42. col. 4.

No body can read the 5th. of St. Matthew, but he muſt take notice with what authority Jeſus Chriſt ſpeaks upon the Mount in that famous Sermon, in which he vindicates the Law from the corruption of the Phariſees. But I ſay unto you. But he will be more ſenſible of that, if he reflects upon the common Notion of the Synagogue, in which the proper name of the Shekinah is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; as, I the Lord have ſpoken. R. Menach. fol. 33. col. 4. & fol. 40. col. 4. and that 'twas the Shekinah which gave the Law upon Mount Sinai. R. Menach. fol. 67. col. 3. & 68. col. 1. They cannot but take notice of the Title of the Bridegroom, which is given by John Baptiſt to Jeſus Chriſt, and which Jeſus Chriſt aſſumes, Mat. ix. 15. It is evident that they make an alluſion to Pſal. 45. and to the Song of Songs, which is of the ſame argument. But this will be clearer to thoſe that know that the Jews maintain that 'tis the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the Shekinah, which gave the Law, and then ſought after Iſrael as his Bride, that St. John Baptiſt ſpeaks of himſelf as the Paranymph, and as Moſes who ſaid, that he came out to meet God, Exod. xix. 17. as it is noted in Pirke Eliezer, ch. 41. and that 'tis the Shekinah that is ſpoken of in that Pſal. xlv. under the name of the King; that the name of the King expreſt the Meſſias when abſolutely uſed, Zohar in Exod. fol. 225. and that they acknowledg in this an inexplicable myſtery. R. Menach. fol. 7. col. 3. & fol. 143. col. 4.

Jeſus Chriſt ſaith to the people who followed him, Mat. xi. 29. Take my yoke upon you, for my yoke is eaſie. If a Man ponders that expreſſion, he ſhall find that Jeſus Chriſt ſpeaks as God. And indeed nothing is more common than to ſee the Prophets reproach the Jews that they have caſt off the yoke of God. Jer. ii. 20. and ch. v. 5. But who doth not ſee that he ſpeaks as the very Son of God, who is ſpoken of, Pſal. ii. 3. the Shekinah who gave the Law upon Mount Sinai, and ſo had the Sovereign Authority to bring Men under his Law, let their authority be never ſo great.

We ſee Mat. xxi. 13. why Jeſus Chriſt ſpeaks of the Temple, as the Houſe of his Father, and as his own Houſe; and the Jews perceived well enough that he made himſelf God. But he did that according to the Notions of the Jews, who maintain till this day, that the Shekinah, or the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are the ſame, and that the Temple was dedicated to God, and to his Shekinah. R. Men. fol. 63. col. 1. & fol. 70. col. 2. & fol. 73. col. 3. & 4. & fol. 79. col. 3.

So in the ſame Chapter, v. 42. Jeſus Chriſt quotes theſe words from Pſal. cxviii. 22. The ſtone which the builders refuſed, &c. and applies them to himſelf. But he did that, to ſhew them that he was the true Shekinah. For this is the conſtant Title that they give to the Shekinah, or to the Meſſias. See R. Menach. fol. 8. col. 2. & fol. 53. col. 1. & 3. He is the Stone, and the Shepherd of Iſrael.

How often, ſaith Jeſus Chriſt, Mat. xxiii. 37. would I have gathered thy Children together, even as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her wings: What ſignifies that expreſſion? A Jew underſtands it very well, that Jeſus Chriſt had a mind to tell them that he was the Shekinah. For 'tis the common Notion of the Jews till this day, That the people of Iſrael is under the Wings of the Shekinah. R. Men. fol. 107. col. 4.

Jeſus Chriſt ſpeaks to his Diſciples, Matth. xxvi. 53. He ſhall preſently give me more than twelve Legions of Angels. Thoſe who read thoſe words do not underſtand them well, if they do not know, that Jeſus Chriſt ſpeaks as the Shekinah in the Camp of Iſrael, and that he hath the twelve Legions of Angels as the twelve Armies of the twelve Tribes, at his Command, and under his Authority; this is the Doctrine of the Jews. R. Menach. fol. 51. col. 3.

Pilate put upon the Croſs the King of the Jews, Providence having ordered it ſo, becauſe 'twas the Title of the Shekinah, or of the Meſſias, as you find it often in the Zohar. And Jeſus Chriſt on the Croſs, make uſe of Pſal. xxii. not only becauſe he would ſhew the accompliſhment of that Prophecy, but alſo becauſe 'twas the common Idea of the Nation which laſts till this day, that Pſal. xxii. is to be referred to that righteous, and to the Shekinah which was promiſed to Iſrael as his Saviour. R. Men. fol. 62. col. 2.

Jeſus Chriſt promiſeth to his Apoſtles to remain or be with them till the end of the world, Mat. xxviii. 20. What is the import of ſuch a promiſe, but that he had a mind to tell them, that he was the Shekinah by which God remaineth in Iſrael, according to a promiſe of the like nature, as it is acknowledged, by the Jews. R. Men. fol. 85. col. 4.

St. Luke takes notice ch. v. 23. that Jeſus Chriſt proves his right to forgive Sins by curing the ſick of the Palſie; but he doth that, to prove that Jeſus Chriſt was willing to ſhew that he was the Shekinah, becauſe of the power of forgiving Sins, which the Jews allow to the Shekinah as its proper Character. R. Men. fol. 84. col. 3.

The ſame St. Luke ſaith ch. xi. 20. that the people who ſaw a great Miracle wrought by Jeſus Chriſt, exclaimed, Here is the finger of God. Why hath he made that remark? Becauſe 'twas a true confeſſion that they acknowledged him to be the Shekinah. For till this day it is one of the Titles which they give to the Shekinah, which they look upon as the cauſe of all Miraculous virtues. R. Menach. fol. 62. col. 1.

St. John ſpeaking of the Meſſias before he was in the Fleſh, calls it the Word, he ſaith that the Word was God, and that it was with God; that all things were created by it, and that nothing was made without it. This is exactly what the Jews teach of the Wiſdom which is the Memra, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whom they conceive to have been in the boſom of God, and being ſo, the Amon, the Son, or as it is the Omen, the Creator of all things. R. Menach. fol. 1. col. 1, 2. where he quotes the moſt authentick Authors of the Synagogue, who agree exactly upon that Notion.

It is clear that St. John has called him the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by relation to the Hiſtory of the Creation, in which theſe words, And God ſaid, are ſo often repeated. And indeed till this day the Jews derive the Title of Memra da Jehovah from this repetition; and they take notice that Moſes hath made a vaſt difference between theſe words vajedabber, where he ſpeaks to Men in giving the Laws, and the word Vajomer, which is uſed in the firſt of Geneſis. You ſee that remark in Men. fol. 65. col. 2. & fol. 124. col. 2. & fol. 154. col. 1. & col. 2.

It is viſible that the ſame St. John hath affected the term of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ch. 1. v. 14. when he ſpeaks of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſuppoſing that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Memra, and the Shekinah are the ſame, and that is acknowledged by the Jews, who maintain that the Memra, ſo many times ſpoken of in their Targums, is the Jehovah, the Angel of the Covenant, the Angel Redeemer whom Jacob invoked, Gen. xlviii. 15. this very Ruler of Iſrael, to whom they refer all things related in the Books of Moſes. Men. fol. 59. col. 2. And ſuch an expreſſion of St. John is the more to be remark'd, becauſe he manifeſtly looks upon the words of Jeſus Chriſt to the Jews, Joh. v. You have not the Word of God dwelling in you, which St. Athanaſius hath well judged to be underſtood of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the Shekinah, not of the Doctrine of the Law, as many Interpreters would have it to be underſtood.

The ſame St. John ſaith, ch. i. 18. That the Father never appeared; which he hath from Jeſus Chriſt, who ſaith ſo, Joh. vi. 46. And all that, according to the Notion of the Jews, who acknowledging the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Angel that is the Meſſenger of God, refer to it all the Appearances under the Old Diſpenſation, and have eſtabliſhed as a Maxim, That the Shekinah is called Thou, and the God abſconded is call'd He. R. Men. fol. 22. col. 2.

John Baptiſt ſpeaks of Jeſus Chriſt as of the Lamb which takes away the ſins of the world, Joh. i. 29. The alluſion to the Type of the Paſchal Lamb, is ſenſible enough, but it is more ſenſible if we conſider two things, which are commonly taught among the Jews; firſt, that 'tis the Shekinah that delivered Iſrael out of Egypt. 2ly. That the Shekinah was typified by the Paſchal Lamb. R. Menach. fol. 5. col. 1.

Jeſus Chriſt ſaith, Joh. ch. iii. 13. that he deſcended from Heaven, which is the ſtyle of the Jews, who acknowledg that the Shekinah, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , was he that deſcended from Heaven in all the Appearances of God to the People of old, as to judge Sodom, &c. R. Men. fol. 36. col. 2.

Jeſus Chriſt ſaith, Joh. ch. v. 22, & 26. That God gave all judgment to the Son, that the Son hath the life in himſelf. All that according to the ſtyle of the Jews touching the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For they refer thoſe words to the Shekinah, He ſhall judge the world in righteouſneſs. R. Men. fol. 46. col. 1. & fol. 122. col. 4. And ſo the Zohar mentions that it is he which is ſpoken of in theſe words, Thou quickens all things, the word Thou being the proper Name of Adonai, that is, of the Shekinah. R. Menach. fol. 2. col. 1, & 2.

He ſpeaks of himſelf as of the Manna, and of his coming down from Heaven, and by that he ſhews that he was the Shekinah. For the Jews (as Philo witneſſes) had that Idea of the Shekinah's being the Manna, and that it was promiſed that he ſhould come down from Heaven as the Manna did. See R. Men. fol. 65. col. 3. & fol. 137, & 138. col. 3.

He ſaith, Before Abraham was I am, to ſhew that he was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as well as the Meſſias, of whom Micah ſaith, that he was Mikkedem, which expreſſion the Jews relate to the Eternity of the Divine Eſſence, from which the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the Memra proceeds. R. Men. fol. 12. col. 1.

He ſaith to the Jews, Joh. xiv. 6. No man cometh unto the Father but by me; to him to the Jews, that he was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For their Maxim is, That they cannot approach to the Eternal King in the Sanctuary, but by the Shekinah. R. Men. fol. 107. col. 2.

Jeſus Chriſt ſaith of his Father, The Father is greater than I; but in theſe very words he ſhews he was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , becauſe the Jews believe till this day, that although the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Jehovah, nevertheleſs the Father is the Superior Light, and they call it the great Luminary. R. Men. fol. 135. col. 2.

He ſaith to his Diſciples, Joh. xv. 16. Whatſoever ye ſhall ask of the Father in my Name, he may give it you; to hint to them that he was the Shekinah, by whom they were to have acceſs to the Father. The ſame of whom God ſaid, My Name is in him, as the Jews acknowledge. R. Menach. fol. 56. col. 3. & fol. 53. col. 4.

He ſpeaks of the Holy Ghoſt, Joh. xv. 26. as proceeding from the Father; and the Jews have this Idea, when they ſuppoſe, that the third Enumeration or Perſon, which they name Bina, and which they render by the Holy Ghoſt, as you ſee in the famous Book, Saare Ora, proceeds from the firſt by the ſecond. So Zohar, and the Book Habbahir, quoted by R. Menach. fol. 3. col. 1.

In the ſame Chapter he repreſents his Emanation from the Father as the Jews conceived the Emanation of the Wiſdom, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from the firſt Enumeration, from which it draws all the Influxes and Bleſſings. This is the Doctrine of R. Nechounia ben Cana, and of the Rabboth quoted by R. Menac. fol. 1. col. 2.

He ſaith Joh. xvii. 21. That all may be one as thou Father art in me, and I in thee. Juſt according to the Idea of the Jews, who ſay of the time of the Meſſias, that God then ſhall be one, and his Name one, Zech. xiv. R. Men. fol. 135. col. 4.

We ſee in the Acts of the Apoſtles, ch. vii. 52. St. Stephen reproaching the Jews, that they ſold the juſt for Money: What is the Ground which St. Stephen builds upon? It is clear according to the Jewiſh Notions, who give to the Shekinah the name of Juſt, and apply to him the words of Amos, ch. ii. 6. where it is ſpoken of the juſt ſold for Money. R. Men. fol. 17. col. 3. & fol. 19. col. 2.

St. Paul, Act. xx. 28. ſaith that God hath redeemed the Church by his Blood; and that according the Jewiſh Notions, whoſe conſtant Doctrine is, That the Salvation of Iſrael is to be made by God himſelf, who refer to him Pſal. xxii. and the place of Zechary, ch. ix. 9. and who pretend that the Shekinah ſhall be their Redeemer, R. Men. fol. 19. col. 4. & fol. 58. col. 4. & fol. 59. col. 1.

The ſame St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. calls Jeſus Chriſt, the Adam from above; ſhewing that he followed the Notions of the Jews, who call the Shekinah, the Adam from above, the heavenly Adam, the Adam bleſſed, which are the Titles which they give only to God, R. Men. fol. 14. col. 3.

He makes a long and deep Reflection, Epheſ. v. upon the love of Jeſus Chriſt to the Church, who gave himſelf for her Redemption; he conſiders the Church as his Wife; and ſeeks in the firſt Match between Adam and Eve, a great and a deep Myſtery, and a Type of that between Jeſus Chriſt and the Church. In all theſe he follows the Jewiſh Notions, who look upon the Shekinah as the Bride of the Church. R. Men. fol. 15. col. 3.

St. Paul, Hebr. vi, and vii. conſiders Melchiſedek as a Type of Jeſus Chriſt, and that according to the Notion of the Jews who agree that Melchiſedek was the Type of the Shekinah, which they call the King of Peace, and the Juſt. R. Men. fol. 18. col. 1. & fol. 31. col. 1.

He calls God, Hebr. x. a conſuming fire; and applies to Jeſus Chriſt that very Idea. But he ſpeaks ſo, after the Jewiſh manner, for they believe the power of judging the World belongs to the Shekinah, and they refer to him what is ſaid in Exodus, that God is a conſuming fire. R. Menach. fol. 6. col. 4. & fol. 8. col. 3.

He ſuppoſes Hebr. xii. that Jeſus Chriſt gave the Law, and ſpoke upon Mount Sinai, but this, according to the Jewiſh Idea of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Shekinah, which they believe to have given the Law, and to have appeared then, and to have ſpoken with the Iſraelites. R. Men. fol. 56. col. 2.

Jeſus Chriſt calls himſelf, Apoc. i. the Firſt and the Laſt, becauſe Iſaiah hath ſpoken ſo, ch. xlix. but chiefly according to the Notion of the Jews who did acknowledge the Word to be the firſt King, and that he ſhall be the laſt; all Nations being to be ſubjected to him after the deſtruction of the fourth, and laſt Monarchy ſpoken of in the iid. and in the viith. of Daniel. He calls himſelf King of Kings, Apoc. xix. 16. But exactly according to the Jewiſh Notion, which is that ſuch a Title belongs to Jehovah, and to the Shekinah, that is Jehovah. R. Men. fol. 64. col. 2.

So in the laſt Chapter of the Revelation, xxii. 2. you ſee that it is ſpoken of the Tree of Life, as of the Eternal Food. What is that Tree of Life according to the Jewiſh Notion? They conceive 'tis the very Shekinah, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who is the food of Angels, as ſaith R. Men. fol. 65. col. 2. & fol. 66. col. 4. And they give him that Name in relation to the happineſs it will cauſe to thoſe which ſhall be ſaved by him. R. Men. fol. 143. col. 3. & fol. 146. col. 1.

I could eaſily enlarge much more upon this Article, but it ſhould be more fit for a Comment upon the New Teſtament, than for ſuch a Work which we are now engaged in. What has been ſaid ſhews ſufficiently that the firſt Chriſtians followed exactly the ſteps of the Apoſtles, and that the Apoſtles and Jeſus Chriſt himſelf followed exactly the Notions of the ancient Synagogue.

CHAP. XXII. An Anſwer to ſome Exceptions taken from Expreſſions uſed in the Goſpel.

WHat has been ſaid about the Notions which the Writers of the Goſpels, the Apoſtles and the firſt Chriſtians had of the Meſſias, ſhews plainly that they were the ſame that were then common among the Jews. But becauſe ſome Objections are made againſt what has been ſaid, I will for the ſatisfaction of the Reader, examine thoſe which ſeem moſt material, and might prejudice which I have already eſtabliſhed.

