Grom fhe Librarp of (professor Samuef Wiffer in (Nemorp of Fudge Samue? Uiiffer Breckinridae (presented fp Samuef Wuifler Breckinridge Bong to fhe Zifrarp of (Princeton Sbeofogicaf Seminarp BI til) 2A4 ALbix, Pierre, 1641-1717. The judgement of the ancient Jewish church against the a od Fe a 1 ee, be ‘ee ae Ji Aa Beers id 2 Ss ee ee ee % ee ae - JUDGMENT: ANCIENT JEWISH CHURCH AGAINST THE UNITARIANS IN THE CONTROVERSY UPON THE HOLY TRINITY AND THE DIVINITY OF OUR BLESSED SAVIOUR. BY PETER 'ALLIX, D. D. a ee SECOND EDITION, CORRECTED BY THE AUTHOR. eo el OXFORD, AT THE CLARENDON PRESS. MDCCCXXI. oe SW gllilltr- ADVERTISEMENT. THIS new edition of Dr. Allix’s “J udgment of the “ Ancient Jewish Church against the Unitarians” is printed verbatim from a copy corrected by the author, now in the possession of the Rev. Dr. Nott, _Prebendary of Winchester, with the use of which he was pleased to oblige the Delegates of the Cla- rendon Press. Feb. 2, 1821. a2 me 14 : } oy, 3 gh he a , a on KTS Bape Se oe REN , Bs Wowk Ve * Lg oe | > ¢ hot z oleh Hoo san ‘ flo 0 barat P " ee ie ica abies | THE PREFACE. ALTHOUGH the Jews, by mistaking the pro- phecies of Scripture concerning the kingdom of their Messias, expected he should have a temporal kingdom ; and because our Lord Jesus was not for that, therefore they would not acknowledge him for their Messias ; 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 law- giver. We receive that very Messias whom God promised them by his prophets, so many ages be- fore 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 Messias 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 Messias, and the cha- racters by which he was to be known: for they ar- gued 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 a3 iv THE PREFACE. which the Jews acknowledged as the standard of their religion; which may be seen in Christ’s dis- course to the Jews, John v. 46. and to his disciples after his resurrection, Luke xxiv. 27. and 44. in the words of St. Peter, Acts x. 43. and of St. Paul, Acts RWI) 2 op 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 icommunicable to any other; yet not only that very name is given to the Messias, but also all the works, attributes, and characters peculiar to Jehovah, the God of Israel, and the only true God, are fre-_ quently 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 Messias, 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 un- doubtedly 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 Apo- stles, though they represent the Messias as being the same with the God of Israel; yet for all this are but bare allusions and accommodations, made indeed — - THE PREFACE. v 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 opimion more apt to over- throw 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 quota- tions, 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, be- cause they testified of him, John v. 39g. if those Scriptures could only give a false notion of him, by intimating that the Messias 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 ‘Opnpéxevtpa; 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 aA vi THE PREFACE. 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 pro- mises 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 perni- cious 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 Messias,) yet they ever maintained that those doctrines were so clearly set down in the books of the Old Testa- ment, that they could not be opposed by them, who acknowledge those books to come from God ; espe- cially since the Jews are therein told, that the Mes- sias, 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 ancient 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 Pro- phets ; so that those doctrines could not be rejected, THE PREFACE. Vii without accusing the Divine Spirit, the author of those books, of shortness of thought, in not foresee- ing 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 es- sence, yet so as to establish at the same time a dis- tinction in his nature, which, according to the no- tion which himself gives of it, we call Trinity of Persons: and that when he promised that the Mes- slas 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 seat ane On the other side, the heretics were so gravelled, that they broke ito opinions quite con- trary 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 * Vili THE PREFACE. 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 Sabel- lius, who opposed that doctrine, were soon obliged to recant: and then from one extremity they shortly fell into another. For being satisfied that the Scrip- ture does attribute to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, the Divine nature, which is con- stantly in the Old Testament expressed by the name Jehovah; they undertook, contrary to the plain no- tions 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 Scrip- ture 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 Di- vinity 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 formed 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 de- stroyed one by the other; for the Arians on the one side did confound Artemas’s disciples, by proving THE PREFACE. ix 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’s 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 shews how strange their doctrine appeared to them who examined it by the books of the Old and the New Testament. "i 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 shews, that they could not answer those arguments from Scripture which were urged against them. I observe this last thing, that Arius’s 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 Van- dal 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 tem- poral punishments. Besides, that the first mventors of that heresy had spread it before such time as Constantine, by vanquishing Licinius, became mas- a er THE PREFACE. ter 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 been a Gospel-doctrine : not to say that these laws, and their authority, ex- tended no further than the Roman empire. What bad happened in those ancient times, soon after the Christian Church was established, hap- pened hkewise again in the last century, at the re- formation 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 alter some men, who being weary of the Popish tyranny, both in doctrine and worship, did faney 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 stum- ble at. And the Roman Church having obtruded upon her votaries such mysteries as were directly repugnant to reason, they imagined that the doc- trines 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 Tes- tament, they might easily enough have confuted them. But being forced to own the authority of THE PREFACE. x1 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 funda- mental doctrines of Christianity ; and thus were as divided in opinions about those matters, as the an- cient heretics had been before them. For whilst some of them, as Leelius 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 down- right 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 Scrip- ture, that God alone is to be adored, justly con- cluded 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 shew, 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 xii THE PREFACE. the business of the true Church, which ever op- posed to the enemies of the Trinity, and of the Godhead of Christ, the authority of the holy Scrip- ture, 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 God- head inferior to that of the Father. I cannot but admire, that they who within these few years have in this kingdom embraced Socinus’s opinions, should consider no better how little suc- cess they have had elsewhere against the truth, and that upon the score of their divisions, which will unavoidably follow, till they can agree in unani- mously rejecting the authority of Scripture. Nei- ther 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 dexterous than they in ex- pounding of Scriptures. But being resolved by all means to defend their _tenents, some chief men amongst them have under- taken 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 Scrip- ture. It was much less difficult to undertake So- cinus himself, because he owned however the au- THE PREFACE. Xii thority of Scripture, and that it had not been cor- rupted. But one knows not how to deal with his dis- ciples, 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’s 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 au- thority 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 bring- ing 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 Chris- tianity, that is, the authority of Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, which are the very word of God. And it has been plainly shewed them that what alterations soever they have made in Socinus’s opinions, yet their new conceits are neither more rational than his, nor more agreeable to Divine revelation. XIV THE PREFACE. 1 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 essen- tially God, is to affirm a downright contradiction, viz. that without partaking of the Divine essence he received one of the attributes which are essen- tial 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 altoge- ther false, as false as many of the Schoolmen’s spe- culations, even the absurdest of them that are ex- ploded 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 eter- nal 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 mak- ing out this observation, without meddling at all . with his arguments drawn from the Fathers, to shew > 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 PREFACE. XV 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 con- verted the Jews and the Gentiles over to the Chris- tian 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 acknow- ledged by the ancient J ewish Church. ue TUR eA Aare ite ai a " ’ oeange cs ime A ee Lv, ae ee Ma Deg iris | vo it 2) OM \ ig ‘Aad 4 ae THE TABLE OF CHAPTERS. THE PREFACE. CHAPOTS The design of this book, and what matters it treats of P. 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 tra- dition of their fathers, which was in many things ap- proved by Christ and his Apostles - - - 9 . GHAPSILI: That the Jews had certain traditional maxims and rules for the understanding of the holy Scripture —- - 25 CHAPUEY. That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of the Christian doctrine by this common traditional expo- sition received among the Jews, which they could not have done, (at least, not so well,) had there been, in those texts which they alleged, such a literal sense only as we can find without the help of such an exposition 42 CHAP. V. Of the authority of the apocryphal books of the Old Tes- tament - - - = he PAY hye ~ 53 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 he had ever heard of Christ, or of the Christian religion 6O XVill The Table of Chapters. CHAP. VII. Of the authority and antiquity of the Chaldee para- phrases = he = ye ee ers67 CHAP. VIII. That the authors of the apocryphal books did acknowledge a Plurality, and a Trinity in the Divine nature - 79 CHAP. IX. That the Jews had good grounds to acknowledge some kind of Plurality in the Divine nature - - - 93 CHAP. X. That the Jews did acknowledge the foundations of the be- lief of a Trinity in the Divine nature; and that they had the notion of it - - ~ - - - itl CHAP. XI. That this notion of a Trinity in the Divine nature has con- tinued among the Jews since the time of our Lord Jesus Christ... - - * - = - Bay. CHAP. XII. %. That the Jews had a distinct notion of the Word as of a Person, and of a Divine Person too - . - 146 — 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 = - ~ - - - - - 161 CHAP. XIV. That all the appearances of God, or of the Angel of the Lord, which are spoken of in Moses’s time, have been referred to the Word of God by the ancient: Jewish Church - - - - - - -. 172 CHAP. XV. That all the appearances of God, or of the Angel of the Lord, which are spoken of in the books of the Old Testa- ment after Moses’s time, have been referred to the Word of God by the Jews before Christ’s incarnation 187 The Table of Chapters. xix CHAP. XVI. That the ancient Jews did often use the notion of the Adyos, or the Word, in speaking of the Messias_ . - - 203 CHAP. XVII. That the Jews did acknowledge that the Messias was to be the Son of God . - - - - - 213 CHAP. XVIII. That the Messias was represented in the Old Testament as being Jehovah that should come, and that the ancient synagogue did believe him to be such - - 223 CHAP. XIX. That the New Testament does exactly follow the notions which the ancient Jews had of the Trinity, and of the Divinity of the Messias —- - - - - 235 ‘CHAP. XX. That both the Apostles and the first Christians, speaking of the Messias, did exactly follow the notions of the ancient Jews, as the Jews themselves did acknowledge 251 CHAP. XXI. That we find in the Jewish authors after the time of Jesus Christ, the same notions upon which Jesus Christ and his Apostles grounded their discourses to the Jews 262 CHAP. XXII. An answer to some exceptions taken from certain expres- sions used in the Gospels - - - - - 272 CHAP. XXIII. That neither Philo, nor the Chaldee paraphrasts, nor the Christians, have borrowed from the Platonic philo- sophers their notions about the Trinity; but that Plato hath more probably borrowed his notions from the books of Moses and the Prophets, which he was acquainted with . - - > - - . - 283 CHAP. XXIV. An answer to some objections of the modern Jews, and of the Unitarians - - - - : - 293 xx The Table of Chapters. CHAP. XXV. An answer to an objection against the notions of the an- cient Jews compared with those of the modern 305 CHAP. XXVI. That the Jews have laid aside the old explications of their forefathers, the better to defend themselves in their dis- putes with the Christians - - - ~ - 314 CHAP. XXVII. That the Unitarians in opposing the doctrines of the Tri- nity, and our Lord’s Divinity, do go much further than the modern Jews, and that they are not fit persons to convert the Jews - - - - - - 332 A Dissertation concerning the Angel who is called the Re- deemer, Gen. xlvili. - - ~ - - - 349 THE JUDGMENT OF THE ANCIENT JEWISH CHURCH AGAINST THE UNITARIANS, &c. hae a CHAP. I. The design of this book, and what matters it treats of. Ir the doctrines of the ever blessed Trinity, and of the promised Messias being very God, had been altogether unknown to the Jews before Jesus Christ began to preach the Gospel, it would be a great prejudice against the Christian religion. But the contrary being once satisfactorily made out, will exe) 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 ad- mitted: 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 Adgyos in the Chaldee paraphrases, in answer to Wechner, who had proved that St. John used B 2 The Judgment of the Jewish Church this word in the first chapter of his Gospel, in the same sense that the Chaldee parapbrases had used it before Christ’s time; and consequently, that it 1s to be understood of a Person properly so called m the blessed Trinity: which way of interpreting that word, because it directly overthrew the Soci- nian doctrine, which was then, that St. John by the word adyos 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 es- sential 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 Fa- ther, as we do affirm it to be. And whereas Soci- nus taught, that Christ was made God, and there- fore is a proper object of religious worship; now the Unitarians, who believe him to be no other than a mere human creature, following the prin- ciples of Christianity better than Socinus, condemn the religious worship which is paid to him. As they do believe that the Jews had the same notions of the Godhead and Person of the Messias which they have themselves, so they think they have done the Christian religion an extraordinary service in thus ridding it of this double difficulty, which hinders the conversion of the Jews. Mr. N. one of their ablest men, having read Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, in which Trypho says, that he did not believe that the Messias was to be other than man, makes use of this passage of Trypho to prove, that the doctrines of the Divinity of the Mes- sias, and by consequence of the Trinity, were never against the Unitarians. 3 acknowledged by the Jews. This he does in a book, the title whereof is, The Judgment of the Fathers against Dr. Bull. His design being to prove, that Justin Martyr, about 140 years after Christ, was the first that held the doctrine of Christ’s Divinity, and by conse- quence that of the Trinity, without which the other cannot be defended; he found it necessary to as- sert, | 7 ist. That since the Jews, by Trypho’s testimony, did own the Messias 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 some Christians in masque- rade, that lived since Justin Martyr’s time; and this he applies in particular tothe works of Philo the Jew, and to the Book of Wisdom. 3dly. That since the Jewish authors could not possibly mention any thing like the doctrines of the Trinity, and of the Messias’s being God too, to which they were such perfect strangers; what- soever occurs in any of. the ancient Jewish books, that favours those doctrines, must needs have been foisted in by the 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 Chris- tian religion. Now though it seems unnecessary to dispute any further against him, having already clearly shewn, in my discussion of Mr. N.’s Judgment of the Fa- thers, that Justin Martyr was not the broacher of those doctrines, as Mr. N. pretends; yet I am will- B 2 4 The Judgment of the Jewish Church ing to give a more full satisfaction to the world about it, by examining what either Mr. N. or any others have said or can say on this subject, and shewing that the bold answers to Dr. Bull’s- proofs concerning the opinion of the Jews before Christ about those doctrines, are not 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 bot- tom, I might set these controversies in their true light; shewing how little credit some divines do deserve, who, playing the critics, have favoured the modern Jews and the Socinians with all their might, and do mislead those who upon such un- grounded authority too rashly believe, that these fundamental doctrines of Christianity came from Plato’s school; when on the contrary it is certain, that Plato himself, by conversing with the Jews in Egypt, borrowed of them the best notions he had 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 doc- trine drawn from Scripture, and acknowledged for the common faith of the Church; and I shall shew, that both before and after Christ, 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 im many parti- culars. adly. I will examine the erounds the Jews went upon, to come to the understanding of the Old Tes- tament, particularly of that part which contains the promises of the Messias, as they had it in Christ’s time, and still have it to this day. against the Unitarians. 5 3dly. I will shew by some examples, that Christ and his Apostles did prove many articles of the Christian doctrine by this exposition, commonly received among the Jews; which thing 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 author- ity 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 ¢radi- tional sense of the Old Testament, as it was received in the synagogue before Christ’s time. This is ab- solutely necessary to be done; for without proving the authority of those apocryphal books, of Philo, and of those paraphrases, we cannot with any force and weight use their testimony in this controversy, as I intend to do. This being despatched, I shall prove clearly, that the Jews before Christ’s time, according to the re- ceived 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 con- trary to what Mr. N. bas imagined, the most learn- ed amongst them have constantly retained those notions, though perhaps they were divided in their opinions about the Messias’s Godhead, and the doc- trine 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 Testa- ment dispensation, and was adored as being God’s representative ; I shall inquire what was the opin- B3 6 The Judgment of the Jewish Church ion of the ancient Jews concerning these matters ; and shew, that they owned the Word to be a divine Person; and that it was that Word that appeared in the Old Testament; and consequently, that no- thing is more false than what some Socinians teach after Grotius, (upon the Book of Wisdom, ch. xviii. 15.) grounding it upon his opinion of an angel’s ap- pearing and being adored; that therefore it was lawful for the Jews under the Old Testament to worship angels; but that afterwards it was first forbidden to Christians under the New; as namely, by St. Paul, Coloss. xi. 18. And that the Socinians may have nothing left them to reply against this, I shall descend to parti- culars, and shew at large, that, according to the doctrine of the old synagogue, the Jews appre- hended the Word as a true and proper Person; and held, that that Word was the Son of God; that he was the true God; that he was to be in the Messias; and that the Messias was promised under the Old Testament, as Jehovah; and accordingly the old synagogue expected that he should be Je- hovah indeed. It is of great moment to satisfy the world of these truths, and to make the Socinians sensible that they cannot truly profess the Christian religion without owning those doctrines, to which yet they seem to be so averse. Therefore I will go farther, and distinctly shew, that the whole Gospel is grounded on those very notions which the Jews before Christ entertained; that the first Christians after the Apostles exactly followed them; and that the Jews themselves, following generally those very notions upon the chief texts of the Old Testament which Christians quote in those controversies, bear witness, that they were the undoubted doctrines both of them and of the Christians before Justin Martyr's time. The men that we have to do with, do very con- against the Unitarians. 7 fidently affirm any thing that comes into their heads, be it never so little probable, so they may thereby give any plausible solutions of the difficul- ties by which they find themselves entangled and perplexed: and they are much given to brag 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 ancient Jews held concerning those doctrines, which were exactly followed and fully declared by the Apostles and first Christians. And because I foresee some objections may arise, I will shew that nothing can be more absurd than to imagine, that the Jews, or the first Christians, borrowed their notions about the Trinity, or the Divinity of Christ, from Plato’s disciples; whereas Plato hath in truth followed the Jewish notions of those things. After this I shall make it appear, that however some of the modern Jews have changed their opin- ions in these articles, yet the Socinians can make no advantage thereof, because the Jews have really 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 shew, that the Socinians, to defend themselves against the orthodox, have been forced to imitate those modern Jews, and have much outdone them in changing and shifting their opinions when they dispute with Christians. I hope to manage this controversy with the Soci- nians 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 BA 8 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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; and when they have better considered this, 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 ot the Old Testament, for which It was quoted in the New, and without which it would have signified little or nothing to those pur- poses for which it was alleged. And so it will ap- pear that for all their brags of the aptness and even necessity of their way for the conversion of the Jews, they have taken the direct way to harden them, by giving up that sense of the Old Testament Scriptures, which Christ and his Apostles made use of for the converting of their forefathers. But we have the less reason to complain of them for this, when we see how apt they are to question the authority of the books of the New Testament, as oft as they find them so clearly opposite to their doctrines, that they cannot obscure the light of them by any tolerable exposition. To shew that I do not say this without cause, I shall make it good in some instances in the last chapter of this book. against the Unitarians. , 9 ~ CHAP. IL. That in the times of Jesus Christ our blessed Sa- viour, the Jews had among them a common ex- plication of the Scriptures of the Old Testa- ment, grounded on the tradition of their fathers, which was in many things approved by Christ and his Apostles. "DHE Jews have to this day a certain kind of tra- dition received from their forefathers, which contains 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 Se- pher, 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 cer- tainly of the same authority as the rest of the re- velation, though 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 imagin- able reverence; we like very well the judgment of Maimonides, who leaves as uncertain whatsoever the Jewish doctors speak upon many things, as being without ground when their tradition is not gathered from texts of Scripture, de Regib.c. 12. The se- cond order is of. the ceremonies and rites which they keep, as having been delivered once upon 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 the several places of their dispersion. Though in many things they cannot but see that 10 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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 author- ity 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. xv. 3. Of this sort were all the traditions which were condemned by our Lord Jesus Christ: he plainly calls them the commandments of men, Matt. 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, Matt. xv. 3. yet they gave their tradition the preference, and so as our Saviour there tells them, ver. 9. they made the command- ments of God of no effect by their tradition. The authors 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 Seleucid, and they were the leaders of those several sects that corrupted their religion, by adding to it a great number of observations which were per- fectly new. We have therefore no reason to look upon this sort of tradition as the source from whence the Jews in Christ’s time drew their mea- sures 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 tra- ditions, 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 against the Unitarians. 11 Scriptures; and of other things they had more per- fect and minute accounts, than are recorded in the writings of Moses and the Prophets. Particularly Philo the Jew, writing of the life of De Vita Moses, declares that what he had to say of him was {9,23 taken partly out of Scripture, and partly received Genev. Ib. by tradition from their forefathers.. Of this latter’ *”°™ sort was the long account he there gives of Moses being brought up in all the learning of the Egypt- ians; for there is nothing of this in the Old Testa- ment. Therefore when St. Stephen says the same thing, Acts 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, two of the magicians that resisted Moses and the truth, 2'Tim. ii. 8. for their names are no where in Scripture, but they are in Jonathan’s Targum on Exod. i. 15. and vii. 11. from whence also they are taken into Talmud San- hedrin mm, 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. quer. erudit. gratia, p. 375. edit. Gen.) Mechil. fol. do assure us of. And though the modern Jews deny 7)! this, and say the pot was of earth, yet it is acknow- mah, fol. ledged by the Samaritans that it was of gold. This? °!* must have been from tradition, because there is no | such thing said in Scripture. It was from hence that the Apostle had that say- ing of Moses, when he saw the dreadful appearance of God upon mount Sinai, Heb. xn. 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 other- wise than from the Jewish tradition. 12 The Judgment of the Jewish Church From hence also St. Jude, 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, (Anz. 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. et Ori- gen. wep Apyay, il. 2.] Grotius tells us, the Jews have the like things in their Midrash on Deut. in the Aboth of R. Nathan, and in some other books. It was from hence that St. Paul understood that some of the prophets were sawn asunder, Heb. xi. 37. Though he spoke in the plural, he meant it only Origen.Re-of one, saith Origen, namely of the prophet Esay, spons. @¢ who was sawn asunder by the command of Manas- ses, according to the Jewish tradition. Which also is mentioned by Justin Martyr, as a thing out of dispute between him and Trypho 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 Zachary the son of Barachiah, who was killed between the temple and the altar, Orig. ib. Matt. xxii. 35. which Origen there also mentions as p-232, &e. 4 Jewish tradition, though, he says, they suppressed it as being not for the honour of their nation. I do not deny but that there might be some an- cient authors, besides the canonical writers, who kept the memory of these names of persons, and Joseph. Other matters of fact: as for example, that there Ant. 1.19. were eighteen high priests who officiated in the first temple, though they are not all mentioned in Scrip- ture. 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. against the Unitarians. 13 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 a very high esteem and veneration among them, 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 na- ture, when he quoted that which is not found in ex- press words in any of the writings of the Prophets ; as that the Messias should be called a Nazarene, Matt. 11. 23. if he doth not allude to the idea of the Jews, who referred to the Messias the Netzer, or Branch spoken of by Isaiah, xi. 1. So Christ him- self may seem to have alluded to a passage in one of these books, John vil. 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, as Jerom (in Ephes. v. 14.) observes, has cited divers such apocryphal books, accommo- dating 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 quo- tations out of books that are lost, as, 1 Cor. 11. 9. out of an apocryphal book that went under the name of the prophet Elias; and, Ephes. v. 14. out of an apo- cryphal 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 en- vy, are not in any books of the Old Testament; nor are the following words, God resisteth the proud, but he giveth grace to the humble: and yet both these sayings are quoted as Scripture by the holy 14 The Judgment of the Jewish Church Apostle. Of the first he saith plainly, 7 pay Aéyes, the Scripture saith. 'Then he goes on to the other, and of that he saith also Aéye, without any nomi- native case but 7 Tpady before mentioned, which implies that the Scripture saith this also. Now what Scripture could he mean? for it is certain that neither of these sayings is any where else in our Scriptures. He must therefore mean one or other of the apocryphal books. And one of the Fathers, that was born within. a hundred years after St. James's death, gives a very probable guess at the book that he intended. It is Clement of Alexan- dria, who saith of the latter quotation, “These are “ the words of Moses,” Strom. iv. p. 376. meaning in all likelihood of the Analepsis of Moses, which book is mentioned by the same Clement elsewhere, on Jude ver. 9. as a book well known in those times in which he lived. Therefore it is very probable that the words also of the former quotation were taken from the Analepsis of Moses, and it was that apocryphal book that St. James quoted, and called it Scripture. This can be no strange thing to him that consi- ders what was intimated before, that the Jews had probably these books joined to their oynInD, or Hagiographa; and therefore they might well be called Ppapa:, 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 vii. 24. from Sophia in the Scrip- tures: and the Book of Ecclesiasticus is called 4 Tpa- oy seven or eight times in his writings, | Ped. i. 10. li. 5, et ver. Svis. et LOmis. 111.3, 11.] So it is quoted by Origen with the same title, Orig. in Jerem. Hom. xvi. p.155.D. There are many of the like instances to be found in the writings of the ancientest Fa- thers. They usually called such books the Scrip- tures, and sometimes the holy Scriptures; and yet against the Unitarians. 15 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. 111. 16. The same is to be said of the prophecy of Enoch, out of which St. Jude brings a quotation in his Epi- stle, ver. 14,15. Grotius,in his annotations on the place, saith, this prophecy was extant in the Apo- stles’ 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 Zo- har, and was not unknown to Celsus the heathen philosopher, for he also cited it, as appears by Origen’s answer to him, [ Origen. in Cels. lib. v.] Grotius also shews, that this book is often cited by the primitive Fathers ; and he takes notice of a large piece of it that is preserved by Georg. Syncellus in his Chronicon. And whereas in this piece there are many fabulous things, he very well judges that they might be foisted in, as many such things have been thrust into very aucient books. But whether his conjecture in this be true or no, it is certain that the piece which is quoted by St. Jude was truly the prophecy of Enoch, because we have the Apo- stle’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 Testa- ment. For example, St. Matthew, 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, as Mr. Mede has proved by many arguments. It is by the Mede's help of these traditions, that the ancient interpreters jo"? have added to the Psalms such titles as express 1022. ” their design, and their usage in the synagogue. Certainly these titles, which shew the design of De Cultu Divino, Tract. de Sacrificiis Jugibus, c. 6. sect. 9. _ Preefat. in Psalmos. Tehillim Rabbat. in Ps. 24. fol. 22. col. 2. Tehillim Rab. ib. 16 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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 ap- prehend more perfectly than he can do that reads the Psalms without these assistances. And for the titles of several Psalms in the Septuagint, and other of the ancient translations, which shew on what days they were sung in the public worship of the Jews; as Ps. xxiv. xlviil. Ixxxi. Ixxxii. xciti. xciv. &c. though these titles are not in the Hebrew, and therefore are not part of the Jewish Scriptures; yet that they had the knowledge of this by tradition we find by Maimonides, who though a stranger to those trans- lations, 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, and David Kimchi; and we see an instance of this rule in that quotation of Ps. xev. 7. which is ascribed to David in Heb. iv. 7. II. From hence they have learnt also an- other rule, by which they distinguish between the Psalms spoken by David in his own name, 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. From thence they have learned to distin- guish between the Psalms in which the Holy Ghost spoke of the present times, and those in which he speaks of the times to come, viz. of the time of the Messias. So R. David Kimchi and others agree, that the Psalms xciii. xciv. till the Psalm ci. speak of the days of the Messias. So they remark upon Ps. xcii. 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. against the Unitarians. 17 By the help of tradition also they clear the text, Ix. xl. 40. where it is said, that the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was Sour hundred and thirty years. It would be a great mistake of these words, to think the meaning of them should be, that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt four hundred and thirty years: for in the truth they dwelt 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 dwelt in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, they and their fathers, was four hundred and thirty 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 Alex- andrian LXX. That they were in the right, we see by the Apostle’s reckoning the time to have been four hundred and thirty years, from the promise made to Abraham at his coming into Canaan, till the giving of the Law upon mount Sinai, which was but fifty days after their coming up out of Egypt. In like manner from tradition they tilled up that place, Gen. iv. 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 Sama- ritans have it in their Bibles, and they had it there in St. Hierom’s time. It is also extant in the Jerusalem Targum. Philo the Jew. philoso-tin. q. phizes on these words much after the same man- {St sata ner as the Targum doth. sas 4. It is certain that they have had very common among them the knowledge of the most illustrious prophecies of the Messias. This we may_see in the answer of the Samaritan woman to our blessed Sa- viour, John iv. 25. where she saith, J know that when the Messias is come, he will tell us all things. For though it is no where plainly said so, yet the c John xii. 34, 18 The Judgment of the Jewish Church Samaritans knew full well, that the Messias would explain all things, according to the traditional sense of that prophecy in Deut. xvin. 15, 18, 19. which hath been so constantly referred to the Messiah, that we find till this day in the Midrash upon Ec-— clesiast. ch. i. 9. that the last Redeemer shall be like the first, that is, Moses. And in consequence of this knowledge commonly received among the Jews, did they of Christ’s time hold for certain, that the Messiah should remain for ever ; which their posterity not knowing bow to reconcile with their notion of the Messias, they fancied that the Messias 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, Matt. ii. 5, 6. that the Messiah should be. born at Bethlehem, according to. Micah’s pro- phecy, though it 1s not plainly said so in the text. of that: prophecy, Micah v. 2. Hence also it was that John the Baptist, Matt. 11. 5, 6. found the people of the Jews so well disposed for repentance, that they might escape God’s judgments threatened on the nation at the coming of the Messiah, accord- ing to Joel’s prediction recited Acts ii. 16. and that other prophecy in Malachi iv. 5. Hence it was that when John the Baptist sent his disciples to our Saviour to ask him, Whether he were the Messias or no; our Saviour gave them this answer, Matt. 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. against the Unitarians. 19 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 shew that they were exactly acquainted with the ideas of the prophets upon the Divinity and the glory of the Messias, such as we see in the Book of Wisdom, in Ecclesiasticus, and in Baruch, have been foisted in by the Christians in. those books, when to the contrary they might have seen that the Jews have laid aside these books for that very reason, viz.. because they were a strong proof that theApostles did apply the prophecies of the Old Tes- tament according to the sense of the synagogue before Jesus Christ. | It was from hence that our blessed Saviour in the same chapter, Matt. xi. shewed the multitude, that John the Baptist was the messenger promised by God in Malachi iii. 1. as he that should be the fore- runner of the Messiah, and that should prepare his way by exhorting the people to repentance: and he proves that John the Baptist was so, by the great success 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, [ “ib. de The- rapeutis, 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 Psalm xev. 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 fore- shewing that the age of the world should be. six thousand years; and understands the sabbath, or rest, of the times after ; founding their exposition on the words of the xcth Psalm, 4 thousand years in th sight are as but one day: that is to be seen in R. Abraham bar Hiya Hannashi Megillat ha Megillat Saar. 2. in Ramban upon Gen. ii. 2. in Abarbanel C2 20 The Judgment of the Jewish Church Miphaloth Eloh. lib. i. c. 4. See Manasseh Ben Is. Concil. q. 30. in Genes. et de Creat. Problem xi. Another example of this thing 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. and 1 Cor. xv. 47. in comparing the first ddam with Jesus Christ, whom he calls the second Adam. The Jews have the same idea of the Messias, as of the second Adam, who shall raise all his followers from the sepulchre, as we see in Pirke Eliezer, chap. 32. This method of explaining the Scriptures ought to be carefully considered, because it gives us to understand the reasons why the Jews have looked upon the Song of Songs as a part of canonical Scrip- ture, and have referred it to the Messias, aS we see they do in their Targum, in Cant. i. 8. iv. 5. vu. 14. viii. 1,4. The same reflection may be made on their acknowledging of the divine authority of the Book of Ruth, wherein their Targum mentions the Messias, chap. ii. 15. And the like may be said of Eccle-. siastes, certain texts of which, as chap. 1. 18. and viii. 25. they refer to the Messias, which otherwise seem not to have much relation to him. | In truth, one cannot well deny that the Jews had this common knowledge of great truths of their religion, and a traditional exposition of great pro- phecies, from their ancestors, to clear their ideas thereof, if he considers attentively these followmg remarks. First, that since their return from the Babylonian captivity, they were never euilty of idolatry : except, for a little while, in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when some wicked men apostatized, and brought a force upon others, by which many were driven to against the Unitarians. — 21 idolatry. But some chose rather to die than to yield to it, 1 Mac. i. 62, 63. 11. 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 explain- ed by their Doctors, they should give no attention to the great promises of the Messias, whose coming was spoken of by some of the Prophets, as being very near at hand. See Dan. ix. Hag. 11. Mal. ii. The second is, that their zeal for the Scriptures, and their religion, was really much quickened by the cruel persecution which they suffered from An- tiochus Epiphanes; whose tyrannical fury did par- ticularly 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. Apion. Especially since they came under the power of the Ptolemies and the Seleucide, 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 Ec- clesiasticus, 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 Pro- phets, and to explain them in a language intelligible C3 22 The Judgment of the Jewish Church & to the people; the knowledge of the Hebrew being in a great, measure lost during the time of the Ba- bylonian captivity. . The sixth is, that it does indeed appear, that this was the proper time in which the Jewish para- phrases began first to be formed. ‘They were began and carried on insensibly ; one adding some Chaldee words in the margin of his book, opposite to the text, which the people did not understand so well: another adding to these some notes in another place ; till at length Jonathan and Onkelos, or som«¢ other Doctor of Jerusalem, gathered together all these observations, and made thence those para- phrases which we have under their name. For the confirmation of this conjecture, consider, 1. That we find in these paraphrases very many explications, which can 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 them- selves obliged in many particulars to reject the opinions and refute the confessions of their ances- tors. 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 eighth century, and the following ages, when most of their learning was reduced within this compass; to compile glosses, and to collect the opinion of those that went before them, upon difficult places; and after that, to form out of all these glosses one continued paraphrase upon the whole book, as if it had been the judgment and work of one and the same author. It is the cha- racter of all the books which they call Catene upon Scripture. I know that some critics call in question the against the Unitarians. 23 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 Uz- ziel. But what does this make for their doubting the antiquity of these pieces? Do we question whe- ther there was a Greek version of the Old Testa~ ment before Christ’s time, because we can hardly believe Aristeas’s 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 the 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 ne- cessarily 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 be- come subject to the Greeks, did by insensible de- grees change their principles, and-alter their expo- sitions of the Scripture, as they adopted the ideas of the Greek philosophers, whose opinions they then began to borrow. In short, it may be con- ceived by some, that the several sects, which arose among the Jews long before Christ’s time, did con: siderably alter the opinions of the synagogue, and did corrupt their tradition, and the notions they had from the most ancieut doctors of their schools. cA 24 The Judgment of the Jewish Church In answer to all this. It is certain that the cor- ruption that reigned among the Jews was princi- pally in their morals; for which, though they had very good precepts in their Law; yet the true mean- ing of them was spoiled and corrupted with glosses, which were devised, as I have shewed, in later times; and with these, being stampt with the name of tradition, they evaded the force of the laws. There were then but very few that had not an aversion to the Greek learning, and those few ap- plied themselves to it, while they were in Judea, with great caution and secrecy, lest they should be looked upon as heathens. Josephus witnesseth of that, Antig. 1. 20. c. ult. As to what is inferred from the many sects among the Jews, the quite contrary 1s 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 be esteemed, 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 ram- pier of the Law. To conclude, we ought carefully to take notice, 1. That St. John the 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 loose casuists had introduced into their morals; with which he charges the Scribes and Pharisees, in particular. 3. That the doctrine of the Sadducees, which he refutes on against the Unitarians. 25 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 lovers of religion. This we may learn from Philo in some pieces of his works, especially lib. quod omnis probus sit liber, p. 078. 5. That the Jews, though they have entertained very gross ideas concerning a temporal kingdom of the Messias; and though to support these ideas, they have confounded the sense of divers prophe- _ eles, in endeavouring to reconcile them to their car- nal notions, and in bringing in new explications of the Old Testament; yet have they not been able quite to extinguish their ancienter ideas and princi- ples: their new ideas passing for no more at the best than the opinions of their celebrated doctors, which another doctor may oppose if he will, espe- cially when he is backed with those that are an- cienter and of a greater authority. nent CHAP. III. That the Jews had certain traditional maxims and rules for the understanding of the holy Scripture. W war I have now said concerning the tradi- tions of the synagogue, will, I believe, be scarcely disputed by any learned man; I am sure he will have less reason to oppose it, that considers the rules, which, as appears to us, were followed by the Jews in explaining the prophecies concerning their promised Messias. 1. It is certain that the Jews held this as a max- im, that all the prophets did speak of the Messias, and were raised up by God for this very end. This “gape we find more than once in their Talmud; and that sanhea. ° ‘ CLls 26 The Judgment of the Jewish Church it was a common tenet among them in Christ's time, we see it 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 ancient Jews upon places of the Old Testament, which they re- ferred constantly to the Messias; whereas some of the modern Jews endeavour to wrest them in an- other sense, not only follow these modern, but give occasion by these means to despise prophecies, and the clearest of them, as things quite insignificant. This is the absurdity Grotius fell into, who in the 53d of Isaiah, by the servant who is spoken of there absolutely, understands Jeremy the Prophet; whereas the ancient Jews refer that chapter directly to the Messias, as you can see in the old Midrash Chonen, in the Targum, in the Talmud Sanhed. fol. 98. c. 2. and that is acknowledged by R. Alshek. in h. 1. to be the sense of the ancient Jews. And indeed they hold as a maxim, that whensoever it is spoken absolutely of the servant, the place must be understood of the Messias, Zohar in Exod. fol. 225. and consequently they explained that prophecy of Isaiah as concerning the Messias. I can say the same upon another maxim of the ancient Jews, which is of great use, that wheresoever it is spoken of the King absolutely, the place must be under- stood of the Messias, Zohar in Gen. fol. 235. If Grotius had known it, he never would have referred the Ixiid Psalm, and some others, to Solomon in his literal sense as he hath done, but would have re- ferred it, as it must be, directly to the Messias. Certainly that shews us, that many of the ancient Jews understood the Prophets much better than, to their shame, such critics now do. I wonder many times at divines, who confess they cannot give any tolerable account of the Song of Songs, and look against the Unitarians. 27 upon it as a piece composed by Solomon upon the oceasion of his marriage with the daughter of E- gypt; whereas the Jews look upon it constantly as the last piece he. composed after his repentance; and we have reason enough to believe it, when we compare this Song with the xlvth Psalm and the fifth of Isaiah, that Solomon spoke then of the Mes- sias, the essential Word spoken of by him, Prov. 8. chiefly when we see the ancient Jews do agree upon it. See Philo de Colon. apud Grot. in Prov. vil. 22. Bresch. Rabba par. 1. the first words, and Midrash in shir hash. in Mercessu. But let us come back to our subject. 2. I say 2dly, that it is reasonable to judge, that the later Prophets having considerably cleared the prophecies of those that went before them, by diffusing throughout their writings a much greater light; they who read the later Prophets, were not so careless as to neglect these helps for the under- standing 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 an- ‘elent prophecies. According to this method, the paraphrases ascribe to the Messias, what we read of the seed of the woman, Gen. ili. 15. and what Balaam prophesied, Numb. xxii. and xxiv. And no one can doubt, but that after that great light that Isaiah gave them concerning the Messias and his. unction, in his prophecy, chap. xi. they referred to him those words also of Moses, Deut. xvi. 18. God shall raise thee up a Prophet like unto me, which are cited by St. Peter, as spoken of the Mes- sias, following herein the principles of the syna- gogue, Acts il. 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 2G). dhe Judgment of the Jewish Church fulfilling of that prophecy, Gen. xvii. 18. Jn thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; and likewise to Solomon, for that which we read 2 Sam. vil. 16. and Psal. Ixxvi. But seeing the prophecies were not accomplished in their persons, nor did answer their characters; and it is impos- sible that the prophecies should be false; the Jews were convinced, as they had reason, that they ought to refer these prophecies to the Messias; as also St. Paul did, according to the way of his nation. A. It is clear there were certain general characters of the Messias, which, wheresoever they were found, were commonly thought to denote that that place should be understood of the Messias. And it is worth observing, that the light still increasing from | one age to the other, and the characters of the Messias being every day better unfolded and more open, it was easy for them that studied the pro- phecies to compare one with the other, and from thence to draw rules to find out the ideas of the Messias, in those promises which seemed not so distinctly and evidently to speak of him. oi To give some examples of the rules which they gathered for their direction in discovering the pro- phecies that relate to the Messias; I say, that the most conspicuous character of him, and that which they most set their hearts upon, was this, that he should come in the later times to deliver his people from their enemies, and to reign over the whole earth in great peace, and prosperity, and glory. This in the main 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 dig- nity; they have been convinced, that both these descriptions are of one and the same person; and therefore notwithstanding the prophetical descrip- against the Unitarians. 29 tions of the glory of their promised Messias at his coming, they have acknowledged those prophecies to concern him also, which speak of his humilia- tion; 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 upon Isa. lili. where he is said to be loaded with griefs, and to be the most despised of men; as you see in the Targum, in the Talmud, and in Midrash Conen. ‘To which may be added that of David, Psal. xxii. and that of Zech. xii. 10. which treat of the same matter, and were referred to the Messias, as I shall shew after- wards. Thus we see, wherever salvation is spoken of, they refer those prophecies to the Messias, as to him who should be the author of salvation. It 1s by this rule that Isa. li. and lin. and Hab. 111. are understood of the Messias. Thus those places wherein the subjection and conversion of the nations are foretold, were by them judged, without any hesitation, to regard the times of the Messias. Saadias Haggaon interprets Zech. ix..Q@wof the Messias, because v. 10. Ais universal n is spoken of. And so R. David Kimchi refers to the Messias’s time the place of Zech. 11. 10, 11. Upon this known foundation does St. Paul build his interpretation of the Messias, Heb. 1. 10. out of Psalm cii. 25, &c. and Rom. xv. 11. out of Psalm exvii. 1. And, in short, all those Psalms which represent God as reigning over the whole earth, do relate to the Messias, according to the sense of the ancient Jews, as may be seen in many places of their paraphrases, and of their interpret- ers; as Rashi Kimchi and R. Joel Aben Soeb upon the Psalm xcix. and c. Thus again, when the Scripture foretells the call- ing of the Gentiles to the knowledge of the true God, they fail not to understand those predictions ‘of the times of the Messias, who should spread the » 30 The Judgment of the Jewish Church true religion throughout the world. Hence it is that Isa. ii. is so understood by them. agape NG In this manner did they reflect on the prophe- ug. p. athe . : , etlib.de cles that spake of the Messias’s priesthood, after Somn.p.. that David had enlightened them in Psal. cx. as SF recach ARON be seen from the notions of Philo the Jew, de Reka-_ touching the priesthood of the Word, by an allusion Pentat, fol. to the history of Melchizedek. 18. col. 1. | So likewise did they own that the promises of Saepe God to reestablish the house of David were to be ee o, accomplished by the Messias, and by this rule they Talmud in afirmed that Anna’s song did concern the time of Megillah. the Messias, for the words of that song do not et Abarb. : bs : : inl] Sam. agree neither to Saul nor to David, but to the time 2. Sanhed. of the Messias. As also they understood in like fol. 99. col. eee 2. cited in Manner the prophecy of Amos ix. 11, 15, 16, 17. the Acts. according to the sense of the synagogue and the prophecy of Zechary vi. 12, &c. Rabboth. fol. 271. col. 4. | They acknowledged according to these rules of interpretation, that where ascension into heaven, and sitting on God’s right hand, was spoken of, they were spoken. of the Messias; and thus) ey referred to him Psalm cx. and Psalm xlv. and m ‘Ixvin. and Psalm xevii. and what is. said Deut. xxxii. being all so many texts insisted upon by the writers of the New Testament, as passages which in the judgment of the Jews did concern the Mes- s1as. We ought especially to observe that they never failed to make those considerations upon those par- ticular Psalms, whereof the composers, as they un- derstood them, spoke in the name of the synagogue, with respect to future times, and who mention there a posterity that was to partake of the deliver- ance there promised. And-from this allowed max- im also does St. Paul, Heb. i. refer Psalm cii. to the Messias. For this character is found expressly in ver. 22. of this Psalm; as well as the calling of against the Unitarvans. 