ina ve Wee RS \y iis 1 4 ¥, if Me a eee a Tale ot : fi i 3 : , 7 oe 5h ; HME A 7 Be AEA Tne A , ’ Fee ve PD, RAG 7, ’ " LAA \ 4 ie (ahaa : CAA 4 ae Ke ner § ity i ryier: ; Batya tp e : Nyaa v, ha # (tgs shah gt ; SAY =~. AS > ee Eat vier vy Les rh AH; h Wale Why yet ees ease yh BELEN SESE ES ZTENLS . i MAA auta ate DP POLIO Papal > SPADES us Ke ee east 3a LS ertn! GES Fos mos 5 ae is = ea & asain een ee toe NSLS SEE fate — Katee ary me ae apes mera ean AR Ae: } TMI sprint Ph) Py 4: Brahh a x 4 Pete ay) NG Se eee ate ia Pre eats ith sh A hat HN et, ve ; a yi yhatahs ata A > ASS Fi hears } Waa Nasatas yhyae yi ita Bafana iH wh Le yh pietate! Agha Ses eh Fhib greed eh yy Batata tatp rat Rtas uty > SENG) Wiis yh ah >, Sey ae tS . ise) DAL RATE DAA y *y78, bene LYE SE NEE EWE EN PNM Qa bart sratebahstalh! LS Bopae yyikt vin \ i ah, Sat DADA, A Doe NS SEE SE one Be) i FY Y Rahs hPa kD Sad eS 18 » PVSERE VE DAMS RED aD are a a keary Asialeh i MEIER ICICER Se ey PREVA RAED Ve AD OA AA EAD ark bh Shook dh Sy yee ae RAE DREMEL DARE DOD gb alae Ak kf Ah RSTATATDF AD AR AS ATA BD AeA A eA’ s LS PEEVE wae A ah ak yh ek kab bbb Bae . PVE NE SEMEN EON OM IG ete Leh PRE RR DARA A SA RAR RAE BR Oth hk BOD SLE MA ME RBA PA BAR AAR AAS Dare AR gta oa kk aon EASELS ENENE YE YEN NEY Dea PARRA RAAARAR RAR OAD A ok bk eh a kk bah EMEC e N SOO OL OUTTA aT gL yh ded roe q » 4 : f ; Hy Lye ’ HEN F , abt X " y a Se} Oy ! RD tM , a POURRA | ‘ RNS Y yey sity \}) h Nata tan iy DEAR MPAPeR At Sythe a Y Ay Sth t ata? Ae ae a at ataty atataty any! 4 i i : SANA ; aa ‘ RY ty oh {S We AEs SN VW ¥ SPVARAA DR ER RL PARAL aa ED Maha a ea ad a AS SS ) sta thhstatate ath h ataTATACRE Seer ae ac BeD vb LYE SLYE) pweve yes be SARS PARRA RRR A RA Rea ae aa sans aE SE NY t' hts, eee dSP ee ARAA HA DAD AR DD etn? Ds ges Aeris tse ti Web We IR TLE TET TLR ES rus SON wy. ny . i r Fie i Lert VANES Tt AMMA PAtAA TAAL ACAMATB IRCA APACS ED ADD ATL . “ead RSS ‘yyy teAK RV NYAS ND x ANS ANN EAD we VN NNN i SR MRR Did ta Oe ha We YE NEN SENSE TYE SCENIC IE LIC PNY SE LAN SAAR Oe RON NALA NASUNNOEORSRAANARN DPR DS OA AD DA OD AA RA 8D Fs We Se Me Je Se See eb ek ee a ee wee anne SRRAE SERRA KO OR SA DADS BETAS ATR AC ARR A OTA DAO DAE ACAD ON NY Sea SNE SE oe be A Lae Be “AR PA DAE RDA DAR ON A OAD od Wad We 8 Se SE 9A 8 EES OEE SSS NOE RRSP BASARLAVR ELAR A S HR ERE eas Sy ewe NAR AAR DAR Ae Rk kek . . m) PRRARSSARALE SR ORE DR OD vA ) ‘ EME SR Se eR NED warar nl arnt ir erurecenay yt TMA dg HH 4 ‘ wh APUSETET AS RE OOP ET prey ah are re acta tg brig PAPEREA STARE RT SE gE SIN vii ERs Y ™ var 9 9-090" YUM OED) ryeene »s . ; , SEW Ne Tareas Un GLUE be Ud Sr DUE Wa dk 0 Yd Sek NDE DD Va Da dak Ne De SOD SAA Od JRE Me SOS Ot OIC Halt ud Ie . Re A beara dy ss° Sete ah ae e’s PO ATOU > SNL ye yd eed ‘’ hat . Dyk that aly ah Vaya at Me We Se To — PHBOLORICAL PRINCETON, N. J. SAMUEL AGNEW, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA, OO OD A CE A Na ei ee BT 111 .085 v.1 Oxlee, John, 1779-1854. The Christian doctrines of the Trinity and incarnation — ee rE SO eee I UO D> ee i — ‘ I al ® - al ~ \ 1 ) >. J oe i he - E , : > x 4] vay jm 432 i he ™ ae 7 aa i : ss | 2 ' i & | ae i> re | gr - Oe a? eek We Phe } : ; . 4 7 : rey * Wat ys ny pe, aa HS ; ae ae PS tw, a chy, vai wee i. i nial r:, , 4 , if 7 igi Rese th Li TOMA AAA nates” PERE MAb Aint ibys) aa” ~~ i Da r ‘ 1 yi if ae x f a Wr us v fy: 5 £ ! ne aa re i ee } f é all 7 is 4 : A ‘ eae ats, ba | ak, ee eee { pi log hy t, u : ce Afi A Ay rat Tey weg Thr E +H" 7 ul ’ ; ys ve can ed e i} Ma Lf Je | P $ 7 ue f Paskeiie. f ae | i ’ a ' é . We: u * i e pul ‘ : i, ‘ r ¢ : a ! ~ yan Pe fp: ‘ ws 7? ; Dy i ri 5 rr i , ; i ' Lf Mg , 14 os , i i Fe ; n bd yen ei it ¢ A ’ op yd Pea ay ee < y,' = - a { I i i i ak ad A, & ic) j +f ad if. vs . Ay WwW ; a ad 7 ! i aes ost i: } : ‘ cay eee SS ae ae ee 2 aa da Auk ~ 3. % & } ° ( = SRS XI. The whole of the Arguments recapitulated - - 304 XIV. That the same is also the Doctrine of the Chris- tian Church; with the solution of a Diffi- — culty, &c. - = = = = = = 308. 312, 317 XV. The general Grounds of Objection, on the Part of the Jew, considered and refuted - - - 325 TUE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, | &o, &C. INTRODUCTION, ene Tat with the benevolent design of persuad- ing the sons of Jacob to accept salvation, many serious though futile attempts have been made by the philosophers and divines of the Christian church; and, that they have ever been ready and even anxious to promote their happiness and prosperity, are positions which [ am not disposed to deny. But whilst those fruitless efforts may serve to exempt us from the charge of a total indifference to their eternal welfare, I can never be induced to confess, that in detecting their religious prejudices, or in recommending to their acceptance our own peculiar tenets; we have always displayed the highest degree of learning and acuteness; or, that the mediocrity of talent occasionally exerted in disputatiun with members of the Jewish community has been directed and employed always with judgment and decorum. nt INTRODUCTION, In the infancy of the Christian church, and immediately after the general dispersion, which necessarily followed the sacking of Jerusalem and Bither; the Greek and Latin Fathers had the fairest opportunity of disputing with the Jews, and of evincing the truth of the Gospel dispensa- ition; but, unfortunately for the success of so noble a design, they were totally ignorant of the Hebrew Scriptures; and so wanted, in every argument, that stamp of authority, which was equally necessary to. sanction the principles of Christianity, and to command the respect of their Jewish antagonists. For the confirmation of this remark, I may appeal tothe Fathers themselves, but especially to *Barnabas, +Justin, and }Irenaeus; who in their several attempts at Hebrew learning betray such portentous signs of ignorance and stupidity, that we are covered with shame at the sight of their criticisms. Hieronymus, indeed, knew something of Hebrew; but it was only a smattering, not by any means of that extent which has been vulgarly credited. If Origen knew any thing of it at all, it must have been merely the alphabet; for higher than that he certainly did not ascend, as I have fully demonstrated, 1 believe, * Ep. Voss. Ed. p. 229. + Dial. cum Tryph. Col. Ed. p. 354, et passim. + Con. Haer. Lib. 1. e. 18. INTRODUCTION, if) in another place.* The rest of the Fathers, with- out excepting even St. Austin+ himself, discarded all pretensions. to a knowledge of the sacred original; otherwise, perhaps, with Origen at this day, they would many of them have been lauded by an ignorant posterity, as having been perfect masters of the Hebrew tongue. This defect in the qualifications of the Greek and Latin Fathers for proselytizing the Jewish nation, I deeply lament; as the times, in which they flourished, were highly favourable to the reception of Christianity: and besides the sin- gular opportunity of instituting a disputation whenever they had a mind, they combined with their enthusiastic zeal and resolution an accu- rate knowledge of the Gospel covenant, together with a profound skill in almost every branch of Pagan philosophy; so that nothing was wanted to render them perfect advocates of the Chris- tian religion, except an easy familiarity with the language of the Old Testament. Nor ought it to be opposed in reply, that the Septuagint version was universally received among the Hellenists ; and, that in a disputation with such of the Jews as possessed that version, an appeal to the original was neither proper nor necessary 5 * Classic. Journal, Vol. vii. p.122. + Epp. ad Hieron. 6 INTRODUCTION; it being evident, that the more enlightened of the Jews consulted the Scriptures in the original dialect: without which, indeed, the Christian Fathers could never have availed themselves of their learned conversations, nor have confirmed their verbal criticisms always by the common apology, that they had it from a Hebrew. But if the first six centuries supplied no masters in Hebraic erudition; to expect to find such in the succeeding ages, when almost every species of learning was swept away by the frequent inundations of the Goths and the Vandals must be vain and absurd. That no effort to bring over the Jews to Christianity was used even in the darkest ages of our church, I by no means assert; for when the civil jurisdiction of the Romish Pontiff began to be generally acknow- ledged in the western parts of Christendom, the conversion of all the world to Christianity, either by persuasion, deception, or compulsion, was regarded by the advocates for catholicism as an object, which ought to be universally desired, and steadily prosecuted; but that any learned and well designed tract on the tenets of the Gos- pel, such as might fairly be deemed sufficient for the conviction*of a Jew not altogether wedded to the prejudices of education, was ever com- posed during the tyranny and profligacy of the INTRODUCTION, W Romish prelates, I strenuously deny ; and if no other argument could be adduced to confirm the position, it might be enough to observe, that even so: latterly as at the council of ‘Trent, when the important question respecting the necessity of a new version fell under discussion: not a member of the synod pretended to know any thing of the Hebrew dialect, but reclined alto- gether on the learning and authority of Cardinal Cajetan.* No sooner, however, had the dawn of refor- mation begun to glimmer on the horizon, and the mists of ignorance and superstition to dis- appear at the approach of light and reason; than there arose a constellation of oriental and biblical scholars, as well of the Romish as of the Protes. tant church. These certainly, had their energies been conjointly directed to the same end, posses- sed the means, not only of demonstrating to the Jew, in his own idiom, the truths of the Gospel ; but of wholly revealing to the Christian world the dark recesses of that gigantic fabric of Jewish superstition, the Talmud; which, for any thing that modern Hebraists can effect towards level- ing it with our understandings, must henceforth be contemplated with as much admiration and * Vid. Hist. of the Council of Trent by Father Paul, in loc. 5 INTRODUCTION. stupor as a colossus or a pyramid. Nay, if they had been but disposed to publish their arguments in distinct treatises, and had not dispersed them about, as we now find, in their various -editions of the Hebrew classics; the effects of their conduct would have been felt at this day. Far be it from me, however, to detract from their labours; which [ hold in the very highest esteem. Indeed the means which we now possess of study- ing the Hebrew, and of arriving at any degree of competency in it; is to be charged wholly on their bounty and generosity. The only thing which I regret is, that the conversion of the Jews was not the principal object of their Rabbinical studies: and, that the attainment of that object was not sought after, by founding the tenets of the Gospel on the basis of Judaism. — In the present generation many impediments concur to obstruct the progress, and to prevent the completion of so glorious a design: Within the last hundred years, the study of the Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, and Rabbinical tongues, has been rapidly declining ; and, if something should not happily fall out to retard the spreading of so depascent an evil, Hebrew in general, and the Rabbinical dialect in particular, will soon be unknown both to the clergy and laity. This evident decay of which I complain, is to be INTRODUCTION. a ascribed partly to the indolent disposition of the student, who refuses to sustain that labour, which is absolutely necessary to render him a sound linguist; and partly to the pernicious custom of learning without points. It is a vulgar but erroneous opinion, that the Hebrew dialect is of most easy attainment; that the devoting of a few weeks, or at most of a few months, to the consideration of its grammatical properties, is all that is necessary to render us perfect masters of the beauty, genius, idiom, and import of this most ancient of tongues. But, if with the sacred volumes we may be permitted to class the various productions of the Talmudic, Cabbalistic, and Rabbinical schools ; the Hebrew of which scarcely differs so much from that of Moses and the prophets, as the Greek of the New Testament differs from that of Hesiod or Homer; so far from being of the most easy attainment, it will be found to be the most diffi- cult of all the languages in the world; consisting of a copious stock of words and phrases, as well vernacular, as of Chaldaic, Syriac, Greek, and even Latin original; abounding with para- bolical images and locutions ; and adapted to convey the sentiments of the mind on any subject whatever, whether physical or moral. Conceding, however, what is by no means the fact, that the % ) 40 INTRODUCTTON. ‘Old Testament is the only book extant, in which pure Hebrew may be found; then it ought, on that very account, to be read the oftener over ; in order that its genius and idiom may be the better ascertained. How should we regard the ‘conduct of a critic on the New Testament, who taking for granted, that no other book except itself contained Greek in its purity, should, after having read a few verses in St. John, instantly proceed to pass judgment on the sacred original of the evangelists and apostles ? Such, however, js the actual conduct of our biblical critics; who having with the aid of translations, and especially of the interlineary version of Pagninus, con- strued a solitary chapter or psalm, immediately sit down to comment on the scriptures; find fault with the received translations; and not unfre- quently carry their presumption so far even as to correct the original. - But that which has chiefly led to the present decay of sacred learning is, as I have already observed, the rejection of the points. Perhaps it would be no hard matter to discover the true reason, why this new method of teaching and learning the Hebrew should find so many patrons. Does it not multiply the modes of verbal criticism; and conceal the defects of sound erudition? There is no possibility of investigating