The firſt is raiſed from our Saviour's Expreſſions when he ſpeaks of himſelf: It is that which St. Chryſoſtome T. i. Hom. 32. obſerves, that although Chriſt declared himſelf to be God, (as appears by his way of ſpeaking all along) and named himſelf the Son of God; yet he never actually took upon him the Name or Title of God, while he lived upon Earth. Which ſeems very ſtrange, for there was great reaſon to expect that he ſhould have expreſt himſelf more clearly upon ſo important an Article, on which the Authority of the Chriſtian Religion does depend.

I anſwer firſt, that Chriſt uſed that caution for fear of deſtroying in the opinion of 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from whom the Life of all Creatures is derived, as is ſaid Joh. i.

A ſecond Objection is taken from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , tuus de coelo à regalibus ſedibus durus debellator; and ſo in ſome other places of the Book of Eccleſiaſticus, as chap. i. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

I know that Grotius pretends upon the place of Wiſdom, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I pray the Reader only to remark this, that if the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſignifies here a created Angel, then it was the current Notion of the Synagogue concerning the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; ſo that when St. John ſpeaks of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in his firſt Chapter, either 'twas 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 'tis ſo ſtrange an Accuſation, and without any ground, that it came in no body's head before Grotius.

2dly. I anſwer, That according to St. Athanaſius's meaning, Jeſus Chriſt himſelf ſpeaks of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when he ſaith, John v. 8. Ye have not the Word of God remaining in you. And 'tis true that it cannot be underſtood of the Law and Prophecy, which St. Paul affirms to have been truſted to the Jewiſh Nation. And 'tis mighty probable that St. John taking the Shekinah and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the ſame, ſaith that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by an oppoſition to his Abſence from the Jews, who had rejected his direction and conduct.

I anſwer 3dly. That many of the Ancient Doctors of the Church did remark, that St. Luke, Luk. i. 2. Acts i. and St. Paul, Heb. iv. 12. uſed the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the ſame ſenſe, to denote the Second Perſon of the Trinity; and that therefore it was not peculiar to St. John to do ſo.

4thly. I ſay that the word Davar, in the room of which the Jews ſince the Babylonian Captivity do ever uſe that of Memra, to expreſs the Second Perſon of the Trinity, was in uſe even in David's time; as appears by Pſal. xxxiii. 6. where the LXX have render'd it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; which Verſion being common among the Jews, and generally received, St. John could not uſe a term more proper to expreſs the Divinity of the Second Perſon taking our Nature upon him. And if it is no matter of wonder, that the other Evangeliſts ſhould give to our Saviour the Name of the Meſſias, or that of the Son of God, which were firſt given him by David; it ought to be none, that St. John has given him that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which likewiſe was given him by David; and does withal ſo well expreſs the Author of the Creation, who was this very 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who ſaid Let ſuch or ſuch a thing be, and it was: For which reaſon St. Paul ſays, that God made the Worlds by him, Heb. i. 2. and St. Peter, 2 Epiſt. chap. iii. 5. where he aſcribes the Creation of the World to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Word, as it is acknowledged by Grotius.

The reaſon why St. John is more particular in his Expreſſions about the Second Perſon, whom he makes to be the Creator of the Worlds, and then repreſents as being made Man; was becauſe the other Evangeliſts had given ſo full an Account of his Birth, and Genealogy, and every thing elſe that was needful to prove the Truth of his Human Nature againſt the Simoniani and other Hereticks, that would make him a Fantaſm; that this Evangeliſt found himſelf obliged to be the more expreſs in aſſerting his Divinity, againſt the Ebïonites, who abuſed ſome places of the other Goſpels, to maintain that Chriſt was a mere Man; and againſt the Cerinthians, who affirmed that the Word was not inſeparably united to the Fleſh.

Laſtly, St. John uſed the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to expreſs the Unity of God, tho there be Three Perſons in the Divine Nature: Therefore he ſays that the Word was with God, and that he was God. He obſerves that Chriſt ſaid that he was in the Father, and the Father in him: That he and the Father were one; as he had before expreſs'd himſelf in his firſt Epiſt. chap. v. 7. Theſe Three are One; to ſhew the Unity of the Divine Monarchy, after the manner in which the Jews did apprehend it; wherein he was followed by the firſt Chriſtians.

Another Objection, which ſeems very plauſible, and therefore is confidently made by the Socinians, is grounded upon thoſe places in the Jewiſh Writers, where they attribute to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what is affirmed in Scripture to have been ſaid or done by an Angel, in very many Apparitions; as Exod. iii. 2. and Acts vii. 30. where St. Stephen, after Moſes, affirms that the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moſes in the buſh: In which places of Scripture, a created Angel, not the Son of God, ſeems to have appeared to Moſes. Whereas the Jewiſh Writers take this Angel to have been the Word, as I ſhewed before. Which Miſtake muſt invalidate their Teſtimony in this caſe.

Accordingly, ſome Interpreters, as Lorinus the Jeſuit, and others Papiſts, ſuppoſe him to have been a created Angel, but which repreſented the Perſon of the Son of God, and therefore acted in his Name, and ſpoke as if he had been the Lord himſelf. This Opinion they ground upon two things: Firſt, Becauſe he is expreſly diſtinguiſh'd from the Lord, both by Moſes and St. Stephen, who call him the Angel of the Lord. And Secondly, Becauſe the Son of God never took upon him the Nature of Angels, as he did that of Men; and therefore can't be called by their Name.

This has been thoroughly conſidered before, to which I might refer the Reader for an Anſwer. But to ſave him trouble, we ſhall here ſhew him reaſon enough to believe that thoſe Texts ſpeak of one that was more than a Creature. Firſt, Becauſe the Angel is preſently named the Lord, or Jehovah, both by Moſes and St. Stephen; even as Gen. xxxi. the Angel which wreſtled with Jacob is called God. Secondly, Becauſe he declared formally, that he was the Lord, when he ſaid to Moſes, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Iſaac, and the God of Jacob; which can never be ſaid of a mere Creature, under whatſoever Commiſſion or Dignity.

The Prophets did formerly repreſent God, and they acted as well as ſpake in his Name; but for all this they never ſpoke as the Angel mentioned by St. Stephen: They ſaid barely, Thus ſaith the Lord, or Jehovah, I am God, &c.

Likewiſe Chriſt repreſented his Father, as being his Ambaſſador and his Deputy; and yet he never took the Name of Father. We read of many Apparitions of Angels in the New Teſtament, yet no man can pretend to ſhew that any of them either ſpoke or acted as God, though ſent by him, and ſpeaking to Men in his Name. It had been as abſurd and as great a crime for them to have done ſo, as for a Viceroy, to tell the People whom he is ſent to govern, I am your King, tho' he does repreſent the King's Perſon.

It is true, the Angel mentioned by St. Stephen, is named the Angel of the Lord; and as true that Chriſt did not take the nature of Angels on him. He did this favour only to Men; for them only he humbled himſelf, and was made like them in all things, ſin excepted; and for this reaſon he is truly named Man, and the Son of Man, as well as the Son of God. For Apoſtate Angels he forſook them, and left them for ever in their Rebellion.

But it muſt be obſerved that the word Angel ſignifies properly a Meſſenger, and denotes rather the Office than the nature of thoſe bleſſed Spirits, ſent forth to Miniſter. And conſequently their Name may well be given to the Son of God, who ever had the care of the Church committed to him, and by whom the Father has communed with Man ever ſince his fall into ſin.

Upon this Ground Malachi, ch. iii. v. 1. names the Son of God the Angel, or Meſſenger of the Covenant. Which Prophecy is owned to this day by the Jews, to ſpeak of the Meſſias. Iſaiah, ch. lxiii. v. 9. names him the Angel of the Preſence of the Lord, who ſaved and redeemed the Iſraelites. According to what the Lord ſaid to Moſes, Exod. xxiii. 23. My Angel ſhall go before thee. And Exod. xxxiii. 14. My preſence ſhall go with thee.

The Primitive Chriſtians never doubted, but that the Angel which appeared to Moſes in the Deſart, and guided the Iſraelites, was the Son of God: St. Paul ſays expreſly thus much, 1 Cor. x. 9. when he affirms that the Iſraelites tempted Chriſt in the Wilderneſs, by their Rebellions. Lorinus himſelf, quoting ſome places from the moſt Ancient Fathers, is forced to acknowledge it on Acts vii. And I ſhewed before, that St. Paul has affirmed nothing upon this Point, but according to the common Notion of the Jews.

It ought not therefore to ſeem ſtrange, that St. Stephen does diſtinguiſh the Angel of whom he ſpeaks, from the Lord himſelf, when he names him the Angel of the Lord: For the Son is diſtinct from the Father, and the Son was ſent by the Father: But becauſe they ſo partake of the ſame Divine Nature, that they are in reality but one and the ſame God, bleſſed for ever; the Son in this regard might well ſay, I am the God of Abraham, &c. and be called the Lord Jehovah.

If it be askt why Moſes did rather call him an Angel, than otherwiſe. I anſwer, that he did ſo, for theſe two reaſons: Firſt, becauſe the diſtinction of the Divine Perſons was not ſo clearly revealed under the Old Teſtament, by reaſon that it did not ſo well ſuit that Oecomy. Secondly, becauſe God ſince he created the World, commonly imploying Angels in thoſe works which were not above their power and capacity; It may very well be that the Son of God, when he appeared to Men, uſed the Miniſtry of Angels, either to form the voice and the words which he ſpoke to his Prophets, or to make the Body or the Figure under which he appeared.

It is objected in the laſt place, that St. Paul ſeems to ſuppoſe, that an Angel gave the Law upon Mount Sinai, and not the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the Son of God; and that that Angel is called God, becauſe he ſpoke in God's Name. Thus Gal. iii. 19. he ſays that the Law was ordained by Angels. Heb. ii. 2. that it was ſpoken by Angels. And Heb. i. 1, 2. making oppoſition between the Law and the Goſpel, he ſays to elevate this laſt above the former, that God having formerly ſpoke to Men by his Prophets, has in theſe laſt days ſpoken to us by his Son: which could not be true, if he had before made uſe of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to give his Law to the Jews. The Socinians look upon this Argument as unanſwerable. And the truth is, it has impoſed upon many Learned Writers, as Lorinus, Grotius, and others.

But it will be no difficult buſineſs to anſwer it, if it be obſerved: Firſt, that it hath been always the opinion of the old Jews, that the Law was given by Jehovah himſelf: Secondly, that it was likewiſe their opinion, that Jehovah who gave the Law was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And 3ly, that 'tis affirmed by Moſes, Deut. xxxiii. 2. That when the Lord came from Sinai, and roſe up from Seir, He came with ten thouſands of Saints; from his right hand went a fiery Law. I ſay that 'tis enough to prove thoſe three things, to convince any Man that when St. Paul ſays that the Law was ſpoken by Angels, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he means only that they were preſent, as witneſſes where it was given; not that they repreſented God's perſon.

The firſt appears by Philo, who affirms that it was God who ſpoke, when he gave the Law, de Migrat. Abrah. p. 309. D. E. F. And de Decal. p. 576. D. C. and p. 593. F. he ſpoke by a voice which he created. And Lib. de Praem. p. 705. The Targum affirms the ſame that Jehovah revealed himſelf, with multitudes of Angels, when he gave his Law, 1 Chron. xxix. 11.

The ſecond is clear by Hag. ii. 6. where the Lord ſpeaking of the time when he brought his People out of Egypt, ſaith, that he had ſhaken the Earth; which relates to his giving the Law, as appears from Pſal. lxviii. 8. and Heb. xii. 25, 26. where St. Paul applies that place to our Saviour. And it is acknowledged alſo by the Jews as the Author of Rabboth, fol. 135. col. 3. Onkelos, Deut. iv. 33, 36. the People heard the voice of the Word of the Lord out of the fire. And alſo Deut. v. 24. And likewiſe, Exod. xx. 7. Deut. v. 11. and vi. 13. where the third Commandment is mentioned in theſe words, None ſhall ſwear by the Name of the Word of the Lord.

The third Point is evident according to the conſtant Maxim of the Jews, that the Shekinah, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is always accompanied with ſeveral Camps of Angels who attend him and execute his Judgments.

Thoſe things being noted, I maintain that when St. Paul ſaith that the Law hath been Ordained by Angels, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Gal. iii. 19. the Text muſt be rendred between Angels, as St. Paul hath uſed the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 2 Tim. ii. 2. not to ſay by many Witneſſes, but among or before many Witneſſes.

2ly. That when St. Paul ſpeaks Heb. ii. of the Word that hath been ſpoken by Angels, he doth not ſpeak of the Law, but of the ſeveral threatnings which were made by the Prophets, to whom the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſent his Angels to bring back the People of Iſrael from their wickedneſs: And of the ſeveral puniſhments which fell upon Iſrael, and were inflicted by Angels as Executors of the judgment of God.

It muſt be underſtood ſo neceſſarily; or it is impoſſible to ſave St. Paul from having contradicted himſelf in the ſame Epiſtle: For he ſuppoſeth. ch. xii. 25, 26. that 'twas Jeſus Chriſt, that being the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſhook the Earth, in which he follows the words of Haggai the Prophet, and of the Pſalmiſt, Pſal. lxviii. 8. and who can reconcile that with St. Paul, ſaying, that many Angels Ordained the Law? Did they all perſonate God in that occaſion? No body hath ever imagined ſuch a thing.

It cannot be objected to me that St. Paul oppoſes the Perſon of Jeſus to Moſes as it hath been done by St. John, ch. i. where he ſaith, that the Law was given by Moſes, but Grace and Truth by Jeſus Chriſt. The reaſon is clear, and it is becauſe he oppoſes the Miniſtry of Reconciliation to the Miniſtry of Condemnation: Moſes hath been the Mediator of the firſt Covenant, but Jeſus Chriſt is the Miniſter of the ſecond, although both Miniſtries were originally from God.

I need not ſpend much time to confute the fancy of thoſe who ſay that the Angel of the Lord is named Jehovah, becauſe he was Jehovah's Ambaſſador. For it is a Notion which the Unitarians have borrowed from the Modern Jews, ſuch as Menaſſeh Ben Iſr. in Gen. i. 44. But I have fully proved that it is a new Notion forged by them to ſave their new Syſtem. It is ſo certain that the Old Jews believed that an Angel could not ſay, I am Jehovah, as we read, Exod. xx. that even the Talmudiſts affirm, that Jehovah himſelf ſpoke theſe words, I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt; Though they ſay that the reſt of the Law was ſpoken by Moſes. Shir. Haſhirin Rabba, fol. 5. col. 1.

CHAP. XXIII. That neither Philo, nor the Chaldee Paraphraſts, nor the Chriſtians, have borrowed from the Platonick Philoſophers, their Notions about the Trinity. But that Plato ſhould have more probably borrowed his Notions from the Books of Moſes, and the Prophets, which he was acquainted with.

HAving in the foregoing Chapters ſhewn that the Doctrine of the Trinity has its Ground in the Writings of Moſes and the Prophets; and that the ancient Jews before Chriſt, did acknowledge it, as appears from many places in the Apocryphal Authors in Philo, and the Chaldee Paraphraſts, who were exactly followed by Chriſt, his Apoſtles, and the Primitive Chriſtians: It may be ſeen how falſly the Socinians pretend that Juſtin Martyr was the Author of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

But to put them altogether from this Evaſion, I will ſhew that nothing can be more abſurd, than to ſay, that if Philo was not a Chriſtian, he was at leaſt a Platoniſt; and that the Fathers, particularly Juſtin Martyr brought into the Chriſtian Religion a Doctrine which they borrowed from Plato.

As to Philo's being a Platoniſt, I ſay firſt, that though this were granted, yet it would do the Unitarians no good. The reaſon is, becauſe whatever Notions the Greeks had of Divine matters, they had from Pherecides, a Syrian, who lived a long time before Plato, and was Pythagoras's Maſter. Pythagoras (who afterwards was much followed by the Greeks) travelled into Egypt, into Arabia, and into Chaldea, after he had had Pherecides to his Maſter. Plotinus does ingenuouſly confeſs that the three Original Hypoſtaſes were not of Plato's inventions but were known before him; and this he makes out from Parmenides his Writings, who had treated of this Notion, Plot. Enn. 5. Lib. 1. Now Parmenides had the Notion of the Trinity from the Pythagoreans, whoſe Maſter Pythagoras had probably borrowed it from the Jews, with whom he converſed in Egypt.

Secondly, I own that Philo was compared by many with Plato, as to his Stile, and that lively Eloquence for which Plato was ſo admired. One may ſee by his Book, Quod omnis probus ſit Liber, and many other of his Works, that he was very converſant in theſe Greek Authors, both Poets and Philoſophers. But he had been ſo little acquainted with Plato's Works, that he brings ſome of Plato's opinion upon the credit of Ariſtotle. We ſee that in his Book, Quod mundus ſit, p. 728, & 729. He never proves his Doctrines by the Authority of Plato. He Grounds all he ſays upon the Divine Authority, ſpeaking in the Old Teſtament, well reflected upon as you ſee p. 288. where he ſpeaks of the Three who appeared to Abraham. A Jew as he was, could not well have ſuited his Notions with Plato's. For, Plato believed, for inſtance, That Matter was Eternal, and uncreated, which is poſitively contrary to what Moſes ſays of the Creation of the World; and as poſitively rejected by Philo, in his Books of Providence; and that Matter had a Beginning.

