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 Scripture Occasionally Explained.  
By a Divine of the Church of England.  
LONDON: Printed for Ri. Chiswell; and are to be sold at the Rose and Crown, and at the Rose in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCXCIX.   

THE PREFACE.  
ALTHOUGH the Jews, by mistaking the Prophecies of Scripture concerning the Kingdom of their Messiah, expected he should have a Temporal Kingdom; and because our Lord Jesus was not for that, therefore they would not acknowledge him f●● their Messiah; yet all things considered, there is no essential difference between our Religion and theirs. We own the very same God, whom they formerly Worshipped, the Maker of the World, and their Lawgiver. We receive that very Messiah whom God promised them by his Prophets, so many Ages before his coming. We own no other Spirit of God to have Inspired the Apostles, besides the Holy Ghost, who spoke by the Prophets, and by whose manifold Gifts the Messiah was to be known, as one in whom all Nations should be Blessed.  
This plainly appears in the way and method which both Christ and his Apostles followed in preaching the Gospel. They endeavoured to take off the prejudices the then Jews laboured under, concerning the Nature of the Messiah, and the Characters by which he was to be known: For they argued all along from the Books of Moses and the Prophets, and never proposed any thing to their Disciples but what was declared in those Writings which the Jews acknowledged as the Standard of their Religion; which may be seen in Christ's Discourse to the Jews, John v. 46. and to his Disciples after his Resurrection, Luke xxiv. 47, and 44. in the words of St. Peter, Acts x. 43. and of St. Paul, Acts xxvi. 22.  
The truth is, in those Sacred Books, although One only God be acknowledged, under the Name of Jehovah, which denotes his Essence, and therefore is incommunicable to any other; yet not only that very Name is given to the Messiah, but also all the Works, Attributes, and Characters, peculiar to Jehovah, the God of Israel, and the only true God, are frequently bestowed on him.  
This the old Jewish Authors, as Philo and the Targumists, do readily acknowledge. For in their Exposition of those places of the Old Testament which relate to the Messiah, they generally suppose him to be God; whereas the Modern Jews being of a far different Opinion, use all Shifts imaginable to evade the force of their Testimonies. The Apostles imitated in this the Synagogue, by applying to Christ several places of the Old Testament, which undoubtedly were primarily intended of the God of Israel.  
But because they sometimes only touch at places of the Old Testament, without using them as formal Proofs of what they then handled; Socinus and his Disciples have fancied that those Citations out of the Old Testament, which are made use of by the Apostles, though they represent the Messiah as being the same with the God of Israel; yet for all this are but bare Allusions and Accommodations, made indeed by them to Subjects of a like nature, but not at all by them intended as Arguments and Demonstrations.  
Nothing can be more injurious to the Writings of the New Testament, than such a Supposition: And there can hardly be an Opinion more apt to overthrow the Authority of Christ and his Apostles, and to expose the Christian Religion to the Scorn both of Jews and Heathens. For the bare Accommodation of a place of Scripture, cannot suppose that the Holy Ghost had any design in it, to intimate any thing sounding that way, and consequently the Sense of that Scripture so accommodated is of no Authority. Whereas it is a most certain truth that Christ and his Apostles did design, by many of those Quotations, to prove that which was in dispute between them and the Jews.  
To what purpose should Christ exhort the Jews to search the Scriptures of the Old Testament, because they testified of him, John v. 39 if those Scriptures could only give a false Notion of him, by intimating that the Messiah promised was the God of Israel? This were to suppose that Christ and his Apostles went about to prove a thing by that which had no Strength and no Authority to prove it: And that the Citations out of the Old Testament, are like the Works of the Empress Eudoxia, who writ the History of Christ in Verses put together, and borrowed from Homer, under the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or that of Proba Falconia, who did the same in Verses and Words taken out of Virgil.  
It follows at least from such a Position, That in the Gospel God gave a Revelation so very new, that it has no manner of Affinity to the Old, although he caused this old Revelation to be carefully written by the Prophets, and as carefully preserved by the Jews to be the Standard of their Faith, and the Ground of their Hopes, till he should fulfil his Promises contained in it; and although Christ and his Apostles bid the Jews have recourse to it, to know what they were to expect of God's promises.  
The Christian Church ever rejected this pernicious Opinion. And although her first Champions against the Ancient Heretics, did acknowledge that the new Revelation, brought in by Christ and his Apostles, had made the Doctrines much clearer than they were before, (which the Jews themselves do acknowledge, when they affirm, that hidden things are to be made plain to all by the Messiah) yet they ever maintained that those Doctrines were so clearly set down in the Books of the Old Testament, that they could not be opposed by them, who acknowledge those Books to come from God: especially since the Jews are therein told, that the Messiah, when he came should explain them, and make them clearer.  
This Observation is particularly of force against those who formerly opposed the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, and that of our Saviour's being God. These Heretics thought they followed the Opinion of the old Jews. Therefore they that confuted them, undertook to satisfy them, that the Christian Church had received nothing from Christ and his Apostles, about those two Articles, but what God had formerly taught the Jews, and what necessarily followed from the Writings of Moses and the Prophets; so that those Doctrines could not be rejected, without accusing the Divine Spirit, the Author of those Books, of shortness of Thought, in not foreseeing what naturally follows from those Principles so often laid down and repeated by him.  
These old Writers solidly proved to those Heretics, That God did teach the Jews the Unity of his Essence, yet so as to establish at the same time a Distinction in his Nature, which according to the Notion which himself gives of it, we call Trinity of Persons: And that when he promised that the Messiah to come was to be Man, at the very same time he expressly told the Jews, that he was withal to be God blessed for ever.  
The force and evidence of the Proofs of those Doctrines, is so great, and the Proofs themselves so numerous, that Heretics could not avoid them, but by setting up Opinions directly opposite to the Scriptures: On the other side, the Heretics were so gravelled, that they broke into Opinions quite contrary one to another, which greatly contributed to confirm the Faith of them whom they opposed in those Articles, so that it still subsisted; whereas the opposite Heresies perished in a manner as soon as broached.  
The meanness of Christ, and his shameful Death, moved the Ebionites, in the very first Age after him, to look upon him as a mere Man, though exalted by God's Grace to the Dignity of a Prophet. But the Cerinthians, another sort of Heretics, maintained that the Word did operate in him, though at the same time they denied the personal and inseparable Union of that Word with this human Nature.  
In the beginning of the Third Century, some had much ado to receive the Doctrine of the Trinity, by reason that they could not reconcile it with that of the Unity of God. But Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius, who opposed that Doctrine, were soon obliged to recant: And then from one Extremity, they shortly fell into another. For being satisfied that the Scripture does attribute to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, the divine Nature, which is constantly in the Old Testament expressed by the Name Jehovah; they undertook, contrary to the plain Notions of Scripture, to maintain, that there was but One Person in God, which had appeared the same under three differing Names. Whereas some others did so plainly see the distinction, which the Scripture makes between the Persons, that they chose rather to own Three distinct Essences, than to deny that there are Three Persons in God, as the Scripture does invincibly prove.  
Two sorts of Heretics did formerly oppose the Divinity of Christ. Some did acknowledge, that, as to his divine Nature, he was before the World, and that by it he had made the World; though Himself, as to that nature, was created before the World; and these afterwards form the Arian Sect. Others, but very few, such as Artemas and Theodotus, denied that Christ was before he was born of the Virgin: They acknowledged in him no other besides the human Nature, which, said they, God had raised to a very high Dignity, by giving to it a Power almost infinite: And in this they made his Godhead to consist.  
But these two sorts of Heretics were happily destroyed one by the other, for the Arians on the one side did confound Artemas his Disciples, by proving from places of Scripture, that Christ was before the Virgin, nay before the World. And on the other side, Absurdity and Idolatry were proved upon the Arians, both because they acknowledged more than one divine Nature, and because they worshipped a Creature; whereas by the Christian Religion, God alone ought to be worshipped.  
Artemas his Disciples were so few, and so severely condemned, even whilst the Church laboured under Persecutions, that their Name is hardly remembered at this day; which clearly shows how strange their Doctrine appeared to them who examined it by the Books of the Old and the New Testament.  
As for the Arians, they made, it is true, more noise in the World, by the help of two or three of Constantine's Successors, who by violent Methods endeavoured to spread their Opinion. But that very thing made their Sect odious, and in a little time quite ruined the credit of it. Within a hundred and fifty years, or thereabouts, after their first Rise, there hardly remained any Professors of it; which plainly shows, that they could not answer those Arguments from Scripture which were urged against them.  
I observe this last thing, that Arius' Heresy was destroyed by Proofs from Scripture for the Eternal Divinity of our Saviour, (though it was a long time countenanced by the Roman Emperors, by the Vandal Kings in afric, and by the Kings of the Goths both in Spain and in Italy;) lest any should fancy it was extinguished only by Imperial Laws, and Temporal Punishments. Besides, that the first Inventors of that Heresy had spread it before such time as Constantine, by vanquishing Licinius, became Master of the World. Whoever shall consider that the Christian Religion had, before Arius, already suffered ten Persecutions without shrinking under them, will easily see that all the Power of Constantine, and of his Orthodox Successors, who punished the Arian Professors, had never been great enough to suppress their Opinion, if it had not been a Gospel-doctrine: not to say that these Laws, and their Authority, extended no further than the Roman Empire.  
What had happened in those ancient Times, soon after the Christian Church was established, happened likewise again in the last Century, at the Reformation of the Western Church. As in those early days there arose many Heresies entirely opposite one to the other; so in these latter times the very same was seen among us. For when God raised up many Great Men to reform the Church in this and our neighbouring Kingdoms, there appeared soon after some Men, who being weary of the Popish Tyranny, both in Doctrine and Worship, did fancy that they might make a more perfect Reformation, if they could remove out of the Christian Religion those things which human Reason was apt to stumble at. And the Roman Church having obtruded upon her Votaries such Mysteries as were directly repugnant to Reason, they imagined that the Doctrines of the Trinity, and of Christ's Divinity, were of that number; and thus used all their Endeavours to prove that they were absurd and contradictory.  
Had not these Doctrines been grounded on the Authority of the Books of the Old and the New Testament, they might easily enough have confuted them. But being forced to own the Authority of those Books, which they durst not attack for fear of being detested by all Christians, they fell into the same opposite Extremes, into which those Heretics of old had fallen, when they opposed these fundamental Doctrines of Christianity; and thus were as divided: in Opinions about those matters, as the ancient Heretics had been before them.  
For whilst some of them, as Laelius Socinus, and his Nephew Faustus, denied the Divinity of Christ, and thus revived the Opinion of Artemas and his Disciples; others seeing how absurd the Answers were that Socinus and his Followers gave to those places of Scripture, which assert the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ, run so far to the contrary of this Socinian Heresy, that they acknowledged three Gods. And not only the Adversaries of Socinus, but even some of his Disciples did oppose his Opinion, moved thereto by the Authority of Scripture. For he held it a fundamental Article of the Christian Faith, that Christ is to be adored; in which he was a downright Idolater, in adoring Christ as true God, when he believed Christ to be a mere Creature. But his Disciples building upon this firm Maxim of Scripture, that God alone is to be adored, justly concluded against him that he was not to be adored, since strictly speaking he was but a Creature, and no God.  
This Division was plainly occasioned by the strength of Scripture-proofs, which on the one hand clearly show, that none can be a Christian without adoring Christ; and on the other positively affirm, that none but the True God ought to be adored. Thus these two opposite Parties did unwillingly do the business of the true Church, which ever opposed to the Enemies of the Trinity, and of the Godhead of Christ, the Authority of the Holy Scripture, which teaches that Christ ought to be adored, and withal convinces the Arians of Idolatry, who adored Christ without owning him to be the true God, though they bestowed on him a kind of a Godhead inferior to that of the Father.  
I cannot but admire, that they who within these few years have in this Kingdom embraced Socinus his Opinions, should consider no better how little success they have had elsewhere against the truth, and that upon the score of their Divisions, which will unavoidably follow, till they can agree in unanimously rejecting the Authority of Scripture. Neither doth it avail them any thing to use Quibbles and Evasions, and weak Conjectures, since they are often unanswerably confuted even by some of their Brethren, who are more dextrous than they in expounding of Scriptures.  
But being resolved by all means to defend their Tenants, some Chief men amongst them have undertaken to set aside the Authority of Scriptures, which is so troublesome to them: And the Author of a late Book, entitled, Considerations, maintains that the Gospels have been corrupted by the Orthodox Party, and suspects that of St. John to be the work of Cerinthus.  
It is no very easy Task to dispute against men whose Principles are so uncertain, and who in a manner have no regard to the Authority of Scripture. It was much less difficult to undertake Socinus himself, because he owned however the Authority of Scripture, and that it had not been corrupted. But one knows not how to deal with his Disciples, who in their Opinion seem to be so contrary to him, and one another.  
They do now affirm the adoration which is paid to Christ is Idolatrous, thus renouncing Socinus his Principles, who looked upon it as an essential piece of Christianity. So that they can no longer be called Socinians, and themselves affect the name of Unitarians: And as their chief business seems to be to accuse the sincerity of Scripture-writers, so the main work of them who undertake to confute them, must be the establishing both the Sincerity and Authority of it, which is no very hard task: For even Mahometans, though they take some of the same Objections, that the Socinians are so full of, against the Divinity of Christ, yet are so far from accusing Christians of having corrupted the Scripture, that they furnish us with Weapons against the Unitarians of this Kingdom, as the Reader will find at the end of this following Book.  
And although there be but small hopes of bringing to right again Men of so strange Dispositions and Notions, yet they ought by no means to be left to themselves. They have been often confuted by them that argued from the bare Principles of Christianity, that is, the Authority of Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, which are the very Word of God. And it has been plainly showed them that what Alterations soever they have made in Socinus' Opinions, yet their new Conceits are neither more Rational than his, nor more agreeable to Divine Revelation.  
I say that their Opinions are not more agreeable than his to right Reason. For when all is done, to affirm, That Christ received from God an Infinite Power to govern the World, without being essentially God, is to affirm a downright Contradiction, viz. that without partaking of the Divine Essence he received one of the Attributes which are Essential to God.  
It is true, some Popish Divines allow the Soul of Christ to be all-knowing, by reason of its immediate Union to the Divine Nature; wherein they do much service to the Socinians, in holding as they do that a Creature is capable of receiving such Attributes. But Protestant Divines reject this Notion as altogether false, as false as many of the Schoolmens Speculations, even the absurdest of them that are exploded by the Socinians.  
They have been also further refuted as to what they aver, that Justin Martyr was the first that taught the Doctrines of the Trinity, of Christ's Eternal Godhead, and of his Incarnation.  
And at last, that Learned Divine Dr. Bull having observed, that the Jewish Tradition was favourable to those Doctrines of which the Socinians make Justin to have been the first Broacher. Howsoever M. N. treats him for this, neither like a Scholar, nor a Christian, I shall venture his displeasure in making out this Observation, without meddling at all with his Arguments drawn from the Fathers, to show clearly, that the like Exceptions of M. N. against Philo, as being a Platonic, and against the Ancient Jews, and their Tradition, can help him no way in the Cause he has taken in hand.  
The Doctrine of our Church being the same which was taught by Christ and his Apostles, it will be an easy matter to prove it by the same places of Scripture by which Christ and his Apostles converted the Jews and the Gentiles over to the Christian Faith; and by which the Heretics were confuted, who followed or renewed the Errors which the Jews have fallen into since Christianity begun.  
But I will go farther, and prove, that the Ancient Jewish Church yield the same Principles which Jesus Christ and his Apostles builded upon, and by this Method it will plainly appear, That the Socinians or the Unitarians, let them call themselves what they please, must either absolutely renounce the Authority of Scripture, and turn downright Deists, or they must own those Doctrines of the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ, as being taught us by God himself in the Holy Scriptures, and acknowledged by the Ancient Jewish Church.   

THE TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS.  

THE Preface.  
Chap. I. The Design of this Book, and what Matters it Treats of, Page 1.  
Chap. II. That in the times of Jesus Christ Our Blessed Saviour, the Jews had among them a common Explication of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, grounded on the Tradition of their Fathers, which was in many things approved by Christ and his Apostles, Page 11.  
Chap. III. That the Jews had certain Traditional Maxims and Rules for the understanding of the Scripture, Page 32.  
Chap. IU. That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of the Christian Doctrine by his common Traditional Exposition received among the Jews, which they could not have done, (at least not so well) had there been only such a Literal Sense of those Texts which they alleged, as we can find without the help of such Exposition, Page 52.  
Chap. V Of the Authority of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament, Page 66.  
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, Page 75.  
Chap. VII. Of the Authority and Antiquity of the Chaldee Paraphrases, Page 84.  
Chap. VIII. That the Authors of the Apocryphal Books did acknowledge a Plurality, and a Trinity in the Divine Nature, Page 99  
Chap. IX. That the Jews had Good Grounds to acknowledge some kind of Plurality in the Divine Nature, Page 115.  
Chap. X. That the Jews did acknowledge the Foundations of the Belief of the Trinity in the Divine Nature, and that they had the Notion of it, Page 138.  
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, Page 158.  
Chap. XII. That the Jews had a distinct Notion of the Word as a Person, and of a Divine Person too, Page 181.  
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, Page 201.  
Chap. XIV. That all the Appearances of God, or of the Angel of the Lord, which are spoken of in Moses, have been referred to the Word of God by the ancient Jewish Church, Page 214.  
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, Page 233.  
Chap. XVI. That the ancient Jews did often use the Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Word, in speaking of the Messiah, Page 253.  
Chap. XVII. That the Jews did acknowledge the Messiah should be the Son of God, Page 265.  
Chap. XVIII. That the Messiah was represented in the Old Testament as being Jehovah that should come, and that the ancient Synagogue did believe him to be so, Page 278.  
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 Messiah, Page 293  
Chap. XX. That both the Apostles and the first Christians speaking of the Messiah did exactly follow the Notions of the Old Jews, as the Jews themselves did acknowledge, Page 313.  
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, Page 327.  
Chap. XXII. An Answer to some Exceptions taken from Expressions used in the Gospel, Page 339.  
Chap. XXIII. That neither Philo, nor the Chaldee Paraphrases, nor the Christians have borrowed from the Platonic 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, Page 413.  
Chap. XXIV. An Answer to some Objections of the Modern Jews, and of the Unitarians, Page 365.  
Chap. XXV. An Answer to an Objection against the Notions of the Old Jews compared with those of the new Ones, Page 380.  
Chap. XXVI. That the Jews have laid aside the Old Explications of their Forefathers, the better to defend themselves in their Disputes with the Christians. Page 392.  
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, Page 413.  
A Dissertation concerning the Angel who is called the Redeemer, Gen. XLVIII. Page 433.    

THE JUDGEMENT OF THE Ancient JEWISH Church Against the unitarians, etc.  

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 Messiah 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Virtue 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 mere 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 Messiah 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 Messiah was to be other than Man, makes use of this Passage of Trypho for proof, that the Doctrines of the Divinity of the Messiah, and by consequence of the Trinity, were never acknowledged by the Jews. This he does in a Book, the Title whereof is, The Judgement 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 Messiah to be nothing more than mere 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 Messiah 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 persuade the Heathens the more easily to embrace the Christian Religion.  
Now though it seems unnecessary to dispute any further against him, having already clearly shown, in my Discussion of Mr. N's Judgement 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 showing 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; showing how little credit some Divines do deserve, who playing the Critics, 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 show, 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 Messiah, as they had it in Christ's time, and still have it to this day.  
3dly. I will show 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 Chaldaic 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 intent to do.  
This being dispatched, 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 Messiah 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 inquire what was the Opinion of the Old Jews concerning these Matters; and show, 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 Angels 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 show 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 Messiah; and that the Messiah 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 show, 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 perplexed: 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 show, 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 altered 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 show, 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 falsely 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 show 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 Judgement 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 Forefathers 
* De vita Mosis pag. 468. Edit. Genev. Ib. p 470. F. . Of this latter sort was the long account he there gives of Moses being brought up in all the Learning of the Egyptians, for there is nothing of this in the Old Testament. Therefore when St. Stephen says the same thing, Act. VII. 22. we know that he also had it not from Scripture, but from Tradition.  
Hence also it is that St. Paul has gathered the names of Jannes and Jambres, Magicians that resisted Moses and the Truth, 2 Tim. iv. 8. for their names are not where in Scripture, but they are in Jonathan's Targum on Exod. i 15. & seven. 11. from whence also they are taken into Talmud Sanhedrin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 9  
Hence also St. Paul knew that the Pot wherein Moses laid up the Manna, was made of Gold, Heb. ix. 4. which also the Seventy and Philo the Jew [de congr. quaer. er. gr. pag. 375. Ed. Gen.] do assure us of. 
Mechil. fol. 20. Col. 1. & Tanchumah, fol. 29. Col. 4.  And tho' the Modern Jews deny this, and say the Pot was of Earth; yet it is acknowledged 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. Judas ver. 9 had that passage of the dispute that Michael the Archangel had with the Devil about the Body of Moses. Which Body, as Josephus probably says, [Ant. iv. 8.] if any Relic 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 called 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, etc.  Mat. xxiii. 35. which Origen there also mentions as a Jewish Tradition, tho', he says, they suppressed 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 mentioned 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 Messiah should be called a Nazarene, Mat. two. 23. if he doth not allude to the Idea of the Jews who referred to the Messiah 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. seven. 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. two. 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 alleged 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 say are quoted as Scripture by the Holy Apostle. Of the first he saith plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Scripture saith, Then he goes on to the other, and of that he saith also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without any Nominative Case but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before mentioned, which implies that the Scripture saith this also. Now what Scripture could he mean? for it is certain, that neither of these say 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 Judas 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 joined to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hagiographa, and therefore they might well be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any addition. The Apocryphal Books that are in our Bibles were commonly called so by the Primitive Fathers. Thus Clement before mentioned, Strom. v. p. 431. B. quotes the words that we read in Wisdom seven. 24. from Sophia in the Scriptures. And the Book of Ecclesiasticus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven or eight times in his writings, [Paed. i. 10. two. 5. & ver. 8 vis & 10 vis three 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. Judas 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 Cells. lib. V.] Grotius also shows, 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. Judas 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 Sense 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 show 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 show on what days they were sung in the public Worship of the Jews; as Ps. xxiv. 48, 81, 82, 93, 94, etc. 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 prefixed 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 learned 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 Messiah. So R. David Kimchi, and others agree that the Psalms 93, 94. till the Psalm 101. speak of the days of the Messiah. 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 dwelled in Egypt, 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 Egypt 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 Egypt, 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 Egypt.  
In like manner from Tradition they filled up that place, Gen. IU. 8. where it is said, that Cain talked 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 Messiah. 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 Messiah is come, he will tell us all things. For though it is not where plainly said, yet the Samaritans knew full well, that the Messiah should explain all things, according to the Traditional sense of that Prophecy in Deut. xviii. 15, 18, 19 which hath been so constantly referred 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 Messiah, they fancied that the Messiah should die 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. two. 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 Judgements threatened on the Nation at the coming of the Messiah, according to Joel's prediction recited Act. two. 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 Messiah 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 Critics, as Grotius, who suppose that some places in the Apocryphal Books, which show that they were exactly acquainted with the Ideas of the Prophets upon the Divinity and the Glory of the Messiah, 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. showed the multitude, that John Baptist was the Messenger promised by God in Malach. iii. 1. as he that should be the forerunner 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 foreshowing 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. two. 2. in Abarbanel Miphaloth Eloh. lib. 1. c. 4. See Menasseh Ben Is. Concil. q. 30. in Genes. & de Create. 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah, as we see they do in their Targum, in Cant. i. 8. iv. 5. seven. 14. viij. 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 Messiah, chap. iii. 15. And the like may be said of Ecclesiastes, certain Texts of which, as ch. i. 18. and ch. viij. 25. they refer to the Messiah, 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 apostatised, 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. two. 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 Messiah, whose Coming was spoken of by some of the Prophets, as being very near at hand. See Dan. ix. Hag. two. Malach. iii.  
The Second is, That their Zeal for the Scriptures, and their Religion, was really much quickened 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 Ptolemies 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 form. 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 preached more at large on these Books. The same thing, I say, happened 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 Judgement 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 Critics 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' History to be true, or because we cannot say that the Greek Version is delivered 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 esteemed in all places of their Dispersion.  
Some may perhaps imagine, 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 shown, in later times; and with these, being stamped 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 looked 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, hindered 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 saducees 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 Messiah; 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 backed with those that are ancienter and of greater Authority.   