whether a INTRODUCTION. ]} eritic of this complexion, who to the honour of the critical profession unites the awful respon- sibility of expounding the oracles of God, really knows any thing of the language or not; unless his positions may be subjected to the rules of art, and examined on the principles of the Jewish Grammarians, It must be vain to contend with him, that such an assertion is repugnant to the laws of etymology or syntax ; if no etymology or syntax be acknowledged, except that which arises in his own mind, from a ready comparison of the lexicons and concordances: for these, I lament to say, are made to supply the place of a regular course of reading, the indolence of the sacred critic being now such, that he prefers having his Hebrew on the library shelf, or in his pocket, to the less pleasing way of storing it in his head. But surely no man, possessed of a sound understanding, would discard the doctrines of punctuation merely on the ground, that the points have never been set to the copies of the synagogues ; or, that no mention is made of them in the books of the Talmud; as these are the only plausible arguments, that have ever been advanced for discrediting their authos rity, and for banishing them from our schools as a modern invention, The pronunciation, te which they lead, is evidently that which obtained 12 INTRODUCTION. among the Jews before the compilation of the ‘Falmud; as will appear manifest to the least dis- cerning, on comparing the proper names and other Hebrew terms to be found in the Greek versions of the Old Testament, and in the works of the Christian Fathers, with the given pune: tuation of them in the text of the Masoretes. if then it should even be admitted, that the characters were no¢ invented till after the pub- lication of the Talmuds; the argument can amount only to this; that, in the first ages of the Jewish church, the right pronunciation was delivered orally from master to scholar; but that afterwards they availed themselves of the vowel marks, as practised in other languages, and so committed it to the less arbitrary and uncertain rules of written tradition. It certainly carries with it, as it now stands, all the signs of having been formerly the popular pronuncia- tion. The various anomalies with which it abounds may, on the supposition that it was once vulgarly spoken, and fluctuated as other living languages do from the caprice of custom; be easily accounted for; but on the ground, that it is altogether the child of art, will find no solution. The number of: the vowels, in the mouth of a well exercised scholar, affords at least a pleasing variety of sound ; INTRODUCTION: 13 Very different from ‘that which arises from the jumbling together. of the consonants in any fashion, as is the practice of our. modern He- braists. It is, besides, wholly undesigned; as many of the readings, which so strongly tend to confirm our tenets, might, by being differently pointed, be turned against us. In a word, 1 can find no sober nor ingenuous reason for. the rejection of the points; which has had. the two-fold pernicious effect, of increasing the indo- lence of the sacred student, and of. widening the breach between the Christian and the Jew. . Thus having in my preliminary matter slightly touched on the inefficiency of our past endeavours towards reconciling the sons of Jacob to the worship. of Christ, on the present decay of Jewish literature amongst us, and on the causes of that decay; I shall now detail my design, toge- ther with the method observed in this work; which is composed, not with the vain expectation of converting the Jews, but with the immediate view of diminishing their religious prejudices, and of exciting an inquiry amongst them into the merits of the question. —_ It will contain, also, of itself, a distinct confirmation of. the truth of our faith; in that Christianity, by being thus founded on Judaism, will derive additional sup- port from the yarious extrinsic evidences: of the {4 INTRODUCTION. Jewish Church, ‘That something ought to be attempted with the view of reconciling the dif- ferences betwixt us, is a reflection, in which my mind has long been occupied ; for it seems to me to be matter of astonishment, that a religion, which in its infancy could attract such numbers of the Jews in its favour, and induce many of them even to suffer death for the support of it, cannot at this day be so far recommended to persons of that persuasion, as to arrest their attention for a few moments, whilst we briefly unfold to them the grounds of our faith. Now the distinguishing tenets of the Christian Church are the Trinity of the Godhead, and the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ; all other differences bewixt the Jew and the Christian being either political or of inferior moment. For in maintaining the belief of the incorporeity of the Godhead, of the creation of the world out of nothing, of good and bad angels, of the inspiration of the prophets, of the free will of man, of the interposition of the Deity in sublu- nary concerns, of the efficacy of prayer, of the resurrection of the dead, and of a future state of rewards and punishments, they eyi- dently concur with us, not differring from us to a greater extent, than we do from one another in discussing such doctrines, Maimonides, indeed, INTRODUCTION. 15 has very frankly confessed, that the Trinity, which is so intimately connected with the Incarnation, that they cannot be separated, is the main distinction between Judaism and Christianity;* most other doctrinal points being common to both. ‘The doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, then, I shall endeavour. to erect, not indeed with that extent of erudition which the subject demands, but according to the materials with which I am furnished, on the certain and undisputed authorities .of the inspired Penmen; of the Targumists, Tal- mudists, Cabbalists, Darushists, and Commen- tators; so that, whatever may be thought of the edifice itself, the Jew shall be compelled to own, that the foundation on which it is required to stand, is the rock of truth, and the strength of adamant. Let the sum of the two doctrines be resolved into the three yrelawines general propositions. Ist. Tuat Gop Is AN IMMATERIAL AND SPIRITUAL ‘BEING. 2nd. THAT IN THE SAMENESS OF THE GODHEAD SUBSISTS A TRINITY OF PERSONS. Srd. ‘THAT THE SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY WAS INCARNATED OF THE Virgin Mary. * More Nevochim, Part I, C 71. 16 PROPOSITION I. THAT GOD IS AN IMMATERIAL AND SPIRITUAL BEING. CHAPTER I, Tue immateriality or spirituality of the God- head being the basis of all religion, whether natural or revealed ; it might seem almost need- less, on the present occasion, to offer to establish on the authorities of the Jewish Church the truth of a proposition, which the Jews are equally obliged, if not equally prepared, with the Christians, to maintain and defend. For how- ever they may differ in other respects, they do certainly agree in the belief of an immaterial and spiritual Being, who created and formed not only the worlds, as they now subsist; but the very elements of which they are composed ; whilst they equally expel from their sacred communion those philosophers and divines, who either inculcate or insinuate the eternity of matter. That nothing essential, however, to the design of the present work may seem to be omitted, I shall proceed in a regular manner to confirm the first proposition on the authori- ties of the Jewish Church ; and particularly of their real metaphysicians, the Cabbalists. GOD IMMATERIAL AND sPiRITUAL,. 17 The truth of the doctrine is vehemently insisted on, in a variety of places, by the great R. Moses ben Maimon; who founds upon it the unity of the Godhead, and ranks it among the funda- mental articles ofthe Jewish religion. ‘Thus in his celebrated letter* to the Jews of Marseilles, he — observes : 27 W223. 9Y9) Nan aN MIAN 4355 AANA APS ones oy TON DIA RT SNA Mya by oN ona 7 AID NN AM MI wen ona ons “TI have already composed on these questions ““a work of considerable magnitude, in the “Arabic language; where I have adduced the “clearest demonstrations and the most power- “ful arguments respecting the essence of the “€ blessed Creator; both that he is truly one: “and that he is neither a body, nor a bodily “substance, nor yet any active principle resid- “ing ina body.” The singular. manner too, in which Onkelos, in his ‘Targum of the Law, has endeavoured to prevent the reader from viewing the Deity as-a corporeal Being,. is incessantly applauded by-him, nor has he manifested less anxiety himself to guard against that error by making all the terms, which are applied to God in common with his creatures, equivocal in their * Vid. Buxtorfii Inst. Epist- Hebraic, p. 444, Cc 18 GOD AN IMMATERIAL import and signification.* Thus in the great work, to which he alludes above, we find him expressing himself to the following effect :+ savin npnman down 950 md AND yoy pd1D OA NwaAn OWM Aa XNA «The general design of us all ; nywin x) ‘is to remove corporeity from the Godhead; ‘and to regard all those apprehensions, which «* we have of the divine nature, as appertaining ‘‘to the understanding, and not to the senses.” So on another occasion:} OWEMU PISW V3 7228 PRINS pry Dew IW DMI IMM ja s97 oy ond apow pray yD wy Taw PS PI) ND POT pe SN aww 2ap « But as itis highly ; "27M yo ‘7a 773 YR ‘ necessary, that this doctrine should be disse- ‘‘minated among the common people, and that « children should be initiated in it from early youth; namely, That God is one, and that “there is no other to be worshiped besides ¢ himself: so is it equally necessary to inculcate into them by tradition; That God is incor- yoreal, and that there is no similitude, not ‘even in the least respect, between him and his creatures.” Thus far Maimonides. The eloquent R. Jedaiah ben Bedraschi § furnishes a * Vid. More Nevoch. Part I. + More Nevoch. Part I. c. 28. + More Nevoch. Part I. c.35. § Bechinath Olam, c- 41. AND SPIRITUAL BEING. 19 similar testimony of the incorporeity of the Godhead: ww poxn 7pI7T 5D mwr sad miaom 53 AD) wna saw om ww do. by AIPRY NYO RW fp Tanwn Nd qwsS-nny ny an wyopon oy spn edo sandy mood) Ap oapsw poxm :5oy voy 55 «Thou : IND N22 IS DWND wninsy “shalt believe, O my heart, as the principle _ “of all thy actions, that every thing which “ exists, how small soever it; may be, has its “efficient cause; and that at the extremity. of “all causes there is one, which is immutable. ‘* He is self-existent; and of unlimited perfec- “tion. Neither can the knowledge of all the “intelligent beings put together comprehend “the least part of him. Thou shalt believe ‘*also, that. he is not a body, nor any of “our active principles, whether compounded “of matter or uncompounded.’’ | R. Lipman* denies that either corporeity, or limitation or division can belong to the. divine nature: ‘STD-Mawa Powis Sy yw pry ow « But as neither body PYyMTNAIIA Pw PX ID * nor bodily substance can be predicated, accord- “ing to what I have before asserted, of the Divinity; so neither does limitation or division “in any. degree appertain to it.” * Nitsachion,; Par. Vaethchanan. 20 GOD AN IMMATERIAL »Indeed of such importance is the doctrine esteemed by the Jews of the present age, that it is made to form a distinguished and pro- minent part of their public creeds; and appears in their Prayer Books :* MDW MIVOND POND 8 spwo TD NT AIDS Wow an ananw [believe witha 2 95D WYO3 DWI? PR AA * perfect faith, that the Creator, blessed be his “name, is not a bodily substance, nor to be “apprehended by those, who can apprehend ‘‘ what is corporeal: neither do I believe, that “ there is any thing like him in the universe.” — wi 737 mr pr od) ospy cad “dom, says the inspired penman, is found of “nothing; that is, derives its existence from ‘the Supreme Crown, the quiddity of which “cannot be apprehended. Thence it exists, and “this is the existence of something out of no- “thing. The Nothing, however, of which we ‘here speak, is not a total privation of being ; “ for even the accident of any thing is not form- “ed from that, which is itself. an accident s *“ much less is that, which exists'of itself, formed “* from: that, which. is not; but he is called “ Nothing, because he cannot be apprehended “either in respect of his cause, or in respect “of his substance; as his cause is the primary * Ibid, sect. 1. as cited by Rittangel. 99 GOD AN IMMATERIAL “cause; and he is called the primordial No: *‘ thing, because he subsisted anterior to the uni- * verse, and is nothing corporeal.” Though the manner, im which this learned Cabbalist has elu- cidated the text of Job, may to many, who are accustomed only to the literal sense of Scripture, seem somewhat extraordinary; yet, that God is an immaterial Being, the patriarch* himself has very fully attested in affirming of him; 72° j7 « Behold he $19 Pax N97 A9PP) Ass NOD SY *‘ passes by me, and J see him not; he shifts “from place to place, and I perceive him not.” Nor can the prophet Isaiaht+ be. supposed to mean less, in that marked interrogation, ‘2 ON) “To whom will ye 3? WIP IAN MWR IYO TIN “assimilate me, that 1 should have my likeness, ‘saith the Holy Being?” Indeed the many splen- did representations of the Divinity to be found in the pious compositions, of the patriarchs and the prophets, who never fail to speak of him as an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and beneficent Being; as superior and anterior to the worlds; bear evident testimony, that, in their notions of the Godhead, the ancients coin- cided with the modern Cabbalists; regarding it, indeed; as spiritual and immaterial, but never * €. ix. Ve li. + C. xl, Ve 25 AND SPIRITUAL BEING. 