As to the Doctrine of the Trinity, Plato ſpeaks of it ſo obſcurely, that one may juſtly wonder, how ſome Chriſtians formerly made uſe of his Teſtimony to prove it. Probably he had heard of it in Egypt. But what he ſays about it in his Parmenides, though quoted by Euſebius, ſhews that he had not a very true Notion of it. He ſpeaks of an Eternal and unbegotten Being. He attributes to that Being, which he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a firſt Underſtanding, and a firſt Life. And Proclus does diſtinguiſh thoſe three Principles of Plato, as three different Beings. But Plotinus does not agree in this with Proclus, and affirms that theſe Three are but one and the ſame thing.

The reaſon why many Chriſtians have ſo much eſteemed Plato, is the nobleneſs of his Morals; the Maxims of which are much more elevated and Chriſtian-like, than thoſe of other Heathen Philoſophers.

It is true, Philo ſeems to have followed Plato's Expreſſions, when he calls the Word of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a ſecond God. But it muſt be obſerved, Firſt, that Philo never owns above one God. And ſecondly, that he uſed that expreſſion, to mark the diſtinction which is between Jehovah and Jehovah, as I ſhewed already.

Let the thing be conſidered in its ſelf. It is certain that the Notion of the Trinity cannot be had from Reaſon. It muſt therefore be a Doctrine, either revealed by God, or deviſed by Plato, or ſome other from whom he received it. But the Platoniſts are ſo far from believing their Maſter to be the firſt inventer of it, that Proclus affirms it to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a piece of Divinity delivered by God himſelf. And,

Numenius a famous Platoniſt, who lived under the two Antonines, and was therefore Juſtin's Contemporary, expreſly maintains that Plato during his thirteen years ſtay in Egypt, had learnt the Doctrine of the Hebrews; as Theodoret tells us in his firſt Sermon againſt the Greeks. For, it is certain that many Jews fled into Egypt, after Nebuchadnezzar deſtroyed Jeruſalem, and after the death of Gedaliah.

Theſe two Teſtimonies are enough to prove that Plato was not the firſt Inventer of the Notion of a Trinity.

And that Philo borrowed not his Notions from Plato, may further appear, becauſe Philo lived at a time when Plato's Philoſophy had long ago loſt much of its credit. Ariſtotle did much leſſen it. But it was much more creſt-fallen when the opinions of Zeno and Epicurus prevailed. Zeno's Philoſophy ſpread it ſelf as far as Rome, although the Maxims of it were barbarous and unnatural. And in St. Paul's days that of Epicurus was much followed at Athens. That of the Pyrrhonians got much Ground likewiſe. So that Plato had but a very few Diſciples left him. In Plato's days there ſtarted up at Alexandria a Sect of Philoſophers, the Head of whom was one Polemo, who lived under Auguſtus: Theſe freely rejected the moſt famous Opinions, and pickt out what they found moſt rational in the ſeveral Sects of Philoſophers, for which reaſon they were called Electicks or Chuſers. And one needs but read Philo with Judgment, to find that he followed this Sect.

It appears that Philo's great deſign in all his Works, is to ſhew, That the Jews were infinitely above the Heathens, both as to Virtue and Knowledge: In which he followed Ariſtobulus's Notions, who had writ long before him, and was a Jewiſh Philoſopher. And of this Opinion the Jews are to this day, as may be ſeen in Cozri, p. 29,—and p. 131. And as the Egyptians lookt upon the Greeks as Children in learning, which they were fain to fetch from Egypt; ſo Philo calls often the Egyptians, even of the moſt ancient times, a heavy People, and who wanted common Senſe, by reaſon of the many groſs Errors they entertain'd, unworthy of rational Creatures.

In a word, I affirm, that if Plato had any diſtinct Notions in Religion, he moſt certainly had them from the Jews while he ſojourned in Egypt, as it is maintained by Joſephus in his firſt Book againſt Appion.

As for the Chaldee Paraphraſts, I do not ſee how they can be ſuſpected to have had a Tincture of Plato's Doctrine: It muſt be a mere Fancy to ſuppoſe it. Let thoſe Gentlemen read exactly the Books of Philo, and find therein, if they can, ſuch an Expreſſion as we have in the Targum upon Hag. ii. 4, 5. I am with you, ſaith the Lord of Hoſts, with the Word which covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt, and my Spirit which abideth in the midſt of you. M. N. hath been ſenſible of that; and therefore he does not accuſe them of having been Platoniſts; but he accuſes the Orthodox Chriſtians in general to have inſerted in the Jewiſh Books whatever in them is favourable to the Doctrines of the Trinity, and of the Divinity of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But certainly the Unitarians muſt have very little Correſpondence with the Jews, to fancy that they are ſo ſimple as to be thus abuſed. How can it be imagined that the Jews ſhould be ſuch Friends to Chriſtians, as to truſt them with their Books in order to falſify them? And afterwards ſo ſottiſh, as to ſpread every where their Books and their Targums which they falſified? This Suppoſition is ſo ridiculous, that I cannot imagine how any Author can write ſuch a thing, or even conceive and ſuppoſe it.

What I ſaid of the Goſpel Notions in the 15th Chapter, ſhews plainly that neither Chriſt nor his Apoſtles did adopt the Syſtem of Philoſophy which was taught by the Platoniſts.

The Angel who declared his Conception, uſed the word Lord or Jehovah, to denote his being God: But when he named him Jeſus, becauſe he was to ſave his People from their ſins, which no other could do but God, he intimated that it was he who was foretold, not by Plato, but by Habakkuk, chap. iii. 8, 13, 18. I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my ſalvation. In which place the Prophet expreſly calls God Saviour or Jeſus, by which Name Chriſt by Divine Appointment was named.

In ſhort, a man muſt be out of his Senſes, to find any thing in the Goſpel that ſavours of Plato's Hypotheſis. When the Devils own Chriſt to be the Son of God, were they Platoniſts? When St. Peter owns him to be the Son of God, had Plato told him this? When he was ask'd in the Council of the Jews, whether he was the Son of God, was the queſtion made in a Platonick ſenſe?

It is true, St. Paul has ſometimes quoted Heatheniſh Authors; he was brought up at Tarſus amongſt Heathens; he had read Aratus, whom he quotes againſt the Epicurean Philoſophers at Athens; and he quotes a place out of the Cretan Epimenides in his Epiſtle to Titus, who was Biſhop of Crete. But we never find that he quoted Plato, or uſed his Teſtimony.

Chriſt choſe illiterate men for his Apoſtles; St. John, who ſpeaks of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , had been a Fiſherman about the Lake of Tiberias: St. Paul only, and St. Luke were Scholars. St. Paul was brought up under Gamaliel, a Doctor of the Law; and St. Luke, who had been a Phyſician, and was a Learned Man, followed St. Paul in his Travels, and by his directions writ his Goſpel. But it does not appear that our Saviour taught his ignorant Diſciples the Notions of Plato; nor that the Learned ones, as St. Paul and St. Luke, ever uſed Plato's Authority in their Preaching. This appears plainly in the Book of the Acts, in which St. Luke gives an account of it. If at any time St. Paul had a fair opportunity to make uſe of Plato's Teſtimony, it was when he diſputed at Athens againſt the Stoicks and the Epicureans. Theſe laſt laughing at Miracles, St. Paul wrought none there to convince them: But he might have quoted places out of Plato's Republick, to prove the Reſurrection, and a Judgment in the Life to come; yet he quotes never an Author, and was contented to argue the Caſe by ſtrength of Reaſon; and this he did with that force, that he converted one of the Judges of Areopagus, who probably was an Epicurean, and knew what Plato ſaid in his Books, and did laugh at it.

This Method of the Apoſtles was followed by the firſt Chriſtians; Plato was not mentioned amongſt them, till ſome Philoſophers turned Chriſtians; Juſtin Martyr, amongſt others. This Juſtin ſcorned all other Philoſophers as mean-ſpirited Teachers; but commended Plato, as being one of a great Genius, that made him think of God and the Immortality of the Soul, in a more elevated manner than other Philoſophers. But when all is done, How much did he value Plato? But indifferently: He declares that it was from the Goſpel, together with the Law and the Prophets, that he had the true Notions of the Chriſtian Religion. He quotes Plato neither againſt the Heathens, nor againſt the Jews. If we had the Book he writ againſt Marcion, who out of Plato's Writings had broach'd his deteſtable Opinions, we might very probably have ſeen how little he valued Plato's Authority. Tertullian, who had read Juſtin's Book, and who ſaw that both the Gnoſticks and the Valentinians made much of Plato's Authority; ſhews plainly how little he valued Plato, when he ſays he was grown omnium haereticorum condimentarium, the ſawce which all Hereticks uſed to propagate their Doctrines, by which they corrupted the Purity of the Chriſtian Religion. And much the ſame Opinion of Plato had they that oppoſed the Arian Hereſy; of which it is thought Origen was the firſt Broacher.

However, I aver, Firſt, That the firſt Chriſtians were no more Platoniſts than the Jews, that is, did not uſe Plato's Notions in their Syſtem of Divinity. They were ſo far from▪ it, that they declared that what they believed about the Trinity, they had it from the Holy Writers; Juſtin Apol. 2. Athenagoras p. 8, 9. Theophilus of Antioch, p. 100.

Secondly, It is falſe that any of the Ancient Chriſtians made any other uſe of Plato, than by ſhewing that Plato had borrowed from Moſes the Doctrine he taught; Juſtin in his Exhortation to the Greeks, p. 18, 22, 24. Clemens of Alexandria, Strom. l. 4. p. 517. and l. 5. p. 598. Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. Origen againſt Celſus, l. 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. where the Word appeared to Abraham, brought him forth, and commanded him to offer a Sacrifice to him.

And ſuppoſe that the word Memra ſhould in ſome places have ſome of the ſenſes which the Socinian Author mentions, does it follow that it has not in many other places the ſenſe we give to it, and which Philo gave to it before Chriſt? Let it be granted it ſignifies ſometimes the Command of God, as Gen. xxii. 18. can it have the ſame ſenſe in a number of places where mention is made of the Laws of the Word of the Lord? Let the word Memra be taken ſometimes in the Targums for the Decree of God, can it be taken in that ſenſe in Jonathan's Targum on Hag. ii. 6. where it is diſtinguiſht from that Decree? or in thoſe lately Printed in the Books of Chronicles, where mention is made of the Decree of the Word of the Lord, as 1 Chron. xii. 23. Were it not a ridiculous Tautology, if in that place the Word ſhould be ſaid to ſignifie the Decree? The ſame may be ſaid of all other places where the Decree of the Word is ſpoken of, as 2 Chron. vi. 4, 15. xxix. 23. xxxiii. 3.

Suppoſing that Memra ſignifies ſometimes the Word of God, can it ſignifie ſo too, where we read, according to the word of the Memra, 1 Chron. xxix. 23. Let it be granted that the Word ſignifies ſometimes the Oracles of God, can it ſignifie them alſo, where it is expreſly diſtinguiſht from them, as 2 Chron. xx. 20. ch. xxxvi. 12. And from the Law of God in the ſame place? The truth is, the Paraphraſt does ſuppoſe that it was the Memra who gave the Law and the Oracles to the Jews: And that it was for refuſing to offer Sacrifices to him, that the Jews often fell into Idolatry, 2 Chron. xiii. 11. ch. xxviii. 19. xxix. 19. xxx. 5.

There are ſo many proofs, that the Paraphraſts mention it in many places in the very ſame ſenſe the Old Jews gave to it, who acknowledged the Word of God to be a Perſon, that no Man can miſtake, unleſs he does it wilfully. Many of their Works have been Printed almoſt two hundred years, and I have produced ſo many proofs out of them, that I need not alledge any more. I ſhall therefore only produce a few out of the two Books of Chronicles, which the Learned Beckius publiſht about ſixteen years ago.

The Targum on thoſe two Books of Chronicles affirms the following things. That it is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who appeared in moſt Apparitions in which God appeared to the Patriarchs: To Abraham, to whom he ſpoke from between the Victims, Gen. xv. 1 Chron. vii. 21. To Solomon, 2 Chron. vii. 12. To Phinehas, 1 Chron. ix. 20. To David, 1 Chron. xvii. 2. To Solomon, 1 Chron. xxii. 11.

That the Angel who hindered Abraham from killing Iſaac, was the Word of God, 2 Chron. iii. 1.

He plainly diſtinguiſhes the Angel from the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Chron. xiv. 15. and xv. 1. He affirms that the Word ſent Gabriel to help Hezekiah, 2 Chron. xxxii. 20. whereas David had ſaid he ſent his Word and healed them, Pſal. cvii. 20. See Coſri, pag. 45.

He affirms that to the Word the Temple was built, 1 Chron. xxviii. 1, 3. and 2 Chron. vi. 1, 10. and xx. 8. To whom Sacrifices were offered, 2 Chron. xxxiii. 17.

David exhorts Solomon in the preſence of all the People, and of the Word of the Lord who choſe him King, to keep the Law of God, 1 Chron. xxviii. 8, 10. He ſays that the Judges judg before the Word, and before the Holy Spirit, 2 Chron. xix. 6.

He affirms that it was the Word who helped David, 1 Chron. xi. 9. xii. 18. And Solomon, 1 Chron. xxviii. 20. And Abijah againſt Jeroboam, 2 Chron. xiii. 15.

That the faithful ſeek the Word of the Lord, and his Power, and ever regard his Face, 1 Chron. xvi. 10, 11.

He ſays the Word decreed with God, 2 Chron. vi. 4.

That the Word helps them that truſt in him, and deſtroys the wicked, 1 Chron. xii. 18. xvii. 2. 2 Chron. xiii. 18. and xiv. 11. and xv. 2. and xvi. 7, 8. and xx. 20. and xxv. 7. and xxxii. 8. and xvii. 3. and xviii. 31. and xx. 22, 29.

That the Word drove out of Canaan the Inhabitants of it, 2 Chron. xx. 7. and fought for Iſrael, 2 Chron. xxxii. 8.

That by Solomon's Orders the Word was pray'd to, 2 Chron. xx. 8.

That Men are adjured by the Name of the Word, 2 Chron. xviii. 15. Speak according to the mouth of the Word, 2 Chron. xxii. 7. That it was the Word that gave Moſes leave to ſhew the Tables of the Law, 2 Chron. xxxii. 31.

That the Word ſaved Hezekiah from being burnt in the fire, through which Ahaz made his other Children to paſs, 2 Chron. xxviii. 3.

That the Word bleſt the People, 2 Chron. xxxi. 10.

That the Prophets ſpoke to Manaſſeh in the Name of the Word of the Lord, who is the God of Iſrael, 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18.

That Men repent before the Word of the Lord, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 27.

That the Word of the Lord the God of Heaven commanded Cyrus to build him a Temple, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23.

In a word the Author of this Targum leaves no room to doubt, but that by the Word he underſtood and meant in many places a Divine Perſon, a Principle of Action, ſuch as we conceive him to be. Though in ſome others he might uſe the word Word in thoſe other different Significations, which the Socinian Author who writ againſt Wecknerus, was pleaſed to put upon it.

Another Objection of the ſame Socinian Author, which ſeems more plauſible is this, That there are ſome places in the Targum, where inſtead of the Holy Spirit, as it is in the Hebrew, they render it by Memra, or the Word; of which he gives ſome inſtances, as Iſa. xxx. 28. Zech. iv. 6. To which may be added, Iſa. xlviii. 16. which in the Hebrew is, the Lord and his Spirit has ſent me; and in the Paraphraſe, the Lord and his Word.

I anſwer, that though in ſome few places the Targums have a confuſed Notion of the thing, yet this ought not to ballance the conſtant ſtile of thoſe Books, in others, and much more numerous places: It being eaſie to confound thoſe Notions before the Goſpel-times, when they were not, by much, ſo clearly apprehended, as they have been ſince. Otherwiſe, the ſtile of the Targums is pretty equal: And here comes in very naturally Maimonides his obſervation about the ſtile of Onkelos his Paraphraſe, which he was well verſed in. He thinks in his More Nevochim, p. 1. c. 48. that three or four places of the Targum, in which his remark about the conſtant method had no room, might have been altered; and wiſhes he could get ſome Copies of it, more ancient than thoſe he uſed; and owns that he did not well apprehend the reaſon which had obliged the Paraphraſt to render, in ſome places otherwiſe than he uſually rendered, which yet he did for great reaſons.