31 the Gentiles, and the subjection of the 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 emi- nent prophecies, viz. they understood them very ra- tionally, by the help of those ideas which they met with in other prophecies which otherwise seem not so clearly to concern the same Messias which is spoken of in clearer prophecies. It was according to that rule that they referred the hymn of Anna, 1 Sam. ii. 5. to the times of the Messias, Kimchi in h. 1. compareth it with the words of Isaiah, ch. liv. Rejoice thou barren that bearest not, &c. It was according to that method that they being convinced that the Psalm xxii. was to be referred to the Mes- sias, did refer also to him the Psalm xh. as it is re- ferred by St. Paul, Heb. x. the same ideas of suf- fering 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 Se- kinah, or Messias, all the Psalms which have the title Shosannin, viz. Psalm xlv. lxix. Ixxx. as we see in the same R. Menachem fol. 106. col. 2..in Pe ie The Song of Songs, as I have observed, was the key which made them understand the sub- ject of those Psalms, as the song of Isaiah chap. v. made them to understand the Song of Songs. I am not ignorant that the greatest 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 Mes- sias: fancying that he should come as a victorious Prince, to conquer, and to avenge them of their enemies. They removed from their thoughts the hints and prophecies of his death, as contrary to those glorious descriptions. which suited better with their minds. They expected the Messias should 32 The Judgment of the Jewish Church come to restore presently the kingdom unto Israel ; and, in a word, following their own desires and ima- ginations, they confounded Christ’s first coming with the second; and then confirmed themselves in this mistake, partly, because the Prophets seemed to describe the kingdom of the Messias very car- nally, 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 Messias at his coming. But after all, it is certain, 1. That the contrary opinions, concerning the spiritual sense of the pro- phecies, 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 reli- giousest part of their nation. 3. That the Apostles in their writings, as well as Christ Jesus in his dis- courses, cited the texts of the Old Testament ac- cording to the commonly received sense of the syn- agogue; 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 en- treat him to take in good part my entering a little further into the examination, of what the most stu- dious Jews in the holy Scriptures do commonly - propose under the name of tradition. Let them be looked upon by some men as whimsical 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 against the Unitarians. 33 wholly rejected. None but fools will think this a sufficient reason why all Pythagoras’s 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 re- storation of fallen mankind. To this in particular they bend their thoughts, and in this they endea- voured to instruct their readers, explaining to them, according to this sense, some places of Scripture, which at first sight seem not immediately to have a regard to so important a subject. 3. I observe that oftentimes, where they attribute these interpretations of Scripture to a tradition de- livered 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 con-_ cerning Adam, Gen. iii. 22. And now lest he stretch see Reuch. out his hand, and eat of the tree of life, and Bag, stele, ‘for ever; therefore God, as it follows, drove him’ ~*~ out of Paradise. From hence they infer, that God gave Adam hopes of becoming one day immortal, by eating of the tree of life, which they thought should be obtained for him by the Messias. Now it appears that our blessed Saviour did allude to this common opinion of the Jews, which was then es- teemed as a tradition, Rev. 11. 7. To him that over- cometh will I give to eat of the tree that is in the D Gen. iv. l. Reuchl. ib. p. 629. Reuchl. ib. p. 630, et 631, 34 The Judgment of the Jewish Church paradise of God. And this notion is repeated, Rev. xxi. 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 es- sence 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 Ge- nesis, 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. ii. 15: was understood by Adam and Eve of the Saviour of the world; and that Eve, who was full of the prospect of this, being delivered of her first son, she ™ called him Cain, saying, I have got a man, or this man from the Lord; believing that be was the pro- mised Messias. They tell us farther, that Eve be- ing 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 re- spect to Abel that was killed, not to his posterity by Cain, for they did bear the image of the Devil, rather than that of God: They maintain the name of Enos to have been given to Seth’s son upon the same account, because they thought him that ex- cellent 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 ear- Reuchl. ib. p. 632. nest 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, 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 against the Unitarians. 35 they observe that it was said to Abraham, and after- wards to Isaac, on purpose to shew them the mis- take of this opinion, In thy seed shall all the na- tions of the earth be blessed. A plain argument that the Jews anciently thought that these words did relate to the Messias, as did also St. Paul, Gal. ii. 16. They maintain, that Jacob believed that God Reuchl. ib. would make good 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 things also Jacob tells his sons,) that the Messias should not come but im the last days, ver. 1. when the sceptre was departed from Judah, and the lawgiver from be- tween his feet, ver. 10. They declare that ever since this prophecy, the Reuchl. ib. coming of the Messias for the redemption of man- kind has been the subject of the discourses of all the Prophets to their disciples, and the object of David's and all other prophets’ longings and desires. They maintain that David did not think himself Reucnl. iv. to be the Messias, because he prays for his coming,” °°*: Psalm xlii.3. Send out thy light, i. e. the Messias, as R. Salomon interprets it.. And from hence they conclude, that he speaks also of the Messias in Psalm Ixxxix. 15. They did think Isaiah spake of him, ch. ix. 6. So R. Jose Galileeus preefat. in Eccha Rabbati, as it is to be seen in Devarim Rabba Paras. tynNV at the end of it; and in Jalk. mn Is. §. 284. And in- deed what he there saith could not be meant of Hezekiah, who was born ten years before; nor was his kingdom so extensive nor so lasting, as is there foretold the Messias’s should be, but was confined to a small part of Palestine; and ended in Zede- kiah, one of his successors, not many generations afterwards. a And it is the general and constant opinion of the D2 36 The Judgment of the Jewish Church Jews, that Malachi, the last of the Prophets, spake of him, ch. iv. under the name of the Sun of Right- eousness: for this see Kimchi. 4. It ought to be well considered, that we owe the knowledge of the principles on which the Holy Ghost has founded the doctrine of types, to the Jews, who are so devoted to the traditions of their ancestors; which types, however they who read the Scripture cursorily, do ordinarily pass by, as things light and insignificant; yet it is true what St. Paul hath said 1 Cor. x. 11. that all things happened to the fathers in types, and were written for their instruction, upon whom the ends of the world are come, or who live in the last times, as the economy of the Gospel is called, and the last days by Jacob, Gen. xlix. 1. That is, acknow- ledged by the wise men of the nation in Shemoth Rabba Parasha 1, and by Menasseh ben Israel q. 6. in Isaiah, p. 23. Indeed the Jews, besides the literal sense of the ancient Scriptures, did acknowledge in them a mys- tical or spiritual sense; and this St. Paul lays down for a maxim, 1 Cor. x. 1, 2,3, &c. where he ap- plies to things of the New Testament all these fol- lowing types; namely, the coming of Israel out of Egypt, their passage through the Red sea, the his- tory 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 sub- tilty, perhaps,) the many divine and moral notions which the common prophetical figures do suggest to us. We see that they turned almost all their history into allegory. It plainly appears from St. Paul's way of arguing, Gal. iv. 22, &c. which could be of — no force otherwise. | We see that they reduced to an anagogical sense against the Unitarians. 37 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 Psalm xcv. 11. which words he makes the Psalmist speak of the Jeru- salem that is above; and this also is acknowledged by Maimonides de Peen. c. 8. This remark ought to be made particularly on the mystical signification which Philo the Jew gives to 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 taber- nacle, Antiq. ili. 9. gives us reason enough to be- lieve, that if he had lived to finish his design of explaining the Law according to the Jewish Mi- drashim, he would have abundantly justified this. way of explication, followed by St. Paul, with re- spect 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 per- son of the Messias, without any other proof than their simple affirmation: as for instance, that St. Peter should represent Christ as a new Noah, 1 Pet. iii. 21. and that St. Paul should propose Melchize- dek as a type of the Messias in respect to his sa- cerdotal office, Heb. vi. vii. unless the Jews. did allow this for a maxim, which flows naturally from the principle we have been establishing; namely, that these great men were looked on as the persons in whom God would fulfil his first promise; but that not being completely fulfilled im them, it was necessary for them that would understand it aright to carry their view much farther, to a time and a person without comparison more august, in whom the promise should be perfectly completed. It may be asked, why the prophecies seem some- time so applied to persons then living, that one D3 38 The Judgment of the Jewish Church would think he should not need to look any farther to see the fulfilling of them; as namely the prophe- tical prayer, as in behalf of Solomon, which is m Psalm lxxii. as the birth of a son promised to Isaiah, chap. vii. and chap. 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 for this a reason; with which the ancient Jews were not unacquainted. And it is this ; that though all these predictions had been di- rected 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 pro- phecy. 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 pro- pheey; and his kingdom was rent in his son’s time, the smaller part of it falling to his share, as the greater was seized by Jeroboam; so far was the kingdom of Solomon from being universal or ever- lasting, Isa. vii. 14. The son born to Isaiah, nei- ther 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 Saadia Ga- on Emu- noth c. 18. et D. Kim- chi in rad. mint. all the other Prophets, 2 Pet. i. 21. yet that the unction here spoken of, Isaiah ]xi. 1. did not be- long to him, but to the Messias, is acknowledged by the Jewish writers, and seems to have been so understood by those that heard our Saviour apply this prophecy to himself, Luke iv. 22. So that nothing was more judiciously done, and more agree- able to the known principles of the synagogue, than the question proposed to Philip by the eunuch, who reading the 53d of Isaiah, asked from him, Of whom did he speak ? of himself, or of another ? Again, it may be asked, why the Prophets called the Messias, David? and John the Baptist, Elias? against the Unitarians. 39 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 particu- larly, that the soul of Adam went into David, and the soul of David was the same with that of the Messias; I say, to pass by that, the true reason of such use of the names of David and Elias is this; because David was an excellent type of the Messias that was to come out of his loins, Acts il. 30, 31. And for John the Baptist, he came in the spirit and power of Elias, Luke i. 17; that is, he was in- spired 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 Messias 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 Messias. The Jews’ meaning and their applying those prophecies to the Messias in a mystical or spiritual sense, is founded upon a reason that offers itself to the mind of those that study the Scripture with attention. Before Jacob’s prophecy, there was no time fixed for the coming of the Messias; but after the deli- very of that prophecy, Gen. xlix. 10. there was no possibility of being deceived in the sense of those prophecies which God gave from time to time, full of the characters of the Messias. It was necessary, 1. That the kingdom should be in Judah, and not cease till the time about which they expected the coming of the Messias. 2. That the lesser author- ity, called here the lawgiver, should be also esta- blished in Judah, and destroyed before the coming of the Messias, which we knew came to pass under and by the reign of Herod the Great, and some dA | 40 The Judgment of the Jewish Church years before the death of our Saviour. And indeed the Talmudists say, that forty years before the de- solation of the house of the sanctuary, judgments of blood were taken away from Israel. Talm. Jerus. l. Sanhedr. c. dine. mammonoth. et Talm. Bab. C. Sanhedr. c. Hajou Bodekim. And Raymondus Martini, who writ this Pugio at the end of the thirteenth 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, Wo unto us, the sceptre is de- parted from Israel, and yet the Messias is not come. And therefore they who had this prophecy before them, could not mistake David, nor Solomon, nor Hezekiah, for the Messias: nor could they deceive themselves so far as to think this title was applica- ble to Zorobabel, or any of his successors. In short, there appeared not any one among the Jews before the times of our blessed Saviour, that dared assume this title of Messias; although the name of Anointed, which the word Messias signi- fies, had been given to several of their kings; as to David in particular. But since Jesus Christ’s com- ing, many have pretended to it. These things be- ing so, it is clear, that the prophecies which had not, and could not have their accomplishment in those, upon whose occasion they were first deli- vered, were to receive their accomplishment in the Messias, and consequently those prophecies ought necessarily to be referred to him. We ought by ‘all means to be persuaded of this. For we cannot think the Jews were so void of judg- ment as to imagine that the Apostles, or any one else in the world, had a right to produce the sim- ple 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 against the Unitarians. 4} for proof to convince reasonable men. But we see that the Jews did yield to such proofs out of Scrip- ture concerning the Messias, in which some critics do not see the force of those arguments that were convincing to the Jews. They must then have be- lieved that the true sense of such places was the li- teral sense in regard of the Messias, whom God had then in view at his inditing of these books; and that it was not literal in respect of him, who seems at first sight to have been intended by the prophecy. And now I leave it to the consideration of any unprejudiced reader that is able to judge, whether, if these principles and maxims I have treated of were unknown to the Jews, the Apostles could have made any use of the books of the Old Testament for their conviction, either as to the coming of the Messias, or the marks by which he was distinguish- able from all others, or as to the several parts of his ministry. But this is a matter of so great an im- portance, that it deserves more pains to shew that Jesus Christ and his Apostles did build upon such maxims as I have mentioned: and therefore all those 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. 42 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. IV. That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of the Christian doctrine by this common traditional exposition received among the Jews, which they could not have done, (at least, not so — well,) had there been, in those texts which they alleged, such a literal sense only as we: can find without the help of such an exposition. lr we make some reflections which do not require a great deal of meditation, it is clear that Jesus Christ was to prove to the Jews that he was the Messias whom they did expect many ages before, and whose coming they looked for, as very near. He could not have done so, if they had not been acquainted with their prophetical books, and with those several oracles which were contained in them. Perhaps there might have been some difference amongst them concerning some of those oracles, because there were in many of them some ideas which seem contrary one to another. And that was almost unavoidable, because the Holy Ghost was to represent the Messias both in a deep humi- liation and great sufferings, and in a great height of elory. But after all, the method of calling the Jews. was quite different from the method of calling the Gentiles. The first had a distinct knowledge of the chief articles of religion, which the heathens had not. They had all preparations necessary for the deciding this great question, whether Jesus of Na- zareth was the Messias, or not. ‘They had the sa- cred books of the Old Testament, they were ac- quainted with the oracles as well as with the Law. They longed after the coming of the Messias. ‘They had been educated all along, and trained up in the expectation of him. They had not only those sacred books in which the Messias was spoken of, but many among them had gathered the ideas of : against the Unitarians. 43 the Prophets upon that subject, as we see by the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. And indeed we see that Jesus Christ and his Apostles spake to the Jews according to the notions which were re- ceived among them. What I say will clearly ap- pear, if we do examine some of the citations made by Christ and his Apostles from the Old ‘Testament. For though Jesus Christ had in himself all the trea- sures of wisdom, and though his Apostles were di- vinely inspired, yet they ought to proportion what they said to the capacity of their hearers. ‘Their miracles were to move and dispose them to the re- ceiving of the truth, but their proofs and arguments were the properest 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, J 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, Matt. xxii. 32. His proof was by a nown 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, Exod. ii. 6, 15, 16. which Jesus Christ al- via leged to prove them by. The astonishment of the peas people on this occasion did not proceed from the p. 801.’ newness, of his, argument, as if they had never heard the like before; for they gathered also the doctrine of the resurrection from Moses’s 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 44 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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 22d chapter of St. Matthew, asked the Pharisees whose son the Messias was to be ? They answered, The Son of David ; i. e. the Scripture saith, he should descend from the line of David. Against which Christ raises this objection, How then does Davia in spirit, or inspired by the Spirit, call him Lord? And he alleges, to prove that David calls him Lord, the words of Psalm 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 Psalm cx. was the work of the Pro- phet David. 2. That this Psalm concerned the Messias. 3. That the name Adonai is in this place equivalent to the name Jehovah. ‘There is not any one of these things which the Jews will not dispute at this day. But that their forefathers did hold that these words were spoken to the Messias, it ap- pears by their Midrash on the Psalms, and Saadia Gaon on Dan. vil. 13. Indeed their Targum justi- fies all that our Saviour said in this place, not only in acknowledging that this Psalm was composed by David, but also that it was written for the Messias, who is therefore instead of d4donai called Memra, or the Word, according to Fagius’s reading, which is most natural to the place. But that Memra, the Word, denotes the Messias, shall be shewed in the sequel of this discourse. St. Paul has taken the same way, Acts xiii. 34. where he quotes these words from Isaiah lv. 3. I against the Unitarians. AS will give you the sure mercies of David. He refers this passage to the sending of the Messias, though the text seem obscure enough for such a reference. But he does it in pursuance of the explication given of it by the ancient Jews, who understood this chapter of the Messias. So does R. David Kimchi upon this verse, and Aben Ezra and Sam. Laniado, and R. Meir Ararma and Abarvanel. Upon the same ground he applies to the Messias in the same chap- ter the words of Psalm xvi. 10. Thou wilt not leave thy Holy One to see corruption. He proves that they could not be understood of David, seeing that his sepulchre, the monument of his corruption, ve- mained till that day. He ought first to have proved that this Psalm was spoken of the Messias, and then have proved that it could not. belong to David. But this method was needless, since he went on this known maxim among the Jews, that whatever Psalm was not fulfilled in David ought to be under- stood of the Messias. Let us proceed to another clear proof of this proposition: St. Paul, in Heb. i. 6. quotes a text from Moses’s song, Deut. xxxil. 43. according to the LXX. version. It is commonly believed that the quotation is out of Ps. xevii. 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 Mo- ses’s 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 or have not lost out of their Bibles this part of the ancient text since St. Paul’s time? They may in their own vindication shew, that neither have the Samaritans 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 Penta- teuch, for their convenience who were to learn it by heart; to which some pious persons added a few verses out of the Psalms that concerned the same ~ 46 The Judgment of the Jewish Church subject. Which copy, with the additions, was trans- lated 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. ver- sion, 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 Messias, when all the angels of God shall pay him their adoration. If we read St. Paul’s citation, Gal. in. 8.16. of the promise God made to Abraham, that zn his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, which he understands of the promise of the Messias, we shall quickly judge that he followed herein the sense of the ancient synagogue. I know the great- est 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 Ecelesi- asticus, chap. xliv. 25. They referred it to the call- ing of Gentiles by the Messias, as we see in Sepher Chasidim, §. 961. and to the abode of the Sekinah or Aéyos, as it is explained by R. Joseph de Carnisol Saare Isider, fol. 3. col. 4. et fol. 4. col. 1. And so St. Peter supposes it to be spoken of the Messias, Acts iii. 25. We may make the like consideration on the pro- mise God made to 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 Messi- as, that he should give a new law, Acts iii. 22. But the modern Jews do all they can to evade this ap- plication. Nevertheless, it appears to have been the idea of the ancient synagogue, because we read that they speak of the law which was to be given by the Messias, as of a law, in comparison to which all against the Unitarians. AZ other law was to be looked upon as mere vanity. So Coheleth Rabba in c. ii. and in ¢. x1. It is not without some surprise that we read the application St. Matthew, 11.15. has made of these words in Hosea xi. 1. Out of Egypt have I called my son; which seem only to be spoken of the children of Israel, and not of the Messias. And yet in the book Midrash Tehillim Rabba on Psalm li. we may see the Jews referred to the Messias what is written of the people of Israel, Exod. iv. 22. Which is an argument that St. Matthew cited this passage from Hosea, according to the sense the Jews gave it with respect to the Messias: “The actions “ of the Messias are related in the Law, in the Pro- “ phets, and in the books called Hagiographa [or “in the Psalms]: in the Law, Exod. iv. 22. Israel “7s my first-born: im the Prophets, Isaiah li. 13. “ Behold, my servant shall deal prudently: in the “ Psalms, as it is written, The Lord said to my “ Lord, Psalm cx. 1.” St. Matthew, viii. 17. refers the words of Isaiah, lii. 4. to the miraculous cures that Christ wrought; and he follows herein the ancient tradition of the Jews, which taught that the Messias, spoken of in this chapter of Isaiah, should pardon sins, and conse- quently heal their distempers, which were the ef- fects and punishments of their sins. From hence it follows, that, according to their tradition, the Mes- sias should be God, even as Jesus Christ did then suppose, when he healed the man sick of the alsy by his own power, Matt. ix. 6. and proves that he did not blaspheme in forgiving sins, which the Jews thought it belonged to none but to God to do. St. Matthew, i. 23. applies the words of Isaiah, vii. 14. to Christ’s being born of a virgin: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, &c. This he did likewise according to the ancient idea of the Jews, which was not quite lost in the time of 48 The Judgment of the Jewish Church Adrian the emperor: for R. Akiba; who lived and died under that reign, makes the following reflection on this prophecy. He had considered that Isaiah, in the beginning of the following chapter, received an order from God to take to him two witnesses, viz. Uriah the priest, who lived in his time, and Zechary the son of Berachiah, who lived not (as he thought) till under the second temple. Upon which he saith, that God commanded the Prophet to do thus, to shew, that as what he had foretold concern- ing 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 tem- ple by the witness of Zechary, who lived then. See Gemara. tit. Maccoth. c. 3. fol. 24. 3. We see that Jesus Christ, John iv. 21, &c. al- ludes tacitly to the prophecy of Malachi, 1. 11. con- cerning the sacrifices of the New Testament. This is a matter at present controverted between the Christians and the Jews. But Christ delivered the sense of the synagogue, as it is evident from the Targum on those words of Malachi, which applies them to the times of the Messias. _ 4. One would think it were only by way of si- militude that Christ applied to himself the history of the brazen serpent, in ‘saying, John ii. 14. 4s Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up. But there ap- pears to be more in it than so. The ancient Jews looked upon the brazen serpent as a type of the Messias ; so we find by their Targum on Numb. xxi. 8. which expounds this serpent which Moses lifted up, by the Word of the Lord, who is also called God, Wisd. xvi. 7. compared with chap. xv. 1. though Philo, whilst 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 era = against the Unitarians. AQ from heaven; alluding to the manna which came down from heaven, as we read, Exod. xvi. But he that will look into the ancient Jewish writers shall find that herein also our Saviour followed the com- mon Jewish idea: for Philo, who writ in Egypt before Jesus Christ began to preach, tells us posi- tively that the Word or Aéyos was the manna. Lib. quod Deter. pot. insid. p. 137. St. Paul, Heb. i. 5. cites God’s words to David concerning one that should come out of his loins, 2 Sam. vii. 14. I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a son,as if they had a respect to the Messias. How could he do thus, when on the one hand he calleth Jesus Christ holy, undefiled, harm- less, 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 there- upon threatens in the very next words, 2 Sam. vii. 14. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men; which suits well with Solomon, but not at all with the Messias? The reason is, St. Paul followed the sense of this place which was commonly received among the Jews, who, as they refer to the Messias the Psalms Ixxii. cx. and exxxil. where the same ideas occur, so they must have also referred to the Messias whatever is great in this prophecy; and to others, whatever therein denotes human infirmities. And indeed it was not very hard to give to that oracle a further prospect, viz. to the Messias; 1st, Because Solomon was made king during the life of his father; whereas the Son whom 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 Solo- mon 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. E 50 The Judgment of the Jewish Church xxi. 9. as a type of the persecutions which the Jews should exercise on the Christians. Whereon does he build this? First having proved it his way, that the Christian Church was typified in Isaac the son of the free-woman, and Israel according to the flesh by Ishmael the son of the bond-woman; and hav- ing thus brought unbelieving Israel into Ishmael’s place, he proceeds upon the old Jewish notion re- cited in Baal-Hatturim, that Ishmael should pierce Isaac with an arrow, which they illustrate by Gen. xvi. 12. instead whereof the text saith only, that he laughed at, or mocked Isaac. We see St. Paul, Rom. x. 6. applies to the Gos- pel those words of Deut. xxx. 11—14, which seem to be spoken of the Law given by Moses to the Jews. But then the old synagogue applied these words of Moses to the times of the Messias, as is clear from Jonathan’s Targum on the place ; which is enough to justify the use St. Paul makes of the words. . We read in the song of Zacharias, Luke 1. 69. that these words are referred to the Messias, He hath exalted the horn of his Anointed. The very same words are pronounced by Hannah the mother of Samuel, 1 Sam. ii. 10. where the Targum refers them in like manner as the sense of the synagogue. The same Targum understands of the Messias that passage 2 Sam. xxii. 3; and the LXX. have the like idea with the Targum, which is a farther confirmation of the tradition of the synagogue. ~ It is certain this notion of the Messias was very common among the Jews; otherwise they would not have thrust it into their Targums on places where naturally it ought not to come in. For in- stance. It is said, 1 Kings iv. 33. that Solomon dis- coursed 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 5 against the Unitarians. 51 of David, which should rule in this present world, as also in the world to come of the Messias. 6. We see our Lord Jesus Christ was careful to instruct the Pharisees of the two different characters of the coming of the Messias, Luke xvii. 20. Of which the one was to be obscure, and followed with the death of the Messias; the other was to be glo- rious, 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, Matt. xxi. 16. and also his Apostle St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 27. Eph. i. 21. Heb. 11. 6,7,8. apply the words of Psalm viii. to the Messias. How could they do it, were it not before the sense of the synagogue? Now that such was the sense of the synagogue, we see till this day, when we read what they say in their Rabboth upon the Song of Songs, iv. 1. and upon Ecclesiastes ix. 1. that the children were to make acclamations at the coming in of the Messias, the second Redeemer, according to those words of Psalm vin. 3. Hx ore infantium, &c. - Lastly, we see St. Paul, Rom. x. 18. does refer the words of Psalm xix. 4. to the preaching of the Apostles, and saith, Their sound went over ali 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 encomi- ums which David gave to the law of Moses, they would most readily apply to the law of the Mes- sias : and they expected he should have his Apostles to carry his law throughout the world. To this ex- E 2 52 The Judgment of the Jewish Church pectation of theirs the Psalmist’s words were very applicable. That the divine Word is called the Sun, Philo plainly affirms; and if I understand R. Tanchum aright, he understands that it was the Messias that was called the Sun of righteousness, Mal. iv.2. St. John saw Christ in that figure of the sun, and his Apostles as twelve stars; and that in heaven, which to him is the state of the Gospel, Rev. xii. 1. According to this figure, in this Psalm the Sun of righteousness is described as a giant, which rejoiceth to run a race, ver.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, chap. 18. which he communicated with a Rabbin 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 ancient Jews refer to the Messias, and with that of the song of Isaiah v. touching the Messias, which served the Jews for a commentary to understand the Song of Solomon by. I could gather a much greater number of remarks on this head; but having brought as many here to- gether as I take to be sufficient for the proving of what I have said, I think I ought not to enlarge upon this any further. So I come next to search out the storehouses, wherein we may find these tra- ditions of the Jews, which Jesus Christ and his Apostles made use of, either in explaining or con- firming the doctrines of the Gospel. They must be found in the ancient books of the Jews which remain among us, such as the apocry- phal books, the books of Philo the Jew, and the Chaldee paraphrases on the Old Testament. The authority of all these ought to be well established. ee ee ee i ee i ei ae against the Unitarians. ay: Let us then 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 Testa- ment, 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; yet not- withstanding 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 Samosa- tenus, to prove that the Christian Church was of 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 apocry- phal books, and to shew that they followed almost always the ideas and the very words of the authors of the Old Testament. But as he was a man of a E 3 54 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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 Testa- ment, had been inserted in those books by some Christians, according to their notions, and not ac- cording to the notions of the synagogue. Secondly, 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 tradi- tion, to shew how much Grotius, whose steps the Socinians trod in, was out in his judgment. 1. Then I suppose with Grotius, that those apo- cryphal books were written by several Jewish au- thors, many years before Jesus Christ appeared. The third Book of the Macchabees, which is in- deed the first, hath been written by a Jew of Egypt, under Ptolomeus 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 im his book de Macchabeeis. 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 writ- ten probably an hundred and fifty years before the birth of our Saviour. The second Book of Macchabees hath originally against the Unitarians.. 55 been written in Greek in Egypt, and is but an ex- tract of the four books of Jason the Grecian, a Jew of Egypt, who had writ the history of the per- secutions which the Jews of Palestina suffered under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes and ‘his successors. The Book of Ecclesiasticus hath been written originally in Hebrew by Jesus the son of Syrac, about the time of Ptolomy Philadelphus, that is, about two hundred and eighty years before Jesus Christ, and was translated into Greek by the grandson of Jesus the son of Syrac, under Ptolomy Euergetes. Some dispute if that Ptolomy is the first or the se- cond, which is not very material, since there is but a difference of one hundred years. R. Azaria de Rubeis in his book Meor Enaiim, chap. xxi. wit- nesseth that Ecclesiasticus is not rejected now by the Jews, but is received among them with an una- nimous consent; and David Ganz saith that they put it in old times among the orainz, that is, the Hagiographes. ‘So in his 'T'semac David, ad an. 3448. The Book of Wisdom according to Grotius’s” judgment is more ancient, having been written In Hebrew under Simon the high priest, who flourish- ed under Ptolomeus Lagus. Grotius thinks. that the Greek translation we have of that book was made by some Christian, who hath foisted into it 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 Chaldaic 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 Salomon, and proba- bly his work. It was the judgment of R. Azarias de Rubeis, in the last century, Imre bina, chap. 57. E 4 56. The Judgment of the Jewish Church The Epistle of Baruch and of Jeremy seems to Grotius to be the writing of a pious Jew, who had a mind to exhort his people to avoid idolatry. And it is very probable that it was penned under the persecutions of Antiochus, when it was not safe for any to write in favour of the Jewish religion under his own name. 7 The Book of Tobit seems to have been writ originally in Chaldaic, and was among the Jews in St. Jerome'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 into 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 Septuagint ; so that it would have been writ more than two hundred and fifty years before Jesus Christ. What- soever conjecture we may form upon the antiquity of it, it 1s certain it was in great esteem among the Christians in the second century, since we see that Clemens Alexandrinus and Ireneus have fol- lowed his fancy of seven created angels about the throne of God, and took that doctrine for a truth, though we see no such idea among the Jews, who have the translation of that book, but do not now regard 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 Epiphanes, 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 groan- ed under: and we see no reason to discard such a conjecture, although R. Azarias thinks, Imbre bina, chap. li. that this history was alluded to in the Book of Esdras, chap. iv. 15. He judges the same of the additions to the Book of Daniel, wiz. the prayer of —— ws. against the Unitarians. 57 Azaria, the Song of the Three Children in the Fur- nace, 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 com- mented, probably because they are not in the Canon of the Church of Rome. And indeed the fourth is only extant in Latin. But after all,a man must have viewed the third with very little judgment, who can- not perceive, first, that it is certainly the work of an ancient Jew before Jesus Christ’s time ; secondly, that it was among the Jews as a book of great au- thority: Josephus, p. 362. follows the authority of that third Book of Esdras, in the history of Zorobabel. We have no ancienter writers than Clemens Ale- xandrinus, St. Cyprian, and St. Ambrose, who have quoted the fourth 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 remains nothing to be done but to consider what is the ground of the conjecture of Grotius, who pro- nounces boldly in his Preface to the Book of Wis- dom: Eum librum nactus Christianus aliquis Grece non indoctus in Grecum vertit, libero nec ineleganti dicendi genere, et Christiana quedam commodis lo- cis addidit, quod et libro Syracide quem dixi evenit, sed in Latino huic magis quam in Greco, non quod nesciam post Esdram explicatius propont ceepisse patientiam piorum, judicium universale, vitam eter- nam, supplicia gehenne, sed quia locutiones quee- 58 The Judgment of the Jewish Church dam magis Evangelium sapiunt quam vetustiora temporada. 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, whether a book had or had not been written long after Esdras, and to shew that the notions of these books are clearer than the ideas which were among the Jews before Jesus Christ? He goes only upon this principle, that the Jews since they were under the Greek empire, be- gan to be more acquainted with the ideas of eternal life, and of eternal punishment, and of the last judgment, than they were before, which is the prin- ciple of Socinus and of his followers, but that Christians had much clearer ideas of those notions than the Jews had since Esdras’s time. 2dly. 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 readings in those books, as there are in books which, having been of a general use, were transcribed many times by co- pyists 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 sup- pose 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. 3dly. 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 Grotius how he can prove that there was a second against the Unitarians. 59 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 came it 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 the Christians ? I need not urge many other absurdities against Grotius’s conjecture. I take notice only, 1. That Grotius was far from ridiculing the Book of Wis- dom, as the Socinian author of the book against Dr. Bull hath done in his judgment of the Fathers. 2dly. That the ridiculing of such an author as the Book of Wisdom sheweth very little judgment in Mr.N. He had better have made use of the glosses of Grotius, than to venture upon such rough han- dling of an author quoted by St. Paul, whose quot- ing him giveth him more credit than he can lose by a thousand censures of a man who writes so injudiciously. 3dly. That the very place which Mr..N. ridicules is so manifestly taken from the Psalm xix. which contains a prophecy touching the Messias, and from the song of Isaiah, chap. v. that whosoever thinks seriously upon such a ridiculing of the Book of Wisdom made by Mr. N. cannot but have a mean notion of his sense of religion. After all, let Mr. N. do what he can with the conjecture of Grotius, I am very little concerned in his judgment; 1st, Because the matter which we are to handle is not the matter which Grotius suspects to have been foisted in by some Christian inter- preter. 2dly, Because I am resolved to make use in this controversy only of those places of the apo- ccryphal 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 60 The Judgment of the Jewish Church synagogue after Jesus Christ; and nobody can suspect with any probability of the old synagogue that they have borrowed the ideas of the Christians, and have inserted them in their ancient books, writ- ten so long a time before Jesus Christ's nativity. eee (68 BAe. RAB 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 preach- ing the Gospel ; and that it does not appear in any of his works that he had ever heard of Christ, or of the Christian religion. To shew the judgment of the ancient synagogue in the points controverted between us and the Unitarians, we make great use of the writings of Philo the Jew; which if they are his, it cannot be denied but that they 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 ever 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 cha- racter 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 am- ne Sep ge Tt eee a ar yes Tall against the Unitarians. 61 bassador 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 Euse- bius, concerning Philo’s account of a sort of Chris- tians, whom he describes under the name of The- rapeute. . 4. That the history of the conversation between St. Peter and Philo is a ridiculous fable, which EKu- sebius took upon hearsay, 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, is such that one cannot doubt of it, if he do but con- sider these following observations : 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 ex- plain. He quotes Moses, (whom he usually calls the lawgiver,) as we do the sayings 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 cites not one passage from the New Testament, which thing alone is sufficient to prove that he was no Christian. For the first Christians used to cite the New Testa- In Exod. D.. 437) 62 The Judgment of the Jewish Church ment with as much care, and even affectation, as the Jews did the Old. But, 2dly, 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 with- out mixing some touches at least at the Christian religion. And yet there is no such thing in all Philo’s works. He makes it 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 acknow- ledge the divinity of this Law, which he explained to them. ‘This is the end or design of this author in all his works. 3 3dly. It appears that he, according to the opinion of the Jewish nation, did expect the Messias as a great temporal king yet to come, as is evident from the interpretation he gives of Balaam’s prophecy touching the Messias in his book de Preemiis, p- 716. Athly. In all his works there is nothing peculiar to Christ that Mr. N. can allege, except in what is written of the Aéyes, which is the very thing in dis- ute 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, and shews that his - opinions do generally agree with those of their most ancient authors. The second thing I have to shew is, that it ap- pears from the books themselves and otherwise, that many of them were composed before Jesus Christ began to preach the Gospel. Christ began to preach nee Ce te nae he A NE GET OG lit Se * . i eee against the Unitarians. , 63 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 undoubt- edly 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, ov mpo moAAov, not much before the writing of that book. Now this which he tells us of thal Xanthi- ans, happened not long after the death of Julius Cesar, who was killed on the thirteenth 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 com- mon 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, with much more reason may the same be said of all those books which we make use of against the Unitarians: for according to the or- der, in which these books are ranked by Eusebius, this book, Quod omnis probus sit 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 parti- cular 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 1s agreea- ble enough to the Jewish mettod of handling the Scripture by way of questions and answers, Bi Ne is still the title of many Jewish books of pis nature. We may gather the same truth from another part 64 The Judgment of the Jewish Church of Philo, who tells us expressly that he studied the Scriptures prima etate, when he was young ; and he complains of his having been 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 this were written in his younger days, and especially his three books of allegories, which Ku- sebius placeth first before any of the rest. Josephus in his Antiq. lib. xvi. ec. 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 Cali- gula’s death, which was A. U. C. 793, that is to say, in the fortieth year of our Lord. Now Philo, in the history of his legation to Caligula, says of him- self, that he was at that time all gray with age, that is, seventy years old, according to the Jewish no- tion of a man with gray hair, Pirke Avoth. c. 5. Suppose then that he was seventy 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 thirty years old, it will fall in with the year of Rome 753, that is to say, thirty years before Christ preached in Judea. For Jesus Christ began not to preach till the year of Rome 783. The third assertion is as easy to be made good. For though Baronius makes much of that fancy of Eusebius, who, to prove the antiquity of monastic life, held that Philo’s Therapeutz were Christians ; and who was herein followed by St. Hierom with- out examination; yet others of the mo&t learned Papists, as particularly Lucas Holstenius and Hen. Valesius, have confessed, that herein Eusebius was mistaken. Indeed one needs only read the book de Therapeutis itself, or even the first period of it, to be convinced that those whom Philo there describes, against the Unitarians. 65 were the Jews of the Essen sect, and the Essens were, as Josephus plainly shews in the account he gives of them, as much Jews by religion, as the Pharisees were. Photius, who was a better critic than Eusebius, has very well corrected his mistake, and shewn, that the book De Therapeutis describes the life of a sect of the Jews, and not of the Chris- tians. It is a surprising thing that Eusebius should commit such a mistake, because he himself in his books De Prep. Evang. does cite a long passage from Porphyry taken out of Josephus, in the tran- scribing whereof Eusebius could not but see many things related of the Essens, such as Philo described in his account of the Therapeute. But to this it may be objected ; Does not Photius report that Philo being at Rome in Claudius’s time, met with St. Peter there, and contracted a friend- ship 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 Kusebius 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 Ca- ligula; (though it was the scope of that book to shew the impiety of that monster that would be worshipped as a God;) for which Philo was so much admired, that not only this, but his other pieces were ordered to be put into the 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, this might be said of those books of Philo only, which he writ against Flaccus, (who died A. D. 38,) and the account of his embassy to Caius, with three other treatises, containing the suf- ferings of the Jews under Caius, now lost, that were put in the public library. For I cannot ima- gine, that the Roman senate should lay up in their F 66 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. public archives his other pieces, which concerned VI only the laws of the Jews. But as for that which he tells us, that Philo saw St. Peter at Rome, and thére made an acquaintance with him, it is a mere dream of Eusebius, who fan- cying 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 ima- gine, that he might possibly have had some conver- sation 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’s time, (howsoever Eusebius fancied it as . a thing that would give some colour to his opinion concerning the Therapeutee,) could not be true, be- cause, as it appears by the writings of the New Tes- tament, St. Peter was so far from being at Rome in the forty-second year of our Lord, that is, in the second year of Claudius, who succeeded Caligula, that he did not leave Judea or Syria till after the death of Agrippa, (the same that imprisoned St. Peter,) 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,) 7. e. A. D. 55, at which time it 1s necessary that Philo, who was all gray 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 shews what credit may be given to this re- port 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 write of St. Mark’s Gospel, which he saith was first approved by St. Peter at against the Unitarians. 67 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 Therapeute. When as Eusebius sheweth us himself elsewhere in his history, he had so great an authority as that of Ireneus 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 be had suf- fered it to pass, as it stands now in his history. I thought it was proper to enter into this disqui- sition concerning the writings of Philo, and the time when they were written, that I might leave no doubt in the minds of my readers, concerning the authority of Philo, whom I intend to produce as an authentic testimony of the opinions of the synagogue before our Lord, in the matters disputed between us and the Unitarians. Let us proceed now 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 distin- guishing between those which pass for ancient, and those which are reputed by the 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. | F 2 CHAP. VI. CHAP. Vit. 68 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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, it was 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 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, Nehem. vill. 8. as one may see in the Talmud, title Nedarim, ch. 4. Magil. c. 3. 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 who interpreted in that manner did write no- thing for the use of posterity. It seems much more probable to believe, that from time to time those interpreters writ something, especially on those places which were most difficult, or least under- stood. | The first, according to the Jewish writers, who attempted to put in writing his Chaldee version of the Prophets first and last according to the Jewish distinction, (except Daniel,) or rather, who inter- preted the whole text in order, was Jonathan the son of Uzziel; who also not contenting himself al- ways to render the Hebrew, word for word, into Chaldee, does often mix the traditional explication of the difficultest prophecies with his own single translation. The Jews seem to agree that this Jonathan lived a hundred years before the destruction of Jeru- salem; 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 Luke iv. 18. in quoting the text Isa. lxi. 1. Thus much may at against the Unitarians. — 69 least be said for it, that al] 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 mere translation only, than a paraphrase; and yet it must be allowed, that in divers places he does not endea- vour so much to give us the text word for word, as to clear up the sense of certain places, which other- wise 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 to the Apo- stle 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 after made of a public use among the Jews; what other Targums there were on the five books of Moses having almost wholly lost their credit and 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 Cecus, 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 anony- mous authors. However the most part of these Targums have been printed under the name of Jo- nathan, as if he had been the 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 F 3 CHAP: Vil. 70 ~=The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. de Rekanati, who cites it under the name of Jona- ___than, 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 com- mentators, who among some good things have very often mixed their own idle fancies and dreams. Beckius, nineteen years ago, published a para- phrase on the two books of Chronicles, of which also there is a MS. at Cambridge. This deserves almost the same character with these paraphrases [ 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 au- thors of the synagogue. A man must be mighty credulous, if he give credit to all the fables which’ the Jews bring in their Talmud to extol the au- thority of Jonathan’s Targum; and he must have read these pieces with very little attention or judg- ment, if he 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 even and natural, that, as 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 con- jecture of some Jews, who would persuade us that it is only an abridgment of the Targum of Jonathan upon the Pentateuch. Certainly Jonathan’s ‘Targum upon the Pentateuch must be of a very dubious ori- gin, since we see that the Zohar cites from it the first words which are not to be found in it, but in the Targum of Jerusalem, (fol. 79. col. 1. 1. 17.) against the Unitarians. 71 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 Penta- teuch, or an abridgment of Onkelos; for it hath a mixture of Chaldaic, Greek, Latin, and Persian words, which sheweth that it hath been written in the latter times, according to the judgment of R. Elias Levita. Jonathan, who explained the former and the latter Prophets, has not been so happy as Onkelos ; for it seems those that copied’ his Targum have added many things to it, some of which discover their authors to have lived more than seven hundred years after him; one may also see there a medley of different Targums, of which the Targum on Isa. 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 the parts of them are not equally ancient. Those which we have on Joshua and Judges are simple enough, and literal. That on Ruth is full of Talmudical ideas. The same judgment may be made of those on the two books of Samuel. Those which we have on the two books of Kings are a little freer from additions. But that on Esther is rather a commentary, that collects several opinions upon difficult places, than a paraphrase. In that on Job attributed to R. Joseph in the Jews’ edition at Venice in folio, anno 1515, there are divers ‘Tar- eums 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 Canticle, all which have been pub- lished under the name of R. Joseph. I have said almost as much of that on the two books of Chro- nicles, which Beckius published about cighteen or nineteen years ago. F 4 CHAP. Vil. CHAP. VII 79 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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 the Jews’ 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 author- ity, since we do confess, that they are full of addi- tions, 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 con- trary to their religion, and used them in their com- mon reading, as true versions of the Law and the Prophets. It is certain that the Jews many centu- ries 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 para- phrases, 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 against the Unitarians. 