93 asserting so much in the form ofa proposition ; that being foreign to the subject, and design of their writings. ips: But a further confirmation of the doctrine is deducible from the use of the compound term, PND PS Infinity; which, being often employed by modern Cabbalists to signify the Deity, ex- cludes all idea of bodily substance ; as nothing cor- poreal can exist without limits, not even in the imagination. ‘Thus testifies a learned but anony- mous commentator, on R. Simeon ben Jochai* : moayn 23 Ny Nw 92 ON A ovOD swe 23 2 })377 jISM Iw NA MIO 45 naps 19972) 8321 7382 19D 023 wr mown For this reason the blessed Infinity, who: wy3} *is the cause of all causes, and the principle of “all principles, is the Prince, ‘the Lord, and the ‘Governor of all the worlds; as they are all “ derived, created, formed and made from him,” To this he soon after subjoins : 7172 FID PS 77} pyapan nytad pa ad an nyt ad pain MAR POTN Ty Nowe AYP OW 43 px 17 pRw NIT TWA ws nade SNsd MprIZ mE AID PS DPI Wp mM ayay wn AID WM 2 wh? OM Po pry ro aM Twn yep ow ia pwnd ownd bow mydyy * Com. on Tikune Zohar, as cited by Rit. but without further references. fu 94 GOD AN IMMATERIAL «But of the YIN IX NII IWRw 32 «Infinity, blessed be he, whether we regard « the opinion of philosophers, or the opinion of « divines; there is neither knowledge, nor ap- ‘¢ prehension, nor form, nor likeness, no not even ‘sg much as a mark or a point, by reason of « the great absconsion of his light, blessed be he, «© who has neither end nor limit.’ Hence it 1s, « that divines call him, the infinite Being; mean- ‘cing that there. is neither end nor boundary, «< whereby to apprehend him ; as the human in- << tellect is dazzled and disabled from conceiving “any notion, or obtaining any apprehension of «him: according to the prophet, when he makes ‘him say, To whom will ye liken me *” From a due consideration, then, of the fore- voing evidences, no doubt can remain of the general assent of the Jewish church to the truth of the doctrine, That God is an immaterial Being; which,, indeed, has been as much ‘nsisted on, and as ably maintained by their divines as by ours, as well with respect to what we may know, as to what we may not know; of so lofty a subject. They do not, as we have already seen, in denying the Godhead. to be corporeal or material, regard it as a perfect non-entity, corresponding to the vacuum of modern philosophers; but as a Being totally AND SPIRITUAL BEING. D5 abhorrent from any thing that we can find in the material world; and as nothing rather than something, of which we can form or retain any notion. On this head, the same commentator on R. Simeon ben Jochai,* has expressed himself so admirably on another occasion, that I cannot forbear citing him ; wan? Ay Sms SON M371 nyow ‘awna $20 Toy nawnn DIAN? uN Te ospR Joow nawnos navsw YX Amy? spn sinw ‘WawnDa TI DAIN TYS) TAWND Dw PX Moy TnawnDa “ Should you even be ready to divest 39921 555 “your mind of every corporeal idea, and to “conceive in your imagination, any spiritual “form; and to fancy in your mind, that he ** is like the form which you have thus conceived “‘in your imagination ; notwithstanding this, “you will have no conception nor idea of “him at all.” Indeed the deepest and’ most approved metaphysicians, as well of the Jewish as of the Christian persuasion, though they may sometimes appear to talk differently, always affirm negatively, whenever they speak of the divine nature ; telling us, for the most part, that it is an mantente without origin, and without end, without body, parts, or passions. | * Ibidem. D 26 GOD AN IMMATERIAL CHAPTER III. Serine, however, that we assert the Godhead to be not only immaterial, but spiritual; whereby is meant, that it has the property of putting matter in motion; it may not be amiss to annex afew testimonies to shew, that this also is the opinion of the Jewish church. ‘Thus the Psalmist:# 2D AIX IND TOR AN binw SIONN) ONS DW DU PON ON sas «Whither shall I go from thy Spirit; ¢ ‘727 «and whither shall 1 flee from thy presence? «Tf IT ascend up to heaven, thou art there; “and if I go down to hell, thou art there.” That the term, spirit, is in this text put simply for, self, is evident from the personal pronoun being used instead of, thy spirit, in the subse- quent pasuk; for doubtless Grammar requires that: it should be, thy spirit, which is intro- duced in the beginning of the speech, as the principal subject, in all the places in which the pronoun is substituted; only they being on the present occasion synonymous, may be commuted for each other without altering the signification. - The prophet Isaiah,+ too, clearly inculcates the spirituality of the Godhead in the follow- *Ps.cxxxix.v.7. «$C. XXXIV. 3. AND SPIRITUAL BEING. 27 ing declaration; DDI) OX NOY DIN DMN ‘* But Egypt is man, and not } M17 82) qwa ‘© God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit.”” In rightly estimating the validity of this testimony, we must keep in mind the genius of the Hebrew language; which, to render a sentence energetic and emphatic, chuses to repeat, in somewhat dif- ferent terms, the constituent parts of which it con- sists; and that as well with the design of enforcing the sentiment, as of swelling the period. In the former member; the prophet declares, that Egypt was man, and not God; and then in terms of strict apposition enforces the sentiment by add- ing, that their cavalry was flesh, and not spirit; which is just as if he had said: WS DSO) Ss xdy awa wm atx po mondaa mpi 2m? ‘But Egypt, which has horses ; 811 7 WR “in war, is only man, that is, flesh, and not “¢ God; who is spirit.” _ Indeed the truth of the argument is so gene- rally admitted by the professors of Judaism, that their commentators in particular seem to regard it as an assumption, which is in need of no proof. ‘Thus R. Isaac Abarbanel,* in his commentary on the Pentateuch, has very justly observed that TIN, spirit, is used as a commom term for all .* Com, on 1 Kings, ¢. iii. v. 12. 28 GOD AN IMMATERIAL . abstract intelligences; and, in elucidating a cer- tain text of the prophet Habakkuk, has not hesi- tated to class the Deity along with other spiritual substances: "M17. SI MAM aminw 9 SDN WNW? WD NAN mao xb woyyD “The meaning is, that God has his -splendour “and effulgency from himself, and not from any “‘ other cause; like the rest of spiritual beings.’ So R. Moses Alshech:* "AMIN UNI NWI ID “For He is spiritual; whereas we are ; WJ “ corporeal.” R. Moses Ilpeles,+ with equal beauty of senti- ment and expression, represents the Deity, as the spiritual father of all Israelitish orphans: DPAN OY WID OT) WwW Iw DAN VN OX “If they should lose > FIT Aw un ‘their natural father, they find in his stead their “spiritual father, who is God.” R. Menasseh ben Israel,+ drawing a compa- rison between the soul of man and the divinity, regards spirituality as common to both: Atqui homo Deo non est similis ratione corporis, quia Deus caret corpore; sed respectu anime. Nam illa spiritus est: Deus spiritus est. “ But “‘man does not resemble God in respect of his “body, because God has no body; but in res- * Hoil Mosche, ch. xii. t De Res. Mort. c. x. AND SPIRITUAL BEING. 99 “pect of his soul. For this is spirit; and so is “ God spirit.” To adduce, however, all the testimonies to be found in aid of the first proposition, would be equally tedious and unnecessary. Indeed, if I had not considered it as the foundation of both the other propositions, which are to follow next in — order ; the patience of the reader, perhaps, would not have been exhausted with such an accumu- lation of evidences, as are here actually furnish- ed. But the foregoing, whilst they seem suffi- ciently numerous, are in some measure necessary to the design of the work; which admits of no premises being laid down, that are not at the same time most amply and satisfactorily demonstrated. ~ = ee CHAPTER IV. Tuat the Christian divines entertain similat conceptions of the Deity, will readily obtain cre- dence, even from their bitterest opponents. ' “So far are we, (said the eloquent Arnobius,*) ‘from attributing to God corporeal affections “and properties, that we even hesitate to ascribe *“to so august a Being, those mental ornaments * Adver. Gentes, Lib, iii. p. 140. 80 GOD AN IMMATERIAL ‘and virtues, to be pre-eminent in which is “scarcely conceded to a few.” “ God is spirit, (says our Lord ;*) and he, who ‘worships him, must worship in spirit and in « truth.” “For spirit, (says Origen,+) according «‘to our definition of it, is not corporeal ; neither ** ig that fire, which is declared to be God by the ‘inspired penman, when he says, Our God is «4 consuming fire; a bodily substance: as all ‘these expressions are used figuratively, so as “to denote that intellectual nature by terms, ‘“‘ which have been already appropriated to bodily ‘substances, and are familiar to the senses. As ‘* when sins are said to be wood, hay, and stub- “ble; we do not mean, that sins are hodily “© essences ; nor when good works are affirmed to “be gold, silver, and gems; do we thereby intend ‘that good works are corporeal: so neither «*when God is asserted to be fire, which con- ““sumes wood, hay, and stubble, and every es- “sence of sin; do we thereby suppose him to ‘be a bodily substance. And, as we do not.con- ‘< ceive him to be corporeal, when he is asserted “ to be fire; so neither do we intend to. say, that ‘he is corporeal, when we affirm him to. be “spirit. For to distinguish intellectual from * St. John, c.iv.v. 24 }Con. Celsum, Lib. vi. p. 324; Camb. ed. AND SPIRITUAL BEING. 34 “sensible objects, the scriptures are wont to de- “nominate them spirits, and spiritual essences.” From these few testimonies, which it were easy to augment in number, the reader may per- ceive with what hesitation the luminaries of our church proceed to affirm any thing positively of the Godhead; and how anxious they seem to abstract from it every accident and circumstance which might imply corporeity. In the defence of this doctrine, indeed, the Jew and the Christian are equally interested; and, had it been in the least degree necessary, it would certainly have afforded me the highest gratification to have col- lected into one view the united eloquence of both churches, on so truly divine and dignified a subject. The first proposition being thus concluded, I hasten to establish the second. 32 PROPOSITION IU. THAT IN THE SAMENESS OF THE GODHEAD SUBSISTS A TRINITY OF PERSONS. — =i a CHAPTER V. Tue second proposition being evidently com- plex, and asserting as well, that the Deity exists in a plurality of persons, as, that this plurality is a Trinity; will be best consulted by the compo- nent parts of it being kept distinct, and demon- strated singly, according to the order and manner in which they present themselves to the con- sideration of the mind. The truth of the leading position, that the Deity exists in a plurality of persons, may be evinced from its analogy with what we know of the manner, in which other incorporeal substances exist; from the conside- ration, that every spirituality is but emanation from the Godhead ; from the various appellations of the Deity, even the most sacred and proper, being common to many individuals, as well as associated with verbs and other adjuncts of the plural number; and, finally, from the Divinity being observed to speak of itself not unfrequently TRINITY OF THE GODHEAD. 33 in the first person plural. The confirmation of the subsequent position, That the plurality is a trinity, may be drawn—trom the trinity being a perfect and necessary number ;—from certain symbolical or mystical expressions and actions of the inspired penmen, in which no other thing can be meant or insinuated :-—from the mystery of the Metatron ;—from the metaphysical distinctions of the Cabbalists ;—from the pre-existences of the Daruschists ;—from the express denominations of the persons themselves by the Targumists and Talmudists :—and, lastly, from the mutual corres- pondence and perfect agreement of those per- sonal designations of the Cabbalists, Daruschists, Targumists, and Talmudists, on ba elaen with each other. ~ _ That the triunity of the godhead should thus need to be demonstrated in an indirect and circuitous manner, may, perhaps, in the mind of the reader, beget a suspicion of: its truth; but to object to the tenet, merely on the ground, that we do not find it directly and positively declared in the scriptures, or in other ancient authorities, would be to object to the most important and fundamental articles of the Jewish religion; such as the being of God, the existence of angels, the resurrection of the dead, and a future retribution; ‘which, E SA A TRINITY OF PERSONS though evidently derived from the inspired pen- men, and now invariably received among the professors of Judaism, do not, in the volumes of holy writ, appear in the form of plain pro- positions ; as, That God is, That angels exist, That the dead shall be raised again, and, That men shall be rewarded according to their ac- tions ; but being frequently intimated and assumed, posterity is satisfied, that, with the ancient Hebrews, they formed a very essential and prominent part of their theological system. — Saas CHAPTER 11. But not to digress too far from the train of argumentation laid down and agreed upon, I shall begin with establishing that proof of the leading position, which is drawn from its analogy with what we really know of the manner in which other incorporeal or spiritual substances exist ; and this I shall do with much greater particularity and caution, than may to many seem necessary, in order that the special objec- tions of R. Moses and others to the truth of this argument may be the better obviated and con- futed. I shall not enter, however, into the discussion of the question; whether the souls IN THE GODHEAD. 35 of brutes be real subsistences cr merely accidents ; nor yet, whether angels differ from archangels in gradation of being; as that is not needful to the support of my argument: but contenting myself with the commonly received notions, that angels are intelligences of a superior order, and that in dignity and excellency men rank next to angels, I shall bring such testimonies of the natures of both being perfectly immaterial, as well as severally existing in a diversity of persons, as will be competent to develop the grounds, on which the analogy is founded. Now the vision of Micaiah* is a manifest proof, that angels are spirits, and, that they subsist many in number: 2Wy) AYP AX YS wo WwW oy ovdwA NAY 951 IoD by 77 ISMN AS No A Ios sbNow D3 JON A WON TWIa oI Fan yy Oxnw TON AID? TAM MIA NYY 32 TON on NSN TON TD YIN TI ION NaN UN ANDN ION ya 73.82 spy nnd on “ T saw Jehovah sitting + JI MWY NY bin Da) *“on his throne; and all the host of heaven, “attending on his right and on his left. And “ Jehovah said: Who. will persuade Ahab, king “of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth ‘*Gilead? And one spake and said thus, and * 2 Chron. c. xviii. v. 18. 