CHAP. III.  
That the Jews had certain Traditional Maxims and Rules for the Understanding 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 Messiah.  
1. It is certain that the Jews held this as a Maxim, That all the Prophets did speak of the Messiah, 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 settling this Rule, was not without a due and serious Examination of it first. And here we cannot but deplore the rashness of some Critics among Christians, who instead of making use of the Confessions of the Old Jews upon places of the Old Testament, which they referred constantly to the Messiah; 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 Messiah, as you can see in the Old Midrash Chonen, in the Targum, in the Talmud Sanhed. fol. 98. c. 2. and that is acknowledged 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 Messiah, Zohar in Exod. fol. 225. and by consequence they explained that Prophecy of Isaiah as concerning the Messiah. 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 Messiah, Zohar in Gen. fol. 235. If Grotius had known it, he never would have related the 72d Psalms, and some others, to Solomon in his literal sense as he hath done, but would have referred it, as it must be directly to the Messiah. Certainly that shows us, that many of the Old Jews understood the Prophets much better than, to their shame, such Critics 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 Solomon 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 Solomon spoke then of the Messiah, the Essential Word spoken of by him, Prov. 8. chief when we see the ancient Jews do agree to it. See Philo de Colon. apud Grot. in Prov. viij. 22. Bresch. Rabath 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 Messiah, what we read of the Seed of the Woman, Gen. iii. 15. and what Balaam prophesied, Numb. xxiii. and xxiv. And no one can doubt, but that after that great Light that Isaiah gave them concerning the Messiah 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 Messiah, 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 looked 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 Solomon, for that which we read 2 Sam. seven. 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 Messiah; as also St. Paul did, according to the way of his Nation.  
4. It is clear there were certain general Characters of the Messiah, which wheresoever they were found, were commonly thought to denote that that place should be understood of the Messiah. And it is worth observing, that the Light still increasing from one Age to the other, and the Characters of the Messiah 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah; 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 Messiah 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 Messiah, as I shall show afterwards.  
Thus we see, wherever Salvation is spoke of, they refer those Prophecies to the Messiah, 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 Messiah.  
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 Messiah. Scadias' Haggaon interprets Zech. ix. 9 of the Messiah, because v. 10. his universal dominion is spoken of. And so R. David Kimchi refers to the Messiah time the place of Zech. two. 10, 11. Upon this known foundation does St. Paul build his Interpretation of the Messiah, Heb. i 10. out of Ps. cii. 25, etc. 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah, who should spread true Religion throughout the World. Hence it is that Isa. two. 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 spoke of the Messias' Priesthood, after that David had enlightened 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 re-establish the House of David, were to be accomplished by the Messiah, and by this rule they affirmed that the Song of Anna did concern the time of the Messiah, for the words of that Song do not agree neither to Saul, nor to David, but to the time of the Messiah. 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, etc. 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 Messiah; 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 Judgement of the Jews did concern the Messiah.  
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 Messiah. For this Character is found expressly 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 Prophecies, viz. they understood them very rationally, by the help of those Ideas which they met with in other Prophecies which otherwise seem not so clearly to concern the same Messiah which is spoken of in clearer Prophecies. 'Twas according to that rule that they referred the Hymn of Anna, 1 Sam. two. 5. to the times of the Messiah, Kimchi in h. l. compareth it with the words of Isaiah, ch. liv. Rejoice thou barren that bearest not, etc. 'Twas according to that method that they being convinced that the Psal. xxii. was to be referred to the Messiah, 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 Messiah 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 Yoke, 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 Messiah: 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 Messiah 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 Messiah very carnally, partly, because they knew not what to think of a Celestial 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 Messiah 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 entreat him to take in good part my entering 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 looked upon by some Men as dreaming Authors, that busy themselves in Inquiries 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 fantastical, (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 endeavoured 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 discovered 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 Messiah. Now it appears that our Blessed Saviour did allude to this common Opinion of the Jews, which was then esteemed as a Tradition, Rev. two. 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 Messiah. 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 looked 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 show 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah should not come but in the last days, v. 1. when the Sceptre was departed from Judah, and the Lawgiver from between his Feet, v. 10.  

Reuchl. Ib. p. 633.  They declare that ever since this Prophecy, the Coming of the Messiah 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 Long and Desires.  

Reuchl. Ib. p. 634.  They maintain that David did not think himself to be the Messiah, because he prays for his Coming, Psal. xliii. 3. Send out thy Light, i. e. the Messiah, as R. Solomon interprets it. And from hence they conclude, that he speaks also of the Messiah in Psal. lxxxix. 15.  
They did think Isaiah spoke of him, ch. ix. 6. So R. Jose Galilaeus praefat. in Eccha Rabbati, as it is to be seen in Devarim Rabath Paras. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the end of it; and in Jalk. in Is. §. 284. And indeed what he there saith could not be meant of Hezekiah, who was born 10 years before; nor was his Kingdom so extensive, nor so lasting, as is there foretold the Messias' 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, spoke 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 own 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 Rabath 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, etc. 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 subtlety, 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, etc. which could be of no force otherwise.  
We 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 poens. 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 Messiah, without any other proof than their simple affirmation: As for instance, that St. Peter should represent Christ as a New Noah, 1 Pet. three 21. and that St. Paul should propose Melchisedeck as a Type of the Messiah in respect to his Sacerdotal Office, Heb. vi, seven. 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 looked 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. seven. 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 rend 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. seven. 14. The Son born to Isaiah, neither had the Name of Emanuel, nor could he be the Person intended by it; as neither was his Mother a Virgin, as the word in that Prophecy signifies: And for the Prophet himself, though the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and spoke by him, as did it by all the other Prophets, 2 Pet. 1.21. Yet that the Unction here spoken of, 
Saadia Gaon Emunoth c. 18 & D. Kimchi in rad. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Isaiah lxi. 1. did not belong to him, but to the Messiah, 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah. 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 Messiah that was to come out of his Loins, Act. two. 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 employed 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 Messiah in the Old Testament. Which sense some Critics seem not to be satisfied with, seeking for a first accomplishment in other persons than in the Messiah. The Jews meaning and applying those Prophecies to the Messiah in a mystical or a spiritual sense, is founded upon a Reason that offers itself to the Mind of those that study Scripture with attention.  
Before Jacob's Prophecy, there was no time fixed for the Coming of the Messiah; 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 Messiah. 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 Messiah. 2. That the lesser Authority, called here the Lawgiver, should be also established in Judah, and destroyed before the Coming of the Messiah, 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, Judgements 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 pulled off their hair, and said, Woe unto us, the Sceptre is departed from Israel, and yet the Messiah is not come.  
And therefore they who had this Prophecy before them, could not mistake David, nor Solomon, nor Hezekiah, for the Messiah: 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 Messiah; although the Name of Anointed, which the word Messiah 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 Messiah, and consequently those Prophecies ought necessarily to be referred to him.  
We ought by all means to be persuaded of this. For we cannot think the Jews were so void of Judgement 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 Messiah, in which some Critics 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah, 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 show 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. IU.  
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 alleged, 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 Messiah which they did expect many Ages ago, and whose Coming they looked 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 Messiah 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah. They had been educated all along, and trained up in the expectation of him. They had not only those Sacred Books in which the Messiah 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 spoke 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 although Jesus Christ had in himself all the Treasures of Wisdom, and although 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 denied 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 alleged 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 Messiah 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 alleges 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 Messiah. 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 Messiah, it appears by their Midrash on the Psalms, and Saadia Gaon on Dan. seven. 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah, although 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 Messiah. 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 Messiah in the same Chapter, the words of Psal. xuj. 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 Messiah, 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, aught to be understood of the Messiah.  
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 Bible's this part of the ancient Text, since St. Paul's time. They may in their Vindication show, 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 refers these words to the second Appearance of the Messiah, 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 Messiah; 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 Messiah, as we see in Sepher Chasidim, §. 961. and to the abode of the Sekinah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah, as of a Law, in comparison to which all other Law was to be looked upon as mere Vanity. So Coheleth Rabath in c. two. and in c. xi.  
It is not without some surprise that we read the Application St. Mat. two. 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 Messiah. And yet in the Book Midrash Tehillim Rabath on Ps. two. we may see the Jews referred to the Messiah 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 Messiah. The Actions of the Messiah 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 firstborn: 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. viij. 17. refers 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah should be God, even as Jesus Christ did then suppose, when he healed the Paralytic 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. seven. 14. to Christ's being born of a Virgin. Behold a Virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, etc. 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 show, that as what he had foretold concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz was true by the Witness of Uriah, who saw it accomplished; 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, etc. 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 delivered 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 Messiah.  
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 looked upon the Brazen Serpent as a Type of the Messiah, 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. xuj. 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. xuj. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Manna. Lib. quòd Deter. pot. insid. p. 137.  
St. Paul, Heb. 1.5. citys God's Words to David concerning one that should come out of his Loins, 2 Sam. seven. 14. I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son, as if they respected the Messiah. 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. seven. 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 Messiah. The reason is, St. Paul followed the sense of this place, which was commonly received among the Jews, who as they refer to the Messiah, the Psal. lxxii, cx. and cxxxii. where the same Ideas occur, so they must have referred to the Messiah, 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 Messiah; 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 Freewoman, 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. xuj. 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah, he hath exalted the horn of his Anointed. The very same words are pronounced by Hannah, the Mother of Samuel, 1 Sam. two. 10. where the Targum refers them in like manner as the sense of the Synagogue.  
The same Targum understands of the Messiah 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 Messiah 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 prophesied touching the Kings of the House of David, which should rule in this present World, as also in the World to come of the Messiah.  
6. We see our Lord Jesus Christ was careful to instruct the Pharisees of the two different Characters of the Coming of the Messiah, Luk. xvii. 20. Of which the one was to be obscure, and followed with the Death of the Messiah; 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. two. 6, 7, 8. apply the words of Psal. viij. to the Messiah. 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 Messiah, the second Redeemer, according to those words of Psal. viij. 3. Ex ore infantium, etc.  
Lastly, We see St. Paul, Rom. x. 18. does refer the words of Psal. nineteen. 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 Messiah: 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 Messiah 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 rejoiceth 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 Messiah, and with that of the Song of Isaiah v. touching the Messiah, 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 aught 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 show 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 show how much Grotius, whose steps the Socinians trod in, was out in his Judgement.  
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 account 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 Ptolemy Philadelphus, that is, about 280. years before Jesus Christ, and was Translated in Greek by the Grandson of Jesus the Son of Syrac, under Ptolemy Euergetes. Some dispute if that Ptolemy is the first or the second, which is not very material, since there is but a difference of 100 years. R. Azaria de Rubeis in his Book Meor Enaiim, ch. 22. witnesseth that Ecclesiasticus is not rejected now by the Jews, but is received among them with an unanimous consent; and David Ganz saith that they put it in old times among the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the Hagiographes. So in his Tsemac David, ad A. 3448.  
The Book of Wisdom according to Grotius his Judgement is more ancient, having been written in Hebrew under Simon the Highpriest, 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 easy 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 looked upon it as a Book that was worthy of Solomon, and probably his Works. It was the Judgement 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 Chaldaic 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 looked 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 judgement 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 show 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 Judgement, 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 mere Conjecture? I confess there are several various Readins in those Books as there are in Books which having been of a general use, were transcribed many times by Copyists 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 Judgement of the Fathers.  
2ly. That the ridiculing of such an Author as the Book of Wisdom showeth very little Judgement 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 nineteen. which contains a Prophecy touching the Messiah, 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.  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 Judgement; 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 Controversy only of those places of the Apocryphal Books in which they express the sense of the Old Synagogue before Jesus Christ, as I shall justify 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 show the Judgement 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 Ambassador to Caligula by those of his own Nation in the year of Christ 40.  
It is easy 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 Apostolic Christians in his Book de Therapeutis: To which some have added, that at his second coming to Rome under Claudius, to be Ambassador 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, wherever 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 Lawgiver), as we do the Say of our Lord Jesus Christ. And sometimes, though very rarely, he quotes other Writings of the Old Testament. But I dare affirm that in all his Treatises, he citys 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 acknowledge 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 Messiah as a great Temporal King yet to come, as is evident from the Interpretation he gives of Balaam's Prophecy touching the Messiah in his Book de Praemiis, p. 716.  
4thly. In all his Works there is nothing peculiar to Christ that Mr. N. can allege, except in what is written of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 alleges his Authority, 
In Exod. p. 137.  and shows that his Opinions do generally agree with those of their most ancient Authors.  
The second thing I have to show 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 begun 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 killed at the time of the Battle 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 ranked 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 expressly that he studied the Scriptures, Primâ aetate, when he was young; and he complains of being called afterwards to public 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 preached 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 confessed, that herein Eusebius was mistaken. Indeed one need only read the Book de Therapeutis itself, 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 shows 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 shown, That the Book de Therapeutis describes the Life of a Sect of the Jews, and not of the Christians. It is a surprising thing that Eusebius should commit such a mistake, because he himself in his Books de Praep. Evang. does 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; does 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, Entitled, The Virtues of Caius Caligula; (Tho it was the scope of that Book to show 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 public 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 Public Library. For I cannot imagine, that the Roman Senate should lay up in their public 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 mere 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 one's own home, as Rome was from Alexandria.  
This shows 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 showeth us himself elsewhere 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 intent to produce as an authentic 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 Critics altogether modern. Therefore I think myself obliged once for all to give the reasons of my doing thus, and to satisfy 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. viij. 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 Prophet's 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 Critics 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 public 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 citys 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 extol the authority of Jonathan his Targum, and he must have read these Pieces with very little attention or judgement, 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 Abridgement 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 citys 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 Margin of the Pentateuch, or an abridgement of Onkelos, for it hath a mixture of Chaldaick, Greek, Latin and Persian words, which showeth it hath been written in latter times according to the judgement 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 medley 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 judgement 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 acknowledge 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 satisfy 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 Grandfather 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 citys the xxii. Psalms 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 Critics 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 Emperor his time. But this Objection proceeds only from an oversight of these Critics, 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 remarked by Paul Archbishop of Burgos in the Preface to his Scrutinium, and in this judgement 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 Judaic 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 easy 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 learned 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. viij. 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 show 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 show 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 show 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 show 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 show 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, chief 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 than 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 easy 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 shows 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 aftertimes.  
As for example, we do not find that the Jews before Christ's time ever spoke of two Messiah; the one the Son of David, who was to reign gloriously; the other a suffering Messiah, the Son of Joseph, of the Tribe of Ephraim. The reason is plain, for they had no occasion for that fancy of a suffering Messiah. That arose upon their Disputes with the Christians, who proved that the Sufferings of Christ were no other than what the Messiah 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 Messiah the Son of Joseph, and to give him the Sufferings which the Scripture attributes to the Messiah 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 shows that the following words are not the ancient Targum, but are the Additions of some Modern Authors, whom the Copyers of the Paraphrasts have joined as a new light to the ancient.  
Whether the Jews' 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 knowledge 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 called 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 acknowledge a Plurality, and a Trinity in the Divine Nature.  
HAving finished our General Reflections on the Traditional Sense of the Scriptures, which was received 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 Platonic 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 cooperate 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 acknowledge 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 acknowledge the Creation of the World by the Word of God, and by the Holy Ghost; as David, Psal. xxxiii. 6. So the Book of Wisdom, Ch. ix. 1. O God of my Fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hath made all things with thy Word, or more properly by thy Word, as it is explained in the 2. vers. and ver. 4. he asketh Wisdom in these words, Give me Wisdom that sitteth by thy Throne. And v. 17. Thy counsel who hath known? except thou give Wisdom, and send thy Holy Spirit from above. Where he distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Wisdom, and the Holy Spirit, from God, to whom he directs his Prayer. And so the Book of Judith, ch. xuj. 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. seven. 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, subtle, 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, steadfast, sure, free from care, having all power, over-seeing all things, and going through all understanding, pure, and most subtle 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 mirror 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 Messiah, Psal. two. and Psal. cx. and as Solomon in his Proverbs, ch. viij. 25. as of a Son in the bosom of his Father, and ch. xxx. 4. What is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?  
They speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. uli. 22.  
They speak of the Wisdom in the same words as Solomon doth, Prov. iii. and ch. viij. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God, as we shall hereafter show 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. nineteen. 9 They went at large like horses, and leapt 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 knowledge, that he might teach Jacob his Covenants, and Israel his Judgements.  
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 called 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some Histories of the Old Testament, which the Jews till this day refer to an Uncreated Angel, or to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Shekina or Memra da Jehova, as I shall prove afterwards. We see that Wisd. ch. xuj. 12. For it was neither herb, nor mollifying Plaster 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 laughed at them, which I believe he would not have done if he had reflected upon two things; one is, That this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 show 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. viij. 16. of the Angel of the Covenant, Malach. iii. 1. and such expressions. So you see in the 1. Book of Esdras, ch. two. 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 choose the fathers, and sanctify them. And ch. two. 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 called 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 spoke 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 thyself 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. xuli. 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 myself 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 show that the Jews before Jesus Christ had such a notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 showeth they understood that the Messiah 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 show that clearly; the first is in that famous Oracle of Isaiah, ch. ix. 6. they have these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Angel of the Great Counsel, whereas in the Hebrew it is said, he shall be called the admirable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (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 Messiah, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we read now. Some of the new Jews are mightily entangled in explaining that place, but it appears that these Interpreters of Isaiah looked upon the face of God to have been God himself, which is the reason of their translation, and shows that they understood the face of the Lord, which is so often spoken of by Moses, to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 shows 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word of God signifies the essential virtue of God. 2ly, That the Author of Ecclesiasticus follows in that expression the very words of the Greek Version of Proverbs, ch. viij. 22. in which it answers to the word possessed, which is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3ly, That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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. Eu. L. seven. §. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Wisdom, understands a created Angel, but I shall show 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 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. xuj. 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 viij. 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 acknowledge 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 show 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 Zion. He shown what should come to pass for ever, and secret things or ever they came.  
6ly. They acknowledge 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 Messiah 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 looked 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. shows that beyond exception by so clear an allusion to the Psal. cx. and two. which both speak of the Messiah.  
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 show himself upon earth, and conversed with men. For they refer that either to his appearance upon Sinai, or to the Incarnation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
3ly. They suppose another coming of the Messiah, 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 acknowledge 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 fight 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 cheered.  
6ly. They expected at the second coming of the Messiah such a manifestation of his Glory as in the Consecration of the Temple. So 2 Macc. ch. two. 8. Then shall the Lord show them these things, and the glory of the Lord shall appear, and the cloud also as it was showed 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 looked upon the Son or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Holy Ghost, as not created Being's, but as Being's 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 acknowledge 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 acknowledge 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 Style of God in the Jewish Scriptures gave them a Notion of a Plurality in God. To establish this Proposition I do not intent 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 show that the Style 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 Style 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 joined 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 joined 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 rectify 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 fit for his use to root out Polytheism. 2. Moses himself sometimes joins 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. seven. 23. Es. liv. 5. which shows 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 Style 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 surprising 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 knowledge 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 joined with a Verb Singular, Gen. i. 1. In the beginning the Gods created Heaven and Earth. A Plural is joined 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 joined with an Adjective Plural, Jos. xxiv. 19 You cannot serve the Lord, for he is the holy Gods. 2 Sam: seven. 23: What one nation in the earth is like thy people, like Israel, whom the Gods went to redeem for a people to himself. So Eccles. v. 8. There be higher than they, Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which stands for Gods, God being called the Most High. And in Eccles. xii. 1. Remember thy Creators in the days of thy Youth. In conformity to which manner of speaking, Isaiah says, ch. liv. 5. For thy Makers are thy Husbands, the Lord of Hosts is his name. A Verb in the Plural is joined with a name in the Singular; as you read, Eccles. two. 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 Judgement are expressed there; for by the King which is there spoken of he doth not understand Solomon, but God; as they do in the Targum upon 1 Chron. iv. 23. which hath been followed by R. Bachaje, Ibid. fol. 11. col. 3. and by Lombroso in his Heb. Bible, you have the same remark of St. Jerome upon Jer. xxiii. 36. when you read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Living Gods, and from which he draws an argument for the Doctrine of the Trinity.  
3. That though there is but one only Jehovah, yet in the Holy Scripture we meet with several Elohim to whom the Title of Jehovah is given; this we see in a hundred places in the Law, where the words are Jehovah Eloheka, i. e. the Lord thy Gods, which does certainly deserve to be considered.  
This also we more particularly see in the History of the destruction of Sodom, Gen. 30.24. where it is written, That Jehovah reigned 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 show that the ancient Jews made the same Reflections, and form the same Notions that we have of the Divine Nature. To do this with the more clearness, I shall observe this Method: 1. To show what were their Reflections on the Unity of the Divine Nature. 2. To show 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 Being's 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 Firstborn 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. viij. 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 mere 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 show, that the very same Notions are spread 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 the Singular, instead of the Hebrew Elohim in the Plural. But then he more than hints that this Reflection 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. de Plant. Noae. p. 176. D. E. Which shows 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 show 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. viij. 6. & Psal. xcvii. 7. Such was the Opinion of Menander, the Scholar of Simon Magus in particular.  
2. That the Talmudists themselves were so persuaded 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 joined 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they conclude that there were two persons that appeared to her, and so they think Moses and Samuel to be the Persons. Midrash Sam. Rabbatha, cap. 27. & Tanchuma fol. 63. col. 2.  
It is natural for Christians to conceive, that where it is said so often, Gen. i. And God said, there God spoke to his Word, by which St. John writes that all things were made, Joh. i. 3. Socinus will not have it that St. John speaking of the Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does mean it of the first Creation, but of the second. His Disciples here being convinced that this cannot be maintained, have forsaken him in it, and do now agree in what he denied. But then they suppose the Word signifies no more than the virtue and power of God; and therefore by this Phrase, Let it be done, and it was so, no more is imported, than God's exciting of himself to do this or that thing, or that God said to himself, Let such a thing be done, and he did it accordingly.  
But if this Evasion can satisfy an Unitarian, as it easily may one that cannot maintain his opinion without it; yet it cannot satisfy an impartial Reader. For this we have the judgement of the ancient Synagogue, which looked on the Word of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as a true Cause and Agent, to whom God spoke, and who by an infinite power wrought the several works of the six days.  
Now that this was the judgement of the ancient Synagogue, and consequently that they acknowledged a Plurality in God, will be evident to any one that will be at the pains to consult Philo and the ancient Targums.  
For Philo, he hath drawn so full a System of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as to leave himself nothing more to add on that Subject. According to him, it is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom were represented the first Ideas of all things, and who afterwards stamped the impressions of them on matter: Whence he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, De opif. p. 4. G. & p. 24. C. It is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that created the World, as I shall have occasion to show from several parts of his Works, in the following part of this Discourse.  
And for the Targums, to cite all the passages in them that confirm this truth, would be a trouble next to that of transcribing those Books. I shall therefore collect only some of the principal places. Jonathan on Isa. xlv. 12. declares his opinion, that the Word created the Earth; and again on Isa xlviii. 13. Thus Onkelos assures, that the Heavens were made by the Word of the Lord, on Deut. xxxiii. 27. And he almost constantly distinguishes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as another Person from the Father, of which I shall in the following Chapters produce many proofs.  
Indeed in this Paraphrase of the History of the Creation, he uses not the Word Memra, which in Chaldee answers to that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek. Nor was there any need, since he used all along the Verb Amar, from whence comes the Noun Memra, and so interprets the Text word for word, which seems to be his chief design in this Paraphrase.  
And here I must take notice of one thing which is of great moment in this Question, viz. that the Jews make a great difference between that word Vajomer, which is found in the History of the Creation, and this word Vajedabber; the first having a natural and necessary relation to the Memra, and the last signifying no more than the speech of God or of any Man. R. Menach. de Rekan. in Pent. fol. 124. col. 2. & fol. 152. col. 1, 2.  
But Onkelos does three things which are equivalent to it: the one is, that instead of Elohim, he uses the word Jehova, which the Jews read Adonai, because it has the Vowels of the word Adonai; and both the word Adonim, which is the Plural out of Regimen, so as God uses it in speaking of himself, Mal. i. 6. and the Vowels of the word Adonai in regimen, which they put under the Letters of Jehova, being also Plural, both these things do express a Plurality in God as much as the word Elohim did in the Hebrew Text.  
The second is, that he doth render the words, in the beginning, not by the Chaldaic word which answers to the Hebrew, but by another which signifies the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is observed by all the Jewish Writers who make the same reflection upon the Translation of the Targum Jerusalami, in which we read not in the beginning, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Wisdom. As you see in a Comment upon the Targums, Printed at Amsterdam not long ago, where he follows those Notions as the ancient and the common Doctrine of the Synagogue.  
The third is, that in the sequel of his Paraphrase, he uses the word Memra, as signifying a Person by whom God acts and speaks in all his Appearances to Men.  
That these words, Let us make Man after our Image, etc. have made a like impression on the ancient Jews, appears clearly from the pains they take to explain them. I am sure Philo was convinced, that they note a Plurality, when he, writing on this Text, maintained that God had fellow-workers in the Creation of Man. De opif. p. 12. B. E. It is true he sometimes advances that God spoke these words to the Angels, or to the Elements; and he has been followed herein by some Jews after Jesus Christ, as we see in the Explication of them in Bresh. Rab. §. 8. and in Jalkut. §. 12, 13. wherein they pretend that God consulted the Angels also in the Creation of the World; although according to the Talmudical Jews the Angels were not created till the second or the fifth day; and such a consultation between God and his Creatures is rejected with scorn by Abarbanel in Pental. Fol. 19 Col. 4.  
But it is to be observed, that Philo's reason for this Exposition, was to give the better account of the Original of Sin, which after the manner of divers of the Philosophers, with whom he was much conversant, he searched for in the matter of which Man was composed in respect of his Body, as may be seen in the place which I have now quoted.  
For in other places he maintains: 1. That God took his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word, for his fellow-worker. De Opif. p. 24, & p. 25. 2. That Man was created after the Image of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Word. De Plant. Noae. p. 199. D. But he saith nothing of the Image of Angels, or of Matter, which yet he ought to have spoken of, had he writ coherently and suitably to that other Explication.  
I say it again, that in many of his Pieces he asserts, The Word made Man, and after the Image of the Word was Man created, which he shows very largely. Alleg. 11. p. 60. C. D. De Plant. Noae. p. 169.  
3. He maintains, that God spoke 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 expressly, Lib. de Profug. p. 357. G. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— That is, he shows that Man only was form 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 preserved by Euseb. Praep. Evang. seven. 13. p. 322, 323. His words are these: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who is the second God. For the rational part of Man's soul, aught to receive its impression from the Word or Reason of God, because God himself who is Superior to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is vastly beyond the nature of all Rational Being's; 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 show 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 shows that this is but another name for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by saying elsewhere, ver. 27. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. nineteen. 24. The Lord— reigned 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that reigned fire from Heaven, de Somn. p. 449. F. As he otherwhere saith, it was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 reins fire from Heaven, v. 24. and thus it Paraphrases the Text, The Jehova reigned 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 rendering 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 signify 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 Heresy. 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 Ptolemy 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 shown 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. viij. 9 where we read that Simon Magus had bewitched that people, giving out that himself was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say a Person, for I suppose Mr. N.  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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for as it is in the Text, they said this is the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 showeth it was the current reading in his time, and we find it also in several Manuscripts, some of which are of the highest esteem with Learned Men, as namely, the Alexandrian in the King's Library, and the ancient Manuscript of Lions in the Cambridge Library: In all these the words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This person is the power of God which is called the great power. For their calling him the power of God, what that means we cannot better learn than from Origen, who speaking of Simon, and such others as would make themselves like our Lord Jesus Christ, saith, they called themselves, Sons of God, or the Power of God; which he makes to be two Titles of one and the same signification. [Orig. cont. Celsum, lib. 1. p. 44.] And both these Titles are given to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Philo in more places than we can number. For their calling him the Great Power of God, which implies that there was another power besides; this also perfectly agrees with the Notions of Philo, who so often speaks of the two Powers of God, describing them as true and proper Persons.  
We have a farther proof of the Samaritans having these Notions, in the account which their Countryman 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 entirely 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 showeth in his Dialogue with Tryphon, [Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 349. G.] elsewhere Justin saith [Apol. 11. p. 69. E.] of Simon, they confess him as the first God, and as such they worship him. This Notion of a first God is manifestly the same with that of Philo, who called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second God. [Euseb. Prep. Evang. seven. 13. p. 323.] But if the Samaritans in the Apostles time took Simon to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or second God, as I have shown 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 showeth in the place before mentioned [p. 69. E.] that in his time as they called Simon the first God, so they called his Companion Helen, the second God. His words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what is that? one may easily guests; for certainly the first emanation from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And so according to Justin himself, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies. For in the same Book he interprets it of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [Apol. 11. p. 97. b.] So that as the second God was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Philo's account, so was Simon's Companion the same in the opinion of the Samaritans.  
This poor bewitched people were almost Singular in this opinion in Justin's time; for he saith, than 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. count. Cells 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 Emperor an Apology for the Christians, and acquainting him with the Errors of his Countrymen 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 show 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 acknowledge 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 show 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 show that there is ground for this Doctrine in the Scriptures of the Old Testament; I might show 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 chief to show, That there are Three that are called God in the Old Testament, and to show 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 show 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 show 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 show 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 show 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 shows 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 show 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 expressly spoken of by David, (who himself was a Type of the Messiah, and is so acknowledged by the Jews), Psal. two. 7. The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who, as has been already proved, is called Wisdom according to the Jewish Notions, is the Son of God by Eternal Generation, himself showeth, Prov. viij. 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, Sat 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 passed. But that Moses meant a Person, sufficiently appears by that which followeth, Gen. vi. 3. Where God saith, My Spirit shall not always strive with man. It was the Holy Spirit of God that inspired the holy Patriarches 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 spoke by me, and his Word was in my tongue.  
last; 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 remembered, 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 spoke 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, etc. The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, i. e. upon the Messiah, 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 Zion. 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 Masterpiece 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 Being's, such as Man; who if this had been true, aught to have worshipped 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 itself, 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 called 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 Being's 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 shown 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 expressed, 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 inquire 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 show 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 choose to begin with Philo's Testimonies rather than theirs, for three Reasons. First, Because he writ in the way of Treatises, and therefore much larger and clearer than they did that writ only in the way of Translation or Paraphrase, adding nothing of their own but only sometimes a very short Note on the Text: And therefore their Writings are much likelier to be explained by his, than his by theirs. 2dly. Because the Passages in Philo for the Existence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Person coeternal with the Father, are so evident, as to leave the Socinians not other way of answering them, but to deny with Mr. N. that the Books that contain them were written by Philo the Jew. 3dly. A third Reason is, because these Passages of Philo being written at Alexandria, and abounding with Expressions used by the Apostles when they speak of Jesus Christ as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will contribute to explain some of the Quotations we shall take out of the Paraphrases in use at Babylon and Jerusalem. These three great Cities Babylon, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, were the three great Academies of the Jews, till the destruction of the Temple under Vespasian. So that whatever was received among the Jews in these three Cities before our Saviour's time, may well pass for the Opinion of the Jewish Church at that time.  
Let us proceed then to some of those Passages in Philo the Jew, wherein he declares that there are Two such Powers in God, as we call Two Persons; and no one shall make sense of those Passages, that calls them otherwise.  
1. In general, he acknowledges that God hath Two Chief Supreme Powers, one of which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God, the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lord. De Abrah. p. 286, 287. F. De vit. Mos. three 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 showeth 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, etc. This Vision according to the Literal Sense he expounds of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so the LXX. calleth the Cakes that were hid under the Embers: According to this Mystical Sense, he saith, here was denoted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Great Jehovah, with his Two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which one is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These are Philo's words, [De Sacrif. Ab. & Cain, p. 108. B.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 showeth 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. two. 25. xuj. 8. nineteen. 17. xxxii. 20. Lev: xx. 23. xxvi. 49. Numb. xi. 20. xiv. 9 xxiii. 21. Deut. i. 30, 32. two. 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 acknowledge 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 easy to be satisfied that these famous Authors are in the right: For if you consider the places where Philo the Jew speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 oftener 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 shown 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 Messiah, 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 entangle 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 joins 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 allege 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 expressly denies, that God has any Companions or Counsellors, as hath been already shown.  
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, etc.  
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 imagine; they do indeed find that these Watchers and Holy Ones, are the Holy Angels; but they say for the Decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they pronounce it from the mouth of God, and it is called their Decree, because they are the Ministers of God to do whatever he commands them. Thus Jer. i. 10. that Prophet is said to be set over Nations and Kingdoms to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant; not that God shared that power with his Prophet, or took him into Council for such things, but only that he by the appointment of God, as his Minister, was to declare the Sentence and Judgement 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. viij. 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 signify Angels, but the three Persons in the Trinity. My reason is, because however that Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being Angels has obtained among the Jews, I do not find them called so any where in the Old Testament Scriptures. But God is often said to watch over his People, Gen. xxxi. 49. Psal. seven. 6. & cxxvii. 1. Jer. xxxi. 28. & xliv. 27. and even by this Prophet, Dan. ix. 14. And for the other word that is here joined with the Watchers, viz. the Holy Ones, however this may be used of Angels elsewhere, 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 Nabuchadnezzar 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 alleged 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 acknowledge that Philo by the Spirit, Gen. i. 2. understands the Wind, [de Gig. p. 223.] which is something strange; seeing the Greek Interpreters whom he followed read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. the Spirit of God, and not simply the Spirit, which might have stood for Wind here, as it does in some places of the Old Testament.  
But Philo's Error is easily accounted for; He fell into it by endeavouring to accommodate Moses his Notions to the Notions of the Philosophy, that makes four Elements of all things. And probably for such a reason some of the Targums might come into the same Interpretation. But for the other ancient Jews they expounded this Spirit, not by Wind, but by that Spirit which was to rest on the Messiah in Isaiah's Language, Isa. xi. 1. See Bresh. Rabath 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 joins these two Powers, which he afterwards calls his Principality and his Goodness.  
But this can raise no prejudice against our Position. It shows 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 concerned 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 concerned what they say, because when they had once rejected their Messiah 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 forced to acknowledge, the Patriarches 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 Ministering 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 imagine 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 show, that notwithstanding their averseness 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 imagine 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 Controversy all such remarks; my design being only to show 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 Critics, 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 ware 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; chief 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 acknowledge 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 judge as we do, that the word Elohim, which is Plural, expresses a Plurality. Their ordinary remark upon that word is this, that Elohim is as if one did read, El hem, that is, They are God. Bachajè a famous Commentator of the Pentateuch, who brings in his work all the senses of the four sorts of Interpreters among the Jews, speaks to this purpose upon the Parascha Breschit. fol. 2. col. 3.  
2ly. It is certain that they make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to express those Persons, as they use to express the two first human Persons, viz. Adam and Eve. Thus speaks of them the same Bachaje, Ibid. fol. 13. col. 2.  
3ly. They fix the number of three Persons in the Divine Essence, distinguishing their Personal Characters and Actions, which serve to make them known.  
4ly. They speak of the emanation of the two last from the first, and that the last proceeds by the second.  
5ly. They declare that this Doctrine contains a Mystery that is incomprehensible, and above human reason, and that in such an unsearchable secret we must acquiesce with the Authority of the Divine Revelation.  
6ly. They ground this Doctrine upon the very same Texts of Scripture, which we allege 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 acknowledge that the consequences and conclusions, which Christians draw from the Scriptures to this subject of Trinity, are not so easy 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 allege 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 called the beginning, Prov. viij. 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 Being's have been form, 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 acknowledge not only that Wisdom to have been the efficient cause of the Word, but they acknowledge 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 itself 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 shows 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 shown 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 show 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, than 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. nineteen. 24. And Jehovah reigned upon Sodom from Jehovah; that those Two Jehovah are Two Persons, which they call expressly 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 Rabath; 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. viij. R. Men. fol. 35. col. 1.  
I shall show 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 , 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 spoke 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 Conductor 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 entrusted 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. xuj. in Isa. viij. & 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 acknowledge that sometimes some of them seem to take the Shekinah for the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost for the Shekinah, although they commonly call one the Second Sephira, and the other the Third, viz. the Binah, that is to be seen in R. Men. fol. 80. col. 2. So some of them refer to the Binah the Title of King of Israel, which occurs so often in Scripture: See Men. fol. 132. col. 3. Although it is the common Name of the Shekinah, fol. 113. col. 1. Some other refer to the Shekinah the Name of the Spirit of God, which is mentioned Gen. i. 1. So says the Author of the Book Jetzira, in R. Menachem, fol. 3. col. 2.  
But if some are mistaken in their Ideas, I can say that they are very few, and almost not worth taking notice of. And indeed if we consider a little what is the general Sense of those Authors about the Emanations which are spoken of in Scripture, as by which the Divine Nature is communicated to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Shekinah, and to the Holy Ghost, we shall know evidently that they had as distinct a Notion of a true Trinity, as they have of the Plurality of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence.  
And first the Author of the Zohar, and the Author of the Book Habbahir, pronounce that the Third Sephira proceeds from the First by the Second; and R. Men. follows their Doctrine, fol. 1. col. 3.  
2dly. They attribute equally the Name of Jehovah to the Second and the Third 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 expressed 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 citys 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the Purified Light, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Speculation cited by Reuchlin, p. 651. Hi tres qui sunt unum inter se proportionem habent ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unum uniens & unitum. He said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 judgement, and shall continue so till the coming of the Messiah, 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, etc. And he shall cause the Spirit of Grace and Clemency to descend from the first Sephirah, who is called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Infinite; and he follows in that Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, who saith upon Isa. xi. that the Cochma which is the second Sephira shall be in the middle of the Messiah.  
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faces, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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, etc. 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 easy 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, etc. 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 rendered the first verse of Genesis thus, The Lord created by his Wisdom. The Christians called him the Word, and Wisdom, alluding to divers places, especially Psal. xxxiii. 6. and Prov. viij. 14. The Jews commonly call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 knowledge 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'll 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 referred, 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 citys Job xxviii. 7. to this purpose; and the Caution of the Jewish Doctors, who forbidden 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 Messiah 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 turned 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 entitled 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 picked 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 falsely 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 Apostolic Doctrine. It is a Passage taken from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, as cited by St. Jerome on Ezek. xuj. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 showed before, is a Proof. 3. The Study of their Rites having been the great business of the Jews for many Centuries, it hath happened 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 wherever there are Jews: Now this Book gins 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 Arabic, 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 otherwhere.  
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 Judgement of the Ancient Synagogue, and to consider how it agrees or differs with us in the other Matters we have in hand.   