73 these paraphrases with an ordinary attention. I de- sire 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 al- most on every book of the Old Testament. 2dly. We see in the Misnah a clear mention made of some Targums. upon the Law and the first Pro- phets, Megillah, cap. 4. sect. 9, 10. which must be QOnkelos and Jonathan. 3dly. 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 Misnah) had read. Now if the paraphrase on the books of Job was in com- mon use so anciently; who can doubt, but that they had the like versions also on the books of Moses and on the Prophets? Nay, we see that Jesus Christ upon the cross cites the 22d Psalm accord- ing 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, be- fore 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 suppose it to be. 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 nobody before Justinian the Emperor's time. But this objection proceeds only from an oversight of these critics, who have not observed, that though I should grant what they suppose to be true, it would not weaken the authority of the Misnah, CHAP. Vikv CHAP. Vil. Com. on Isa. viii. 14. 74 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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’s work, but his collection; or as the book of Gratian, which is called Decretum, which is nothing but the com- pilation of canons, or decisions of Fathers, who lived six or seven hundred years before Gratian. That hath been judiciously remarked by Paul Arch- bishop of Burgos in the preface to his Scrutinium, and in this judgment he follows Maimonides in his preface upon his Jad Kazaka. And indeed we must observe, that almost all the famous Rabbins who are mentioned in the Misnah are the very men who are mentioned by St. Jerome as the great authors of the Judaic traditions. If the learned do not like the conjecture of R. Klias Levita upon the Targum of Jerusalem, but will 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 Penta- teuch is almost all lost; so that there remain only some few remainders of it here and there on some texts; and then they will find that perhaps it is not lost, but that it subsists in a great measure in that which is under Jonathan’s name on the Pentateuch. Whence it is, probably, that in some MSS. it bears the name of the Targum of Jerusalem, and in others 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 Jo- nathan, which was augmented from time to time by divers explications. Then, when the Jews came to make their paraphrase to be no longer than their text, that they might have the text and the para- phrase both together in their Bibles, they did not give themselves the trouble to transcribe the Jeru- against the Unitarians. 75 salem paraphrase all at length; but they contented themselves with transcribing those parts where it appeared to have some difference from that of Jo- nathan; and this they did after so scrupulous a manner, that they transcribed the passages of the Jerusalem Targum that agree in the sense, and dif- fer 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 Pro- phets, and that of Onkelos on the books of Moses. As for instance, they speak of a Targum of R. Jo- seph, 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 me- mory, and by heart; and so the scholars might very well ascribe to their masters that which they had learnt from their mouths, and their verbal in- structions, as well as if they 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 ex- press 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 Isa. vil. 6. without the help of the Chaldee paraphrase, Gemara, ch. xi. tit. Sanhedr. fol. 95. But notwithstanding the antiquity of these para- phrases, I own they contain some additions that are very new, which shew, that after they were written, they were in such places enlarged with the glosses of doctors that applied themselves to the study of CHAP. VII. CHAP. VII. 76 =The Judgment of the Jewish Church the Law, and took pains to shew how one part of it depended upon another; of which we find nothing in Onkelos, which is almost a verbal translation of the Hebrew text into Chaldee. And thus, 1. we find in many places the connection 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 the Scriptures 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 ex- plaining Scripture by Gematria, of which Ritangel on Jetzira has given some examples, p. 31, 32, 33. But all this makes nothing against the authority of those places in the paraphrase, where they do little more than render the text out of Hebrew into Chaldee. In them there was no occasion to shew any more than the sense of the words, such as the parapbrasts had received by tradition from their forefathers. Whereas the authors of those additions thereby made a shew of learning out of the com- mon 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 besides all that, we must take notice, that as on one hand those ‘Targums have been enlarged by so many ad- ditions, so on the other hand they have been altered in many places, and new ideas substituted to the old. To shew the alteration which was made in those Targums by the modern Jews, we can remark a thing which hath been often taken notice of by Buxtorf in his Lexicon Talmud, viz. that there are against the Unitartans. el many places cited from those Targums five hundred years ago by the author of Arouk, that are not to be found in them as they are now in print. So we can prove clearly that new ideas have been put in instead of the old, chiefly upon the poimts contro- verted between the Jews and the 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 the Christians, we find the Targum brings in an expli- cation quite different from what it ought to have been according to St. Jerome’s account. It appears by this, that the Jews have done in their books the same things which the 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 the truth. As for the additions, 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 an- cient 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 va- lued, and which easily shews their antiquity. The additions are the rambling fancies of bold commen- tators, which they devised in later times as occasion required, and thrust them upon the ancient para- phrasts who lived in those times when there were no such occasions, nor could they foresee that there would be any in after-times. | As for example, we do not find that the Jews before Christ’s time ever spoke of two Messias; the CHAP. VII. CHAP. VII. 78 The Judgment of the Jewish Church one the son of David, who was to reign gloriously ; the other a suffering Messias, the son of Joseph, of the tribe of Ephraim. The reason is plain, for they had no occasion for that fancy of a suffering Mes- sias. ‘That arose upon their disputes with the Chris- tians, who proved that the sufferings of Christ were no other than what the Messias was to suffer accord- ing to the prophecies of the Scripture. At first the Jews tried other ways to avoid the force of these prophecies: but when no other would do, they came to this, to devise another Messias the son of Joseph, and to attribute to him the sufferings which the Scripture attributes to the Messias the son of David. In a word, all these conceits, of which the great- est part of these additions do consist, do so evi- dently demonstrate their novelty, that when one is acquainted with a little of the history of the world, as well as that of the Jews, it is scarce possible that he should take them for the text of Jonathan, or of the ancient paraphrasts. Besides all this, in the modern paraphrases themselves we find very often these words, another Targum, and sometimes yet another Targum; which shews that the following words are not the ancient Targum, but are the ad- ditions of some modern authors, whom the copiers 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 for these discoveries which appeared to them new; or whe- ther they have found it turn to account to insert these additions in the body of their ancient para- phrases, 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 Christi- ans all the advantages they might draw from any thing in their paraphrases, the things that they added being oftentimes contrary to what the an- against the Unitarians. 79 cients did teach; is a secret among the Jews, but a secret of 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 seventh century, and in the Talmud of Babylon, the same ideas and the same doctrine which we meet withal 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 fore- fathers. CHAP. VIII. That the authors of the apocryphal books did ac- knowledge a plurality, and a Trinity in the Divine nature. HAVING finished our general reflections on the traditional sense of the Scriptures, which was re- ceived 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 for us to come now 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, or not? For the So- cinians 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 CHAP. VIL. CHAP. VITl. 80 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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, distinguish- ed from one another by incommunicable properties. These Persons are called by St. John, 1 John 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 men- tioneth an economy 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, or not? And our opin- ion 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, against the Unitarians. 81 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 alto- gether 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 con- sidering the notions of the authors of the apocry- phal books. Now one cannot expect that these au- thors should have explained their mind with re- lation 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 nobody can deny that they must have had those very notions, since it appears that their expressions in speaking of God do suppose the no- tions of a plurality in the Godhead, and of a Trinity i particular. Let us consider some of those ex- pressions. 1. They were so full of the notion of a plurality, which is expressed in Gen. 1. 26. that the author of Tobit hath used it as the form of marriage among the Jews of old, Let us make unto him an aid. So chap. vii. 6. Thou madest man, and gavest him Eve his wife for an helper and stay: of them came man- kind: 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, J shall make. G CHAP. VII. CHAP. Vill. 82 The Judgment of the Jewish Church adly. We see that they acknowledge the creation of the world by the Word of God and by the Holy Ghost, as.David, Psalm xxxiii. 6. So the Book of Wisdom, ix.1. O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things with thy ord, or more properly by thy Word, as it is ex- plained in the second verse; and ver. 4. he asketh wisdom in these words, Give me Wisdom, that sit- teth by thy throne; and ver.17. Thy counsel who hath known, except thou give Wisdom, and send thy Holy Spirit from above? where he distinguisheth the Adyes, or Wisdom, and the Holy Spirit, from God, to whom he directs his prayer. And so. the Book of Judith, xvi.13,14. ZT will sing unto the Lord a new song: O Lord, thou art great and glo- rious, wonderful in strength, and invincible. Let all creatures serve thee: for thou spakest, and they were made, thou didst send forth thy Spirit, and it created them, and there is none that can resist thy voice. 3dly. They speak of the emanation of the Word from God: those are the words of the Book of Wis- dom, vil. 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—26. For Wisdom, which is the worker of all things, taught me: for in her is an understanding spirit, holy, one' only, manifold, subtil, lively, clear, _ undefiled, plain, not subject to hurt, loving the thing that is good, quick, which cannot be letted, ready to do good, kind to man, stedfast, sure, free from care, having all power, overseeing all things, and going through all understanding, pure, and most subtil, spirits. For Wisdom is more moving than any motion: she passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness—For she is the bright- ness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness. against the Unitarians. 83 And indeed St. Paul, Heb. 1.3. hath borrowed from CHAP. thence what we read touching the Son, that he is bi the brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of his person. So the Book of Ecclesiasticus saith, chap. xxiv. 3. That it is come out of the mouth of the most High. Athly. 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; anda Son, by a natural consequence: thus the author of Ecclesias- ticus, li. 10. Z called upon the Lord the Father of my Lord, in the same way as David speaks of the Messias, Psalm ii. and cx. and as Solomon in his Proverbs, vil. 25. as of a son in the bosom of his father, and xxx. 4. What is his son’s name, if thou canst tell ? They speak of the A¢gys as the Creator of all things; so the author of Wisdom, ix. 1. O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things with thy Word; or more properly by thy Word. And so they call that Wisdom the worker of all things, Wisd. vii. 22. They speak of the Wisdom in the same words as Solomon doth, Prov. iii. and chap. viii. 22, where he expresseth the true notion of eternity. And in- deed they attribute to her, to have been eternal, Ecclus. xxiv. 18. ; They refer constantly to God himself, that is, to the Acyes of God, as we shall hereafter shew at large, what is attributed to the Angel of the Lord in many places of the books of Moses, as to have delivered the Israelites from the Red sea, so Wisd. xix. 9. They went at large like horses, and leaped like lambs, praising thee, O Lord, who hadst delivered them. Again, to have had his throne in a cloudy pillar, Ecclus. xxiv. 4. To have been caused by the G 2 CHAP. VIII. 84 The Judgment of the Jewish Church Creator of all things to rest and to have his dwell- ing in Jacob, and to have his inheritance in Is- rael, ibid. ver. 8. and so to have given his memorial to his children, which is the law commanded for an heritage into the congregation of Jews, ibid. 23. So they attribute to him to have spoken with Moses, Ecclus. 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 Ja- cob his covenants, and Israel his judgments. Again, to have come down from heaven to fight against the Egyptians, Wisd. xviii. 15, 16,17. Thine almighty Word leaped 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 touch- ed the heaven, but it stood upon the earth. So they maintain that the angel who appeared to Joshua, chap. v. was the Lord himself; so the au- thor of Ecclesiasticus, chap. 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 Beth-horon| 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 Agyos, as you see in Ecclesiasticus xlvii. 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 against the Unitarians. 85 Testament than to call the Adyes the Angel of the CHAP. Lord, because the Father sent him to do all things hones under the former dispensations, so one can see that there is nothing more ordinary in the apocryphal books, than to speak of an angel in particular, to whom are attributed all the things which could not be performed but by God. Three things prove clearly that they did not con- ceive that angel to be a created angel, but an Angel who is God. ist. Because they have this maxim, according to the constant divinity of the Jews, grounded 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 the other nations to the conduct of angels; so Esther xii. 15. 2dly. Because they refer to the A¢yss some histo- ries of the Old Testament, which the Jews till this day refer to an uncreated Angel, or to the Asyos, or Shekina, or Memra da Jehovah, as I shall prove after- wards. We see it Wisd. xvi. 12. For it was neither herb, nor mollifying plaister, that restored them to health; but thy Word, O Lord, which healeth all things. So Wisd. xviii. 15, 16. Thine Almighty Word leaped 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 command-- ment as a sharp sword, and standing up filled all things with death; and it touched the heaven, but it stood upon the earth. thought fit to repeat this place here, to make Mr. N. ashamed, who hath ex- posed those ideas, and laughed at them, which I be- lieve he would not have done, if he had but consi- dered two things; the one is, that this Aéyes who is spoken of, is that very man of war mentioned in Moses’s canticle, Exod. xii. 3. and in Judith 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 G3 | 86 The Judgment of the Jewish Church the Aéyos, Heb. x. 12. But Mr. N. was in the right _to ridicule such an authority, which destroys to the ground the principles of the Unitarians; for nothing can be more clear, than that this author acknow- ledges a plurality in God; that the Acyos must be a Person, and a Person equal to the Father, being set upon the royal throne. 3dly. Because they bring such appearances of that Angel, which shew they conceived him as the God who ruled Israel, and who had -taken their temple for the place of his abode. And, on the contrary, they speak of God, whom they consi- dered as dwelling in the temple, in the same words which are used in Scripture, when it is spoken of the name of God, Exod. xxiii. 21. and 1 Sam. viii. 16. of the angel of the covenant, Malachi iii. 1. and such expressions. So you see in the first Book of Esdras, chap. 11. 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 Jerusa- lem. And chap. iv. 58. Now when this young man was gone forth, he lifted up his face to heaven to- ward Jerusalem, and praised the King of heaven. And Judith, chap. v. 18. and ix. 8. and 2 Mace. 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 sanc- tify them. And chap. ii.17. We hope also, that the God that delivered all his people, and gave them all an heritage, and the kingdom, and the priesthood, and the sanctuary. Aud chap. xiv. 35. Thou, O Lord of all things, who hast need of no- thing, wast pleased that the temple of thine habita- tion should be among us. I can add, 4thly, that they distinguish exactly the Angel of God from the prophets, though they are called by the same name of angels or messen- against the Unitarians. 87 gers, and they distinguish him from angels, whom CHAP. as creatures they exhort to praise God, as in the es song of Azaria, ver. 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 first of Esdras, chap. i. 50, 51. | Nevertheless the God of their fathers sent by his messenger to call them back, because he spared them and his tabernacle also. But they had his messengers in derision ; and, look, when the Lord spake unto them, they made a sport of his prophets. So in Tobit v. 16. So they were well pleased. Then said he to Tobias, Prepare thyself for the journey, and God send you a good journey. And when his son had prepared all things 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 Ja- cob, Gen. xlviii. 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. xvii. 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, ver. 6,7. But say ye im 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 Mace. xi. 6. 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. To shew that the Jews before Jesus Christ had such a notion of the Aéyes who was to save his people, we must take notice of two things: the first is, that the author of the books of Maccabees speaks of God at the end of his book in the same terms which are used by Jacob, Gen. xlvil. 15, 16. G A . CHAP. VIII. 88 The Judgment of the Jewish Church and are to be referred to the Aéyos, not to a created angel, as I have explained it in a particular discus- sion of that very place of Genesis. The second is, that the Greek interpreters of Scripture have used such method. in translating some places of the prophets, which sheweth they understood that the Messias should be the very Angel of the Lord who is called the Counsellor, and that the Angel of the Lord was the Lord himself. Two examples will shew that clearly ; the first is in that famous oracle of Isaiah ix. 6. they have these words, ér: waudfov evyewnby m[Alv, vlog Kak eddoby [Ais ob 9 apy eyevnby ex TOU wuov avTod, Kal KadelTaL TO Ovo[Aer aUTOU Meyaays Bovays ayyedos, the Angel of the great counsel, whereas in the Hebrew it js said, he shall be called the admirable xp, (which is the very word that the Angel of the Lord gives to himself, J udges xiil. 18.) the Counsellor of the mighty God ; and it is clear that they did understand these words of the Messias, who is spoken of as the son of David, ver. 7. in the same words which are used in Psalm Ixxil. The other example is in this other famous place of Isaiah Ixiii. 9. in which they have translated neither an angel, but himself saved them; as if they had read wy, instead’ of 93n5, which we read now. Some of the modern Jews are mightily entangled in explaining that place, but it appears that these interpreters of Isaiah looked upon the Jace of God to have been God himself, which is the reason of their translation, and shews that they understood the face of the Lord, which is so often spoken of by Moses, to be the Adyos, which is Je- hovah. I can add a reflection concerning their ver- sion of the third of Daniel, ver. 25. Species quarti similis filio Dei, as saith Aquila a Jew, who lived under Hadrian; but the ancient Greeks had trans- lated it similis Angelo Dei, as saith an old scholion, related by Drusius in Fragmentis, p- 1213. which shews that the ancient Hellenists had the same no- against the Unitarians. 89 tion of the Angel of God as of the Son of God. But all those things shall be better cleared, when we- come to the authority of the other Jews, which we are to produce. Some perhaps may think that the Book of Ec- clesiasticus supposeth the Wisdom which we main- tain to be eternal, to have been created ; and so saith that author, chap. 1. éxric#y, and xxiv.9. But I take notice of three things: Ist. That such an ob- jection 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 Adyos, or Word of God, signifies the essential virtue of God. 2dly, That the author of Ecclesiasticus follows in that expression the very words of the Greek version of Proverbs vill. 22. in which it answers to the word possessed, which is not éxric6y, but éxryby. 3dly, That the word éxtic6y, although we should suppose it to be the true reading, hath a very large signifi- cation; 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 Prep. Ev. |. vi. §. 14. p. 324. declares that the Wisdom which Solomon speaks of in the Book of Proverbs was before heaven and earth, and the very author of Ecclestasticus calls it positively eternal, chap. xxiv. 18. There is another objection which is backed by the authority of Grotius, who by the A¢yos, or Wisdom, understands a created angel; but I shall ‘shew afterwards the absurdity of that opinion of Grotius; and his error is so plain, that Mr. N. and the Unitarian authors have been ashamed to fol- low his authority in this point, daring not to main- tain that the Adys in the first of St. John signified an angel, which they would have done, if they could have digested the absurdity of Grotiws’s notions upon that place of Wisdom, chap. xvii. 15. CHAP. VII. CHAP. VIII. 90 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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 that they attributed to him the creation of the world, as you see in Judith xvi. 14. Thou didst send forth thy Spirit, and it created them; which is an imitation of David’s notions, Psalm xxxiul. 6. | 2dly. They call him the mouth of the Lord; so in the 3d book of Esdras, i. 28. 47, and 57. How- bert 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. | 3dly. They speak of the Bina, or understanding, by which is to be understood the Holy Spirit, from Prov. 11. and vii. So in Eccles. ch. i. 4. Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the under- standing 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 m the body that is subject unto sin. For the Holy Spirit of discipline will fice deceit, and remove Srom 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. Athly. They acknowledge him to be the Coun- sellor of God who knew all his counsels. So you read in the Book of Wisdom, ch. ix. 17. And thy counsel whashath known, except thou give Wisdom, and send thy Holy Spirit from above ? against the Unitarians. gl 5thly. They speak of him as of him who dis- cuap. covers the secrets of God; so Ecclus. xxxix. 8. He Vil: shall shew forth that which he hath learned, and shall glory in the law of the covenant of the Lord. And ch. xlvii. 24,25. he saith of Isaiah, He saw by an excellent spirit what should come to pass at the last, and he comforted them that mourned in Sion. He shewed what should come to pass for ever, and secret things or ever they came. 6thly. They acknowledge him to be sent from God, Wisdom ix. 17. And thy counsel who hath known, except thou give wisdom, and send thy Holy Spirit from above ? After all, if we consider’ what notions they had of the Messias who was promised to them, we shall find that they had much nobler ideas than those which are now entertained by the latter Jews, and more like to them which we find among the Pro- phets. 1. It is clear that they looked upon him as the Person who was to sit upon the throne of God; the title of my Lord which is given by the author of Ecclus. li. 10. shews beyond exception by a clear allusion to the Psalm ex. and i. which speak both of the Messias. 2dly. 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 ii. 37. Afterward did he shew himself upon earth, and conversed with men. For they refer that either to his appearance upon Sinai, or to the incarnation of the Adyos. 3dly. They suppose another coming of the Mes- sias, and then the saints are to judge the nations, and have dominion over the people, and their Lord shall reign for ever, Wisdom ii. 8. which words have been borrowed by St. Paul, 1 Cor. vi. 2. | 4thly. They acknowledge such appearances of God, as we have an example in-2 Mace. xi. 6. and xxi. 22, 23. Now when they that were with Mac- 92 The Judgment of the Jewish Church -cuap. cabeus heard that he besieged the holds, they and VI. all the people with lamentation and tears besought the Lord that he would send a good angel to de- liver Israel. 5thly. They speak of the appearances of God as an émiaveiz, which is the very word used by St. Paul for the first and second appearance of Jesus Christ. So the 2d of Macc. xv. 27. and 34. So | every man praised toward the heaven the glorious Lord, saying, Blessed be he that hath kept his own place undefiled. So that fighting with their hands, and praying unto God with their hearts, they slew no less than thirty and five thousand men; for through the appearance of God they were greatly cheered. 6thly. They expected at the second coming of the Messias such a manifestation of his glory as in the consecration of the temple. So 2 Mace. 1. 8. Then shall the Lord shew them these things, and the glory of the Lord shall appear, and the cloud also, as it was shewed under Moses, and as when Solomon desired that the place might be honourably sanctified. I believe these proofs are sufficient to demon- strate, 1. That there was before Jesus Christ’s time a notion of plurality in the Godhead. 2dly. That they believed that such a plurality was a Trinity. 3dly. That they looked upon the Son or the Ady, and the Holy Ghost, not as created beings, but as beings of the same Divine nature with the Father, by an eternal emanation from him, as having the same power and the same majesty. But these ideas of the apocryphal books will ap- pear 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. against the Unitarians. 93 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 every body’s hands, 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, 2dly, 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 intend to gather all the texts of the Old Testament which might be brought to prove a plurality in the Divine nature ; nor will I answer the several solutions which the Unitarians have invented to darken this truth, which they oppose. It shall suffice me to do two things: 1. To shew that the style God uses in the Scripture, and that of the sacred authors, leads one naturally to the notion of a plurality of persons in the Divine es- sence. 2. That this style made the like impression on the Jews before Jesus Christ, as was made by it anciently, and is still made by it in the generality of Christians. So that the Jews generally have ac- knowledged, that the Divine nature, which is other- wise perfectly one, is distinguishable into certam 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. CHAP. IX. 94 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 1. Moses, the chief end of whose writings was to root out of the minds of men the conceit of poly- theism, does yet describe the creation of the world in words that insinuate a plurality. In the begin- ning, saith he, Bara Elohim, the Gods created, Gen. i. 1. He might have said, Jehovah Bara, Je- hovah being the proper name by which God made himself known to Moses, and by him to his people, Exod. iii. 15. or he might have said, Eloah Bara, and so he had joined the singular number of £Elo- him, 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, though 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 sin- gular, we might have judged, that by calling God by a name in the plural, he had followed the cor- rupt custom which then obtained among the hea- thens, 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. xxxil. 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 conse- quently any of them had been fitter 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. and xxxv. 7. Job xxxv. 10. Jos. xxiv. 19. Psalm ecxlix. 1. Eccles. xii. 3. 1 Sam. vii. 23. Is. liv. 5. which shews the impudence of Abarbanel, against the Unitarians. 95 who, to elude the force of this argument, maintains that the word Elohim is a singular. Jn Pent. fol. 6. col: 3. 2. Another reflection concerning the style of Mo- ses, which ought to speak of God every where in the singular number, 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 com- pass of one chapter, which is a thing very surpris- ing in so concise an history. For whom did God then speak to? to whom did he issue out his or- ders? 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 1s none that reads the account of man’s creation, but, if he considers what he reads, must be struck with these words of God, Gen. i. 26. Leé us make man after our image and likeness. These words in the plural number denote plainly a plu- rality. Let US make, and OUR image, are such lively characters of plurality, as are not to be passed over without a particular regard. 4. We may make the same reflection touching those words, Gen. i11. 5. which point out a plurality of Persons, 4nd you shall be as Gods; and a little after, ddam 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 wan- der 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 m He- brew) appeared unto him. All this is contained within one book only, that of Genesis. We meet with the same notion in CHAP. 1X, 96 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. these words of Deuteronomy, iv. 7. Who have the IX. 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 Ho- lies, instead of the Holy. And Eccl. xii. 1. Remem- ber 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 way of speaking, by which a plurality in God may be signified, but it 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 adjec- tive plural, Jos. xxiv. 19. You cannot serve the Lord, for he is the holy Gods. 2 Sam. vii. 23. What one nation in the earth is like thy people, like Israel, whom the Gods went to redeem for a people to himself ? So Eccles. v. 8. There be higher than they, Heb. o723, which stands for Gods, God be- ing 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, 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. ii. 12. as it has been observed by R. Bachaie in Parash bresch. fol. 11. col. 2. of the edit. in fol. from which he infers that God and the house of his judgment are expressed there; for by the king which is there spoken of he doth not understand Solomon, but God; as they do in the Targum upon against the Unitarians. oe. 1 Chron. iv. 23. which hath been followed by R. CHAP. IX. Bachaje, ibid. fol. 11. col. 3. and by Lombroso in his Hebrew Bible. You have the same remark of St. Je- rome upon Jer. xxui.36. when you read oyn ON the living Gods, and from which he draws an argu- ment for the doctrine of the Trinity. 3. That though there is but one only Jehovah, yet in the holy Scripture we meet with several Elo- him 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. xxx. 24. where it is written, That Jehovah rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven. 'There is Jehovah and Jehovah; and if they do not make two, I know not what will ex- press a plurality. But we shall have more to say of this afterwards. I have given in short some marks of a plurality in the Divine nature, which may be gathered out of the writings of the Old Testament: for the fuller satisfaction of my reader, I am next to shew that the ancient Jews made the same reflections, and formed the same notions that we have of the Divine nature. To do this with the more clearness, I shall observe this method: 1. To shew what were their reflections touching the unity of the Divine nature. 2. To shew what their reflections were concerning those passages of the Scripture, which note a plu- rality 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 incomprehen- sible, 7. e. that we cannot form a just idea of it. Aileg. 1. p. 43. F. G. De Profug. p. 370. C, _ That God’s providence and existence are known H 98 § The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. to us; but as to his essence, we are altogether ig- 'X-_norant of it. De Mund. p. 889. D. And having in several places of his writings ob- served, 1. that Moses, the Lawgiver of the Jews, made this his chief end, viz. 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. |. ii. p. 841. Not that Philo would have it thought that there 1s more than one God, but hereby he intimates the unity of God to be transcendent, to have nothing common with that of other beings which fall under number. 3. And indeed he acknowledges a generation in God. Ifyou ask him what he begets, he will tell ou, ‘ 4. That God begets his Word. Who is therefore said to be not unbegotten like God, and yet not be- gotten Itke his creatures? Quis Rerum Divin. Hares. p. 398. A. And on the account of this generation, he calls him the first-born of God. De Agricult. p- 152. De Confus. Ling. p. 267. Again, he will tell you, that God begets his Wis- dom, De Temul. p. 190. E. And that his Wisdom is the same with his Word. Alleg. 1. p. 39. F. fol- lowing, no doubt, Solomon’s notion, Prov. viii. 22. But did he own that this generation was made in time? No: for, 5. he asserts, that this generation was from all eternity; for he saith, the Word of God is the eternal Son of God. De Confus. Ling. p. 255. D. p. 267. C. ' 6. When he would explain, in what respect or for what reason God is called in Scripture, The God of Gods; he saith not, that it is in respect of the angels, whose God he 1s, 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 against the Unitarians. 99 would be a ridiculous thing, had he thought these CHAP. two powers were no other than two attributes of God. ™ Indeed Philo is so far from thinking them mere sinple 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. Noe, p.176-E. Quis Rer. Div. Her. 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 im- mutab. p. 229. B. p.241.C. D. p. 242.B. De Plant. Noe. p.176.D.E. Quod Rer. Div. Her. 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 Rer. Div. Her. p. 393. G. These are in general the notions which the Jews had of a plurality in the Divine essence, which is otherwise single and one. I shall hereafter shew, that the very same notions are 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 author- ity 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; 1 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 @eds in the H 2 100 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. singular, instead of the Hebrew Elohim in the plu- *-_ ral. But then he more than hints that this reflec- tion 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 eds is used throughout the history of the creation; be- cause that was the appellation of one of God’s pow- ers by which he made the world : ob ydpw xat ri kate Toy lepwraroy Moiony Kocpomoia Tao TO Tov Oeod ovopa ayaa BavETaL NOKOTTE yap tyv Oivapsy Kal Hy 6 moldy eis yeverty ayo éribero Kal OLEKOT/AEITO, Ola TAUTYS Kal KaTaKAY- Over. De Plant. Noe, p. 176. D.E. Which shews evidently, that the notion of plurality did still re- main among the Grecian Jews, when the plural Elohim, which was the ground of it, was taken away by their translators, for a reason that I shall shortly mention. But to shew that the word Elohim in the plural has always made this impression on the minds of the Jews, we must observe, 1. that long before Jus- tin Martyr's time, there was a sort of men who imagined that the angels did create the world, grounding this opinion of theirs upon this place, compared with those other texts where the angels are sometimes called Elohim, as Psalm viii. 6. and Psalm xevil. 7. Such was the opinion of Menander, the scholar of Simon Magus, in particular. 2. That the Talmudists themselves were so per- suaded 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. i. 26. and x1. 7. lest Ptolomy Philadelphus should conclude, that the Jews, as well as himself, had a belief of polytheism, That was taken notice of by St. Jerome in his preface to the book De Quest. Hebr. 3. That however the construction of a noun plu- against the Unitarians. 101 ral 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. xxvili. 13. where the witch of Endor saith, J see the Gods ascending, my ombds they conclude, that there were two per- sons that appeared to her, and so they think Moses and Samuel to be the persons. Midrash Sam. Rab- batha, cap. 27. and 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, John 1.3. Socinus will not have it that St. John, speaking of the Word, or Avyos, 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, that the Word signifies no more than the virtue and power of God; and therefore by this phrase, Let ié 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 judgment of the ancient syn- agogue, which looked on the Word, or Adyos, as a true cause and agent, to whom God spoke, and who, by an infinite power, wrought the several works of the six days. - Now that this was the judgment of the ancient H 3 CHAP. TAS CHA IX, 102 The Judgment of the Jewish Church P. synagogue, and consequently that they acknowledged .a plurality in God, will be evident to any man that will be at the pains to consult Philo and the ancient Targums. For Philo, he hath drawn so full a system of the Aéyos, as to leave himself nothing more to add on that subject. According to him, it is the Adyos in whom were represented the first ideas of all things, and who afterwards stamped the impressions of them on matter: whence he is called Kécpog vonros, De Opif. p.4.G. and p.24.C. It is the Agyo¢ that created the world, as I shall have occasion to shew from several parts of his works, in the following part of this discourse. And for the Targums, to cite all the passages in them that confirm this truth, would be a trouble next to that of transcribing those books. I shall therefore collect only some of the principal places. Jonathan, on Isa. xlv. 12. declares his opinion, that the Word created the earth ; and again on Isa. xviii, 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 Adyos 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 A¢vyos 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 a thing 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 ne- cessary relation to the Memra, and the last signify- ing no more than the speech of God or of any man. against the Unitarians. 103 R. Menach. de Rekan. in Pent. fol. 124. col. 2. and fol. 152. col. 1, 2. But Onkelos does three things which are equi- valent to it: the one is, that instead of Elohim, he uses the word Jehova, which the Jews read Ado- nai, 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 regi- men, which they put under the letters of Jehova, being also plural, both these things, I say, do ex- press 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 an- swers to the Hebrew, but by another which signifies the first protpa, and not by NnDTp, as it is observed by all the Jewish writers who make the same con- sideration upon the translation of the Targum Jeru- salami, in which we read not in the beginning, but nnoona by the Wisdom; as you see in a comment upon the Targums, printed at Amsterdam not long ago, where he follows those notions as the ancient and the common doctrine of the synagogue. The third is, that in the sequel of his paraphrase he uses the word Memra, as signifying a person by whom God acts and speaks in all his appearances to men. That these words, Let us make man after our image, &c. have made a like impression on the an- cient Jews, appears clearly from the pains they take to explain them. I am sure Philo was con- vinced that they note a plurality, when he, writing on this text, maintained that God had fellow-work- ers in the creation of man, De Opif. p. 12. B. E. It is true, he sometimes vouches that God spoke these words to the angels, or to the elements; and_he has been followed herein by some Jews after Jesus H 4 CHAP. IX. CHAP, IX. 104 = The Judgment of the Jewish Church Christ,.as we see in the explication of them in Bresh, Rab. §. 8. and in Jalkut. §. 12, 13. where- in they pretend that God consulted the angels also in the creation of the world; though, according to the Talmudical Jews, the angels were not created till the second or the fifth day; and such a con- sultation between God and his creatures is rejected with scorn by Abarbanel in Pentat. 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 con- versant, 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. 3 For in other places he maintains, 1. That God ‘took his A¢yos, or Word, for his fellow-worker. De Opif. p. 24,25. 2. That man was created after the image of the Aéyoc, or Word. De Plant. Noe, 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 treatises he asserts, the Word made man, and after the image of the Word was man created, which he shews ver largely. Alleg. 11. p.60. C.D. De Plant. Noe, p- 169. | 3. He maintains, that God spake this to his pow- ers, 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. Mévev civ avOowaov ws ay peer ex Tuvepyiv etépwy CnAwce SiatrAacbhevta* elrre yuo, (prov 6 Motions) 6 Ocdc, monconey avOpwmroy Kerr’ ekova quetépav, wrHbovs Six Tod TOLNT WILEY eupasvonevor® diadeyera avy 6 TOV Crwy Tar yp Tais €avTov duvdéimeriy-——— that is, he shews that man only was formed by God with fellow-workers; for Moses tells us, that against the Unitarians. 105 God said, Let us make man after our image, im- plying a plurality in the expression, Let us make. God therefore speaks here to his powers. A. He expresses himself in so particular a man- ner 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, nothing remaining of it but a fragment preserved by Euseb. Prep. Evang. vil. 13. p. 322, 323. His words are these: Au& ti w&¢ mel erépov Oeod pyai ro, év eixou Ocod emoinoa Tov avbpwrey, GAN ovyt TH €avTOU; TayKarws Kat copas Tovti Kexypnoacodyrau byyroy yap avoev aterxomcbyvas pos TOV GUWTaTwW Kal TATED Toy OAwY edivaro, Aa ™pos Tov dedrepov Occ, GS €oTly exelvov Aoyos" EOE: yep Tov AoyiKov ey avbpomov Wuyy tumov, ve Gelov Asyou yapayOyvas, exesdy 6 70 Tov Adyou Oeds, Kpeicowy eat y mare Aoyixy vais To OE vmrep Tov Adyov, év Ty Bedriory Kab TIVt eLaiperw Kabeorire idéa, ovdev Buss Hv yewyrov ebororovoba. 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 grounded upon wise and good reasons, for nothing mortal can be fa- shioned after the image of the supreme God and Father of all things, but of his Word, or A¢yos, who is the second God. For the rational part of man’s soul ought to receive its impression from the Word or Reason of God, because God himself, who is su- perior to his Agyos, is vastly beyond the nature of all rational beings; and consequently it was not fit that any created being should be made after his likeness, whose nature doth subsist in the highest degree of excellence. To speak next of the ancient Targums, they are not unacquainted with this notion, which they shew as far as the nature of their versions would permit. God made man by his Word, saith the Jerusalem Targum, Gen. i. 26. and the same thing Jonathan teaches, Isaiah xlv. 12. | CHAP. IX. 106 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. The Jerusalem Targum, Gen. i. 1. does indeed = say, God made all things by his Wisdom, but then he shews, that this is but another name for the Adyos, by saying elsewhere, ver. 27. the Agyos, 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 an- cient 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 shocked a little with the expression, Gen. xix. 24. the Lord rained —from the Lord out of heaven. Menasseh ben Israel confesses the place too hard for him, unless by the Lord who is on earth you understand the angel Gabriel, who, as God’s ambassador, bears the name of God. q. 44. in Genesis. But the ancient Jews found no such difficulty in it, as he and the Socinians do at present find. De Abr. For Philo the Jew holds, that it was the Adyos p-200.B. that rained fire from heaven, De Somn. p. 449. F. As he otherwhere saith, it was the Acyes that con- founded 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 nineteenth chapter, yet it treats one as Jehova who rains fire from heaven, ver. 24. and thus it paraphrases the text, The Jehova rained From before the face of the Jehova from heaven. 3. This notion of plurality must have sunk deep into the minds of the Jews, seeing they have con- stantly read the word Jehova, which is singular, with the vowels of the word ddonai, which is plu- against the Unitarians. 107 ral, instead of Adoni, which is singular: and this CHAP. notwithstanding their dispute with the Christians, _ '™ whom they accuse of Tritheism. I am not ignorant that this manner of reading Jehova was in use long 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 orie 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. Maimon. Mor. Neboch. p- ll. c. 29. The Talmudists, as I before noted, have invented this excuse for the Septuagint, as to their changing the Hebrew plural into a Greek singular; they say it was for fear Ptolomy Phil. should take the Jews for Polytheists. And to this they have added another story, that Moses himself was startled at God’s speaking these words, Let us make man, in which he thought a plurality was ex- pressed, and that he remonstrated to God the dan- ger which might arise thereby; and at length re- solved not to write them, till he had God’s express order for it, which God did give him, notwithstand- ing the danger that Moses represented might fol- low. Beresh. Rab. §. 8. Another thing relating to this head, which de- serves our consideration, is this; that the Samaritans CHAP. IX. 108 The Judgment of the Jewish Church who were originally of the same religion with the Jews, but receive only the five books of Moses, have shewed that they had in the Apostles’ times the same notions that are met with in Philo of a plu- rality in God. We have a proof of it, Acts viii. 9. where we read that Simon Magus had bewitched that people, giving out that himself was r¢ peyas, 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, ver. 10. They said, cites éorw 4 dtvapus Tod Ocod % peytdn, 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 4 dtivauss Ocod. I say a person, for I suppose Mr. N. cannot 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 that there was more than one dtvapis, for, as it is in the text, they said this is the great divayus, 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 Ireneeus 1. 20. which sheweth it was the cur- rent reading in his time, and we find it also in seve- ral manuscripts, some of which are of the highest esteem with learned men, as namely, the Alexan- drian in the King’s library, and the ancient manu- script of Lyons in the Cambridge library: in all these the words are, oltos éorw 7 Oivauss Tov Qesd } Ka- Aven peyddn, This person is the power of God which is called the great power. For their callmg 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 them- selves sons of God, or the power of God; which he makes to be two titles of one and the same against the Unitarians. 109 signification, [| Orig. cont. Cels. lib: 1. p. 44.] And cuap. both these titles are given to the Agyos 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 hay- ing these notions, in the account which their coun- tryman 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 be- witched 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 be- witch them a second time, as to raise himself in their opinion from being the great power of God (as they called him before) to be, in their new style, the God above all power whatsoever. Yet that was the title they gave him in Justin’s time, as he sheweth in his Dialogue with Tryphon, [Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. p.349.G.| Elsewhere Justin saith [| Apol. 11. p. 69. E.] of Simon, they confess him to be the first God, and as such they worship him. This no- tion of a first God is manifestly the same with that of Philo, who called the Agyos the second God. [ Eu- seb. Prep. Evang. vii. 13. p.323.] But if the Sa- maritans in the Apostles’ time took Simon to be the Acyos, or second God, as I have shewn it: more than probable that they meant it by calling him the great power of God; who should be the second God now, since Simon was so advanced in their opinion, that now they accounted him to be the first? ~Jus- tin sheweth in the place before mentioned, [p.69. E.] that in his time, as they called Simon the first CHAP. IX. 110 The Judgment of the Jewish Church God, so they called his companion Helen, the se- cond God. His words are, Tyy ix atrod dvotay Tory. What is that? one may easily guess; for certainly the first emanation from the Nos is the Acyss. And so, according to Justin himself, the zpory éwaa sig- nifies. For in the same book he interprets it of the Asyos, | Apol. 11. p.97.b.] So that as the second God was the A¢yes in Philo’s account, so was Simon’s companion the same in the opinion of the Sama- ritans. This poor bewitched people were almost sin- gular in this opinion in Justin’s time; for he saith, then there were but few of their way in other na- tions. And Origen, who wrote within sixty years after, saith, that when he wrote, there were of Si- mon’s sect scarce thirty at Samaria, and none any- where else in the world, [ Orig. cont. Cels. 1. p. 44.] Possibly there might remain some of them till those times when other writers give other accounts of their opinions; and possibly their opinions might vary, so that those later accounts are not to be much heeded. We cannot be certain of any thing concern- ing 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 mob, [ Just. Dial. cum Tryph. p- 340.] we may be very sure he would write nothin 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. against the Unitarians. 111 I shall not insist any longer on the arguments which confirm a plurality in the Divine nature, be- cause I shall touch on some of them again in the sequel of this discourse, where I shall shew, that those places of the Old Testament, that speak of the Angel of the Lord, are to be understood, not of a created angel, but of a Person that is truly Jehova; and that this has been acknowledged by the ancient Jews; which alone is proof enough of this notion’s being sufficiently known by that nation, to which God committed his sacred oracles, Rom. ix. 6. Let us pass on now to the second article, viz. that the Jews did so acknowledge a plurality in God, as that at the same time they held that this plurality was a Trinity. oer aren GPa eee CHAP. X. That the Jews did acknowledge the foundations of the belief of a Trinity in the Divine nature; and that they had the notion of it. In pursuance of the method laid down in the foregoing chapter, I am now to shew these two things: 1. That there are in the Scriptures of the Old Testament so many and plain intimations of a l'rinity 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 inti- mations 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 prove that there is ground for this doctrine in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, I might shew, that oftentimes in these Scriptures where God CHAP. IX. 112 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. is spoken of, there is some kind of intimation viven p B _of three in the Divine nature: but as for this, I shall only touch upon it; my intention being chiefly to shew, that there are three that are called God in the Old Testament, and to shew who they are. I need not prove it of the Father, since it will not be denied that he is called God by them that will deny it of any other. But I shall shew, that some- times the Son is called so, whether by that name of the Son, or of the Word, or some other name, with- out any mention made of the Spirit. Next I shall shew, that the Spirit is spoken of as God, even when 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. To keep to this order, I am first to shew, that there is some kind of intimation of a Trinity, in places where God is spoken of in these Scriptures. TI shall name but two or three texts out 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 in the same passage; 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 thine own sake, O God. The like intimation we find in those words of the Prophet Isaiah, which do both shew a plurality in the Divine nature, and restrain it to a Trinity. Isa. vie 3. The Prophet heard the seraphims cry one to an- other, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts. These are titles, which, taken together, can belong to none but God; and the repetition of them shews something — against the Unitarians. 113 in it which cannot but seem mysterious, especially CHAP. to one that considers those other words of God him- self in the same’ chapter, ver. 8. Who will go for us ? words which clearly note a plurality of Per- sons, as also in Hos. xii. 4, 5. and in some other places. | To shew who these are, we must consider those places of the Old Testament wherein 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 Messias, and is acknow- ledged for such by the Jews,) Psal. ii. 7. The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I be- gotten thee. That the Aéyos, who, as has. béen al- ready proved, is called Wisdom according to the Jewish notions, is the Son of God by eternal gene- ration, himself sheweth, Prov. vili. 22, 23, 24. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, be- fore his works of old. Iwas set up from everlast- ing, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, Iwas brought forth. So in Prov. xxx. 4. Who hath established all the ends of the earth ? what is his name, and what is his Son's name? The Son can be understood of no. other than of that eternal Wisdom that assisted at the creation; as was before mentioned. Elsewhere the Son, or the Word, is spoken of ac- cording to the Jewish expositions of such texts, where he is not named, and yet he is called God and Lord; as Psalm xlv. 7. O God, thy God hath anointed thee: and Psalm cx. 1. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thy enemies thy footstool. It was the same Son who appeared oftentimes under the character of the Angel of the Lord, though he was not a created angel, but the Lord Jehovah himself. This I only mention here, being to treat of it at large in some of the following chapters. I ‘ CHAP. 114. The Judgment of the Jewish Church That the Spirit is spoken of as a Person in Scrip- ture, none can but know, that reads but the begin- ning 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 that the angels were not yet created, when the Spi- rit 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 done.. But that Mo- ses 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 patriarchs to give those admonitions and warnings to the wicked world of mankind before the flood, by which he strove to bring them to repentance. It was the same Divine Spirit whose operations the Israelites were sensible of, in his inspiring the se- venty elders, Numb. xi. 25, 26. The Psalmist no doubt alluded to those words of Moses in the beginning of Genesis, when he said, in speaking of the works of the creation, Psalm xxxui. 