36 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ‘© another thus. But the spirit came forth, and ** stood before the Lord, and said: FT will per- *“suade him. And Jehovah said to him: By ** what means? © And he said; I will go forth, ‘and become a lying spirit in the mouth of all «his prophets. And he said; Thou shalt per- ‘¢ suade, and shalt prevail too: go forth, and do «s0.” In this extraordinary vision, the prophet represents the divinity as attended on both sides with a numerous train of angels ; and, that the reader may not doubt of their being all individual spirits, the subsisting spirit of pseudo-prophecy, it is declared, stood forth in the council, and devised the means of decoying the king of Israel. For, though the transaction be related im the form of a prophetic vision, and the deliberations of the divine assembly declared in terms wholly transferred from the speech of men; yet, as ihe spirits, constituting the council, no matter whether they be called the host of heaven, or the angels of God, must. needs be real subsistences, being designated with names appropriated to their own order of existence ; the reasoning here employed is as just and conclusive, as if the divinity had actually sitten in council on the death of Ahab, and the vision before us had been a literal report of their’debates and pro- ceedings. That by, the host of heaven, nothing IN THE GODHEAD, 37 except the angels of God can be meant, is the current opinion of the Jewish divines ; aud, espe- cially, of R. Moses Gerundensis.* Dwr NI} RW 1D) Pay DIDI DADA ANDO wy A TTA AS) Yaw AN OS) ADwh PIY avowm do) p-mAwt Nay 5D oan IDI IROD OY awy A ASS pay> odotagn «But, the host ¢ 1D) PY OIDW DOWN Nay *‘ of heaven, denotes the two luminaries, and the *‘ stars aforesaid; as in the text: Lest thou lift “up thy eyes unto the heavens, and view the “sun, and the moon, and the stars, all the host “of heaven. It will, also, comprehend the ‘abstract intelligences; as in the text: I saw “Jehovah sitting on his throne ; and all the host “of heaven standing by him, &c.” That the individual spirit, which stood forward on this occasion, was but one of the many of which the council was composed, is expressly affirmed by R. Solomon Jarchi, + ODNIDTID INN RYAN FIM PIRID TAWA VONTD WARN IN DIDY Dwr IZ 2D QW OND DIP FAN j2V707 SVT AA NS) WONNwD TonN oxe TN? 2 DDY Dow RAY) TONWDI NY? 2 OY DOWN MINI INwD NY) IND “Now one of the angels came forth, and said ; “¥ will persuade him: according to the words * Com. Gen. ii. 1. + Com. in loc. 4 A TRINITY OF PERSONS << of the Psalmist; Who maketh his angels spi- ‘«yits: for which reason it is premised a little ‘above; And all the host of heaven wére in ‘attendance; so that we are not to make it a << matter of wonder, on its being said, And the spirit came forth, who he was, and whence «he came; seeing that it is expressly declared, ‘And all the host of heaven were standing, ‘on purpose to manifest whence he came; to «wit, from the rest of the spirits, who were “standing by him.” But the perfect incorporeity of angels is stre- nuously inculcated by R. Moses ben Maimon ;* nou on Dax ‘ows voya Dre 22. DDN: 10D OND OWN Mey DF DIOR TDINND 772) «¢ Neither have angels bodies, but are ‘TNA « intelligences abstracted from matter: nevertheless «* they were formed and created by God, as will be « hereafter shewn.”’ To this assents R. Abraham ben Ezra:¢ D’DNoON AW SIN ova Jy SDINT MawID |W. Nd) MAM OPN DwITpA ¢ But the celestial world is the world of the holy “ angels; who are neither bodies, nor yet included < within bodies, like the soul of man.” So R. Moses Gerundensis :+ DY OIWA DWM NTA WAND AN OND OIA wind WD 82 oI * More Nevoch, Part I. c. xlix. + Com, on Ex. c. ili. v. 15. + Com. Num. xxii. 23. IN THE GODHEAD, 39 “The angels of the Lord, being ab- : M92 “ stract intelligences, are not to be apprehended “by the sight of the eyes; as they are not a _“Dodily substance, to be perceived by vision,” So R. Joseph * ben Chajim; 277 OF ‘DNoDM “But the 995 Dwi DNA pRw Down IAP ** angels are of a more spiritual nature than the “heavens ; as they are perfectly incorporeal.” So also R. Isaac Abarbinel :{ DYw MDF 42D MN} *8 TDIND DYTAIN ONIN! DNA nD WT TT MIA AI Dwi awry sway MOTI AN DIS Ny own Dw owed “‘ But I have already observed, MN9D27 INW “that, although angels, on account of their ‘**bemg wholly abstracted from matter, cannot ““ possibly be perceived by the-senses; neverthe- ‘“less, at the pleasure of Jehovah, they are seen ‘“of men; and these behold them with their ‘sensual organs in the human shape: an act, | “which is accomplished in a similar way with “other miraculous appearances.” Indeed so universal is the notion of their being abstract intelligences, that it would be labour in vain to dwell longer on the subject. It. will not avail us much, however, to have established their incorporeity or spirituality, if * Yad Yoseph. fol. 115. + Com. on Jud. c. vi. v. 12. ~ More Nevoch. Part Il. ¢. 4. | 40 A TRINITY OF. PERSONS what R. Moses? affirms be true; That, by rea- son of their incorporeity, they cannot, without being embodied, or standing in the correlation of cause and effect, be subject to number; or in other words, that the sameness of their substance neither does nor can exist in a diversity of persons. This impious paradox the author has indeed asserted, being carried away, as it should seem, by his too strong predilection for the Greek philosophy ; which has precipitated him not unfrequently into a train of reasoning verging on atheism, certainly terminating in a total denegation of the attributes of the godhead, and reducing its simplicity to a perfect non-entity. Swayed, however, by the authority of so great a man, even R. David Kimchi* has dilapsed mto the same error: D|DW? [IN ANI S? MWY NI] IDNY MDD PID DMI? PR poy TDD spoon mova xox pas nnn Ja ws ‘‘Nor did Isaiah see a number of Seraphs; ‘* because in respect of their substance they have “ no number ; for whatever is not body cannot be ‘numbered, but ranks in the predicament only ‘ of causes and effects.” But how, I would ask, is this position to be defended? Surely, not by contradicting almost every part of the inspired * Pereush Maase Mercava al Derech Hannister ; subjoined at the end of his Com. on Ezekiel. IN THE GODHEAD, Al volumes, in which such frequent mention occurs of different and distinct angels appearing to the patriarchs and prophets, sometimes in groups, and sometimes in limited numbers; nor by denying, what the Talmudists have ever regarded as a most important truth, that the deity has a particular messenger for every particular errand ‘ much less by arguing, that Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, are but one and the same angel. Except, however, these extravagant and monstrous de- ductions may be tolerated, it will be incompetent to the advocates of Maimonides to defend his position. It is, indeed, so wholly repugnant to the general tenor of the sacred writings, and so abhorrent from the piety of both Jew and Christian, that the learned author himself, either forgetting what he had before advanced, or else postponing his philosophy to his religion, has absolutely maintained the contrary in his explication of the Cherubim.* YAMS YN) j2 DANO A IAS aD may 55 nny NW 123 TAYIT ONT NY Mwy Oawin pre j2 DI TAS BN NT TNAAw ON Bey Deny. DANDY wy WRI Mw ny¥p> ean mm AWTT OYP ANIM INK aby TW Dy MOI PVT TN 39 OAw Dodo Ayers TS AVS DIY ww OTS a OND myND * More Nevoch. Part ili. c. 45. F AQ A TRINITY OF PERSONS “« But if there ;O.I97 YR ID LIT INN owhw “had been but one figure, that is, the figure of “only one Cherub ; it might have given occasion “easily to err. For in that case, one might have “ supposed, that it was an image of the Deity to ‘* be worshiped, according to the practice of the ‘« idolaters; or that angel was but one individual, “and so a number of errors might have ensued. “* But making two Cherubim, together with the ‘‘ declaration, The Lord our God is one God, he ‘‘ has placed beyond all doubt those articles of ‘ our faith; That angels exist, and that there are ‘‘qiany of them. He has, moreover, removed “ every ground of erring, or of thinking, as if ‘“‘ they were God, by the declaration, That God ‘ig one; and that he has made them many in “number.” ‘T'o this assents R. Joseph ben Jechia,* in his celebrated exposition of the pro- phet Daniel: PDN 792 WI FI MS AN AM Wop yin on DANO WAND WTVOTP D DIN? OTD wa|r NIDA NOD wd yx xd wpa O07 Aw PoIPaT ny pana mp2 « This is his meaning of the words :™ $y) my “A stream of fire promanated and issued from “before him; that the angels exist apart from “ the deity ; and are not with him like the throne ‘of glory. He further adds too, in explanation, * Com, on Daniel, c. vii. v. 10. IN THE GODHEAD. AS ** that they amount to thousands and tens of thou- ‘sands; contrary to the opinion of the philoso- “pher, who comprehends them all in ten causes “and effects.” © That there is a number, indeed, of angelic spirits, is the constant and uniform language of the Jewish Church ; and it is cer- tainly matter of astonishment, that either Mai- monides, or Kimchi, should deviate so far from the principles of their religion, as to inculcate a doctrine, which is in diametrical opposition to the authority of the fathers. From angeis, then, let us transfer our attention to the souls of men, the common spirituality of which, as existing in a number of subsistences, admits of being proved on still stronger evidence. For whether, in compliance with the vulgar opi- nions, we regard their original emanation from the soul of Adam, their transmigration into differ- ent bodies, or their habitation after death in the garden of Eden; every thing conspires in favour of the argument, that in the common spirituality of men subsists a diversity of persons, The original emanation of every human soul or spirit from that of the primeval parent is thus attested by the prophet Malachi * Nv Mwy InN Xd “ Did he not make one; and had not ?{ 77 “he the residue of the spirit?’ That is, says * C. il. Vv. 15, AA A TRINITY OF PERSONS R. Solomon Jarchi,* DIN? Ma'pA wy TAM NY POY wa MIA Nw) san mm « Did not God make :D713 INS) PwNIW OIND ‘‘one of Adam and Eve at the first? But he ‘‘ had the rest of the spirits and souls ; from the “ first man did they all proceed.”’ That the souls or spirits, proceeding in this manner from one common origin, subsist apart and distinct from each other, till they are severally embodied, is plain from what R. Nathan ben Jechiel? has cited and illustrated from the Talmud: 27 78 paw mivawi 9D Dw W 82 TNT 2 PROS PW UN Nowa) PWN IID MII 2D WONIw now) 93 10 ww 8 DIipD Ar A wrra paya mynd pynyy ot vad map Nay ‘‘The son of David, says : WD AND Typ ‘© R. Ase, does not appear till all the souls which ‘are in the body, shall have had an end ; as it is “said; For the spirit shall fail before me, and ** the souls which Ihave made. — Here the term, ‘body, is used for the place, in which are all the “souls, that Ged created for the posterity of ‘* Adam; and which are to exist in the world, “ before the coming of the Messias.” That this _ subsisting condition of the human soul, previous to its union with the body, has ever been acknow- tedged by the Jews, as a sacred truth, is clearly * Com. on Mal. c. ii. v. 15. + Aruch. Guph. IN THE GODHEAD. Ad asserted by R. Menasseh ben Israel.* Quod ad Hebrzos attinet, qui dicunt, animas omnes olim in principio rerum omnium creatorum creatas esse ; €X eorum opinione certum est, quod que- madmodum aliquot centenis annis anime iste felices ac beate fuerunt in glorioso isto suo statu, antequam informarent corpus: ita etiam post mortem tales esse possint, ac proinde opus non sit resurrectione mortuorum, qua corpori unite beatitudinem consequantur. “But as to the ** Jews, who assert that all the souls were created “in the beginning of the world; according to * their opinion, certain it is, that, as these souls ““ were for some centuries in that glorious state of “theirs, happy and blessed, before they were ** embodied; so might they be again after death : «and, therefore, there is no need of the resur- “rection of the dead, whereby the souls united to ‘‘the body may enjoy real happiness.” The subsequent account} of the manner in which the spirit is supposed to be united to the body imme- diately after conception, though bordering some- what on allegory, is, nevertheless, in the main intended to be taken literally; and is extremely well adapted to support the present argument. mom oy nvr 4890? sapn ron * De Res. Mort. Lib. ii. c. 19. t Cited by Wagenseil, from an old Manuscript, but without further references. 46 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ONI372 pew on Jowenda m7 sand sa: N27DN DIWA Now ow DoWN Sow oD YON AY AMIS. wp? MNNwN) Ma"pr Dd POTS AVI AMD WD VW ADoa psa "Pr anon poy oot pow Su yan ao AMINO FW AYO] won ON FV ON onysw TWN DYN IPA IN UN ANID) AwMp rd NYT IWR DIA 7) AW RM Jo. uw TO 7 Apo xox pow. xo provwoy ; MO AMS Pn. wn. oy Apa wp “Immediately God beckons to the angel, who ‘‘is set over the spirits, and says to him: Bring “me such a spirit, For this is the way they “always do, on being formed, from the day “that the world was created, till the world shall “be at an end. Presently, he appears before ‘* Jehovah, and worships in his presence. Then ‘‘says Jehovah to him: Betake thyself into this “matter. Instantly, the spirit excuses himself, ‘“‘and says to him: Governor of the world, I am ‘‘ satisfied with the world, in which I have been ‘from the day that I was created. If it please “thee, don’t oblige me to betake myself into ‘this putrid matter; for 1 am holy and pure. “¢ Jehovah says to him: The world, into which I “am going to send thee. is better than the world “where thou now art; besides, when I formed ‘‘thee, I did not form thee but for this very IN THE GODHEAD. 