CHAP. XII.  
That the Jews had a distinct Notion of the Word as of a Person and of a Divine Person too.  
A Great part of the Dispute we have with the Socinians, depending on the true meaning of the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel, where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is spoken of, as being he that created the World, and was at length made Flesh, and whom we Christians look upon as the promised Messiah, I think I can't do the Truth a greater service, than in clearing this Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and showing what thoughts the ancient Jews had concerning it.  
Socinus confesses that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Person, for he owns that St. John did describe the Man Christ Jesus by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and attributed to him the Creation of the Church, which is according to him the new World. But here in England the followers of Socinus will not stand by this Exposition, but understand by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that virtue by which God created Heaven and Earth, as Moses relates, Gen. i. They obstinately deny this Virtue to be a Person, i. e. an Intelligent Subsistence, and rather look upon it as a Divine Attribute, which they say was particularly discovered in the Mission of Jesus Christ for the Salvation of Mankind.  
It cannot be denied us that St. John being one of the Circumcision did write with an especial respect to the Jews, that they might understand him, and receive benefit by it; and therefore it cannot be doubted but that when he called Jesus Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he used a word that was commonly known among the Jews of those times in which he lived.  
Otherwise, if he had used this word in a sense not commonly known to the Jews, he would have signified to them the new Idea he had affixed to it. But he gives not the least intimation of any thing new in it, though he uses the word so many times in the very beginning of his Gospel. It is certain therefore that he used it in the sense wherein it was then commonly understood by the Jews.  
Now the Idea the Jews had of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was the same they had of a real and proper Person, that is, a living, Intelligent, free Principle of Action. That this was their Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Word, we shall prove by the Works of Philo and the Chaldee Paraphrases.  
To begin with Philo, He conceives the Word to be a true and proper cause. For he declares in about a hundred places, that God created the World by his Word. He conceived the Word to be an Intelligent Cause. Because in him, according to Philo, are the Original Ideas of all things that are expressed in the Works of the Creation. 
De Opif. p. 3. G. & 4. C.D.   
He makes the Word a Cooperator with God in the Creation of Man, and says that God spoke those words to him, Let Us make Man, Gen. i. 26. It may be added, that he calls the Word the Image of God, and makes Man the Image of this Image 
* Lib. Quis rer. Divin. Haer. p. 400. E. F. .  
These are some of the Characters that represent the Word as a true Person.  
But there are others no less demonstrative of this Truth: As, 1. where Philo asserts, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is begotten of God, Alleg. two. 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. Diu. haer. p. 393. that renders God propitious to his Creatures, de Somn. p, 447. E. F. That is, the Instructor of Men, Ib. p. 448. and their Shepherd, alluding to Psal. xxiii. 1.  
The Chaldee Paraphrases are full of Notions and Expressions relating to the Word, conformable to those of Philo touching the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that he must wink hard who does not see that in their sense the word is truly a Person.  
And, 1. they almost always distinguish the Memra, or Word of the Lord, which answers to Philo's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the word Pithgama, which signifies a Matter or a Discourse, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does in Greek.  
2. They ascribe the Creation of the World to the Word.  
3. They make it the Word that appeared to the Ancients under the name of the Angel of the Lord.  
4. The Word that saved Noah in the time of the Flood, and made a Covenant with him. Onkelos on Gen. seven, & viij  
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 murmured in Sin, Exod. xuj. 8.  
5. It is the Word before whom the People marched to receive the Law, Exod. nineteen. 17.  
6. It is the Word whose Presence is promised in the Tabernacle, Exod. xxx. 6. xxxvi. 42. which is repeated Numb. viij. 29.  
7. It is the Word between whom and Israel the Sabbath is made a Sign, Exod. xxxi. 13, 17. and so Leu. 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, Leu. viij. 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, Leu. 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 rebel 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. viij. 2. xx. 1.  
2. The Word led Israel in the Pillar of a Cloud, Ch. i. 32.  
3. The Word spoke 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 judge by comparing them, whether they differ from Philo and Onkelos, or no.  
The Jerusalem Targum saith, That God Created the World by his Wisdom, which he grounds on the word Bereshith, Gen. i. 1. And Philo means the same things, when he calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first Emanation, de Confus. Ling. p. 267. B.  
The same Targum saith, the Word made Man after his Image, Gen. i. 27.  
Jonathan's affirms the Garden of Eden was planted by the Word for the Just before the Creation of the World, Gen. two. 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. seven. 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 reigned Fire from before the Lord, Gen. nineteen. 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 secure Isaac, Gen. xxiii. 24, 28. repeated Gen. xxxi. 3, 5, 42. xxxii. 9  
The same Targum says, That the Word of the Lord made Rachel bear a Child, Gen. xxx. 22. Which is consonant to what Philo saith, That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 caused Isaac to be born, Alleg. l. 2. p. 77.  
According to this Targum the Word sent Michael to save Thamar, Gen. xxxviii. 25. The Word went down with Jacob into Egypt, Gen. xlvi. 1, 2, 3, 4.  
The Word succours Joseph, Gen. xlix. 25. Which Joseph acknowledges, Gen. l. 20.  
We may trace the same Notions in their Targums on Exodus.  
According to Jonathan's, The Word built Houses for the Midwives that feared God, Exod. i 21.  
The Word caused that miraculous Heat which disposed Pharaoh's Daughter to go and bathe herself in the Nile, Exod. two. 5.  
It was He that spoke, 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 shows 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 appeared to Abraham by the Name of the God of Heaven; and the Name of his Word was not declared to the Patriarches, Exod. vi. 3.  
The Word of the Lord slew the Firstborn 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. xuj. 25. and he against whom Israel murmured, ver. 8.  
The Israelites hear the voice of the Word, Exod. nineteen. 5. who speaks, v. 9 and pronounces the Law, xx. 1. being the same that redeemed Israel from Egypt, Ib. and Leu. i.  
God promises to send his Word with his People, and Israel is strictly enjoined 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. Leu. 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, Leu. 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 three 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 swore to the Patriarches, 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 shows 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 expressly given that Word we now Treat of, as render it absurd to take it for any thing else but a Person.  
Let us next inquire 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 persuade 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 tries 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before he made this Judgement, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 acknowledge, 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 signify 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 imagines 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 forbidden 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 enabled 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. the 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 spoke, and the Word said. But what kind of Person? An Angel, a Created Angel in his Judgement, 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 shown 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 signify a Created Angel in Philo, or in the Targums, but a truly Divine Person.  
It is true, that Philo sometimes calls the Angel's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Plural. But elsewhere he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 singularly in terms that express his acknowledgement 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as true God, as Creator of the World, Lib. de Temulentia, p. 190. D. 194. B. But the Angels after another manner, the 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 firstborn 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 Patriarches, and another time he saith the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appeared to them; his design being to acquaint us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. Can they ascribe the Creation of the World to the Word, as they do, and yet think him to be a Creature? Can they profess him the Creator of Mankind, without asserting his Divinity? Can 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? Can they imagine him to have given the Law on Mount Sinai, and not reflect on the Preface of the Law; wherein the great Lawgiver 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. nineteen. 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 expressly, that the Word that spoke to Moses, was the same who spoke and the World was made, and who was God of Abraham, Exod. iii. 14, 15. vi. 4. So than if he who was the God of Abraham, was only an Angel that Personated God, than he who created the World was a created Angel; which, as I have showed, 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 mere 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 show 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 Angels taking the place of God, he saith, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 took the place of an Angel. De Somn. p. 466.  
As to the Ark, it is folly to imagine that because God promised to dwell and to hear Prayers there, and enjoined 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, etc. where the words are not addressed to the Ark itself, 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 Obliqne Case, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or with a Verb Substantive understood, as Jehovah Nissi, Jehovah Shamma. What the Socinians have to say more against this, the Reader may see fully answered by Buxt. Hist. of the Ark, c. 1. And the Reader shall have a full Satisfaction upon it, out of the following Chapters.  
It remains therefore certain, That the Word mentioned in Philo and the Paraphrases, is not an Angel, but a Divine Person; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Philo calls him many times; and if the Expression be allowable, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he speaks in Euseb. Praep. seven. 13. p. 322, & 323.  
But we must now go on to that which will remove all difficulties from this Subject, and convince the Reader, if any thing can do it, That the Jews looked upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Divine Person. I speak of the Appearances of an Angel who is called God, and worshipped as God under the Old Testament: And I thought fit for this very reason to enlarge more upon this Subject, to prevent at once all the Objections of the New Jews, and of the Unitarians.   