One great Objection of the Socinian Author, which he much inſiſts upon, is that the Chriſtians never quoted the Authority of the Targum againſt the Jews, before Galatinus, who lived at the beginning of the 16th. Century. But that ſince him, Heinſius, Vechnerus, and ſome others, followed him in that fancy.

Suppoſing this to be true, I cannot ſee what advantage it would be to him. Put caſe the Ancients were not capable Scholars enough to peruſe the Jewiſh Books, can this ever prejudice truth? And ought not they to be received, how late ſoever they come, by whoſe care ſoever they be vindicated and aſſerted?

But it is abſolutely falſe that Chriſtians before Galatinus, have nothing of the Jewiſh Opinions about this matter. I ſhewed in the vii. Chap. of this Book, that Ribera and others, which would have theſe Paraphraſes to be written after St. Jerome, are much miſtaken: And conſequently this Socinian Author who followed them, and Vorſtius in his Notes on Tſemach David, was alſo miſtaken about the Antiquity of the Targums. But our Socinian ſays, if they are ſo ancient, how comes it to paſs that they have not been quoted by the Chriſtians that diſputed againſt the Jews in ancienter Times? They were very few of ancient Chriſtians that writ upon theſe matters. And of them yet fewer underſtood the Chaldee, or even the Hebrew Tongue; moſt of them reſted upon the Authority of Philo, of the Book of Wiſdom, and of other Authors, who were famous among the Jews before Chriſt, and who had writ full enough upon this Subject, as may be ſeen by what Euſebius quotes out of them. And no doubt thoſe places of Philo, and thoſe other Jewiſh Writers, were well known to Clemens of Alexandria, and to Origen, whoſe Work Euſebius much followed, as appears by reading his Books, and as he himſelf does acknowledge.

The Socinian Author affirms too poſitively, that Galatinus is the firſt that uſed that Authority of the Targums. He muſt not ſuppoſe a thing which is abſolutely falſe. Origin, lib. 4. in Celſum, ſpeaks of a Diſpute between Jaſon and Papiſcus, in which ſaith Origin, Chriſtianus ex Judaicis Scriptoribus cum Judaeo deſcribitur diſputans, & plane demonſtrans quae de Chriſto extant & vaticinia Jeſu ipſi congruere, &c. What were thoſe Writings of the Jews, but the Targums, who had tranſlated Becocma for Breſchith, according to the Jewiſh Notion which I have explained ſo many times; and for which St. Jerome reflects upon Jaſon, who hath quoted the Targums, as if he hath read them in Hebrew.

Beſides, it appears by Juſtin the Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, That in his time ſome Jews had already endeavoured to invalidate the Proofs taken out of Scripture in their ſo frequent Stile, about the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as we ſee them in the Targums. For Juſtin undertakes to prove, that the Word is not barely an Attribute in God, nor an Angel, but a Perſon, and a true Principle of Action. And this he proves by his Apparitions, and by other Characters and Signs of a real Perſon, ſuch as are his executing his Father's Counſels, his being his Off-ſpring, and his Son, properly ſo called. Here I muſt add one thing, which is, that St. Jerome hath expreſs'd the Senſe of the Targum in many places, eſpecially upon the Prophets, which Senſe he had no doubt from the learned Jews whom he had conſulted, and they from the Targums. I confeſs, that Jerome never made his buſineſs to write againſt the Jews; nor did any other Chriſtian, that was ever able to make uſe of the Targums. Some, indeed, of the Fathers took the pains to learn Hebrew, becauſe the Old Teſtament was writ in that Language; but thoſe were very few, and none of them ever troubled himſelf with the Chaldee. St. Jerome himſelf, how skilful ſoever in the Hebrew, underſtood not the Chaldee, as appears by his Writings. The firſt that ſet himſelf to beat the Jews with their own Weapons, was Raimundus Martini, a convert Jew, who lived about the Year of Chriſt, 1260. He writ a Book againſt them, call'd Pugio Fidei, which ſhews he had well ſtudied their Rabbins, and he makes uſe of their Targums to very good purpoſe. Out of this Book, there was another compos'd, and call'd Victoria adverſus Judaeos, by Porchetus Salvaticus, that is ſaid to have lived in the next Century. Neither of their Books was much conſidered in thoſe ignorant times wherein they lived. So that when Learning came more in requeſt, one might venture to make uſe of their labours, and ſet them forth as his own, with little danger of being diſcover'd. This very thing was done by Galatinus, who lived about the end of the Fifteenth Century. He did with great Impudence almoſt tranſcribe his Notions, and the Arguments againſt the Jews out of that Work of Porchetus, without ſo much as mentioning his Name. That Socinian mentions the Pugio in the cloſe of that Book againſt Vechner, by which it may be ſuppoſed he read that Book of Raimundus above mentioned. Which if he did, and conſider'd it with Galatinus, he could not but ſee that this Work of Galatinus was, as to the main of it, a Stream from that Fountain of Raimund's Pugio. And if he ſaw it, he did very diſingenuouſly in making Galatinus the firſt among Chriſtians that made uſe of the Jewiſh Notions.

The laſt Objection of the Unitarians (againſt what I have proved about the Word's being a Perſon, from the conſent of the Chaldee Paraphraſes, when they ſpeak of the Memra of the Lord, and his Actions) is made by the ſame Socinian Author, who affirms, that in the Targums the Memra implies no more than that God works by himſelf, becauſe the word Memra is uſed of Men, as well as of God.

I will not deny but that here and there in the Targums, the word Memra has that Senſe, as Hacſpan well obſerves in his Notes on Pſalm cx. and produces many Inſtances of it, to which many more might be added.

But when all is done, this Objection, much the ſame with that of Moſes Maimonides, can't abſolutely take away that force of thoſe Texts where the Memra is uſed of God; and to be ſatisfied of this, it is but making the following Reflexions.

Firſt, That Philo, one of the moſt famous Jews of Egypt, very well apprehended, and clearly declared, That by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which anſwers to the Hebrew Memra, the old Jews underſtood a real Principle of Action, ſuch as we call a Perſon. Secondly, That the Jewiſh Authors more ancient than Philo, had the very ſame Notion of it, as may be ſeen in the Book of Baruch, and in that of Wiſdom, the Notions of which Philo has clearly followed in his Book, de Agric. apud Euſeb. de Proepar. Evang. pag. 323. And Laſtly, That even ſince Chriſt, the Cabaliſtical Authors followed, and to this day do follow the ſame Notion; making uſe of thoſe places where the Memra and the Cochma, that is to ſay, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are mentioned; to make out their ſecond Sephira, as I ſhewed before.

Neither muſt it ſeem ſtrange, that the Jewiſh Paraphraſe ſhould uſe that word in various Senſes: For the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had many Senſes in Greek, and ſo might that of Memra have in Chaldee, without prejudicing our Arguments. For the places which I have quoted are of that nature, that there can be no Equivocation in them, as any Man will own, that is not reſolved to diſpute againſt truth.

CHAP. XXV. An Anſwer to an Objection againſt the Notions of the Old Jews compared with thoſe of the new Ones:

A Greater Objection than all theſe, may be very naturally made by a Judicious Reader, concerning what I ſaid of the Teſtimonies of the Jews before Chriſt, about the diſtinction of Divine Perſons, and the Divinity of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . On the one ſide, may he ſay, you own that the Jews after Chriſt, have oppoſed the Doctrine of the Trinity, as being contrary to the Unity of God; there are plain proofs of it, even in the ſecond Century. And it is certain that Trypho did not believe that the Meſſias was to be any other than a meer Man, and ſo did the Jews believe as it is witneſſed by Orig. lib. 2. contr. Celſ. pag. 79. And on the other ſide you affirm that the Jews in the old times before Chriſt taught a Doctrine much like that of the Trinity; and that all their ancient Authors affirmed that the Meſſias was to have the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dwelling in him.

In anſwer to this difficulty, I cannot ſay that the Jews have altered their opinion upon this Subject, ſince the beginning of Chriſtianity; for to this day their Cabaliſtical Doctors, whom they reſpect as great Divines, do profeſs the ſame which Philo and the Chaldee Paraphraſts did. I cannot ſay neither that they are divided into two Sects, the one of which follows theſe Notions, the other oppoſes them: For though the Cabaliſts are fewer in number than thoſe who ſtick to the letter of the Law, and ſtudy only to underſtand the Ceremonies of it, to which they add the Traditions contained in the Miſna, and the Guemarra, yet it is certain that there is no great controverſie between them about thoſe Doctrines which I have mentioned.

I anſwer therefore, firſt by owning that whatever Notions the old Jews had of theſe matters, they were neither ſo clear or diſtinct but that they were mixt with divers Errors, of which there are many inſtances both in Philo and the Targums.

Secondly, I maintain withal, that how confuſed ſoever ſome of thoſe Notions are in thoſe ancient Authors, yet it is certain that thoſe Jews that turn Chriſtians do it by going upon Principles I have mentioned, namely by following what is in them conformable to Scripture, and rejecting what is contrary to it. And I dare affirm that all Learned Jews who ſincerely turn Chriſtians, do it by reflecting upon thoſe old Jewiſh Principles, which they originally find in the Old Teſtament, and afterwards to be agreeable with the Principles of Chriſtianity. This plainly appears in the Dialogue between Juſtin the Martyr, and Trypho a Jew. For Juſtin having quoted thoſe places out of the Old Teſtament, in which God calls the Meſſias, his Son, the Almighty God, and one that is to be adored. Trypho anſwers in theſe words, I allow that thoſe ſo many and ſo great proofs are enough to perſwade, Pag. 302. B. All the difficulty he makes, is about the Application which Chriſtians and Juſtin in particular, made to Chriſt, of thoſe places of Scripture. For it appears that Trypho applying Pſal. cx. and Iſa. ix. to Hezekiah, was of the ſame opinion with Hillel, who afterwards affirmed that Hezekiah was the promiſed Meſſias, and that no other was to be expected.

Thirdly, I ſay farther, that the Jews prepoſſeſſed with the opinion of the Meſſias's coming to have a Temporal Kingdom, and offended by the mean Circumſtances of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, did reject Chriſt's Revelation, and were thereby hindered from ſeeing, how conformable it was with their old Notions. This will not ſeem ſtrange to one that conſiders the force of their prejudices, and what was done by their Anceſtors in a like caſe. For theſe killed the Prophets, no doubt finding much contradiction at firſt, as they imagin'd, between the old Prophecies and the new ones, for which cauſe they rejected the new Prophets, and put the Authors of them to death: Though afterwards they were forced to receive thoſe very Prophecies, the Authors of which they had put to death, as going upon the ſame Grounds with the old Prophecies, the Truth and Authority of which they acknowledged.

Fourthly, I ſay, that the Jews who lived immediately after Chriſt, endeavoured to repreſent his being put to death, as a juſt and legal Act; for tho' the Synagogue had Excommunicated him, yet he had continued to teach to draw his Diſciples from obſerving the Law; ſo that they pretended that he was a falſe Prophet; that he wrought his Miracles by the power of the Devil; and that he had been juſtly puniſht, according to the Law, Deut. xiii. 5. and xviii. 20. To this end, before the deſtruction of Jeruſalem they ſent to their Synagogues all the World over, Men of great Authority, to make them receive and ſubſcribe the Anathema which they had drawn up againſt Chriſt and his Diſciples; as Juſtin the Martyr tells us in his Dialogue with Trypho, pag. 234. E. To which Anathema it ſeems St. Paul alludes Heb. vi. 6. And 1 Cor. xvi. 22. as may be ſeen in the very place of Juſtin now quoted, and in pag. 266. E.

In the fifth place, I ſay, that ſoon after the Preaching of the Goſpel they begun to defame our Saviour horribly, about the manner of his Birth, as may be ſeen in a Book called Toledoth Jeſu, which was known long before Origen: And about his Life and Converſation, as may be ſeen in the Talmud. They likewiſe defamed the Apoſtles, as Magicians, who laboured to draw off the People from obſerving the Law. And though ſuch Calumnies were very groſs, and viſibly falſe, yet they found credit with their people to make them cry down Chriſtianity; as it is uſual in ſuch caſes. Thus when Papiſts impute to Proteſtants, that they believe thus and thus, though their Accuſations are viſibly falſe, and themſelves are forced to acknowledge it, yet at the ſame time they prevail with their People, and turn them quite from the Proteſtants.

I ſay in the ſixth place, that afterwards they yet more horribly traduced our Saviour, accuſing him to have trained up his Diſciples to Idolatry, and to have himſelf been guilty of it. This they took occaſion to do, from the ſuperſtitious reſpects ſome Chriſtians had for the Croſs; which made them give out, that Jeſus Chriſt having been Excommunicated by his Maſter, and refuſed the Abſolution which he begged of him; thereupon he had withdrawn himſelf from him, and brought up his Diſciples after his example, to worſhip • Brick, by which they underſtood the figure of a Croſs. Sanhedrin, fol. 107. & Sota, fol. 47.

Laſtly, It may be obſerved, that the many Hereſies which aroſe in after-times among Chriſtians concerning our Saviour's Perſon and Natures, gave the Jews very great prejudices againſt the Goſpel. The Arians for two hundred years; then the Neſtorians, and Eutychians, but chiefly the Tritheiſts, viſibly taught Doctrines contrary to truth. In particular the Writings of John Philoponus, who was a Tritheiſt were much peruſed by the Mahometans and Jews, becauſe they begun to ſtudy Philoſophy, (at which John Philoponus was very good) as Maimonides tells us, More Nevochim, pag. 1. ch. 71. Now this Hereſie deſtroying the Unity of God, which is the fundamental Article of the Jewiſh Religion, could not but give the Jews juſt matter of horror and deteſtation for Chriſtianity.

Beſides, the Jews themſelves confeſs that in their diſperſion they have loſt the knowledge of many of the Myſteries of their Religion. One cannot think how it could be otherwiſe, if one conſiders, 1. The long time they have been diſperſed, which confounds the moſt diſtinct, and darkens the cleareſt matters. 2. Their extreme miſery in ſo long a captivity, which ſubjected them to ſo many different Nations, and many of them ſuch as had a particular hatred both of their Nation and Religion. 3. But chiefly if one conſiders that thoſe Myſteries were communicated only to a few Learned Men, and kept from the knowledge of the common people; as Maimonides does acknowledg, and proves by many Reflections worth conſidering, in More Nevoch. p. 1. ch. 71.

After this, the Jews having ſtill great averſion to Chriſtians, it ought not to ſeem ſtrange that the Cabaliſts ſhould be ſo few in number among them; and that moſt of the Jewiſh Doctors ſhould follow in their Diſputes againſt Chriſtians, Explications and Notions contrary to Scripture, about the Trinity, and the Divinity of the Meſſias. For, even before Chriſt there were amongſt them many Errors crept amongſt ſome of them, about thoſe matters; ſo that they that lived after Chriſt did eaſily follow the worſt Explication, and prefer it before the better, in the heats of their Diſputes againſt Chriſtians.

Neither is it to be wondered at, that the ſame Men ſhould maintain contrary Propoſitions, and defend them equally in their turns, as they come ta have to do with different adverſaries. The Papiſts are a remarkable inſtance of this; when they diſpute and write againſt the Eutychians, to prove the Truth of Chriſt's Human Nature, one would admire at the ſtrength and ſoundneſs of their Arguments: But when they are upon the manner of our Saviour's exiſtence in the Sacrament, as to his Fleſh and Blood, nothing can be more contrary to their former Poſitions, than what they affirm on this occaſion; they deſtroy quite what they ſaid before, and one would think they had forgot themſelves.

The Jews do perfectly like the Papiſts in this; and having leſs knowledg, and labouring under greater prejudices than they, no wonder if they maintain contrary Principles one to another. This may be ſeen in ſome of the old Hereticks, which ſprung from amongſt the Jews, and brought their Opinions into the Chriſtian Religion; the Cerinthians for inſtance, who owned that the Word had dwelt in Chriſt, but did imagin that it was but for a certain time. And if the Patripaſſians, and afterwards the Sabellians who had the clear Revelation of the Goſpel, yet for all this, oppoſed the Doctrine of the Trinity, as contrary to the Unity of God, and affirmed that there was in God but one Perſon which had appeared under three differing Names; It ought not to appear ſtrange that the Jews blinded by their hatred againſt Chriſtians, ſhould through their prejudices, apprehend that what their old Maſters taught about the three Sephiroth, did not ſignifie three Perſons in God, but only the three different manners in which God works by one and the ſame Perſon.