47 “matter. Immediately God forces him, whether ‘willing or unwilling, into the midst of the ** matter.” Their continuation to subsist equally by them- selves after death is not obscurely intimated by Solomon* the son of David: 92 “apm ay WE DVN ON DWN NAM Aw pays ‘And the body shall return to the earth, 3 man3 “*as it was before ; but the spirit shall return to “ God who gave it.” The meaning of which is amply dilucidated by the exposition of the Tar- gumist:-¢ OY STAY yO MAANT FD. any INN Taw. MD por MAT aD NS “And thy flesh, J? NIT» DIP KPT OPN ‘“ which was formed from the dust, shall return ‘to the earth just as it was at the first ; but the ‘spirit of thy soul shall return to stand at the “bar of judgment before Jehovah who gave it “thee.” Nor ought the ingenious remark. of R. Abraham ben Ezrat to be omitted: PIDaN my NO APO D APO A Aw OTN wen ‘« 'Phis text refutes the assertion of those, : 20 “who say, that the spirit is an accident; for ‘‘ that which is an accident cannot return.” But perhaps, to many the same inspired author§ may seem to furnish a still clearer intimation of their actual subsistency after death in the following text: * Ecc. c.xi.v. 7 +Ibidem. + Ibidem. § Ecc. c iii. v. 21. AS A TRINITY OF PERSONS MN FW? ST AW SING wD mo pin “ Who regard- : YIN? MOD? A AT nan “eth, that it is the human spirit, which ascendeth “upwards ; but the spirit of a beast, which de- *“scendeth downwards to the earth.” That is, says R. Solomon* ; 29 {N10 Pad wwe NIT Ww plano soy? pawn sen oINA 2 Aw M2 PRI IN? AVA? NT NM ANAT A manaD IAANAy Nw PAW PawM pt yd « Who is he that : Mywn Oy miapo AyRw “‘ considereth, and layeth to heart, that the spirit ‘of the children of men is that, which ascendeth “upwards, and standeth at the bar of judgment ; ** but the spirit of a beast is that, which descend- “eth downwards to the earth, and hath not to ‘‘render either trial or account: and, conse- «quently, that it behoveth him not to live like a “beast which is not attentive to its actions.’ Moreover, R. Menasseh,+ in illustrating a very important part of the Old Testament, has deduced from it this very position ; That the souls of men, after death, subsist separately and individually, and are not, as certain philosophers supposed. united to the Soul of the world. Secundo animas in se, et quatenus individua sunt immortalitate frui, et non uti Averroes aliique philosophi quidam sunt opinati, post separationem corporis, jungi * Ibidem, + De Creatione, p. 72. IN THE GODHEAD, A9 intellectui agenti: ideo enim dicit, et erit anima domini mei, scilicet particularis, &c. “ Secondly, “we learn ; that the souls of men in themselves, ‘‘and in their individual capacity, enjoy immor- “tality; and are not, as Averroes and certain “other philosophers supposed, joined or united, “after their separation from the body, to the ‘*soul of the world: for to this end is it said ; ‘And the soul of my Lord shall be, that is, the “individual soul, &c.” Thus from the preceding evidences, which might easily be increased in number, the truth of the position, that other spiritualities do exist in a plurality of persons, is established and fortified beyond the power of contradiction, For should it be doubted, whether angels are a spiritual sub- stance of which each individual has a common participation ; or, whether, being generated in — succession, they do not exist in the correlation of causes and effects ; such hesitation can never be entertained in respect of the spirits of men, which, severally emanating from the self-same cause, cannot possibly stand in any correlation of that kind; but are independent of each other, and have relation only to the original subsisting spirit, from which they descended. Let us now, rea- soning from analogy, apply what has been proved to the support of our leading position; and let us G 50 A TRINITY OF PERSONS put the question, Why the Deity may not exist in a plurality of persons ; or what there is to be found in the godhead, considered as a being per- fectly incorporeal and spiritual, to prevent it from existing in a diversity of subsistences ; seeing that all the spiritual natures, of which we have the least notion, do really exist in this manner, and that without any relation whatever to bodily substance. The chief difficulty arising from our inability to comprehend, how an essence, wholly immaterial, can exist in number ; 1s here, by a comparison with what we actually know and believe of the numerical existence of both souls and angels, completely removed: nor is it a trifling preponderance in favour of our argument, that, when extended to the inferior orders of animated beings, the analogy still holds good ; as all the living creatures, with which we are acquainted, possess a sameness of form ina diver- sity of subsistences. Maimonides,* however, interposes an asser- tion, which, if well founded, would entirely over- iurn the present argument. It is, indeed, no less than this; that not even the most distant resemblance obtains between the divinity and the very highest of other spiritual beings; and consequently, that no comparison whatever can be * More Nevochim, Part i. c. 56- IN THE GODHEAD. 5] instituted between them, either in respect of their essences, or in respect of their attributes. But why no comparison ? Is it the infinity of the vodhead that destroys all proportion? This is an insufficient ground on which to found the ob- jection. For if by, infinity, be meant, what in- deed is its proper signification, an interminability of essence, by reason of its incorporeity and spirituality; then the term is equivocal, denoting a property which the godhead retains in common only with other spiritualities: for neither may the angels or souls of men, by reason of such incorpo- reity or spirituality, be regarded as finite beings, or circumscribed essences. But if by, infinity, is to be understood an illimitation of wisdom and power; even that will not destroy all proportion between them: for as both angels and men can act with wisdom and energy to a certain extent, to deny totally their approximation to the divinity in the display of their wisdom and power, would be to grant that they possess faculties wholly different in kind from any that the Deity possesses, deriving their wisdom and power not from God, but from themselves ; which would be a supposition as im- piousas itis absurd. I would not, however, that the matter should rest solely on my own reasoning. The Jewish divines abound with testimonies, war- ranting the proportion for which I contend. That 52 A TRINITY OF PERSONS the higher any being ascends in intellectual per- fection, the nearer it approximates to that of the Deity, is numbered by R. Judah Levita* among the first principles of theology: = 77pm may MIT MyYNID ANA Mya wm Awe want wy mp bo) mnnmm niv100 Insp Vaya my ps awNo soya DYN I2WN NIT wR AwRIT mao * But the fourth principle, is the acknowledg- “ment; that of existent beings there are higher “and lower degrees, and that whatever has feel- “ing, perception, or sense, is superior to that *‘ which has them not; because it makes a “ nearer approximation to the rank or degree of “€ the first cause, which is intelligence by itself.’’ Comformably to this principle, the same learned author} has explained that celebrated text in Genesis concerning the formation of man so as to make the human nature approximate to the an- _gelic, and the angelic to the divine. 723 °3 ‘yom yO ANN wD Oy nga Aes ont Tw nT 28 oy Ox Daynon OX nn “2 YIN] qwis mm bx yD INN DVD NA TAR PRI MN|I nyepay Do pwn } TAP Sw AID NOS NAN AION N32 BINA NT ODNIDA PONG NOM NO IDa pos papa pws) yoxdp * Sepher Cosri, Mem. vy. p. 377. + Ibidem, Mem. iy. p. 274, IN THE GODHEAD. | 53 «The meaning of :DIpPOID NWN D DIppsa ‘the text is; that hitherto I have proceeded “with the creation by degrees, and according “* to the scale of wisdom have advanced it from “the first elements, to minerals, to plants, to ‘‘ living creatures that are in the air, and in the ‘‘ waters; and afterwards to the animals, which “are on the earth, endued with the keenest sense, ‘‘and most astonishing sagacity: nor is there “any other degree or order of being beyond this, “except that which is the next to the angelic and “divine nature, namely, man; who is in the “ form of the angels and ministers of God, that “are next to himself in rank or degree, not in ‘‘ place, because he is exalted above all place.” R. Joseph ben Jechia* makes the angels closely attendant on the Deity, and that in consideration of their approaching to him in similarity of form. 22D PN TST WR IDS OND. OTN pany DYP] OF Awe DNA DoW? rO7 NIM YD 782 ON? ONA Mun anys Aon ton bon DID) 12 Opatnoa: mower vox pow sy ‘And his loins begirt with the : 1InNvowD Ox “ gold of Uphaz, which is pure and free from all ‘‘dross. This indicates the world of angels, “‘who are free from all matter, and are here ‘assimilated to the girdle of God; because they * Com. on Dan. c. x. v. 5. 54 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “in some measure resemble him inthe simplicity ‘of their essence; and, because, they adhere “closely to him, and govern according to his “direction.” Butasto men, does not Moses say repeatedly, that man was created in the form and likeness of God? In what, then, did that form and likeness consist? Certainly, not in his bodily configuration altogether; but, as Maimonides* himself very strenuously contends, in his mental and intellectual faculties; that is, in his spiritual or immaterial form, on which the faculties and operations of the mind do severally depend. But if the scriptures assert, that man was made in the likeness of God, and that likeness be understood by Maimonides himself of his spiritual or intel- lectual form, with what colour of reason can ei- ther that author, or any other person, maintain, that there is no resemblance whatever between the divinity and the very highest order of spiritual beings; or, that all comparisons, thus founded on analogy, must be false and absurd. If man be in the likeness of the Creator at all, it must be wholly in that conformity or likeness, which obtains between the spirit of man and the spirit of God; as the mind, which is allowed to be the seat or center of our intellectual faculties, is a term not different from, * More Neyochim, part i. ¢, 1. EE IN THE GODHEAD. 55 but synonymous with that of spirit. Besides, do not we read inthe Talmud* of the many ways, in which the human soul resembles the Deity; so much so indeed, that the ancient fathers may well be thought to have considered it as a particle of the divine essence, and as standing in the same relation to it that a part does to the whole? mxoo mowi AS DIWM OD NID AIPA AD AN ONT IPN ONT Ap A AA 7D MN 9D AS ADP AD YN AYN AND Aen 90 72’"pA I 4D NN AD ows AN DOW OIA MIND AwY AQ"PA ANA AWW FS “As God 2 DIN “INA Nawy Mwai AS * fills all the world, so does the soul fill all the “body ; as God sees, but is not seen; so does **the soul see, but is not seen; as God nou- ‘‘rishes all the world, so does the soul nourish ‘all the body: God is pure, so also is the ‘soul pure; God abides in the most inward or “ secret apartment, so does the soul abide in ‘* the most inward or secret apartment.’’ Indeed the position, that the» human soul is a par- ticle of the divine essence, is so generally admitted; that R. Moses Alshech,+ on this ground alone, has contended for a_ certain degree of equality between man and his Maker. TNAINY SIDS ON 1077 wal FaaNw> pan * Massecheth Beracoth, Perek i. + Com. Cantic. i. 7. 56 A TRINITY OF PERSONS TPA PS) DW PA DSS AIA pro pty Nd Wal PAA AwWY TX WANT Tay DIN) pnbyt WwoD ms pon moo mw ws TMS MANY OWA WWI TW WEIN awn ain mynd) st TMS WAI MANS °9 API AN Jaw pow WIAA pl ADIN px oD opp PIX FavpA “Tell me, thou + 87 5ypp sybs pon NWA ‘whom my soul loveth; that is, were I to Say, “I love thee, it would be unjust ; as there is “no love except between equals; but thy great- *“ness is unsearchable ; whereas I am dust and “ashes: do it, however, in behalf of my soul, “which loveth thee ; as there is here some “ equality; for it isa portion of the divine essence “from above ; and, on its account, pour forth thy “light and influence; and so the emanation of ‘‘thy bounty will extend from the soul to the “body. This is what we ‘are to understand by, “Tell me thou whom my soul loveth, it making “a much nearer approximation to thee than I do “myself; for there is no love except between “equals only, whereas it is a particle of the di- “vine nature from above.” Seeing, then that this special objection of Maimonides is completely invalidated ; Tam left in full possession of the argument: Thata plurality of persons in the godhead is only what reason suggests, and analogy dictates; on comparing’ spiritual things with ee a ee ee = IN THE GODHEAD. 57 spiritual, and allowing for their different erada- tions of excellency and perfection. aE CHAPTER IIT. THE argument next in order, whereby the leading position is intended to be corroborated, is taken from the consideration, that every imma- terial being, of which we retain any clear and well founded notion, is a real emanation from the godhead ; to the fecundity of which must be at- tributed all that number and variety of intellectual forms and subsistences, which either do now, or ever did appear in this stupendous university. The creation of material beings was doubtless, as both the Jews and the Christians aver, primarily from nothing ; but the origin of all spiritual es- sences was derived substantially from the godhead, as shall be demonstrated on evidences too great for exception. In the scriptures, indeed, we read of spirits having been made or created by God, as - though they had formed a part of the material system ; but the term, creation, it ought to be ob- served, is highly equivocal, and does not generally mean, as R. Abraham* has very justly argued, the production of something out of nothing; but * Com, on Gen. Par. Bereshith. i 5$ A TRINITY OF PERSONS most frequently the causing of a thing to subsist, without any regard whatever to the pre-existence of its matter. In treating this argument, I shall adopt the rules antecedently prescribed, in con- fining myself to the angelic and human natures ; whose real existence being less disputed than that of other beings, seems a sufficient ground of preference in the case before us, where exempli- fication and proof are equally necessary. That angels originally emanated from the God- head the scriptures neither affirm nor deny. In- deed, except they may be comprehended under the general expression of the host of, heaven, we possess no scriptural authority for maintaining, that they received their being at all; or, that they did not exist, as they do now, from eternity: as no explicit declaration is to be found in the com- positions of Moses of their having been created, or of their beginning to subsist coztaneously with the rest of the system. But this deficiency in the Mosaic account of the creation is amply supplied by early tradition,* which inculcates, not only that the angels were created; but that they were created, either on the second day, according to R. Juchanan; or on the fifth, according’ to RR. Chanina. It deserves to be considered, how- ever, that the term, angel, is highly equivocal ; * Vid. Hoil Mosche, Perek 3. Ee ee IN THE GODHEAD. 