CHAP. XIII.  
That all the Appearances of God, or of the Angel of the Lord, which are spoken of in the Books of Moses, have been referred to the Word by the Jews before Christ's Incarnation.  
SOME of the late Jewish Commentators that have had Disputes with the Christians, particularly those whose Comments are collected in the Hebrew Bible printed by Bomberg at Venice, do oppose this Proposition with all their Might. They have laid it down for a Rule, That wherever 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. nineteen. 24. Whereas those Old Jews who followed the Tradition of their Forefathers, being not biased 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 concerned, 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 showing 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 worshipped, 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 distinguished from Angels, as they do God from the Creature; and thereby justified the Patriarches 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 allege in several places. I would willingly spare myself 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 Judgement 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [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 die 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 expressly, 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, etc. 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. three 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. seven. 16. all the Paraphrasts attributed this to the Word: The Jerusalem Targum saith, The Word of the Lord spared Noah. And Gen. viij. 1. Jonathan has it, That the Word of the Lord remembered 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. viij. 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, etc. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 showeth that this Angel was God himself, even the same that spoke to Abraham, and gave him that Command, ver. 1, 2. And that Command was given by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Word, according to Philo, as it has been already shown. 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 prayed 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 showeth 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 shown), and saith to Abraham, By myself 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, etc. 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 show 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. xuj. 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 Style of God, saying, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, ver. 10. So she owned it was the Lord that spoke to her, and she said to him, Thou God seest me, ver. 13. 'Tis clear that it was God himself that appeared, though he is called an Angel in the Text. And therefore not only Philo calleth him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in those places , but the Targums likewise show 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And who performed it? 'Twas God the Word, according to the Targums: For whereas the Text saith, ver. 20. God was with the Lad; it is thus rendered 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 swore 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 rendered, 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 expressly, 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, etc. That it was the Word that appeared to him, we have shown 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, etc. 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 spoke 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 expressly 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is called 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. Elsewhere 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 hide 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Word, who is both God, and the Messenger of God, as we have shown 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 asked 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 rendered 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 asked 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 employed 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 spoke to him 175 times. They were times without number that God spoke to him, from off the Mercy-seat, upon the Ark of Testimony, from between the two Cherubims, Numb. seven. 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 spoke 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. seven. 89. Jonathan saith it was the Word that spoke 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking to Moses, as oft as Moses spoke 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 terror, which Moses shown in the sight of all Israel.  
For the Acts of his Ministry, they were chief these three: 1. His bringing the People out of Egypt. 2. His giving them Laws and Statutes, and Judgements 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 finished 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 killed the firstborn of the Egyptians, and delivered his own firstborn 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 looked 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 form 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 Judgements; 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 Judgements concerning Bruises and Wounds, and for the Punishment of Transgressors. Afterwards, when they were come into the Wilderness of Sinai, Exod. nineteen. 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, etc. there Onkelos saith, according to one of Clark's various Readins, Moses went up to meet the Word of the Lord, Exod. nineteen. 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 sanctify 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. nineteen. 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 Readins. Moses therefore according to Jonathan on Deut. v. 5. Stood between them and the Word of the Lord, to show them the Pithgama, the matter and words that were spoken to him from the Lord. What they were, we read Exod. xx. 1, etc. 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 showed 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 expressly 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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. Diu. 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 shown 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 shown himself so much concerned, that he made his Glory appear to them in the Pillar of Cloud, Exod. xuj. 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 murmur are not against us, but against the Word of the Lord, according to Onkelos and Jonathan.  
When, Exod. xvii. 8, etc. 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, writ 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 entereth 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 choose 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 Judgements, and Laws which the Lord made between his Word and the Children of Israel.  
When they entered 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 Word 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 showed 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 overlayed with pure Gold, and having a Crown of Gold round about it. In the Ark were contained 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 shown itself 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. seven. 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, than the Pillar removed, and shown which way the Camp was to go. Upon notice of that, than 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, than 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 numbered.  
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. IU.  Numb. xxi. 5. according to Onkelos in one of Clerk's various Readins, 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, etc. It was the Word of the Lord that would send all his Judgements 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 begged 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 Judgements 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 judgement of his people, and should repent him of the evil that he had decreed against his Servants. It were easy to add many more such Instances out of the Targums, but these are abundantly enough to show 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 dismayed. 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 die: After which Moses stayed 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
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 entered 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 road 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. two. 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 spoke 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 elsewhere 
† Muis 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 show, that it was the Word that made all those Appearances, either of God, or of an Angel of God that was worshipped, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was settled as the King of Israel between the Cherubims, He is not to be looked 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 Worshipped Angel, it will be enough to show 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. nineteen. 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 acknowledgement of a Divine Presence that was used among the Eastern Nations, in these words, Lose thy  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' 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 Warrior, 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 Word which cast out the Nations before them.  
And indeed this very judgement 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 not created Angel it seems by his being oftener called the Lord, v. 14, 16, 23, 24, 25, 27. And Gideon in that whole History never addressed himself to any other but God. The Message delivered from God by this Angel to Gideon, ver. 16. is thus rendered in the Targum, Surely my Word shall be thy help, and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man. The Word that helped 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. seven. 18, 20. And what the Ancient Jewish Church meant by the Word of the Lord in this place, one may guests 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 happened 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 Peel, the Wonderful, which is used Isaiah ix. amongst the Names of the Messiah, which Name the Jews make a shift to appropriate to God, exclusively to the Messiah.  
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, shows 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. three 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 numbering 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 Judgement 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 stretched 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 employed him in that Service, appointed to appear in that manner, for all those purposes .  
What the Ancient Church thought of all this Passage of History, we may easily guests by what has been already shown, 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 Judgement was executed: And it was also his Mercy by which the Judgement was suspended and revoked. The Targum on this Text sufficiently shows 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 looked 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 viij. 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 owned that it was for his Word's sake, and for his Servant David's sake, 2 Kings nineteen. 34. xx. 6. When they had quite broken his Covenant, than God removed them from before his Word, and gave them up to be a Scorn to all Nations, as he threatened 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, Leu. seven. 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 stayed 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 stayed 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 hastened 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, than it must be He that made the second also; for both these Appearances were of the same Person. So it is said expressly 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 spoke to Solomon on this occasion. First, the time of this Divine Appearance to Solomon, was when he had finished 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 viij. 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. seven. 12. I have chosen this place to myself 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 choose to place his Name there; thither shall you bring all that I command you, your Burnt-offerings and your Sacrifices, etc. Now see how those words of Moses are rendered in Jonathan's Targum on Deuteronomy: There will be a place which the Word of the Lord will choose to place his Shekinah there: Thither shall you bring your Offerings, etc. Here the Reader cannot but see that he that appeared to Solomon, and said to him, I have chosen this place, etc. 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 Restingplace in Solomon's Temple, 1 Chron. viij. 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 nineteen. Of which something aught 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 seemed 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 shown 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 nineteen. 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 hide his Face, being afraid to look upon God; so did Elias in this place, 1 Kings nineteen. 13. He wrapped his Face in his Mantle; and than 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 dwelled 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 nineteen. 5, 7. 2 King's i. And of the Angel that made that Slaughter in Sennacherib's Army, 2 Kings nineteen. 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 mere 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, etc. 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 shown 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 show, 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, etc. 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, etc. 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 expressly 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. viij. 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. two. 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 show that this was the meaning of it, he saw this Glorious Appearance of God, first, in his place, three 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 Judgement 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, etc. 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. viij. 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 elsewhere, that we need not trouble ourselves 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 distinguished from all others in the same Book, i 13, 14, 19 two. 3. v. 5, 6. vi. 4. A second Angel appeared to him also as a Man with a Measuring Line in his hand, two. 1. But whosoever compares this Text with Ezek. xl. 3, 4, 5, etc. 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, two. 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, etc. two. 4. He that commands another should be his Superior. And yet this Superior owns himself sent from God. But he owned it in such terms as showed 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 itself taken, and spotled by their ancient Servants the Persians.  hath he sent me to the Nations that spoilt you, etc. 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 expressed 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 show that, though he styled himself God, yet he came as a Messenger from God. This is plainer yet, v. 11. where he saith, Many Nations shall be joined 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.  (thou, 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 shown 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 bend against Joshua, that was come out of the Captivity as a brand plucked 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 showeth himself their Superior. Afterward, when the filthy  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 clothe thee with change of raiment, that is, according to the Targum, I will clothe thee with righteousness. ver. 5. And he 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he said, Jon. Targ.  said, (again commanding the Angels) Let them set a fair Mitre 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, two. 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, two. 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, two. 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, three 2. He forgives sin, and confers Righteousness, three 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. two. 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 Judgement of the ancient Jewish Church, that makes all these things perfectly agree to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This we see in Philo, who often calleth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
* De Somn. p. 466. B. Eus. praep. seven. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Philo L. 1. Quaest. & Sol. as Philo calls the Father, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 an 
† De Somn. p. 463. F. De Prof. p. 364. B.  Angel, the Messenger of God; and ‖ our Highpriest, and 
* De profug. 466. B. De Somniis, p. 594. E. Quis rer. Divin. p. 397. G. Vit. Mos. three p. 521. B.  our Mediator with God. The same hath been showed of the Word elsewhere out of the Targums. And here in this Targum, though no doubt it hath been carefully purged, yet by some oversight it is said, two. 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 shown in this Chapter, and as we shown 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Word, in speaking of the Messiah.  
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, could not rationally give to that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 virtue of God, and who to confirm this assertion of theirs observe that in the Targums the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never employed when they speak of the Messiah. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is put for the Messiah. And so that it is certain that St. John hath followed the Language of the Jews before Jesus Christ in taking the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Divine Person that in the fullness 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 Messiah should be the proper Son of God.  
The last is, that the Messiah was represented in the Old Testament as being Jehovah that should come, and that the ancient Synagogue did believe him to be so.  
I begin with the first of these three Articles.  
And upon this I must put my Reader in mind, that it should not be a just subject of admiration, if we could not prove such a thing by many of the Jewish Books. It is clear that when the Jewish Authors did consider the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they considered him as the true Lord of Heaven and Earth, and chief of their own Nation. Whereas the Messiah 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 Messiah, as you may see in their Ceremonial Book or Aggada of Pesach.  
But although we should suppose that the places we are going to cite cannot expressly 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 Governor 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 Messiah.  
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. nineteen. 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 Messiah.  
The Jews thought him to be the Messiah, that is spoken of by Zech. ch. vi. 22. And whom else could they think him but the Word, who is named by Zechariah the East? and the Sun of Righteousness by Mal. iv. 2. Especially since Philo interprets that place of Zechariah of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, De Confus. Linguar. p. 278. where he speaks of him as of the firstborn 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 Messiah, Mal. iii. 2. iv. 1.  
The Jews believed a promise of the Messiah, Deut. xviii. 15. But Onkelos notes here, that the Word shall revenge himself of them that disobey the Messiah.  
They maintained with Philo, de Agric. p. 152. B. de Somn. p. 267. B. that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the first begotten of God. Can they then imagine 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 Messiah? as Psal. two. 7. lxxxix. 28. lxxii. 1.  
They held, as did Philo, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 led the People through the desert, and referred to him Psalm xxiv. wherein he is called the Shepherd. And could they do this without reflecting, how often this Title of Shepherd is given by the Prophets to the Messiah?  
They held that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was adored in his Appearances to the Patriarches, and could they doubt whether the Messiah, whom all the Kings of the Earth must adore, Psal. lxxii. 11. had any affinity with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉?  
They assert, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the great High Priest, Phil. de Somn. p. 463. F. And how could they deny that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be the Messiah, when they constantly ascribed to the Messiah, 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 Messiah, ch. viij. 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 Messiah, The like it does on ch. xxviii. 16. where it is manifest the Messiah 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 Messiah. 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 Messiah is treated of.  
But I foresee these consequences will not seem strong enough to a Socinian. Let us therefore produce out of Philo and the Targums some places where the Notions of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Messiah, do appear positively the same.  
For Philo, 1. He declares that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the first begotten of God, in Euseb. Praep. seven. 13. p. 323. which he had from Prov. viij. 25. Psal. two. 7. But this proves unanswerably that in the judgement of the Old Jews, the Messiah should be the same Person with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seeing the Messiah is called the firstborn, Psal. lxxxix. 28.  
2. He explains the last, Zech. vi. 12. by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Text runs thus, Thus speaks the Lord of Hosts, saying, behold the man whose name is the Branch, (or, as the Greek has it, the East,) he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the Temple of the Lord. This is understood by the Jews of the Messiah. But Philo plainly says, that this East here spoken of, is the Word, the firstborn 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 Messiah before our Lord's Ministry; and discovers the Tricks and Fopperies of the modern Jews, who having a mean opinion of the Person of the Messiah, 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 the first Chapter of his Gospel; and shows 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Man. We know the Messiah 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 brethren's sake. For these Psalms do all regard the Messiah. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Messiah. And again of Isa. liii. where the Messiah 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 Messiah was Leprous.  
As for the Chaldee Paraphrase, it is visible from Isa. xlix. where the Messiah is spoken of throughout, that the Memra should become the Messiah: 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 judgement is with the Lord, and my work with my God. And now saith the Lord that form me from the womb, to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him; though 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 mayst be my Salvation unto the end of the Earth. Now as Philo hath observed that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 expressly 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 Messiah.  
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 thyself 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 Messiah, i. e. should reveal himself in him, according to the judgement of the old Jewish Church, may be gathered from the method of the Jews in explaining certain places of the Messiah which they referred to the Word of the Lord. Till now they do agree, that Moses spoke of the Messiah, 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 Messiah, 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. three 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 Messiah, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the middle of him, as saith Rashi, whom I have quoted before.  
2dly, The Ancient Targums acknowledge that the Messiah 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 Messiah, as also Is. liii. 5.10, 11, 12. From whence it is evident, that they took the Messiah 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 Messiah. 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 Messiah is called by Jacob the Salvation by the Word of the Lord. 'Tis upon the same foundation that they refer to the Messiah which is spoken Isai. xliv. 6. that the Messiah shall be the last King, as he hath been the first, which they infer from Psal. lxxii. 8. and Dan. two. 35.44. in Bresh Rabath 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 Messiah, and consequently shows that the Word shall be in the Messiah.  
5thly. The same Jonathan, who affirms that the Word gave the Law on Horeb, and made a Covenant with Israel, refers to the Messiah 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 Messiah.  
The same Truth may be also collected from hence, That the Word is clearly distinguished from God who sends him, and from the Holy Spirit who is to rest on the Messiah in respect of his Human Nature. Which is a good Argument that the Word and the Messiah, 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 Messiah, 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 show more distinctly, in evincing 2dly, That the Jews who esteemed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Son of God, did likewise believe the Messiah should be the Son of God.   

CHAP. XVII.  
That the Jews did acknowledge the Messiah 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 Patriarches, who and what this Angel was: I mean he gave them Revelation in Scripture concerning the Nature of the Messiah, 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 Messiah 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 Messiah.  
It might be gathered from several things in the Writings of Moses, as Gen. iii. 15. that the Messiah 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 shows in the Parable of the strong man, Matth. xii. 29. Because God respecting the coming of the Messiah, 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 prophesied, Gen. xlix. 10. and as Balaam foretold of the Messiah, 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 Messiah 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 Messiah excited a more ardent desire in the Jews, that God would fulfil his promise concerning him.  
Let us inquire a little, by what degrees this Light became more distinct, and show 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 Messiah 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. viij. 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 firstborn of God; nevertheless he gives them their true sense in referring them to the Messiah, who is spoken of in Psalm two. in these words, Thou art my Son, and kiss the Son, Part 3. fol. 124. col. 3.  
Philo in his Pieces hath preserved the sense of the Ancient Jews in this matter that this Son was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as where he saith, that the Word by whom they swear, was begotten. All. 11. p. 76. B. that God begat his Wisdom according to Solomon, Prov. viij. 24. De temul. p. 190. D. which Wisdom is no other than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ibid. p. 194. that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the most Ancient Son, the Eternal Spirit of God; but the World is the Son of God in time, Quod Deus sit immut. p. 232. that his Word is his Image, and his Firstborn. De confus. ling. p. 266. 267. B. that the Word is the Son of God, before the Angels, Quis rer. div. h. p. 397. F. G. that the Unity of God is not to be reduced to number, that God is unus non unicus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Jews say in their Book of Prayers, which are the very steps we take to show that an Eternal Generation in the Divine Nature is no contradiction.  
Nothing can be more express for to prove that there is a Son in the Godhead, than what we read in the Targum of Jerusalem, Gen. iii. 22. The Word of Jehovah said, Here Adam, whom I created, is the only begotten Son in the World, as I am the only begotten Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the high Heaven.  
3. The Prophets positively teach the Son of God (who, the Jews thought (as under the former Head appears) was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Eternal Wisdom of God) to be the Messiah. Thus David, Psalm two. 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 rendered 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 Messiah in Shir hashirim Rabath, fol. 5. Col. 2, & 3. and in Midrash Tehillim ad Ps. lxviii. v. 4.  
I confess that we read in Tehillim Rabbathi upon this iid Psalm, a kind of answer to this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he doth not say, thou art a Son to me, but thou art my Son; and they pretend that God speaks to the Messiah as a Master to his Servant. The Inquisitors of Italy take great care to blot out that Answer in the Books which they give leave to the Jews to keep in their Houses: But it is a ridiculous fear, for the solution is so absurd, that it is exploded as soon as you look upon the description of that Son which is in the Book of Proverbs, Chap. xxx. 4.  
I own also, that we find not in the body of Philo's Works any formal Explication of these words, This day have I begotten thee; from whence we can directly conclude, that he understood them of an Eternal Generation. But we find something equivalent to it. For speaking of these words, You who were obedient to the Lord, are alive this day; he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De profug. p. 358. E.  
That this is not a simple Conjecture, appears from the manner of Philo's explicating of himself, as he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in two places cited by Eus. Praep. Eu. seven. p. 323. out of Phil. de Agric. 1, & 11. For in the first place, he calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Firstborn of God: And in the other, the Eternal Word of the Eternal God, begotten by the Father. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The same Title of Son is given to the Messiah, Psal. lxxii. 17. That this Psalm was understood of the Messiah 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 form from Nin, which signifies a Son. Hence it is that the Jews make Innon one of the Titles of the Messiah 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. viij. 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 Messiah. The Psalmist goes on in these words, and the Branch which thou madest strong for thyself. The Targum reads them, even for thy Son's sake, and interprets them, even for the sake of King Messiah. 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 thyself, the LXX. have only, on the Son; and the Targum interprets them of King Messiah.  
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 Messiah, 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. viij. 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 the Profug. p. 358. A. To the Question, Why is Wisdom spoken of in the Feminine, he Answers, it is to preserve to God the Character of a Father; from whom he thought the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drew his Nature; as being, as he elsewhere, de Agric. calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Eternal Son of the Everlasting Father. And nothing is more common amongst the Jewish Writers, than 1. To maintain that the Shekinah, the Wisdom, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are the same. 2dly, To refer to the Messiah, 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 Messiah. 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. viij. is the same by which the World hath been created. 2dly, That this Wisdom is the same which is called the Shekinah, the Memra, it is called by Philo the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let him now look upon the Places of the Prophets which are constantly spoken of the Messiah, 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 Messiah, and must have looked upon the Messiah as he that must have been the proper Son of God. I will show 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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. viij. 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 Rabath, and from Zohar. Ibid. fol. 2. col. 1. & fol. 35. col. 1. & fol. 44. col. 1.  
And fourthly, They refer many Places to that Wisdom which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Shekinah, and the Son, to the Messiah; for example, it is clear that Psalm xlv. belongs to the Messiah, as being the Bridegroom of the Church. Now they suppose that the Shekinah is the Bridegroom of the Synagogue, R. Menach. in Pent. fol. 15. col. 1. and they refer to the Shekinah the place of Isaiah, chap. lxii. 3. which is nothing but the same Idea of Psalm xlv.  
So they refer the Song of Solomon to the Shekinah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, R. Menach. de Rekan in Pent. fol. 58. col. 4. & fol. 76. col. 1. & col. 3. which is manifestly to be understood of the Messiah, 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 Messiah. Now the constant Idea of the Jewish Writers is, that the Shekinah is to be that very Redeemer. Rab. Menach. de Rekanati in Pent. fol. 58. col. 4. & fol. 59 col. 1. & fol. 83. col. 4. & fol. 97. col. 4.  
So that nothing is more evident, than that the Jews, who took the Wisdom to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the proper Son of God, and look upon the Shekinah or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as being to be the Messiah, must have looked upon the Messiah as being the proper Son of God.  
In Isaiah iv. 2. the Messiah 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 Messiah. From which it is natural to conclude, that the proper Son of God was to be the Messiah, and the Messiah 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 Messiah; and Solomon Jarchi, who died 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 Messiah.  
But I have taken notice before in speaking of the several appearances of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the Angel who appeared to Gideon, and who was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, did take the same name of Wonderful which is given here to the Messiah.  
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 Messiah.  
Zachary, ch. vi. 12. doth also call him the branch, which not only the Jews before Christ, as we have shown from Philo, but those after Christ (Echa Rabbathi, p. 58. col. 2.) interpreted of the Messiah, 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 firstborn, from being one with him. Another time, he calls the Word an Archangel, a Man, he that sees Israel, etc. Whence comes this, but that he saw the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was sometimes represented as Head of the Angels in respect of his Divinity, and at other times as a Man with regard to his intended coming in the Flesh? To this coming he seems to apply the Promise, Levit. xxvi. 11, 12. I will walk among you, and be your God, De nom. mut. p. 840. C. I am sure the later Jews, as Ramban upon that place after the Author of Torath Cohanim, do build here the opinion of a real habitation of the Divinity amongst them in the times of the Messiah, 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 Messiah 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 Messiah, c. 13. it is plain this Psalm was in his days applied to the Messiah, 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 knowledge 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 expressed the Essence of God. Philo Lib. Deter. pot. in's. p. 143. C. Secondly, that the name Jehovah was the proper name of God, the name of the first Cause, and consequently communicable to no Creature. Philo de Abrahamo, p. 280. a Truth of great moment, which is confessed also by Manass. ben Israel, q. in Exod. 3. Thirdly, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he takes to be meant by the Branch in Zech. vi. 12. was to become the Messiah, and therefore that the Messiah is justly called in this respect the Son of God.  
And now it is easy to judge of the sense the ancient Synagogue had of the Person of the Messiah. It acknowledges this Son and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Person subsisting from all Eternity: Of this, if we had no other, the Text of Mic. v. 2. is a good proof, which the Jews in Christ's time expounded of the Messiah, Mat. two. 7. Joh. seven. 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 Messiah the Son of God, Mat. xxvi. 63. and when Jesus applied to himself a Prophecy of the Messiah in Dan. seven. 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 Messiah, yet they were not ignorant that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be the Messiah, and that the Messiah 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 Messiah shall be called by this name. This we see in Targum on 1 Chron. three 34. where speaking of the Children of Elioenai, it adds, the seventh which is Anani is the King Messiah. And thus it is explained in Sanhedrim, fol. 62. in the Comments of Saadia and Jarchi on Dan. seven. 13. and in Jalkut on Zech. iv. 7.  
But having showed that the Word is God, and that this Word should be the Messiah, we will now show, that the Jews in conformity to their Scriptures did believe that the Messiah, as being Jehovah, should appear for the Salvation of Men.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
That the Messiah 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 showed, that from David's time the Notion of the Messiah 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 Messiah as the true Jehovah, and that the ancient Jews so understood them.  
This we may discern in the earnest long 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 Messiah; although some of them seem not to be spoken of Jehovah, but of the Messiah, others to be spoken of Jehovah only, without mention of the Messiah; but all have a particular regard to that Salvation which the Jews expected from the Messiah.  
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 Messiah. 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 Solomon Jarchi understand it of the Messiah bringing back his people from the present Captivity.  
The Ground which they built upon, to refer those words to the Messiah, 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 spoke 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 Messiah, must by a necessary consequence be referred by them to Jehovah's being the Messiah, or to the Messiah, as being Jehovah indeed: Isaiah, ch. lxiu 1. begs, Oh that thou wouldst rend 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 Messiah, 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 imagine that a meaner person than the same, and the very Shekinah itself, should raise such desires and such Prayers?  
Micah speaks with great assurance, Ch. seven. 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. two. 3. Though he tarry, wait for him, because he will surely come, he will not tarry. And ch. iii. 13. Thou goest 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 judgement, 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 rejoice over thee with joy: he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.  
So Zech. viij. 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 Messiah, 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 the 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 oil of gladness above thy fellows; That the Messiah is God. This Truth is yet more clear in Isa. ix. 6. applied to the Messiah by Jonathan; and the present Jews cannot satisfy 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 Messiah 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 Messiah 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 Messiah is represented by the Prophets as God, that in Psal. cx. where it is said of the Messiah, that he shall be a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck, they refer the Priesthood of the Messiah 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Priest and Prophet of God, and at the same time believe the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be God, unless he gathered it from Psal. cx. 1. where the Messiah, 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 Messiah 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 show 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 Messiah. 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 spoke 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 Messiah. Such is their ancient Opinion.  
The Prophecies that speak of it, as one end of the coming of the Messiah, to judge his People and the Nations, do constantly ascribe the Name of God, or of Jehovah, to the Messiah. 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. seven. 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 Messiah; 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. seven. is the same in substance with that of Ezek. i. So that the Messiah, 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 Messiah 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 Messiah. For example, where God said to his People, Hos. two. 19, 20. I will betrothe thee unto me for ever, I will betrothe thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgement, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betrothe thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord. This the Jews generally understand of the Messiah. 'Tis the judgement 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 sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness; thou lovest righteousness and hatest iniquity, wherefore, O God, thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. King's daughters were among thy honourable women; upon thy right hand did stand the Queen in gold of Ophir. Harken, 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 Messiah; so R. Meir Arama says, all agree that that Psalm is to be understood of the Messiah.  
We cannot have a better proof that the Messiah should be Jehovah, than Zech. xii. 10. which the Targum also interprets of the Messiah, and the new Jews would refer to the feigned Messiah, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 worshipped in it; and since the Jews understand this place of the Messiah, it must follow that the Messiah 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 Messiah 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 Messiah was to be Jehovah himself.  
They hold that the Messiah shall be greater than all the Patriarches, 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 Messiah, 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 Patriarches, 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 Patriarches 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 Messiah, being only a mere Man.  
Indeed, he that will reflect on all these Prophecies, will very hardly think, that then, when the Highpriest 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 Messiah, which, according to both of them, is more than a great Prophet, and the Highpriest 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 Angel's 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 Chimaera in the World.  
It is therefore necessary, that the Ancient Jews, having these Notions of the Messiah, 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 Messiah 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 Messiah, 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 mere Creature. But they cannot do that justly, if they reflect seriously upon the Grounds which we lay for the Adoration of the Messiah.  
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 Messiah 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 Messiah 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 Messiah, as Psal. two. 12. Kiss the Son. Who is that Son spoken in this place, it is the Messiah, 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 Rabath, with many others, use this place of Psal. two. to the Messiah. So the Breshit Rabath in Gen. xlix. so the Talmud in Succa, c. 5. Saadias' in Dan. seven. 13. with the ancient, witness R. Salome Jarchi in his Comment.  
I know well that the Greek Interpreters have Translated those words of the second Psalm, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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. viij. 3. From the mouth of babes, etc. It was so well known that this place was related to the Messiah, that it was used at our Saviour's Entry into Jerusalem, Mat. xxi. 16. Since that time it is related to the Messiah 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 shows 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 Messiah 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 Messiah; It is so acknowledged by the Targum, and by all the Jewish Interpreters. What then can be said against the Worship of the Messiah? If the Jews of old had denied that the Shekinah was to be in the Messiah, than 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah settled 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 Messiah 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 Messiah.  
I have taken notice in the second Chapter of this Book that the Jews refer constantly to the time of the Messiah 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 Messiah 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 Messiah? he speaks as distinctly as can be, ch. xlix. v. 23.  
The Jews understand it of the Messiah, whom they look upon as the Redeemer to whom all people are to make their confession from their heart, as you see in Breshit Rabath upon Gen. xli. v. 44. where they refer these words to the Messiah, Isa. xlv. 23. You see the same in Midr. Tehin. in Psal. two. 2. these words, when they have seen his great tribulation, they shall come and shall worship the King Messiah 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 Messiah, by allowing that it is spoken in those places which I have quoted of a civil worship to be paid to the Messiah as a great King.  
But it should be in vain for a Socinian to employ such an evasion, because we find that the ancient Jews have prevented it by giving us instances of all the several Parts of such a Worship, either Faith, Vows, or Prayers, or Sacrifices, which cannot be paid but to a true God, and I have quoted so many places upon that point, that I do not think fit to enlarge more upon it.  
I shall then conclude this matter by the solemn Prayer of the Jews in the Feast of Succoth, where they have these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ego, & ille, Salva nunc, p. 53. of the Venice Edit. in 8 o. which words the Jews labour very much to explain who is that ille, but which the most understanding explain to the two first Middoth, viz. to the Father and to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as we have shown 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 Messiah.  
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 Messiah, began to be more narrowly inquired into among the Jews, when they saw Herod who was an Idumean, settled in the Throne of Judaea; it being at the just time marked out for the coming of the Messiah by Jacob's Prophecy, Goe xlix. 10. The Sceptre shall not departed from Judah, nor a Lawgiver 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 shows 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. two. and to many other places of Scripture, where the Messiah 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 show 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. seven. and viij? 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 Messiah.  
Another Angel brings to the Shepherds the news of Christ's Birth; and what words does he use? He names him the Christ, the Lord, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jehovah, God's own proper name, Luk. two.  
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: Showing 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 Messiah.  
He said further, that this Child was to prove the fall of many in Israel, according to that Prophecy, Is. viij. 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah.  
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 Messiah Jehovah, or represent Jehovah as him that should be the Messiah.  
Mr. N. who does suspect the Primitive Christians to have added these words, Matt. xxviii. 19 Go and teach all Nations, baptising 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 Messiah is as plainly called Jehovah as can be. Both Angels and Prophets either show 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. preached 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 straight; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God; owning the Messiah to be God and Jehovah. When the Jews took him to be the Messiah, he told them, that he was not worthy to unloose the latchet of his shoes; that he was before him; that he shall baptise 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 baptised by John, who at first refused to baptise 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 Messiah, 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 gins 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Restorer of intercourse between God and Man.  
At a Marriage in Cana, to show that his Commission was much above the meanness of his Education and Trade, he spoke something sharply to his Mother, Joh. two. 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 herself had sought him sorrowing, he gave her this Answer; How is it that you sought me? witted ye not that I must be about my Father's business, Luk. two. 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. two. 16. The Jews surprised at that commanding Style, asked him a Sign, to show 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. lxiu 1.  
When John's Disciples came to their Master to complain that he whom he had lately baptised, did himself baptise, 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. two. 19, 20. I will betrothe thee unto me for ever. This John's Disciples well knew; and that the Messiah was spoken of, Psal. xlv. in which he is expressly 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 Messiah 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. showing thereby, that it was he whom God spoke of, Psal. two. 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 Palsy, 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 show 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 Messiah, 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 contained 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 judgement 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. seven. 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 Messiah, 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 unstopped: Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing.  
He multiplied the Loaves in the Desert, to show 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 asked 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. xuj. 16, 17. And so it was, for God had spoken of it by many of his Prophets, as I shown before, by the very confession of the Jews.  
He shows 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 Messiah, the true Jehovah, whose Forerunner 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 Losing, 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 show 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 Supreme Lawgiver. For, who can give Laws to men's 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. viij. 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 mere 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. showing by all these Expressions, that he was God, and the Messiah, for the Title of Shepherd is given to God, Ps. xxiii. 1. and in many other places, which the Jews understood of the Messiah.  
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 shown 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 thyself 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 accused 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 two. and cx. in both which Psalms mention is made of the Messiah, 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 Messiah) which shows 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 expressed himself so plainly concerning his coming from above, that his Disciples had no further doubts or difficulties about it. John xuj. 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 show he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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' 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 ask 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 Messiah.  
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 die as a Blasphemer. From whence it appears what notion the Jews had of the Messiah: And that they believed that Son of man spoken of, Dan. seven. 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 Pretention. 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 Soldiers also said, If thou be the King of the Jews, save thyself. 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. Psalms, 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. nineteen. 37. relating to that Prophecy, Zech. xii. 10. which the Ancient Jews understood of the Messiah. [Breshit Rabath 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. two. 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 departed 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 preached 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 appeared 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 Baptise 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, Baptising 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 worshipped 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 show plainly and briefly to the Reader, that the Gospel follows the same Notions which the Old Testament had given of the Messiah, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the promised Messiah, Thirdly, That the Holy Ghost was to be given by the Messiah, 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 Messiah. 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 show what Notions they had of these things: Namely, the very same which are expressed in the Gospels, and were then acknowledged by the Jews.   