I have already hinted, that the Jews even about the end of the fourth Century had great offence given them by the Chriſtians in their Worſhip of Saints and Relicks; which being at laſt as Idolatrous as the Heatheniſh, made the Jews look upon them as no other than Heathens. This may be ſeen in many places of the Talmud, which they pretend was finiſht about five hundred years after Chriſt. But eſpecially in their Additions to thoſe Books which they made when Idolatry was ſo ripe both in the Eaſt and the Weſt.

One might make a Book of thoſe too juſt Accuſations of the Jews againſt the Chriſtians, which cauſed them to be Baniſht out of many Kingdoms. The Dominican Friers made a Collection of moſt of them in the Thirteenth Century, when Chriſtians going much into the Holy Land, did ſomething retrieve their loſt knowledg of the Greek and other Eaſtern Languages. Since that time the Jews tranſcribing their Talmud, and their other ancient Books, begun to uſe the words of Samaritans, inſtead of thoſe of Apoſtates and Hereticks, which they uſed before in ſpeaking of Chriſtians, againſt whom in the old Times they had made many Rules.

Beſides, the violent and Antichriſtian methods which ſome Chriſtian Princes uſed againſt them by a falſe Principle of Religion to make them, againſt their Will, profeſs Chriſtianity, made them look upon Chriſtians as no better than ſavage Beaſts, which beſides their outward Form had nothing of Humanity, and regarded neither Juſtice nor Religion: For, though their own Jewiſh Principles are perſecuting enough, yet they can't but condemn the ſame Principles when uſed againſt them; nothing being more apt to make Men reject Truth, than Perſecution, becauſe Conſcience ought to be inſtructed not inſlaved, as Experience in all Ages does abundantly confirm.

It cannot be denied but that the Jews Crucified Chriſt for affirming himſelf to be the Son of God. Neither can it be ſuppoſed that he meant no more by it, but that he was God's adoptive Son, as the Jews were, or ſome of their Kings: For, he ſpoke in an ordinary plain intelligible ſenſe. He meant therefore by it, not only that he was the Meſſias, but that the Word of God dwelt in him, the ſame which the Jews acknowledged to be the Off-ſpring of God. And for this the Jews Crucifyed him, as he hints plainly enough in the Parable of the Husbandmen, for he deſigns the Prophets by the name of meer Servants, and himſelf he calls the Son, in oppoſition to the Prophets; and tells the Scribes and Phariſees, that though they knew him to be ſuch, yet would they for all this put him to death. So that by Crucifying him they did purpoſe to deſtroy a Perſon whom they knew to be the true Meſſias, but by whom they were like to have loſt their credit with the People; He having called them a parcel of Hypocrites, who made a Trade of Religion, who in their hearts laught at it, and only endeavoured to get by it. This is the meaning of thoſe words which Chriſt puts in their mouths, and which was near really in their hearts, Come let us kill him, and let us ſeiſe on his inheritance. And not only out of hatred, but out of policy alſo, they oppoſed him, that they might keep themſelves ſafe and quiet. They lookt for a Conquering Meſſias, who ſhould ſubdue all Nations, and bring all their Enemies under them. But here they ſaw Chriſt, a Man deſtitute of all human ſuccours neceſſary to bring about ſo great a deſign: They thought it therefore more adviſable to ſet him aſide without following his Doctrine, than to eſpouſe a Quarrel which might incenſe the Romans againſt them, and cauſe the ruin of their Nation: This they meant by ſaying, The Romans ſhall come and take away both our place and Nation.

To be ſatisfied of this, one ought to obſerve that Speculative Doctrines are not the common Rules of publick Deliberations and Counſels. Let the Papiſts be an inſtance of it. They proceed in their deciſions upon the Principle of the Pope's Infallibility; when at the ſame time hardly any one of them believes it, and many do confute it both by reaſons and matters of fact not to be anſwered.

The Jews likewiſe, though they knew themſelves to be fallible enough, yet Papiſts like they acted in their publick Aſſembly, as if they had been infallible. And this was enough to ſatisfie thoſe who could not diſtinguiſh, or would not further inquire into the buſineſs, which was the caſe of moſt ordinary people. Accordingly, of the two Thieves that were Crucifyed with Chriſt, one had obſerved the Injuſtice of that violent hatred the Jews had for him: But the other curs'd him looking on him as a falſe Prophet, juſtly condemned by the greateſt Authority known to him in the World.

Laſtly, It is certain, that when a deciſion is once made, the People for the moſt part, do not much inquire into the juſtice or reaſonableneſs of it, but quietly acquieſce in it, and relye upon the Authority of thoſe who made it. The Jews had a particular reaſon to do ſo, being aſſured that their Religion came from God, and not ſeeing any danger in profeſſing it, as it was delivered to them by their Forefathers. And this is now the only reaſon they have for profeſſing Judaiſm; Neither is it to be wondered at, that the Notions the old Jews had of it ſhould make but little impreſſion on their minds, no more than the Doctrines of their Doctors, which they call Cabaliſts, becauſe they follow the Traditions of the old Synagogue.

For their late Teachers, moved by a ſpirit of contradiction, have raiſed many new Queſtions about the Characters of the Meſſias, and other like Articles of Religion, controverted between them and the Chriſtians, by which they have plunged their People into inextricable difficulties; and they are ſo exaſperated now againſt us, that they can hardly be calm enough to take notice of thoſe viſible Contradictions which may be ſeen between their ancient Writers, and their now Doctors writing upon the ſame ſubject. They deny now adays what the old Jews freely granted, and their whole ſtudy is to keep their People in a blind ſubmiſſion to their Authority: Inſomuch that they have this Maxim amongſt them, that the People are obliged to believe that the right Hand is the left, when their Rabbies have once ſo declared. But I ſhall make ſome more particular Reflections upon the proceedings of the now Jews, and ſhew that their obſtinacy is altogether unreaſonable, and that there is no fairneſs at all in their way of diſputing againſt Chriſtians.

CHAP. XXIII. That the Jews have laid aſide the Old Explications of their Forefathers, the better to defend themſelves in their Diſputes with the Chriſtians.

Euſ. dem. Ev. Lib. iv. 1. IT hath been long ſince obſerved by Euſebius that the Jews have varied from the belief of their Fathers as to the ſenſe of ſeveral places in the Old Teſtament, and it is no more than they themſelves freely own in their Diſputes with us. The ſpirit of Diſputation hath wrought much the ſame effect among the Papiſts, (as Maldonat was not aſhamed to confeſs, on St. John, ch. vi.) Of this alteration in the Jewiſh Sentiments, (which is acknowledged by one of the Socinian Writers, viz. Volzogeniùs in Luc. xxiv. 27.) R. Salomon Jarchi fully witneſſes. He was the moſt famous Commentator the Jews had about five hundred years ago; yet he in his Expoſition of Pſal. xxi. 1. hath theſe words, Our Maſters did underſtand this Pſalm of the Meſſias, (as indeed they did Gemar. on Talm. tr. Maſſechet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ch. v. & Targ. on this Pſalm, ver. 8, & 18.) but it is better to underſtand it of David himſelf, that we may the more eaſily reply to the Hereticks, that abuſe ſome paſſages in it.

But this is not the only place where the Jews have changed the faith of their ancient Maſters. There are many others examples of it, ſome of the chief of which I ſhall produce, after I have obſerved the ſeveral degrees by which they arrived to ſo wide a diſagreement with their Anceſtors.

1. Their Doctors, as I have already noted, did early introduce new Notions of ſeveral Texts of the Old Teſtament. I ſpeak not now of their Fabulous fancies only, ſuch as that of Philo, who Lib. de Septenar. ſuppoſes the Voice of God uttered on Mount Sinai, to have been heard in all parts of the World; to which the Jews, Pirke Eliez. c. 41. Tankuma, fol. 73. col. 1. have added many more new conceits; but I ſpeak of ſuch their Explications, as were contrary to, and in effect did overthrow the ancient Notions of the Prophets. As for inſtance, where Philo ſeems in ſome manner to maintain the TranſmigrationLib. de Somn. pag. 455. of Souls, where he delivers the Doctrine of the Souls Preexiſtence before the BodyDe Mund. p. 891. , where he ſeems to hint the Eternity of Matter, according to Plato Mund. op. p. 214. De mund. Incor. pag. 728. A. De Viat. off. p. 669. F., although it is certain in his Treatiſe of Providence, he doth aſſert the Creation of Matter.

2ly. It is obſervable that after the Emperour Hadrian's time, ſome of the Jews who expected the Meſſias, according to Daniel's Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, but were out in their Accounts of thoſe Weeks, had almoſt intirely loſt the hopes of his coming: This we gather from the Hiſtory of R. Hillel in Gemara, tit. Sanhed. fol. 98. col. 2. & fol. 99. col. 1. who maintained that the Promiſe of the Meſſias was accompliſhed in the Perſon of Hezekiah, and that there was no more Meſſiah to be expected by the Jews. Now they ſay that this Hillel was the Grandſon to R. Juda the Compiler of the Miſna.

3. We ſee how careleſs they have been in preſerving the Apocryphal Books formerly in eſteem with them, and which indeed but for the Chriſtians, had totally periſhed. Philo has borrowed ſome of his Notions in his 2d. Book of Agriculture; and let any one compare Job xxviii. 20. Pſal. xxxiii. 6. Prov. viii. 12, 22. with what is written Wiſdom vi. 24, 22. and ſo on till Chap. viii. 11. and he will find a great likeneſs, if not the very ſame Notions and words.

4. Through the ſame neglect they have quite loſt the Works of other ancient and famous Jews, as namely of Philo the Jew, who was in ſuch reputation amongſt them, as to be choſen the Agent or Deputy of the Alexandrian Jews in their Embaſſy to the Roman Emperour; and of Ariſtobulus, who lived in the time of the Ptolomees, and Dedicated to one of them his Explication of the Law, of which we have a fragment in Euſebius; which ſhews that his Notions were the ſame with Philo's, and that they did generally prevail in Egypt, before Chriſt's Incarnation, as well in the time of Philo.

It is no hard matter to give ſome reaſons of this neglect. For, 1. their firſt deſtruction by Titus, and after by Hadrian, involved with it a great part of their Books. They thought then only of ſaving their Bibles, with which (it ſeems) their Targum was joined, and ſo this came to be preſerved with the Scriptures. This was by the great care of Joſephus (as he himſelf relates) deſiring of Titus this favour alone, that he might preſerve the Sacred Books.

2. After their ſecond deſtruction by Hadrian, they applied themſelves ſtraight to gather their Traditions and Cuſtoms, which now make the Body of their Miſna, or Second Law, as they call it. This ſpent them a deal of time: For to compoſe ſuch a work, it was neceſſary to collect the ſeveral pieces in the hands of ſeveral men, who had drawn certain Memoirs for the obſervation of every Law that did more immediately concern them.

3. They then began to increaſe their hatred for the ſtudy of the Greek Tongue, abandoning themſelves wholly to the ſtudy of their Traditions. This we ſee in the Miſna Maſ. ſota c. 9. § 14.

4. About this time, being preſſed with Arguments out of theſe Books by the Chriſtians that diſputed againſt them, they thought beſt to reject the Works themſelves: And becauſe the Chriſtians uſed the LXX Verſion againſt them, they invented ſeveral Lyes to diſcredit it, as we ſee in the Gemara of Megilla; and leſt that ſhould not do, they made it their buſineſs to find out ſome that were able to make a new Verſion; ſuch as Aquila in the time of Hadrian, and Symmachus, and Theodotion, who turn'd Jews toward the end of the Second Century. Theſe Three Interpreters were deſigned to change the Senſe of thoſe Texts which the Chriſtians (according to the Old Jewiſh Traditions) did refer to the Meſſias. Of this Juſtin Martyr has given ſome Inſtances in his Dialogue with Trypho, R. Akiba's great Friend; and we ſee that St. Jerom, Ep. 89. complains of the ſame.

And now what wonder is it, if the Jews in this humour did neglect, or rather rejected thoſe Apocryphal Books, whoſe Authority in ſome points were ſet up againſt them by the Chriſtians, as were the Books of Baruch, Wiſdom, and Eccleſiaſticus?

As for Philo, tho he wrote in a lofty Stile, and after an Allegorical way, (and therefore we find in the Rabboth ſeveral Thoughts common to him and the Cabaliſts, and other Allegorical Authors, whoſe Notions are gathered in the Rabboth); yet the Jews ſoon loſt all eſteem for his Works. Firſt, Becauſe he writ in Greek, which was a Language moſt deſpiſed by them at this time; they having eſtabliſh'd it as a Maxim, That he who brought up his Children in the Greek Tongue was curſed, as he who fed Swine. Bava kama fol. 82. col. 1. & Sota fol. 49. col. 2. Secondly, Becauſe ſome Chriſtians challenged him for their own. For finding ſome of his Principles to be agreeable to thoſe of the Chriſtian Religion, it came into their head (tho it is a Fancy without any Foundation) that he while he was at Rome, was converted by St. Peter. The ſame thing befel Joſephus as ſoon as the Chriſtians began to uſe his Authority againſt the Jews; notwithſtanding that the Jews have no better Hiſtorian than Joſephus. Thirdly, Becauſe the Jews had then almoſt forſaken the ſtudy of the Holy Scriptures, and given themſelves up entirely to the ſtudy of their Traditions, or Second Law, as they call it. The Catalogue of their Ancient Commentators is very ſmall. Their firſt literal Commentator is R. Saadiah, who writ his Comments on the Scripture in the beginning of the Tenth Century. As for the others that were long before him▪ as Zohar, Siphre, and Siphri, Siphra, Mechilta, Tanchuma, and the Rabboth, they all make it their buſineſs to explain allegorically, or to eſtabliſh their Traditions.

As to the Targum, we ſee how heat of Diſpute hath carried the Jews to ſuch ſtrange extremities, that now they reject no ſmall part of thoſe Interpretations that were Authentick with their Forefathers. It may not be amiſs to give ſome Proofs of this, to ſhew that we do not accuſe them without cauſe.

And in general, there is not a more idle Romance than that which the Jews have deviſed touching two Meſſias's that are to come unto the World. One muſt be of the Race of Joſeph by Ephraim, and called Nehemiah the Son of Huſiel, who (as they will have it) after a Reign of many Years at Jeruſalem, and after having ſack'd Rome, is at laſt to be killed himſelf at Jeruſalem by a King of Perſia. The other Meſſias is to be Menahem the Son of Hammiel, who is to appear for the delivery of the Jews, being ſent from God on that Errand, according to Moſes's Prayer, Exod. iv. 13.

For the time of this ſecond Meſſias's coming ſhall be when the Mother of the deceaſed Meſſias the Son of Joſeph, having gathered the Jews diſperſed from Galilee to Jeruſalem, ſhall be there beſieged by one Armillus the Son of Satan, who is to proceed out of a Marble Statue in Rome, and who in this cloſe Siege ſhall be at the very point of deſtroying them. Then they ſay Meſſias the Son of David ſhall come with ſeven Shepherds, to wit, the Three Patriarchs, Moſes, David, and Elias, and eight of the principal Fathers or Prophets, who are to riſe before the reſt.

They ſay, That Moſes at the head of them ſhall convert the Jews without working any Miracle, and then all the Jews ſhall riſe at the ſound of a Trumpet, paſſing under ground till they come to Mount Olivet, which ſhall cleave in two to, let them out. Then the Jews ſhall come from all Quarters to form the Meſſias's Army, and the Meſſias the Son of Joſeph ſhall be raiſed from the dead, to come in among the reſt; and ſo the two Meſſias's ſhall reign without jealouſy of one another; only the Son of David ſhall have the chief Power, reigning from one end of the Earth to the other, and that for Forty Years.

All this time the Jews ſhall continue in Feaſting and Jollity, uſing the other Nations as Slaves: And then Gog the King of Magog, with the Kingdoms of the North, ſhall come to attack the Jews in Paleſtine, but he and they ſhall be deſtroyed by Rain and Hail; after which the Land ſhall be purged of the dead Bodies, and they ſhall build the Third Temple, and then the Ten Tribes ſhall return, and offer Sacrifices to God in the Temple, and God ſhall pour out his Spirit on all Iſrael, and make them Prophets, as Joel hath foretold, chap. xi. 28.

This is the Notion in ſhort of the Two Meſſias's, which R. Meyr Aldabi gives us in his Book Intituled Sevile Emuna, ch. 10. p. 123. But it is certain, 1. the ancient Jews knew but of one Meſſias. Trypho knew not of two, as we ſee in Juſtin Martyr's Dialogue, which is a clear proof, that thoſe paſſages of the Targum, which ſpeak of two Meſſias's, are Additions to the ancient Text, made ſince the Jews invented the conceit of a double Meſſias.