59 being applied by the Jewish divines to denote the celestial spheres, as well as any thing besides, whether corporeal or incorporeal, that is em- ployed as an agent in the curation of the worlds. But the peculiar acceptation of it in this work, and which has never been denied, is that of an order of intelligences wholly abstracted from matter ; which, by reason of the transcendent dignity of their nature, attend immediately on the behests of the Deity, and approach the nearest to him in rank and degree. It is further to be remarked too, that this great university is usually divided by the Jews into three distinct worlds; into the intellectual, the planetary, and the lower world; the first of which js allotted to the purest intelligences, the second to the planets, and the last to men along with other living creatures. The intellectual being appro- priated to abstract intelligences, is the only world with which this part of our work, that turns upon angels, has any thing to do. To begin, then, with what the Cabbalists call the seven inferior numerations of the Godhead, the highest intelligences to which the term angel has ever been given; is it not unanimously main- tained, that they all emanated essentially from the Deity, and do not differ from him in any other manner, than as the flames of a burning 60 A TRINITY OF PERSONS coal may differ in substance from the coal itself? This doctrine of emanation will be fully illus- trated by testimonies hereafter to be produced on a separate occasion, and may at any time be corroborated by an appeal to the Cabbalists in general; but particularly to R. Menasseh ben Israel,* to whom, as a most luminous and easy writer on a very dark and difficult subject, I shall refer the reader for more explicit information. That every immaterial power, however, or spiri- tual subsistency, is an actual emanation from the divinity, is plainly inculcated in the fourth of the thirty-two paths of wisdom, prefixed to that cele- brated work, the Book of the Creation:-+ 237 DOYNND Wodw jD NPI wip Jaw LPI "IA mbyxnow mossn mpia nym mma 25 “The {'m p> pop SyNo ADA WROD YN “fourth way is called the receptacular intelli- ‘gency; and is so termed, because from it “‘ emanate all spiritual powers by a subtilty of “emanation, whereby they emanate one from “ another by virtue of the primordial emanator, “the supreme being, blessed be he.” R, Judah Levita,t commenting on the text of Sepher Jetsira; declares the spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit, to be the origin from which all angelic * Concil. Quest. xxviii. De Creatione Prob. xvi. et xxvii. + Rit. Ed. p. 18. + Sepher Cosri, Mem. iv. p. 311. Ee ee M IN THE GODHEAD. 61 spirits derived their subsistency; and that the souls of men enjoy the most intimate communion with it: wIPA AM XM ops nn OAM NAVIANND 72) OMIA DSN797 ON Wl «“ But he first mentions the > AVIA Mwai “spirit of God, that is, the Holy Spirit; from “ which are created the spiritual angels, and «© with which the spiritual souls enjoy the most ‘© intimate communion.” Similar to this is the declaration of R. Moses ben Maimon.* Yauiniw pau ovma: oou yor Aoym a2 yun SY DNNP MN DON¥p YON? 1D D1 DMDwWT 1D DMI mxyom poan vys) Onan 2awn For that influx, which flows from the Deity to ‘the actual production of abstract intelligences, ‘< flows also from the intelligences to their pro- ** duction from each other in succession ; until that ‘active intelligence, which is the soul of matter, “be caused to exist; and with that terminates “the production or creation of abstract intelli- “ gences.” Nor is the testimony of KR. Joseph ben Jechia, + on this head, less clear and convincing : Nw YOIS TNT INS Myosyo OF 1D AND NITY NODA WWI OF 9D 3H) WADA SOD pV ws Ow pp pox Domns paw po pot NDIMND DNA NIN D PAD PR YAN MY WN ADD byNo1 TIAN Ss Nitw AD AID ANY NNN * More Nevoch. Partii. c. 11. + Com. on Daniel, c. vii. v. 10. 62 A TRINITY OF PERSONS Daw NT Noo NID }2 TART PIDWN 15 ePWRIT NAD Jw ws ID MT I “He means to say, that they are of the very * substance of that divine light, which is of the “same nature with the Throne of Glory: and, “ because they are the supporters of the Throne, “which is flaming fire, they must needs be of a “ kindred species with it, and be fire, that is, pure “light; though there can be no doubt, but that “the light of the Throne is a more transcendent “light, because it is with God himself, and ema- “* nated from him the first of any ; whereas the “angels were created afterwards, being: seraphs, “and a stream of fire, that is, light drawn from “ the first light.” But if their original emanation from the godhead had been less generally attested among the professors of Judaism, than we find it is; we doubtless should have been led to draw the conclusion, from the manner in which the spirit of man was originally communicated to him; it being a fair presumption; that if man, who is confessedly inferior to the inhabitants of heaven, derived his spirituality by way of emanation from the supreme being, angels would do the same; since they approach so much nearer, than he does, to the form of the divinity. Now the inspiration of the Almighty, whereby man was made a living and intellectual sub- IN THE GODHEAD, _ 63 sistency, was, strictly speaking, an emanation from the godhead ; and has ever been regarded as such by the highest authorities of the Jewish church. Indeed the history of his formation, as given by Moses,* precludes the possibility of deducing the soul from any other source: ¥™ Md) MOIS yD Jay DINA mx onoX syn And 27.0 wai? DINAN) ON now para * God Jehovah formed man, a body from the “ ground; and breathed into his nostrils a vital “spirit, and man became a living creature.” The latter part of this pasuk is beautifully illus- trated by Onkelos,+ the paraphrast: M52) $0709 M197 OID NI) YT NMow] AINA *“* And he breathed into his nostrils the afflatus “* of life, and it became in Adam an articulating “spirit.” The author of the book of Jobt makes the soul of man the same with the spirit of God: ‘ANI MYX AN A snow TW 4D >D “* For as long as my soul is in me, and the spirit “ of God is in my nostrils.” So on another occa- sion§ : NN Mw nowy unwy OMIT: «© The “ spirit of God made me, and the afflatus of the ‘** Almighty quickened me.” So again: j28 * Doubtless ;D72N Sw Now) wkd Xv * there is a spirit in man; and the afflatus of the * Gen. ¢. ii. v7. + Ibid. / + C. xxvii. v.3. § C. xxxiil. v. 4. C. xxxii. v.8. 64 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “ Almighty causes them to understand.” That is, says R. Solomon:* DY YY NOV ADDN “He has wisdom, : 87 (pon m7 NON mpn “and that not by virtue of time and old age; “but it is the spirit of God.” The subsequent testimony,+ however, may be looked upon as a full corroboration of this part of our argument: Py FOW POX qnows m9 1205 pos ow on “Tf he were : 21. TAY OY DIN IM Iwa dD “to set his heart against him, and were to take *‘ to himself his own spirit, and his own afflatus ; ‘all flesh would expire at once, and man would “return to dust again.”” The doctrine is ex- pressly maintained by R. Joseph ben Chajim,* in opposition to gentilism. YIO ON? RA AN YI32 SVT DIN T ‘owirw oOmaDw On IAD DYIVIAD p¥] DISA mw yd “aN ~adon DINT JN? wi oobomw mr wo pK MIM NON YD PNT OVO Ow NA yt ‘mo mn onosx pom pri ote mn ody MY. v2 py pg? psyws Dw ow by WS ONY DOW ANTI ONP ‘SMTP Anwarw “But this is the consequence of their : DY) “erroneous opinion; for they suppose, that the “soul and spirit of man is a coruscation of the “spheres; and, therefore, since the spirit of * Com. c. xxxii. vy. 8. + Job xxxiy. v.14, 15. £ Yad Yoseph, fol. 6. IN THE GODHEAD. 65 “man Is a coruscation from the spheres, how “should they believe in the doctrine, that the ‘“ spheres were created for the use of man? “The law, however, clearly demonstrates, that “they are in an error; that it is not a corus- ** cation from the spheres, but that, on the con- “trary, the spirit of God, that is, the spirit of “man, a coruscation and particle of the Deity, © brooded over the face of the waters; that “whilst as yet nothing existed except what was “in the waters, the soul of man had an existence “anterior to the formation of the heavens, they “ being nothing but fire and water.” Thus having, by a variety of proofs, demon- strated the fecundity of the godhead, in that all spiritualities, of whatever gradation, have origi- nated essentially and substantially from it, like streams from their fountain; I avail myself of this as another sound argument, that in the sameness of the divine essence subsists a plurality of persons. By the former argument was shewn the congruity of the position with what is ad- mitted and believed of other incorporeal natures ; but by this is evinced, in a qualified sense, the reality of the thing; in that every emanation from the godhead must needs be a personality of it, though not in its full form and likeness, nor yet in any degree necessary to its own being an I 66 A TRINITY OF PERSONS subsistency. Seth, in the opinion of Maimo- nides,* was begotten in the full and perfect image of his father, Adam; but Cain was not, having vastly degenerated from that’ intellectual form, which was conferred on the parent. Neverthe- less, Cain was a real subsistency of man as well as Seth; though greatly inferior to him in point of perfection. So, if without detriment to piety great things may be compared with small, [ would contend, that every intelligency, descend- ing by way of emanation or impertition from the godhead, must needs be a personality of that godhead, from which it has descended ; only so vastly unequal to it in personal perfection, that it can form no part of its proper existency. Nor ought it hereupon to be objected, that by the adoption of this argument I am paving the way for the admission of a multitude of divine persons, instead of a Trinity; which is by no means the fact.. The multiplicity of individuals in any common form is In no respect necessary to the existence of that form; it being competent to it to retain its perfection, as well in a paucity, as in a variety of persons. No one, for instance, would make a doubt of it; whether the form of man did not exist as perfectly in the primeval parents, when by themselves; as it does now * More Nevoch. Part. I. c. 7. IN THE GODHEAD. 67 in eight hundred million of their surviving de- scendants. The question, however, so far as it affects the Deity, may be reduced to this. That all intellectual natures flow substantially from the godhead. and that they all equally rank in the predicament of created beings, is abundantly manifest. The only distinction, then, which it is particularly incumbent upon us to maintain be- | tween the godhead and each intellectual subsis- tency emanating from it, is, that the latter was created, and had a beginning, whereas the former | is uncreated, and has subsisted from eternity ; that the latter is contingent, and might not have subsisted, whereas the former is necessary, and must have-subsisted and” this, “be it’ observed, is the chief mark or characteristic, which. distin- guishes the godhead from other intelligences, Bu. whether the proper. personality of the god- _head itself subsist_in an unity or plurality of _ number, and if in a plurality, whether that plu- rality be a trinity; will be considered and deter- mined in our attempt to prove, that the trinity is the only perfect and necessary number. In the interim it is no small gratification to reflect, that of the emanative and fructifying energy of the godhead, the actual being of so many intelli- gences, which have emanated from it; is at least & present, and even ocular demonstration. 658 A TRINITY OF PERSONS CHAPTER IV. I now proceed to the consideration of that argument, which results from the several names of the Deity, even the most sacred and proper, being common to many individuals, and that not unfrequently of different species; than which polytheism itself requires no firmer corroboration. It is not meant, however, along with these sacred appellations, to comprehend such terms as appear strictly metaphorical; much less the various epithets or attributes, which, having the con- struction of adjectives, do not stand by themselves, but accompany the nouns always to which they refer. Now the names, by which the Deity is gene- rally designated among the Jews, appear to be, 78, Lord; 8, God; mON, Deity; 872, Creator; mwy, Maker; V1¥, Rock; “Tu, Almighty; i, Being ; and, (11, which, though it is evidently of verbal origin, and signifies perpetuity or con- stancy of being ; yet, as it makes a much nearer approximation than any of the rest to a noun proper, may be suffered to retain its original form, and be pronounced, Jehovah, agreeably to the points. That they do not belong exclusively to any supposed subsistency of the godhead, but : : | IN THE GODHEAD. 69 carry in them the peculiar marks of common appellations, as well as stand for individuals dif- fering in kind, is a matter of easy demonstration ; » the characteristics for distinguishing proper from common names, as given by R. Elias Levita,* being first premised; DAT AYAINA 1D ym 22ND DIND) Naw ND ANwA OMT ow dta2 M7 MDVD Ay RP NID NI MDB wis DN 790 Toxnw 192 70KN> Joo xSu and Nav AYN YI sow Awe aod doin xb DIT) opm poms aod cain sow JOTMAN 7017 NID 1D Sp Kdw ao AIT MD 12 NIN Now wrya mye somo Jpmy SDAIN) Awd OTIANA AM? ATT "NA ‘* Observe, that a proper name differs from all other “sorts of names in four respects, the symbol of “‘ which is, Sarci; that is, construction, plurality “of number, affixation, and emphasis. Con- * struction, that is to say; it cannot be joined “to another noun in regimen; as though you “may say, king of Egypt, you cannot say, “ Moses of Egypt. Plurality of number, that is “to say; it cannot have the plural form; as, ‘* Abrahams, Isaacs, and the like. Affixation, “ that is to say; it cannot have an affix after it ; “‘as, Thy Abraham, thy Isaac, and the like. “Emphasis, that is; it cannot take the em- * Pirke Elihu, Per. Hamminim. 