CHAP. XX.  
That both the Apostles and the first Christians speaking of the Messiah, did exactly follow the Notions of the Old Jews, as the Jews themselves did acknowledge.  
IT being of great moment to show that the Apostles did not make a new Platform out of their own heads, when they Preached the Gospel; I will examine 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 Virtue 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 Cherubin, 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. two. 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, guide's 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 Messiah 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 Messiah 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 Messiah 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 according to the Greek Translation, Ibid. He calls him the firstborn, and the Creator of the World, Lib. de Confus. Ling. pag. 258.  
Now the Jews did unanimously understand that place of Zechary of the Messiah, 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 Messiah was to be that Eternal Word; and that that Word was to appear as the true Messiah?  
Another Ground upon which they applied to the Messiah what the Old Jews understood of the Word was this: The Old Jews did own that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which guided the Israelites in the Desert, was their Shepherd. Philo de Agric. pag. 152. From whence they concluded that the 23d. Psalms, The Lord is my Shepherd, was to be understood of the Messiah, Phil. de Mutat. Nom. pag. 822, 823.  
The Apostles therefore did of course apply to the Word, as him who was to be the Messiah, those Prophecies which mention the Messiah 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. two. 12. Zech. xiii. 7. For all these places are understood of the Messiah, 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 Messiah. Upon this Ground the Apostles applied to the Messiah those places of the Old Testament, which say that Jehovah made Heaven and Earth, as St. Paul did, Heb. i. where he applies to Jesus Christ, as the confessed Messiah, 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 Messiah 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 Atonement with God, Lib. de Somniis, p. 447. E.F.  
From this it was easy to see that the Messiah was to be endued with a Noble Priesthood, especially David having mentioned it, Psal. cx. representing the Messiah, whom the  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 Patriarches, and to Moses, spoke by the same Word to the Israelites; and that he was the Prince of Angels, Lib. Quis rer. divin. haer. pag. 397. F. G. And the Light and the Doctor of his people, Lib. de Somn. pag. 448. calling the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dei, de Nom. Mutat. pag. 810. E.  
It was therefore but agreeably to these Notions, that the Apostles applied to the Messiah, those places of the Old Testament, where God promised to speak to his new people, by the Messiah, as Deut. xviii. 15, 16. which St. Peter, Act. iii. 22. and St. Stephen, Act. seven. 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah, though the Jews applied them to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And, Thirdly, That we may understand how naturally they applied to the Messiah those places of the Old Testament, which by the confession of the Old Jews, related to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And certainly the meanest capacity may apprehend that if under the Old Testament God acted by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (though that Dispensation was much below that of the New) much more he was to act under the New, by that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by his own Son, as St. Paul concludes, Heb. i.  
What I said of the Apostles, and the other Writers of the New Testament, that they exactly followed the Doctrines of the Old Jews, which followed the Divine Revelation in the Old Testament, may justly be said of Justin Martyr, and of those who both before and after him writ in defence of our Saviour's Divinity. I need not quote many of them, to show 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 Messiah 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 knowledge of the Truth only by the help of Divine Revelation. He affirms in general that the Christian Religion which he had embraced, 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 looked 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. seven. 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 Messiah 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. viij.  
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. two. 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 Messiah 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 Patriarches and Prophets.  
He prevents an Objection, (that this was not a Person, but a Virtue from the Father, which is called sometimes an Angel, sometimes his Glory, sometimes a Man, sometimes the Word.) By showing that the Scripture makes out first a real distinction between the Son and the Father, as between Jehovah and Jehovah, Gen. nineteen. 24. 2ly, a true Plurality, as Gen. iii. 22. the Man is become as one of Us. 3ly, a true Filiation, as Prov. viij. 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 Messiah by the confession of the Jews; and thus he shows by the circumstances of those places, which had obliged the Jews to apply them to the promised Messiah.  
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 Messiah whom God had promised them, made this a Maxim, There is to be no Messiah 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 soon 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 chief the Jews who had renounced their Religion. And who could these Apostate Jews be? It is easy to guests, 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; Alleging 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. seven. 23. What Nation is like Israel, whom the Gods went to redeem.  
Dan. seven. 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 God's name was in him.  
And Gen. nineteen. 24. The Lord reigned 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 shows 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. nineteen. 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. seven. 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 Messiah. But R. Jose looked 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 rebel 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 forbade their people to dispute with Christians upon those Subjects, unless they were well used to the Controverversie; Let him dispute with Heretics, 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 Heretics: 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 itself.   

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.  
Although what I have said shows 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 show 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 looked 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. two. 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 Messiah as the servant which is spoken of by Isaiah, ch. liii. See Zohar, fol. 235, in Genesis, and the Messiah being described there, as a Sheep, that is called Rachel in Hebrew by the Prophet; they have taken occasion to apply that Oracle of Rachel's weeping, not to the Wife of Jacob, but to the Shekinah, which they call Rachel. See R. Menach. of Reka, fol. 41. col. 2. & fol: 42. col. 4.  
No body can read the 5th. of St. Matthew, but he must take notice with what authority Jesus Christ speaks upon the Mount in that famous Sermon, in which he vindicates the Law from the corruption of the Pharisees. But I say unto you. But he will be more sensible of that, if he reflects upon the common Notion of the Synagogue, in which the proper name of the Shekinah is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as, I the Lord have spoken. R. Menach. fol. 33. col. 4. & fol. 40. col. 4. and that '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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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. nineteen. 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 expressed the Messiah when absolutely used, Zohar in Exod. fol. 225. and that they acknowledge 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 easy. 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 Prophet's reproach the Jews that they have cast off the yoke of God. Jer. two. 20. and ch. v. 5. But who doth not see that he speaks as the very Son of God, who is spoken of, Psal. two. 3. the Shekinah who gave the Law upon Mount Sinai, and so had the Sovereign Authority to bring Men under his Law, let their authority be never so great.  
We see Mat. xxi. 13. why Jesus Christ speaks of the Temple, as the House of his Father, and as his own House; and the Jews perceived well enough that he made himself God. But he did that according to the Notions of the Jews, who maintain till this day, that the Shekinah, or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same, and that the Temple was dedicated to God, and to his Shekinah. R. Men. fol. 63. col. 1. & fol. 70. col. 2. & fol. 73. col. 3. & 4. & fol. 79. col. 3.  
So in the same Chapter, v. 42. Jesus Christ quotes these words from Psal. cxviii. 22. The stone which the bvilders refused, etc. and applies them to himself. But he did that, to show them that he was the true Shekinah. For this is the constant Title that they give to the Shekinah, or to the Messiah. 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 Messiah, as you find it often in the Zohar. And Jesus Christ on the Cross, make use of Psal. xxii. not only because he would show 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 Palsy; but he doth that, to prove that Jesus Christ was willing to show 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 Messiah 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 authentic Authors of the Synagogue, who agree exactly upon that Notion.  
It is clear that St. John has called him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ch. 1. v. 14. when he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, supposing that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 remarked, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 called Herald 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 acknowledge that the Shekinah, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was he that descended from Heaven in all the Appearances of God to the People of old, as to judge Sodom, etc. R. Men. fol. 36. col. 2.  
Jesus Christ saith, Joh. ch. v. 22, & 26. That God gave all judgement to the Son, that the Son hath the life in himself. All that according to the style of the Jews touching the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 shows that he was the Shekinah. For the Jews (as Philo witnesss) 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 show that he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as well as the Messiah, of whom Micah saith, that he was Mikkedem, which expression the Jews relate to the Eternity of the Divine Essence, from which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 shows he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because the Jews believe till this day, that although the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Messiah, 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. seven. 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. two. 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; showing 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 seven. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 chief 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. nineteen. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 shows 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 Messiah, shows 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. chrysostom 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 expressed 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 looked 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 Knowledge 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 Messiah 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 Heretics 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 expressly styled himself God, he had given the Jews and Heretics 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 Messiah, 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. viij. 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 Messiah 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 shown more at large, but that the thing is plain to any that have attentively read the Gospel. What I have noted is sufficient to show that Jesus Christ was not to assume the Name of God in the time of his Humiliation, although he hath done the equivalent in so many places, where he speaks of himself as of the Son of God, the Memra, the Shekinah, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who is God. 2ly. That it was more fit for him to let it be concluded from his performing all the Ministry of the Messiah as it was by Thomas, Joh. xx. 18. Not that they knew then and not before that he was he from whom Life, and an Eternal Life should be expected: Upon which Grotius seems to Ground his Godhead in h. l. but because then they saw in him a full demonstration that he was the true God, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from whom the Life of all Creatures is derived, as is said Joh. i.  
A second Objection is taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which St. John has used in the first Chapter of his Gospel, to denote our Saviour's Divinity. For if we hear the Unitarians, First, it is not clear that any other of the Writers of the New Testament has used it in that sense. And then, the Notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be grounded only on the Greek Expressions, and not on the Hebrew Tongue, as it is used in the Original of the Old Testament.  
To answer that Objection, I must take notice, 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not unknown to the Jews before Jesus Christ, to express the Shekinah, that is, the Angel of the Covenant. So we see in the Book of Wisdom, chap. xviii. 15. Omnipotens sermo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tuus de coelo à regalibus sedibus durus debellator; and so in some other places of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, as chap. i. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
I know that Grotius pretends upon the place of Wisdom, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies a created Angel; and quotes Philo to confirm his Explication. But I maintain that no body but Grotius could have advanced such a false Explication, and be so bold as to quote Philo for it, whose Testimonies which I have quoted before, are so clearly against him, and distinguish so exactly the Angels from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I pray the Reader only to remark this, that if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies here a created Angel, than it was the current Notion of the Synagogue concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so that when St. John speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to a new, an unknown, and unheard signification; that he never did, and so he helped 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 fobbed in many other things; and it was the sense of Mr. N. in his Judgement 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' meaning, Jesus Christ himself speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the same, saith that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 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 rendered it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 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 Messiah, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which likewise was given him by David; and does withal so well express the Author of the Creation, who was this very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Simonianis and other Heretics, that would make him a Phantasm; 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to express the Unity of God, though 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 expressed himself in his first Epist. chap. v. 7. These Three are One; to show 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is affirmed in Scripture to have been said or done by an Angel, in very many Apparitions; as Exod. three 2. and Acts seven. 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 shown 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 expressly distinguished 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 show 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 spoke 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, etc.  
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 show 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. three 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 Messiah. 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 Desert, and guided the Israelites, was the Son of God: St. Paul says expressly 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 seven. And I shown 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, etc. and be called the Lord Jehovah.  
If it be asked 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 employing 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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. two. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And 3ly, that 'tis affirmed by Moses, Deut. xxxiii. 2. That when the Lord came from Sinai, and risen 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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. two. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is always accompanied with several Camps of Angels who attend him and execute his Judgements.  
Those things being noted, I maintain that when St. Paul saith that the Law hath been Ordained by Angels, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gal. iii. 19 the Text must be rendered between Angels, as St. Paul hath used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 Tim. two. 2. not to say by many Witnesses, but among or before many Witnesses.  
2ly. That when St. Paul speaks Heb. two. of the Word that hath been spoken by Angels, he doth not speak of the Law, but of the several threaten which were made by the Prophets, to whom the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 judgement 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Rabath, fol. 5. col. 1.   

CHAP. XXIII.  
That neither Philo, nor the Chaldee Paraphrasts, nor the Christians, have borrowed from the Platonic 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 shown 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 falsely 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 show 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' Master. Pythagoras (who afterwards was much followed by the Greeks) traveled 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 Style, 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, shows 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a first Understanding, and a first Life. And Proclus does distinguish those three Principles of Plato, as three different Being's. 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 Christianlike, than those of other Heathen Philosophers.  
It is true, Philo seems to have followed Plato's Expressions, when he calls the Word of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 shown 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 inventor of it, that Proclus affirms it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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, expressly maintains that Plato during his thirteen years stay in Egypt, had learned 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 Nabuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem, and after the death of Gedaliah.  
These two Testimonies are enough to prove that Plato was not the first Inventor 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 crestfallen when the opinions of Zeno and Epicurus prevailed. Zeno's Philosophy spread itself 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 picked out what they found most rational in the several Sects of Philosophers, for which reason they were called Electicks or Choosers. And one needs but read Philo with Judgement, to find that he followed this Sect.  
It appears that Philo's great design in all his Works, is to show, That the Jews were infinitely above the Heathens, both as to Virtue and Knowledge: In which he followed Aristobulus' 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 looked 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 entertained, 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. two. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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, shows 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 expressly 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 asked in the Council of the Jews, whether he was the Son of God, was the question made in a Platonic 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Stoics 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 Republic, to prove the Resurrection, and a Judgement 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 Martion, who out of Plato's Writings had broached 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 Gnostics and the Valentinians made much of Plato's Authority; shows plainly how little he valued Plato, when he says he was grown omnium haereticorum condimentarium, the sauce which all Heretics 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 showing 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 learned 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 looked 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 show, 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 Judgement 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 falsely named Knowledge, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tim. vi. 20, 21. which he compares with a Cancer.  
I acknowledge freely that Ireneus, Lib. 1. c. 20. and Tertul. adv. Valentin. understood those expressions of St. Paul against the Gnostics 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 Heretic 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 judgement 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 Messiah, which I have brought from all the Jewish Writers, and which hath nothing common with those innumerable aeones which are mentioned 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 Platonic 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 Cabalists; 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 Cabalists, who have mixed some heathenish Notions with the Ancient Divinity of the Fathers to shift for themselves, and being not concerned in all their other Speculations, although, since they have quite forgot this impure Origin they have very much laboured to uphold them upon some Texts of Scripture, but not well understood, and taken in another sense.   