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. xxii. 2, 3. The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. Lastly: in some places of the Old Testament there are plainly three Persons spoken of together, and especially in the beginning of Genesis, where it ought to be remembered, that the word Elohim, Gods, does naturally import a plurality. [R. Bechat 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 Fa- ther, and the Word, are to be understood in the first verse; the second verse adds the Spirit of God, against the Unitarians. 115 as it has been just now mentioned. And it is very natural to think that God spake to these two, the Word and the Spirit, in verse 26 of that chapter, when he said, Let us make man after our image ; as also afterward, Gen. iii. 22. Behold, the man is become as one of us: and again, speaking of the builders of Babel, Gen. xi. 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. x1. 1, 2, &c. The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, i.e. upon the Messias, according to the re- ceived 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 Jlood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him, and the Redeemer shall come unto Sion. Again, Isa. lxi.1. The Spirit of the Lord Je- hovah is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me. And these 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 this observation: but then he fancies it to be spoken with relation to the 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. 12 CHAP. CHAP. X, 116 The Judgment of the Jewish Church i, 26. are to make man as well as he. And surely God would not join the angels with himself in the sending of his Prophets; much less would he give angels a share in the glory of making man, the master-piece of the creation. Angels are creatures as well as man, and were but a day older 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 wor- ship of intelligent beings, such as man; who, if this had been true, ought 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 wor- ship: this, 1 know, our Unitarians will now deny. But to come to an end of this matter; it is cer- tainly 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 ab- surd in itself, but it is contrary to the holy Scrip- ture, that asks, Isa. xl. 13. Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor 2 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 beings hke himself, if there were any such then in being. But that then at the creation such there against the Unitarians: - 117 were, even the Word and the Spirié, has been CHAP. ¢ shewed from the beginning of that history, and, as 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 Di- vine 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, intimat- ing there are three from whom all good things come, and who are therefore the objects of prayer. It remains that we inquire, whether the like infer- ences which we draw from these texts, were made by the Jews before Jesus Christ; which is the se- cond particular of our proposed method. I shall not repeat here what in the preceding chapters I have proved, viz. that both Philo and the Chaldee paraphrasts had such notions of the unity of God, as were not repugnant to his plurality. The reader cannot have forgotten already a thing of such importance. My business now is to shew, that the ancient Jews plainly own two powers in God, which they distinguish from God, and yet call each of them God; the one being the Son of God, the other the Holy Spirit, who is called the Spirit of God. Notwithstanding that I take the Chaldee para- phrasts to be ancienter than Philo, yet I choose to begin with Philo’s testimonies rather than theirs, for three reasons. First, because he writ by way of treatises, and therefore he is much larger and clearer than they are that writ only by way of translation or paraphrase, adding nothing of their own, but only sometimes a very short note on the text: and there- 13 CHAP. X. 118 The Judgment of the Jewish Church fore their writings are much likelier to be explained by his, than his by theirs. 2dly. Because the pas- sages in Philo for the existence of the Adys as a Person coeternal with the Father, are so evident, as to leave the Socinians no other way of answering them, but by denying, 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 A¢gyos, 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 their temple under Ves- pasian. 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 Per- sons; and no sense can be made of those passages, in calling them otherwise. 1. In general, he acknowledges that God hath two chief supreme powers, one of which is called @cis, God, the other Kzvpios, Lord. De Abrah. p. 286, 287. F. De Vit. Mos. ii. p. 517. F. 2. That these two powers are uncreated, | Quod- Deus sit immut. p. 238. A.| eternal, [De Plant. Noe, p. 176. D.| and infinite or immense, and in- comprehensible, [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 Saer. Ab. p. 108. A. B. De Plant. Nox, p. 176. D. E. Quod Deus est immut. p. 229. B. De Confus. Ling. p. 270. K..271. Lib. de Prof. p. 359. G. and especially p. 362, and p. 363. B.C. D. Quis Rerum Divin. Heer. against the Unitarians. 119 p- 393. G. p. 394. A.C. De Somn. p. 457. F. De CHAP. X. 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 A¢yos ; 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 Aéyos 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, by what he saith, it appears how God is three, and yet he is but one: he sheweth how this was represented in that vision to Abraham, Gen. xviii. where it is said, ver. 1. that Jehovah appeared to him; and ver. 2. Abraham looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: yet he spoke but to one, ver. 3. saying, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant, &c. This vi- sion, according to the literal sense, he expounds of the Adys and two angels, as I have quoted him elsewhere. But he saith that here was also a mys- tery concealed under this literal sense, like to Sa- rah’s vroxpidia, so the LXX. calleth the cakes that were hid under the embers: according to this mys- tical sense, he saith, here was denoted, 6 ay, the great Jehovah, with his two dwayes, of which one is call- ed @eds, and the other Kvpios. These are Philo’s words, [ De Sacrif. Ab. et Cain, p. 108. B.] 6 Oeds Sopupopovprevos vad duveiv THY avwrarw OvvajrEwy, apyns TE av Kal ayaborntos, cig ay 6 [eos TPIT TAS payracias everpryatero ry oparixy Wuyy. 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 re- presented by Abraham. That these words did not drop from Philo by chance, the reader may see in 14 V. Phil. All. 11. p. 77. E. CHAP. 120 The Judgment of the Jewish Church another place, where he speaks purposely of this matter. {De Abrahamo, p. 287. ]:.] Tarp pev ray drwv 6 wéoos, &c. In the middle is the Father of all things, on each side of him are the two powers, the eldest and the nearest to the 6 av, 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, bemg: attended by these powers on, each side of him, represents to the seeing faculty the appearance sometimes of one, and sometimes. of three. Philo after all warns his reader, that this is a mystery, not to be communicated to every one, but only to them that were capable to understand and to keep it to themselves: by which he sheweth that this was kept as a cabala among the Jewish doctors: for fear, if it came out, the people might. misunderstand it, and thereby fall into Polytheism. As for the Targums, they likewise are very clear in this matter. For besides the Lord Jehova with- ~ out any addition, they speak of the Word of the Lord, or the Shekinah of the Lord, and that so often, that it would be endless to quote all the places: some of them however must be cited, to put the thing out of dispute. 1. Wherever the words Jehovah and Elohim are read in the Hebrew, there Onkelos commonly ren- ders it in his Chaldee paraphrase, the Word. of the Lord, as Gen. xxviii. 20, 21. xxx1.49. Exod. i. 25. Xv. 8. xix. 17. xxxil. 20. Lev. xx. 23. xxvi. 49. Num. X1.:20. xiv. 9. xxill. 21. Deut. 1. 30, 32. 11. 7. iil. 12. AV. 24, 870ve 501X638 .e keds KEL. 6, 8. The Targums commonly-describe the same Per- son 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 acknow- ledge freely that in some few places of the Tar- against the Unitarians. 121 gums it seems to be employed to express the Holy cuap. 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 nation. And indeed we see that the most. fa- mous writers of the synagogue put quite another sense upon the Targums, and decide that question against Eliab, looking upon the Memra and’ the Shekinah as the same. So doth R. Moses Maimo- nides, 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 Aoyos, 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. Noa, p. 172.| (whereof, as we shewed before, he hath one on each side of himself, with what we read of the two hands of God, in Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targum on Exod. xy. 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 passed current among the Jews of the ancient synagogue, though they were as zealous assertors of the unity of the Godhead CHIAP. xi 122 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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 toge- ther, 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 mingled in their disputes against the Christians, that make Christ to be the Messias, or second Per- son 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 plu- rality. But that the plurality consists of God and his angels, whom he joms 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, Is. x]. 13. against the Unitarians. 123 which expressly denies, that God has any compa- nions or counsellors, as hath been already shewed. 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 lan- guages, &c. 3. In this very text their most learned commen- tators, 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 72 pn ‘DD PI, 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 king- doms to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant; not that God shared that power with his Prophet, or took him into counsel for such things, but only that he by the appointment of God, as his minister, was to declare the sentence and judgment of God for the doing of such things. 4. This appears in the very decree here spoken of, which concerns a revolution in a great empire: but the disposal of kingdoms is that which properly belongs to the eternal Wisdom of God, as Solomon declares, Prov. viii. 15, 16. and not to angels, any farther than they are employed by God for the pub- lishing or for the executing of his sentence. But after all this, though I have admitted 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 éypy- yopot being angels has obtained among the Jews, I do not find them called so any where in the Old Testament. But God is often said to watch over his people, Gen. xxxi. 49. Psalms vii. 6. cxxvil. 1. Jer. XXXI. 28. xliv, 27. and even by this Prophet, Dan. ix. CHAP. X. te tae CHAP. X. 124 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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, ver. 8, 9,18. and that in the plural, as it 1s 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, ver. 13. and the decree of the watchers and holy ones in this verse is called the decree of the Most High, ver. 24. and it is he whom Nebuchad- nezzar glorifies as the sole author of his abasement, and also of his restoration. I hope the reader will easily pardon this digression, if he thinks it is one at all: 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 foree 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 differ- ent 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 zveipa Oeod, 7. 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’s notions to the notions of the philosophy that makes ceil eee le il i a tei le + ee ee ee against the Unitarians. 125 four elements of all things. And probably for such cuap. a reason some of the Targums might come into the * same interpretation. But for the other ancient J ews, they expounded this Spirit, not by wind, but by that Spirit which was to rest on the Messiah in Isaiah’s language, Isa. xi. 1. See Bresh Rabba in Gen. i. 2. And truly Rashi on these words affirms, that the throne of glory was in the air, and that it warmed the heavens by the Spirit of the goodness of God blessed for ever. Where by the way the Spirit of goodness is the same with the latter of Philo’s two powers above mentioned. De Sacr. Ab. 108. Those among the Jews who take the Spirit of God for the will of God, as R. Abr. doth in Tzeror hammor, and some mentioned in the book Cozri, | p- 5. p. 329.] are not far from this opinion: and this is the sense Maimonides gives to those words, The Spirit of the Lord, in explaining of Isa. xl. 13. | Mor. Neb. i. ae It appears from Psalm 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 pow- ers, which he afterwards calls his principality and his goodness. But this can raise no prejudice against our po- sition. It shews indeed that our author, who had gathered his notions, as the other Jews did, by 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 consistent with 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 di- vines of the old Jewish Church, and consequently as CHAP. 126 The Judgment of the Jewish Church subject to several weaknesses and oversights, which are common to the greatest as well as to the mean-— est 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. As for the Jews since Christ’s time, we are less concerned for what they say, because when they had once rejected their Messias the Lord Jesus Christ, they soon found, that if they stood to their traditional expositions of Scripture, it could not be denied, but he whom they had rejected was the Word the Son of God, whom their fathers expected to come in our flesh; but rather than yield to that, they would alter their creed, and either wholly throw out the Word the Son of God, or bring him down to the state of a created angel, as we see some of them do now in their ordinary comments on Scrip- ture. 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, that the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, worsuipped a created angel; and they 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 con- _trary to the first commandment of their Law. Some of them 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 griev-. ee ee against the Unitarians. | 127 ous 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, even since Christ’s time, there appear some footsteps of it still: and to prove that it is so, I am in the next place to shew, that notwithstanding their averseness to the Christian doctrine, they yet have a notion distinct enough both of a plurality and a Trinity in the Divine nature; which will be the whole business of my next chapter. See. 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 commen- taries upon Scripture, and with the caballistical Jews, whom their people look upon as the wisest men of their nation, viz. those that know the truth better than all others, among them this principle passes for an undoubted maxim. I know very well that the method of those cabal- listical 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 pro- digious labour which they undergo in their way of Gematria, Notarikon, and T'sirouph. But besides that this 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 shew that the ancient tradition hath been kept CHAP. X, 128 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. among those authors, who have their name from XI. their firm adherence to the tradition of their fore- fathers. So I am not willing to deny that some of the books of those caballistical 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 aware, that notwithstanding some additions which are in those books, as for example in the Zohar and in the Rabboth, the very doctrine of the synagogue is to be found there, and the same as it is represented to us by the apocryphal authors, by Philo, or those who had occasion to mention the doctrine of the Jews. After all, let us suppose that almost all those books have been written since the Talmud, and that the Talmud was written since the beginning of the seventh century, that could not be a prejudice against the doctrine which the Jews propose as the ancient doctrine of the synagogue; but, on the con- trary,it would be a strong proof of the constancy of those authors in keeping the tradition of their ances- tors in so strange a dispersion, and among so many nations; chiefly since, in the articles upon which I shall quote their authorities, they so exactly follow the steps of the authors of the apocryphal books of Philo the Jew, and of their ancient paraphrast, who had penetrated deeper into the sense of Scripture. I say then, that both the authors of the Midrashim -and the caballistical authors agree exactly in this, that they acknowledge a plurality in the Divine es- sence, and’ that they reduce such a plurality to three Persons, as we do: | To prove’ such an assertion, I take notice, 1st, That the Jews do judge as we do, that the word Elohim, which is piural, expresses a plurality. Their ordinary remark upon that word is this, that Hlohim against the Unitarians. 129 is as if one did read, El hem, that is, They are God. Bachaje, 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. 2dly. It is certain that they make use of the word wpocwmey to express those Persons, as they use to ex- press the two first human persons, vzz. Adam and _ Eve. Thus speaks of them the same Bachaje, zbid. fol. 13. col. 2. 3dly. They fix the number of three Persons in the Divine essence, distinguishing their personal charac- _ ters and actions, which serve to make them known, 4thly. They speak of the emanation of the two last from the first, and that the last proceeds by the second. _ 5thly. 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 to the authority of the divine re- velation. — 6thly. They ground this doctrine upon the very same texts of Scripture which we allege to prove these several positions of ours; which deserves a great deal of consideration. And indeed those things being so, we must ne- cessarily conclude, either that they make fools of their readers, or that they do not understand what they say; or one must acknowledge that the conse= quences and conclusions which Christians draw from the Scriptures, with relation to the subject of the Trinity, are not so easy to be avoided as the Socini- ans 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, that the name of Elohim, which is plural, is given to God to express his several virtues: but beyond that, they maintain that the Scripture hath affected this style K CHAP. XI. 130 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. of plurality because. of those two, the Cochma, or XI. Wisdom, and the Bina, or Understanding, which are spoken of Prov. ii. 19. where Solomon reflects upon the Author of the creation; and they allege upon this subject the place of Ecclesiastes xii. 1. where Creators are mentioned. Bachaje in Pentat. tol. 4. col. 2,4. 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 expres- sion thereof, they take notice that the Jerusalem Targum hath translated those words in the begin- ning, Bereschit, God created heaven and earth, by these, God created by his Wisdom, which is called the beginning, Prov. viii; and so that Onkelos hath not translated the word Bereschit by the word Kad- — mita, 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, ac- cording to the same place of Solomon which I have quoted. This is the notion of the book Habbahir, of the Zohar; and of the Rabboth, whose words are related at large by R. Menachem de Rekanati in Pentat. fol.1. col. 1, 2. of the Venice edition by Bombergue. | They vouch that the Wisdom which is spoken of- — by Solomon is the cause by which all particular — beings have been formed, and they call it the second — number, which proceeds from the first, as from his spring, and brings from it the influx of all blessings. — This is the doctrine of R. Nechouniah ben Cana, — and of the author of Rabboth, which R. Menachem quotes at large. Ibid. fol. 1. col. 1. They teach, that because God hath created by his Wisdom, as the soul acts by her body, they cannot say there was not an absolute and perfect unity in — the work of the creation. This is the doctrine of the — Zohar, followed by R. Menachem de Rekanat. Ibid. — col. 2. / And indeed they acknowledge not only that — against the Unitarians. 131 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 pre- tend that God hath founded the world by his two hands, as it is said by Isa. 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 is not of a created wind, but of a divine and uncreated Being that Moses speaks there, and it is the same which js spoken of by David, Psalm xxxiii. 6. as it is ac- knowledged by Leo Hebreeus Dial. de Amore, and by Menasseh ben Israel Concil. in Gen. OPA Bite and by many others. __ It is to be noted, that 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; as Justin takes it in the same sense against Tryphon; and acknowledges some degrees between the three Persons, as doth Tertullian in some places; and as afterwards they have made use of the word person: so the ancient Jews have among them the same terms, which shews they had the same ideas: they speak of the Sephiroth, that is, of the numbers in the Godhead ; they speak of the several Mad- regoth, which is degrees ; they speak of Prosopin, which is Persons, as I have shewn before. They cannot express their mind more distinctly, than when they distinguish, 1. he and thou, which is the characteristical distinction of persons, and when they apply these pronouns to the Persons which they conceive in the Godhead: so they say that Thou belongs to the Wisdom, and He to the God which is absconded. R. Menach. ibid. fol. 22. col. 2. and fol. 45. col. 1. | They give to them their characteristical names ; so they make the name Anochi to belong to the God K 2 CHAP. XI. CHAP. XI. 132 The Judgment of the Jewish Church absconded ; they refer the name of any to the She- kinah or Memra, which names are the same to them, as I shall shew afterwards., See R. Menach. in Pent. fol. 149. col. 4. They refer to these Persons the consultations and speeches of God, as directed to many; as, Let us make man, which contains a deep mystery, as says Bachaje; (but which others would elude, by main- taining that God speaks to angels:) so doth R. Me- nach. de Rek. fol. 35. col. 4. So they conceive that when it is said in Scripture that God speaks with his heart, then God speaks with his Shekinah : it is their remark upon Gen. xi. Let ws come down. R. Men. fol. 27. col. 2. and fol. 28. col. 2. So they ac- knowledge distinctly in these words, Gen. x1x. 24. And Jehovah rained upon Sodom from Jehovah ; that those two Jehovah are two Persons, which they call expressly ¢wo Prosopin. R. Menach. fol. 11. col. 1. and fol. 63. col. 4.. So in the history of the tower of Babel. Jbid. fol. 28. col. 3. They distinguish exactly the characteristical ac- tions which belong to these Persons. So they at- tribute to the God absconded, to have acted in the ‘creation by his Wisdom, and by his Understanding. R. Menach. fol. 1. from Breschit Rabba; and that according to Solomon, Prov. ii. and to David, Psal. Xxxill. 6. They say that this Wisdom is called the Begin- ning, although she is but the second Sephira, be- cause beyond her they can know nothing, the first Sephira being unknown to all creatures. It is the doctrine of the book Jetzira, and of the Zohar re- | lated by R. Men. fol. 1. col. 3. They maintain that it is the Shekinah, or Wisdom, which rules the world, according to Solomon’s words, Prov. viil. R. Men. fol. 35. col. 1. I shall shew in one of the next chapters, that they refer to the Shekinah or Memra, almost all the appearances of God which are mentioned in Scrip- ee ee against the Unitarians. 133 ture, according to the ideas of the Targum. And CHAP. | this is to 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 con- sent of old authors. Now he and his authors teach constantly, that it was the Shekinah which appeared to Adam after his sin, and made him clothes, fol. 59. col. 4. that it appeared to Abraham, fol. 35. col. 2. that it ap- peared 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 peo- ple upon Mount Sinai, fol. 56. col. 2. that it spake to Moses, and gave the Law to the people, fol. 57. col. 2, 3. fol. 58. col. 1. and fol. 84. col. 1. and 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. and fol. 66. col. 4. Ac- cording as we read in Ezek.i.13. So R. Menachem, following the Zohar, fol. 5. col. 3. and fol. 8. col. 1. They call the Shekinah the Adam from 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 it was he to whom Noah offered his sacrifice. Lbid. fol. 27. col. 1. and fol. 34. col. 4. They pretend that the Shekinah is the bride- gruom of the synagogue, according to the idea of K 3 134 .The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. God by Isaiah Ixii. 3. R. Men. fol.15. col.1. And __X! that God having committed to angels the care of other nations, the Shekinah alone was intrusted with the care and conduct of Israel, fol. 28. col. 3. and fol. 153. col. 2. They pretend that he was in the captivity with their fathers, R. Men. fol. 17. col. 2. 4. and fol. 51. col. 2. and that he smote the Egyptians, fol. 56. col. 4. without the help of angeis, although the angels attended him as their King, fol. 59. col. 1, 2. and fol. 61. col. 3. They pretend that the temple was built to the honour of the Shekinah, fol. 63. col. 1. and 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. cxxxu. 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 Pro- phets call the Angel of the Presence, and the An- gel of the Covenant. Ibid. fol. 73. col. 1. and 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 it is 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, and 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. 2,3. And they call her upon that ac- against the Unitarians. 135 count the mother of Israel, and his tutor, R. Men. CHAP. 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. Jerome witnesses that it was the name which the Nazarenes gave to the Holy Ghost, Hieronym. in Ezek. xvi. in Isa. vill. and in Matt. Xiil. 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. xlvin. R. Menach. fol. 34. col. 2. and 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, as 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 R. 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 considera little what is the general sense of those authors about — the emanations which are spoken of in Scripture, KA 136 The Judgment of the Jewish Church cHaP. as by which the Divine nature is communicated to XI the Acyos 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 plu- rality 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 both to the second and the third Sephira, viz. the Wisdom, and the Binah, or Understanding. So does the Zohar in R. Men. fol. 3. col. 3. and 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 Zn Soph, that is, Infinite. bid. fol. 105. col. 3. and fol. 14, col. 1. Athly. They propose the image of the two che- rubims who were drawn from’ the ark, to give the idea of the two last Persons; for the distinction of the cherubims was evident, though 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, supposes that not only the three Persons, whom 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. and fol. 68. col. 1. 2dly. They acknowledge those three Sephiroth, and attribute to every one of them his operations. Ibid. fol. 139. col. 4. 3dly. The author of Zohar is a voucher of great authority ; and he cites these words of R. Jose, (a famous Jew of the second century,) where examin- against the Unitarians. 137 ing the text, Deut. iv. 7. Who have their Gods so CHAP. near to them ? “ What,” saith he, “ may the mean- “ing of this be? 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. mn, DTN, m7) are one wnum: 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 unwm. “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 w, 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 my; the purified light, or nymyn; 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 yy of Speculation, cited by Reuchlin, p.651. Hi tres qui sunt unum inter se proportionem habent ut 7mx 138 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. ST IND unum uniens et unitum. He said before, MI S)D) YSN WNT OM sunt principium et medium et Jinis, et hac sunt unus punctus et est dominus universt. R. Joseph ben Gekatilia, and the other Cabalists, are in effect for three Elohims, when they treat of the three duvzuers, 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 imper- fection among them. The note of this R. Joseph Gekatilia is very re- markable. The Jews, saith he, have been under the severity of judgment, and shall continue so till the coming of the Messias, who shall be united, saith he, with the second Sephirah, which is Wisdom, according as it is written, Isai. xi. 2. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of Wis- dom, &c. And he shall cause the Spirit of grace and clemency to descend from the first Sephirah, who is called, 0 px the Infinite; and he follows in that Rabbi Salomon Jarchi, who saith upon Isai. xi. that the Cochma, which is the second Sephira, shall be in the middle of the Messias. In a word, this notion of Plurality and Trinity, expressed in the writings of Moses and the Prophets, hath not only been observed by the Jews, but they have found and acknowledged it, as well as the Christians, to be a great and profound mystery. And for the explaining of it the Jews have em- ployed very near the same ideas that the Christians use in speaking of the three Persons of the blessed Trinity. For they conceive in God m5 faces, and ny subsistences, which we call Persons, as one may see in Sepher Jetzirah. Moreover, we may observe, 1st. That when they speak of the three first Sephiroth, they understand the same thing by them as we do by three per- sonalities, three modes of existence, active or pas- sive emanations or processions, which are the foun- dation of the personalities. . KS eS Oo eS against the Unitarians. 139 2dly. 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 look upon the first as Persons, but upon the last as attributes, according to which God acts in the ordi- nary course of his providence, or according to his several dispensations towards his creatures. Hence they call the seven last Middoth, or measures, that is to say, the attributes and characters which are visible in the works of God, namely, his justice and mercy, &c. And this is confessed in plain words by the great Cabalist R. Menachem de Rekanati: Tres primarie numerationes, que sunt intellectu- ales, non vocantur mensuree, i. e. they are not attri- butes, 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 Hol 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 dis- tinguish those notions clearly by proper and suitable names, which the Jews by such a revelation as that 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 F ather, Son, and Holy Ghost. 7 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 con- clude 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 Cochma, Wisdom, even that Wisdom by which the world was created, &c. according to Prov. iii. 19.. The Lord by Wisdom hath founded the earth, This notion was CHAP. XI. CHAP. XI. 140 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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, al- luding to divers places, especially Psalm xxxiii. 6. and Proy. viii. 14. The Jews commonly call him, ww T15 the second Glory, and the Crown of the creation. Rittang. 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 call- ed 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 Planta- vitius 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 to look over the texts on which they have not made their remarks, and you will find them almost all the same with those that were quoted to the same pur- pose by the Apostles and apostolical men in their writings. Particularly if you would know their opinion concerning this query, viz. who it was that God Se against the Unitarians. 141 did speak to at the creation, Gen. i. 26. R. Juda cuarp. will tell you God spoke to his Word. 2 If you would know of them who is the Spirit of whom we read, Gen. 1. 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 who it was that God spoke to, 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 is that is spoken of, Job xxvill. 12. again Moses Botril will tell you, it is the Holy Spirit. If you would know of whom they understand those words in Psalm xxxvi. 6. they say plainly that they are spoken of that very Trinity. If you would know what they think of that Wisdom, Psalm civ. 24. R. Moses Botril describes it to you as a Person, and not as an attribute. | If you would know whom that is to be referred to, which we read of, Isai. 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, and 1592. and have been quoted in Latin by Rittangelius. But it may be said, that the Jews have adopted this doctrine inconsiderately, without being sensible of the absurdity of it. For how is it possible to conceive such emanations in God, who is immut- able and eternal; and such an idan 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 they have owned this distinction in the Divine essence, as a truth not to be contested. But assert these three Sephiroth, which they call some- times Spirits, to be eternal and essential in God ; which they say we ought not to deny, because we 142 The Judgment of the Jewish Church re cannot easily conceive it: for the Divine nature is —__ incomprehensible, far exceeding the limits of our narrow understandings: and that the revelation God hath given us does not make us more capable to judge of the nature of the things revealed, than the borrowed light of the moon, which is all that the owls can behold, does render them able to judge of the sun’s far more glorious light. Such are the thoughts of R. Sabtay in Rit. on Jetz. p: 78, 79, 80. Such are the reflections of R. Menach. who cites Job xxviii. 7. to this purpose ; and the caution of the Jewish doctors, who forbid to undertake the ex- amination 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. dis- tinguishes 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 generality of the Jews have well nigh quite lost the notion of the Messias being God; and they gene- rally 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 it against the Christians, yet doubtless was taken up at 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 Christian doctrine of the Trinity; as doth against the Unitarians. 143 R. Saadia, for stance, 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 Sanhed. chap. iv. sect. 2. And yet notwithstanding all this opposition, the Cabalists have passed, 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 Chris- tians: for we find them in the book Zohar, the au- thor 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. and R. D. Ganz in Tzemach Da- vid, p. 106. But we find these notions in the be- ginning of the Rabboth, which books they will have to be more ancient than the Talmud. Fur- thermore, 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, though it is pro- bable that they have been augmented in the follow- ing ages. Besides, who can imagine that in all places the Jews should have adopted opinions un- known to their religion, and in effect destructive of those points for which they then zealously con- tended, if they had not been convinced of the truth of such a doctrine? CHAP. XI. 144. The Judgment of the Jewish Church cuHaP. And now give me leave to propose one argument __*! to the Unitarians, which I believe they will not be able to answer, and adhere at the same time to their new-fangled 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. xvi. where after noting that the word Ruach, Spirit, in the Hebrew tongue is fe- minine; he adds, “ In Evangelio quoque Hebre- “ orum, quod lectitant Nazarei, Salvator inducitur “ Joquens, Modo me arripuit Mater mea, Spiritus « Sanctus.” This passage of the Nazarenes’ Gospel would never have been understood, if we had not known that the Jews call the Holy Spirit Jmma, Mother, as well as Binah, Understanding; as we see in Zohar and other Cabalists. And perhaps from hence Philo de Temul. calleth émorjyy, 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 ap- pears from his book De Fundament. Legis, chap. 11. and Mor. Neb. p. 1. chap. Ixvii. Lastly, it ought not to be urged against what I have said, that the Jews have formal quarrels against the doctrine of the Trinity, as Saadiah Sepher Emu- noth, chap. 2. and Maim. Mor. Neb. p.1. ¢. 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 them- selves in their writings that are not polemical, but are drawn up in cool blood, out of the heat of dis- pute; of which Saadiah Haggaon, as I have shewed before, is a proof. 3. The study of their rites having been the great business of the Jews for many cen- turies, it hath happened that their greatest authors against the Unitarians. 145 have applied themselves but little to the study of CHAP. the traditions concerning their doctrines. In Mai. *! monides, 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 Chai- im, who saith he had it from a letter of Maimonides to one of his scholars. I have said before, that these notions of the ca- balist Jews are received in all the parts of the world where the Jews are found in any numbers; and [ say it not without good reason: for, 1. The Rabboth are books received wherever there are Jews; now this book begins with the notion of a second Per. son. 2. As for the Cabalists, they are dispersed with the other Jews; and in all places where learn- ing is cultivated, and study encouraged, there they are to be found. 3. We may well infer the universal- ity of this tradition, from the several different au- thors that have written alike on this subject, with- out 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 Amster- dam,) where he disputes against the Christians’ Tri- nity; yet he teaches not only the Unity, but this distinction from everlasting in the Deity. R. Moses Bar Nachman in the thirteenth cen- tury, and R. Judas the Levite, writ in Spain; and yet we see how they agree in their notions with the Cabalists, who flourished otherwhere. 7 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 L ‘CHAP. XI. 146 The Judgment of the Jewish Church the same things. He that would see the places at large may consult their comment on the book Jetzira. ! It is now time to return to the judgment of the ancient synagogue, and to consider how it either agrees with or differs from 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 Adcyos is spoken of as being he that created the world, and was at length made flesh, and whom we Christians Jook upon as the promised Messias, I think I cannot do the truth a greater service, than by clearing this notion of the Adyes, and shewing what thoughts the ancient Jews had concerning it. Socinus confesses that the Adyos is a Person; for he owns that St. John did describe the man Christ Jesus by the Adyos, and attributed to him the cre- ation 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 un- derstand by the Agyos that virtue by which God created heaven and earth, as Moses relates, Gen. 1. They obstinately deny this virtue to be a person, 7. 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 by them, that St. John, being - one of the circumcision, did write with an especial respect to the Jews, that they might understand him, _ ee eee against the Unitarians. 147 and receive benefit by it; and therefore it cannot be CHAP. doubted, but that when he called Jesus Christ the *!: Ayes, 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 cer- tain 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 Aéyos, 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 Aéyos, or Word, we shall prove by the works of Philo and the Chaldee para- phrases. 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 De Opit. cause; because in him, according to Philo, are the??:% original ideas of all things that are expressed in the works of the creation. ; He makes the Word a cooperator with God in the creation of man, and says that God spake’ those Lib. Quis words to him, Let us make man, Gen. i. 26. It may rei be added, that he calls the Word the image of God, 400. E. F. and makes man the image of this image. 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. when Philo asserts that the Ady is begotten of God, A/leg. ii. p. 76. B. which can agree only to a person: and, 2. when 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, L 2 148 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. and determining the changes that befall them. Lb. aes quod Deus sit immutab. p. 248. D. 4. Where he brings in the Word for a mediator between God and men, (Quis Rer. Div. Her. p. 393.) that renders God propitious to his creatures, De Somn. p. 447. E. F; that is, the instructor of men, Lbid. p. 448, and their shepherd, alluding to Psalm Xxill. 1. The Chaldee paraphrases are full of notions and ~ expressions relating to the Word, conformable to those of Philo touching the Agyos: 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 Mem- ra, or Word of the Lord, which answers to Philo’s Aéyos, from the word Pithgama, which signifies a matter or a discourse, as pjua 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. A. The Word that saved Noah in the time of the flood, and made a covenant with him, Onkel. on Gen. vii. vill. 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 Chal- dea, (Onkel. on Gen. xv. 7.) and commanded him to sacrifice, Gen. xv. 9. and gave him the prophecy re- lated ver. 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 to Moses, Exod. iii. 12. iv. 12. xvii. 19. 2. It is the Word in whom Israel believed, as well as in Moses, Exod. xiv. 32. against the Unitarians. 149 3. It is the Word that redeems Israel out of ¢ Egypt, Exod. xv. 2. y 4. It is the Word against whom Israel murmured in Sin, Exod. xvi. 8. 5. Itis the Word before whom the people march- ed to receive the Law, Exod. xix. 17. 6. It is the Word whose presence is promised in the tabernacle, Exod. xxx. 6. xxxvi. 42. which is re- peated Numb. viii. 29. 7. It is the Word between whom and Israel the sabbath is made a sign, Exod. xxxi. 13, 17, and so Lev. xxxvi. 46. 8. It is the Word whose protection was promised Moses, when he desired to see God, Exod. xxxiv. 22% | Much the same has Onkelos on Leviticus and Numbers. | 1. It is the Word whose commandments the Is- raelites were to observe carefully, Lev. viii. 35. xviii. 30. xxil. 9. Numb. ix. 19. xx. 23. ? 2. It is spoken of the Word, that he will not for sake the people, if they continue in their obedience, Lev. xxviii. 11. 3. By the Word God looks upon his people. Ibid. 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, Numb. xiv. 12: xx. 12. 7. The Word meets Balaam, Numb. xxiii. and opens his eyes, xxi. 31. The same things, or the like, we find in Onkelos on Deuteronomy. 1. The Word brought Israel out of Egypt, and fought for them, Deut. i. 30. iii. 22. viii. 2. xx. 1. 2. The Word led Israel in the pillar of a cloud, i. 32. 3. The Word spake out of the fire at Horeb, iv. L3 HAP. XII. 150 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. 34,36. Moses was mediator between the Word XII. : and his people, v. 5. 5. Moses exhorts the Jews to obey the Word, xiv. 18. xv. 5. Xxvil. 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, xxxiil. 27. So agreeable, as you see, are the notions of Onke- los 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 dif- fuse, 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 Acyos, apy, the first emanation, De Confus. Ling. p. 267. B. The same Targum saith, the Word made man after his image, Gen. 1. 27. Jonathan’s affirms that the garden of Eden was planted by the Word for the just before the creation of the world, Gen. 11. 8. And both Jonathan’s and the Jerusalem Targum say, the Word spoke to Adam in the garden, Gen. iii. 9; the Word lifted up Enoch to heaven, Gen. v. 24. Jonathan’s affirms that the Word protected Noah, and shut the door of the ark upon him, Gen. vii. 16. That the Word threw down the tower at Babel, Gen. xi. 6. And both have. it, that God promised Abraham that his Word should ‘protect him, Gen. xv. 1. against the Unitarians. 151 Jonathan’s makes it the Word that plagued Pha- eet raoh for Abraham’s sake, Gen. xii. 17. The Jerusalem Targum saith, it was the Word that appeared to Abraham at the tent door, Gen. Xvill. 1; and that the Word rained fire from before the Lord, Gen. xix. 24. And both this 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 that his Word would succour Isaac, Gen. xxi. 24, 28. repeated Gen. xxxi. 3, 5, 42. XXXil. 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 Adyos caused Isaac to be born, Alleg. 1. 2. p. 77. | According to this Targum, the Word sent Michael to save Thamar, Gen. xxxvill. 25. The Word went down with Jacob into Egypt, Gen. xlvi. 1—4. The Word succours Joseph, Gen. xlix. 25; which Joseph acknowledges, Gen. 1. 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 dis- posed Pharaoh’s daughter to go and bathe herself in the Nile, Exod. 11. 5. It was he that spake, and the world was made, according to Jonathan’s ‘Targum; or it was the Word of the Lord, according to the Jerusalem Tar- gum, that spoke to Moses, Exod. ii. which clearly ’ shews that they made use of the word Memra to L4 152 The Judgment of the Jewish Church Ceee omar what is so often repeated, Gen. 1. dnd God oe eae: _ It is the Word who, as God promised to 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 patriarchs, Exod. vi. 3. The Word of the Lord slew the first-born of Egypt, Exod. xii. 29. | The Word of the Lord hath appeared on three remarkable occasions: first, at the creation of the world; secondly, to Abraham; thirdly, at Israel's departure out of Egypt: and a fourth time he shall appear at the coming of the Messiah. Thus Jona- than, and Targ. Jerusalem, Exod. xii. 42. The Word wrought miracles by Moses, Exod. xill. 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. xi. 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. Xlv. 24, 31. It is the Word that gives the law concerning the sabbath, Exod. xvi. 25. and he against whom Israel murmured, ver. 8. The Israelites hear the voice of the Word, Exod. x1x. 5, who speaks, ver. 9, and pronounces the Law, xx. 1; being the same that redeemed Israel from Egypt, bid. and Lev. 1. God promises to send his Word with his people, and Israel is strictly enjoined to obey him, Exod. XXIl1l. 20, 21, 23. The Word punishes Israel for the golden calf, Exod. xxxil. 35. against the Unitarians. 153 The Word talks with Moses in the tabernacle, cHap. and the people worship him, Exod. xxxiii. 9, 11, *! | Levi. , _ __It is the Word whose appearance is promised to _ Moses, Exod. xxxiii. 19. and the Word js distin- guished from the angels that attend him, Exod. XXXii. 23. 3 It is the Word to whom Moses prays, and who is called the name of the Lord, Exod. xxxiv. 5. The Word makes statutes, Lev. xxiv. 11. Numb. | Xxil. 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 Israel- ites encamp, Numb, ix. 19, 23. It is the Word to whom prayer is made upon re- moving the ark of the covenant, Numb. x. 35, 36. The Word spoke to all the Prophets before Mo- ses, 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 Israel- ites were hanged, Numb. xxv. 4. It is the Word that wrought wonders in the de- sert 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 iil. 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 throne high lifted up, and hears the people’s prayers, and speaks from the midst of the fire, and gives the Law, Deut. iv. 7, 12, 33. Vv. 23; 24, 25. 154 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. | Moses is a mediator between the Word and the ae 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. XXv1. 18. - The Word protected Jacob from Laban, Deut. XXvl. 5. The Word destroyed Sodom, Deut. xxix. 23. The Word sware to the Patriarchs, Deut. xxxi.7. The Word shall judge the people, Deut. xxxi.. 36. | The Word saith of himself, that he was, is, and is to come, v. 32, 39. | The Word takes Moses up to Mount Abarim ; and Moses prays to him for a sight of the land of Canaan, Deut. xxxii. 49. The Word shews Moses the generations of the great men of Israel, Deut. XXXIv. l. 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 con- siderations on these many places of Philo and the Chaldee paraphrases, to convince the reader, that the Jews before Jesus Christ did look upon 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 the Hebrew is some- against the Unitarians. 155 times taken in another sense, as well as that of Aéyos CHAP. 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 to 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 conse- quently whether this Person be truly God. I propose this, not that I think there is any ne- cessity of proving it after all that I have already ob- served from the ancient Jews-touching the Word; but for the clearer manifestation of the absurdity into which our adversaries fall, by 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 disser- tation, 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 no- tions of the Adyos before he made this judgment, notwithstanding that he could not but see them in Grotius on St. John’s Gospel, which he quotes ; and he could not but know how much they were Ansisted upon by those writers whom he pretended CHAP. XII. 156 The Judgment of the Jewish Church to answer. They do indeed so distinctly and clearly establish the personality of the Aéyss, that they ren- der 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 pro- perly 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 that 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 re- turned 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 what character will you distinguish the creature from the Creator by? 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 for- bid 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 doctrme of transubstantiation ; they may teach in their schools that a creature may be enabled by God to become a Creator. But as for us, who deny that any thing but God is to be adored, as Philo denied it before us, de Decal. p. 581. de Monarch. p. 628. we re- agaist the Unitarians. 157 Ject 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 elude, so that at length he consents that the Memra does often denote a person in the language of the Targums; as where we read, the _ Word spake, and the Word said. But what kind of _ person? An angel, a created angel in his judgment, _ that speaks in the name of God. And thus he thinks the Word is to be understood in those paraphrases, when they ascribe to the Word the leading of Israel through the desert. | The reader may judge how many texts this an- swer will fit, by reviewing what has been said in the two foregoing chapters. \He will find I have there prevented this answer, and shewed that Philo and the Targums did not take this for a created angel, but for a Divine Person, who was called an angel in respect of the office he discharged according to the economy 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 Je- hovah. 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 Tar- gums, but a Person truly Divine. It is true, that Philo sometimes calls the angels Aéyous in the plural. But elsewhere he speaks of the Aéyos singularly, in terms that express his acknow- ledgment of him for the Creator of angels, and conse- quently for God: this he does in his book De Sacr. Abel. p. 202. where he declares him to be the Word that appeared to Moses, and separates him from the angels, who are the hosts of God. Again, he describes the Aéyos under the name of ‘Emioryun, as true God, as Creator of the world, Lib. CHAP. XI. 158 The Judgment of the Jewish Church cuap. de Temulentia, p.190. D. 194.B; but the angels after another manner, De Plant. Noa, p. 168. F. G. De Gigant. p. 221. E. De Mundo, p.391. It is true, he calls the Word an archangel, De Con- fus. Ling. p. 267. B. but in the same place he calls him the first-born of God, the image of God, the Creator of the world, p. 258. A; and im another place, the Son of God, that conducted Israel through the wilderness, Quis Rer. Div. Her. 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 care- fully, that we may make Philo agree with Philo: for one while he saith, an angel appeared to the patriarchs; and another time he saith, the Agyos ap- | peared to them; his design being to acquaint us — that the Aéyos is named an angel, because he ap- peared as an angel in these kinds of manifestations — of himself. Now as to the Targums, they likewise understand — by this Angel a Person that is truly God: for, 1. Could they ascribe the creation of the world to — the Word, as they do, and yet thmk him to be a _ creature? Could they profess him to be the Creator | of mankind, without asserting his Divinity? Could — they think him to be no better than an angel, and — yet suppose him to be worshipped by men, whom they know to be little lower than the angels? Could they imagine him to have given the Law on mount Sinai, and not make some considerations upon the preface of the Law; wherein the great Lawgiver says, Tam 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. xu. 42. and in many other places. against the Unitarians. 159 2. The Targums always distinguish the Word CHAP. from the angels ; representing them as messengers __*!!: _ employed by the Word, as the Word himself is often described as God’s messenger. Thus the ‘Vargum on 1 Kings xix. 11, 12. on Psalm Ixviii. 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, Jonathan on Deut. iv. 7. 4, Jonathan saith expressly, that the Word that spake to Moses was the same who spake and the world was made, and who was the God of Abraham, Exod. iii. 14, 15. vi. 4. So then if he who was the God of Abraham, was only an angel that personated God, then he who created the world was a created angel ; which, as I have shewed, is absurd. __ 5. It is impossible to explain otherwise what the Jews so unanimously affirm, that God revealed him- self face to face to Moses; which is more than he granted any prophet besides, unless the Word that appeared to Moses was the 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 represents 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 et redi? This is indeed a notion which the Socinians have borrowed of Abenezra on Exod. ili. and J oseph. 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, Judges vi. 15. the name being — ——— 160 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP given to the symbol, viz. the ark; and to the second cause, namely, the angel; because of their repre- senting God. . - But to the great displeasure of our modern Jews, and Socinians, who have borrowed from them their weapons, we have still enough of the ancient Jewish pieces left, to shew how their sentiments in these matters are quite contrary. For, 1. they (as has been already observed) be- lieved that the Angel spoken of in Judges vi. 15. was the Word, and that this Word created the world, as has been largely proved. 9. Just the reverse of what our moderns say, did the ancients hold, as we gather from Philo. For instead of an angel’s taking the place of God, he saith, the Adyos 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, &c. where the words are not ad- dressed 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 redeem- ed Israel from Egypt, who heard their prayers from 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 , —- against the Unitarians. 161 ye ¥ name Jehovah in the nominative case, either singly, © HAP. XII. 4 or joined with any other nown in apposition: but either in an oblique case, as MT WN, 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, chap. 1. and the reader shall have a full satisfaction upon it, out of the fol- lowing chapters. | It remains therefore certain, that the Word men- tioned in Philo and the paraphrases, is not an angel, _ but a Divine Person; @ed-, as Philo calls him many times ; and if the expression be allowable, devTEpos | Geds, as he speaks in Euseb. Prep. vii. 13. Ae gPeeO But we must now go on to that which will re- move all difficulties from this subject, and convince the reader, if any thing can do it, that the Jews looked upon the Agyos 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 the objections of the modern Jews and of the Unitarians all at once. Senate _”--Zaseeemeneneeaeeene CHAP. XITI. 