10 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “phatic and demonstrative The before It; as, “The Abraham, the Isaac, and the like.” Such being the true marks or characteristics, it remains only, that we apply them to the names under con- sideration ; and see, whether any of them can be regarded as strictly Proper, or as limiting the godhead to an individual subsistency. The term, })78, Lord, is allowed on all hands to be common. It is, besides, employed to ex- press other beings ; as will be rendered apparent from the subsequent examples: MX YN DD)* DN] D2 7win Ww TO) nw ote Da oy And I will oppress Egypt ? MINA¥ TAD INA “ by the hand of a cruel lord ; anda violent king “shall reign over them, saith the Lord J ehovah “of hosts.” AX DN) PITS Typ) aS 7233) Jat TOS OST PRU DIIN ON) T1235 PX UN ‘“A son honoreth a father, anda ;™N3y¥ ym “servant his master; but if Iam father where is “my honor ; or if 1 am master, where is my re- “ spect, saith Jehovah of hosts?” D> 5x sy abs “For Je- SDIT87 oN) onda nds so “hovah, your God, is God of Gods, and Lord of * Lords.” The term, ON, God, has all the characteristics of a common appellation. It is, indeed, highly * Isaiah, c. xix. y, 4, + Malachi, c. i. v.8. < Deut. c. x. v.17. _ ee IN THE GODHEAD. va equivocal; being used not only for the Deity itself, but for the inferior intelligences; as the Jews confess, and as the annexed texts will abundantly manifest. 933 28 VOY PRi:* “« There “is no strange God with him.” Tan ONA T “The great God.” 2.38 F278 MINT YIN Mt «This is my God, and I will adore him; the «God of my father.” DYNA NID M15 “ Which of the Gods is like unto thee ?”’ The term, 7)?X, Deity, is as well equivocal as common. For though I cannot assent to the po- sition of Maimonides, || that it was primarily given to the judges of the land, then to angels, and last of all to God; yet for certain, it denotes, as R. Abraham ben Ezra! has very properly ob- served; any kind of being that is not corporeal. That this is the fact, a few examples will put beyond all doubt. OyAONA I Ww PW wy 22** ‘© All the trees of Eden, which are in the garden « of the Deity.” : MSA TIN AVY IDS AD++ «« Thus saith Jehovah, the God of hosts.” w Itt “Tg there a God besides me?” 3271 mybx «The temple of Nisroch, his ymds TDI MASs + €, x.iv..17. § Ibid. v. 11, * C. xxxii. v. 12. + Ex. c. xv. V. 2. } More Nevoch. Partii. c. 6, { Com. on Ex. c. iii. v. 4, ** Ezek. c. xxXi. ¥. 9. ++ Jer. ¢, Xxxviii. v. 17. ++ Isaiah, c. xliv. v. 8. §§ 2 Kings, c. xix. v.37. 72 A TRINITY OF: PERSONS “ God,” (Daw OOK A9pa ON Nya ay ONoR* “The deity standeth in the assembly of God; he “judgeth in the midst of Gods.” ‘NDS INT « Tsaid, ye are Gods ; {D7 MOY 2) ONY DON “and all of you children of the Most High.” “Rise 19227 197 Ww DMO 2D NwY opt “up, and make us Gods; who may advance before us.” PYM we Oxnun THON MONS “ These are thy Gods, O Israel; : D932 yAND ‘who have brought thee up from the country “of Egypt.” ombxop mp ns tay9 v57n x5] «© Ye cannot serve Jehovah, for he is {NV wp “a holy deity.” DORA TD dy 1 1d UNE Doyo nS pan on aNT on nox noxn OI INA “ Woe tous! Who will deliver '72722 932 952 ‘“‘us from the hand of these powerful Gods. * ‘These are the Gods, who smote the Egyptians “with every calamity in the desert.” IWND :** “When the Gods 028 M20 OOX nN wna “made me emigrate from the house of my father.” The term 892, Creator, is but sparingly used im the sacred writings; and never, I think, to express any other being than the Deity himself. It is, however, a noun common; as will evidently * Ps. lxxxii vat + Ibid. v. 6. + Ex. c. xxxii. v. J. § Ibid. v. 4. | Joshua, c. xxiv. vy. 19, Z 1Sam. ¢.iv. v, 8. ** Gen. ‘c. xx. v.18. | : | : IN THE GODHEAD. "3 appear from the annexed passages : 1 VS De SINW) TIN IP WIA < Thus saith Jehovah, “thy Creator, O Jacob; and thy fashioner, O “Israel.” PNA MS IDN+ «© But remember thy ‘* Creators.”’ ! The term wy, Maker, is both equivocal and common ; but what seems most worthy of admira- tion is, that in the very texts, in which the Deity is exclusively the subject; it is evidently used in the plural number. Powy Popa ‘Dt “ For thy “ makers are thy husbands.” Pwya Oxqun MUI § Let Israel rejoice in his makers,” The term, )¥, Rock, seems to be a metaphor, or translation, borrowed from the material world (0 convey to us the notion of that being from whom, as from a parent rock, every created sub- sistency is hewn and descended. For this reason, it must needs be equivocal; and, as the subse- quent passages will shew, common to more indi- viduals than one. YD DOM YA ‘(| “The Rock “ whose work is upright.” OY IN ND s¢ “ For their Rock is not'like our Rock.” WONV** 212 IM WY wow !N oN. « And he shall Say : “ Where is their God, the Rock in whom they * trusted.” * Isaiah, c. xliii. v. 1. t+ Ecc. c. xii. v. 1. £ Isaiah, c. liv. v. 5. § Ps. cxlix. v.2. |) Deut. c.xxxii. v. 4. @ Ibid. v. 31, > eS Tid: v.37. K 74 A TRINITY OF PERSONS The term, “tw, Almighty, occurs but seldom. The following, however, may be given as ex- amples, TW “ypa:* « As an almighty voice.” Ta MIwANTI: + And thy defence shall be al- « mighty.” ‘Tw IN Nit «1am God Almighty.” R. Abraham ben Ezra expressly calls it a noun common; VPNVPOIINNT Ow :§ “Itis a noun «common, or a noun adjective ;. and signifies, “* strong.” The term, ‘T°, Being, rarely occurs; but in the several places in which it does occur, it bears all the marks of a common appellation. 2 || spobw avy mvp “ For in the Being, Jehovah, is a rock of ages.” TIOD YO MINDY TIN TV sm pon ‘Jehovah the God of hosts, who is « equal to thee, a powerful Being!” R. David Kimchi** thus explains it: PWSW7 77 MP2 wyyd) SWI INN Da NN Wy TID INN Dw < But as to the meaning ;O¥YN OW NTT PM NT ‘‘ of the terms, Jah Jehovah, the former is a noun ‘* common, inculcating that the world is from him; ‘¢ but the latter term, Jehovah, is a proper name.” Finally, the term, 111, Jehovah, though gene- rally regarded by the Jews as a noun appropriated * Ezek. c.1. v. 24. + Job, c. xxii. V. 25. $ Gen. c. xvii. v. 1. § Com. on Gen. ¢. xvii. ¥. 1. {| Isaiah, c.xxvi. v. 4. @ Ps, Ixxxix. 8. ** Com. on Isaiah, c. xxvi. ¥. 4. "a coat IN THE GODHEAD. 15 to the individual subsistency of the godhead; is also common to many persons; for being found in construction, and accompanied with adjuncts re- straining its signification; it necessarily ceases to be proper. Thus we read; M7 87 OVI 2 THAN WOW TIM MV “~ In that day there shall ‘“‘ be Jehovah only, and his name only.” Yow+ SIs ayDoTos sy Ox « Hear, O israel, “the Jehovah, our God, is the only Jehovah.” » SAS TMT “ The Jehovah of hosts.” Nay, R. Abraham ben Ezra§ confesses, that when thus placed in regimen with the term, MN2¥, hosts, it partakes of the nature of a common appellation: DAIIDAIA MNay ™ US¥O 734} RA¥2 IN $7 IN NT DOSY Dw mixay °D 7017 1727) MRayn onbx pan jam xd an vbw T3327 OWA DY IN DYN DY DN 1D UNYION 8? 3 MNay OX Y pry nwp Ow ond ™ DWIWY VIVA) VAI WAY ANIA FWID Rw DYD jD WwW Iow 729 1 I> Tow cw iw Awd DAW DDIM JIT WANN os owr AT NNW “Jt is worthy of : TAYOM Nw yom yoy ‘‘ remark, however, that we find, Jehovah of ‘“‘ hosts, an expression which has led many to ‘‘ assert, that the term, MINAXN, hosts, is itself ‘Ca proper appellation of the deity; or, that it is * Zech. ¢c. xiv. v. 9. + Deut. c. vi. v. 4. + Jer.c.xlix. v. 26, et passim. § Com. on Ex. ¢. iii. v. 15. 76 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “a sign in his army: but this is highly impro- “ bable ; for we meet with the construction, God “of the hosts; where it is evidently a noun “common; nor is it ever to be found standing ‘by itself for, God; but only with the term, ‘* Mlohim, or with the compound term, Jehovah “Elohim, Nor ought it to be considered as any ‘* objection, that we once read, Jehovah Elohim ‘“ Sabaoth; as that is of a similar complexion “with the text; The prophecy of Oded the ‘* prophet; where, in the original, the constructive ‘‘ form of the first term, prophecy, is equally dis- “regarded. But seeing that the deity abideth ‘* for ever self-existent, and every thing is depen- “dent. upon him; it will therefore occasionally “happen, that, Jehovah, will be as it were a “common appellation, like, Moses, in the pas- “sage: And he shall remember the days of old ‘time, the Moses of his people; and, in. that ‘“ case, it must denote to the noun, with which ‘it is in regimen, the causation of subsistency.” But besides being found in construction, and having other marks of a noun common; it is absolutely equivocal; angels being called by this name, as well as the deity. Thus, when the angel of God appeared to Moses in the bush, we read: MNT ID DAD NM 3* «And Je- * Ex. Cc. ili. Vv. A. | IN THE GODHEAD, Pe “‘hovah saw, that he was turning aside to look.” Here R. Abraham * observes : DUATNODT Spy 72) WIDS Dw) JAPA wow °D FWD TaD 22 7O81 aIND ow pwd Ayaw INA ““ But the angel is called by the name, Jehovah; ‘ according to the declaration : For my name is in “him; where I shall explain the matter more “fully. In like manner, with respect to the angel “who appeared to Gideon; it is there written: “ And Jehovah said to him.’ Moreover, the prophet Zechariah} supplies a singular testimony of this complexion, WI jw ON AID FoR : QW 72 AV «© And Jehovah said to Satan: “« Jehovah reprimand thee, O Satan.’ That the former, Jehovah, is spoken of the angel employed in this transaction, is expressly affirmed by R. David Kimchi:{ Spy JNoo yn A WDNY : ON ‘VOIpOD WII IATD DAI ow] «< And ‘* Jehovah said, that is, the angel who is called by ‘‘the name of his master; and so we find the “name used in the atfair of Gideon, and in other “ places.” Nor is this any modern opinion of the Jews ; on the contrary, it was the generally re- ceived notion of the ancient Fathers, as appears from what is recorded of R. Simeon ben Lakis, who was wont to maintain it on scriptural authority. wp? ja pnw W'S 19pa ww oD Ot ON * Com. on Ex.c. ili. v.4. + C. iii. v. 2. ~ Com. Ibid. 4S A TRINITY OF PERSONS =stxdoy qs 99 by wow Anwn ma'pnw tn « But our Fathers of blessed memory assert, that ‘the words, for my name is in him, inculcate, “according to the opinion of R. Simeon ben «¢ Lakis; that Jehovah communicates his name ““ to every angel whatever.” Finally, not only the angels, but even the Mes- sias, the Saints, and the city of Jerusalem, for reasons not necessary to be urged in this part of my work, bear the name of Jehovah ; and that not by way of proposition or accommodation, but be- cause of the actual relation and affinity which they are said to have and maintain to the essence of the Supreme Being. The fact is thus attested by R. Moses Alshech:+ *22772 72 W's Spas wo OP IY mapa yw wwa wwIp2 Aww « Behold our Rabbies of blessed me- : DY2W17") “‘mory, on the authority of R. Samuel Nach- ‘¢ manides, assert, that there are three things «‘ which are called by the name of Jehovah, the « Saints, the Messias, and the city of Jerusalem.” Thus, the most sacred appellations of the divi- nity, being proved to be common and equivocal, furnish an argument which tends strongly to es- tablish the leading position; in that it makes, either for polytheism, vulgarly so called; or for the pluripersonality of the godhead, according * Kimchi on Josh. ¢. Vi. Ware + Com. Jer. xxiii. 6, IN THE GODHEAD. 19 to the trinitarian hypothesis; or for both the doc- _ trines taken together. Now, if by, polytheism, may be understood the generation of a number of inferior deities from a common parent or chief god, which, I think, is all that can be fairly charged on the Pagans; who, though they assigned to their gods distinct parts in the management and govern- ment of the world, yet never regarded them as __coequal and coeternal, but deduced their origin always from some parent divinity; if this, I say, be polytheism, then is it to o be found among the professors of Judaism, who ascribe to their angels precisely what the Pagans ascribed to their se- condary gods; nay, in this sense of the term, the Christians too must needs be polytheists ; for St. Paul speaks of gods many, and of lords many ; which can be meant only of such intellectual agents as are honored with divine names and titles, and are spoken of as gods and lords, in the holy scriptures. The grand distinction between the three sorts of worshippers seems to be this; that the Pagans pay adoration to the secondary gods; whereas the others do not, but consider them as creatures merely of a superior rank. But, though the communication of the names of the deity to the various subsistences of the intellectual world be sufficient to account for those names being used in the plural number; yet does it fur- SO A TRINITY OF PERSONS nish no reason, why any of them should retain that form, when spoken of God only; unless it be admitted, that in the sameness of the godhead subsists a plurality of persons. That they do, however, occur in this manner, is apparent from the examples already adduced. The term, Elohim, though found in the singular above seventy times, and consequently has a singular to be used ; is, nevertheless, for the most part plural, and that when the deity himself is exclusively the subject. Mark that text of Moses, in the very threshold of the Pentateuch; where the deity is mentioned in the plural number, when as yet neither the hea- vens, nor the earth was created; and, conse- quently, no intellectual subsistency or angel, with whom he could be associated. Consider the passages from the Psalmist, in which the Supreme. Being, though expressed in the plural, is emi- nently distinguished from the secondary gods or angels, and contrasted with them in the most striking point of view. But what still more particularly deserves to be noticed, is the plural form of, Maker, and Creator, in the cited texts, from Solomon and Isaiah; where it would be the highest impiety not to interpret them solely of the deity himself, the only Maker and Creator of the universe. 