CHAP. XXIV.  
An Answer to some Objections of the Modern Jews, and of the Unitarians.  
THAT the Reader may be fully satisfied of the Truth which I have asserted by so many proofs taken out of the Apocryphal Books, of the Chaldee Paraphrasts, and out of Philo the most ancient Jewish Author we have as to expounding the Scripture; I must solve some difficulties made by the Modern Jews and Socinians, about the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so frequent amongst the ancient Interpreters of Scripture.  
Moses Maimonides who lived about the end of the Twelfth Century, affirms that the word Memra, which in Chaldaick is the same as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, was made use of by the ancient Paraphrasts on purpose to prevent People's thinking God had a Body: More Nevoch. Lib. 1. c. 21. He says also, that for the same reason they often used the words Jekara, Glory; Shekinah, Majesty, or habitation.  
But he does manifestly wrong them: For if it had been so, they would have used that caution on other occasions, whereas they often render places of Scripture, where mention is made only of the Lord, by these words, before the face of the Lord, which are apt to make people fancy God as being Corporeal. Besides, if what he says were true, they would have used the same caution where ever the Notion of his being Corporeal might be attributed to God. But it is certain that in many places, as apt to give that Notion of God, they do not use the word Memra or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: And as certain, that in many others, they use it where there is no danger of fancying God as having a Body. As Gen. xx. 21. Exod. two. 25. Exod. vi. 8. Exod. nineteen. 17. Leu. xxvi. 46. Numb. xi. 20. Numb. xxiii. 21. and in many more, quoted by Rittangel on Jetzira, pag. 96. and in his Book Libra Veritatis.  
Besides, it is so palpable that the ancient Jews, particularly Philo, have given the Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as being a Divine Person, that Maimonides his answer can be no other than an Evasion. Nay it is observable that the word Davar, which in Hebrew signifies Word, is sometimes explained by that which is a true Person, in the Books of the Old Jewish Authors, who lived since Christ; even in those whose authority Maimonides does acknowledge: One of their ancient Books, namely R. Akiba's Letters, has these words on the Letter Gimel, God said, Thy Word is settled 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 rendered by the Paraphrast, The Lord said to his Word: where the Word does manifestly denote the Messiah, 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 signify to his Word, or of his Word, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Chaldeans having naturally that double signification; as appears from many places. Thus it signifies concerning, or of, Deut. vi. 7. Jer. xxxi. 20. Cant. viij. 8. Job nineteen. 18. Psal. l. 20. It signifies to, in Hos. i. 2. Hab. two. 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 Messiah 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 shown 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 itself, which show 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 shown before that the great Authors of the Jewish Traditions (which Maimonides was to follow when he writ his More Nevochim) give another sense to those words, and do acknowledge that they do establish the Personality of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and of the Holy Ghost; which they do express by the second and third Sephira, or Emanation, in the Divine Essence.  
That which made Maimonides stumble, was that he believed that Christians made the Word to be an Instrument different from God, which is very far from their opinion. For they do, as well as Philo, apprehend the Word as a Person distinct from the Father, but not of a different nature from his; but having the same Will and Operation common to him and the Father, and this they have by Divine Revelation.  
A famous Socinian whom I mentioned already, being hard put to it, by the Authority of the Targums, has endeavoured in a Tract which he writ (and which has this Title, Disceptatio de Verbo, vel Sermone Dei, cujus creberrima fit mentio apud Paraphrast as Chaldaeos', Jonathan, Onkelos, & Targum Hierosolymitanum) to shake it off, by boldly affirming that the Word of the Lord, is barely used by them to express the following things: The Decree of God: His Commands: His inward Deliberation: His Promise: His Covenant and his Oath to the Israelites: His design to punish or to do good: A Prophetic Revelation: The Providence which protected good Men. In short, the Word by which God does promise or threaten, and declare what he is resolved to do: Of which the said Author pretendeth to give many instances.  
I have already proved how false this is what that Author so positively affirms, that the term Word is never found to be used by the Paraphrasts, to denote a Person. The very place which I just now quoted out of R. Akiba's Alphabet, were enough to confute him. I need not repeat neither what I said, that supposing all were true which he affirms of the use of the word Memra in the Paraphrasts, yet he could not but acknowledge that Philo gives quite another Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, namely, as of a real Person; in which he visibly follows the Author of the Book of Wisdom; The Unitarians of this Kingdom do for that reason reject Philo's Works as being Supposititious, and written after our Saviour's time.  
I say therefore that the sense which he puts upon the Targums, is very far from the true meaning of the words which they use when they speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in many places. I shall not examine whether in any place of the Targums the word Memra is used instead of that of Davar, which in Hebrew signifies the Word or Command of God. Rittangel positively denies it: And the truth is that the Targums commonly render the word Davar by Pitgama, and not by Memra. To be fully satisfied of it, one needs but take an Hebrew Concordance upon the word Davar, and search whether the Paraphrasts ever rendered it by Memra.  
But supposing Rittangel should deny the thing too positively, however the Targumists do so exactly distinguish the Word when they mention him as a Divine Person, that it is impossible to mistake him in all places, by putting upon them those senses which the Socinian Author endeavours to affix to them, that he may destroy the Notion which they give of the Word, as being a Divine Person. And though I have already alleged 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. two. 6. where it is distinguished 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 signify 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 signify 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 signify them also, where it is expressly distinguished 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 allege any more. I shall therefore only produce a few out of the two Books of Chronicles, which the Learned Beckius published about sixteen years ago.  
The Targum on those two Books of Chronicles affirms the following things. That it is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who appeared in most Apparitions in which God appeared to the Patriarches: To Abraham, to whom he spoke from between the Victims, Gen. xv. 1 Chron. seven. 21. To Solomon, 2 Chron. seven. 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. three 1.  
He plainly distinguishes the Angel from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 judge before the Word, and before the Holy Spirit, 2 Chron. nineteen. 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. xuj. 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 xuj. 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 prayed 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 show 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 balance the constant stile of those Books, in others, and much more numerous places: It being easy 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 shown in the seven. 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, etc. 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 Style, about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as we see them in the Targums. For Justin undertakes to prove, that the Word is not barely an Attribute in God, nor an Angel, but a Person, and a true Principle of Action. And this he proves by his Apparitions, and by other Characters and Signs of a real Person, such as are his executing his Father's Counsels, his being his Offspring, and his Son, properly so called. Here I must add one thing, which is, that St. Jerome hath expressed 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, called Pugio Fidei, which shows he had well studied their Rabbins, and he makes use of their Targums to very good purpose. Out of this Book, there was another composed, and called 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 discovered. 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 considered 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 Reflections.  
First, That Philo, one of the most famous Jews of Egypt, very well apprehended, and clearly declared, That by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which answers to the Hebrew Memra, the old Jews understood a real Principle of Action, such as we call a Person. Secondly, That the Jewish Authors more ancient than Philo, had the very same Notion of it, as may be seen in the Book of Baruch, and in that of Wisdom, the Notions of which Philo has clearly followed in his Book, de Agric. apud Euseb. de Proepar. Evang. pag. 323. And Lastly, That even since Christ, the Cabalistical Authors followed, and to this day do follow the same Notion; making use of those places where the Memra and the Cochma, that is to say, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are mentioned; to make out their second Sephira, as I shown before.  
Neither must it seem strange, that the Jewish Paraphrase should use that word in various Senses: For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 Messiah was to be any other than a mere Man, and so did the Jews believe as it is witnessed by Orig. lib. 2. contr. Cells. 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 Messiah was to have the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 controversy 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 mixed 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 Messiah, 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 persuade, 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 Messiah, and that no other was to be expected.  
Thirdly, I say farther, that the Jews prepossessed with the opinion of the Messias' 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 imagined, 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 punished, 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. xuj. 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 Jesus, 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 aftertimes 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 chief 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 Heresy 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 chief 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 acknowledge, 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 Messiah. 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 knowledge, 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 Heretics, which sprung from amongst the Jews, and brought their Opinions into the Christian Religion; the Cerinthians for instance, who owned that the Word had dwelled in Christ, but did imagine 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 signify 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 Relics; 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 finished 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 Banished out of many Kingdoms. The Dominican Friars made a Collection of most of them in the Thirteenth Century, when Christians going much into the Holy Land, did something retrieve their lost knowledge 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 Heretics, 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 enslaved, 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 Messiah, but that the Word of God dwelled in him, the same which the Jews acknowledged to be the Offspring of God. And for this the Jews crucified him, as he hints plainly enough in the Parable of the Husbandmen, for he designs the Prophets by the name of mere 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 Messiah, 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 laughed 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 seize 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 looked for a Conquering Messiah, 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 public 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 public Assembly, as if they had been infallible. And this was enough to satisfy 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 Thiefs that were crucified with Christ, one had observed the Injustice of that violent hatred the Jews had for him: But the other cursed 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 rely 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 Judaisme; 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 Messiah, 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 Rabbis have once so declared. But I shall make some more particular Reflections upon the proceed of the now Jews, and show 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. Eu. 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. Solomon 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 Messiah, (as indeed they did Gemar. on Talm. tr. Massechet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ch. v. & Targ. on this Psalm, ver. 8, & 18.) but it is better to understand it of David himself, that we may the more easily reply to the Heretics, that abuse some passages in it.  
But this is not the only place where the Jews have changed the faith of their ancient Masters. There are many others examples of it, some of the chief of which I shall produce, after I have observed the several degrees by which they arrived to so wide a disagreement with their Ancestors.  
1. Their Doctors, as I have already noted, did early introduce new Notions of several Texts of the Old Testament. I speak not now of their Fabulous fancies only, such as that of Philo, who Lib. de Septenar. supposes the Voice of God uttered on Mount Sinai, to have been heard in all parts of the World; to which the Jews, Pirke Eliez. c. 41. Tankuma, fol. 73. col. 1. have added many more new conceits; but I speak of such their Explications, as were contrary to, and in effect did overthrow the ancient Notions of the Prophets. As for instance, where Philo seems in some manner to maintain the Transmigration 
* Lib. de Somn. pag. 455.  of Souls, where he delivers the Doctrine of the Souls Preexistence before the Body 
† De Mund. p. 891. , where he seems to hint the Eternity of Matter, according to Plato 
* Mund. op. p. 214. De mund. Incor. pag. 728. A. De Viat. off. p. 669. F. , although it is certain in his Treatise of Providence, he doth assert the Creation of Matter.  
2ly. It is observable that after the Emperor Hadrian's time, some of the Jews who expected the Messiah, according to Daniel's Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, but were out in their Accounts of those Weeks, had almost entirely 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 Messiah 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. viij. 12, 22. with what is written Wisdom vi. 24, 22. and so on till Chap. viij. 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 Emperor; 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 shows 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 strait 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 Master. 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 Lies 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 turned 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 Messiah. 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, though he wrote in a lofty Style, 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 established 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 (though it is a Fancy without any Foundation) that he while he was at Rome, was converted by St. Peter. The same thing befell 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 Authentic with their Forefathers. It may not be amiss to give some Proofs of this, to show 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' 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 sacked Rome, is at last to be killed himself at Jerusalem by a King of Persia. The other Messiah 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' Prayer, Exod. iv. 13.  
For the time of this second Messias' coming shall be when the Mother of the deceased Messiah 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 Messiah the Son of David shall come with seven Shepherds, to wit, the Three Patriarches, 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' Army, and the Messiah the Son of Joseph shall be raised from the dead, to come in among the rest; and so the two Messias' 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', which R. Meyr Aldabi gives us in his Book Entitled Sevile Emuna, ch. 10. p. 123. But it is certain, 1. the ancient Jews knew but of one Messiah. 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', are Additions to the ancient Text, made since the Jews invented the conceit of a double Messiah.  
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 Messiah, is this, that if he had been the Messiah, he would have gathered the Ten Tribes.  
3. Their confining of the Messias' Reign to forty years, is contrary to the opinion of their Fathers, who held that the Messiah 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 Messiah shall build a third Temple. Whereas Haggai describing the second Temple as that under which the Messiah should appear, expressly calls it the last, Hag. two. 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 acknowledge. Though some few suppose Haggai's Prophecy to have reference to a third Temple. See Abarbanel & Men. been 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 Messiah 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 Messiah 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 Messiah 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 Messiah. See Bethlem Juda in the word Goel. At present, they dispute almost every Text that we urge for the Messiah, 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 Messiah to be spoken of in Gen. iii. 15. Although Jonathan's Targum, and that of Jerusalem do clearly understand it of the Messiah.  
The Old Jews affirmed that the Angel who appeared, Gen. nineteen. and in other places, and who is called the Lord, was (as I have before shown) 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. been Israel, q. 64. on Genesis. Such a thing cannot be done but by an extreme 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, etc.  
The present Jews are not for applying the Text, Gen. xlix. 10. to the Messiah, but some refer the words to Moses himself, as R. Bechay, others to David, others to Ahijah the Shilonite, and others to Nabuchadnezzar. Notwithstanding both Jonathan's and the Jerusalem Targum, note expressly this Prophecy to be spoken of the Messiah.  
And thus in the same Text, the Sceptre there spoken of was explained in the Old Talmudists by Power and Dominion which should not departed from Judah till the coming of the Messiah; 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 Messiah, 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. seven. 16. Joh. i. 19 Mat. xxi.  
It was not questioned in St. Paul's time, whether the 2d. Psalms did relate to the Messiah, 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. two. 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. two. 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. Psalms to be a Prophecy touching the Messiah. And Jesus Christ to show the accomplishment of it in his own Person, citys 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 Messiah. 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 show that the Messiah was to be crucified, according to this Psalm.  
The Psalm lxviii. by the ancient Jews was referred to the Messiah, and so doth R. Joel. Aben Sueb refers the last part to the time of the Messiah, 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 acknowledge belongs to the Times of the Messiah, 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 Messiah.  
It is granted by the Modern Jews that their Fathers understood Psal. lxxii. of the Messiah. So R. Saadia on Dan. seven. 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 Solomon.  
In Jesus Christ's time the Jews confessed Psalm cx. did belong to the Messiah, v. 1. The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Christ's argument, Mat. xxii. 44. necessarily supposes it. So it was understood in the Midrash Tehillim, and by R. Saadia Gaon on Dan. seven. 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 viij. did denote the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I have showed 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 Messiah: For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and his Name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, 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 Solomon 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 Messiah, 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. two. 8. But the ancient Jews did generally refer it to the Messiah, as appears all along in the Targum of that Chapter, and the Jews shown they understood it so, by their rejecting Barcochba, when they found he could not smell Souls as they thought the Messiah 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 Messiah.  
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 Messiah.  
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 Messiah 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. Solomon 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 Messiah, who is here spoken of, according to the Targum, was on Mount Sinai, when God gave the Law from thence. This R. Solomon will by no means grant of the Messiah, 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. Solomon, 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah: 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 go 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 Messiah, and that in this respect it is said in Micah, that his go forth are from the days of eternity.  
Jeremy, ch. xxiii. 26. saith very expressly, that the Messiah 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 judgement 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 Messiah the Prophecies, Zech. vi. 12, 13. And so Jonathan applies to the Messiah what is said in the same Prophet. But many of the Modern Jews, among whom R. Solomon 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah, though so distinctly described, one of them Zech. ix. 9 and the other, Dan. seven. 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 Messiah, whom they expected, thought it better to make two Messias', than to acknowledge that the Messiah whom they expected was to be a suffering Messiah. And thus they thought they removed the difficulties in the other opinion, that made but one Coming of the Messiah, by owning the Messiah the Son of Joseph should be a Man of sorrows, but Messiah the Son of David was to be a Glorious Deliverer.  
As the Jews Disputes with the Christians increased, they advanced certain Characters of the Times of the Messiah; and all of them very miraculous; which they inferred from some Allegorical Descriptions in the Prophets concerning the Times of the Messiah. These they run up to ten, as we see in Shemoth Rabath, 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 Messiah. 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 Messiah. And Maimonides is of this opinion, that when the Messiah 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 Messiah, and the other Times of the World, but the subduing of the Kingdoms by the Messiah.  
To conclude, the Jews being so often deceived in their Expectations of the Messiah, 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 Messiah, with that assurance with which the Ancients did expect it.  
Indeed it is observable that though Maimonides professes to own the Messiah, 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' Law, and the recompenses annexed to it, to be the chief end of the Jews enquiry, and not the time of the Messias' appearance; as we are informed by the Author of the Chain of the Cabala.  
The same judgement 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 Messiah, but of Hezekiah, who was already come. And Albo gives this reason for it, because the Coming of the Messiah 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 Messiah 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 Messiah as being yet to come? namely, Zechary, Haggai, and Malachy, who did all Prophecy of the Messiah, as has been abundantly shown, 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 Messiah, 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 Sceptre shall not departed from Judah, etc.  
3. He looks on the Article of the Messias' Coming to be a matter of that small importance to the Jews, that he leaves it doubtful, whether the Messiah 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 Messiah?  
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 sceptre's continuance in Judah, as were impossible to be reconciled, some understanding Empire, by the Sceptre; 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 show 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 intent 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 Messiah 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 Messiah. 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. Although the Ancient Jews do all agree that it treats of the Messiah, and cannot be understood of Solomon.  
Socinus persuading himself that St. Paul citys Heb. i. 6. from Psal. xcvii. 8. And let all the Angels of God worship him; does maintain that he citys 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 Messiah, adding these words in the end of Moses' 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 Messiah is spoken of, does pretend that the Messiah 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 expressly 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 Messiah 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 Messiah. 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. Although R. D. Kimchi, among other Jews, refers it to the Messiah.  
It is strange to see how they take the Jews part in explaining as they do, Isa. seven. 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 Messiah 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. two. 5. taken out of Micah v. 2.? Saith he, The Jews cited it only according to the Mystical Sense. But we know the Jews took it to be the Literal Sense, as appears by their Targum.  
The viiith Chapter of Proverbs was understood by Philo of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And indeed such Attributes are given to Wisdom in that Chapter, as belong only to a Person, such as being conceived, born, creating, governing, exercising of Mercy, and the like. But Socinus is not content it should go so: He will have all this attributed to the Wisdom of God by a Prosopopeia, just as our later Jews do interpret it of the Law.  
Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. relates to the Messiah in the Judgement of all the Ancient Jews. Our Socinians will not allow this; but rather than own that the Messiah 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 Messiah, in Zech. xii. 10. They shall look on him whom they have pierced. The Jews anciently did, and still do, understand it of the Messiah. 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 tries 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, etc. 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 Messiah 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. Psalms of the Messiah, than he saith in Psal. cx. which the Jews do refer to the Messiah? 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 Messiah? 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 Messiah, 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. viij. 13, 14. has these words, Sanctify the Lord of Hosts. The Jews interpret them of the Messiah. Gemar. Massech. Sanhedr. in ch. iv. and they are cited by St. Paul, Rom. ix. 32. St. Luke two. 34. St. Peter, 1 Pet. two. 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, etc. 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 Messiah. The Socinians will not deny that Jesus Christ assumed them to himself, but to show 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'll 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 myself, 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. viij. 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. xuj. 18. it is plain that he accommodates that Story to the Beneficence of the Christians, without any thing, either from Letter, or Allegory, to justify this accommodation.  
They who think that John, ch. nineteen. 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 Messiah, who is often called the Just One, as being eminently so.  
I know that some think that a Prophecy which has been already accomplished literally, was accommodated by the Holy Penmen to a like event. And thus they think St. Matthew, ch. two. 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 Nabuchadnezzar.  
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 Controversy, 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 Lord's 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 easy, natural, and shortest way to join with the Deists in destroying the Authority of the Gospel, and to endeavour to show 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' 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 Controversy 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 grossly 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 alleged 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 unreconcilable hatred to one another, as rendered it impossible for them to do it.  
He than shows 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 itself; but that this arose from the several Views the Interpreters than had, from the different Notions and senses they affixed to the Original words. He than passes to the Examination of the various Readins, which our Unitarians triumph in; and shows 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 knowledge, 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' 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 rendered 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 intent 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 Diu. 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 acknowledge 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 reform, and those Patches entirely 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 show that Jesus is the Messiah.  
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 yourselves 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 mere 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 Heretics 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 place 
* Talm. 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 Public Worship rendered 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.   

A Dissertation concerning the Angel who is called the Redeemer, Gen. XLVIII.  
SIR,  
YOU do very truly observe that the Subject of our last but short Conversation, is a matter of the greatest moment, and deserving the utmost care in the discussion of it. When mention was there made of the Angel, whose Blessing Jacob prayed, might descend on the Sons of Joseph, I then asserted he was not other than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Word. You were not then very forward to embrace this Notion, being carried away with the Authority of some great Names, and especially of Grotius, who understand this Angel in Jacob's Prayer to be only a created Angel.  
But having not time to hear the Grounds of my Assertion, you were desirous I should put them with what perspicuity I could into writing, in hopes that the same Arguments, if they should prove cogent to bring you over to my opinion, might be of use to others who were in the same Sentiments with yourself. So good an end being proposed, I set myself without delay to your commands; and having digested my thoughts in this Paper, I now send them to you, entreating you to judge of them, as you are wont of the Labours of your Friend, with all impartiality and humanity, still remembering that I made it only my care to express my thoughts clearly, and to find out the truth, and to deliver it simply according to the best of my understanding. And so I come to the Question in hand.  

SECT. I.  
Moses having related how Joseph took his two Sons along with him to Jacob his Father that lay sick, in order to obtain his Blessing on them before he died, goes on to give us the form in which he Blessed them, Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
These Words are thus rendered by the Greek Interpreters commonly called the Septuagint: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: O 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
And in the Vulgar Latin Version, Benedixitque Jacob filiis Josephi, & ait: Deus in cujus conspectu ambulaverunt patres mei, Abraham & Isaac, Deus qui pascit me ab adolescentia mea usque in praesentem diem, Angelus qui eruit me de cunctis malis benedicat pueris istis, & invocetur super eos nomen meum, nomina quoque patrum meorum Abraham & Isaac, etc.  
You see there is little or no difference between these Versions and the Hebrew, with which also agrees the Spanish Version of Athias and Usquez, which was Printed in the last Age at Ferrara, and which is of great Authority with the Jews, and serves instead of the Text for them that know not Heb●●●. It renders indeed, The God which fed me, by, El Dio governan a mi, and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hath redeemed me, by El redimien a mi, or, my Redeemer, but the sense is not altered thereby.  
Drusius notes in his Fragments of the ancient Interpreters of the Old Testament, that the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here attributed to the Angel, is rendered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Greek Translators in Ruth iv. 8. which imports the next of kin, to whom the right of inheritance belongs, and with it the Relict of his deceased Relation. From this Translation of the word, St. Hierom, and after him many other Divines taking this Angel to be the Messiah, have collected a relation peculiar of this Angel to the Family of Jacob, of which the Messiah was to be born. Christ, saith he 
* Hier. on Isa. 59 , shall come and redeem us with his Blood; who, as the Hebrew has it, is of kin to Zion, and is descended from the stock of Israel; for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies.  
But there is another sense of the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to which the Greek Interpreters do more commonly render them, I mean that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which confirms the use of the like word in the Spanish Version. If you would see the places, you may consult Kircher's Concordance.  
The whole difficulty therefore of the place may be reduced to three Heads, which I shall propose by way of Question:  
I. Whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of, v. 15. is the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom the Jews acknowledge for their God?  
II. Whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned in v. 16. is the same with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15. or differs from him as a Creature doth from its Creator?  
III. Whether the Prayer contained in Jacob's Blessing be made to God alone, or to the Redeeming Angel together with him.   

SECT. II.  
In Answer to the first Question we need not be much to seek: For Onkelos in his Chaldee Paraphrase Expounds the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The like Jonathan has done in his Version. Nor do I know any Christian that ever blamed them for it. How should they? since it is evident to them that consider this Text carefully, as the Christians generally do the Holy Scriptures, that these Targumists have herein faithfully expressed the mind of Jacob.  
Jacob had been newly remembering that Appearance in which God had blessed him at Luz, in these words, 
* Genesis xlviii. 3, 4.  God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me, and said, Behold I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people, and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession. Now what can be more absurd than to imagine, that Jacob when he blesses Joseph's Sons, and prays for the increase of his Posterity by them, should direct his Prayers to any other than him whose kindnesses he had so abundantly experimented, and whose Promises for the multiplication of his seed, were even now fresh in his Memory?  
This I thought fit to observe against those of the Jews that doubt it, following as they think the Author of the Book Rabboth, who notes that a lesser Title is given to the Angel, than to him that is called Elohim; as if he had a mind thereby to 
* Matthenot Kehun. f. 23. col. 4. & f. 108. col. 3.  tell us that by the Angels here mentioned, Jacob intended an Angel and not God.  
If the Author of the Rabboth had understood this of a created Angel, he had certainly been in a very great mistake. For, besides the absurdity of this, it is a wicked thing to suppose that Abraham and Isaac did walk before the Angel, as Jacob asserts they did before God. God, saith he, v. 15. before whom my father's Abraham and Isaac did walk. For the word walk in this place comprehends all the acts of their Religion throughout their whole lives, and so Moses uses the word to describe the entire obedience of Enoch, Gen. v. 22. This a Modern Jew, R. Solomon Aben Melek, acknowledges in his Michlol Jophi on this place, where he says the word walk denotes the worship of the heart which a Creature owes to God.  
But that the Author of the Rabboth understood it of an uncreated Angel, who often is called in the Old Testament, Elohim, and Jehovah, and Jehovah Elohim, I little doubt, because he quotes the same authority in this place, which we meet with in the Bab. Talm. Pesachim c. x. f. 118. col. 1. and which makes this Angel to be God.  
But if he was of another mind, we should have other Jews to confront him, of no less Authority that understand it our way, particularly; we have the Prayers of the Jewish Church, many of which alluding to this and the like places in Genesis do refer to God only, exclusively to a created Angel, the Title of Redeemer, who delivers from all evil. See Talm. Hier. tr. Berac. c. 4. f. 8. c. 1. and their Liturgies.  
I know Cyril of Alexandria 
* Lib. vi. in Gen. p. 210. , would have Jacob to understand God the Father by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15. and the Eternal Son of God by the Redeeming Angel; which Explication he would confirm by Ephes. i. 2. Grace be to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Because Grace is nothing but the Blessing of God communicated to the Church by the Father and the Son. 
Chrys Hom. 66. in Gen. p. 7.  But St. Chrysostom's Opinion is much more probable to me, who asserts Elohim to be the Eternal Son of God, that is described in both the 14, and 15 verses by different Titles.  
And herein he followed all the ancient Christians, who used to ascribe to the Son all the Appearances of God, or of the Angel of Jehovah that are mentioned by Moses; and in particular they teach that the Blessing of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was prayed for by Jacob in this place.  
I scruple not to assert that the ancient Christians ascribed all the Appearances of God in Moses Writings to the Eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having the following Authorities for my assertion. Just. Mart. count. Tryph. Clem. Alex. Paed. i 7. Tertul. count. Jud. cap. 9 Orig. in Isa. 6. Cyprian. count. Jud. two. 5. Constit. Apost. v. 21. Euseb. H. E. i. 3. Cyr. Hieros. Cat. xii. the Concil. Sirm. c. 13. Gregor. Baet. tr. de fide. Theodor. Q. 5. in Exod. Leo. i Ep. 13. ad Pulch. and many others.  
In like manner they refer to the Word those Appearances of God, which be vouchsafed to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob himself, as you may see in Just. Mart. Apol. for those to Abraham and Isaac; and for those to Jacob, in Clem. Alex. Paed. i 7. Novat. I. de Trin. c. 26, 27. Proc. Gaz. in h. l.  
The ancient Christians did in this no more than the ancienter Jews did before them, who by Elohim in this place did not understand a created Angel, but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whom the Targumists and the strictest Followers of their Father's Traditions are wont to express by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Philo makes all the Appearances which we meet with in the Books of Moses to belong to the Word, and the latter Cabalists since Christ's time not only do the same, but deny that the Father ever appeared, saying, it was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only that manifested himself to their Fathers, whose proper name is Elohim. For this consult R. Menachem de Rekanati from Beres. Rabath. on the Parasch. Breschit. f. 14. c. 3. Ed. Ven. and on Par. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f. 30. c. 1.  
I have often wondered how it came to pass, that most of the Divines of the Church of Rome, who would seem to have the greatest veneration for Antiquity, should so much despise it in this Question wherein the ancient Jewish and Christian Church do agrees. Sanctius in his Notes on the Acts, ch. 7. says, it is a difficult question among Divines, whether God's Appearances in Scripture were performed immediately by God himself, or by his Angels. And then having cited several ancient Fathers, who thought it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that appeared, he adds, Sed Theologis jam illa sententia placet, quae statuit Angelorum ministerio antiquis hominibus oblatam esse divinam speciem, quae est sententia Dionys. de celest. Hier. c. 4, etc. To the same purpose Lorinus another Jesuit speaks in Act. seven. 31.  
But this is not the worst of it that they forsake the judgement of the Ancients; they do herein make bold to contradict the plain words of Christ himself, Joh. i. 18. Christ saith thus, No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten who is in the bosom of the Father he hath declared him. And parallel to this Text is Joh. vi. 46. Certainly he must be very blind who does not see that Christ in these words not only denies the Father to have shown himself in those Appearances that were made to the ancient Patriarches, but also asserts them to himself, and not to the Angels.  
Away then with such Divines who setting aside the Authority of Christ, do choose to Theologize in the principal Heads of Religion according to the sense and prejudices of the Moderns. We desire to be no wiser in these matters than the Primitive Christians were, among whom it passed for an established truth, that the Elohim in Jacob's Prayer, was the very Jehovah of the Jews, termed by them sometime Shekinah, and sometime Memra.   