2. It is certain the Talmudiſts did not believe firmly the Return of the Ten Tribes, Tr. Sanh. c. 10. §. 3. Some did hope for it, as doth alſo R. Eliezer Maſſech. Sanh. c. 30. §. 3. But R. Akiba was of quite another opinion. And yet their Poſterity hath been ſo much inclined for R. Eliezer his opinion, that one of their greateſt Objections againſt Jeſus being the Meſſias, is this, that if he had been the Meſſias, he would have gathered the Ten Tribes.

3. Their confining of the Meſſias's Reign to forty years, is contrary to the opinion of their Fathers, who held that the Meſſias ſhould reign for ever. Some afterward thought that he was to reign forty years, others that he was to reign ſeventy years, as you ſee in the Gemara of Sanhedrim, ch. 11. fol. 97. col. 2.

4. They ſuppoſe now that the Meſſias ſhall build a third Temple. Whereas Haggai deſcribing the ſecond Temple as that under which the Meſſias ſhould appear, expreſly calls it the laſt, Hag. ii. 9. And this R. David Kimchi and R. Azariah, and the Talmud of Jeruſalem, Megillah, fol. 72. col. 4. The Talmud of Babylon, Tit. Baba batra, fol. 3. col. 1. and ſeveral others do acknowledg. Though ſome few ſuppoſe Haggai's Prophecy to have reference to a third Temple. See Abarbanel & Men. ben Iſrael on Hagg.

5. It is the remark of one of the moſt celebrated Authors of the Talmud, and received amongſt the other Jews, that all the times noted by the Prophets for the coming of the Meſſias are paſt. Dixit Rav Omnes termini de adventu Meſſiae tranſierunt, nec jam remanet niſi in converſione, ſi Iſrael convertatur, redimetur, quod ſi non convertatur, non redimetur. Since that they have been forced to quit that miſerable ſhift; and now they maintain that all the Promiſes of the coming of the Meſſias were conditional, and that he ſhall come when his People the Jews ſhall be by Repentance prepared to receive him. Manaſ. Ben. Iſr. q. 27. on Eſ. And yet the Ancient in the ſame place before did affirm that the Meſſias muſt come in the moſt corrupt Age, fol. 97. col. 1.

To be a little more particular, the Jews did maintain, that all the Prophets ſpoke of the Meſſias. See Bethlem Juda in the word Goel. At preſent, they diſpute almoſt every Text that we urge for the Meſſias, ſo that inſtead of convincing them, we can only ſhame them by laying before them the Authorities of their Fathers, who underſtood theſe Texts in the ſame ſenſe that the Apoſtles did.

The Modern Jews are very ſenſible of the Notion of a Plurality of Perſons in the words, Let us make Man after our Image, Gen. i. Some of them therefore are for changing the reading, and inſtead of, Let Us make Man, would have it, Let Man be made, though the Samaritan Text, the Old Seventy Verſion, and the Talmudiſts, and all their Ancient and Modern Tranſlations read as we do. See Aben Ezra on the place, and R. David Kimchi in Michlol, p. 9.

They will ſcarcely allow the Meſſias to be ſpoken of in Gen. iii. 15. Although Jonathan's Targum, and that of Jeruſalem do clearly underſtand it of the Meſſias.

The Old Jews affirmed that the Angel who appeared, Gen. xix. and in other places, and who is called the Lord, was (as I have before ſhewed) the Word of the Lord, but many of their Diſciples do ſay it was a created Angel, as we learn from R. Shem Tov. in his Book Emun. & Men. ben Iſrael, q. 64. on Geneſis. Such a thing cannot be done but by an extream impudence, ſince we ſee that they profeſs juſt the contrary in their own Prayers, where you read in their Office of Peſach, And he brought us out of Egypt; Not, ſay they, by the hand of an Angel, neither by the hand of a Seraphim, nor by the hand of an Envoy, but the Holy Bleſſed, by his Glory, and by himſelf, as the Scripture ſaith, Exod. xii. 12. And ſo there they refer almoſt all the appearances of the Angel of the Lord, to God himſelf, excluſively, to any created Angel: And ſuch are thoſe Appearances, Gen. xiv. 15. Gen. xx. 6. Gen. xxxi. 24. Gen. xxxii. 24. where they ſay that Iſrael wreſtled with God. Exod. xii. 29, &c.

The preſent Jews are not for applying the Text, Gen. xlix. 10. to the Meſſias, but ſome refer the words to Moſes himſelf, as R. Bechay, others to David, others to Ahijah the Shilonite, and others to Nebuchadnezzar. Notwithſtanding both Jonathan's and the Jeruſalem Targum, note expreſly this Prophecy to be ſpoken of the Meſſias.

And thus in the ſame Text, the Scepter there ſpoken of was explained in the Old Talmudiſts by Power and Dominion which ſhould not depart from Judah till the coming of the Meſſias; Though now among ſome of the Modern Jews it ſignifies only Affliction and Calamities. R. Joel aben Sueb.

At this day the Jews do obſtinately deny any Promiſe to be made of the Meſſias, Deut. xviii. 18, 19. And ſome of them will have it ſpoken of Joſhua, ſome of David. So the Author of Midraſh Tehil in Pſal. i. and ſome of Jeremy. But it is viſible, that in and before the times of Jeſus Chriſt they were of another opinion, as may be gathered from 1 M • c. xiv. 41. and is clear from what the multitude ſay, Joh. vi. 14. This is that Prophet who was to come into the world. See alſo Luc. vii. 16. Joh. i. 19. Mat. xxi.

It was not queſtioned in St. Paul's time, whether the 2d. Pſalm did relate to the Meſſias, elſe St. Paul could not have applied it to Chriſt, as he doth Act. xiii. 33. nor was it queſtioned for ſome Ages after; the Talmudical Doctors agreeing to it. You ſee that in the Gemara of Succoth, c. 5. in Jalkuth in Pſal. ii. in Midraſh Tehillim. But their new Expoſitors have done their utmoſt to make it belong to David only, or to apply theſe words, Thou art my Son, Pſal. ii. to the People of Iſrael. So doth R. Moſe Iſrael Mercadon upon that Pſalm in his Comment, Printed at Amſterdam.

The Jews in Chriſt's time, did believe the xxiid. Pſalm to be a Prophecy touching the Meſſias. And Jeſus Chriſt to ſhew the accompliſhment of it in his own Perſon, cites the firſt verſe of it on the Croſs, Mat. xxvii. 46. Yet ſoon after as we ſee in Juſtin Martyr's Dialogue, they denied that Pſalm to belong to the Meſſias. But their folly appears becauſe they cannot agree among themſelves; ſome referring it to David, others to Eſther, and others to the whole People of the Jews. Menaſſ. q. 8. in Pſalm.

The 16th. ver. of the ſame xxiid. Pſalm is thus Tranſlated by the Seventy, They pierced my hands and my feet: This reading is proved by de Muis on this place, and by Walton in Prolegom. p. 40. But our Jews now read it, As a Lion my hands and my feet, which is not ſenſe. Their own Maſora Notes that it ſhould be read, they have pierced. However they have eſpouſed the other reading, and will not be beaten from it by any Argument, becauſe they think this reading will beſt deſtroy the Inference which the Chriſtians draw from this place to ſhew that the Meſſias was to be Crucifyed, according to this Pſalm.

The Pſalm lxviii. by the ancient Jews was referred to the Meſſias, and ſo doth R. Joel. Aben Sueb refers the laſt part to the time of the Meſſias, p. 158. in h. Pſ. It was alſo by St. Paul, Epheſ. iv. 8. referred to the Aſcenſion of our Lord: Wherefore he ſaith, when he aſcended up on high, he led Captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. The very ſame ſubject is handled in Pſal. xlvii. 5. which Pſalm David Kimchi does acknowledg belongs to the Times of the Meſſias, and there they cannot deny but the true God is ſpoken of, the ſame Memra who conducted the People in the Deſert, and gave the Law at Sinai, as it is ſpoken v. 8, & 9. And yet the Modern Jews will apply thoſe words of Pſal. lxviii. 10. to the Aſcenſion of Abraham, or Moſes, or the Prophet Elias, to any rather than the Meſſias.

It is granted by the Modern Jews that their Fathers underſtood Pſal. lxxii. of the Meſſias. So R. Saadia on Dan. vii. 14. Salom. Jarchi on Pſal. 72.6. and Bahal Hatturim ad Numb. xxvi. 16. and yet now they ſtick not, (of which R. David Kimchi is a witneſs) to interpret it only of Salomon.

In Jeſus Chriſt's time the Jews confeſſed Pſalm cx. did belong to the Meſſias, v. 1. The Lord ſaid unto my Lord, ſit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy foot-ſtool. Chriſt's argument, Mat. xxii. 44. neceſſarily ſuppoſes it. So it was underſtood in the Midraſh Tehillim, and by R. Saadia Gaon on Dan. vii. 13. But notwithſtanding this, our later Jews affirm that it was made for David, or Abraham.

'Twas of old conſtantly believed, that Wiſdom, Prov. iii. and viii. did denote the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I have ſhewed it from Philo the Jew, from the Apocryphal Book, and from the Cabaliſts, and yet at this day they explain it of the Law of Moſes, or the Attribute of Wiſdom.

Jonathan in his Paraphraſe on Iſa. ix. 6. interprets the Text of the Meſſias: For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and his Name ſhall be called, Wonderful, Counſeller, the mighty God, the Everlaſting Father, the Prince of Peace. And ſo did the moſt ancient Jewiſh Writers. But after Jeſus Chriſt, the Jews having broken up a new way, it has pleaſed ſome of their late Writers to tread in the ſteps of R. Hillel, and to apply it to Hezekiah. So does Salomon Jarchi, David Kimchi, Abenezra and Lipman. As for the reſt they quite change the preſent Text by referring to God all the Names, which are evidently given to the Meſſias, except that of the Prince of Peace.

For much the ſame reaſon do the latter Jews make Zorobabel to be ſpoken of in Iſa. xi. 12. Manaſ. q. 18. on Iſaiah. Though not only St. Paul underſtood it of Jeſus Chriſt, Rom. xv. 12. 2 Theſ. ii. 8. But the ancient Jews did generally refer it to the Meſſias, as appears all along in the Targum of that Chapter, and the Jews ſhewed they underſtood it ſo, by their rejecting Barcochba, when they found he could not ſmell Souls as they thought the Meſſias ſhould do according to the ſecond verſe of the ſaid Chapter. And St. Jerome witneſſes upon that Chapter that all the Jews agreed with Chriſtians, that all that Chapter was to be underſtood of the Meſſias.

The old Jews, as St. Jerome witneſſes upon this Chapter, aſcribed Iſa. xxv. 6. Then the eyes of the blind ſhall be opened, and the ears of the deaf be unſtopped. Then ſhall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb ſing; for in the wilderneſs ſhall waters break out, and ſtreams in the deſert, to the times of the Meſſias.

But the Modern Jews have endeavoured to wreſt it, and to make it agree to other times, becauſe they ſaw how the Evangeliſts applied it to the Miracles of our Lord. See Menaſſ. q. 17. on Iſaiah. And they are gone ſo far in that fancy that they give it out now for an Axiom amongſt their People, that the Meſſias ſhall not work any Miracle. So Rambam. R. Meyr Aldab. and R. Menaſſ. ben Iſrael, who would have the Miracles which are there ſpoken of, either to be underſtood Metaphorically, or to be referred, to the time of the Reſurrection.

The Impudence of R. Salomon on Iſa. xlviii. 48, 16. is amazing: The words of the Text run thus, From the time that it was, there am I, and now the Lord God and his Spirit have ſent me. From hence it appears that the Meſſias, who is here ſpoken of, according to the Targum, was on Mount Sinai, when God gave the Law from thence. This R. Salomon will by no means grant of the Meſſias, but affirms that it is ſpoken of Iſaiah. But how was he on Mount Sinai when the Law was given? Why, he anſwers, His Soul was there, as were the Souls alſo of all the Prophets, God then revealing to them all thoſe things that were to come, which each of them in his time have ſince Propheſied of. A fancy, that R. Tanchuma, who lived a long while before R. Salomon, never hit on: For he maintains from Iſa. lvii. 16. that the Souls are then created, as God orders Men to be born in every Generation.

We ſee how poſitive they are in expounding the Sufferings of the Meſſias, which are deſcribed Iſa. liii. of the People of the Jews. And yet they can't but know that Jonathan refers the end of the lii. Chap. and the beginning of the liii. to the Meſſias, as the Apoſtles refer it to Jeſus Chriſt, following herein John the Baptiſt, Joh. i. 29. And ſo did R. Alexandri among the Talmudiſt, as we ſee in Sanhedrin, fol. 93. col. 2. and in the Midraſh Conen in Arze Levanon, fol. 3. col. 2.

The Prophet Micah, ch. v. 2. ſpeaks of the Meſſias: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thouſands of Judah, yet out of thee ſhall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in Iſrael; whoſe goings forth have been from of old, from everlaſting. The Jews can't deny this. But then to evade what is there ſpoken of his Eternity, they pretend it means no more than his deſcent from David; as if the diſtance of time from David to Jeſus Chriſt could be called Eternity. This is the way Manaſſeh ben Iſrael, q. 5. on Micah, takes to get over this difficulty. Before him others took another way, and affirmed that God decreed before the Creation of the World, to ſend the Meſſias, and that in this reſpect it is ſaid in Micah, that his goings forth are from the days of eternity.

Jeremy, ch. xxiii. 26. ſaith very expreſly, that the Meſſias ſhall be called the Jehovah, our Righteouſneſs; and he repeats the ſame, ch. xxxiii. 15, 16. In thoſe days, and at that time will I cauſe the Branch of Righteouſneſs to grow up unto David, and he ſhall execute judgment and righteouſneſs in the Land. In thoſe days ſhall Judah be ſaved, and Jeruſalem ſhall dwell ſafely: And this is the Name wherewith he ſhall be called, The Lord our Righteouſneſs. R. David Kimchi owns it, and quotes the Authority of two Eminent Rabbins for it, namely, R. Aba Bar Caana, and R. Levi in Eccha Rabati. But they will none of them own that this Name Jehovah belongs any otherwiſe to him, than it doth to the Ark; which is altogether impertinent; for the Ark is never called Jehovah; nor doth Menaſſeh prove that it is with all his talking, q. 18. in Iſaiah.

Jonathan, as well as Philo, aſcribes to the Meſſias the Prophecies, Zech. vi. 12, 13. And ſo Jonathan applies to the Meſſias what is ſaid in the ſame Prophet. But many of the Modern Jews, among whom R. Salomon is one, do refer them to Zorobabel.

Theſe ſeveral places I have now mentioned may ſerve as a Sample of the confuſion the Jews are in, while they attempt to interpret the ancient Prophecies; and I may confidently affirm, that all thoſe other places which I have omitted, that intimate a Trinity, or the Divinity of the Meſſias, or the time when he ſhould come into the World, are in like manner explained ſo very triflingly, and forcedly, as that oftentimes their own Authors, convinced by the Evidence of the Texts themſelves, have refuted them, and given a new Interpretation of them. Whence it comes to paſs, that their Reader can find no certain ſenſe of thoſe Texts to reſt on, but his underſtanding continues in an entire darkneſs, and unſetledneſs.

This ill luck they have of Explications, is not of yeſterday, as I have already obſerved. Soon after Jeſus Chriſt's time, they ſet themſelves to oppoſe what the Chriſtians held of the two Comings of the Meſſias, though ſo diſtinctly deſcribed, one of them Zech. ix. 9. and the other, Dan. vii. 13. And ſtill to this day do they reject that Notion of his two Comings, as may be ſeen in Menaſſ. on Zech. ix. p. 185.

But others of them, who found it impoſſible to deny that the Scripture ſpeaks of two Comings of the Meſſias, whom they expected, thought it better to make two Meſſias's, than to acknowledg that the Meſſias whom they expected was to be a ſuffering Meſſias. And thus they thought they removed the difficulties in the other opinion, that made but one Coming of the Meſſias, by owning the Meſſias the Son of Joſeph ſhould be a Man of ſorrows, but Meſſias the Son of David was to be a Glorious Deliverer.