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 Jate 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 pro- position with all their might. They have laid it M CHAP. XII. 162 The Judgment of the Jewish Church down for a rule, that wherever God is said to be i present, there all the celestial family is with him; i.e. the angels, by whose ministry (as they say) God has ordinarily acted in his appearances to men. So saith Rabbi Solom. Jarchi on Gen. xix. 24. Whereas those ancient Jews who followed the tradition of their forefathers, being not biassed by the spirit of dispute, understood it of the Cochma and Bina, viz. of the Wisdom and of the Holy Ghost; as we were admonished by R. Joseph de Karnitol in his Saare Tsedec, fol. 25. col. 4. and fol 26. col. 2. This collection of commentators being of great use for the interpreting the Scriptures, several di- vines that have applied themselves to the study of the commients of the Rabbins, 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 the Papists do the same, being concerned, as they are, to find examples in the Old Testament, of reli- gious worship paid to angels, the better to cover their idolatry. But in truth, the modern Jews do in this abso- lutely depart from the ancient sentiments of their fathers: and they who follow the modern Jews herein, do weaken (for want of due consideration only, I hope) the proofs of the Divinity 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 the Fathers, and to restore to the truth all her ad- 4 ——E against the Unitarians. 163 _ vantages, by shewing how bad euides 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 them- ~ selves 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 vouch, 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 patriarchs in paying him that appeared to them divine worship and adoration. To prove this, I must return to Philo’s opinion, ~which I have had occasion to 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 import- ance, as necessarily obliges me, by a particular enu- -meration of passages, to produce Philo’s judgment in this point, as I have done in the former. He is indeed so ample, and so much ours in his testimony concerning the dignity of the Angel that appeared to the Fathers, that he could not Say more, if we had hired him to give evidence on our side. In general, he asserts, that it was the Word that appeared to Adam, Jacob, and Moses; though 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 ber to conceive and bring forth. [Lib. 11. Alleg. p. 77. E.] It was the Word that appeared to. Abraham as M 2 CHAP. XIII. 164 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. an angel, and that called to him not to hurt his XII 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, though he be called the Angel that delivered him out of all his trouble, [ddleg. 11. p. 71. D.E. | It was the Word that appeared to Jacob in Beth-el, [ Lib. de Migr. Abr. p. 304. EK. p. 305. A. De Somn. . 460. G.] and afterwards directed him how to ma- nage Laban’s flock, [De Somn. p. 461. F.] and ad- vised 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 into that of 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. Mosvs, i. p.475. E.| It was God that called to him at the same time, | De Somn. p. 461. D.] even the Word, [p. ibid. 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 wil- derness, 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 who is called the Prince of angels, and who was within the cloud, [Quis Rer. Divin. Her. p.397- F. G.] and is called cia clic TUp06; [ 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 Soman. p. 447. C.] It was the Word ‘ whom those Jews rejected, when they said, Let us make a captain, and return into Egypt, Numb. XIV. 4, [Alleg. 11. p.71.B.] against the Unitarians. 165 It was the Word that governs the world, that ap- CHAap. _ peared to Balaam like an angel, [De Cherub. p. 87. mee FE. 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 Jew- ish Church in ancient times. 2. That any judicious writer may justly suspect those who first published those Targums, of having mangled them in many places, 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. 1. 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. 1. 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. ili. 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 | M 3 166 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. walking in the garden. Likewise in the Jerusalem pila Targum, ver. 9, it is said, The Word of the Lord called to Adam, &c. and again, ver. 10. where Adam makes this answer to God, I heard thy voice in the garden; both Onkelos and Jonathan have it, I heard the voice of thy Word in the garden. In the history of the Deluge, we see that there was a revelation to Noah the preacher of righteous- ness to build the ark, and to warn others while that was preparing, 1 Pet. 11. 20. But who gave Noah that warning? Jonathan saith, that the Lord said this by his Word. And the Jerusalem Targum, I¢ was the Word of the Lord that said this. And ac- cordingly 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. vil. 16. all the paraphrasts attributed this to the Word: the Jerusalem Targum saith, The Word of the Lord spared Noah. And Gen. viii. 1. Jonathan has it, that the Word of the Lord remem- bered Noah. Lastly, according to Onkelos and Jo- nathan, The Lord said by his Word, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake, Gen. vill. 21. After the Flood God appeared often to Abra- ham. 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, Abra- ham’s believing in the Word of the Lord, was ac- counted 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, J 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 para- phrase. You see the same upon Abraham’s divid- ing the beasts, in order to his making a covenant against the Unitarians. 167 with God; it was done at God’s command, who CHAP. thereupon did appear between the pieces to Abra- ham, and did solemnly enter into a covenant with Abraham, Gen. xv. 9, &c. Now, saith the Jerusa- lem 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. xvii. 1. was an ap- pearance of the Word, Alleg. 11. p. 77. KE. where he calls one of the three angels that appeared to Abraham the Adyos, the Word of God; and Jose- phus, 1.1. Ant. cap. 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 warm- ing 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 him- self by the vision of his Word to Abraham, when he was sick of the cutting of circumeision. M 4 168 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. When God gave him a command for the sacri- ie ficing of his son, Gen. xxii. 2. then, as Abraham was doing it, the Angel of the Lord called to him out of heaven, and told him, Mow I know thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, Jrom ME. This last word plainly sheweth that this Angel was God himself, even the same that spake to Abraham, and gave him that command, ver. 1, 2. And that command was given by the Ady, the Word, according to Philo, as it has been already shewn. The Jerusalem paraphrase hath the same on ver. 8. where, upon Isaac’s inquiring 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 worship- ped, and prayed to the Word of the Lord, say- ing, (among many other things,) Thou, O Lord, didst speak to me, that I should offer up Isaac my son. In the other Targums, ver. 16,17. where the Angel of the Lord calls to Abraham out of heaven the second time, (which last word sheweth that this Angel was God himself; for it was God that called to him out of heaven the first time, as it has been already shewn,) and saith to Abraham, By myself I have sworn, saith the Lord: because thou hast done From me this thing, and hast not withheld thine only son from 1S 1n the Fy . e . Samaritan me; therefore in blessing I will bless thee, &c. and LXX. "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 speak- ing, Thus saith the Lord, it was properly used by the Word. appearing here as an angel, and not ac- cording 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 *, against the Unitarians. 169 God. And indeed these Targums shew elsewhere, cHAP. that where this form of swearing was used, it was Rose 3 the Word of the Lord that swore, and held himself obliged to perform what was sworn. Compare Exod. vi. 8. with Deut. xxvi. 3. and Numb. xiv. 30. with Deut. xxxi. 7. We read of an Angel appearing to Hagar in the wilderness, Gen. xvi. 7. He bid her return, and sub- mit 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 spake to her; and she said to him, Thou God seest me, ver. 13. It is 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 Aéys in those places above mentioned, but the Targums likewise shew that he was the Word of the Lord, according to the sense of the Jewish Church; for so Jonathan ren- ders 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 Ish- mael, I will make him a great nation, ver. 18. Philo saith that it was the Aéyes. And who per- formed this promise? It was God the Word, ac- cording to the Targumis: 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 Beer- sheba, ver. 24. In the former of these places, Isaac being ready to have gone down into Egypt, God bade him con- CHAP. XIII. 170 The Judgment of the Jewish Church tinue in Canaan, and gave him a promise in these words, Gen. xxvi. 3. I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee and thy seed I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father. So then, he that appeared now to Isaac is the same that swore this to Abraham; so much we learn from this text: but according to the Targums, it was God the Word that swore all this to Abraham. Elsewhere they also tell us, that it was the Word that swore as well to Isaac as to Abraham, that he would give them the promised land, Exod. vi. 8. xxxii. 13. At the second appearance that God vouchsafed to Isaac, Gen. xxvi. 24. he told him, I am the God of Abraham thy father: but as the Jerusalem Targum on Gen. xxi. 16. saith, that Abraham worshipped and prayed to the Word of the Lord ; so, according to Jonathan’s Targum on Gen. xxvu. 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; it Of thy fa- is rendered, The Word of the God of my father; or, ther ; so the Samaritan and LXX. The Word being the God of my father. Amongst the Divine appearances to Jacob, those two at Beth-el 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. xxvii. 13—16. Jacob himself gives this account of the last to his son Joseph, Gen. xlvii. 3,4. God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me, and said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, &c. That it was the Word that appeared to him, we have shewed already from Philo in several places; and that this was the sense of the Jewish Church in his time, we have - Teno ye against the Unitarians.. 171 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 de- sire to speak with Jacob. Again, in the conclusion of this history, Gen. xxviii. 20, 21. where Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, &c. then shall the Lord be my God: here we read in Jonathan’s Targum, that Jacob vowed a vow to the Word, saying, If the Word of the Lord will be my help, &c. then shall the Lord be my God. Why should the paraphrast say, that Jacob made this vow to the Word ; and not rather, to God, as it is in the Hebrew text, but that they believed that it was the Word that appeared to him? And this being so, we cannot be to seek who that Angel was that spake to Jacob, Gen. xxxi. 11. for he declares, ver. 13. Lam the God of Beth-el—where thou vowedst a vow unto me. We see in the Targum on Gen. xxviii. 20. that it was the Word to whoni Jacob vowed a vow at Beth-el; 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 consider with some attention those appearances of God to Jacob, and compare them with what we read Gen. xlviii, 15, 16, and with what Hosea the Prophet saith, chap. xii. concerning the Angel who was God, cannot but take notice of two things: the first is, that the Aéyos, who is called an Angel, was God indeed. The second is, that the 172 The Judgment of the Jewish Church eh 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, That which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life ;—this is our message, 1 John i.1,5. But we must say more upon so 1m- portant a subject. : 7 CHAP. XIV. That all the appearances of God, or of the Angel of the Lord, which are spoken of in Moses’s time, ave been referred to the Word of God by the ancient Jewish Church. E 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 then appeared. Elsewhere he always calleth him God, as particularly ver. 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, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, ver. 6. whereupon Moses saith of himself, that he hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. After this, he goeth on still calling bim 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 unto them, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abra- ham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared to me. God would never have commanded him to tell them an untruth, and therefore we may be sure that it was not a created angel, but God, that appeared to him. against the Unitarians. 173 But why then should Moses once call him an Angel, CHAP. 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 Asyos, or Word, who is both God and the messenger of God, as we havé shewn from-him in several places. As for the Targums, the matter is clear; for when Moses was sent to the children of Israel to tell them that their God had appeared to him, and sent him to bring them forth out of Egypt, and that Moses asked him his name, and that God said unto Moses, Tell them, 7 4M THAT I AM, or in fewer words say, 1 4M 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. Were 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 spake to him a hundred and seventy-five times. They were times without number that God spake to him, 174. The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. from off the mercy-seat, upon the ark of testimony, XIV. from between the two cherubims, Numb. vii. 89. But those which R. Akiba reckons were appearances upon extraordinary occasions. In both these appear- ances, ordinary and extraordinary, it was the Word of God that spake to Moses, according to the Tar- gums; thus of God’s speaking to him from the mercy-seat to appoint my Word for thee, as God promised there according to Onkelos and Jonathan on Exod. xxv. 22. xxx.36. So Numb. vii. 89. Jona- than saith 7¢ was the Word that spake to him. And thus likewise in those occasional appearances, both Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targums tell us, once for all, Deut. xxxiv.10. The Word of the Lord knew Moses, 29 591919 53 S21) speaking to Moses, as oft as Moses spake to him on any occasion. For his credentials were, as we see Deut. xxxiv. 11. all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do; or, according to the Targums, which the Word of the Lord sent him to do, in Egypt, to Pharaoh, and his servants, and all his land; and in all that mighty land, and that great terror, which Moses shewed in the sight of all fsrael. — For the acts of his ministry, they were chiefly these three: 1. His bringing the people out of Egypt. 2. His giving them laws, and statutes, and judgments from God. 3. His leading them through the wilderness to the confines of Canaan. In each of these it was the Word that appeared to Moses, 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, vz. that it was the Word of the Lord that did all those signs and wonders in Egypt, saith Jo- nathan on Exod. xii. 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. | against the Unitarians. 175 Xxvill. 6. and xxix. 2. Especially, it was the Word cHAp. that gave that stroke which finished the work, ac-__ *!V cording 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 de- livered 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 mght, 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 ina 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, ver. 24. according to the Jerusalem Tar- gum, 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 ver. 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 accord- ing to him also, when God spoke by his Word, the sea covered them, ver.10. Thus, as the whole work of the people of Israel’s deliverance out of Kegypt, 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 CHAP. XIV. 176 The Judgment of the Jewish Church to be formed into a church and kingdom ; first, im- mediately after their coming out of the Red sea, Exod. xv. 25. according to the Jerusalem Targum, the Word of the Lord gave them precepts and orders of judgments ; particularly, as Jonathan has it, the Word of the Lord gave them there the law of the sabbath, and that of honouring father and mother, and judgments concerning bruises and wounds, and Jor the punishment of transgressors. Afterwards, when they were come into the wilderness of Sinai, Exod. xix. 3. the text saith, Moses went up to God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mount, say- ing, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Israel, &c. there Onkelos saith, according to one of Clark’s va- rious readings, Moses went up to meet the Word of the Lord, Exod. xix. 8. Moses returns with the people’s answer to the Lord, then, ver. 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. xix. 17. Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet the Word of God; yet the people only saw thunder and lightning, and the mountain smoking, and felt the earth quake under them: they also heard the noise of the trumpet, which so affrighted them, that they removed and stood at a distance, and said to Moses, Speak thou to us, and we will hear; but let not the Word from before the Lord speak with us, lest we die, Exod. xx. 19. according to Onkelos, in one of Clark’s various readings. Moses therefore, according to Jonathan on Deut. v. 5. stood between them and the Word of the Lord, to shew them the Pithgama, the matter and words that were spoken to him from the Lord. What they were, we read against the Unitarians. 177 Exod. xx. 1, &e. where, according to the Jerusalem CHAP. 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 Com- mandments, 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, ver. 36. Out of heaven he hath made you hear the voice of his Word,—and ye have heard his words out of the midst of the fire. Again, he puts them in mind of the fright they were in, Deut. v. 23. After ye had heard the voice of the Word out of the midst of the darkness on the mount burning with fire, all the chiefs of you came to me, and said, Behold, the Word of the Lord | our God has shewed us the Divine Majesty of his glory, and the excellence of his magnificence, and we have heard the voice of his Word out of the midst of the fire, why should we die? as we must, if we hear any more of the voice of the Word of the Lord our God; for who is there living in flesh, that hears the voice of the Word of the lwing God speaking out of the middle of the Sire, 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 un- doubted 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 vouch- CHAP. XIV. 178 The Judgment of the Jewish Church safed 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 pil- lar 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. xii, 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, re- moved 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. xu. 5. but also because he was worshipped, Exod. xxxii. 10. which was a sure proof of his Divinity. Being _ therefore God himself, and yet the messenger of Quis Rer. Div. Heres. p.397.F.G. God, it must be that this was the Adyos, or Word ; and that this was the tradition of the ancient Church, we are taught not only by Philo in the place above mentioned, but also by the Jerusalem Targum on Exod. xiv. 24. and Jonathan on Exod. xxxil. 9. and by Onkelos on Deut. i. 32, 33. as has been mentioned. When the children of Israel, after the first three days’ march, found no other waters but what were too bitter for them to drink, at which they murmured, Moses cried unto the Lord, who thereupon shewed him a tree, which they threw into the waters, and thereby made them sweet, Exod. xv. 25. Here was a Divine appearance, and it was of the Word of the Lord, according to the Jerusalem ‘Targum. against the Unitarians. 179 A month after their coming out of Egypt, they ., murmured for want of bread against Moses and Aaron; at which God shewed himself so much concerned, that he made his glory appear to them in the cloud, Exod. xvi. 7, 10. That according to the sense of the ancient Church, this was the Shekinah of the Word, has been just now newly shewed, both from Philo and from all the Targums; and the same we find here in this place, ver. 8. where Moses tells them, Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Word of the Lord, according to Oukelos and Jonathan. When, Exod. xvii. 8, &c. the Amalekites came against this poor people that had never seen war, and smote the hindmost of them, God not only gave his people a victory over them, but also said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book,— that £ will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven, Exod. xvii. 14. See how Moses performs this, ver. 15. In the place where they had fought he set up an altar, with 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 en- tereth in his book, ver. 16. according to Jonathan, Jor the Word of the Lord has sworn by his glory, that he will have war against Amalek for all ge- nerations. 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 appear- ances 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 ac- cording to the Jerusalem Targum, Exod. xx. 24, N 2 CHAP. XIII, 180 The Judgment of the Jewish Church cHap. Wheresoever you shall mention my holy name, my XIV. 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. 5. Especially at the altar for sacrifice, which was before the door of the taber- nacle, 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, ac- cording to those Targums on Levit. xxvi. 46. These are the statutes and judgments and laws which the Lord made between his Word-and the children of Israel. When they 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, Vou have made the Word of the Lord King over you this day, that he may be your glory. And ver. 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 shewed him in the mount, Exod. xxv. 40. Especially for the presence of the great King, there was to be an apartment in the inner part of the tabernacle separated from the rest against the Unitarians. 181 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 overlaid 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. xxxvil. 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 She- kinah, the Word, who shewed himself before in a cloudy pillar by day, and in a fiery pillar 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, ac- cording to the paraphrasts on Exod. xxv. 22. xxx. 36. Numb. xvii. 4. and especially Numb. vii. 8, 9. as has been above mentioned. Henceforward, throughout their whole journey through the wilderness, the pil- lar was constantly over the tabernacle, and the peo- ple attended his motion. But whensoever he gave the commandment, then the pillar removed, and shewed which way the camp was to go. Upon no- tice of that, then Moses first gave the. word, in a set form of prayer, which we have in the first six verses of the 68th Psalm. The first verse of it is Numb. x. 35. in these words, according to the Je- rusalem Targum, Arise now, O Word of the Lord, in the might of thy strength. According to Jona- than’s paraphrase, Appear now,O 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 per- formed their journey according to the will of their N 3 182 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. King, which they knew by seeing the pillar stand “VY: still, then Moses used the form for the resting of the ark, Numb. x. 36. according to the foremen- tioned Targums, Return now, O 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 pins of the tabernacle) laid 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 speak- ing 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, accord- ing to the Targums, it was the usual promise, that the Word should be their help or support, Numb. xxi. 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 7# 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 in- stances, as particularly, of the punishing of their disobedience: according to Jonathan on Exod. xxxii. against the Unitarians. 183 35, it was the Word that destroyed the people for CHAP. worshipping the calf that Aaron made. For thein ee lusting at Kibroth-hattaava, Moses told them who it was whom they provoked by it, Numb. x1. 20. (ac- cording to Onkelos and Jonathan,) You have de- spised the Word of the Lord, whose Shekinah dwell- eth among you. Their refusing to go forward toward _ the promised land, upon the evil report the spies brought upon 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 Zal- mona, Numb. xxi. 5. according to Onkelos in one Polyglot, of Clark’s various readings, they spoke against the seartat Word of the Lord, and against Moses. Wherefore, ver. 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. xxvii. 20, 21, 22, &c. it was the Word of the Lord that would send all his judgments and curses that are there denounced against impenitent sinners. But on the other hand, according to those Tar- gums, it belonged to the Word to grant pardon to them that were qualified for it. So when Moses begged pardon for his people that had sinned be- yond 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 that, upon the inflicting of God’s judg- ments above mentioned, God’s people should be thereby brought to repentance, it was promised, Deut. xxx. 3. according to Jonathan’s Targum, that NA CHAP. XIV. 184. The Judgment of the Jewish Church then the Word should accept their repentance ac- cording to his good pleasure, and should have mercy on them, and gather them out of all nations, &c. So likewise, chap. xxxii. 36. according to the same Targum, it is promised that the Word of the Lord by his mercy should judge the judgment of his people, and should repent him of the evil that he had decreed against his servants. It were easy to add many more such instances out of the Targums ; but these are abundantly enough to shew the sense _ of the ancient Church, what they thought of him that so often appeared to their fathers in the wil- derness, 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 Jaithful 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 Jona- than, 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 Sight 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, dnd Joshua will go over before you, as the Lord has spoken: and for all your ene- mies, ver. 5. the Word of the Lord shall deliver them up before you; therefore saith he, ver. 6. ac- cording to Onkelos, Fear them not, for the Word of the Lord your God goes before you; he will not Jailnor forsake you. After this he calleth to J oshua, against the Unitarians. 185 and saith to him before them all, ver. 7. according CHAP. to Jonathan, Be strong und of a good courage, for _*!V: thou must go with this people into the land which the Word of the Lord has sworn to their fathers that he would give them—and the Shekinah of the Word of the Lord shall go before thee, and his Word shall be thy help; he will not leave thee nor forsake thee; fear not therefore, neither be dismay- ed. He repeats it again from God to Joshua, ver. 23. according toOnkelos 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, Xxxil. 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, xxx. 1. That being done, he went up to mount Nebo, xxxiv.1. There, according to Jona- than, 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 Aéyes, according to Philo. It was certainly the cur- pe sacr. rent tradition of the Church in his age, that. pe Bs p- 162. soul was taken out of his body by a kiss of the~~’ Word of the Lord, as Jonathan renders it; or, ac- cording to the Jerusalem Targum, aé the mouth of the decree of the Word of the Lord. After his death, Joshua took upon him the govern- ment, ver. J. 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. CHAP. XIV. More Ne- bochim 11. p- 42. Muis Va- ria, p. 95. 186 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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 se- cond place. It is plain that so far the ancient Jew- ish Church took these appearances to have been made by the Word. But what opinion had they of the Angel’s appear- ing to Balaam, ver. 22? Others may ask what they thought of the dialogue between Balaam and the ass that he rode upon, occasioned by the fright that the beast was in at the Angel’s appearing to him. All this, as Maimonides 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. 11.16. God opened the mouth of the dumb beast to rebuke the madness of the Prophet. As it cannot be doubted but that Balaam was used to have communication with devils that spake to him in di- vers 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 else- where, 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 unto thee, that thou shalt sneak. 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 Aéyos, as has been already shewed. And that this was the against the Unitarians. 187 sense of the Church in his age, we may see in CHAP. the two followimg appearances to Balaam; where, *!¥- as well as in the two that were before this, the Tar- gums say, it was the Word that met Balaam, and spoke to him. ‘Thus both Onkelos and Jonathan, on Numb. xxiii. 4, 16. “ER e a apne CHAP. XV. That all the appearances of God, or of the Angel of the Lord, which are spoken of in the books of the Old Testament after Moses’s time, have been referred to the Word of God by the Jews before Christ's incarnation. Tuus far it has been our business to shew, that it was the Word that made all those appearances, either of God, or of an Angel of God that was wor- shipped, in any part of the five books of Moses. We have been much larger in this than was neces- sary for our present occasion. But whatsoever may seem to have been too much in the former 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 used hitherto, in the short- ness 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 Aéyos 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 CHA XV e. 188 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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 needs of any more. ‘So that touching the follow- ing appearances of God, or the Angel that was wor- shipped, it will be enough to shew that the ancient Jewish Church had of them 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 fo» such, other- wise he would not have fallen down on his face, and worshipped him, as he did, ver.14. Nor would a created angel have taken it of him without giving him a present reproof, as the angel did to St. John in the like case, Rev. xix. 10. xxii.9. But this Di- vine Person was so far from reproving him for hay- ing done too much, that he commanded him to go on, and do yet much more, requiring of him the highest acknowledgment of a Divine presence that was in use among the eastern nations, in these words, Loose thy shoe Srom 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. ili. 2,3. we see a plain reason why God should command this to Joshua. It was for the strengthening of his faith, to let him know, that as he was now in Moses’s stead, so God would be the same to him that he had been to Moses. And particularly with respect to that trial which required a more than ordinary measure of faith, the difficulty of taking the strong against the Unitarians. 189 city of Jericho with such an army as he had, with- © out any provision for a siege, the Lord said unto him, Josh. vi. 2. See, [have given Jericho into thine hand. None but God could say and do this; and the text plainly saith, Z¢ was the Lord. And that the Lord who thus appeared as a warrior, and called himself the captain of the Lord’s host, was no other than the Word, this was plainly the sense of the an- cient Jewish Church; as appears by what remains of it in their paraphrase on Josh. x. 42. xxiii. 3, 10. which saith, J was the Word of the Lord that fought for them; and ver.13. which saith, I¢ was _ the Word which cast out the nations before them. And indeed this very judgment of the old syn- agogue is to be seen not only in their Targums till this day, but in their most ancient books; as Rab- both, fol. 108. col. 3. Zohar, par. 3. fol. 139. col. 3. Tanch. ad Exod. iii. Ramb. ad Exod. iii. Bach. fol. 69. 2. The learned Masius in Josh. v. 13, 14. hath translated the words of Ramban, and he hath pre- ferred his interpretation, which is the most ancient amongst the Jews, to the sense of the commentators ‘of the Church of Rome. As for 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, Judges vi. 11,12. and again ver. 20, 21,22. In this last place it is also said, that Gideon perceived he was an An- gel of the Lord; 7. e. he saw that this was an hea- venly person that came to him with a message from God. And yet that he was no created angel it seems by his being oftener called the Lord, ver. 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 Gide- on, 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 HAP. XV. 190 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. that appeared to Joshua with a sword in his hand, Vv. Josh. v. 13. that was now the sword of the Lord and of Gideon, Judges vii. 18,20. And what the ancient Jewish Church meant by the Word of the Lord in this place, one may guess by their Targum on Judges vi. 12, 13. where the angel saying to Gi- deon, The Word of the Lord is thy help; he an- swered, fs 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 Sheki- nah of the Lord, even him by whom God so glori- ously appeared for their deliverance. And indeed they could hardly be mistaken in the person of that Angel, who saith that his name is Pele, the Wonder- ful, which is used, Isaiah ix. amongst the names of the Messias, which name the Jews make a shift to appropriate to God, exclusively to the Messias. The angel that appeared to Manoah, Judges xiii. could seem to have been no other than a created angel; but the name which he takes of Pele, the Wonderful, shews that he was the Word of the Lord, or the Angel of the Lord, Isaiah Ixiii. 8. In the first Book of Samuel we read of no other such appearance, but that which God made to Sa- muel, 1 Sam. iii. 21. and that was only by a voice’ - from the temple of the Lord, where the ark was at that time, ver. 3,4. The same word 535 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 in the foregoing chapters, that to prove it here again would be superfluous; and therefore I take it for granted, against the Unitarians. 191 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, God sent the Prophet Gad to give him his choice of three punish- ments; either three years’ famine, or three months’ destruction by enemies, or three days’ pestilence throughout all the coast of Israel. This last being a judgment from heaven, that falls as soon upon the prince as the peasant, David made choice of it rather than of either of the other two; 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 re- present to David’s bodily eyes an extraordinary in- stance, 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 be- tween 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 de- stroying angel, [¢ 7s enough, stay now thine 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, 2Sam. xxiv.17. This was no other than a created angel, whom God, that em- ployed him in that service, appointed to appear in that manner for all those purposes before mentioned. What the ancient Church thought of all this pas- \ CHAP. 192 The Judgment of the Jewish Church sage of history, we may easily guess by what has __ been already shewed, 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 there is a passage that seems to have escaped the correctors, by which we may perceive that the sense of the Church here was agreeable to what we find of it in all other places. Forin 2 Sam. xxiv. 14. where we find in the text that David said, ver. 6. Let us fall now into the hand of the Lord; for his mercies are great: the Targum thus renders these words, Let me be de- livered into the hand of the Word of the Lord; for great are his mercies. It was therefore the Word of the Lord into whose hands David fell: it was his Angel by whom the judgment was executed: and it was also his mercy by which the judgment was suspended and revoked. The Targum on this text sufficiently shews that all this was the sense of the Jewish Church. . In short, the ancient Church considered the Word as being their sovereign Lord, and King of the people of Israel. All those kings whose acts are described in the two Books of Kings, they looked upon them as his lieutenants or deputies, that held their title from and under him by virtue of his cove- nant with David their father. This Solomon de- clared in these words, 1 Kings viii. 15. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who by his Word made a covenant with David my father. Whatsoever God did for his people under their government, in pro- tecting 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 xix. 34. xx. 6. When they had quite broken his covenant, then God removed them from before his Word, and gave against the Unitarians. 193 them up to be a scorn to all nations, as he threatened he would do it, 1 Kings ix. 7. according to their Targum. In these books we read of no more but two Di- vine appearances in Solomon’s time; and both these to Solomon himself, 1 Kings ix.2. | The first was at Gibeon, chap. ui. 5. where the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, and satd 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 world. 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 Solo- mon was awake, he went presently to Jerusalem, (which was about seven miles distant,) and there he stood before the ark of the covenant of the Lord, (which was there in the tabernacle set up by David his father,) and he offered up both burnt offerings and peace offerings, and made a feast to all his servants. The haste in which all this was done brings us presently to the occasion of it; for of all peace offerings for thanksgiving to God, the same _ day that they were offered the flesh must be eaten, Lev. vii. 15; the breast and the 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 obli- gation? Especially since there at Gibeon was the ta- bernacle 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 pur- pose to Gibeon to sacrifice upon that altar at that time. The very day before this appearance of God, O CHAP. XV. 194. The Judgment of the Jewish Church cuHap. he had offered a thousand burnt offerings upon it, XV. 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 J erusalem, 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 ap- pearance to Solomon, then it must be he that made the second also; for both these appearances were of the same person. So it is said 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 con- siders the circumstances of this second appearance, and the words which God spake to Solomon on this occasion. First, The time of this Divine appearance to Solomon was when he had finished the building of the house of the Lord, 1 Kings ix.1. He had brought the ark into the most holy place, even un- der the wings of the cherubims, 1 Kings vii. 6. The glory of the Lord had taken possession of this house, ver. 10, 11. and Solomon had made his prayer and supplication before it, ver. 12—61. Thereupon God appears, and tells him, I have heard thy prayer and supplication that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house which thou hast built, ix. 3. that is, I have taken it for my own, to put my name there for ever, 1 Chron. vii. 12. I have chosen this against the Unitarians. 195 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, &c. 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, &c. Here we cannot but see that he that appeared to Solomon, and said to him, L have chosen this place, &c. speaking 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 T'ar- gum, both ver. 5. and ver.11. of that chapter, this was no other than the Word, according to the doctrine of the ancient Jewish Church; though in their Targum on 1 Kings ix. (which also is called Jona- than’s, but how truly the reader may see by this instance) there is not the least mention of the Word upon this occasion. - | The Word of the Lord being now in his resting- place in Solomon’s temple, 2 Chron. vi. 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 no more read of such Divine appear- ances as we had formerly. There is only one to be excepted, namely, that which was made to Elias in a small still voice, 1 Kings xix. of which something ought to be ‘said more particularly. It may be observed that this was in that part of Israel which had no communion with the temple. It was in Ahab’s time, when the chil- O 2 CHAP. XV. 196 The Judgment of the Jewish Church cHAP. dren of Israel had not only cast off the seed of XV. David, but seemed to have quite forsaken the cove- pant which God had made with their fathers by his servant Moses. To bring them back to their duty, God had now sent Elias, who was a kind of second Moses. God shewed he was so, by putting him imto so many of Moses's circum- stances. After a fast of forty days, such as none but Moses had ever kept before him, he comes to Horeb, the mount of God, 1 Kings xix. 8. So called first, Exod. iii. 1. in the history of God’s first appearing to Moses in that place. And as there, ver. 6. Moses hid his face, being afraid to look upon God; so did Elias in this place, 1 Kings xix. 13. He wrapped his face in his mantle; and then God spoke to him, as he had done at first unto Moses. He that spoke now was the same that spoke then, as appears by comparing the circumstances; and he that spoke then, was God the Word, as we have proved before in the former chapter. This must needs have been the sense of the ancient Jewish Church. And to us Christians it cannot but look very agreeable, that as when Moses and Elias were upon the earth, the Word appeared to them, and spoke with them on mount Horeb; so when he was made flesh, and dwelt among us, Moses and Elias came to him on mount Tabor, and spoke with him at his transfi- guration. Of those appearances of angels to Elias, 1 Kings xix. 5,7. 2 Kings i. and of the angel that made that slaughter in Sennacherib’s army, 2 Kings xix. 35. we have no more to say in this place; because they seem to have been no other but created angels, and neither of them is called the Word of the Lord in their Targum. But we are concerned for that vision of God which was seen by the prophet Micaiah, 1 Kings xxii. 19. although he doth not say that God ap- peared to him, nor that he saw any thing more of against the Unitarians. 197 God than a mere resemblance of a king sitting in CHAP. state, which was at that time visibly represented before him. For we must take notice of one thing, which is of some moment, that is, that when he saith, I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all - the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left, &c. the most learned Jews conceive that he saw the Shekinah with the angels of his attendance, and that this vision of Micaiah is the same which was shewed to Isaiah, chap. vi. and to some other prophets. In the prophetical books of Isaiah and Ezekiel, there are two appearances of God, or of the Sheki- nah in his temple, which we are obliged to give some account of. And of these, as I shall shew, we have no reason to doubt, but that it was the Word that appeared to those prophets according to the sense of the ancient Jewish Church. First for that in Isai. vi. 1, &c. the prophet saith, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high, and lifted up, and his train filled the temple; above it stood the cherubims, &c. crying one to another, and saying, Holy, holy, holy Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of thy glory—And the house. was Julled with smoke. 'That this house was the temple is expressly said at 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 Kings vill. 10, 11. So that here, the Lord sitting upon his throne, was no other than God sitting upon bis 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 there are also some remains in their paraphrase; for whereas the prophet speak- ing still of the Lord whom he saw sitting on his throne, ver. 1. saith, ver. 8. Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send ? the Targum ; 03 CHAP. See Plac. lib. ii. Dis- Dut. 1. 198 The Judgment of the Jewish Church thus renders it, Z 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, John 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, it 1s clear enough from the text. But besides, it has been proved by our writers beyond all contradiction. 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. These were living wheels, animated and supported by cherubims, 1. 21. each of which had four faces, 1. 6. such as were carved on the walls of the temple, xli. 19. In short, that which Ezekiel saw, though he was then in Chaldea, was nothing else but the appearance of God as yet dwelling in his temple at Jerusalem ; but quite weary of it, and now about to remove, and to leave his dwelling-place to be destroyed by the Chaldeans. ‘To shew that this was the meaning of it, he saw this glorious appearance of God, first, in his place, ii. 12. 7. e. on the mercy-seat, in the temple, ix. 3. Next, he saw him gone from his place, to the threshold of the house. Judges use to give judgment in the gate; so there over the threshold of his house God gave sentence against his rebel- lious people, ver. 5, 6, 7. Afterwards, 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 Te against the Unitarians. 199 the east, Zech. xiv. 4. and so the Targum has it on CHAP. this place. After this departure of the Divine pre- a sence, Ezekiel saw his forsaken temple and city de- stroyed, and his people carried away into captivity, Xxxill. 21, &c. After this he saw no more appear- ance of God, till his people’s return from his captivity ; and then, the temple being rebuilt according to the measures given from God, xl. xli. xli. 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, xlii. 2. Behold the glory of the God of Israel came From the way of the east, (where the prophet saw it last, at mount Olivet.) So again, ver. 4. The glory of the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east. And ver. 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 Kings vi. 11. All along in this prophecy of Ezekiel, there was but one per- son 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 at the end of this prophecy. But that it was no other but the Word that so ap- peared im 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 re- markable of this kind, but what has been consider- ed already, in the account that we have given of the Divine appearances in the books of Kings. And there is no mention made of any such appearance in any of the other books that were written after the Babylonian captivity, except in 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 OA 200) The Judgment of the Jewish Church a hi 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, ver. 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. ii. 3. v. 5, 6. vi.4. A second angel appeared to him also as a@ man with a measuring line in his hand, ii. 1. But whosoever compares this text with Ezek. xl. 3, 4, 5, &e. 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, ih 3. an- other angel comes to meet him, and bids him, Run, speak to this young man, (whether to the angel sur- veyor, or whether to Zechary himself,) and tell him, Jerusalem shall be inhabited, &c. ii. 4. He that commands another should be his superior. And yet this superior owns himself sent from God. But he owned it in such terms as shewed that he was God himself. This the reader will see more than once in his speech, which is continued from ver. 4. to the end of the chapter. It appears especially in ver. 8, 9, 11. of this chapter. First, in ver, 5. having de- clared 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 * After the my glory will I place in the midst of her; he goes glory of his : Shekina ON to ver. 8. and there he delivers a message from pans hehe. God to his people, in these words; Thus saith the the temple, Lord of hosts, After the glory * hath he sent me to when that the nations that spoiled you, &c. Here the sense is they should ambiguous; for it seems strange that the Lord of ses fiabvis , hosts should say, another hath sent me. But so it itselftaken, 1s again, and much clearer expressed, in ver. 9. where aiideon! he saith, Behold, Iwill shake my hand upon them, cient ser- and they shall be a spoil to their servants. This vauts the Persians. One but God could say: but he addeth in the next ~ against the Unitarians. 201 words, And ye shall know that the Lord of hosts CHAP. hath sent me; which words plainly shew that, though he styled himself God, yet he came as a messenger from God. ‘This is plainer yet, ver. 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, O Zion, ver. Taee, 10.) This again none but God could say: and yet 7” it followeth, Thou (O Zion) shalt know that the al temi- Lord of hosts hath sent me to thee, (O Zion.) "5" Here are plainly two persons called by the name brew, and of Jehovah; namely, one that sends, and another ‘irrerere that is sent; so that this second Person is God, and refer to yet he is also the messenger of God. 8 So likewise in the next chapter, ver. 1. the angel that used to talk with the prophet shewed him Joshua the high priest standimg before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan standing over against Joshua as his adversary. And ver. 2. the prophet hears the Lord say unto Satan twice over, The Lord rebuke thee, for being so maliciously bent against Joshua, that was come out of the captivity as a brand plucked out of the fire. Ue that was called the Angel, ver. 1. is here called the Lord, ver. 2. and this Lord intercedes with the Lord for his protect- ing 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 stand- ing in these before the angel, ver. 3, 4. the angel commands them that stood about him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. Here again, _ by commanding the angels, he sheweth himself their superior. Afterwards, when the filthy garments were taken off, this Angel saith to Joshua, Behold, I have caused thy iniquity to pass from thee ; words, which, if a man had said them to another, the Jews would have accounted it blasphemy, Matt. ix. 2, 3. CHAP. XV. “WON And he said, Jon. Targ. Socin. in 202 The Judgment of the Jewish Church — 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, Psalm 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, J will clothe thee with righteousness, ver. 5. And he said, (again command- ing the angels,) Let them set a fair mitre on his head; and they did so, and clothed him with gar- ments, and the Angel of the Lord stood by. Here again he is called an Angel, at last, as he was at first, 1.3. It is an angel’s office to be the messenger of God; and so he often owned himself to be, in say- ing, The Lord sent me. And yet this messenger of God commands the angels, u. 4, 11. 4, 5. and him- self stands by to see them do his commands, ver. 5. This angel calleth Israel his people, and saith, he will dwell among them, il. 10,11. He takes upon him to protect his people, ver. 5. and to avenge them on their enemies, ver. 10. He intercedes with God, i. 2. He forgives sin, and confers righteous- ness, 11. 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 non- sense, 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, or by put- ting in other words, as Socinus honestly confesseth Wiek. 1. ihe has done in his interpretation. And he saith, p. 565. 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 follow- ers bring this necessity upon themselves. They that will set up new opinions must defend them with new Scriptures. For our part we change nothing in the words; and in our way of understanding against the Unitarians. 203 them we follow the judgment of the ancient Jewish CHAP. Church, that makes all these things perfectly agree i to the Agyos. This we see in Philo, who often call- p. somn. eth the Agyes God ; and yet as often calleth him anp.466.B. angel, the messenger of God; and our high priest, aris, ay and our mediator with God. The same hath been 7s shewed of the Word elsewhere out of the Targums. phils, lL 1. And here in this Targum, though no doubt it hath ee, been carefully purged, yet by some oversight it isto calls the said, i. 5. that the Word shall be a wall of fire®sh« about Jerusalem. And if the modern Jews’ had ové.- not changed the third person into the first, it would ecaenger have followed, that his Shekinah should be in the B. 418. C. midst of her ; as himself saith afterward, ver. 10, 11. 20's Ber. he would dwell in the midst of her ; meaning in the res. B. p. temple, where the Word of God had his dwelling- “sb aD place always before its destruction, as has beenp.457.B. abundantly shewed in this chapter, and as we shew-9rr4nc" ed from Ezekiel it was promised he should dwell p-249- B. ‘ ‘ : Quis Rer. there again after its restoration. Divin. Her. p- 397. G. De Somn. p. 463. F. De Prof. p. 364. B. De Prof. 466. B. De Somniis, p. 594. E, Quis Rer. Divin, Her. p. 397. G. Vit. Mos. iii. p.521. B. CHAP. XVI. That the ancient Jews did often use the notion of the Ady, or the Word, in speaking of the Messias. I HOPE what I have said upon the appearances of the Word in the Old Testament, proves beyond exception that the Word, which is spoken of in the ancient books of the Jews, is a Person, and a Divine one. From thence it is natural to conclude that St. John and the other holy writers of the New Tes- tament who made use of the Word Adyos, could not rationally apply to that word Adyes any other CHAP. XVI. 204 The Judgment of the Jewish Church idea, than that which was commonly received among the Jews. . 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 as- sertion of theirs, observe that in the Targums~-the term Adyos is never employed when they speak of the Messias. The Socinian author who wrote a- gainst Wecknerus insists very much upon this ob- servation. 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 Acyos, is put for the Mes- sias. And so that it is certain that St. John hath followed the language of the Jews before Jesus © Christ in taking the Agyos for a Divine Person, that in the fulness of time, as it was foretold by the pro- phets, did assume our flesh, John 1. 14. The second is, that the Jews of old did acknow- ledge the Messias should be the proper Son of God. The last is, that the Messias was represented in the Old Testament as being Jehovah that should come, and that the ancient synagogue did believe him to be such. 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 A¢yos, they considered him as the true Lord of heaven and earth, and chiefly of their own nation. Whereas the Messias is often represented to the prophets as one that should ap- pear in a very mean condition; and whatsoever against the Unitarians. 205 glory is attributed to him in other places of the an- cient 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, Psalm xxii. and Isai. liti. Such is bis riding upon an ass, and coming to Jerusalem, which they refer con- stantly to the Messias, as you may see in their ce- remonial book, or Aggada of Pesach. But though we should suppose that the places we are going to cite cannot expressly evince this truth: yet we might establish it by necessary con- sequences from them. For example, It is universally received, that Jacob speaks of the Messiah, Gen. xlix. 10. Onkelos pa- raphrases 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, that the Messiah is called the Angel of his presence, Isai. |xiii. 9.:the Angel of the covenant, Mal. i. 1. which words they refer constantly to the Messias. The ancient Jews affirm, that it was upon the motion of the Word that their ancestors were to move, and that he ordered them to prepare them- selves for a sight of God. Onkelos on Exod. xix. 17. And is not this it which Amos demands of the peo- ple with respect to the Messiah? chap. 