SECT. III.  
As to the second Question it would be no Question at all, but for the obstinacy of some latter Jews. He that reads the Hebrew Text without prejudice, cannot but see the Elohim in v. 15. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the following verse, whence it follows that this Redeeming Angel is Jehovah.  
But because this opinion is contradicted by some of the chief Modern Jews, as Abarbanel and Alshek on this place, and by most of the Popish Divines, as well as some few of the Reformed, that have not sifted this matter accurately, we will offer some proofs for the conviction of them that are not obstinately bend against it.  
And, 1. If Jacob had had two Persons then in his mind so different as God and a created Angel are, he would have coupled them together by the particle ז, which is not only conjunctive, but very proper to distinguish the Persons of whom we speak, and said, God before whom my Fathers walked, God who fed me from my youth, and the Angel that delivered me, bless the Lads. But Jacob is so far from doing thus, that on the contrary he puts a ה demonstrative as well before the Angel as before God, without any Copulative between, which sufficiently demonstrates, he means the same Person by God and the Angel. Munster was well ware of this, and therefore being willing to distinguish the Redeeming Angel from God, he Translates it with an addition, the Angel also.  
2. It cannot be easily supposed, That Jacob would in a Prayer use the Singular Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in common to Persons, in Nature so very different, the Creator and a Creature. He certainly aught to have said, God and the Angel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may they bless the Lads, if he had spoken of two. But his speaking in the the Singular, may he bless, is an Argument of his having in his Eye one Person alone, whose Blessing he prayed for on his Seed. Otherwise it would have been a Prayer of a strange Composition. For according to Athanasius, we do no where find that one prays to God and the Angel, or any other created Being at the same time for any thing. Nor is there any like instance of such a Form as this, God and an Angel give thee this.  
3. But setting aside those Rules with which the contrary Opinion can never be reconciled, consider the thing itself in Jacob's Prayer, and you will find it absurd to distinguish between the Offices of God, and those of a created Angel toward Jacob. The Office ascribed to God, is feeding him from his Youth; the Office ascribed to the Angel, is delivering him from all Evil; which must be very distinct Offices, if the Persons be distinguished. And so R. Jochanan accounts them, Gem. Pesasch. f. 118. Tho he believes the Angel to be the same with Elohim, yet he contends that feeding, the greater Work, is attributed to God; and delivering, the lesser Work, to an Angel. The same thing is said by the Author of Jalkut on this place; and R. Samule on the Book Rabboth abovementioned. But in the Phrase of these Jewish Masters, this Distinction is very insipid; it is harshly form, without considering that Jacob in this Blessing reflected on the Words of the Vow which he made at Luz, afterwards called Bethel, because of God's appearing to him there. Now, these were the Words of Jacob's Vow, If God will be with me, and keep me in the way in which I shall walk: if he will give meat to eat, and clothing to put on, and bring me home in safety to the house of my Father, then shall the Lord be my God, Gen. xxvii. 20, 21. Here you see it is from God that Jacob expects to be kept in his way, i. e. to be redeemed from all Evils that might happen, and that he esteems this to be no less a benefit than Sustenance or Clothing, which he mentions in the second place. Here is no Angel spoken of here; and since the redeeming Angel is to be expounded from this place, he cannot be a created Angel, for here is no other spoken of, but the Lord.  
4. By fancying him a created Angel, who delivered Jacob from all Evil, they make Jacob to be a mere Idolater, as ascribing that to a Creature, which belongs only to the Lord of the Creation. The Scripture appropriates to God the Title of Redeemer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; nor do godly Men ever say of a Creature, that it delivers them from all Evil. David, I am sure, never does, but when he speaks of the Tribulations of the Righteous; he adds, but the Lord delivers him out of all, Ps. xxxiv. 20. And Jacob on another occasion, directs his Prayer to the Lord that appeared to him at Luz, saying, Save me from the hand of my brother Esau, for I fear him much, Gen. xxxii. 9, 10, 11.  
5. God, as I said, has so appropriated the Name of Redeemer to himself, that Jacob could not without Sacrilege communicate this Title to any Creature, though never so excellent. We cannot be ignorant, that David makes this the proper Name of God, Psal. nineteen. 14. as does Isaiah, Chap. xliii. 14. xlvii. 4. And this Jonathan confesses on Isa. lxiii. 16. in these words, Thou art our redeemer, thy name is from everlasting, i. e. this is the Name that was designed for God from the beginning, which yet can't hold true; if in this place, Gen. xlviii. 16. it be ascribed by Jacob to a created Angel.  
6. It appears plainly from Gen. xlix. that Jacob neither desired, nor expected any Blessing from a created Angel, but only from God. Thus he prays, etc. The God of thy Father shall be thy helper, and the Almighty shall bless thee with the Blessings of Heaven above, etc. Not a word of a mere Angel that redeemed him from all Evil; so far was the Patriarch in his former Blessing, from begging of an Angel the Multiplication of his Seed, which was the only thing which he could now expect of God, as the Jews own. Bechai Praef. in Pent. f. 1. c. 1.  
7. The same Conclusion may be drawn from the very Order of Jacob's Prayer. Had Jacob intended a created Angel by him whom he names in the last place as a Redeemer from Evil, and whose Intercession with God he bespeaks in behalf of his Children, would he not have prayed to the Angel in the first place? It is most rational so to do. He that wants the Interest of a great Man to introduce him to the King, he does not in the first place direct his Petition to the King immediately, but first to the great Man, and afterwards by him to the King. Let the Papists therefore look to the Absurdity of their proceeding, while they first pray to God, and then to Saints and Angels. Let those Jews who are of the mind of Isaac Abarbanel and Franco Serrano, in his Spanish Notes on this place, and stickle for Angel-worship, see how they can clear themselves of this difficulty, as well as reconcile themselves with those ancienter Jews, who abhor this sort of Idolatry. Maim. Per. Misna ad tit. Sanh. c. xi.   

SECT. iv  
How firm these Reasons are, to show the Angel here spoken of to be an uncreated, and not a created Angel, is I hope evident to every one. Something however of great importance may be still added to illustrate this weighty Argument, and that is the Judgement of the Ancient Synagogue. The most ancient Jewish Writers, and they that received the Traditionary Doctrine from them, though mortal Enemies of the Christian Religion, yet agree with the Christians in the Sense of this Text. For, God be thanked, such Truths were not renounced all at once by these Enemies of our Faith, but they began to dissemble them by degrees, as they found them turning against them in their Disputes with the Christians.  
To begin with the Writings of the Jews before Christ, we find it is God the Word, ver. 12. who is described as he that delivers from all Evil, in the Book of Wisd. xuj. 8. no doubt with respect to this place, where he takes the Angel that delivered Jacob from all Evil, to be God.  
The same Doctrine is to be met with in Philo the Jew, that lived before Christ, and in Christ's time. He 
* Allegor. two. p. 71. D.  expressly affirms of the Angel that delivered Jacob from all Evil, that he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And so does Onkelos in his Chaldee Paraphrase, translating the Words of Jacob simply, as they lie in the Text, without any Addition.  
Jonathan indeed seems to be of another mind in his Paraphrase, that runs thus, God before whom my Fathers, Abraham and Isaac worshipped, the Lord that fed me from the time I began to be till this day, may be pleased that the Angel may bless the Lads, whom thou hast ordained to deliver me from all Evil. Here he distinguishes the Angel from God; but that he did not mean a Creature by this Angel, is clear, for that in other places he translates this Angel by the Word, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and especially in that remarkable place where the same Angel is treated of, Isaiah lxiii. 8, 9, 10. he saith it was the Word that redeemed Israel out of all their Afflictions.  
Let us pass to the Jews after Christ's time, and show that they did not immediately renounce the Doctrine of their Forefathers.  
The Author of the Book Zohar in Par. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fol. 123. hath these words, which he repeats often afterwards, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come, see the Angel, that redeemed me, is the Shekinah that went along with him.  
This is sufficiently intimated by the ancient Author Tanchuma in his Book Jelammedenu, who notes on Exod. xxxiii. that the Jews would not have a created Angel go before them, but God himself, in these words, Moses answered, I will not have an Angel, but thy own self. Now the Jewish Commentators on this place of Exod. xxxiii. explain of the Shekinah, the words, thy own self, and always distinguish the Shekinah from all created Being's.  
R. Solomon in his Notes on this Text has these words, The Angel that delivered me, i. e. the Angel who was wont to be sent to me in my affliction; as it is said, 
Gen. xxxi. 11, 13.  And the Angel of God spoke to me in a dream, saying, Jacob, I am the God of Bethel, etc.  
The Note of R. Moses Ben Nachman on this Text, Gen. xlviii. 16. is very remarkable. The Redeeming Angel, saith he, is he that answered him in the time of his affliction, and who said to him, I am the God of Bethel, etc. he of whom it is said, that my name is in him. The like he has on Exod. iii. where the appearance in the Bush is mentioned: This is he of whom it is said, and God called Moses out of the Bush. He is called an Angel, because he Governs the World; for it is written in one place, And Jehovah, that is, the Lord God, brought us out of Egypt; and in another place, He sent his Angel and brought us out of Egypt. And again, The Angel of his Presence saved them, viz. that Angel who is the face of God, of whom it is said, My face shall go before you. Lastly, that Angel of whom the Prophet Malachi mentions, And the Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to his Temple, even the Angel of the Covenant whom you desire. At length he adds, The face of God is God himself, as all Interpreters do acknowledge; but no one can rightly understand this, without being instructed in the Mysteries of the Law.  
R. Menachem of Rekan. on Gen. xlviii. 16. the same that afterwards commented on the whole Pentateuch, was no stranger to this Notion. Saith he, He means the Shekinah, when he speaks of the Redeeming Angel, f. 52. See also f. 55.  
The like has R. Bechai, the famous Jewish Writer, whose Comments are constantly in the hands of the Jewish Doctors. He proves that this Blessing is not different from that which is afterwards repeated, Gen. xlix. where no Angel is mentioned. Whence it follows, that the three terms in Gen. xlviii. God, God that fed me, the Angel that redeemed me, are Synonimous to the mighty one of Jacob, Ch. xlix. which Title the Jews in their Prayers do frequently ascribe to God. Bech. f. 71. c. 4. Ed. Rivae di Trento. He also there teaches, that this Angel was the Shekinah. As does R. Joseph Gekatilia, in his Book called Saare Ora, according to Menasseh Ben Israel q. 64. in Gen. p. 118. Aben Sueb on this place, a Man of Name among his Party, writes much to the same purpose on this place.  
These are followed by two Eminent Authors of the Cabalists. The one in his Notes on Zohar, f. 122. toward the end, saith, the Angel that delivered me from all evil, is the Shekinah, of whom Exod. xiv. 19 And the Angel of the Lord, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them, and may God bless us in the age to come. The other is he who contracted the Zohar on Genesis, and is called R. David the less. He in that Book Ed. Thessalonic. f. 174. professes to follow the opinion of R. Gekatalia in his Saare Ora.  
Nor does Menasseh Ben Israel himself much dissent from these in the  place. For though he attempts to reconcile Gen. xxviii. 16. with the first Commandment, Exod. xx. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, by saying it was the opinion of several of their Masters, that there was no contradiction between them; yet at length he produces the opinion of the Cabalists, for the satisfaction of his Readers, who possibly would not acquiesce in his former reason drawn only from Modern Authorities.  
I mention not R. Levi ben Gersom's opinion, who denies the Angel here spoken of to be a Creature, but calls him the Intellectus Agens, because he seems to have borrowed the Notion from the Arabian Philosophers; nor is it commonly received by those of his Religion. Many others might be added to these Jewish Testimonies, but what I have already produced is I think very sufficient.   

SECT. V  
Having thus shown the Opinions of the ancient Jews concerning Jacob's Angel, and that to this day the Tradition is not quite worn out that exalts him above a created Angel; I now proceed to the third Question, the clearing of which will fully justify that Opinion of the Ancients concerning this Text.  
And that is, Whether this form of Blessing, be not an express Prayer? The soundest and most part as well of Jews as Christians do agree, That we can't worship Angels without Idolatry. This Maimonides affirms, as I quoted him above; and the Protestants, as all Men know, do abhor this Idolatry in the Roman Church.  
I do therefore positively assert, That these words contain a Prayer to the Angel, as well as to God, for a Blessing on his Children. This the Jews can't gainsay, since Jonathan their Paraphrast, and other Writers after him, do commonly term this Blessing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Prayer And for this reason R. Menasseh thought it necessary to endeavour to reconcile this Prayer of Jacob with the first Commandment, which forbids Angel-Worship according to the Jews Interpretation. R. Menach. de Rek. in Pent. f. 97. c. 4.  
It is true Jacob's form of Blessing does seem to proceed from him either as a Wish, or a Prophecy: A Wish, as if he had said, Would to the Lord, God and his Angel would bless the Lads. A Prophecy, as if he had foretold that God and his Angel should in aftertimes fulfil what he now wished. But it might be both Wish and Prophecy, and notwithstanding be a direct Prayer to God and the Redeeming Angel. 'Tis well known how the Jews commonly delivered their Petitions to God in this form. And yet I can't forbear giving one instance to confirm it. You may read it in Deut. vi. 22, etc. And the Lord said to Moses, saying, Speak to Aaron and his Sons, thus shall you bless the children of Israel, and say, 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. And they shall invoke my name for the children of Israel, (so our Translation is to be mended) and I will bless them. So that in plain terms the form of Blessing here prescribed by God, is called Invocation.  
I cannot therefore see what should hinder, but that we after Jacob's example may offer up our Prayers to a created Angel, supposing, as some do, that Jacob prayed for a Blessing to such a kind of Angel. 
De Sanct. Beat. l. 1. c. 29. Corn. A Lap. on Gen. xlviii.  It is a necessary consequence that Bellarmine and others of his Communion draw from this instance: Holy Jacob invoked an Angel, therefore it is not unlawful for the pretended reform to do the like; therefore one may worship others besides God; these things, saith he, cannot be denied, unless you reckon Prayer to be no act of Worship, not peculiar to God alone.  
But let them of his Church get out of these difficulties as they can, who believe Jacob's Angel to have been a mere Creature. Let them try how they can convince a Socinian from Ephes. i. 2. and other places of Scripture, where Worship is ascribed to Christ. The Socinian has his answer ready, he may wish and pray to Christ for Grace, though he be not God, since he does no more than Jacob did, when he prayed for a Blessing on his Children to a mere Angel.  
I am more concerned for these Divines of the Reformed Church, who have given the same Interpretation of Jacob's Angel, with the Generality of Papists, though they cannot be ignorant, they therein descent from the Divinity of the ancient Jews, and the Fathers of the Christian Church, and even the more Learned and candid Romanists, such as Masius was; I might add, (which perhaps they have not considered) though they therein contradict the whole strain of the New Testament. See Mercerus ad Pagnini Lexicon, p. 1254.  
The intended shortness of this Treatise will not permit me to enlarge on this Head. However one thing I must not pass over, which is worthy the examination of the less cautious Divines. It is very certain, that the God that appeared to Jacob in Bethel was the very God that fed Israel in the Desert, and against whom the Israelites in the Wilderness did rebel. Now the Apostle is express, 1 Cor. x. that he was Christ, whom the Jews tempted in the Wilderness, i. e. that he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not a mere Angel. The Apostle takes it for granted, it was a thing undisputed by the Synagogue in his time. And indeed unless this be allowed, St. Paul's reasoning in this Chapter is trifling and groundless.  
Well! what can Bellarmine say to this? he who asserts a created Angel to be spoken of, Gen. xlviii. 16. He has forgot what he said on that Text when he is come to this place. He here strenuously urges it against the Socinians, to prove that Christ was then in being when the Jews tempted him in the Wilderness. And since hereby he owns that Christ in his Divine Nature was he that led Israel through the Wilderness, who is sometimes called God, and sometimes an Angel, he inconsiderately grants what he had denied before, that the Angel who redeemed Jacob from all evil, being the same Angel that conducted Israel, was also God.   

SECT. VI  
You see what Contradictions Bellarmine falls into, out of his zeal to promote the Doctrine of Invocation of Saints. I wish there were not something as bad in our Divines that carries them in the like Contradictions. The best I can say for their excuse is only this, They have not carefully attended to the Style of Holy Scripture. Two or three things therefore I will mention, which occur frequently in Scripture, that methinks would have suggested higher thoughts of this Angel to one that considered what he read.  
He that considers how often our Lord Christ is called in the New Testament, the Spouse, or Husband of the Church, and compares it with the same Title that God appropriates to himself under the Old Testament Estate, will make little doubt that it was the same Christ who was then married to Israel. By the same rule one may infer, that our Lord Christ in calling himself a Shepherd, had a respect to that Title, by which he is so often ascribed in his deal with Jacob and his Posterity. This the ancienter Jews were sensible of, and therefore both here, Gen. xlviii. 15. and ch. xlix. 24. where God is mentioned as a Shepherd, they understand it of the Shekinah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. R. Menachem de Rekanah from the Book Habbahir in Pent. f. 84. c. 2. Of this also the Jews in Christ's time were not ignorant, who hearing Christ in one of his Sermons likening himself to the good Shepherd, Joh. x. did presently apprehend that he would be thought the Messiah, and therefore took up stones to stone him. And then in the process of his Discourse to maintain this Character, he made himself one with the Father.  
As Christ called himself a Shepherd, to show that he was the God that had fed Jacob and his Posterity like sheep; so also is Christ most frequently represented in the New Testament under the Notion of a Redeemer; intimating thereby that he was the same Redeeming Angel of whom Jacob had spoken. It was he that was called 
* Isa. lxiii. 9  the Angel of his Presence, by whom God redeemed his ancient People: And he is also called the Angel of the Covenant 
† Mal. iii. 1. , in the promise of his coming in the time of the Gospel.  
Here I should have put an end to this Tract, but for two Objections that lie in my way, and seem to require some kind of Answer.  
The first is taken from the Jews who many of them expound this Redeeming Angel by Metatron, and Metatron according to them, being a created Angel, or as some say, no other than Enoch that was Translated; there seems to be as many Authorities against us as for us.  
But let it be observed, 1. Though the Jews have several Names of Angels which are not mentioned in Scripture, yet they are all form out of the Names of God, according to the Rules of their Cabala, and that with respect to the Ten Sephiroth, as Buxtorf has noted, Lex. Talm. p. 828.  
2. This is plain from the word Actariel, which is at the head of the Jewish forms of Excommunication 
* v. Bartolocci, f. 4. & 450. . This is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name of the first of the Ten Sephiroth, whence the Talmudists place Actariel upon the Throne, Beracoth, f. 7. c. 1. and distinguish him from the Ministering Angels that stand before the Throne. But I refer the curious Reader that would know more of this to the ancient Jewish Book Entitled, Berith Menucha, c. 1.  
3. This is no less plain of the Angel Metatron, who as they say was he that discoursed with Moses, Exod. iii. and the Angel in whom God placed his Name. So that they acknowledge, though it is framed from the Latin Tongue, yet it expresses the same that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does as R. S. Jarchi on Exod. xxiii. confesses. Now St. Hierome on Ezek. i 24. notes, that the Greek Interpreters sometimes render God's Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which leads us into the meaning of those ancient Jews that accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Metatron to be the same.  
4. The Generality of Jews are so far from believing Metatron to be Enoch, that they believe him to be the Messiah, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before his Incarnation, in our phrase, but in theirs, the Soul of the Messiah, which they look on as something between God and the Angels, whom nothing separates from the Living God. See Reuchlin, l. i. the Cabala, p. 651. where he proves Metatron to be the Messiah from their Writings: Or in short, take the confession of Menasse ben Israel, Q. 6. in Gen. §. 2.  
And truly if one would compare all those places of the Old Testament that mention the Angel, whom the later Jews call Metatron, he would find such Properties belonging to this Angel, as are incommunicable to a Creature. And this shows that they who have departed in this point from the Tradition of their Fathers, did it on this ground, because they were loath to acknowledge the Divinity of the Messiah, which seemed to be clear upon allowing Metatron to be the Messiah. They were more careful to defend their own prejudices, than the Opinions of the Ancients.  
II. Another Objection is made from the place in Rev. i 4. the words are these, John to the seven Churches that are in Asia, Grace be to you, and peace from him that was, and is, and is to come, and from the seven Spirits that are before his Throne; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, etc. For John here seems to wish and pray for Grace, not only from the Father, but also from the Seven Angels that are before the Throne of God, and so to be reckoned among the Ministering Spirits.  
This place is indeed abused by those of the Romish Church, to show that Prayers may be lawfully directed to Angels. And the Jews themselves have contributed to lead some Men of Note into the mistake. For, besides the four chief Angels, whom they make to preside over the four Armies of Angels, which they have chief grounded on Ezek. i. they speak of seven other Angels, that were created before the rest, and that wait on God before the Veil, 
R. Eliezer, in capit. c. 4.  that divides them from the Shechinah.  
The hearing of these things so often repeated by the Jews, has given occasion, I say, to some considerable Divines to believe those seven to be proper Angels, whom St. John mentions in his Revelation. But then not apprehending how Prayers could be offered to them, nor why the precedency is given them before Christ, they would not have John here to have spoken a Prayer, but only to have wished Grace on the Seven Churches; and this they thought a sense consistent enough with the Angel-worship forbidden by St. Paul, Col. two. 18. and even in this very Book, Revel. nineteen. 10. & xxii. 9  
But to shorten this matter, I altogether deny that St. John intended here any created Angels. What then did he mean by them? Nothing else but the Holy Spirit, for whose most perfect Power and Grace on the Seven Churches he here makes Supplication. For as Cyril on Zech. three 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Number seven is always a mark of Perfection in the thing to which it is applied. St. John therefore thought of no allusion to the Jewish opinion of seven Angels, when he prayed for Grace from the Seven Spirits before the Throne; but had in his mind to express the far more plentiful effusion, and more powerful efficacy of the Holy Spirit under the Gospel than under the Law, and his never ceasing Ministration for the good of the Church, for which purposes he hath received a Vicarious authority under God, immediately to Christ, as Tertullian speaks, de Praesc. Haeret. c. 13. and for this Interpretation I have Justin Martyr, Paraen. ad Graec. and St. Austin on my side.  
St. John's way of expressing himself is borrowed from Zech. iii. 9 where God is represented as having seven Eyes running through the Earth, to signify by this Figure God's perfect knowledge of all things, as Cyril Alexandrinus Notes. Hence we read of Christ, Revel. iii. 1. These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God. And in another place seven Eyes, and seven Horns are ascribed to him. But we never read (which is worth our observation) of these seven Spirits, as we do of the four Beasts, and twenty-four Elders, that they fell down and Worshipped God.  
But why does St. John put the Holy Spirit before Christ? If I should say St. Paul has done the like in Gal. i. 1. and Ephes. v. 5. to teach us the unity and equality of each Person in the Blessed Trinity, or because St. John in the following Verses was to speak more at large of Christ, I think I should not answer improperly. But I shall add another reason, which may explain the whole matter.  
In a word, I do believe this difficulty must be resolved another way; for that which makes this place so intricate according to the judgement of many Interpreters, is their referring to the Father, the words of the 4th. verse, Grace be unto you, and peace from him, which is, and which was, and which is to come; which ought to be referred particularly to Christ himself, who is described, Chap. iv. v. 8. according to the description of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Jonathan's Targum on Deut. xxxii. 39 But then some will say, Why is there any mention made of the seven Spirits, if we conceive that the Grace which is asked for the Church, in the first words, is asked from Jesus Christ? The thing is so clear, that Socinus has perceived it.  
Now seven Spirits are here mentioned, to denote the Spirit of God, which was to reside with his sevenfold Gifts in the Messiah, according to the Prophecy of Isaiah, ch. xi. 2, 3. and from thence it comes, that in Revel. ch. v. 6. the Lamb is described having seven Horns, and seven Eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the Earth. To Christ there are attributed seven Horns, which denote his Empire, in opposition to the Empire of the little Horn, which is spoken of Dan. seven. 8. So there are seven Eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, attributed to him; likewise, to denote the Gracious Providence of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, and that in opposition to the little Horn, in which there were Eyes, Like the Eyes of man, Da● seven 〈…〉  
Here then the Grace asked, is from the seven Spirits, that is, from the Holy Ghost, who is united in one with the Messiah Jesus Christ, and is sent by him; and so it is said to be asked from Jesus Christ himself, who both has those Spirits as his Eyes, and does cause the Mission of them to his Church.  
St. John therefore doth not place the Holy Spirit before Christ, but mentions him with Christ, because he after Christ's Ascension, and during the time of Christ's continuance on God's right hand, has a more particular hand in the immediate Government of the Church, and is especially watchful to do her good. And for this reason I think it is, the Holy Spirit is placed as it were without the Veil, like a Ministering Angel. Many of the Ancients knew this, as Victorinus Petavionensis, Ambrose, Beda, Arethas, Autpertus, Walafridus Strabo, Haymo, Rupertus, from whom Tho. Aquinas, and Caelius of Pannonia, who rebukes those that understand it otherwise, and other Elder Divines of the Roman Church learned it, to say nothing of those of the Reformed Church: But it is time to give over.    