As the Jews Diſputes with the Chriſtians encreaſed, they advanced certain Characters of the Times of the Meſſias; and all of them very miraculous; which they inferred from ſome Allegorical Deſcriptions in the Prophets concerning the Times of the Meſſias. Theſe they run up to ten, as we ſee in Shemoth Rabba, Paraſcha 15. And they make a great uſe of thoſe Miracles, which they conceive ſhould have been in the time of Jeſus Chriſt, if he had been the true Meſſias. Notwithſtanding all which Menaſſe q. 7. on Iſaiah, finds himſelf obliged to aſſure us that David Kimchi and Abarbanel, and many Interpreters explain moſt of theſe paſſages as Allegorical Deſcriptions of the Times of the Meſſias. And Maimonides is of this opinion, that when the Meſſias comes there ſhall be no change in the Order of Nature, Jad Chaz. Lib. de Regibus. And in that he follows the opinion of one Rabbi Samuel that is quoted in the Talmud Tit. Beracoth, where he ſaith that there ſhall be not any difference between the Times of the Meſſias, and the other Times of the World, but the ſubduing of the Kingdoms by the Meſſias.

To conclude, the Jews being ſo often deceived in their Expectations of the Meſſias, and finding themſelves abuſed by a great number of falſe pretenders to that Character, have almoſt loſt their hopes of his Coming: And finding his Coming to be a thing uncertain, few of them do regard the Promiſe of the Meſſias, with that aſſurance with which the Ancients did expect it.

Indeed it is obſervable that though Maimonides profeſſes to own the Meſſias, and hath inſerted the hope of it among the Articles of the Jewiſh Faith, which he hath given us; yet he otherwhere ſpeaks very indifferently of it. In one place he aſſerts the obſervation of Moſes's Law, and the recompenſes annexed to it, to be the chief end of the Jews enquiry, and not the time of the Meſſias's appearance; as we are informed by the Author of the Chain of the Cabala.

The ſame judgment may be made of Joſeph Albo, who writ with great bitterneſs againſt the Chriſtians: For, 1. he maintains in his Book of the Principles that R. Hillel was no Apoſtate, though he denied the coming of any other Meſſias, but of Hezekiah, who was already come. And Albo gives this reaſon for it, becauſe the Coming of the Meſſias is no Fundamental Article of the Jewiſh Religion. Orat. 1. chap. 1. Nothing can be more wretched than this excuſe of his. For if the Meſſias had come before the Babylonian Captivity, as R. Hillel would have it in the Perſon of King Hezekiah; and if no other was to be expected, why did the Jewiſh Church take thoſe Books into her Bible that were written by the Prophets that lived under the ſecond Temple? and why did not R. Hillel and his Followers declare againſt them as falſe Prophecies, that ſpoke of the Meſſias as being yet to come? namely, Zechary, Haggai, and Malachy, who did all Prophecy of the Meſſias, as has been abundantly ſhewn, with Proofs out of the Targums of thoſe Books, and the general conſent of Jewiſh Writers.

2. The ſame Albo is not afraid to aſſert, That the Article of the Meſſias, has no other foundation than the authority of Tradition. For, ſaith he, there is not any Prophecy either in the Law, or in the Prophets, that foretells his Coming by any neceſſary Expoſition of it, with reſpect to him, or which may not from the circumſtances of the Text be well explained otherwiſe. This is his Poſition in examination of Gen. xlix. 10. where he doth his utmoſt to evade the Text, v. 10. The Scepter ſhall not depart from Judah, &c.

3. He looks on the Article of the Meſſias's Coming to be a matter of that ſmall importance to the Jews, that he leaves it doubtful, whether the Meſſias be come ſince the time of Onkelos their famous Paraphraſt, who expreſſes his expectation of this Promiſe in many places of the Books of Moſes; and if he be not already come, whether he ſhall come in the Glory of the Clouds of Heaven, or whether he ſhall come poor, and riding on an Aſs; and becauſe of Men's ſins, not diſtributing thoſe great Bleſſings promiſed at his Coming, nor Men on the other hand regarding him as the Meſſias?

Certainly, R. Lipman in his Nitzachon, where he examines the above mentioned Text, Gen. xlix. 10. advances a Rule which quite overthrows all Proofs from the Holy Scripture. This Rabin, ſeeing the Jews give ſuch oppoſite Interpretations of Jacob's Prophecy, concerning the Scepter's continuance in Judah, as were impoſſible to be reconciled, ſome underſtanding Empire, by the Scepter; and ſome Slavery and oppreſſion; he lays this down for a Maxim, That the Law was capable of divers Explications, and all of them, though never ſo incompatible and contradictory, were nevertheleſs the words of the Living God.

This is very near the Sentiment of R. Menaſſeh Ben Iſrael, in his Queſtions on Geneſis, where he collects the ſeveral Jewiſh Expoſitions of this Text. But granting this once for a Principle, it is in vain to conſult the Scriptures, or to think of ever diſcovering the meaning of them. The ſenſe of them muſt abſolutely depend on the Authority of the Rabins; and what they teach muſt be all equally received as the Word of God, though they teach things contradictory to one another. Such Poſitions put one to a loſs, whether their blindneſs, or their ſpite, is therein moſt to be pitied.

CHAP. XXVII. That the Unitarians in oppoſing the Doctrines of the Trinity, and our Lord's Divinity, do go much further than the Modern Jews, and that they are not fit perſons to convert the Jews.

WHAT I have obſerved of the alteration made by the Modern Jews in their Belief, is enough to ſhew that they were forced to adopt new Notions, becauſe of the evident Proofs drawn from the Opinions of their Anceſtors, which the Chriſtians uſed againſt them.

The very ſame prevarication may be charged on the Socinians, in their Explications of thoſe places of Scripture, that prove the Bleſſed Trinity, and the Divinity of our Saviour.

And, 1ſt. They have borrowed many of the Jews anſwers to the Chriſtians, and often carried them much further than the Jews themſelves did intend them. 2dly. They have invented the way of accommodation, for the evading of thoſe Quotations in the New Teſtament, that are taken out of the Old Teſtament, as finding this the moſt effectual means to eſcape thoſe difficulties, which they can no other way reſolve. 3dly. The Unitarians, eſpecially thoſe of England, to make ſhort work, do not ſtick to aſſert, that the Chriſtians have foiſted thoſe Texts into the Goſpel, which ſpeak of the Trinity, and the Divinity of our Lord.

It is fit I ſhould give particular Inſtances of each of theſe, in proof of what I ſay.

Smalcius De Divin. Chr. c. 10. maintains in the general, That the Books of the Old Teſtament are of little uſe for the Converſion of the Jews. He gives this reaſon for it, That almoſt all that which is ſaid to be ſpoken of the Meſſias in the Old Teſtament, muſt be interpreted myſtically, before it can appear to be ſpoken of him, and by conſequence very remotely from what the words do naturally ſignify.

Then in particular: When we would prove a Plurality of Perſons in the Deity againſt the Jews, from thoſe Expreſſions of Scripture that ſpeak of God in the Plural Number; although the Jews (as you may ſee in their Comments on Gen. i. 26. xi. 7. and eſpecially on Iſa. vi. 8.) are forced to own that a Plurality is imported in thoſe Expreſſions, and therefore pretend that the Number is Plural, becauſe God ſpeaks of himſelf and the Angels his Counſellors; yet the Socinians, as Enjedinus witneſſes for them, do deny that theſe Plural Expreſſions do denote any Plurality in the Deity, no more than Expreſſions in the Singular Number do. As for Socinus, he ſolves it by a Figure, by which, as he ſaith, a ſingle Perſon ſpeaks plurally when he excites himſelf to do any thing. A Figure of which we have no Example in the Writings of the Old Teſtament.

Socinus has followed the Jews Evaſion on the words Gen. iii. 22. Behold the Man is as one of Us, in maintaining that God does herein ſpeak of himſelf and of the Angels. And Smalcius has followed him in this Solution. The very ſame Eplication they give of the words, Gen. xi. 7. Let us go down and confound their Language; borrowing entirely the Subterfuge of the Jews, who at this day teach that God ſpoke it to the Angels.

Crellius on Gal. iii. 8. eſpouſes the Jewiſh Senſe of the Text, Gen. xii. 3. In thee ſhall all the Families of the Earth be bleſſed; by which he overthrows the force of St. Paul's Citation, and makes it nothing to the purpoſe. He ſuppoſes that St. Paul did herein allude only to the Paſſage in Geneſis; but on the contrary, it appears that he followed the Literal Senſe, as we have it, Gen. xii. 3. xviii. 18. xxii. 18. xxvi. 4. xxviii. 14. and as the Ancient Cabaliſts do acknowledge at large in Reuchlin, L. 1.

Smalcius ch. 2. Ib. aſſerts, That the Promiſe of the Seed of the Woman, Gen. iii. 5. can very hardly be underſtood of the Meſſias. And yet the Ancient Jews acknowledged it in their Targum of Jeruſalem, and by the Cabaliſts, Tikunzoh. 21. fol. 52. col. 2. & Bachaie fol. 13. col. 3. in Gen.

Schlichtingius affirms that Pſal. xlv. does literally relate to Solomon, and that this is its firſt and principal ſenſe. Altho the Ancient Jews do all agree that it treats of the Meſſias, and cannot be underſtood of Solomon.

Socinus perſuading himſelf that St. Paul cites Heb. i. 6. from Pſal. xcvii. 8. And let all the Angels of God worſhip him; does maintain that he cites it in the myſtical Senſe, becauſe Jeſus Chriſt could not be adored by the Angels before he was advanced to be their Head. And yet the Jews of old did refer it to the Meſſias, adding theſe words in the end of Moſes's Song, Deut. xxxii. as we ſee there in the LXX Verſion, from whence it was indeed that St. Paul took the words in Heb. i. 6.

Again, Socinus to rid himſelf of Pſal. xxiv. where according to the Ancient Jews Opinion the Meſſias is ſpoken of, does pretend that the Meſſias is not meant here in this Pſalm, or at leaſt he is deſcribed only as the Meſſenger of God. A Salvo as ridiculous as his Anſwer: For moſt of the Characters and Works of God are aſcribed to him that is there ſpoken of, and he is expreſly called the Lord of Hoſts.

But this is not all. For our Socinians not only follow the Jews, but exceed them in the bold ways they take to get over thoſe Authorities which make againſt them. Becauſe that the words of Pſal. xl. 7. Thou haſt bored my ears, are cited by St. Paul in this manner, A Body haſt thou prepared me, Heb. x. 5. who follows herein the LXX Text, which thus paraphraſes the Pſalmiſt's words; from thence Enjedinus takes occaſion to accuſe the Author of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, for not having cited the Original, and to traduce him as an Apocryphal Writer.

They go further than the Jews do on Pſal. xlv. 6. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. A Text cited by St. Paul, and applied to Jeſus Chriſt, Heb. i. 7, 8. The LXX tranſlate it as we do. But the Jews have tried all ways to deliver themſelves of this Authority, which proves ſo evidently that the Meſſias is God. As for Socinus, he pretends to reject the Jews Solutions. But his Diſciples have invented another, which is worſe than that of the Jews, as may be ſeen in Enjedinus and Oſtorodius.

Pſalm. xc. throughout relates to the Meſſias. Jeſus Chriſt applies it to himſelf, Matth. xxii. and from thence proves that he is David's Lord, although he is the Son of David. But Enjedinus refutes this Argument of Jeſus Chriſt: And Schlichtingius treats it as abſurd. This is a thing that deſerves to be reflected on; becauſe theſe Gentlemen pretend that among them only true Chriſtianity is continued.

The like way they take to anſwer what the Apoſtle ſaith of Chriſt's creating the Heavens and the Earth, Heb. i. 10, 11. and his Proof of it from Pſal. cii. 27, 28.

And with the ſame Impudence do they elude the Citation from Pſal. cxviii. 22. which is quoted Mat. xxi. 42. Altho R. D. Kimchi, among other Jews, refers it to the Meſſias.

It is ſtrange to ſee how they take the Jews part in explaining as they do, Iſa. vii. 14. A Virgin, that is, ſay they, a Propheteſs, Crell. on Matt. i. The only reaſon of this Explication is the word Immanuel, which there follows, to their great perplexity. They therefore ſay, that Immanuel is ſpoken of the Father in Iſaiah's Prophecy, and of Jeſus Chriſt in St. Matthew's Goſpel in a Myſtical Senſe.

Iſaiah, chap. xxxv. 5. has diſtinctly noted the Miracles which the Meſſias ſhould work, and has given us a clear Character of his Perſon. R. Solomon Jarchi endeavours to ſhift off this Text, and to explain it of the deliverance of the People out of Babylon. Socinus, who could not but know how the Evangeliſts have referred it to the Miracles of Jeſus Chriſt, does nevertheleſs eſtabliſh as well as he can the Explication of the Modern Jews. And this he does for no other reaſon, but becauſe the Appearance of God himſelf is ſpoken of in the 4th Verſe of this Chapter.

How audaciouſly does Crellius deſtroy the Proof of the Place where Chriſt ſhould be born, Matth. ii. 5. taken out of Micah v. 2.? Saith he, The Jews cited it only according to the Myſtical Senſe. But we know the Jews took it to be the Literal Senſe, as appears by their Targum.

The viiith Chapter of Proverbs was underſtood by Philo of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And indeed ſuch Attributes are given to Wiſdom in that Chapter, as belong only to a Perſon, ſuch as being conceived, born, creating, governing, exerciſing of Mercy, and the like. But Socinus is not content it ſhould go ſo: He will have all this attributed to the Wiſdom of God by a Proſopopeia, juſt as our later Jews do interpret it of the Law.

Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. relates to the Meſſias in the Judgment of all the Ancient Jews. Our Socinians will not allow this; but rather than own that the Meſſias is named God, they refer the Title of, The Lord our Righteouſneſs, to the People there ſpoken of.

We have a remarkable Prophecy for the Proof of the Divinity of the Meſſias, in Zech. xii. 10. They ſhall look on him whom they have pierced. The Jews anciently did, and ſtill do, underſtand it of the Meſſias. And Jeſus Chriſt does apply it to himſelf, Rev. i. 7. What ſaith Socinus to this? He declares that this Text which is ſo like Pſal. xxii. has been corrupted by the Jews, and thus he trys to render its Authority uſeleſs.

Here you have a Sample of their conduct, in rejecting the Literal, and ſetting up a Myſtical ſenſe: But there are other Quotations cited in the New Teſtament, from which it is manifeſt that our Lord Jeſus Chriſt is the God ſpoken of in the Old Teſtament, the Authority of which Texts cannot ſo eaſily be eluded. And to take away the evidence of theſe, they have invented the way of accommodation.

David ſpeaking of the God of Iſrael, has theſe words, Pſal. lxviii. 19. Thou art aſcended on high, &c. Hence we conclude that Jeſus Chriſt is the God of Iſrael, becauſe St. Paul ſaith they had their accompliſhment in our Lord's Aſcenſion into Heaven, Epheſ. iv. 8. The Jews ſay, thoſe words in the Pſalm were ſpoken of Moſes. The Socinians cannot deny they were ſpoken of God; but deny they were ſpoken of the Meſſias literally. But, ſay they, theſe words were applied to Jeſus Chriſt by St. Paul, only by way of accommodation. Strange! Is it not plain, that David ſaith no more in this lxviii. Pſalm of the Meſſias, than he ſaith in Pſal. cx. which the Jews do refer to the Meſſias? Is not the calling of the Gentiles here clearly foretold v. 33, 34. which is owned on all hands to be the work of the Meſſias? Is it not then viſible that St. Paul in citing theſe words has followed the ſenſe of the Ancient Synagogue, who underſtood Pſal. cx. of the Meſſias, according to the Literal ſenſe?

Socinus owns that the words Pſal. xcvii. 7. which are applied to Jeſus Chriſt, Heb. i. 6. do reſpect the Supreme God. He cannot therefore deny Jeſus Chriſt to be the Supreme God to whom they are applied. But he does it, as he pleaſes, by this way of accommodation, which he ſaith the Sacred Author uſed in applying this Text to Jeſus Chriſt. And ſo the Adoration commanded to be given him, terminates not in him, but is referrable to the Supreme God who commanded this Adoration.

Iſa. ch. viii. 13, 14. has theſe words, Sanctifie the Lord of Hoſts. The Jews interpret them of the Meſſias. Gemar. Maſſech. Sanhedr. in ch. iv. and they are cited by St. Paul, Rom. ix. 32. St. Luke ii. 34. St. Peter, 1 Pet. ii. 7. who apply them to Jeſus Chriſt. The Socinians, whoſe Cauſe will not bear this, that Jeſus Chriſt ſhould be called the Lord of Hoſts, do therefore deny that the Maſſias is here treated of, or that any one elſe is here meant, but God only; adding, that the Holy Writers of the New Teſtament, in applying them to Jeſus Chriſt, turned theſe Texts to quite another ſenſe than was intended by the Holy Spirit at the inditing of them.

The Prophet Iſaiah again has theſe words, ch. xxxv. 4, 5, 6. Behold your God will come— and ſave you, &c. Sal Jarchi and D. Kimchi, expound them of the Deliverance from Babylon; contrary to the ancient Jews opinion, who, as theſe Rabbins confeſs, underſtood them of the Meſſias. The Socinians will not deny that Jeſus Chriſt aſſumed them to himſelf, but to ſhew how little ground he had for ſo doing, they inſiſt on it, that he only accommodated the words to himſelf.