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 Malachi promised that he should come to CHAP. XVI. 206 The Judgment of the Jewish Church cHaP. his temple? chap. iii. 1. which words relate con- stantly to the Messias. The Jews took him to be the Messias that is spoken of by Zech. vi. 12. And whom else could they think him to be but the Word, who is named by Zechariah the East, and the Sun of Righteous- ness by Mal. iv. 2? Especially since Philo interprets that place of Zechariah of the Acyos, 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, Onkelos on Deut. iv. 24. which renders it natural to understand of him what is to the same sense spoken of the Messias, Mal. in. 2. | Poa be The Jews believed that there was a promise of the Messias, Deut. xviii. 15. But Onkelos notes here, that the Word shall revenge himself of them that disobey the Messias. They maintained with Philo de Agrip. p. 152. B. De Somn. p. 267. B. that the Agys was the first- begotten of God. Could 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 to the Messias? as Psalm ui. 7. Ixxxix. 28. Ixxi. 1. They held, as did Philo, that the Acyos led the people through the desert, and referred to him Psalm xxiii. wherein he is called the Shepherd. And could they do this without reflecting, how often this title of Shepherd is given by the prophets to the Messias ; They held that the Aéyes was adored in his ap- pearances to the patriarchs ; and could they doubt whether the Messias, whom all the kings of the earth must adore, Psalm xxii. 11. had any affinity with the Aéyos ? They assert, that the Asys is the great High Priest, Phil. de Somn. p. 463. F. And how could against the Unitarians. 207 they deny that the Agyos should be the Messias, CHAP. when they constantly ascribed to the Messias what _*‘! we read of his priesthood, Psalm cx. 4. Whom did Isaiah see in that vision, chap. vi. but the Messiah? And yet the Targum there calls him the Word of the Lord. When Isaiah speaks of the Messias, chap. viii. 14. that the Lord shall be a stone of stumbling; the Targum reads the Word of the Lord, using it as one of the names of the Messias. The like it does on chap. xxvili. 16. where it is manifest the Messias is spoken of. Isaiah saith, chap. xil. 2. Behold God my Sa- viour, I will trust in him. Jonathan renders him, Iwill trust in the Word of Salvation, i.e. in the Word the Saviour. | The same prophet, chap. xh. 4. having called Jehovah the First and the Last, he attributes to the Word the title of Redeemer, ver. 13, 14, 16. which title properly belongs to the Messias. And so the whole is applied by Jesus Christ to himself, Rev. We85.17, xx 13. | God is called, Isa. xlv. 15. the Saviour of Israel ; and the same thing is said of the Word, ver. 17, 22, 24. where the Messias is treated of. But I foresee these consequences will not seem strong enough to a Socinian. Let us therefore pro- duce out of Philo and the Targums some places where the notions of the Agycs and the Messias do appear positively the same. As for Philo, 1. He declares that the Avyos is the firstbegotten of God, in Kuseb. Prep. vii. 13. p. 323. which he had from Prov. vill. 25. Psalm u. 7. But this proves unanswerably that in the judgment of the ancient Jews, the Messias should be the same Person with the Adyos, seeing the Messias is called the firstborn, Psalm Ixxxix. 27. 2. He explains the last, Zech. vi. 12. by the Adyos. The text runs thus, Thus speaks the Lord of hosts, CHAP. XVI. 208 The Judgment of the Jewish Church saying, Behold the man whose name is the Branch ; (or, as the Greek has it, the Hast;) 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 Mes- sias. But Philo plainly says, that this East here spoken of is the Word, the firstborn of God, the Creator of the world. De Conf: Ling. p. 258. A. This place of Philo deserves a very particular consideration. For it teaches us what notion the Jews had of the Messias before our Lord’s min- istry, and discovers the tricks and fopperies of the modern Jews, who, having a mean opinion of the person of the Messias, have invented quite another sense of the Memra, so frequent ii their para- phrases, than what the ancient Jews had of it. Nor is it of less use to confound the Socinians. For it is an undeniable proof of St. John’s following the language of the old synagogue, when he speaks of the A¢yes in the first chapter of his Gospel; and shews that they have no other answer to the many testimonies of the Targum objected against them, >but what they borrow of the Jews. 3. Another place of Philo in the same book, p. 266. F. is much to the same purpose, where he calls the Acys a man. We know the Messias is inti- mated to be a man in many places; as Ps. xxii. 22. L will declare thy name to my brethren. Ps, \xix. 8. Lam become a,stranger to my brethren. Ps. cxxii. 8. For my brethren’s sake. For these Psalms do all regard the Messias. So also where he is called Da- vid, 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 Agyos is called a man; which must be understood either upon the account of his frequent appearances as a man, and so he is called Exod. xv. 3. or to his intended manifestation in hu- man shape, as a servant. This latter is the notion of Ps, xxii. above quoted, and of Isa. xlii.1. Behold my against the Unitarians. 209 servant, which Jonathan refers to the Messias. And CHAP. again of Isa. liii. where the Messias is represented as _*¥!: aman afflicted and tormented ; which has been their Sense so constantly, that from hence the Jews since Jesus Christ have taken occasion to assert that the Messias was leprous. As for the Chaldee paraphrase, it is visible from Isa. xlix. where the Messias is spoken of throughout, that the Memra should become the Messias: these are the words of Isaiah, ver. 1—6. Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb ; From the bow- els 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 Iwill be glorified. Then I said, I have laboured in vain,—yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God. And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, 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, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: Iwill also give thee Sor a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my sal- vation unto the ends of the earth. Now as Philo hath observed that the Aéyos 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 ver. 5. as also ver. 16. to the Word, which speaks of the calling of the Gen- tiles. And so every Jewish writer confesses that the restauration of the ten tribes, which is foretold there, shall be the work of the Messias. We read, Isaiah Ixiii. 14. 4s a beast goeth down into the valley, the Spirit of the Lord causeth him P 210 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. to rest: so didst thou lead thy people, to make thy- __ self a glorious name. Where, notwithstanding the text hath the Spirit of the Lord, the Targum reads the Word, whom it treats as Redeemer, ver. 14. that guided them through the wilderness, that is in the heavens, ver. 15. and hath the name of Redeemer from everlasting, ver. 16. Indeed, that the Word should become the Mes- sias, i. e. should reveal himself in the Messias, ac- cording to the judgment of the old Jewish Church, may be gathered from the method of the Jews in explaining certain places of the Messias, which they referred to the Word of the Lord. ‘Till now they do agree, that Moses spake of the Messias, Exod. iv. 13. Send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send: R. Meyr Aldabi so interprets it, as he treats of the Messias, in his book Sevile Emunoth, ch. 10. But the Jews formerly referred it to the Word of the Lord, as we see in Onkelos on Exod. 11. 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, ye shall serve God upon this mountain. On which words Onkelos observes, that God promised Moses to assist him by his Word in the trust com- mitted to him, and repeats it on Exod. iv. 12, 15. from which it is to be concluded, that it is he whom he intends, ver.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. mut. p. 840.] this saith Philo in an hundred places. It was the Word that promised Israel his presence, saith Onkelos on Levit. xxvi. 9,11,12. But it is certain the Word was to manifest himself in the Messias, 127p2 in the middle of him, as saith Rashi, whom I have quoted before. — a = —— against the Unitarians. 211 2dly. The ancient Targums acknowledge that the CHAP. Messias was to be a prophet. So Jonathan owns on Isa. xi. 2. The same Isaiah declares, liv. 13. that they shall be all taught of God: which is explained by Jonathan of the Messias; as also Isa. liii. 5,10, 11, 12. From whence it is evident, that they took the Messias and the Word of God to be the same. 3dly. You see that God having said, Hos. i. 7. that he would save his people by Jehova their God, which is translated by the Targum, by the Word of the Lord, the Jews kept always for a maxim, that the eternal salvation was to come to them by the Messias. Rashi refers to him that which we read in Isaiah xlv.17. and he follows in this the Targum of Jerusalem upon Gen. xlix. 18. where the salvation by the Messias is called by Jacob the sal- vation by the Word of the Lord. ° It is upon the same foundation, that they refer to the Messias that which is spoken Isa. xliv. 6. that the Messias shall be the last King, as he hath been the first; which they infer from Psalm Ixxii. 8. and Dan. ii. 35, 44. in Bresh Rabba ad Gen. xlii. 6. Now this is the very description of the Word of God, as you see in Jona- than’s Targum upon Deut. xxxii. 39. Quando reve- laverit se Sermo Domini ad redimendum populum suum, dicet omnibus populis, Videte quod ego nunc sim qui sum et fui, et ego sum qui futurus sum, nec alius Deus preter me. i 4thly. Jonathan, on Micah vii. 14. has the same notion. The text runs, Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thy heritage, which dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them Feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old. But Jonathan paraphrases it thus, Feed thy people by thy Word, the people of thy heritage, in the age to come; a term always used to denote the times of the Messias; and consequently shews that the Word shall be in the Messias. 5thly. The same Jonathan, who affirms that the P32 212 The Judgment of the Jewish Church cHaPp. Word gave the Law on Horeb, and made a cove- * 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 pessible, go further to convince him, and prevent all his ob- jections. To that end I will make it appear that most of the places of Scripture which Justin used, were objected to the Jews by the Christians before Justin’s birth. I prove it thus. Justin was born at soonest one hundred and five 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 objec- tions 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 mayest be able to answer the Epicureans. R. Jo- ri ata chanan explains that maxim of R. Eliezer, as con-col3.. cerning not only the heathens, but chiéfly the Jews who had renounced their religion. And who could these apostate Jews be? It is easy to guess, by the objections which they made to the Jews, and by the maxim which R. Jochanan proposes, to prevent the Jews from being overseen in their disputes with these Jews. In a word, they were Christians, who proved that there was a Plurality, and a Trinity, in the Divine nature ; 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 lan- guage. Gen. xxxv. 7. where Elohim, that is, the s 2 260 The Judgment of the Jewish Church Gods, appeared to Jacob. Deut. iv. 7. What nation has the Gods so near unto them ? | 2 Sam. vii. 23. What nation is like Israel, whom the Gods went to redeem? Dan. vii. 9. Till the thrones or seats were set, and the Ancient of days did sit. Exod. xxiv. 1. where God bids Moses come up to the Lord. Exod. xxiii. 21. where God having promised to send his Angel, bids them beware of him, because he would not pardon their transgressions, for God’s name was in him. And Gen. xix. 24. The Lord rained upon Sodom fire from the Lord. Beth Isr. ibid. 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, and not of the Greek version. For the Greek leaves room only to few of these remarks, which shews that Justin, who was born a heathen, had them from men bred among the Jews, who had read the Bible in Hebrew, and had made their observations upon the original text of Moses, and other sacred writers. 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 ob- jection taken out of Gen. xix. 24. now R. Meir was born under Nero, and Akiba died in Hadrian’s days, about an hundred and twenty years after Christ. Neither were the Jews agreed in the manner of answering those objections, about a plurality in the Divine nature. ist. 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 against the Unitarians. 261 prove by these words, Dan. iv.17. This matter is by CHAP. XX the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the _*™ word of the holy ones. Which answer was destroy- ed 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, it is presently pulled down by another. 2dly. They were also divided about the thrones set, Dan.viul. 9. For to what purpose many thrones, if there were but one Person? R. Akiba maintained ae Isr. that there was one for God, and another for David.’ He seems by David to have understood the Messias. But R. Jose looked upon this as impious, and af- firmed 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 indig- nation, 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. 3dly. They were hard put to it by the objections drawn from Exod. xxii. 21. about that Angel whom God had promised for a leader to 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 S3 id. 262 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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 an ambassador. 4thly. 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 controversy; “ Let him dis- “pute with heretics, that can answer them,” as R. Idith. “ But if a man cannot answer them, let him “ forbear disputing.” This was the counsel or law of Rab. Nachman, one of the authors cited in the Gemara, de Sanhedrin, c. 4. §. 11. in Beth Israel. For R. Eliezer, who lived under Trajan, had ob- served that the reading of the Old Testament made the Jews turn heretics, 7. e. Christians: himself was suspected to be inclinable that way. So that in after- times they preferred 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 upon which Jesus Christ and his Apostles grounded their discourses to the Jews. ALTHOUGH what I have said shews clearly that all the notions which are in the New Testa- ment 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 agaist the Unitarians. 263 mightily cleared, if compared with the ideas of the Jews since Jesus Christ’s time. And this, I hope, will serve to shew that the Apostles did advance nothing but what was commonly received by the learned men of the synagogue, and that they have offered no violence to the sacred text 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, chap. ii. 18. has quoted the words of Jeremy, chap. xxx1. 15. Rachel weeping for her children because they were not; he may conceive the reason of such a quotation, if he knows that the Jews do look upon the Messias as the servant who is spoken of by Isaiah, chap. liii. See Zohar, fol. 235. in Genesis; and the Messias being described there as a sheep, that is called Rachel in Hebrew by the Prophet ; they have taken occasion to apply that oracle of Rachel’s weeping, not to the wife of Jacob, but to the Shekinah, which they call Rachel. See R. Me- nach. of Reka, fol. 41. col. 2. and fol. 42. col. 4. Nobody can read the fifth of St. Matthew, but he must take notice of that authority wherewith Jesus Christ speaks upon the mount in that famous ser- mon, in which he vindicates the Law from the cor- ruption 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 1x, as, I the Lord have spoken: R. Men. fol. 33. col. 4. and fol. 40. col. A. and that it was the Shekinah which gave the Law upon mount Sinai. R. Menach. fol. 67. col. 3. and 68. SA CHAP. XX1. 264 The Judgment of the Jewish Church col.1. They cannot but take notice of the title of the Bridegroom, which 1s given by John the Baptist to Jesus Christ, and which Jesus Christ assumes, Matt. ix.15. It is evident that they make an al- lusion to Psalm xlv. 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 it Is the Agyos, or the Shekinah, who gave the Law, and then sought after Israel as his bride; that St. John the Baptist speaks of himself as the paranymph, and as Moses, who said that he came out to meet God, Exod. xix. 17. as it is noted in Pirke Eliezer, chap. 41; and that it is the Shekinah that is spoken of in that Psalm xlv. under the name of the King; that the name of the King expressed the Messias, when absolutely used, Zohar in Exod. fol. 225; and that they acknowledge in this an inexplicable mystery. R. Menach. fol. 7. col. 3. and fol. 143. col. 4. Jesus Christ saith to the people who followed him, Matt. x1. 29. Take my yoke upon you; for my yoke is easy. If a man ponder that expression, he shall find that Jesus Christ speaks as God. And in- deed nothing is more common than to see the pro- phets reproach the Jews that they have cast off the yoke of God, Jer. ii. 20. and v. 5. But who doth not see that he speaks as the very Son of God, who is spoken of, Psalm 11. 3. the Shekinah, who gave the Law upon mount Sinai, and so had the sovereign authority to bring men under his Law, let their au- thority be never so great. We see, Matt. 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 Aéyos, are the same, and that the temple was dedicated to God and to his Shekinah. R. Men. fol. 63. col. 1. and fol. 70. col. 2. and fol. 73. col. 3, 4. and fol. 79. col. 3. against the Unitarians. 265 So in the same chapter, ver. 42. Jesus Christ quotes these words from Psalm exviil. 22. The stone which the builders refused, &c. and applies them to himself. But he did that, to shew them that he was the true Shekinah : for this is the constant title that they give to the Shekinah, or to the Messias. See R. Menach. fol. 8. col. 2. and fol. 53. col. 1, 3. He is the Stone and the Shepherd of Israel. How often, saith Jesus Christ, Matt. xxiit. 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 it is the com- mon 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, Matt. xxvi. 53. He shall presently give me more than twelve le- gions 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 doc- trine of the Jews. R. Menach. fol. 51. col. 3. Pilate put this title upon the cross, The King of the Jews, Providence having ordered it so, because it was the title of the Shekinah, or of the Messias, as you find it often in the Zohar. And Jesus Christ on the cross makes use of Psalm xxii. not only because he would shew the accomplishment of that pro- phecy, but also because it was the common idea of the nation, which lasts till this day, that Psalm xxi. is to be referred to that righteous Word, and to the Shekinah who 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, Matt. CHAP. - XXI. CHAP. XXI. 206 The Judgment of the Jewish Church xxvill. 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, accord- ing to a promise of the like nature, as it is acknow- ledged by the Jews? R. Men. fol. 85. col. 4. St. Luke takes notice, chap. v. 23. that Jesus Christ proves his nght to forgive sins by curing the sick of the palsy; but he doth that, to prove that Jesus Christ was willing to shew that he was the Shekinah, because of the power of forgiving sins, which the Jews allow to the Shekinah as its proper character. R. Men. fol. 84. col. 3. — The same St. Luke saith, chap. 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 it was 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, whom they look upon as the cause of all miraculous virtues. R. Menach. fol. 62. col. 1. St. John speaking of the Messias before he was in the flesh, calls him the Word; he saith that the Word was God, and that he was with God; that all things were created by him, and that nothing was made without him. This is exactly what the Jews teach of the Wisdom which is the Memra, the Aéyos, 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 au- thors of the synagogue, who agree exactly upon that notion. : It is clear that St. John has called him the A¢gyac, with 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 against the Unitarians. 207 between these words vajedabber, where he speaks cu ap. 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. and fol. 124. col. 2. and fol. 154. col. 1, 2. It is visible that the same St. John hath affected the term of écxyyvece, chap. 1. ver. 14. when he speaks of the Aécyos, supposing that the Adyos, or Memra, and the Shekinah are the same; and this 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. xlvii. 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. Jobn is the more to be remarked, because he manifestly looks upon the words of Jesus Christ to the Jews, John v. You have not the Word of God dwelling in you; which St. Athanasius hath well judged to be understood of the Agyos, or the Shekinah, not of the doctrine of the Law, as many interpreters would have it to be understood. The same St. John saith, chap. 1. 18. that the Fa- ther never appeared; which he hath from Jesus Christ, who saith so, John vi. 46. And all that, ac- cording to the notion of the Jews, who, acknow- ledging the Acyos, as the Angel that is the Mes- senger of God, refer to it all the appearances of the old dispensation, and have established it as a maxim, that the Shekinah is called Thou, and the God absconded is called He. R. Menach. fol. 22. col. 2. John the Baptist speaks of Jesus Christ as of the Lamb which takes away the sins of the world, John 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: 1st. That it is the Shekiah that 268 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. delivered Israel out of Egypt. 2dly. That the She- _**t_ kinah was typified by the paschal lamb. R. Menach. fol. 5. col. 1. Jesus Christ saith, John iii. 13. that he descended from heaven, which is the style of the Jews, who acknowledge that the Shekinah, or Agyos, was he that descended from heaven in all the appearances of God to the people of old, as to judge Sodom, &c. R. Men. fol. 36. col. 2. Jesus Christ saith, John v. 22. and 26. that God gave all judgment to the Son,—that the Son hath the life in himself. All that according to the style of the Jews touching the A¢gyos. For they refer those words to the Shekinah, He shall judge the world in righteousness. R. Men. fol. 46. col. 1. and fol. 122. col.4. And so the Zohar mentions that it is he who is spoken of in these words, Thou quickenest all things; the word Thou being the proper name of Adonai, that is, of the Shekinah. R. Menach. fol. 2. col. 1, 2. He speaks of himself as of the Manna, and of his coming down from heaven; and by that he shews that he was the Shekinah. For the Jews (as Philo witnesses) had that idea of the Shekinah’s being the Manna, and that it was promised that he should come down from heaven, as the Manna did. Sce R. Men. fol. 65. col. 3. and fol. 137. and 138. col. 3. He saith, Before Abraham was I am, to shew that he was the Acyos, as well as the Messias, of whom Micah saith that he was Mikkedem, which expression the Jews relate to the eternity of the Divine essence, from which the Agyss or the Memra proceeds. R. Menach. fol. 12. col. 1. He saith to the Jews, John xiv. 6. No man cometh unto the Father, but by me; to hint to the Jews, that he was the Asyos. For their maxim is, that they cannot approach to the eternal King in the Sanctu- ary, but by the Shekinah. R. Men. fol. 107. col. 2. Jesus Christ saith of his Father, The Futher is against the Unitarians. 269 greater than I: but in these very words he shews he was the A¢yos, because the Jews believe till this day, that though the Ady is Jehovah, nevertheless the Father is the superior Light; and they call it the ereat Luminary. R. Men. fol. 135. col. 2. He saith to his disciples, John 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 Shehinah, by whom they were to have access to the Father; the same of whom God said, My name ts in him, as the Jews acknowledge. R. Menach. fol. 56. col. 3. and fol. 53. col. 4. He speaks of the Holy Ghost, John xv. 26. as pro- ceeding 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 se- cond. 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 ema- nation of the Wisdom, or Aéyos, from the first Enu- meration, from whom it draws all the influxes and blessings. This is the doctrine of R. Nechounia ben Cana, and of the Rabboth quoted by R. Menach. fol. 1. col. 2. He saith, John xvi. 21. That all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee. Just accord- ing to the idea of the Jews, who say of the time of the Messias, that God then shall be one, and his name one, Zech. xiv. R. Men. fol.135. col. 4. We sce in the Acts of the Apostles, chap. vii. 52. St. Stephen reproaching the Jews, that they sold the Just for money: what is the ground which St. Stephen builds upon? It is clear, according to the Jewish notions, who give to the Shekinah the name of Just, and apply to him the words of Amos, ch. 11. 6. CHAP. XXI. 270 = The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. where it is spoken of the just sold for money. Rk. *AI- Menach. fol. 17. col. 3. and fol. 19. col. 2. St. Paul, Acts xx. 28. saith, that God hath re- deemed the Church by his blood; and that accord- ing to the Jewish notions, whose constant doctrine is, that the salvation of Israel is to be made by God himself, who refer to him Psalm xxii. and the place of Zechary, chap. ix. 9. and who pretend that the Shekinah shall be their Redeemer. R. Menach, fol. 19. col. 4. and fol. 58. col. 4. and fol. 59. col. 1. The same St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. calls Jesus Christ, the Adam from above ; shewing that he followed the notions of the Jews, who call the Shekinah, the Adam from above, the heavenly Adam, the Adam blessed, which are the titles which they give only to God. R. Menach. 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. Menach. fol. 15. col. 3. St. Paul, Hebr. vi. and vii. considers Melchisedec as a type of Jesus Christ, and that according to the notion of the Jews, who agree that Melchisedee was the type of the Shekinah, which they call the King of Peace, and the Just. R. Menach. fol. 18. col. 1. and fol. 31. col. 1. ) He calls God, Heb. x. 27. and xii. 19. @ consum- ng fire; and applies to Jesus Christ that very idea. But he speaks so, after the Jewish manner, for they believe that the power of judging the world belongs to the Shekinah, and they refer to him what is said in Deut. iv. 24. that God is a consuming fire. R. Menach. fol. 6. col. 4. and fol. 8. col. 3. against the Unitarians. 271 He supposes, Heb. xii. that Jesus Christ gave the Law, and spoke upon mount Sinai; but this, accord- ing to the Jewish idea of the Avy, or Shekinah, whom they believe to have given the Law, and to have appeared then, and to have spoken with the Israelites. R.Menach. fol. 56. col. 2. Jesus Christ calls himself, Apoc. i. the First and the Last, because Isaiah hath spoken so, chap. xliy. but chiefly according to the notion of the Jews who did acknowledge the Word to be the first King, and that he shall be the last; all nations being to be subjected to him after the destruction of the fourth and last monarchy spoken of in the second and in the seventh of Daniel. He calls himself King of kings, Apoe. xix. 16. But exactly according to the Jewish notion, which is, that such a title belongs to Jehovah, and to the Shekinah, that is Jehovah. R.Menach. fol. 64. col. 2. Soin 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 ac- cording to the Jewish notion? They conceive it is the very Shekinah, or Adcyss, who is the food of angels, as saith R. Menach. fol. 65. col. 2. and fol. 66. col. 4. And they give him that name in rela- tion to the happiness it will cause to those who shall be saved by him. R. Menach. fol. 143. col. 3. and fol. 146. col. 1. I could easily eniarge much more upon this ar- ticle, but it would be more fit so to do in a comment upon the New Testament, than in such a work as that we are now engaged in. What has been said shews sufficiently that the first Christians followed exactly the steps of the Apostles, and that the Apostles and Jesus Christ himself followed exactly the notions of the ancient synagogue. CHAP. XXI. 272 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. XXII. An answer to some ‘exceptions taken from certain expressions used in the Gospels. W HAT has been said about the notions which the Evangelists, the Apostles, and the first Christians had of the Messias, shews plainly that they were the same that were then common among the Jews. But because some objections are made against what has been said, I will, for a further satisfaction upon the point, examine those which seem most material, and might prejudice that which I have already established. The first is raised from our Saviour’s expressions when he speaks of himself: it 1s that which St. Chrysostom, T.1. Hom. 32. observes, that though 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, whilst he lived upon the earth. Which seems very strange; for there was great reason to expect that he would 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 human 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 incarna- tion of the Word. They had looked upon his flesh as a phantasm; which persuasion of theirs would have destroyed the notion of his human nature. Therefore to persuade them of the truth of his hu- man nature, he was born as other men are; he grew by degrees, as other men do; he suffered hunger and against the Unitarians. 273 thirst, was subject to weariness, and all other infir- mities incident to a real man; even increasing 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 Psalm xxii. 22. where the Messias says, he would declare the name of God to his brethren; and of Psalm xlv. 7. where he mentions his fellows: and also because he was to be the seed of the wo- man spoken of, Gen. iii. 15. And if, for all these real marks of his being a true man, some heretics, called the Valentinians, be- lieved his body to have been only a phantasm, without any reality; and others, named the Apol- linarians, 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 human nature was not a reality; but that this last apparition of God in a human body, was like the ancient ones, when God appeared in the form of a man, and wrestled with Jacob, though it was without a true incarna- tion, the thing being done by a body made of air on purpose, or by the body of a real man, but bor- rowed only for the time, and presently after put off. 2dly. Let it be considered that Christ used that caution, that he might not give the utmost provo- cation to the Jews, who were much offended to see him in so mean a condition. For, though they might perhaps have owned such a despicable man to be a prophet, yet they could by no means own him to be the Messias, of whom they expected that he should be a temporal and a great king. There- fore 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, John T CHAP. XXII, 274 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. viii. They said he had a devil, when he told them wER he thad 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 decla- ration, that he was God, and the maker of heaven and earth ? 3dly. It must be also observed that there being many prophecies, by the fulfilling of which the Messias was to be known; Christ declared himself by degrees, and fulfilled those prophecies one after another, that the Jews might have a competent time to examine every particular. To this end he did for some years preach the Gospel; he wrought his miracles at several times, and in several places ; he wrought such and such miracles, and not others; imitating herein the sun, which by degrees appears and enlightens the world. This might easily be shewed more at large, but that the thing is plain to any that have attentively read the Gospel. What I have noted is sufficient to shew that Jesus Christ was not to as- sume the name of God in the time of his humiliation, though 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 Acyos, who is God. 2dly. That it was more fit for him to let it be concluded from his performing all the ministry of the Messias, as it was by Thomas, John 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. J. but because then they saw in him a full demonstration that he was the true God, the A¢gyos, from whom the life of all creatures is de- rived, as is said John 1. 3, 4. A second objection is taken from the word Asys, 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 against the Unitarians. 275 used the term of Acyos in that sense. And then, the CHAP. notion of the word Aéyes seems to be grounded only on Greek expressions, and not on the Hebrew tongue, as it is used in the original of the Old Tes- tament. To answer that objection, I must take notice, 1. That the word Acyos 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. xvill. 15. Omnipotens Sermo, Adyos, tuus de ceelo a regalibus sedibus durus debellator ; and so in some other places of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, as chap. i. 5. ryyy copias Aoyos Oecd év wbiorets. I know that Grotius pretends upon the place of Wisdom, that Acyos there signifies a created angel; and quotes Philo to confirm his explication. But I maintain that nobody but Grotius could have ad- vanced such a false explication, and be so bold as to quote Philo for it, whose testimonies, as I have quoted before, are so clearly against him, and distin- guish so exactly the angels from the Adyos: I make this remark only, that if the Aéyos signifies here a created angel, then it was the current notion of the synagogue concerning the Adyos; so that when St. John speaks of the Agyos in his first chapter, either it was only his meaning that such a created angel was made flesh, and the Hellenist Jews could not understand it otherwise; or St. John was to explain the sense of the Acyss according to a new, an un- known, and unheard of signification ; that he never did, and so he helped the Arians, and confounded the orthodox. Somebody 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 judgment of the Fathers. But Grotius, who believes the works Paae XXII. — CHAP. XXII. 276 The Judgment of the Jewish Church of Philo to be genuine, 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 it is so strange an accusation, and with so little ground, that it came in nobody’s head be- fore Grotius advanced it. adly. I answer, that, according to Athanasius’s meaning, Jesus Christ himself speaks of the Agys, when he saith, John v. 8. Ye have not the Word of God remaining in you. And it is true that it can- not be understood of the Law and prophecy, which St. Paul affirms to have been trusted to the Jewish nation. And it is mighty probable that St. John taking the Shekinah and the A¢gyos for the same, saith that the Adyos éecxyvocey ev quid, by an opposi- tion 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, Luke 1. 2. Acts i. and St. Paul, Heb. iv. 12. used the word Aéyos in the same sense, to denote the second Person of the Trinity ; and that therefore it was not pecu- liar to St. John to do so. Athly. 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 Psalm xxxiil. 6. where the LXX have rendered it by Aéyos; which version be- ing common among the Jews, and generally receiv- ed, St. John could not use a term more proper to express the divinity of the second Person who took our nature upon him. And if it is no matter of wonder, that the other Evangelists should give to our Saviour the name of the Messias, or that of the Son of God, which were first given him by David; it ought to be none that St. John has given him that of A¢yes, which likewise was given him by David; and does withal so well express the author against the Unitarians. QT7 of the creation, who was this very Aéyos, who said, Let such or such a thing be, and 7 was: for which reason St. Paul says, that God made the worlds by him, Heb. i. 2. and St. Peter, 2 Epist. chap. ii. 5. where he ascribes the création of the world to the Aoyos,; 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 him as being made man, was because the other Evangelists had given so full an account of his birth and genealogy, and every thing else that was needful to prove the truth of his human nature against the Simoniani and other heretics, that would make him a phantasm; that this Evangelist found himself obliged to be the more express in asserting his Divinity, against the Ebionites, 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 Adyes 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 Epistle, chap. v. 7. These three are one; to shew the Unity of the Divine Monarchy, after the manner in which the Jews did apprehend it; wherein he was followed by the first Christians. Another objection, which seems very plausible, and therefore is confidently made by the Socinians, is grounded upon those places in the Jewish writers, where they attribute to the Acyos what is affirmed in the Scripture to have been said or done by an angel in very many apparitions ; as Exod. ii. 2. and Acts vii. 30. where St. Stephen, after Moses, athrms ty CHAP. XXII. 278 = =The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. that the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in XXII. the bush: in which places of Scripture, a created angel, not the Son of God, seems to have appeared to Moses. Whereas the Jewish writers take this angel to have been the Word, as I shewed before. Which mistake must invalidate their testimony in this case. Accordingly, some interpreters, as Lorinus the Jesuit, and other Papists, suppose him to have been a created angel, but who 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: 1st. Because he is expressly distinguished from the Lord, both by Moses and St. Stephen, who call him the Angel of the Lord. And 2dly. Because the Son of God never took upon him the nature of angels, as he did that of men; and therefore cannot be called by their name. This has been thoroughly considered before, to which I might refer the reader for an, answer. But to save his trouble, we shall here shew him reason enough to believe that those texts speak of one that was more than a creature. 1st. Because the Angel is presently named the Lord, or Jehovah, both by Moses and St. Stephen ; even as Gen. xxxi. the Angel who wrestled with Jacob is called God. 2dly. Because he declared formally, that he was the Lord, when he said to Moses, I am the God of A- braham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ; which can never be said of a mere creature, under whatsoever commission or dignity. The prophets did formerly represent God, and they acted as well as spake in his name; but for all this they never spoke as the Angel mentioned by St. Stephen ; they said barely, Thus saith the Lord, or Jehovah, Iam God, &c. Likewise Christ represented his Father, as being his ambassador and his deputy ; and yet he never against the Unitarians. 279 took the name of Father. We read of many appa- ritions of angels in the New Testament, yet no man can pretend to shew that any of them either spoke or acted as God, though sent by him, and speaking to men in his name. It had been as ab- surd 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, when at the same time he only represents 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. As for the 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 always had the care of the Church that was com- mitted to him, and by whom the Father has com- muned with man ever since his fall into sin. Upon this ground Malachi, chap. ili. 1. names the Son of God the Angel, or Messenger of the covenant. Which prophecy is owned to this day by the Jews, to speak of the Messias. Isaiah, chap. Ixiii. 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 wilder- ness, and guided the Israelites, was the Son of God: St. Paul says expressly thus much, 1 Cor. x. 9. when T 4 CHAP. XXIE. 280 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. he affirms that the Israelites tempted Christ in the Mt wilderness, by their rebellions. Lorinus himself, quoting some places from the most ancient Fathers, is forced to acknowledge it on Acts vii. And I shewed before, that St. Paul has affirmed nothing upon this point, but what is conformable 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 Fa- ther: but because they so partake of the same Di- vine nature, that they are in reality but one and the same God, blessed for ever; the Son in this respect might well say, J am the God of Abraham, &c. 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: Ist. Because the distinction of the Divine Persons was not so clearly revealed un- der the Old Testament, by reason that it did not so well suit that economy. 2dly. 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 form 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 Agyes, or the Son of God; and that that angel is called God, because he spoke in God’s name. Thus Gal. iii. 19. he says that the Law was ordained by angels. Heb. ii. 2. that it was spoken by angels. And Heb. i. 1, 2. making oppo- sition between the Law and the Gospel, he says, to elevate this last above the former, that God having against the Unitarians. 281 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 Adyos 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 Lo- rinus, Grotius, and others. But it will be no difficult business to answer it, if it be observed, Ist. That it hath been always the opin- ion of the ancient Jews, that the Law was given by Jehovah himself: 2dly. That it was likewise their opinion, that Jehovah who gave the Law was the Agyos. And 3dly. That it is affirmed by Moses, Deut. xxxiii. 2. That when the Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir, he came with ten thousands of saints ; From his right hand went a fiery law. 1 say that it is enough to prove those three things, to convince any man that when St. Paul says that the Law was spoken by angels, 3? ayyéAw», 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 Preem. p- 705. The Targum affirms the same that Jehovah revealed himself, with multitudes of angels, when he gave his Law, 1 Chron. xxix. 11. The second is clear by Hag. ii. 6. where the Lord speaking of the time when he brought his people out of Egypt, saith, that he had shaken the earth: which relates to his giving the Law, as appears from Psalm Ixviii. 8. and Heb. xii. 25, 26. where St. Paul applies that place to our Saviour. And it is acknow- ledged 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 CHAP. XXII. 282 The Judgment of the Jewish Church cHAP. fire. And also Deut. v.24. And likewise Exod. xx. XMIL “7, Deut. v. 11. and vi. 13. where the third Com- mandment 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 Aéyos, is always accompanied with several camps of angels, who attend him and execute his judgments. Those things being noted, I maintain that when St. Paul saith that the Law hath been ordained by angels, 8° ayyéawy, Gal. 111.19. the text must be ren- dered among angels, as St. Paul hath used the word 3:2, 2'Tim. ii. 2. not to say by many witnesses, but among or before many witnesses. adly. That wheh St. Paul speaks, Heb. i. of the word that hath been spoken by angels, he doth not speak of the Law, but of the several threaten- ings which were made by the prophets, to whom the Agyss sent his angels to bring back the people of Israel from their wickedness: and of the several punishments which fell upon Israel, and were in- flicted by angels as executors of the judgment of God. It is necessary to understand it so; or Itois tm- possible to save St. Paul from having contradicted himself in the same Epistle: for he supposeth, chap. xii. 25, 26. that it was Jesus Christ, that being the Aéyos, shook the earth, in which he follows the words of Haggai the prophet, and of the Psalmist, Psalm Ixviii. 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, that St. Paul opposes the Person of Jesus to Moses, as it hath been done by St. John, chap. 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 min- ow against the Unitarians. 283 istry of condemnation: Moses hath been the medi- © his ator 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 ambas- sador. 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 ancient Jews be- lieved that an angel could not say, Zam Jehovah, as we read Exod. xx. that even the T'almudists affirm, that Jehovah himself spoke these words, J am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt; though they say that the rest of the Law was spoken by Moses. Shir. Hashirin Rabba, fol. 5. col.1. CHAP. XXIII. That neither Philo, nor the Chaldee paraphrasts, nor the Christians, have borrowed from the Pla- tonic philosophers their notions about the Trinity ; but that Plato hath more probably borrowed his notions from the books of Moses and the prophets, which he was acquainted with. HAvInG in the foregoing chapters shewed that the doctrine of the Trinity is grounded upon 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, by his Apostles, and the primitive Christians; it may be seen how falsely CHAP. XXIII. 284 The Judgment of the Jewish Church the Socinians pretend that Justin Martyr was the author of the doctrine of the Trinity. But to put them altogether from this evasion, I will shew that nothing can be more absurd, than to say, that if Philo was not a Christian, he was at least a Platonist ; and that the Fathers, particularly Justin Martyr, brought into the Christian religion a doctrine which they borrowed from Plato. As to Philo’s being a Platonist, I say first, that though this were granted, yet it would do the Uni- tarians no good. ‘The reason is, because whatever notions the Greeks had of divine matters, they had them from Pherecides, a Syrian, who lived a long time before Plato, and was Pythagoras’s master. Pythagoras (who afterwards was much followed by the Greeks) travelled into Egypt, into Arabia, and into Chaldea, after he had had Pherecides to his master. Plotinus does ingenuously confess that the three original hypostases were not of Plato’s in- vention, but were known before him; and this he makes out from Parmenides’s writings, who had treated of this notion, Plot. Hnn. 5. lib. 1. Now Parmenides had the notion of the Trinity from the Pythagoreans, whose master Pythagoras had pro- bably borrowed it from the Jews, with whom he coriversed in Egypt. Secondly, I own that Philo was compared by many with Plato, as to his style, and that lively elo- quence Plato was so admired for. 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 opinions 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 meditated upon, as you see _2= against the Unitarians. 285 p- 288. where he speaks of the Three who appeared to Abraham. A Jew, ashe 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 mat- ter had a beginning. As to the doctrine of the Trinity, Plato speaks of it so obscurely, that one may justly wonder how some Christians formerly made use of his testimony to prove it. Probably he had heard of it in Egypt. But what he says about it in his Parmenides, though quoted by Eusebius, shews that he had not a very true notion of it. He speaks of an eternal and un- begotten being. He attributes to that bemg, which he calls avra ayabcv, a first understanding and a first life. And Proclus does distinguish those three princi- ples of Plato as three different beings. But Plotinus does not agree in this with Proclus, but affirms that these three are but one and the same thing. The reason why many Christians have so much esteemed Plato, is the nobleness of his morals; the maxims of which are much more elevated and Christian-like, than those of other heathen philo- sophers. | It is true, Philo seems to have followed Plato’s expressions, when he calls the Word of God Acdrepov Geov, a second God. But it must be observed, first, that Philo never owns above one God ; and, secondly, that he used that expression, to mark the distinction which is between Jehovah and Jehovah, as I shewed already. Let the thing be considered in itself. It is certain that the notion of the Trinity cannot be had from reason. It must therefore be a doctrine either re- vealed 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 in- CHAP. XXII. CHAP. XXIII. 286 The Judgment of the Jewish Church ventor of it, that Proclus affirms it to. be beomeury Geodoyia, a piece of divinity delivered by God himself. And Numenius, a famous Platonist, who lived under the two Antonines, and was therefore Justin’s con- temporary, expressly maintains that Plato during his thirteen years stay in Egypt had learnt the doctrine of the Hebrews, as Theodoret tells us in his first sermon against the Greeks. For it is certain that many Jews fled into Egypt, after Nebuchadnezzar had 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 before lost much of its credit. Aristotle did much lessen it. But it was much more crest-fallen when the opin- ions of Zeno and Epicurus prevailed. Zeno’s philo- sophy spread itself as far as Rome, though the max- ims 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 Ale- xandria a sect of philosophers, the head of whom was one Polemo, who lived under Augustus: these freely rejected the most famous opinions, and pick- ed out what they found most rational in the several sects of philosophers; for which reason they were called Electics, or Choosers. And one needs but read Philo with judgment, to find that he followed this sect. It appears that Philo’s great design in all his works is to shew, that the Jews were infinitely above the heathens, both as to virtue and know- ledge: in which he followed Aristobulus’s notions, against the Unitarians. 287 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 those 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 ex- pression as that we have in the Targum upon Hag. 1. 4,5. Lam 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. Mr. N. hath been sensible of this; and therefore he does not accuse them of hav- ing been Platonists: but he accuses the orthodox Christians in general to have inserted in the Jewish books whatever in them is favourable to the doc- trines of the Trinity, and of the Divinity of the Aéyos. 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 the Christians, as to trust them with their books, in order to falsify them? and afterwards so sottish, as to spread everywhere these very books and Tar- gums which their enemies had falsified? This sup- position is so ridiculous, that I cannot imagine how CHAP. XXIII. CHAP. XXIII. 288 The Judgment of the Jewish Church any author can write such a thing, or even conceive and suppose it. What I said of the Gospel notions in the fifteenth chapter shews plainly that neither Christ nor his Apostles did adopt the system of philosophy which was taught by the Platonists. The angel who revealed the Lord’s 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 Habak- kuk, chap. 11. 8, 13, 18. J 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. R In short, a man must be out of his senses, to find any thing in the Gospel that savours of Plato’s hy- pothesis. 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, or no, was the question made in a Platonic sense ? It is true, St. Paul has sometimes quoted heathen- ish 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 Epimenides the Cretan 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 Aéyos, had been a fisherman about the lake of Tiberias: St. Paul and St. Luke only 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, fol- against the Unitarians. 289 lowed St. Paul in his travels, and by his directions writ bis Gospel. But it does not appear that our. Saviour taught those of his disciples who were illite- rate the notions of Plato; nor that those who were learned, as St. Paul and St. Luke, ever used Plato’s authority in their preaching. This appears plainly by the Book of the Acts, in which St. Luke gives an account of the sermons of the Apostles, and of the occasions as well as method of them. 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 judgment in the life to come; yet he quotes never an author, and was contented to argue the case by dint of reason; and this he did with that force, that he converted one of the judges of Areo- pagus, 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 phi- losophers. 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 Chris- tian religion. He neither quotes Plato against the heathens, nor against the Jews. If we had the book he writ against Marcion, who out of Plato’s writings had broached his detestable opinions, we might very probably have seen how little he valued Plato’s au- thority. Tertullian, who had read Justin’s book, and U CHAP. XXII. CHAP. XXIIL. 290 The Judgment of the Jewish Church who saw that both the Gnostics and the Valentinians made much of Plato’s authority, shews plainly how little he valued Plato, when he says he was grown omnium hereticorum condimentarium, the sauce which all heretics used to propagate their doctrines by, and give it a relish; and that by which they corrupted the purity of the Christian religion. And much the same opinion touching Plato had they that opposed the Arian heresy, of which it is thought Origen was the first broacher. However, I aver, first, that the first Christians were no more Platonists than the Jews, that is, did not use Plato’s notions in their system of divinity. They were so far from it, that they declared that what they believed about the Trinity, they had it from the holy writers ; Justin. Apol.2. Athenagoras, p- 8,9. Theophilus of Antioch, p. 100. Secondly, It is false that any of the ancient Christians made any other use of Plato, than by shewing that Plato had borrowed from Moses the doctrine he taught; Justin in his Exhortation to the Greeks, p. 18, 22,24. Clemens of Alexandria, Strom. 1.4. p. 517. and 1.5. p.598. Pedag. 1.1. ¢. 6. Ori- gen against Celsus, |. 1. p. 16. 1. 4. p. 198. 1. 6. p. 275, 279, 308. 1.7. p.351. and 371. Thirdly, The very heathen authors own that Plato borrowed his notions from Moses; as Numenius, who (as Theodoret tells us) did acknowledge that Plato had learnt in Egypt the doctrine of the He- brews,during his stay there for thirteen 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 doc- trine 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 as natural for a against the Unitarians. 291 Greek to mix fabulous notions with what he had from others, as it had been for them to adulterate the true principles. The truth which we profess, and draw from a di- vine original in this matter, is not at all concerned with Plato’s visions. And yet, since the notion of the Trinity could not possibly be framed by any mortal man, two considerable uses may be made of Plato's notion about it. First, to shew that this doctrine is not of Justin Martyr’s invention; since Plato, who lived five hundred years before Justin, had scattered some notions of it in his books, which he had pro- bably 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 our Socinians do now. There is a difficulty of greater moment than all the objections which the Unitarian authors can op- pose, against my using the authority of the judgment of the old synagogue; and I will not keep it con- cealed, although they have not been sensible of it. It arises from the words of St. Paul himself, 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, Wevdori- pov yorews, 1 Tim. vi. 20, 21. which he compares with @ cancer. I acknowledge freely that Irenzeus, lib..1. c. 20. and Tertul. adv. Valentin. understood those expres- sions of St. Paul against the Gnostics of their time, who were come from Simon Magus. And I acknow- ledge 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 new Jewish Cabala of that time, which was in truth a mixture of the true tradition of the synagogue, and of the Wie CHAP, XXIII. 292 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. notions of the Platonists and Pythagoreans, who had XXIII. borrowed their notions from the Egyptians. And I will not insist now too much upon the judgment of those who think probably enough that the Egyp- tians 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 hav- ing been corrupted amongst the Jews, doth not abate the authority of the proofs of the Trinity, and of the notions of the Messias, which I have brought from all the Jewish writers, and which hath nothing common with those innumerable cones 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 Saddu- cees, and some Baithusei, whose birth the Jews say was as ancient as that of the Sadducees, but who seem to be not so ancient, and to have their origin from one Simon Boethus, an Alexandrian Jew, men- tioned 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 Pa- lestina or Egypt, but was spread every where? On the contrary, I maintain justly that when St. 