A TABLE OF TEXTS of Scripture Occasionally Explained in this Treatise.  
GENESIS. Chap. Ver. Pag. i. 1 116, 119, 123, 142  2 141  26 101, 117, 320, 323, 400, 414 iii. 5 118  8 370  15 401  22 42, 118, 320 iv. 7 118  8 21 vi. 3 141 ix. 7 142 xi. 7 118, 323 xv. 1, 5, 9 370 xviii. 1, 2, 3 147  18 35  20, 21 443 nineteen.  401  24 323 xxi. 9 61 xxv. 7 118 xxx. 24 120 xxxv. 7 323 xlviii. 15 285  16 108, 285  15, 16 433 xlix. 10 43, 293, 401  18 278 EXODUS. Chap. Ver. Pag. iii. 2 346  6 54  14 304  15, 16 34 iv. 13 201 xii. 3 106  4 21 xuj.  6 nineteen. 17 320 xxiii. 23 348 xxiv. 1 32● xxxiii. 14 348 LEVITICUS. Chap. Ver. Pag. xxvi. 11, 12 275 NUMBERS Chap. V Pag. vi. 22, 24, 25, 26 139, 453 xi. 25, 26 14● xxi. 8 60 xxiv. 17 294 DEUTERONOMY. Chap. Ver. Pag. iv. 7 169 vi. 4 176 xviii. 15, 16 317  18 57, 402  19 402  34 57 xxx. 11, 12, 13, 14 62 xxxii. 2 350  9 106  43 56 JOSHUA. xxiv. 19 118. JUDGES. xiii. 18 109 I SAMUEL. two. 5 38  10 62 TWO SAM. seven. 14 61  16 35  23 323 xxiii. 2 142  3 62, 142 I CHRON. xiii. 6 199 NEHEM. viij. 8 84 PSALMS. two.  103, 320, 402  2 293  6 267  7 140, 256  8 267, 300  12 289 viij.  63 xuj. 10 55 nineteen. 4 63 xxi. 1 391 xxii.  36, 39, 91, 309  16 403 xxiii. 1 275, 304 xxxiii. 6 111, 141, 344, 155, 162 xli.  39 xliii. 3 44 xliv. 69, 80 39 xlv. 38, 272, 299, 309  6 281  7 281, 284, 297  9, 10 284  11 284, 290 xlvii.  319  5 404 lxviii.  38, 403  10 404  19 414 lxxii.  33, 319, 404  17 269  10, 11 294 lxxx. 15, 17 270 lxxxii. 8 283 lxxxix 15 44  25, 26 270  28 256 xcv. 11 24, 46 xcvii. 1 37, 38  7 295  20 366 xcix.  37 cii. 15, 16, 17, 22 38  25 37 cx.  24, 38, 55, 103, 282  1 301, 404 PROVERBS. iii. 8 102, 404 viij.  404  15, 16 153  22 110, 171  23, 24 140, 171  25 171 xxx. 4 140, 267 xxxi. 4 429 ECCLESIASTES. i. 4 112 xii. 1 161, 119 ISAIAH. iv. 2 273 v.  39  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 259 vi. 3 139  8 414 seven.  47  14 59 viij. 13, 14 295, 420 ix. 6 44, 109, 273, 405  7 273 xi. 1, 2, 3 143, 297, 405, & 459  2 143, 405 xxv. 6 405 xxviii.  281 xxxiii. 22 139 xxxv. 4, 5, 6 302, 420 xl. 3 296  13 144  14 175 xli. 4 421 xliii. 6 295 xlv. 23 421 xlviii. 16 406 xlix. 23 291 lii.  36 liii.  33, 36, 48, 328, 407  4 58  10 297 liv.  39  13 262  5 119 lx. 1 295, 315  2 85  19, 20 315 lxi. 1 48, 143 lxii. 3 166 lxiii.  285  9 119, 346  10 355 JEREMIAH. two. 20 329 v. 5 108, 329  6 108 xxiii. 26 407 xxxi. 21 328  33 303 xxxii. 4 310 xxxiii. 15, 16 407 EZEKIEL. i.  283 xxii. 2 272 DANIEL. iii. 25 100L seven. 13 377, 383, 308, 319  9 323  14 283, 308 ix. 8, 9, 13, 14, 18 153 xii. 2 301 HOSEA. two. 19, 20 284, 299 xi. 1 58 AMOS. ix. 11, 15, 16, 17 37 MICAH. v. 2 276, 407 seven. 7 280  14 262  19 280  18 315 HABAKKUK. two. 3 280 iii.  36  8 358  13 280, 359  18 294, 359 HAGGAI. two. 4, 5 358  9 399 ZECHARIAH. two. 10, 11 37 iii. 9 456 v. 12 315 vi. 12 38, 258, 274, 409 ix. 9 36 xii. 10 36, 284, 409  14 306 MALACHI. i. 11 59 iii. 1 107, 255, 285, 296, 303, 348 iv.  44  2 64, 256, 280, 315 The Apocryphal Books. JESDRAS. two. 5, 7. 107 iv. 58 107 III ESDRAS. i. 28, 47, 57 111 TOBIT. viij. 6 101 JUDETH. ix. 7 106 xuj. 14 111 WISDOM. i. 4, 5, 6, 7 112 iii. 8 113 seven. 22, 23, 24, 25 102 ix. 1 103  2, 4 102  17 102, 113 xuj. 12 106 xviii. 5 64  15, 16, 17 104, 106 ECCLESIASTICUS. xvii. 17 108 xxiv. 9 110  18 111 xlvi. 5, 6 105 xlviii. 3, 4, 5 105 li. 10 103 IMACCAB. xiv. 41 402 TWO MACC. two. 8 114  22, 23 113 MATTHEW. Chap. Ver. Pag. i. 20 296  23 59 two. 7 276  15 58  17 422  18 328 v.  328 viij. 17 58 ix. 15 328 xi.  29  4 23 nineteen. 6 59 xxi. 16 63, 289  13 329  42 330 xxii.  54  32 54 xxiii. 37 330 xxvi. 53 307, 330  63 276, 308  64 276, 308 xxvii. 18, 19, 20 310  39, 40, 41, 42, 43 308  46 309 xxviii. 6 310  19 296  20 331 MARK. xiv. 39 309 LUKE. i. 2 344  17 48  69 62  79 295, 296 two.  294  11 310  49 298 iv. 18 85, 143 v. 20, 21, 24 300  23 331 seven. 16 402 xi. 20 331 xvii. 20 63 xxii. 70 276 xxiii. 35, 36, 37, 38 308 xxiv. 46 310, 44, 47 Pr. p. two.  47, 48, 49 310  51, 52 311 JOHN i.  258, 315, 318  14 332  15 299  18 333  30 299  29 333  34, 51 297  18 446 two. 4 298  16, 19, 21 298 iii. 13 298  14 60  17 2●8  29 2●9  31, 35 299 iv. 21 59 v.  333  8 344  16, 17, 18 300  19, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 39 301, 333  39 Prev. p. iv.  46 Pref. p. two. vi. 41 334  46 333  51 302  14 402 seven. 38 ●16  42 276 viij. 28, 38 303  51, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59 304 x ix. 35, 38 304 x. 11, 18 304  24, 25, 37 305, 454 xi. 4, 25, 27 306 xiv. 6 334  16, 17, 26 28, 306, 334 xv. 12, 13, 14, 15 306  16 335  26 335 xuj. 27 28, 29 30 306 xvii. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 307  21 335 nineteen. 37 309  32 422 xx. 22, 28 310  31 311 ACTS. i.  344 two. 30, 31 48 iii. 22 34, 58, 318  25 57 seven. 30 346  37 318  52 335 x. 43 in the Pref. two. xiii. 24 55 xx. 28 336 xxvi. 22 in the Pref. two. ROMANS. v. 14 25 x. 6 62  18 63 xv. 11 37 I CORINTH. x. 1, 2, 3 45  9 348  4 314  11 45 x.  454 xv.  336  27 63  47 25 xuj. 22 422 TWO CORINTH. viij. 15 422 GALATIANS. iii. 8 37  16 43, 57  19 349, 351 iv. 22 45  24 25  29 61 EPHESIANS. i. 21 63 v. 14 16 vi.  336 I TIMOTH. i. 4 363 TWO TIMOTH. vi. 20, 21 363 HEBREWS. i.  38  1 349  2 314, 345, 349  3 103, 114  5 60  6 56, 295, 416 two.  351  2 349  6, 7, 8 63 iv. 4, 9 46  12 10, 106, 344 vi.  46, 336  6 383 seven.  46, 336 x.  39 xii. 22 337  25, 26 315, 351  29 337 I PET iii. 21 46 TWO PET. i. 21 48 two. 16 231 iii. 5 345 I JOHN. i. 1, 5 213 v. ●7 99, 347 REVELATIONS. i.  337  4 458 two.  7 iii. 1 458 xii. 1 64 nineteen. 10 2●4  6 337 xxii. 2 42, 337  14 42  9 234   

THE TABLE OF MATTERS.  

ALlegorical Expositions in use before Christ's time, Page 24, 45, 57  
Angel of the Face, or Presence of God, Called the Redeemer, vid. Dissert. Page 433.  
Apocryphal Books among the Jews, cited and followed in the New Testament, Page 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.  
Apocryphal Books in our Bibles, their Antiquity, Page 67, 68 

Their freedom from corruptions, Page 71, 72.    
Appearances. Page 201, etc.  
Cabalistical Divinity received by the Jews, Page 179, 180, 381. 

Embased about Christ's time, Page 363.    
Chaldee Paraphrases, their Original, Page 27, 84, 85. 

And Antiquity, Page 91.  
Progress, Page 28, 86, etc.  
Antiquity of those we have, Page 85, 86, 88, 89.  
Their Interpretations, Page 94, 95, 96, etc.    
Christ. See Messiah.  
Divine Essence, its kind of Unity, Page 121, 268. 

Plurality of Persons in it, Page 116, 118, 120, etc.  
Distinguished by the Name Sephiroth, Page 163,  
Prosopa, Page 160, 167, 164, 171.    
Panim or Faces, and Havioth or Substance, Page 171. 

And Madregoth, or degrees, Page 163.  
Wisdom coming from the Infinite, Page 169.  
And Understanding from the Infinite by Wisdom, Page 168.  
Yet they are all one, Page 170, 174.    
Elias a kind of second Moses, Page 244.  
Enoch's Prophecy, how anciently known, Page 319.  
God, His Name Eloah in the Singular, used in Scripture, Page 117. 

His Name Elohim in the Plural joined with a Singular, Page 116.  
He speaks in the Plural, and why, Page 117, 118.  
God understood by the Jews where only King is expressed, Page 119.  
Why called God of Gods, Page 122.  
His Name Elohim signifies Plurally, Page 125, 161.    
Greek Learning discouraged among the Jews, Page 30.  
Jews early Provision against the Christian Objections, Page 323, 324.  
Law, by whom given, Page 349, 350.  
Messiah to be like Moses, Page 22. 

Spoken of by all the Prophets, Page 32, 266.  
By Isaiah, chap. liii. Page 33.  
In Canticles, Page 25, 33, 268.    
Rules for Interpreting Prophecies concerning him, Page 34, 35.  
Messiah expected according to the Jews, ever since Adam's time, Page 42, 43. 

To be united with the second Number or Wisdom at his Coming, Page 171.  
The same with the Word, Page 254, etc.  
With the Shekinah, Page 333, 334, etc.  
To be a Prophet, Page 261.    
Messias ●s the Son of God, Page 267, etc. 

And Bridegroom of the Church, Page 272, 284, 299.  
The true Jehovah, Page 278, etc.  
His Great Dignity, Page 286.  
Messiah is God according to the Gospels, Page 300, 301, etc.  
He is to be Worshipped, Page 289.  
Messiah a Shepherd, Page 304, 316.  
Why Christ did not expressly assume the Title of God, Page 339.  
Christ, or Messiah, Crucified for affirming himself to be the Son of God, Page 388.    
Moses' Education in Egyptian Learning, Page 13.  
Platonic Philosophy out of credit in Philo's time, Page 356, 360. 

Occasioned the Heresies in the Christian Church, Page 361.    
If Plato's Morality and not his Divinity followed by the first Christian's Page 360, 361. 

Plato borrowed the Notion of a Trinity from the Jews, Page 362.  
Powers of God what, Page 122, 146, 147, 150.  
They made the World, Ib. 129.    
Philo's Notions of them, but not so clear, Page 155, 156. 

They are said to be the same as Wisdom and Understanding by the Cabalists, Page 161, 162.  
Simon called himself the Power of God, Page 134.  
Those Powers called Prosopa, Page 160.    
Psalms, their Titles by whom affixed, Page 19 

Rules for Interpreting them. Page 20.    
Pythagoras had many Notions from the Hebrews, Page 354, 356.  
Scripture-Reading discouraged by the Jews after Christ's time, Page 326. 

Misinterpreted by way of Accommodation, Page 423.  
By the Modern Jews, Page 392, & Talm.  
By the Socinians, Page 414, 415, etc.    
Shekinah, the same with the Word, Page 149, 272. 

And sometimes used for the Spirit, Ib. 168.  
The several Appearances of it to the Patriarches, and under the Legal Dispensation, Page 165, 166, & 286.  
Called Father, Page 167.  
And Jehovah, to whom Prayers of the Jews were directed, Page 279.  
It's coming into the Tabernacle, Page 225.  
And Temple, Page 243.  
Leaving the Temple, Page 247.  
It's Return, Page 248  
Its expected Appearance in a visible manner in the age of the Messiah, Page 263, 275.  
Shekinah to be a Priest, Page 282.  
To be the same with the Messiah, Page 286, 333, etc.  
Shekinah called Rachel, Page 328.  
A Stone, Page 330.  
The Finger of God, Page 331.    
Simonians, some of their Opinions, Page 135, 136.  
Spirit, made all Things, Page 102, 111, etc. 

Is a Person in Gen. i. 2. Page 141.  
An Uncreated Being, Page 162.  
And not Air or Wind, Page 155.  
Called sometimes the Shekinah, Page 149.  
But more commonly Bina or Understanding, Page 167  
Called by the Cabalists, Mother, Page 167.  
And the Mouth of God, and the Spirit of Holiness, and the Sanctifier, Page 173.  
Seven Spirits, the Spirit of God, Page 456, 459.    
Traditions, how many sorts, Page 11, 12. 

Time of the Authors of them, Page 13.  
One kind useful to clear the Text, Page 20, 21.  
To understand the Prophecies of the Messiah, Page 22.  
Used by the Apostles in the sense of Texts quoted by them, Page 316, 317, 318.  
And Justin Martyr, Page 319, 320, 321.    
Types, their Ground, Page 45. 

Oft used by the Apostles, Page 46.    
Unity, of Divine Essence according to the Jews, Page 121, 268.  
Wisdom, made all Things, Page 102, 104, 162, 173. 

Begot by God, Page 121.  
To be united with the Messiah, Page 171.    
Word, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence so called, Page 127. 

The Use of it among the Jews, Page 365.  
Made all Things, Page 102, 103, 126, 129.  
Man especially, Page 130.  
After his Image, Page 129, 131.  
Is an Emanation from God, Page 102.  
The same with an Uncreated Angel, Page 104, 106, 108, 194, 195, 203, 206, 215.  
That acted in all the Divine Appearances in the Old Testament, Page 183.  
Objections against this answered, Page 346, 347, 348.  
The Son of God, Page 121, 183.  
A Person, Page 193, 372.  
A true Cause or Agent, Page 125, 126,  
A Divine Person, Page 196, 197, 366, 373.  
Used by the Chaldee Paraphrasts for Jehovah and Elohim, Page 372, 374.  
In the Text, Page 149.  
And by the Targums, a Word, a Man, Page 259.  
The same with the Shekinah, Page 149, 272.  
And with Wisdom, Page 162, 163, 164, 272.  
And Messiah, Page 254, etc.  
A Mediator, Page 183.  
A Teacher, Ibid.  
A Shepherd, Ib. & p. 275.  
The Sun of Righteousness, Page 256.  
God swears by his Word, Page 209.  
The Word prayed to, Page 210, 211.  
The Word gave the Law, Page 219, etc.  
And spoke from off the Mercy-seat, Page 225, 245, 247.    
Zohar, its Author probably, Page 177.    

ERRATA Praecipua sic Corrigenda.  
Page Line  13 1 for Author, read Authors. 23 31 for upon r. concerning. 25 28 for cap. viij. r. cap. seven. ibid. 32 for of great, r. of the great. 64 28 for with r. to. 69 22 for sure, r. secure. ibid. 35 for would, r. must. 71 13 for not, r. no. ibid. 15 for who have quoted, r. have quoted. 117 25 for 6ly, r. 2ly. 161 3 after Scriptures, add, with relation. 163 29, 30 for which is the same, r. which Names are the same. 173 13 for Caema, r. Cochma. 205 20 for can, r. may. ibid. 22 for cut many, r. cut away many. 213 29 for such, r. so. 233 15 for this, r. the former. 244 16 for this, r. the former. 262 32 for Micah vi. 14. r. Micah seven. 14. 288 16, 17 for besides they, r. besides that they. 291 30 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. 34, 35 for to the two, to the Father, to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. of the two, of the Father, of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 315 11 for chap. xii. 18 r. seven. 8. 320 32 for Psal. xv. r. xlv. 327 20 for Context, r. Text. 331 4 after righteous, add, Word. 339 13 for which, r. what. 340 23 for marks, his. r. marks of his. 364 17 for To, r. On. 376 3 for they were very few of, r. there were very few. 392 1 for Chap. XXIII. r. XXVI. 400 21 for Ancient, r. Ancients. 433 16 for understand, r. understands. 434 15 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 451 9 for Deut. r. Numb.   

BOOKS Printed for Ric. Chiswell.  
THE Fathers Vindicated, or Animadversions on a late Socinian Book, Entitled, [The Judgement of the Father's touching the Trinity, against Dr. Bull 's Defence of the Nicene Faith.] By a Presbyter of the Church of England.  
Reflections upon a Libel lately Printed, Entitled, [The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson, Considered, 4to]  
Dr. Williams (now Lord Bishop of Chichester) his Vindication of Archbishop Tillotson's Sermons against the Socinians; and of the Bishop of Worcester's Sermon of the Mysteries of the Christian Religion. To which is annexed, a Letter from the Bishop of Salisbury to the Author, in Vindication of his Discourse of the Divinity of our Saviour. 4to.  
SCRIPTORUM ECCLESIASTICORUM Historia Literaria facili & perspicua methodo digesta. Pars Altera. Qua plusquam DC. Scriptores novi, tam Editi quam Manuscripti recensentur; Prioribus plurima adduntur; breviter aut obscure dicta illustratur; recte asserta vindicantur. Accedit ad finem cujusvis Saeculi CONCILIORUM omnium tum Generalium tum Particularium Historica Notitia Ad Calcem vero Operis Dissertationes tres, (1) De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis incertae aetatis. (2) De Libris & Officiis Ecclesiasticis Graecorum. (3) De Eusebii Caesariensis Arianismo adversus Joannem Clericum. Adjecti sunt Indices utilissimi Scriptorum Alphabetico-Chronologici. Study & labour Gulielmi Cave, S. T. P. Canon. Windesortensis. Fol.  
Bishop Wilkins, of the Principles and Duties of Natural Religion. In two Books. The 4th Edition.  
Primitive Christianity: Or, the Religion of the Ancient Christians in the first Ages of the Gospel. In Three Parts. By William Cave, D. D. The fifth Edition. Octavo.  
Several Discourses, viz. Proving Jesus to be the Messiah. The Prejudices against Jesus and His Religion considered. Jesus the Son of God, proved by his Resurrection. The Danger of Apostasy from Christianity. Christ the Author: Obedience the Condition of Salvation. The Possibility and Necessity of Gospel-obedience, and its Consistence with Free Grace. The Authority of Christ with the Commission and Promise which he gave to his Apostles. The Difficulties of a Christian Life considered. The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Children of this World wiser than the Children of Light. By the most Reverend Dr. John Tillotson, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. Being the Fifth Volume, Published from the Originals, by Dr. Barker, Chaplain to His Grace. 8vo.  
— Several Discourses upon the Attributes of God, viz. Concerning the perfection of God. Concerning our Imitation of the Divine Perfection. The Happiness of God. The Unchangeableness of God. The Knowledge of God. The Wisdom and Sovereignty of God. The Wisdom of God in his Providence. The Wisdom of God in the Redemption of Mankind. The Justice of God in the Distribution of Rewards and Punishments. The Truth of God. The Holiness of God, etc. Being the Sixth Volume; Published from the Originals, by Dr. Barker. Octavo.  
Sermons Preached on several Occasions. By John Conant, D. D. The first and second Volumes. The Second Edition Corrected. Published by Dr. John Williams, now Lord Bishop of Chichester. 8vo.  
A Commentary on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers In Four Volumes. In 4to. By Dr. Sim Patrick, Lord Bishop of Ely.  
— His Commentary on Deuteronomy is now in the Press.  
A Discourse of the Government of the Thoughts. By Geo. Tully, Late Sub Dean of York. The 3d Edition, 1699.  
A New Account of India and Persia, being Nine Years Travel begun 1672, and finished 1681. By John Friar, M. D. Fellow of the Royal Society. Fol. 1698. Illustrated with Cuts.  
The Life of Henry Chichele Archbishop of Canterbury. In which there is a Particular Relation of many Remarkable Passages in the Reigns of Henry the Fifth and Sixth, Kings of England. Written in Latin by Arthur Duck. LLD. Chancellor of the Diocese of London; and Advocate of the Court of Honour. Now made English, and a Table of Contents Annexed. 8vo.  
FINIS.