The ſame Iſaiah writes thus, ch. xli. 4. I am the firſt and the laſt; and Jeſus Chriſt has the ſame expreſſions of himſelf, Rev. i. 17. The Chaldee Paraphraſt thought they belonged ſo properly to the True God, as to Paraphraſe them in this manner, I am the Lord Jehovah who created the World in the beginning, and the Ages to come are all mine. Joſeph Albo makes this Text a proof of the Eternity of God, and notes that it is a parallel Text to Iſa. xliv. 6. But if you'l have Socinus opinion of the place, when it is applied to our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, it does not at all regard his Eternity.

Once more, we read Iſa. xlv. 23. I have ſworn by my ſelf, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteouſneſs — that unto me every knee ſhall bow, every tongue ſhall ſwear. St. Paul refers theſe words to Jeſus Chriſt, Rom. xiv. 11. nay he proves our ſtanding before Chriſt's Judgment-ſeat by this Quotation. Notwithſtanding the Socinians believe them only a ſimple accommodation, and not the prime ſcope of the Text.

I know the Apoſtles have ſometimes cited Texts from the Old Teſtament, which have not their exact accompliſhment in that ſenſe wherein they are uſed. As for example, 2 Cor. viii. 15. St. Paul exhorting the Corinthians to ſupply the wants of their Brethren with their abundance, addeth, As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over, and he that had gathered little had no lack. Thus alluding to the Hiſtory of the Manna, Exod. xvi. 18. it is plain that he accommodates that Story to the Beneficence of the Chriſtians, without any thing, either from Letter, or Allegory, to juſtifie this accommodation.

They who think that John, ch. xix. 37. does allude to Exod. xii. 46. Neither ſhall you break a bone thereof, go upon this ground, that Chriſt was typified by the Paſchal Lamb, and therefore what was ſpoken of the Paſchal Lamb is truly applicable to Chriſt. But ſome others believe that St. John cited this paſſage from Pſal. xxxiv. 21. and applies what David ſaith of all the juſt in general, to the Meſſias, who is often called the Juſt One, as being eminently ſo.

I know that ſome think that a Prophecy which has been already accompliſh'd literally, was accommodated by the Holy Penmen to a like event. And thus they think St. Matthew, ch. ii. 17. applies the voice that was heard at Ramah, and Rachel's weeping for her Children, to thoſe Expreſſions of ſorrow uſed by the Women of Bethlehem, when Herod ſlew their Children: Although this Prophecy was before accompliſhed in the Captivity of Judah and Benjamin under Nebuchadnezzar.

But beſides what I have ſaid upon ſuch places, the Examples of this nature are but few, and thoſe may be eaſily diſcerned by a careful Reader from ſuch Citations as are not Accommodations, but Proofs; and for the Texts which are commonly and generally quoted by the Holy Writers, they expoſe the Books of the New Teſtament to the ſcorn and contempt of Jews, who ſuppoſe that the Apoſtles went about to make Converts from the Synagogue by ſuch paſſages of the Old Teſtament, as had nothing of ſtrength or reaſon to convince any Man, for ſuch are the places quoted by way of Accommodation; and let any one but conſult the Writings of the Jews againſt Chriſtianity, and he will find that the main Argument they make uſe of againſt the Proofs brought by the Apoſtles, is, that the paſſages they cite, were never deſigned by the Spirit, to that purpoſe Literally taken, but were only made uſe of by them by way of Accommodation.

But the moſt wonderful thing of all in the Unitarians management of this Controverſie, eſpecially in our Engliſh Unitarians is this, that they do not only ſide with the Jews, and dreſs up their ſenſe of thoſe Texts of the Old Teſtament which are cited in the New as Proofs of our Lords Divinity; or which are objected in confirmation of the Holy Trinity; and that they have not been content to bring in the Notion of Accommodation to elude the force of thoſe Quotations on which the Apoſtles grounded ſeveral Doctrines; but for the moſt part they give broad intimations, as if the New Teſtament Writings were on purpoſe falſified by the Chriſtians, and many things there inſerted which were never thought of by the Authors of thoſe Writings.

If they could have made good this accuſation, it would have ſaved them a great deal of pains which it has coſt them to find out Anſwers to the ſeveral Objections propoſed to them. 'Tis the moſt eaſie, natural, and ſhorteſt way to joyn with the Deiſts in deſtroying the Authority of the Goſpel, and to endeavour to ſhew that nothing certain can be drawn from thence, ſeeing that ſince the Apoſtles Times the Chriſtian Faith hath been corrupted, and new Doctrines have been foiſted into their Books, which from the beginning were not there.

For my part I ſee no other way left them for the defence of their bad Cauſe. But by ill luck, Socinus has ſtopped their retreat even to this laſt Refuge, by the Treatiſe he writ concerning the Authority of the Holy Scriptures. When they have ſolidly refuted this Book of their great Leader, it will be then time to take their Charge againſt the Sacred Books into more particular conſideration.

Let them do this when they will. We promiſe them when they have done it, to reproach them no more with Socinus's Authority, in defence of the Integrity of the Scripture. But for the preſent we refer them to the Book of a famous Mahometan called Hazzadaula, who has handled this matter with length and force enough to confound both the Unitarians and Deiſts. I mean his third Book of the compariſon of the three Laws, the Jewiſh, Chriſtian, and Mahometan; of which there is an Extract in Joſ. de Voiſin de Lege Divina, in a Letter from Gabriel Syonita.

It has been thought by ſome, that Mahomet and his Followers did accuſe the Jews and Chriſtians of corrupting the Old and New Teſtament Writings. But we ſee this Accuſation is proved falſe by ſuch as have managed the Controverſie againſt Mahometaniſm. And the more knowing Mahometans do inſult the Chriſtian Miſſionaries for charging it on them, when Mahomet accuſed the Chriſtians only for wreſting ſeveral paſſages in Scripture, and putting a falſe and forced ſenſe on them.

But with what face the Mahometans can object this I know not, when they themſelves do ſo groſly pervert the paſſages in Deut. xxxiii. 33. Hab. iii. 3. Deut. xviii. and xxxiv. in favour of Mahomet and his Law; and in favour of Mahomet only many Texts in Iſaiah, Ezekiel, Zephany, and other Prophets, as you may ſee them alledged by Hazzadaula in his Fourth Book; but eſpecially when they urge all thoſe places in St. John's Goſpel, where the Paraclete is ſpoken of, as ſo many Promiſes of Mahomet's coming.

I muſt confeſs ſome warm indiſcreet Mahometans in diſpute with the Chriſtians have given them occaſion to believe that the Mahometans generally accuſed the Chriſtians with falſifying their Scriptures. Juſt as the petty Controvertiſts of the Church of Rome have impudently averred the Scripture to be corrupt in many places, the better to eſtabliſh their Church's Authority. And thus we find Ahmed the Mahometan, charging both Jews and Chriſtians with altering of their Bibles. Hotting. Hiſt. p. 364.

But as there are in the Roman Church Men wiſer and calmer that ſee the conſequences of ſo raſh an Accuſation, and have therefore proved unanſwerably the Integrity of the Sacred Text; ſo are there among the Mahometans more wary and cautious Diſputants, who deſpiſe and diſallow thoſe falſe Charges advanced by ſome of their party againſt the Jews and Chriſtians. Such a one was Hazzadaula in the Book before cited, who ſolidly proves that by the care the Maſorite Jews took to aſcertain the Text of the Old Teſtament, it was impoſſible they ſhould be willing to corrupt it; and that if they had been willing, yet they were divided into ſo many Sects of unreconcileable hatred to one another, as rendred it impoſſible for them to do it.

He then ſhews that the difference which is between the ſeveral Verſions, as between the Seventy and Syriack for Example, was no prejudice to the Purity of the Text it ſelf; but that this aroſe from the ſeveral Views the Interpreters then had, from the different Notions and ſenſes they affixed to the Original words. He then paſſes to the Examination of the various Readings, which our Unitarians triumph in; and ſhews that neither their number nor variety ought to diminiſh the Authority of the Originals. He gives Reaſons for his preference of the Jewiſh Bible to that of the Samaritans. He proves the corruption of the Books of the Old Teſtament could not be made before Jeſus Chriſt's time, ſince he never reproached them for it, which he would certainly have done, had they been guilty of it; nor could the corruption come in after Chriſt's time, becauſe the Jews and Chriſtians who are ſuch mortal Enemies, have had theſe Books in keeping, and daily read them, though they interpret them very differently.

In a word, we cannot eaſily meet with a more perfect Treatiſe on this Subject, nor one more proper to refute the bold inſinuations of ſome who under the name of Chriſtians, and Men skilled in Critical knowledg, have undertaken to ſhake the Foundations of the Chriſtian Religion; and for this purpoſe would diſcredit the Authority of the Holy Scripture, under the diſguiſe of making it reſt on the Authority of Tradition.

The Reader will, I hope, reflect on what I have ſaid concerning the conduct of the Socinians in their Diſputes with us, relating to the Divinity of Chriſt.

To which I may add, that ſome of them, leſs modeſt, though more ſincere than Socinus, being convinced that no Anſwer could be given to the Quotations from the Old Teſtament that were uſed in Proof of our Lord's Divinity, thought fit to reject the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, which contains thoſe Quotations, as an Apocryphal Piece. This Enjedinus has done, and thought it a quick way to deliver himſelf at once of many difficulties, from which otherwiſe he could not extricate himſelf. For had he believed Socinus's Anſwers Satisfactory, he had never betaken himſelf to this laſt and deſperate ſhift.

Others, of whom Mr. N. is one, do ſuppoſe that whatever makes for the advantage of the Trinitarians Cauſe is all forged. And ſo they abandon the fanciful Explications Socinus has given of the firſt Chapter of St. John's Goſpel, as having no need of them, ſo long as they can make one believe that the Trinitarians have foiſted into the New Teſtament whatever they pleaſed. This is ſtill a ſhorter anſwer than the former. The firſt rendred one particular Book only, uſeleſs to the Trinitarians; but this makes all thoſe Books of the New Teſtament uſeleſs, from whence any Objection may be drawn againſt the Unitarians.

What end the Socinians have in theſe dangerous attempts, whether to facilitate the Converſion of the Jews, as they pretend, or to do ſervice to the Atheiſts and Deiſts, as it ſeems to be their real deſign, is worthy every Chriſtian's ſerious enquiry. If they intend the Converſion of the Jews, we may well demand of them what way they will take to effect it. Smalcius, one of their chief Writers, has affirmed that the Books of the Old Teſtament are of little uſe to convert the Jews. De Div. Chr. c. x. already quoted. His reaſon is, becauſe if we interpret any Text in the Old Teſtament of Jeſus Chriſt, we muſt interpret it Myſtically, that is, according to quite another ſenſe than that which the words do naturally import. And now admitting this to be true, what uſe can a Socinian make of the Old Teſtament againſt the Jews?

Sommerus, and Francis David, (whoſe Opinions as to the denial of the Worſhip of Jeſus Chriſt, are embraced by Mr. N.) being forced to own that the Author of the Book of Proverbs did aſcribe a Son to God, ch. xxx. 4. and yet being not willing to acknowledg it as a truth, took the readieſt way to defeat the Authority of this Book, and placed it among the Apocryphal Writings. One ſhould wonder how ſuch Socinians are like to be Converters, who call the Jews Canon of the Scriptures into queſtion, and conſequently leave no Books from whence, as from a common Principle, they may on each ſide deduce their reaſonings.

As for the Books of the New Teſtament, what uſe can they make of them? Yes, very great, ſaith the Socinian. If the Books of the New Teſtament were reformed, and thoſe Patches intirely taken from them, which were never written by the Apoſtles, though added under their Names, ſuch as the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, which was brought in after the year 140. of Chriſt, and ſtuffed with Doctrines of a Trinity, and Chriſt's Divinity, contrary to the Faith of Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and the Primitive Chriſtians; then we might hope to have ſucceſs in the Converſion of the Jews.

But in truth they are not likely to ſucceed with their reformed Socinian Goſpel, ſo well as they would have us believe: For 'tis 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 is a Book of no Authority, but an Impoſture, of which you are the Father. We Jews who are ſpread throughout all parts of the World, and are intermingled among Chriſtians of all Perſuaſions, never yet met with theſe Books, ſuch as you now produce them, to ſhew that Jeſus is the Meſſias.

You tell us, they were corrupted by the Chriſtians of the ſecond Age: Produce Copies more ancient, as Vouchers of this Truth. The Books which you contend were falſified, are of no Authority. What other Books have you beſides theſe falſified Books, to prove there ever was ſuch a Man as Jeſus Chriſt, who did and ſuffered what you tell us of? Since you accuſe theſe Books of Additions, and defalcations, and all ſorts of corruption, you have no ſolid proof for the matters in them, which you ſay are true. They who thus falſified the Scriptures, by adding and ſubſtracting as they pleaſe, or rather you your ſelves by advancing this Poſition, have ſpoiled all uſe that might be made of theſe Books in Points controverted between us.

Thus much it is natural for a Jew of but an ordinary capacity to ſay, and to quote his Tanchuma, and all the Rabins who have diſputed ever ſince there were Chriſtians, againſt the Goſpel, on the ſcore of their attributing Divinity to Jeſus Chriſt.

This Tanchuma is a famous Book among the Jews, and has a paſſage in it in the Paraſcha va-elle Maſſahe, which the Italian Inquiſitors blot out of all thoſe Books which the Jews Printed by Bomberg at Venice. But this paſſage is ſtill preſerved, and is to this effect, that Jeſus Chriſt whom they call wicked Balaam, taught that he was God, and on the contrary, R. Tanchuma argues that he was a meer Man.

But ſhould we call into the Diſpute a Learned Jew, that underſtands the Original, and the meaning of his Prayers, he would laugh in the face of a Socinian that ſhould go about to perſuade him, that Jeſus is not repreſented in the Goſpels as God, or that the Chriſtians were not of this belief till after the 140th. year after Chriſt.

And good reaſon for it: The Learned Jews know well, that the Prayer which in the Chriſtian Countries is called the Prayer againſt the Sadducees, and in other Countries the Prayer againſt the Minnim, the Hereticks and Apoſtates, was truly and originally written againſt the Chriſtians, for being Teachers of a Trinity, and of Chriſt's. Divinity, and ſo as they judged, deſtroyers of the Unity of the Godhead. And this is R. Solomon's ſenſe of that Prayer in his Notes on the Talmud. The Jews otherwiſe know that this Prayer was compoſed under R. Gamali • l, who died A. D. 52. i. e. eighteen years before the Deſtruction of the Temple. That this is no Fable of the Talmud, which in more than one placeTalm. tr. Berac. ch. c. & Beth. Iſr. ſect 69. does relate it, they may evidently prove from Juſtin Martyr's Dialogue, written A. D. 139. who mentions this Prayer, or rather Curſe, againſt the Chriſtians, as already ſpread and received throughout all the Synagogues of the World.

Our Learned Jew deriding theſe Socinians, would repreſent that he knew not how they could refuſe Jeſus Chriſt that Worſhip which the Chriſtians ever ſince the firſt Preaching of the Goſpel throughout the World have paid him, on ſuppoſition of his being the true God. He reads how his Anceſtors ſaw him adored by the Chriſtians in the firſt Century, and he proves it to the Socinians from the Talmud Sanhedr. c. 4 in Gem., wherein are divers Relations of R. Eliezer the great Friend of R. Akiba, who lived in the end of the firſt Century, and the beginning of the ſecond Century, concerning the Goſpels, and the Publick Worſhip rendred to Jeſus Chriſt by the Chriſtians.

In a word, any Jew who has ſenſe enough to reflect on it, may ſee that the Goſpel propoſes Jeſus Chriſt as the Object of Chriſtian Worſhip. And not to mention now their other prejudices; The ſingle prejudice which will be taken againſt ſuch a Socinian Novel-Goſpel, will tend more to make them diſeſteem the Goſpel, and reject it altogether, than it will diſpoſe them to attend to the Arguments of a Socinian drawn thence in behalf of Chriſtianity. Theſe things I leave to the conſideration of our Socinians. For other Chriſtians, they ſee whither the Socinian Methods of treating Scripture lead, and cannot but behold with ſorrow the wounds they give to the Chriſtian Religion, under pretence of making it more apt to gain the Jews, but in truth making it ſo ridiculous to Men of any ordinary capacity, that we cannot wonder at their not having after all their boaſts, converted ſo much as one Jew to the Chriſtian Faith.

FINIS.