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 nobody accuses to have ~ used those foolish genealogies which were found amongst the Valentinians, and are to be found now against the Unitarians. 293 amongst some of the Cabalists; he hath secured my argument taken from the pure traditional ex- position 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 no- tions with the ancient Divinity of the Fathers to shift for themselves, and being not concerned in all their other speculations, though, 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. so ei 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, out of the Chaldee paraphrasts, and 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 Ady, 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 Chaldaic is the same as that of Adyos in Greek, was made use of by the ancient paraphrasts on purpose to prevent people’s fancying that 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 eaution on U 3 CHAP. XXIII. CHAP. XXIV. 294 The Judgment of the Jewish Church other occasions, whereas they often render those texts 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 at- tributed 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 Acgyos: and as certain, that in many others, they use it where there is no danger of fancying God as having a body: as Gen. xx. 21. Exod. ii. 25. vi. 8. xix. 17. Lev. xxvi. 46. Numb. xi. 20. xxiii. 21. and in many more, quoted by Rittangel on Jetzira, p. 96. and in his book Libra Feritatis. Besides, it is so palpable that the ancient Jews, particularly Philo, have given the notion of the Acyos as being a Divine Person, that Maimonides’s answer can be no other than an evasion. Nay it 1s observ- able that the word Davar, which in Hebrew signi- fies Word, is sometimes explained by that which is a true Person, in the books of the old Jewish au- thors, 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, Psalm evii. 20. He sent his Word, and he healed them. He must needs mean a person, namely, an angel, though perhaps he might mis- take him for a created angel. Lastly, the notion which Maimonides does sug- gest can never be applied to Psalm cx. 1. which is thus rendered by the paraphrast, The Lord said to his Word: where the Word does manifestly denote the Messias, as the ancient Jews did fairly acknow- ledge, It is true, that in the common edition, that ee oe against the Unitarians. 295 place of the Targum is rendered thus, The Lord said in his Word, or by his Word; but to make this an argument against us, is a poor shift: for in his ord, does certainly signify to his Word, or of his Word, the 3 of the Chaldeans having naturally that double signification ; as it appears from many places. Thus it signifies concerning, or of, Deut. vi. 7. Jer. xxxi. 20. Cant. viii. 8. Job xix. 18. Psalm I, 20. It signifies to, in Hos. i. 2. Hab. ii. 1. Zech. 1. 4, 9, 13, 14. Numb. xii. 2,6. 1 Sam. xxv. 39. You may to this observation about Psalm ex. 1. add that of the text of Jonathan’s Targum on Isa. Xxvill. 5. where the Messias is named in the room of the Lord of hosts. The second evasion used by Moses Maimonides is More Nevoch. p. 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 Psalm xxxiil. 6. 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 do, by their word, as by an instru- ment. For God needs no instrument to work by, but he works by his bare will; neither has he any word properly so called. ‘Thus far Maimonides. _ But it is not true, as I shewed before, that the Word in the Chaldee paraphrase signifies no more than the manifestation of the will of God. I have quoted so many places out of the apocryphal books, out of Philo, and out of the paraphrase itself, to prove the contrary, that Maimonides is not to be believed upon his bare word against so many formal proofs. It is not true neither, that Psalm xxxiii. 6. expresses only the bare act of the will of God, as Maimonides does suppose. I shewed before that the great authors of the Jewish traditions (which Maimonides was to follow when he writ his U4 . CHAP. XXIV. CHAP. XXIV, 296 The Judgment of the Jewish Church More Nevochim) give another sense to those words, and do acknowledge that they do establish the per- sonality of the Aéyos, 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 the 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, whose name I have men- tioned 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 Ferbo, vel Sermone Dei, cujus creberrima fit mentio apud Paraphrastas Chaldeos, Jonathan, Onkelos, et Targum Merosolymitanum) 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 provi- dence by which he protects good men. Im 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 the falsehood of what that author so positively affirms, that the term /Vord is never found to be used by the paraphrasts, to de- note a Person. The very place which I just now quoted out of R. Akiba’s alphabet may be sufficient to confute him. I need not repeat neither what I said, that supposing all were true which he afhirms of the use of the word Memra in the paraphrasts, yet he could not but acknowledge that Philo gives against the Unitarians. 297 quite another notion of the Adyss, namely, as of a real Person; in which he visibly follows the author of the Book of Wisdom; and therefore the Unita- rians of this kingdom do for that reason reject Philo’s works as beimg 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 Aéyes 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 Tar- gums commonly render the word Davar by Pit- gama, and not by Memra. To be fully satisfied of it, one needs but to take an Hebrew Concordance upon the word Davar, and search whether the pa- raphrasts 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 these Targumists 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 mo- ment, 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’s Targum, Gen. 11. 8. They heard the voice of the Word of the Lord. And Gen. xv. 1,5, 9. where the Word appeared to Abra- ham, brought him forth, and commanded him to offer a sacrifice to him. And suppose that the word Memra should in CHAP. XXIV. CHAP. XXIV. 298 The Judgnient of the Jewish Church some places have some of the senses which the So- cinian 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 2 Let it be granted it signifies sometimes the command of God, as Gen. xxl. 18. can it have the same sense in a number of places where mention is made of the laws of the Word of the Lord? Let the word Memra be taken sometimes in the Targums for the decree of God, can it be taken in that sense in Jonathan’s Targum on Hag. ii. 6. where it is distinguished from that decree? or in those Targums upon the books of Chronicles, that have been lately printed, and where mention is made of the decree of the Word of the Lord, as 1 Chron. xii. 23. Were it not a ri- diculous tautology, if in that place the Word was 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 tothe word of the Memra, 1 Chron. xxix. 23. Let it be granted that the Word signifies some- times the oracles of God, can it signify them also, where it is expressly distinguished from them, as 2 Chron. xx. 20. xxxvi. 12. and from the law of God in the same place? The truth is, the paraphrast does suppose that it was the Memrawho gave the law and the oracles to the Jews: and that it was for re- fusing to offer sacrifices to him, that the Jews often fell into idolatry, 2. Chron. xiii. 11. xxviii. 19. xxix. 19. xx. 1): There are so many proofs, that the paraphrasts mention it in many places in the very same sense the ancient Jews gave to it, who acknowledged the Word of God to be a Person, that no man can run into a mistake in this matter, unless he does it wil- fully. Many of their works have been printed al- most two hundred years ago, and I have produced against the Unitarians. 299 so many proofs out of them, that I need not allege CHAP. any more. I shall therefore only produce a few out acess 9 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 Acyes who appeared in most of the apparitions in which God appeared to the patriarchs: to Abraham, to whom he spoke from between the victims, Gen. xv. 1 Chron. vil. 21. to Solomon, 2 Chron. vii. 12. to Phinehas, 1 Chron. ix. 20. to David, 1 Chron. xvi. 2. to Solomon, 1 Chron. xxi. 11. That the Angel who hindered Abraham from kull- ing Isaac, was the Word of God, 2 Chron. 1. 1. He plainly distinguishes the Angel from the Ayes, 1 Chron. xiv. 15. and xv. 1. He affirms that the Word sent Gabriel to help Hezekiah, 2 Chron. XXXll. 20. whereas David had said he sent his Word and healed them, Psalm evii. 20. See Cosri, p. 45. He affirms that to the Word the temple was built, 1 Chron. xxvii. 1, 3. and 2 Chron. vi. 1, 10. and xx. 8. And that they offered sacrifices to him, 2 Chron. xxxill. 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. xxvii. 8,10. He says that the judges judge before the Word, and before the Holy Spirit, 2 Chron. xix. 6. He affirms that it was the Word who helped Da- vid, 1 Chron. xi. 9. x11. 18. And Solomon, 1 Chron. xxvill. 20. And Abijah against Jeroboam, 2 Chron. X19. That the faithful seek the Word of the Lord, and his’ power, and look always upon his face, 1 Chron. WEL hb). He says that 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. xvi. 2. CHAP. XXIV. 300 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 2 Chron. xiii. 18. and xiv. 11. and xv. 2. and xvi. 7, 8. and xx. 20. and xxv. 7. and xxxii. 8. and xvii. 3. and xviii. 31. and xx. 22, 29. That the Word drove out of Canaan the inha- bitants 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 shew the tables of the Law, 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. That the Word saved Hezekiah from being burnt in the fire, through which Ahaz made his other children to pass, 2 Chron. xxviii. 3. That the Word blessed 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 under- stood and meant in many places a Divine Person, a principle of action, such as we conceive him to be. Though in some other passages he might use the term Word in those other different significations, which the Socinian author, who writ against Weck- nerus, was pleased to put upon it in general and in all places. Another objection of the same Socinian, 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 against the Unitarians. 301 Memra, or the Word; of which he gives some instances, as Isai. xxx. 28. Zech. iv.6. To which may be added, Isai. 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 style 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 style of the Targums is pretty equal : and here comes in very naturally Maimonides’s ob- servation about the style of Onkelos’s paraphrase, which he was well versed in. He thinks in his More Nevochim, p. 1. cap. 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 sixteenth century. But that since that time Heinsius, Vechnerus, and some others, followed him in that fancy. Supposing this to be true, I cannot see what ad- vantage it would be to him. Put the case that the ancients were not scholars enough to peruse the Jewish books, can this ever prejudice the truth ? And ought not they to be received, how late soever they come, and by whose care soever they be vindi- cated and asserted ? CHAP. XXIV. CHAP. XXIV. 302 The Judgment of the Jewish Church But it is absolutely false that the Christians be- fore Galatinus have writ nothing of the Jewish opinions about this matter. I shewed in the seventh chapter of this book, that Ribera and others, who would have these paraphrases to be written after St. Jerome’s time, are much mistaken: and conse- quently 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 an- cienter times? They were very few of ancient Chris- tians that writ upon these matters. And of them yet fewer understood the Chaldee, or even the He- brew tongue: most of them rested upon the author- ity of Philo, of the book of Wisdom, and of some 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 acknow- ledge. Our Socinian affirms too positively, that Gala- tinus is the first that used that authority of the Targums. He must not suppose a thing which is absolutely false. Origen, lib. 4. in Celsum, speaks of a dispute between Jason and Papiscus, in which saith Origen, Christianus ex Judaicis scriptoribus cum Judeo describitur disputans, et plane demon- strans que de Christo extant et vaticinia Jesu ipsi congruere, &c. What were those writings of the Jews, but the Targums, who had translated Becoe- ma tor Breschith, according to the Jewish notion which I have explained so many times; and for which St. Jerome reflects upon Jason, who hath against the Unitarians. 303 quoted the Targums, as if he hath read them in Hebrew. Besides, it appears by Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, that in his time some Jews had al- ready endeavoured to invalidate the proofs taken out of Scripture in their so frequent style, about the Aédyes, 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, pro- perly so called. Here I must add one thing, viz. that St. Jerome hath expressed the sense of the Targum in many places, especially upon the pro- phets, 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 of the Jewish nation, who lived about the year of Christ 1260. He writ a book against them, called Pugio Fidei, which shews he chad 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 Vie- toria adversus Judeos, by Porchetus Salvaticus, that is said to have lived in the next century. Neither of their books was much regarded in those ignorant times wherein the authors lived. So that when CHAP. XXIV. 304. The Judgment of the Jewish Church eo 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 transcribe as it were his no- tions, and the arguments against the Jews out of that work of Porchetus, without so much as men- tioning his name. ‘That Socinian mentions the Pugio in the close of that book against Vechner, by which it may be supposed he had read that book of Rai- mundus above mentioned. Which if he did, and compared 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 the 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 of 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 Hac- span well observes in his notes on Psalm ex. 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, cannot absolutely take away the force of those texts where the word Memra is applied to God; and to be satisfied of this, it is but making the following reflections. ist. That Philo, one of the most famous Jews of Egypt, very well apprehended, and clearly declared, that by the word A¢gyos, which answers to the He- against the Unitarians. 305 brew Memra, the ancient Jews understood a real principle of action, such as we call a Person. 2dly. 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 Prepar. Evang. p- 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 Aéyoc, are mentioned ; to make out their second Sephira, as I shewed before. Neither must it seem strange, that the Jewish paraphrase should use that word in various senses: for the word Aéyos hath 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 the truth. $e CHAP. XXV. An answer to an“objection against the notions of the ancient Jews compared with those of the modern. A GREATER objection than all these may be very naturally made by a judicious reader, concern- ing what I said of the testimonies of the Jews be- fore Christ, about the distinction of the Divine Persons, and the Divinity of the Aéyos. On the one side, may he say, you own that the Jews after Christ have opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, as being contrary to the unity of God; there are plain proofs of it, even in the second century. And it is certain that Trypho did not believe that the Messias x CHAP. XXIV. CHAP. KXV. 306 The Judgment of the Jewish Church was to be any other than a mere man, and so did the Jews believe, as it is witnessed by Orig. lib. 2. contr. Cels. p. 79. And on the other side you affirm, that the Jews in the old times before Christ taught a doctrine much like that of the Trinity ; and that all their ancient authors affirmed that the Messias was to have the Ayes 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 caballistical 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 ancient 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 in sincerity do it by going upon the prin- ciples I have mentioned, namely, by following what in their authors is. conformable to Scripture, and re- jecting what is contrary to it. And I dare affirm, that all the learned Jews who become sincere Chris- tians, do it by reflecting upon those old Jewish » principles which they originally read in the Old Testament, and afterwards find them to be agreeable with the principles-of Christianity. This plainly against the Unitarians. 307 appears in the Dialogue between Justin Martyr and cH AP. Trypho, a Jew. For Justin having quoted those _**Y: places out of the Old Testament, in which God calls the Messias, his Son, the Almighty God, and one that is to be adored ; Trypho answers in these words, L allow that those so many and so great proofs are enough to persuade, p. 302. B. All the diffi- culty 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 Psalm cx. and Isa. ix. to Heze- kiah, was of the same opinion with Hillel, who afterwards affirmed that Hezekiah was the promised Messias, and that no other was to be expected. Thirdly, I say farther, that the Jews, prepossess- ed with the opinion of the Messias’s coming to have a temporal kingdom, and offended by the mean circumstances of Christ and his Apostles, did reject Christ’s revelation, and were thereby hindered from seeing how conformable it was with their ancient 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 contra- diction 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 immedi- ately after Christ, endeavoured to represent his being put to death as a just and legal act; for though the synagogue had excommunicated him, yet he had con- tinued to teach his doctrine, and to withdraw his disciples from observing the law; so that they pre- tended that he was a false prophet; that he wrought : xX 2 308 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. his miracles by the power of the Devil; and that _ XV. 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 syna- gogues 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 Martyr tells us in his Dialogue with Trypho, p. 234. E. To which anathema it seems St. Paul alludes, Heb. vi. 6. and 1 Cor. xvi. 22. as may be seen in the very place of J ustin now quoted, and in page 266. EL. In the fifth place, I say, that soon after the preaching of the Gospel they begun to defame our Saviour horribly, about the manner of his birth, as may be seen in a book called Toledoth Jesu, which was known long before Origen: and about his life and conversation, as may be seen in the Talmud. They likewise defamed the Apostles, as magicians, who laboured to draw off the people from observing the law. And though such calumnies were very gross, and visibly false, yet they found credit with their people to make them cry down Christianity ; as itis usual in such cases. Thus when Papists im- pute to Protestants, that they believe thus and thus, though their accusations are visibly false, and them- selves are forced to acknowledge it, yet at the same time they prevail with their people, and turn them quite off 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 oc- casion to say, 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 him- self from him, and brought up his disciples after against the Unitarians. 309 his example, to worship a brick, by which they un- derstood the figure of a cross. Sanhedrin, fol. 107. and Sota, fol. 47. Lastly, It may be observed, that the many here- sies which arose in after-times among the 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 Nes- torians and Eutychians, but chiefly the Tritheists, visibly taught doctrines contrary to the truth. In particular the writings of John Philoponus, who was a T'ritheist, were much perused by the Maho- metans and Jews, because they begun to study philosophy, (in which John Philoponus had made very great progress,) as Maimonides tells us, More Nevochim, p. 1. ch. 71. Now this heresy destroy- ing the unity of God, which is the fundamental article of the Jewish religion, it 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 he considers, 1. The long time they have been dispersed, which confounds the most distinct, and darkens the clear- est matters. 2. Their extreme misery in so long a captivity, which subjected them to so many differ- ent nations, and many of them such as had a parti- cular hatred both to their nation and their religion. 3. But chiefly if one considers that those mysteries were communicated only to a few learned men, and kept from the knowledge of the common people; as Maimonides does acknowledge, and proves by many reflections worth considering, in More Ne- voch. p.1. ch. 71. After this, the Jews having still a great aversion to the Christians, it ought not to seem strange that the Cabalists should be so few in number among x 3 CHAP, XXV. CHAP: XXV. 310 The Judgment of the Jewish Church them; and that most of the Jewish doctors should follow in their disputes against the Christians, ex- plications and notions contrary to the Scripture, about the Trinity, and the Divinity of the Messias. For even before Christ there were many errors crept amongst some of them about those matters; — so that they that lived after Christ did easily fol- low the worst explications, and prefer them before the better, in the heats of their disputes against the Christians. Neither is it to be wondered at, that the same men should maintain contrary propositions, and de- fend them equally in their turns, as they come to have to do with different adversaries. ‘The Papists are a remarkable instance of this; when they dis- pute and write against the Eutychians, for 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 for- mer positions, than what they affirm on this occa- sion; 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, it is no wonder if they maintain principles that are contrary one to another. This may be seen in some of the old heretics, who sprung from amongst the Jews, and brought their opinions into the Christian religion ; the Cerinthians for instance, who owned that the Word had dwelt in Christ, but did imagine that it was but for a cer- tain 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 being contrary to the unity of God, and affirmed that there was in God but one Person which had appeared under three differing names ; ~ against the Unitarians. 311 it ought not to appear strange that the Jews, blind- ed as they are by their hatred against the Chris- tians, 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 worship, made the Jews look upon them as no other than heathens. This may be Seen in many places of the Talmud, which they pre- tend 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 accu- sations against the Christians, which caused the Jews, because they made them, to be banished out of many kingdoms. The Dominican friars made a collection of most of them in the thirteenth cen- tury, 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: Xx 4 CHAP. XXV. 312 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. for, though their own Jewish principles are perse- ere cuting enough, yet they cannot but condemn the same principles when used against them; nothing being more apt to make men reject the truth, than persecution, because men’s consciences ought to be instructed, and 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 were some of their kings in particular, and the. whole nation of the Jews in general: for he spoke in an ordinary plain intelligible sense. He meant there- fore by it, not only that he was the Messias, but that the Word of God dwelt in him, the same whom 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 means 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 Messias, but by whom they were like to have lost their credit with the people ; he having called them a parcel of hy- pocrites, who made a trade of religion, who in their hearts Jaughed 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 Messias, who should subdue all nations, and bring all their enemies un- der them. But here they saw Jesus, a man desti- against the Unitarians. 313 tute 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 is what they meant when they said, 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 deci- sions 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 the most ordinary people, who make always the greatest number. Accordingly, of the two thieves 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 pro- fessing it, as it was delivered to them by their fore- fathers. And this is now the only reason they have for professing Judaism; neither is it to be wondered at,, that the notions the ancient Jews had of it CHAP. XXV. CHAP. XXV. Eus. Dem. Ev. lib. iv. i; 314. The Judgment of the Jewish Church should make but little impression on their minds, no more than the doctrines of their doctors, which they call Cabalists, because they follow the tra- ditions of the old synagogue. As for their late teachers, they being moved by a spirit of contradiction, have raised many new ques- tions about the characters of the Messias, and other like articles of religion, controverted between them and the Christians, by which they have plunged their people into inextricable difficulties ; and they are so exasperated now against us, that they can hardly be calm enough to take notice of those visible contradictions which may be seen between their ancient writers and their modern doctors writing upon the same subject. They deny now-a- days what the ancient Jews freely granted ; and their whole study is to keep their people in a blind sub- mission 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 declared it so to be. But I shall make some more particular reflections upon the proceedings of the modern Jews, and shew that their obstinacy is altogether unreasonable, and that there is no fairness at all in their way of dis- puting against the Christians. CHAP. XXVI. That the Jews have laid aside the old explications of their forefathers, the better to defend them- selves in their disputes with the Christians. 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 against the Unitarians. 315 freely own in their disputes with us. Thus the humour of wrangling hath wrought much the same effect among the Papists (as Maldonat was not ashamed to confess, on St. John, chap. vi.) Of this alteration in the Jewish sentiments (which is ac- knowledged by one of the Socinian writers, v?z. Vol- zogenius 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 Ps. xxi. 1. hath these words, Our masters did understand this Psalm of the Messias, (as indeed they did Gemar. on Talm. tr. Massechet m0 chap. v. and Targ. on this Psalm, ver. 8. and 18.) but it is better to understand it of David him- self, that we may the more easily reply to the here- tics, that make an ill use of some passages in it. But this is not the only place wherein the Jews have changed the faith of their ancient masters, There are many other examples of it; some of the chief of which I shall produce, after I have ob- served the several degrees by which they arrived to so wide a disagreement from 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. Tan- kuma, fol. 73. col. 1. have added many more new conceits ; but I speak of such explications of theirs, 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 CHAP. XXVI. transmigration * of souls ; where he delivers the doc-* Lib. de trine of the soul’s preexistence before the body +; fom P- where he seems to give hint of the eternity of mat- + De ter, according to Plato, though it is certain that ¢ Mund. Op. p.214. De Mund. Incor. p. 728. A. De Viat. Of. p. 669. P. CHAP. XXVI. 316 The Judgment of the Jewish Church in his treatise of Providence, he doth assert the cre- ation of matter. 2. It is observable that, after Hadrian the em- peror’s time, some of the Jews who expected the Messias, according to Daniel’s prophecy of the se- venty 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. Hil- lel in Gemara, tit. Sanhed. fol. 98. col. 2. and fol. 99. col. 1. who maintained that the promise of the Mes- slas 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 of R. Juda, the compiler of the Misna. 3. We see how careless they have been in preserv- ing the apocryphal books that were formerly in such an esteem with them, and which indeed but for the Christians had notwithstanding totally perished. Philo has borrowed some of their notions in his se- cond book of Agriculture; and let any one compare Job xxvii. 20. Psalm xxxiil. 6. Prov. viii. 12, 22. with what is written, Wisdom, chap. vi. 24, 22. and so on till chap. vill. 11. and he will find a great likeness, if not the very same notions and words. A. Through the same neglect they have lost either all or some of the works of other ancient and famous Jews, as namely, some 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 Pto- lomies, and dedicated to one of them his explica- tion of the Law, of which we have a fragment in Eusebius; which shews that his notions were the same with Philo’s, and that they did generally pre- vail in Egypt, before Christ’s incarnation, as well as in Philo’s time. It is no hard matter to give some reasons of this neglect. For, 1. their first destruction by Titus, against the Unitarians. 317 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 Jose- phus, as he himself relates, who begged this only favour of Titus, that he might preserve the sacred books. 2. After their second destruction by Hadrian, they applied themselves straight to make a collection of their traditions and customs, which thus collected make now 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 from several men’s hands 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 them- selves wholly to the study of their traditions. This we see in the Misnah. Mas. Sota, c. 9. §. 14. A. About this time, being by the Christians pressed with arguments out of these books, they thought it best to reject the books 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 men that might be 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 Messias. Of this Justin Martyr has given some instances in his Dialogue with Trypho, R. Akiba’s great friend; and we see that St. Jerome, Ep. 89, complains of the same. CHAP.’ XXVI. 318 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. And now what wonder is it, if the Jews in this “Vt humour did neglect, or rather rejected those apo- cryphal books, whose authority in some points was 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 that 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. and 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 Chris- tian 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 be- gan to use his authority against the Jews; notwith- standing that the Jews have no historian better than Josephus. Thirdly, Because the Jews had al- most forsaken then 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 be- ginning 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, against the Unitarians. : 319 that now they reject no small part of those inter- CHAP. pretations that were authentic with their forefathers, **¥" It may not be amiss to give some proofs of this, to shew that we do not accuse them without a cause. And in general, there is not a more idle romance than that which the Jews have devised touching two Messias’s that are to come into 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 Jerusa- lem, and after having sacked Rome, is at last to be killed himself at Jerusalem by a king of Persia. The other Messias is to be Menahem the son of Ham- miel, who is to appear for the delivery of the Jews, being sent from God on that errand, according to Moses’s prayer, Exod. iv. 13. For the time of this second Messias’s coming shall be when the mother of the deceased Messias thé son of Joseph, having gathered the dispersed Jews 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 that Messias the son of David will come with seven shepherds, to wit, the three patriarchs, Moses, David, and Elias, and eight of the principal fathers or prophets, who are to rise before the rest. They say, that Moses at the head of them shall convert the Jews without working any miracle, and then all the Jews shall rise at the sound of a trum- pet, passing under ground till they come to mount Olivet, which shall cleave in two to let them out. Then the Jews shall come from all quarters to form the Messias’s army, and the Messias the son of Jo- seph shall be raised from the dead, to come in among the rest; and so the two Messias’s shall reign with- out jealousy of one another; only the Son of David 320 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. shall have the chief power, reigning from one end XAVI-_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 Pa- lestine, but he and they shall be destroyed by rain and hail; after which the land shall be purged of the dead bodies, and they shall build the third temple, and then the ten tribes shall return, and offer sacrifices to God in the temple, and God shall pour out his spirit on all Israel, and make them prophets, as Joel hath foretold, chap. xi. 28. This is the notion in short of the two Messias’s, which R. Meyr Aldabi gives us in his book entitled Sevile Emuna, chap. 10. p.123. But it is certain, 1. that the ancient Jews knew but of one Messias. Trypho knew not of two, as we see in Justin Mar- tyrs Dialogue, which is a clear proof that those passages of the Targum, which speak of two Mes- sias’s, are additions to the ancient text, made since the Jews invented the conceit of a double Messias. 2. It is certain the Talmudists did not believe firmly the return of the ten tribes, Zr. 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’s opinion, that one of their greatest objections against Jesus being the Messias is this, that if he had been the Messias, he would have recalled and gathered the ten tribes. 3. Their confining of the Messias’s reign to forty years is contrary to the opinion of their fathers, who held that the Messias was to 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, chap. 11. fol. 97. col. 2. against the Unitarians. 321 4. They suppose now that the Messias shall build cuav. a third temple. Whereas Haggai describing the se- XV. cond temple as that under which the Messias was to appear, expressly calls it the last, Hag. ii.9. And this R. David Kimchi and R. Azariah, and the Tal- mud 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 Hagegai’s prophecy to have reference to a third temple. See Abarbanel and Men. ben Israel on Hagg. | 5. It is the remark of one of the most celebrated authors of the Talmud, and received amongst the other Jews, that all the times noted by the prophets for the coming of the Messias are past. Dixit Rav, Omnes termini de adventu Messie transierunt, nec jam remanet nisi in conversione, si Israel conver- tatur, redimetur, quod si non convertatur, non redi- metur. Since that time they have been forced to quit that miserable shift; and now they maintain that all the promises of the coming of the Messias were conditional, and that he shall come when his people the Jews shall be by repentance prepared to receive him, Manas. Ben Israel, gq. 27. on Esdras. And yet the ancient Jews in the same place before did affirm that the Messias must come in the most corrupt age, fol. 97. col. 1. To be a little more particular, the Jews did main- tain, that all the prophets spoke of the Messias. See Bethlem Juda in the word Goel. At present, they dispute upon almost every text that we urge for the Messias ; so that, instead of convincing them, we can only put them to shame 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. 26. Some of them therefore are for changing the reading, and instead y 322 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. of, Let ws make man, would have it, Let man be XXVI- made, though the Samaritan text, the old version of the Septuagint, and the Talmudists, and all their ancient and modern translations, read as we do. See Aben Ezra on the place, and R. David Kimchi in Michlol, p.9. They will scarcely allow the Messias to be spoken of in Gen. iit. 15. Although Jonathan’s ‘Targum and that of Jerusalem do clearly understand it of the Messias. The ancient Jews affirmed that the angel who appeared, Gen. xix. and in other places, and who is called the Lord, was (as I have before shewed) the Word of the Lord; but many of their disciples do say it was a created angel, as we learn from R.Shem Tov. in his book Emun. and Men. Ben Israel, q. 64. on Genesis. Such a thing cannot be done but by’ an extreme impudence, since we see that they pro- fess 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 @ seraphim, nor by the hand of an envoy, but the Holy Blessed, brought us out 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 bimself, and exclusively from any cre- ated angel: and such are those appearances, Gen. Xiv. 15. xx. 6. xxxi. 24. xxxil. 24. where they say that Israel wrestled with God, Exod. xu. 29, &c. The present Jews are not for applying the text, Gen. xlix. 10. to the Messias, but some refer the words to Moses himself, as R. Bechay, others to David, others to Ahijah the Shilonite, and others to Nebuchadnezzar. Notwithstanding both Jonathan’s ‘and the Jerusalem Targum note expressly this pro- phecy to be spoken of the Messias. And thus in the same text, the sceptre there spoken of was explained in the old Talmudists by. against the Unitarians. 323 power and dominion, which should not depart from CHAP. Judah till the coming of the Messias; though now _**¥!: among some of the modern Jews it signifies only affliction and calamities. R. Joel Aben Sueb. At this day the Jews do obstinately deny any promise to be made of the Messias, Deut. xviii. 18, 19. And some of them will have it spoken of Joshua, some of David. So the author of Midrash Fehil in Psalm 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 Mac. xiv. 41. and is clear from what the multitude say, John vi. 14. This is that prophet who was to come into the world. See also Luc. vii. 16. John i. 19. Matt. xxi. It was not questioned in St. Paul’s time, whether the second Psalm did relate to the Messias or no, else St. Paul could not have applied it to Christ, as he doth, Acts xiii. 33. nor was this made a question for some ages after; the Talmudical doctors being of the same sentiment upon it. You see it in the Gemara of Succoth, c. 5. in Jalkuth in Psalm ij. in Midrash Tehillim. But their new expositors have done their utmost endeavours to make it be- long to David only, or to apply these words, Thou art my Son, Psalm ii. to the people of Israel. So doth R. Mose Israel Mercadon upon that Psalm in his Comment, printed at Amsterdam. The Jews in Christ’s time did believe the twenty- second Psalm to be a prophecy touching the Mes-_ sias. And Jesus Christ, to shew the accomplish- ment of it in his own person, cites the first verse of it on the cross, Matt. xxvii. 46. Yet soon after, as we see in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue, they denied that that Psalm belonged to the Messias; but their folly appears in this, viz. that 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. Y 2 324 The Judgment of the Jewish Church cuap. The sixteenth verse of the same twenty-second _XXVI Pgalm is thus translated by the Septuagint, 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 nonsense. Their own Masora notes that it should be read, they have pierced. Wowever they have espoused the other reading, and will not be beaten from it by any argument, because they think this reading will best destroy the inference which the Christians draw from this place to shew that the Messias was to be crucified, according to this Psalm. The Psalm Ixvii. by the ancient Jews was re- ferred to the Messias, and so it is by R. Joel. Aben Sueb refers the last part to the time of the Messias, p- 158. inh. Ps. It was also by St. Paul, Ephes. iv. 8. referred to the ascension of our Lord: Where- fore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. The very same subject is handled in Psalm xlvui. 5. which - Psalm David Kimchi does acknowledge to belong to the times of the Messias, and there they cannot deny but the true God is spoken of, the same Memra who conducted the people in the desert, and gave the Law at Sinai, as it is spoken ver. 8, 9. And yet the modern Jews will apply the words of Psalm Ixviii. 10. to the ascension of Abraham, or Moses, or the prophet Elias, to any rather than the Messias. It is granted by the modern Jews that their fathers understood Psalm Ixxii. of the Messias. So R. Saadia on Dan. vii. 14. Salom. Jarchi on Psalm Ixxii. 6. and Bahal Hatturim ad Numb. xxvi. 16. And yet now they stick not (of which R. David Kimchi is a witness) to interpret itonly of Solomon. In Jesus Christ’s time the Jews confessed Psalm cx. did belong to the Messias, ver.1. T'’he Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou .at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Christ’s argu- against the Unitarians. 325 ment, Matt. xxii. 44. necessarily supposes it. So CHAP. was it understood in the Midrash Tehillim, and by voce R. Saadia Gaon on Dan. vii. 13. But notwithstand- ing this, our later Jews affirm that it was made for David or Abraham. It was of old constantly believed, that the Wis- dom, Prov. ii. and viii. did denote the Adyos. I have shewed it from Philo the Jew, from the apocryphal books, 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. inter- prets the text of the Messias: For unto us a child as 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 that text to Hezekiah. So does Salomon Jarchi, David Kimchi, Abenezra, and Lipman. As for the rest, they quite change the present text by referring to God all the names, which are evidently given to the Messias, except that of the Prince of Peace. For much the same reason do the latter Jews make Zorobabel to be spoken of in Isai. xi. 12. Manas. q. 18. on Isaiah. ‘Though not only St. Paul understood it of Jesus Christ, Rom. xv. 12. 2 Thess. ii. 8. but the ancient Jews did generally refer it to the Messias, as appears all along in the Targum of that chapter, and the Jews shewed they understood it so, by their rejecting Barcochba, when they found he could not smell souls, as they thought the Mes- sias should do, according to the second verse of the said chapter. And St. Jerome witnesses upon that chapter that all the Jews agreed with the Chris- tians, that all that chapter was to be understood of the Messias. Y3 326. The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. The ancient Jews, as St. Jerome witnesses upon ee chapter, ascribed Isa. xxv. 6. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing; for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert, to the times of the Messias. . But the modern Jews have endeavoured to wrest it, and to make it agree to other times, because they saw how the Evangelists applied it to the miracles of our Lord. See Menass. gq. 17. on Isaiah. Aid they are gone so far upon that fancy, that they give it out now for an axiom amongst their people, that the Messias shall not work any miracle. So Rambam. R. Meyr Aldab. and R. Menass. ben Israel, who would have the miracles which are there spoken of, either to be understood metaphorically, or to be referred to the time of the resurrection. The impudence of R. Salomon on Isa. xlviii. 16. is amazing: the words of the text run thus, From the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, have sent me. From hence it appears that the Messias, who is here spoken of, according to the Targum, was on mount Sinai, when God gave the Law from thence. R. Salomon will by no means grant this to be spoken of the Messias, but affirms that it is spoken of Isaiah. But how was Isaiah 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 prophe- sied of. A fancy, that R. Tanchuma, who lived a long while before R. Salomon, never hit on: for he maintains from Isa. lvii. 16. that the souls are then created, as God orders men to be born in every generation. We see how positive they are in expounding the sufferings of the Messias, which are described Isa. —_ ee against the Unitarians. 327 lin. of the people of the Jews. And yet they can- not but know that Jonathan refers the end of the fifty-second chapter and the beginning of the fifty- third to the Messias, as the Apostles refer it to Jesus Christ, following herein John the Baptist, John i. 29. And so did R. Alexandri among the Talmudists, as we see in Sanhedrin, fol. 93. col. 2. and in the Mid- rash Conen in Arze Levanon, fol. 3. col. 2. The prophet Micah, chap. v. 2. speaks of the Messias: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been From of old, from everlasting. The Jews cannot deny this. But then to evade what is there spoken of the Messias’s eternity, they pretend that it means CHAP. XXVI. 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, g. 5. on Micah, takes to rid himself of this difficulty. Before him others took another way, and affirmed that God decreed before the creation of the world to send the Messias, and that in this respect it is said in Micah, that his goings forth are from the days of eternity. | Jeremy, chap. xxill. 2. saith very expressly, that the Messias shall be called Jehovah our Righteous- ness; and he repeats the same, chap. xxxill. 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 gudgment 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 nameJehovah belongs any otherwise to him, than it YA CHAP. XXVI. 328 The Judgment of the Jewish Church doth to the ark; which is altogether impertinent ; for the ark is never called Jehovah; nor doth Me- nasseh prove that it is with all his talking, g. 18. in Isaiah. Jonathan, as well. as Philo, aseribes to the Messias the prophecies, Zech. vi. 12,13. And so Jonathan applies to the Messias what is said in the same pro- phet. But many of the modern Jews, among whom R. Salomon is one, do refer them to Zorobabel. These several places I have now mentioned may serve as a sample of the confusion the Jews are in, while they attempt to interpret the ancient prophe- cies; and I may confidently affirm, that all those other places which I have omitted, that intimate a Trinity, or the Divinity of the Messias, or the time when he was to come into the world, are in like manner explained so very triflingly, and forced- ly, as that oftentimes their own authors, convinced by the evidence of the texts themselves, have re- futed them, and given a new interpretation of them. Whence it comes to pass, that one that reads them can find no certain sense of those texts to rest on, but his understanding continues in an entire dark- ness and unsettledness. | 7 This ill luck they have of giving absurd explica- tions is not of yesterday, as I have already observed. Soon after Jesus Christ’s time, they set themselves to. oppose what the Christians held of the two comings of the Messias, though so distinctly de- scribed, one of them, Zech, ix. 9. and the other, Dan. vii. 13. And still to this. day do they reject that notion of his two comings, as may be seen in Menass. on Zech, ix. p. 185. But others of them, who found it impossible to deny that the Scripture speaks of two comings of the Messias, whom they expected, thought it better to make two Messias’s, than to acknowledge that the Messias whom they expected was to be a suffer- ing Messias. And thus they thought that they had against the Unitarians. 329 removed the difficulties in the other opinion, that made but one coming of the Messias, by owning the Messias the son of Joseph should be a man of sorrows, but the Messias the son of David was to be a glorious deliverer. As the disputes of the Jews with the Christians increased, they advanced certain characters of the times of the Messias, and all of them very mira- culous; which they inferred from some allegorical descriptions in the prophets concerning the times of the Messias. These they run up to ten, as we see in Shemoth Rabba, Parascha 15. And they make a great use of those miracles, which they conceive should have been in the time of Jesus Christ, if he had been the true Messias. Notwith- standing all which Menassé, q. 7. on Isaiah, finds himself obliged to assure us that David Kimchi, and Abarbanel, and many interpreters, explain most of these passages as being allegorical descriptions only of the times of the Messias. And Maimonides is of this opinion, that when the Messias comes, there shall be no change in the order of nature, Jad Chaz. lib. de Regibus. And in that he follows the opin- ion of one Rabbi Samuel that is quoted in the Tal- mud Tit. Beracoth, where he saith that there shall not be any difference between the times of the Messias and the other times of the world, but the subduing of the kingdoms by the Messias. To conclude, the Jews being so often deceived in their expectations of the Messias, and finding themselves abused by a great number of false pre- tenders to that character, have almost lost their hopes of his coming: and finding his coming to be a thing uncertain, few of them do look upon the promise of the Messias with that assurance with which the ancients did expect it. Indeed it is observable that though Maimonides professes to own the Messias, and hath inserted the hope of his coming among the articles of the Jew- ish faith, which he hath given us; yet he other- CHAP. XXVI. 330 The Judgment of the Jewish Church Cees where speaks very indifferently of it. In one place he asserts the observation of Moses’s law, and the recompenses annexed to it, to be the chief end of the Jews’ inquiry, and not the time of the Messias’s appearance; as we are informed by the author of the chain of the Cabala. The same judgment may be made of Joseph Albo, who writ with great bitterness against the Christians: for, 1. he vouches in his book of the Principles, that R. Hillel was no apostate, though he denied the coming of any other Messias, but of Hezekiah, who was already come. And Albo gives this reason for it, because the coming of the Messias is no fundamental article of the Jewish religion. Orat.1. chap.1. Nothing can be more wretched than this excuse of his. For if the Messias had come before the Babylonian captivity, in the person of king Hezekiah, as R. Hillel would have it, and if no other was to be expected, why did the Jewish Church take those books into her Bible that were written by the prophets that lived under the second temple ? and why did not R. Hillel and his followers declare against them as false prophecies, that spoke of the Messias as being yet to come? namely, Ze- _ chary, Haggai, and Malachi, who did all prophesy of the Messias, as has been abundantly shewed, by proofs out of the Targums of those books, and the general consent of Jewish writers. 2. The same Albo is not afraid to assert, that the article of the Messias has no other foundation than the authority of tradition. For, saith he, there is not any prophecy, either in the Law or in the Pro- phets, 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 ex- plained otherwise. This is his position in his ex- amination of Gen. xlix. 10. where he doth his ut- most to evade the text, ver. 10. The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, &c. 3. He looks on the article of the Messias’s com- i a against the Unitarians. 331 ing to be a matter of that small importance to the Jews, that he leaves it doubtful, whether or no the Messias is come since the time of Onkelos their fa- mous 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 and to be given at his coming, nor men on the other hand regarding him as the Messias. Certainly, R. Lipman in his Nitzachon, where he examines the above-mentioned text, Gen. xlix. 10. puts forth arule which quite overthrows all proofs from the holy Scripture. This Rabbi, 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 expli- cations, and all of them, though never so incompati- ble 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 disco- vering the meaning of them. The sense of them must absolutely depend on the authority of the Rabbins ; and what they teach must be all equally received as the word of God, though they teach CHAP. XXVI. things contradictory to one another. Such posi- tions put one to a loss, whether their blindness or their spite is therein most to be pitied. 332 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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. W HAT I have nici of the alteration made by the modern Jews in their belief, is enough to shew that they were forced to adopt new notions, De Divin. Chr. c. 10. because of the evident proofs drawn from the opin- ions of their ancestors, which the Christians used against them. The very same: prevarication may be charged on the Socinians, m 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 end the Jews themselves did intend by 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, espe- cially those of England, to make short work, do not stick to assert, that the Christians have foisted those texts ito 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, for proofs of what I say. Smalcius maintains in the general, that the books of the Old Testament are of little use for the con- version of the Jews. He gives this reason for it, that almost all that which is said to be spoken of the Messias in the Old Testament, must be inter- preted mystically, before it can appear to be spoken against the Unitarians. 333 of him, and by consequence very remotely from CHAP. XXVIL. what the words do naturally signify. Then in particular: when we would prove a plu- rality of Persons in the Deity against the Jews, from those expressions of Scripture that speak of God in the plural number ; though the Jews (as you may see in their comments on Gen. i. 26. xi. 7. and espe- cially on Isa. vi. 8.) are forced to own that a plu- rality 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 him- self and of the angels. And Smalcius has followed him in this solution. The very same explication 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; whereas it appears, on the contrary, that he followed the literal sense, as we have it, Gen. xii. 3. xvill. 18. xxii. 18. XXVl. 4. xxviii. 14. and as the ancient Cabalists do acknowledge at large in Reuchlin, I. 1. Smalcius, chap. 2. tb, asserts, that the promise of 334 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. the seed of the woman, Gen. iii. 5. can very hardly be _XANIL “understood of the Messias. And yet the ancient Jews acknowledged it in their Targum of Jerusalem, and it is owned too by the Cabalists, Tikunzoh. 21. fol. 52. col. 2. and Bachaie, fol. 13. col. 3. in Gen. Schlichtingius affirms that Ps. xlv. does literally relate to Solomon, and that this is its first and prin- cipal sense; although the ancient Jews do all agree that it treats of the Messias, and cannot be under- stood of Solomon. Socinus persuading himself that St. Paul cites Heb. i. 6. from Psalm xevii. 8. 4nd let all the an- gels of God worship him, does maintain that he cites it in the mystical sense, because Jesus Christ could not be adored by the angels before he was ad- vanced to be their head. And yet the Jews of old did refer it to the Messias, adding these words in the end of Moses’s song, Deut. xxxii. as we see there in the LXX version, from whence it was indeed that St. Paul took the words in Heb. i. 6. Again, Socinus, to rid himself of Ps. xxiv. where, according to the ancient Jews’ opinion, the Messias is spoken of, does pretend that the Messias is not meant here in this Psalm, or at least he is described only as the messenger of God: a salvo as ridiculous as his answer; for most of the characters and works : of God are ascribed to him that is there spoken of, _ and he is 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 the words of Ps. xl. 7- Thou hast bored my ears, are cited by St. Paul in this manner, 4 body hast thou prepared me, Heb. x. 5. who follows herein the LXX text, who thus para- phrases 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. against the Unitarians. 335 _ They go further than the Jews do on Psalm xlv. 6. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a text _ cited by St. Paul, and applied to Jesus Christ, Heb. i. 7,8. The LXX translate it as we do: but the Jews have tried all ways to deliver themselves of this authority, which proves so evidently that the Messias is God. As for Socinus, he pretends to reject the solutions of the Jews. But his disciples have invented another, which is worse than that of the Jews, as may be seen in Enjedinus and Ostorodius. Psalm cx. throughout relates to the Messias; and Jesus Christ applies it to himself, Matt. xxii. 43, 44. and from thence proves that he is David’s Lord, al- though he is the son of David. But Enjedinus re- futes this argument of Jesus Christ: and Schlich- tingius looks upon it as being absurd. This is a thing that deserves to be well considered, because these gentlemen pretend that it is among them only that true Christianity is preserved. The like way they ‘take to answer what the Apo- stle saith of Christ’s creating the heavens and the earth, Heb. i. 10,11. and his proof of it from Psalm O27 oe. | And with the same impudence do they elude the citation from Psalin cxviil. 22. which is quoted Matth. xxi. 42. though R. D. Kimchi, among other Jews, refers it to the Messias. It is strange to see how they take the Jews’ part in explaining as they do, Isa. vii. 14. a virgin, that is, say they, a prophetess, Crell. on Matt. i. The only reason of this explication is the word Immanu- el, 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,ch.xxxv.5. has distinctly noted the miracles which the Messias was to work, and has given us a clear character of his Person. R. Solomon Jarchi endeavours to shift off the proof of this text, and to CHAP. XXVITI. 336 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. explain it of the deliverance of the people out of bisick cab 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 fourth verse of this chapter. How audaciously does Crellius destroy the proof of the place where the Christ was to be born, Matth. 11. 5. taken out of Micah v. 2! The Jews, saith he, 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 eighth chapter of Proverbs was understood by Philo of the Aéyos. And indeed such attributes are given to the 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 prosopopeeia, just as our later Jews do interpret it of the Law. Jer. xxii. 5, 6. relates to the Messias in the judg- ment of all the ancient Jews. Our Socinians will not allow of this; but, rather than to own that the Mes- sias is named God, they refer the title of, The Lord our Righteousness, to the people there spoken of. We have a remarkable prophecy for the proof of the divinity of the Messias in Zech. xii. 10. They shall look on him whom they have pierced. The Jews anciently did, and still do, understand it of the Messias: and Jesus Christ does apply it to himself, Rev. 1.7. What saith Socinus to this? He declares that this text, which is so like Ps. xxii. has been cor- rupted by the Jews; and thus he tries to render its authority useless. Here you have a sample of their conduct, in re- jecting the literal, and setting up a mystical sense: i against the Unitarians. EK 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 Testa- ment, the authority of which texts cannot so easily be eluded. And therefore to take away the evidence of these, they have invented the way of accommo- dation. David, speaking of the God of Israel, has these words, Ps. Ixviii. 19. Thou art ascended on high, &e. Hence we conclude that Jesus Christ is the God of Israel, because St. Paul saith that these words had their accomplishment in our Lord’s ascension into heaven, Ephes. iv. 8. The Jews say, that those words in the Psalm were spoken of Moses. The Socinians cannot deny but that they were spoken of God; but they deny that they were spoken of the Messias literally. But, say they, these words were applied to Jesus Christ by St. Paul only by way of accommodation. Strange! Is it not plain, that David saith no more in this Ixviiith Psalm of the Messias, than he saith in Psalm cx. which the Jews do refer to the Messias without such an accommo- dation? Is not the calling of the Gentiles here clearly foretold, ver. 33,34. which is owned on all hands to be the work of the Messias? Is it not then visible that St. Paul, in citing these words, has fol- lowed the sense of the ancient synagogue, who un- derstood Psalm cx. of the Messias, according to the literal sense ? | Socinus owns that the words, Ps. xevii. 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 termi- nates not in him, but is to be referred to the supreme God who commanded this adoration. Z CHAP. XXXVI. CHAP. XXVIT. 338 The Judgment of the Jewish Church Isaiah, ch. viii. 13, 14. has these words, Sanctify the Lord of hosts. The Jews interpret them of the Messias, Gemur. Massech. Sanhedr. in ch. iv. and they are cited by St. Paul, Rom. ix. 32. St. Luke i1. 34. St. Peter, 1 Pet. 1.7. who apply them to Jesus Christ. The Socinians, whose cause will not bear this, viz. that Jesus Christ should be called the Lord of hosts, do therefore deny that the Messias 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 Ghost at the inditing of them. The prophet Isaiah again has these words, chap. xxxv. 4, 5,6. Behold, your God will come—and save you, &c. Sal. Jarchi and D. Kimchi expound them of the deliverance from Babylon; contrary to the ancient Jews’ opinion, who, as these Rabbins con- fess, understood them of the Messias. The Socinians will not deny that Jesus Christ assumed them to himself; but to shew how little ground he had for so doing, they insist on it, that he only accommo- dated the. words to himself. The same Isaiah writes thus, chap. xli. 4. J am the fist and the last; and Jesus Christ has the same expressions of himself, Rev. 1.17. The Chaldee pa- raphrast was so persuaded that these words belonged properly to the true God, as to paraphrase them in this manner, J 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 parallel to Isa. xliv. 6. But if you will have Socinus’s opinion of the place, when it is applied to our Lord Jesus Christ, 1t does not at all speak of his eternity. Once more, we read, Isa. xlv. 23. J have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in right-- eousness,— That unto me every knee shall bow, every against the Unitarians. 339 tongue shall swear. St. Paul refers these words to Jesus Christ, Rom. xiv. 11. nay, he proves our fu- ture standing before Christ’s judgment-seat by this quotation. Notwithstanding the Socinians believe them only a simple accommodation, and not the prime scope of the text. I know the Apostles have sometimes cited texts from the Old Testament, which have not their exact accomplishment in that sense wherein they are used. As for example, 2 Cor. viii. 15. St. Paul exhorting the _ Corinthians to supply the wants of their brethren with their abundance, addeth, As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over, and he that had gathered little had no lack. Thus alluding to the history of the manna, Exod. xvi. 18. it is plain that he accommodates that story to the beneficence of the Christians, without any thing, either from letter or allegory, to justify this accommodation. They who think that John, ch. xix. 37. does al- lude to Exod. xii. 46. Neither shall ye break a bone thereof, go upon this ground, that Christ was typi- fied -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 Ps. xxxiv. 21. and applies what David saith of all the just in general to the Messias, who is often called the Just One, as being emi- nently so. I know that some think that a prophecy which has been already accomplished literally, was accom- modated by the holy penmen to a like event. And thus they think St. Matthew, ch. ii. 17. applies the voice that was heard at Ramah, and Rachel’s weep- ing for her children, to those expressions of sorrow used by the women of Bethlehem, when Herod slew CHAP. XXVITI.. their children: though this prophecy was before ac- . complished in the captivity of Judah and Benjamin under Nebuchadnezzar. But besides what I have said upon such places, Z 2 340 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. the examples of this nature are but few; and those casei 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 Apo- stles went about to make converts from the syn- agogue 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 ac- commodation: and let any man 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 Holy Ghost to that purpose, literally taken, but were only made use of by them by way ef accom- modation. But the most wonderful thing of all in the Uni- tarians’ 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 no- tion of accommodation to elude the force of those quotations on which the Apostles grounded several doctrines; but for the most part they give broad in- timations, 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. It is the most easy, natural, and shortest way to join with the Deists in against the Unitarians. 341 destroying the authority of the Gospel, and to en- deavour to shew that nothing certain can be drawn from thence, seeing that since the Apostles’ times the Christian faith hath been corrupted, and new doctrines have been foisted into their books, which from the beginning were not there. As for my part, I see no other way but this left them for the defence of their bad cause. But by ill luck, Socinus has stopped their retreat even to this last refuge, by the treatise he writ concerning the authority of the holy Scriptures. When they have solidly refuted this book of their great leader, it will be then time to take their charge against the sacred books into more particular consideration. Let them do this when they will. We promise them, when they have done it, to reproach them no more with Socinus’s authority in defence of the in- tegrity of the Scripture. But for the present we re- fer them to the book of a famous Mahometan called Hazzadaula, who has handled this matter with length and force enough to confound both the Uni- tarians and the Deists. I mean his third book of the comparison of the three Laws, the Jewish, the Christian, and the 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 having corrupted the writings of the Old and New Testament. But we see this accusation is proved to be 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, whereas 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 Zo CHAP. XXVII. 342 The Judgment of the Jewish Church CHAP. pervert the passages in Deut. xxxiii. 33. Hab. mi. 3. XXVIL 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 Pro- phets, 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 Mahomet- ans in their disputes with the Christians have given them occasion to believe that the Mahometans ge- nerally 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 Church of Rome men wiser and calmer, that see the consequences of so rash an accusation, and have therefore proved un- answerably the integrity of the sacred text; so are there among the Mahometans more wary and cau- tious disputants, who despise and disallow those false charges brought by some of their party against both the Jews and the 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 di- vided into so many sects that bore an unreconcilea- ble hatred one to another, as rendered it impossible for them to do it. | He then shews that the difference which is be tween the several versions, as between the Septua- gint and the Syriac for example, was of no prejudice a Se ee against the Unitarians. 343 to the purity of the text itself; but that this arose CHAP. from the several views the interpreters then had, ieee ay and from the different notions and senses they af- fixed-to the original words. He then passes to the examination of the various readings which our Uni- tarians triumph in; and shews that neither their number nor variety ought to lessen the authority of the originals. He gives reasons for his preferring the Jewish Bible to that of the Samaritans. He proves the corruption of the books of the Old Testa- ment could not be made before Jesus Christ's time, since he never reproached the Jews 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 the Christians, who are such mortal enemies, have had these books in their several keeping, and do 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 found- ations of the Christian religion; and for this pur- pose would discredit the authority of the holy Scripture, under the pretence 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 to prove 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 rid himself ZA CHAP. XXVIII. 344 The Judgment of the Jewish Church all at once of many difficulties, from which he could not otherwise extricate himself. For had he be- lieved Socinus’s answers satisfactory, he had never betaken himself to this last and desperate shift. Others, of whom Mr. N. is one, do suppose, that whatever makes for the advantage of the Trinitari- ans’ 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 Testa- ment 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 Athe- ists and Deists, as it seems to be their real design, is worthy every Christian’s serious inquiry. If they in- tend the conversion of the Jews, we may well ask of them what way they will take to effect it? Smalcius, one of their chief writers, has affirmed, that the books of the Old Testament are of little use to convert the Jews, De Div. Chr. ¢. 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 natu- rally 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 2 Son to God, ch. xxx. 4. and yet being not willing to ac- I Ee against the Unitarians. 345 knowledge it for a truth, took the readiest way to defeat the authority of this book, and placed it among the apocryphal writings. It may be ad- mired how such Socinians are like to be converters, who call the Jewish Canon of the Scriptures into question, and consequently leave no books from whence, as from a common principle, they may on each side deduce their reasonings. As for the books of the New Testament, what use can they make of them? Yes, very great, saith the Socinian. If the books of the New Testament were reformed, and those patches entirely taken from them, which were never written by the Apo- stles, 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 to believe: for it is reasonable to think that every Jew of common sense would retort the book on themselves, and tell them frankly, This is not the Christians’ Gospel from whence you offer to con- vince me; this is a book of no authority, but an im- posture, of which you are the father. We Jews who are spread throughout all parts of the world, and are intermingled among Christians of all persuasions, never yet met with these- books, such as you now produce them, to shew that Jesus is the Messias. You tell us, they were corrupted by the Christians of the second.,age: produce copies more ancient, as vouchers of this truth. The books which you con- tend were falsified, are of no authority. What other books have you besides these falsified authors, to prove there ever was such a man as Jesus Christ, CHAP. XXVIII. CHAP. XXVII. 346 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 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 at their pleasure, or rather you yourselves, by advancing this position, have spoiled all the use that might be made of these books in points controverted between us. Thus much it is natural for a Jew of but an or- dinary capacity to say, and to quote his Tanchuma, and all the Rabbins 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 Mas- sahe, which the Italian inguisitors blot out of all those books which the Jews caused to be 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 So- cinian that would 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 is, that the learned among the Jews know, that that prayer which in Christian countries is called the prayer against the Sadducees, and in other countries the prayer against the Min- nim, the heretics and apostates, was truly and ori- ginally written against the Christians, for being teachers of a Trinity, and of Christ’s Divinity, and so, as the Jews judged, destroyers of the Unity of against the Unitarians. 3A7 the Godhead. And this is R. Solomon’s sense of CHAP. that prayer in his notes on the Talmud. The Jews **¥!" otherwise know that this prayer was composed un- der R. Gamaliel, who died A.D. 52. 7. e. eighteen years before the destruction of the temple. That this is no fable of the Talmud, which in more than one place does relate it, they may evidently prove ram. tr. it from Justin Martyr’s Dialogue, written A. D. 139. “shen tieae who mentions this prayer, or rather this curse, Isr. sect. against the Christians, as being 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 be- ing 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, Sanhear. wherein are divers relations of R. Eliezer the great se friend of R. Akiba, who lived in the end of the first century, and the beginning of the second, concern- ing the Gospels, and the public worship paid to Jesus Christ by the Christians. 3 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 Soci- nian Novel-gospel, will tend more to make them dis- esteem the Gospel, and reject it altogether, than it will dispose them to attend to the arguments of a Socinian drawn thence in the behalf of Christianity. These things I leave to the consideration of our Socinians. For other Christians, they see whither the method used by the Socinians in explaining the Scriptures does lead, and cannot but behold with sorrow the wounds they give to the Christian reli- CHAP. XXVII. 348 The Judgment of the Jewish Church &c. gion, under pretence of making it more apt to gain the Jews; but in truth they make it so ridiculous to men of any ordinary capacity, that we cannot won- der at their not having, after all their boasts, con- verted so much as one Jew to the Christian faith. A Dissertation concerning the Angel who is called - the Redeemer, Gen. x\viii. STR, 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 no other than the. Agyos, 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 understands this Angel in Jacob’s prayer to be only a created angel. But having not the 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 hav- ing 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 my only care to express my thoughts clearly, and to find out the truth, and to deliver it naturally, according to the best of my understand- ing. 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 SECT. I. 350 A Dissertation concerning the Angel he died, goes on to give us the form in which he blessed them, Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. 7X ADY ON J" OTN pay) DTTIAN 159 “NAN DIT wR OORT yn Sop cnx Seon soon sin orn ay ys snare aya 1) OMAR NAN OW) YW DT. SPY OMIT NS FID These words are thus rendered by the Greek Interpreters, commonly called the Septuagint: Kat evdoyycey ators Kak elev, ‘O Oeds, @ EVNPETTNTAY Ob TATeEpES [nov Evomloy AUTOv, "ABpacp. kat IoakK, 0 Oeds 6 tpepwy je ek vedtytos ews THs Nepas TavTYS, 6 Ayyeras 6 puopevds jue EK mdvrev Tv KaKiY, EvAOy TAL TH Taiola TAalTa, Kat eriKAyby- ceTat ev avtois 70 Cvopact [0U, Kal TO Ovo pect TOY Tate pw [Aov, "A Bpacp. Kak loank, &e. , And in the vulgar Latin version; Benedixitque Jacob filiis Josephi, et att: Deus in cujus conspectu ambulaverunt patres mei, Abraham et Isaac, Deus qui pascit me ab adolescentia mea usque in presen- tem diem, Angelus qui eruitme de cunctis malis, benedicat pueris istis, et mvocetur super eos no- men meum, nomina quogue patrum meorum Abra- ham et Isaac, &c. 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 Hebrew text to them that are igno- rant of it. It. renders indeed, The God which fed me, by El dio .governan.a mi, and the word ON) 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 in- terpreters of the Old Testament, that the partici- ple 5x19 here attributed to the Angel, is rendered, ayy boTEvs 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 di- ; ? who is called the Redeemer. 351 vines, taking this Angel to be the Messias, have col- pene lected a relation peculiar of this Angel to the family —_"__ of Jacob, of which the Messias was to be born. Christ, saith he, shall come and redeem us with Hier. on his blood; who, as the Hebrew has it, is of kin to piss Sion, and is descended from the stock of Israel; for so the word 9x1) or ayyioreds signifies. But there is another sense of the words, 5x3 and DN) according to which the Greek Interpreters do more commonly render them, I mean that of Aurpoiy and Avrpwrys, 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 mmx spoken of, ver. 15. is the very m7 whom the Jews acknowledge for their God? II. Whether the 5:5 mentioned in ver. 16. is the same with that ows ver. 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. IT. In answer to the first question we need not be much to seek: for Onkelos in his Chaldee para- phrase expounds the word onby by mim 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 consi- der 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 appear- ance in which God had blessed him at Luz, in these words, God Almighty appeared to me at Genesis xlviii, 3, 4. 352 A Dissertation concerning the Angel SECT. Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me,and — Ga Achold Lach vane tien taiwan ae ply 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, would direct his prayers to any other than to 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 of 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 Matthenot Elohim; as if he had a mind thereby to tell us that £.23. col.4.by the angel here mentioned, Jacob meant a mere and * 108. 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 opinion, it is a blasphemy to suppose that Abra- ham and Isaac are commended for walking before the angel, as Jacob. asserts they did before God. God, saith he, ver. 15. before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk. For the word fo 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. Salo- mon Aben Melek, acknowledges in his Michlol Jo- phi on this place, where he says the word ¢o 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 is often called in the Old Testament, Elohim, and Jehovah, and Jehovah Elohim, 1 little doubt, because he quotes the same who is called the Redeemer. 353 authority in this place, which we meet with in the SECT. Bab. Talm. Pesachim, cap. x. fol. 118. col. 1. and = which makes this Angel to be God. But if he was of another mind, we might have other Jews, and of no less authority, to oppose to him, that understand it as we do, 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 from a created angel, the title of Redeemer, who delivers from all evil. See Talm. Hier. tr. Berac. cap. 4. fol. 8. col. 1. and their Liturgies. I know Cyril of Alexandria would have Jacob Lib. vi. in to understand God the Father by ody ver. 15. and S-P-210- 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 nothin but the blessing of God communicated to the Church by the Father and the Son. But St. Chrysostom’s bya opinion is much more probable to me, who asserts Gens Elohim to be the eternal Son of God, that is de-p.7. scribed in both the fourteenth and fifteenth 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 men- tioned by Moses; and who teach in particular, that the blessing of the Agyos 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’ writ- ings to the eternal Adyos, having the following au- thorities for my assertion. Just. Mart. cont. Tryph. Clem. Alex. Ped. i. 7. Tertul. cont. Jud. cap. 9. Orig. in Isa. 6. Cyprian. cont. Jud. ii. 5. Constit. Apost. v. 21. Euseb. H. E. i. 3. Cyr. Hieros. Cat. xii. the Concil. Sirm. ec. 13. Gregor. Bet. tr. de Fide. Theodor. q. 5. in Exod. Leo. i. Ep. 13. ad Puleh. and many others. Aa SECT. © II. 354 A Dissertation concerning the Angel In like manner they refer to the Word those ap- pearances of God, which he 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. Peed. 1.7. Novat. I. de Trin. cap. 26, 27. Proc. Gaz. in h. 1. 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 Agyos, whom the Targumists and the striet- est followers of their fathers’ traditions are wont to express by the m)Dw and the N72). 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 appear- ed, saying, it was the Aéyes only that: manifested himself to their fathers, whose proper name is Elohim. For this consult R. Menachem de Reka- nati, from Beres. Rabba. on the Parasch. Bresch. f.14. c. 3. Ed. Ven. and on Par. 95 79, f. 30. ¢. 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 an- tiquity, would so much despise it in this question wherein the ancient Jewish and Christian Church do agree. Sanctius in his notes on the Acts, chap. 7. says, it is a difficult question among Divines, whether God’s appearances in Scripture were per- — formed immediately by God himself, or by his angels. And then having cited several ancient Fa- thers, who thought it was the A¢yos that appeared, he adds, Sed Theologis jam illa sententia placet, que statuit angelorum ministerjo antiquis hominibus oblatam esse divinam speciem, que est sententia Dionys. de calest. Hier. c. 4, &c. To the same purpose Lorinus, another Jesuit, speaks in Acts vil. 31. But this is not the worst. of it that they forsake the judgment of the ancients ; they do herein make - who is called the Redeemer. 355 bold to contradict the plain words of Christ him- SECT. self, John i. 18. Christ saith thus, Wo 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 John vi. 46. Certainly he must be very blind who does not see that Christ in these words not only denies that the Father had shewed himself in those appearances that were made to the ancient patriarchs, but that he also ascribes 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 modern Jews. We do not desire to be wiser in these matters than the pri- mitive 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, can- not but see that the Elohim in ver. 15. is called ‘Mx OND INDI 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 by 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 ob- stinately bent against the truth. 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 t, which is not only conjunctive, but very proper to distinguish the Persons of whom we speak ; and he would have said, God before whom Aa?2 SECT. If. 356 A Dissertation concerning the Angel 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 anh demonstrative as well be- fore the Angel as before God, without any copula- tive between, which sufficiently demonstrates, he means the same Person by God and the Angel. Munsterus was well aware of this, and therefore being willing to distinguish the redeeming Angel from God, he translates it with an addition, the Angel also. 2. It cannot be easily supposed, that Jacob would in a prayer use the singular verb 772) in common to persons so very different in their natures as the Creator and a creature are. He certainly ought to have said, God and the angel, 1352" may they bless the lads, if he had spoken of two. But his speak- ing in the singular, may he bless, is an argument of his having in his eye one Person alone, whose bless- ing 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 cre- ated 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 alt evil; which must be very distinct offices, if the Persons be distinguished. And so R. Jochanan accounts them, Gem. Pesasch. fol. 118. ‘Though he believes the Angel to be the same with Elohim, yet he contends that feeding, the greater work, is at- tributed to God; and delivering, the lesser work, to an angel. The same thing is said by the author of who is called the Redeemer. 357 Jalkut on this place; and R. Samule on the book SECT. Rabboth above mentioned. But in the phrase of __h_ these Jewish masters this distinction is very in- sipid; it is harshly formed, without considering that Jacob in this blessing reflected on the words of the vow which he made at Luz, afterwards called Beth- el, 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. Xxvil. 20,21. Here you see it is from God that Jacob expects to be kept in his way, 2. e. to be re- deemed from all evils that might happen, and that he esteems this to be no less a benefit than suste- nance 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 deli- vered Jacob from all evil, they make Jacob to be a mere idolater, as ascribing to a creature that which belongs only to the Lord of the creation. The Scripture appropriates to God the title of Re- deemer, xar’ efox7v; 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, Psalm 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. xxxil. 9, 10,11. | 5. God, as I said, has so appropriated the name of Redeemer to himself, that Jacob could not with- out sacrilege communicate this title to any creature, though never so excellent. We cannot be ignorant, Aas SECT. Il. 358 A Dissertation concerning the Angel that David makes this the proper name of God, Psalm xix. 14. as does Isaiah, chap. xli. 14. xlvi. 4. And this Jonathan confesses on Isa. ]xili. 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 cannot hold true, if in this place, Gen. xviii. 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, &e. The God of thy father shall be thy helper, and the Almighty shall bless thee with the blessings of heaven above, &c. Not a word of a mere angel that redeemed him from all evil; so far was the Patriarch in his former blessing from begging of an angel the multiplication of his seed, which was the only thing which he could now expect of God, as the Jews own. Bechai Pref. in Pent. fol. 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 interces- sion with God he bespeaks in behalf of his chil- dren, would he not have prayed to the angel in the first place? It was most rational so to do. He that wants the interest of a great man to introduce him to the king, 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 pray first 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 abhorred this sort of idolatry. Maim. Per. Misna ad tit. Sanh. ¢. xi. who is called the Redeemer. 359 SECT. IV. HOW firm these reasons are, to shew the angel here spoken of to be an uncreated, and not a cre- ated angel, is, I hope, evident to every one. Some- thing however of great importance may be still added to illustrate this weighty argument, and that is the judgment of the ancient synagogue. The ‘most ancient Jewish writers, and they that received the traditionary doctrine from them, though mortal enemies of the Christian religion, yet agree with the Christians in the sense of this text. For, God be thanked, such truths were not renounced all at once by these enemies of our faith, but they began to conceal or discard them by degrees, as they found them turning against them in their disputes with the Christians. To begin with the writings of the Jews before Christ, we find it is God the Word, ver. 12. who is described as he that delivers from all evil, in the Book of Wisd. xvi. 8. no doubt with respect to this place, where he takes the angel that delivered Jacob from all] evil, to be God. | The same doctrine is to be met with in Philo the Jew, that lived before Christ, and in Christ’s time. He expressly affirms of the Angel that delivered Allegor. ii. Jacob from all evil, that he was the Aéyos. And so”? . does Onkelos in his Chaldee paraphrase, translating the words of Jacob naturally, 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 trans- ~ Jates this Angel by the Word, or 7 Nv and espe- Aaa SECT. Gen. xXxxi. 13 ws; 360 _A Dissertation concerning the Angel cially in that remarkable place where the same Angel is treated of, Isa. Ixin. 8, 9, 10. he saith it was the Word that redeemed Israel out of all their afflictions. Let us pass on to the Jews after Christ’s time, and shew that they did not immediately renounce the doctrine of their forefathers. The author of the book Zohar in Par. 7% fol. 123. hath these words, which he repeats often afterwards, may Dans Natw one Ox dom wt xn Come, see the Angel, that redeemed me, is the Shekinah that went along with him. This is sufficiently intimated by the ancient au- thor Tanchuma, in his book Jelammedenu, who notes on Exod. xxxiii. that the Jews would not have a created angel to go before them, but God him- self, in these words, Moses answered, I will not have an angel, but thy own self. Now the Jewish commentators on this place of Exod. xxxiii. explain of the Shekinah, the words, thy own self, and always distinguish the Shekinah from all created beings. R. Salomon in his notes on this text has these words, The Angel that delivered me, i. e. The Angel who was wont to be sent to me in my affliction; as it is said, And the Angel of God spake to me in a dream, saying, Jacob, I am the God of Bethel, &c. The note of R. Moses Ben Nachman on this text, Gen. xlvii. 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, J am the God of Bethel, &c. he, of whom it is said, that my name is in him. The like he has on Exod. iii. where the appearance in the bush 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 Je- hovah, 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 who is called the Redeemer. 361 shall go before you. Lastly, that Angel of whom secrT. the prophet Malachi mentions, And the Lord whom ‘\V: 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 in- terpreters do acknowledge; but none can rightly understand this, without being instructed in the mysteries of the Law. -R. Menachem of Rekan. on Gen. xlviii. 16. the same who afterwards commented on the whole Pen- tateuch, was no stranger to this notion. He means the Shekinah, saith he, when he speaks of the re- deeming 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 synonymous to the mighty One of Jacob, chap. xlix. which title the Jews in their prayers do frequently ascribe to God, Bech. f. 71. c. 4. ed. Rive di Trento. He also there teaches, that this Angel was the She- kinah. As does R. Joseph Gekatilia in his book called Saare Ora, according to Menassch 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. dnd the Angel of the Lord, who went be- fore 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 Gene- sis, and is called R. David the less. He in that book, ed. Thessalonic. f. 174. professes to follow the opin- ion of R. Gekatalia in his Saare Ora. SECT. IV. 362 A Dissertation concerning the Angel Nor does Menasseh Ben Israel himself much dis- sent from these in the above-mentioned place. For though he attempts to reconcile Gen, xxvill. 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 satis- faction of his readers, who possibly would not ac- quiesce in his former reason drawn from modern authorities only. I mention not R. Levi ben Gersom’s opinion, who denies the Angel here spoken of to be a crea- ture, but calls him the Intellectus Agens, because he seems to have borrowed this 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 shewed 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 ancient Jews concerning this text. And that is, Whether this form of blessing be an express prayer or nor ‘The soundest and most part as well of Jews as Christians do agree, that we can- not worship angels without idolatry. This Maimoni- des affirms, as I quoted him above; and the Pro- testants, 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 cannot gainsay, since Jonathan their paraphrast, and other writers after him, do commonly term this blessing man or a prayer. And for this reason R. Menasseh who is called the Redeemer. — 363 thought it necessary to endeavour to reconcile this SECT. rayer 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 pro- ceed 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 would in after-times fulfil what he now wished. But it might be both a wish and a prophecy, and notwithstand- ing be a direct prayer to God and the redeeming Angel. It is well known how the Jews commonly delivered their petitions to God in this form. And yet I cannot forbear giving one instance to confirm it. You may read it in Numb. vi. 22, &c. 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 Lordy,» 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 an angel. Jt is a necessary consequence that pe sanct. Bellarmine and others of his communion draw from pore Ii. this instance: holy Jacob invoked an angel, there- Corn. a. fore it is not unlawful for the Protestants to do the (@?- or ... like; therefore one may worship others besidesGod; = these things, saith he, cannot be denied, unless you reckon prayer to be no act of worship, and not to be peculiar to God alone. But let them who believe Jacob’s Angel to have SECT. 364 A Dissertation concerning the Angel been a mere creature, as they do in that Church, rid themselves of these difficulties as well as they can. Let them try how they can convince a Socinian from Ephes. 1. 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. Iam more concerned for these Divines of the Re- formed Church, who have given the same interpret- ation of Jacob's Angel with the generality of Papists, though they cannot be ignorant they therein dissent from the divinity of the ancient Jews, and the Fa- thers of the Christian Church, and even the: more learned and candid Romanists, such as Masius was; I might add, (which perhaps they have not consi- dered,) though they therein contradict the whole strain of the New Testament. See Mercerus ad Pag- nini 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 ought to be taken into consideration by 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 de- sert, and against whom the Israelites in the wilder- ness did rebel. ‘Now the Apostle is express, 1 Cor. x. that he was Christ, whom the Jews tempted in the wilderness, 7. e. that he was the Aéyes, and not a mere angel. The Apostle takes it for granted; and 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. xlvin. 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 who is called the Redeemer. 365 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 invo- cation 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 the holy Scriptures. Two or three things therefore I will mention, which occur frequently in the 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. thé New Testament the spouse, or hus- band 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 described in his dealings with Jacob and his posterity. This the an- -cienter Jews were sensible of; and therefore both here, Gen. xlviii. 15. and chap. xlix. 24. where God is mentioned as a shepherd, they understand it of the Shekinah or Aéyos. 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 SECT. V. 366 A Dissertation concerning the Angel sect. himself to the good shepherd, John x. did presently Yt. _apprehend that he would be thought to be the. Messias, and therefore they 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 shew that he was the God that had fed Jacob and his posterity like sheep; so also is Christ most fre- quently represented in the New Testament under the notion of a Redeemer; intimating thereby that he was the same redeeming Angel of whom Jacob Isa.1xiii.9. had spoken. It was he that was called the Angel of his presence, by whom God redeemed his ancient Mal. iii.1. people: and he is also called the Angel of the cove- nant, 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 an answer. The first is taken from the doctrine of 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 au- thorities 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 formed 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. Barto- ‘This is derived from 4n3 the name of the first of the ert 4 eae Sephiroth, whence the Talmudists place Actariel upon the throne, Beracoth, f. 7. ¢. 1. and distin- guish him from the ministering angels that stand who is called the Redeemer. 367 N 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, that though it is framed from the Latin tongue, yet it expresses the same that the Hebrew word tw does, as R.S. Jarchi on Exod. xxiii. confesses. Now St. Hierome on Ezek. i. 24. notes, that the Greek Interpreters some- times render God’s name “w by A¢yes, which leads us into the meaning of those ancient Jews that ac- counted sw and Metatron to be the same. 4. The generality of the Jews are so far from be- lieving Metatron to be Enoch, that they believe him to be the Messias, the Avyos before his incarna- tion, in our phrase, but in theirs, the soul of the Messias, which they look on as something between God and the angels, whom nothing separates from the living God. See Reuchlin, |. i. de Cabala, p. 651. where he proves Metatron to be the Messias from their writings: or, in short, take the confession of Menasseh 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 incommu- nicable to a creature. And this shews that they who have departed in this point from the tradi- tion of their fathers, did it on this ground, because they were loath to acknowledge the Divinity of the Messias, which seemed to be clear upon allowing Metatron to be the Messias. They were more care- ful to defend their-own prejudices, than the opin- ions 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 SECT. VI. SECT. VI. R. Eliezer, in capit. c. 4. 368 A Dissertation concerning the Angel 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, &c. 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 Jesus Christ to be reckoned among the ministering spirits. This place is indeed abused by those of the Romish Church, to shew that prayers may be lawfully di- rected to angels. And the Jews themselves have contributed to lead some persons of note into this mistake. For, besides the four chief angels, whom they make to preside over the four armies of angels, which they have chiefly grounded on Ezek. i. they speak of seven other angels, that were created be- fore the rest, and that wait on God before the vail, that divides them from the Shekinah. - The hearing of these things so often repeated by the Jews, has given occasion, I say, to some consi- derable 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. ii. 18. and even in this very book, Rev. xix. 10. and 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 sup- plication. For as Cyril on Zech. iii. 9. T3 émr& tod TEAElwWS eX OvTOS Cel Tes oT TNILAUTIKOY. The number seven is always a mark of perfection in the thing to which it is applied. St. John therefore thought who is called the Redeemer. 369 of no allusion to the Jewish opinion of seven SECT. ~ 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 Gos- pel than under the Law, and his never-ceasing min- istration for the good: of the Church, for which purposes he hath received a vicarious authority un- der God, immediately after Christ, as Tertullian speaks, de Preesc. Heeret. c. 13. and for this interpre- tation I have Justin Martyr, Parzen. ad Greece. 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, Rev. ili. 1. These things saith he that hath the se- ven 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 wor- shipped 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 Eph. 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 Judgment of many interpreters, is their referring to the Father the words of the fourth verse, Grace be unto you, and peace from him, which is, and which was, and Bb 370 A Dissertation concerning the Angel SECT. which is to come; which ought to be referred par- VI; _ ticularly to Christ himself, who is described, chap. iv. 8. according to the description of the Adyos 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 se- venfold gifts in the Messias, according to the pro- phecy of Isaiah, chap. xi. 2,3. and from thence it comes, that in Rev. v. 6. the Lamb is described hav- ing 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 de- note his empire, in opposition to the empire of the little horn, which is spoken of, Dan. vil. 8. So there are seven eyes, which are the seven spi- rits 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, Dan. vii. 8. Here then the grace asked is from the seven spi- rits, that is, from the Holy Ghost, who is united in one with the Messias 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, be- cause 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 go- vernment of the Church, and is especially watchful to do her good. And for this reason I think it 1s, — who is called the Redeemer. 371 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, Hay- mo, Rupertus, from whom Tho. Aquinas, and Celius of Pannonia, who rebukes those that understand it otherwise, and other elder Divines of the Roman Church learnt it, to say nothing of those of the Reformed Church: but it is time to give over. Bb 2 SECT. VI. 7 = =— = a r . ‘ : ; ; >. e. * « f : . a " F > = ~ . ’ *~ an b] - ‘ - =~ mn j r $ é in. . " Mv ; ‘ 7 : ; . " ta ’ ; ; ' ‘ " 7 ' - ts ~~ ;, » ( 2 f “a hp ‘ ~ * a * = < 2 , : . a . r fd 7 | f 1 : ‘ 4 4 on * e = a 4 oe 7” : = F ’ - > * 1 4 x - 3 : , ~- { ~~ ‘ a” ° ; ‘ - ~ bi ; | P po e - F 3 7 . : - . : } = 1 * * . - ; - = a é , ant * 2 ‘ - . . : « n = Pi 4 . ar : s , C : ‘ ‘ : , (ccs memes me emanate re rr nie Pn Nee ms TABLE OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE, Chap. i iil. ili. OCCASIONALLY EXPLAINED IN THIS TREATISE. a GENESIS.. EXODUS. Ver. Pag. || Chap. Ver. Pag. i; 94, 96, 99, 114 |] ili. 15, 16. 43 2. EIA | iv2i 13. 210 26. 81, 95, 257, 259, || xil. 3. 85 321,'333 40. | 17 Ry 95 || xix. 17. 264 8. 297 || xxiii. 23. 279 15. $22 || xxiv... 1. 260 22. 33> 95, 257 || xxxili. 14. 279 7. 96 8. 17 LEVITICUS. bs 114 || Xxvl. II, 12. 220 7° 95> 115, 259 r. 530 297 NUMBERS. I, 2, 3 11g || Vi. 22, 24, 25, 26. 112, 363 18. 28 || xi. 25, 26. 114 22321 xxi, 9, 8. 48 24. 260 |] xxiv. 17. 236 Q- 50 20, 27 357 DEUTERONOMY. 24. 97 || iv. ie 96 7: 95,96, 259 || vi. 4. 142 15. 229 || xviii. 15, 16. 46, 255 16. 87, 229 18. 46, 323 15, 16 349 19. 323 Oe 35» 235, 322 || Xxx. If, 12, 13, 14. 50 Rea 223 || xxxil. 2. 281 9. | 85 EXODUS. | 43. 45 2. 277 6. 43 JOSHUA. 14. ‘ia 244 || XXiv. 19. 96 Bb3 A Table of Texts of Scripture. JUDGES. Chap. Ver. Pag. xiill. 18. 88 1 SAMUEL. il. 5 31 10 50 2 SAMUEL. Vil. 14. 49 16. 28 23. 260 Xxill, «2s ; 114 3. 50, 114 1 CHRONICLES. xiii. 6. 160 NEHEMIAH. vill. 8. 68 PSALMS. il. 83, 257» 235» 323 6. 215 ee 113, 206 8. 215, 240 12. - 232 vill 51 XMiz «10, 45 xix. 4. 51 XXi. I 315 XXil. 29,'315 73, 248 16. 324 Well, As 221, 244 XXxili, 6. 90, 114, 125, 131; 276 xi. 31 $MM. =. 3. 35 xliv. Ixix. Ixxx. 31 xly. 30, 31, 219, 240, 248 6. 225 ne 225, 228, 238 g, 10. 2.28 iT. 228, 233 xlvii. 256 5: 324 PSALMS. Chap. Ver. Pag. Lxviil. 30, 324 10. 324 IQ. 337 xxii. 26, 256, 324 17. 216 TO, I. 236 Law? 9) 153, 17s 217 Ixxxil. 8. 227 Ixxxix. 15. 35 26, 20. 217 28. 206 » Cn Se & 10; 37 eeyii. |) 1, 30 : 7: 237 XCIX 29 Gil If, 16, 17,.22- 30 25. 29 Cvii, 20. 204 CX, 30, 44, 83, 226 7: 242, 324 PROVERBS. iil. 139, 325 viii. 325 15, 16. 123 2 Bax: », 89, 113 23, 24. 113 XXX. 4- 113, 214, 344 ECCLESIASTES. i, 4. go xil. i¢: 96, 130 ISAIAH. iv. na 219 V. 34 15/25 S043 153.0% 0400 vi. 35 112 r 8. 333 Vu. 38 le 47 Will. 13,044 236, 338 ix. 6. 35, 88, 220, 445 : 7° 220 xl, 1; 2,93: 115, 238, 325» 370 A Table of Texts of Scripture. ISAIAH. Chap. Ver. Pag. Xhy4 2 TS: 115, 925 xxv. 6, 326 XXViil. 226 XXXlli, 22. 5 XXXV. 4, 5, 9, 242, 338 xl. : a. 237 13. 116 14. 14! xii. 4. 338 pa Me L89 236 xlili. 10, 238 xly. 23. 338 xlviil. 16. 326 xlix, 23. 233 hii. 29 liii. 26, 29, 38, 263 P 47 liv. 31 5: 96 ee 211 Ix, ie 236, 253 2. 68 1g, 20. 253 lyi. I. 38, 115 bans 3 134 Ixili. 229 JEREMIAH. it: “20, 264 v. 5. 264 xxii. 6, 327 SEK rR. 263 as 243 XXXII. 40. 249 XXXill. 15, 16. 327 EZEKIEL. u 227 i (2 219 DANIEL. Wise 25. 88 Vil. 13. 222,227,248, 256 Q. 260 14. 227, 248 DANIEL. Chap. Ver. Pag. 1X. 8; 9,12, 14, ho. . 1235 324 xil. 2. 242 HOSEA. rat 19, 20. 228, 240 xi. I. 47 AMOS. ix. VE, 159: 10, 27 30 MICAH. v. 2. 221, 327 vil. 7. 224 14. 211 19. 224 18. 253 HABAKKUK. il. 3- 225 iil. 29 8. 288 53: 225, 288 18. 236, 288 HAGGAI. il. 4, 5- 287 Q- 321 ZECHARIAH. ‘ii. 10, 11. 29 iil, 9. 456 vl. 12. 30, 207, 220, 253, 328 IX. Q. 29, 328 xii, 10. 29, 228 xiv. 9 269 MALACHI. i. II. 48 iil. 1. 86, 205, 229, 238, 243, 279 iv. 36 2. 82, 206,225, 253 Xxiv. xlvi. xlviii. li. XIV. A Table of Texts of Scripture. 1 ESDRAS. Ver. Pag. || Chap. AE 86 || il. chee 86 jl v. | vill. 2° ESDRAS. | ix. 28, 47, 57. go |} x1. TOBIT. Le 6. SI JUDITH. XXil. vas 85 eee 14. go || xxili XXVI WISDOM. 4,5, 6, 7. go ? 8. QI || Xxvil. Pap 23) oa onins 82 I. 82 || xxviii. ays 8 82 Ly. 82, O1 vee 85 ce 52 LB yelQ, 077 84, 85 ae ECCLESIASTICUS. ° 17. 87 | i. 9- 89 18. 89 5> 6. 84 35 4. 5- 84 |] il. 10. 83 1 MACCABEES. Ph 41. 323 || v. 2 MACCABEES. Vii. 8. 92 |! xi. 6. QI || xvii. 22, 23. QI || xxii. XXill. MATTHEW. XXiv 20. 237 23- 47 ie 222 15- 47 17. 339 |! MATTHEW. Ver. Pag. 18. 263 263 17. 47 6. 47 15. 264 4. 18 16. SI, 232 13. 264 42. 265 43 32- 43 37+ 265 53: 247, 205 63. 222,249 64. 222, 247 39> 40, 41, 42,43. 248 46. 248 6. 249 18, 19, 20 250 19. 237 20. 266 MARK 39- 248 LUKE 2. 276 I7- 39 69. 50 79 230, 237 236 Ly. 249 49- 250 18. 68, 115 20, 21, 24. 240 an. 266 16. 323 20. 266 20. 51 Vie 222 35> 393 37, 38. 248 27> 44. Pr. p. iv. 46—49. 249 5 I, 52. 250 JOHN. 208, 253, 255 A Table of Texts of Scripture. JOHN. Chap. Ver. Pag. 1. 14. 267 15. 240 18. 267 29. 267 30. 240 é 34, 51 238 ii. 4. 239 16, 19, 21 239 ll. 13. 239. 14. 48 pty Po 239 29. 240 Sty 45; 240 iv. Me 48 v. 267 8. 276 $0, 17, hos 241 19, 21;.23, vA 275 8, | Fee “268 29; 33: 39 39. Pref. p. v. 46. Pref. p. iv. 46. 267 ey. 242 14. 323 vil. 38. 13 42. 222 viii 28, 38. 244 51, 53, 56, Cn 87295 Bn, 59: aa 1X. 35, 90% 244 x: rr, 18. 244 24, 25,37- 245, 366 xi. 25s 27a AAR AO xiv. 6. 268 16, 175420. 246 XV. ak 9 ey a 246 16. 269 26. 269 Vi 927542 87920;/30. 246 xvii. Tied, 45:5 246 23% 269 IKe? § 29/70 248 36. 339 XX, 22, 28 249, 250 ae 250 Chap. XV. vill. lil, mae e Vi. ACTS. Ver. Pag. 276 Sue Os 39 22. 27, 46, 255 a5. 46 3% 277 37: 455 43. Pref. p. iv. 34. . 44 28. 270 22. Pref. p. iv. ROMANS. 14. 20 6. 50 18. 51 Ek. 29 1 CORINTHIANS. oe AS 36 9: 279 4. 252 1 fF 36 270 27, o 47. 20 2 CORINTHIANS. TS. pos GALATIANS., 8. 46 16. 35, 46 19. 280, 282 22}. 36 24. 20 20% 49 EPHESIANS. ae 51 14. 13,270 1 TIMOTHY. 4. 2901 20,21; 291 Ais A Table of Texts of Scripture. HEBREWS. Chap. Ver. Pag. i, 30 € 280 a; 262,277, 290 3- 83 5: 49 im 6. 45» 237s 334 il, 351 2 280 , Ons 51 IV. 4; 9. 12; 86, 276 vi. 37, 270 a ote 308 Vil. 375 270 me 31 xii oy 25, 26. 252, 283 29. 270 1 PETER. lil, ai. 37 2 PETER. Ver. REVELATIONS. = aes dete en en By = 34, THE TABLE OF MATTERS. ALLEGORICAL expositions in use before Christ’s time . 19, 36, 46. Angel of the face, or presence of God, called the Re- deemer, vide Dissert. - - 349. Apocryphal books. among the Jews: stad and followed in the New Testament - = 125,13,:145-15¢ Apocryphal books in our Bibles; their igs 54, 55. Their freedom from sa yibe Se - 58. Appearances ~ - 161, &c. Caballistical Divinity received by the Jews 144, 145, 306. Embased about Christ’s time = - - 291. Chaldee Paraphrases, their original - 21, 22,67, 68. And antiquity ~ ~ - : - 78. Progress ~ - - ~ - 22, 69,:&c. Antiquity of those we have - - 68, 69, 70, 71. Their interpretations - - - 76, 77, &c. Christ. See Messias. Divine Essence, its kind of unity - 98, 215. Plurality of Persons in it - 93, 94,95, 96. Distinguished by the name Sephiroth : 131. Prosopa ~ -- . 129, 132543855138. Panim or faces, and Havioth or substance - 138. And Madregoth, or degrees ~ - - PS. Wisdom coming from the Infinite = - 136. And Understanding from the tn tite by Wisdom 136. Yet they are all one ~ - 137, 140. Elias a kind of second Moses - - 196. God, his name Eloah in the singular, Deeda in Scripture 94. His name Elohim in'the plural joined witha singular 94. He speaks in the plural, and why - 94,95, 96. God understood by the Jews where Shay King is. ex pressed : - - 96. Why called God of Gods - - - 98. The Table of Matters. His name Elohim signifies plurally — - - 101,129. Greek learning discouraged among the Jews - 24. Jews’ early provision against the Christian objections | 259, 260. Law, by whom given - - ~ - 280, 281. Messias to be like Moses _ - - - . 18. Spoken of by all the Prophets - - er 2b, 204, By Isaiah, chap. liii. ~ - - ~ 26. In Canticles - - - - 20926. 215; Rules for interpreting prophecies concerning him 27, 28. Messias expected, according to the Jews, ever since Adam’s time - - - - - aby cae To be united with the second number or Wisdom at his_coming - - - - - 138, The same with the Word - - - 204, &c. With the Shekinah - - 267, 268, &c. To bea Prophet = - - - - - poh a Messias is the Son of God - ss - 214, &e. And Bridegroom of the Church ~ i219, 22BL240, The true Jehovah - - - - 223, &e. _ His great dignity = - - - - - 230. Messias is God according to the Gospels 241, 242, &c. He is to be worshipped - - - - 232. Messias a Shepherd - - - 244, 253, 254. Why Christ did not expressly assume the title of God 272. Christ, or Messias, crucified for affirming himself to be the Son of God - - - ~ - 312. Moses’s education in Egyptian learning rt. Platonic philosophy out of credit in Philo’s time 286, 289. Occasioned the heresies in the Christian Church 290. Plato’s morality and not his divinity followed by the first Christians - - - = - 289, 290. If Plato borrowed the notion of a Trinity from the Jews 291. Powers of God, what - . 98, 118, 119, 121. They made the world - - ~ - 16.105. Philo’s notions of them, but not so clear - 125. They are said to be the same as Wisdom and Under- standing by the Cabalists - ~ - 180, 181. Simon called himself the Power of God - 108. Those Powers called Prosopa - - - 129. Psalms, their titles by whom affixed - = 1S; Rules for interpreting them - - 16. Pythagoras had many notions from the Hebrews 284. —— 2) The Table of Matters. Scripture-reading discouraged by the Jews after Christ’s time - - ~ - - - - 262. Misinterpreted by way of accommodation - 444, By the modern Jews - - - 315, and Talm. By the Socinians = - - - - 333, 334, &c. Shekinah, the same with the Word - - 120, 218. And sometimes used forthe Spirit - - ib. 135. The several appearances of it to the patriarchs, and un- der the legal dispensation - -#)bDOy 054,260; Called Father - - - - - 134. And Jehovah, to whom prayers of the Jews were di- rected - - ~ - - - 224. Its coming into the tabernacle - - 181. And temple - - - - - - 195. Leaving the temple ~ - - . 198. Its return - - - - - - 199; Its expected appearance in a visible manner in the age of the Messias - - - - 9 2US. 2a: Shekinah to be a priest = - - - - 226. To be the same with the Messias - 280, 267, &c. Shekinah called Rachel — - - - - 263. A stone - ~ - - - - 265. The finger of God - - - - - 266. Simonians, some of their opinions - - 109, 110. Spirit made all things - - ~ - 82, 90, &e. Is a Person in Gen.i.2. - - - - 114. _An uncreated Being - - - - 131. And not air or wind - - - : 125. Called sometimes the Shekinah - - 120. But more commonly Bina or Understanding 134. Called by the Cabalists, Mother - - 134 And the Mouth of God, and the Spirit of Holiness, and . the Sanctifier - - - - - 140. Seven spirits, the Spirit of God ~ - 368, 370. Traditions, how many sorts - - - S510: Time of the authors of them = - ~ - 10. One kind useful to clear the text - - 16, 17. To understand the prophecies of the Messias 17. Used by the Apostles in the sense of texts quoted by them Be outa e eee ie a ee Ba ORR. And Justin Martyr - - - 256, 257, 258. Types, their ground” - - - - - 36. Oft used by the Apostles SN Wet hie is 37 Unity of Divine Essence according to the Jews 97, 216. Wisdom, made all things —- = +’. 82, 83, 180; 189. The Table of Matters. Begot by God ie ~ - ~ 98. To be united with the Messtas - ~ 138. Word, or Abyoss whence so called — - - 102. The use of it among the Jews — - - 293. Made all things - - - . 82, 83, 102, 104. Man especially ~ - - - 106. After his image ~ - - ~ 104, 105, 106. is an emanation from God - - 82. ‘The same with an uncreated Angel 84, 85,87, 156, 157, 163, 16, 172, 173. That acted in all the Divine eleugeticor = in the Old Tes- tament - - - - - 147. Objections against this anwar a UNDE Ts 2209.20 an The Son of God - ~ - - - 98, 147. A Person — - - ~ - - - 156, 298. A true cause or agent = - - - 101, 102. A Divine Person’ - ~ 158, 159; 294, 300s Used by the ise paraphrasts for Jehovah and Elo- him - “ - 299, 301. Inthe text - ~ - - - - 120. And by the Targums, aword,a man - - 209. The same with the Shekinah_- - - - 120, 218. And with Wisdom - ~ 130, 131, 132, 218. And Messias - - - - - 204, &e. A Mediator - or ee : - - 148. A Teacher - - - - - “148. A Shepherd - - - ~ - tid. and 221. The Sun of Righteousness ~ - - 206. God swears by his Word - - “ 168. The Word prayed to - - - - 169, 170. The Word gave the Law - ~ - 176, &c. And spoke from off the mercy-seat - 181, 197, 198. Zohar, its author probably - - - - 143. an ERRATA. Page 26. |. 32. read the Ixxiid Psalm. 91.1. ult. read 2 Macc. xii. 22, 23. 86. 1. 1. read Heb. iv. 12. 270.1. 7. from the bottom, read Heb. xii» 29. 357.1. 13. read Gen. xxviii. 20, 21. > : : a eee ; * Lae be hen vies: ¥ ' + , ' >| h | » ie Date Due ne rt PRINTED | IN U.S.A. sS 4 Tes we. - Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library ih 023 2330