1 know, indeed, that the Rabbinical school is Ee oe + IN THE GODHEAD. Sl wont to term those plurals, 123 }}w9, MAN|N pwd, or, M937 pw, an honorary or complimentary form of speech; and that R. Abraham * in particular contends for this being a peculiar idiom of the sacred dialect. But even admitting, that, in speaking of a superior, ‘it isan idiom of the Hebrew to employ the plural instead of the singular number; some reason ought to be as- signed, why it first originated with the ancient Hebrews. The various idioms of other lan- Suages, whether ancient or modern, may always be explained on philological principles. Now if this be really an idiom of the Hebrew dialect, it seems difficult to account for it on any other grounds, than that Moses, as well as Pythagoras, regarded number as the per- fection of all form; and that to distinguish a superior from an inferior person, but especially the deity from all other beings, he used the plural instead of the singular number. This [| say, not with the view of corroborating the opinion, but merely to shew; that, if the pretended idiom ex- isted, the very reason justifying the adoption of it, would justify a belief in the trinity of the godhead. No reader, however, tolerably conversant in the Hebrew scriptures, wiil be so bold as to assert, that this is an idiom of the inspired penmen. It * Com. on Gen. c. i. vy, 1. L &2 A TRINITY OF PERSONS is, indeed, a most unsatisfactory way of accounting for the plurals in question ; and, that it did appear so to R. Abraham himself, is pretty evident from his being glad to subjoin as another reason, why the term, Elohim, should be used so constantly in the plural form: That God is so styled on account of his work being performed by the ministration of angels ; which, though admitted as a fair reason in all cases, where angels may seem concerned, is no reason at all for the use of it in those texts, from which, as subjects, they must of necessity be excluded. The opinion, however, has been so ably confuted by R. Isaac Abarbinel,* that I shall certainly avail myself of his learning and authority : oww wind om ond wna as MAT Dn syst xype ad TAD IIT II NT Dv2N naoD own oyIow at Sy prox DAI pw sap DyToN may ip Sy ON OTN T7 PD ND amb psi Dont ns 7227 ans Nl NN IST OW INA TY OPI NAW D2 [> ON pw ovoy wre sow Aare. 07 77D DTN sym) Down awn ‘DD “TIN NINN? oy? xb onbs mbox 82 Dw? INan ON sysyo7 sy) obs ONIP DMN TD InyAALw maxandg) Nato on wa OPN TORI Now bya maa pt qo nw pwoaw jaw 22 saps ow oy pwoa aaa sw 27 pwa * Com. on Gen. c.i. v. 1. p- 5- te eee ie ED mw 8 IN THE GODHEAD. 83 nwa Mae aT ws nod Ny MaTw> OX 728 U2 D237 Dwr mw NT ND or pwr yoy ox xd Syma oD ano? on N32 ONT QvA NDI AT ONw WI DN WMD NWO TMNT WNYD 89 yr ow? 82) Dpm2 “nan x? ody ows xbx Joan Paw 72 ow? TAD NAIA NA > D’pN|IND ITN) DIN Pw Pw MN eT yD 455 W Own Awa NYA Wayaw IoXw mp oO 1D 23°72 72 O29 Ody Sopa DoNdDA op PIDDA ADw OMS ow Aw AD ay D9 TPY NIT DINO QW Jax TNA pws ANWR AIO AWS Aanw aay DAw DDNAAD No yyOS aD AMA Mam ‘* But truly this statement of the ; pxiaa 54Dn “author, that the term, Elohim, is used in the “plural form by way of honour, is, in my ‘opinion, without the least colour of truth or ‘ probability : as we find it in the plural number ‘predicated of things, which God expressly “ forbids to be honoured. Thus, Thou shalt have “no other Elohim before me; Let him, who sacri- “‘ fices to Elohim, be accursed. Now the scripture ‘ is not wont to honour idols or sculptured images. “Neither can it be alleged, that they are so “* styled in compliance with the erroneous ideas of ‘their own worshipers, in the sense we read the ‘“ passage: And the men pursued after them : for 84 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ‘‘ surely, the law, when it had warned the people, “‘ that they should not do service to the objects “of idolatry, was not going to honour them by “a compliance with the notion of their being ‘“‘ real intelligences. The truth of this assertion ‘is apparent from the text: They sacrificed to ‘< devils, not to God; but to Elohim whom: they ‘knew not; where it 1s worthy of remark, that ‘“‘ the inspired penman, though he is in the very “act of reviling and debasing them, yet styles “them, Elohim; a certain demonstration, that ‘“‘ the term is not used in the plural number to de- “‘ note the greater honour and respect. Much less ‘is it true with regard to any language, in which ‘“‘it is customary to address a superior in the “ plural by way of reverence ; as is thecase in the “languages of Europe. For it happens. only ‘‘ when they speak to a superior in the second ‘‘ person, that they apply to him the plural form ; ‘“ as though he were equal to many single ones in ‘‘hisstead. But in subjects of the third person, ‘¢ should they chance to mention a superior, they “do not speak of him in the plural number. “ Besides, if plurality of number in a name of “the Deity were to add honour to that name, why ‘ do not we find it in some other of his names, as ‘ well as in, Elohim ; either of those which, being ‘“‘ wholly sacred, are not allowed to be erased ; Se etl eae es ae ee IN THE GODHEAD. 85 ** or of those which may be erased. For on the “ supposition, that plurality of form gives lustre “to an appellation, all the appellations of God, ‘‘ together with their suffixes, ought to have been “used in the plural number: whereas the con- ‘trary is the fact. Moreover, with respect to the ‘* position, that God is called, Elohim, in the “plural, on account of his work having been ‘“ performed by the instrumentality of angels; that ‘likewise is destitute of probability. For from “ this it would follow of necessity, that the, Elohim, ‘“‘ which is used in the first verse of the book of ‘“‘ Genesis, is meant of the angels ; which would “be in the highest degree erroneous, as the pri- ‘““ mary creation originated solely from the first ‘* cause, without any instrumentality, and not from ‘the angels, who were themselves but a part of ‘the general creation.” Such are the arguments of the illustrious Abarbinel, which I have been the more anxious to give at full length ; because the futility of the answers of R. Abraham being once acknowledged, the other opinions, not ex- cepting even that of Abarbinel himself, are much too frivolous to occupy any time in attempting to confute them. R. Judah Levita* alleges, that the reason why the term is so generally used in the plural * Sepher Cosri, Mem. iv. p. 256. S6 A TRINITY OF PERSONS number, is because the idolaters were accustomed to make themselves images, in each of which they supposed a particular divinity to reside; and, consequently, were led to denominate them in the ageregate, Elohim, Gods; by whom they swore always, as exercising dominion over them from their power in the spheres. But if this be the true reason, then it follows of necessity, that the language of the scriptures is the language of idolatry, and that the worship of images was the primeval religion. This, however, is an infe- rence to which, I am sure, neither the Jew nor the Christian will patiently submit; and, there- fore, 1 shall conclude my remarks on this notion of R. Judah in the words of Abarbinel,* vox poa 2 P72 Ny aI oN any OF Nox. ‘‘'This account of the author is, in fact, more in- ‘“‘ explicable and unintelligible, than that of any ‘ other writer, who has handled the subject, be- ‘* sides himself.” Neither is the assertion of R. Solomon + and others, That the plural noun, by being associated with verbs and adjuncts in the singular number, is divested of its plural import; entitled to any higher regard. In Greek, a noun of the neuter plural is usually associated with a verb singular ; and yet, no scholar would contend, that, because * Com. on Gen. c. i. v. 1. + Com. on Gen. c. 1. v. 26. ‘ ‘ ao: a IN THE GODHEAD, $7 the verb is of the singular number, the noun does not actually express a plurality of subsistences. But it is by no means the fact, that the plural term, Elohim, when used for the true God ; is accompanied with verbs and other adjuncts always, in the singular number. The account which the patriarch gives of his being induced to leave home; the solemn attestation of Joshua in his address to the Israelites ; the exclamation of the Philistines on beholding the ark of Jehovah ; the solicitation of the children of Israel to supply the vacancy of Moses by the symbol of a calf ; toge- ther with their subsequent declaration respecting its divinity ; not to mention other instances, un- noticed in this work, do certify the contrary. I confess, indeed, that both Onkelos and Jarchi interpret the latter passages of an idolatrous wor- ship, into which the children of Israel, at the insti-. gation of the strangers who were mixed along with them, had unhappily fallen: but R. Abra- ham,* I think, has most ably defended his coun- trymen from so grievous a charge, and plainly demonstrated the supposition of their idolatry to be a monstrous absurdity. For how could they, who had been led to look upon Aaron as the near relation and chief coadjutor of Moses, solicit him to make for them the symbol of any other deity, * Com. in loc. $$ A TRINITY OF PERSONS than that which they had previously adored ; and which had so freyuently displayed its energy in extricating them out of embarrassment, and pro- ‘tecting them from danger? How should they think of continuing in authority a man who had been so instrumental in promoting the worship of Jehovah, if the design of this transaction were an innovation in religion? Nay, does not their sub- sequent conduct plainly prove to us, that it was no such thing ? for no sooner was this representation of the divinity finished, than they reared an altar, offered sacrifices, and celebrated a festival to the honour of Jehovah ; which evinces beyond all doubt, that it was not any defection from his worship at which the deity appeared so highly incensed, but their going contrary to his express command, in making for themselves an idol ; and in concluding with those of the Sabean persua- sion, that, as Moses had now disappeared, and forsaken them ; their God would surely. vouchsafe to dwell in so sacred and splendid -a symbol. That this is the true and proper light in which the transaction ought to be viewed, is the decided opinion, not only of Aben Ezra, but also of Nach- manides; who has stated his sentiments on this pointin the manner subjoined.* TON MIN TON PROD TVS Fy DN At oO] WA ws * Com. in loc. a ee IN THE GODHEAD. S9 DT IWS AIT ATT aww ddwa way ‘JON IAN DYDD DNS IWR NIT ON TAN wW NYDN 82 mI) Ow) DYN MAAN OTN DID DMO UN ST IWes DIP) Dw Joya YIND PASS AWN POPS ‘7 DIN WNW DD JAN Ov DOIN OA NT Sy wD oMND DIPO3 7 INP > PAA Wwe II MaIpaa MON TTD paye Adwn oy naanos sbynr ps MIANIONID NS WO pw Nod x2 Mays Tw DYwid 28 INDY TON Dw awy Sow aw by MN on yIsa mxdar oes md WYN 82 WAY MIN DW wre MIT MDw AID SOW ont weap oy ons ondy 75 “ And they said: These are thy gods, O Israel, “which have conducted thee. This passage of ‘itself ought to be sufficient to guide your ‘‘ judgment. For there cannot be a man in the ‘world so stupid as to suppose, that the gold ‘“‘ which had been on their ears, was actually the “ being that had brought them up out of Egypt; ‘* but what they meant to say was; that the virtue, ‘‘ or divine energy, of this form had conducted ‘them thence. Nor, indeed, can you find it in ‘any passage affirmed of the calf: Which hath ‘‘ brought us up out of Egypt. They made their ‘‘ confession in him, who had previously said : “Tam the Lord, thy God, who brought thee up “out of the land of Egypt; as it was his great M 90 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “and glorious name, that had brought them up “thence. But they say in several places: “Which have conducted thee; Because they “took this instead of that majestic hand, which ‘had dried up the waters, and rendered the “depths of the sea.a road for the redeemed to ‘‘ walk in. This, too, is corroborated from the ‘¢ words of the Psalmist: And they changed their ‘* glory into the image of an ox that eateth grass ; “‘ where it is further said: They forgot the God ‘‘ who rescued them, who achieved stupendous “ feats in Egypt, miracles in the land of Ham, “ awful sights by the Red Sea; they forgot the “ word of him who had commanded them. “Their crime was, doubtless, this; that they ‘transgressed against the commandment, Thou “ shalt not make to thyself any other gods before ‘me; as I have already insinuated, in my re- ‘“‘ marks on that commandment.’ In support of this interpretation, many other authorities might be alleged to shew, that the Israelites were by no means so stupid and void of understanding as to suppose, that the dumb idol itself had any power to assist them; but that in concurrence with the then prevailing opinion amongst mankind, that the deity vouchsafed to manifest his energy through ‘the medium of symbols, they believed, ih that, J ehovah ‘their God would deign to ‘ne _ IN THE GODHEAD. 9] nm £ , i 4 ¥? 2 LA, om, (np Rte Metin ath pieced ee Rete. his power in this golden calf, and so worshiped the idol in consideration of the divinity which dwelt within it, that is, the Habitation; as the learned R. Joseph* ben Chajim has very properly explained it. To this Sabean notion is to be referred the enthusiastic shout of the bar- barous hosts, at the sight of the ark; who knew equally with ourselves, that the ark itself was no God; but naturally supposed it to be the symbol, in which the Israelitish divinities had deigned to dwell; just as the Israelites themselves had pre- sumed with respect to the calf; or as Jehovah has described his own habitation between the two Cherubim: and this sentiment both the Israelites and the Philistines seem to have expressed in such a manner as to manifest their belief, that in the deity, Jehovah, subsisted a number of personalities, | Precluded then from the possibility of recon- ciling this plural term with their well known ideas of the unity of the godhead; it ought not to excite surprise, if there should even be found some of the Jewish expositors, who maintain that it is singular. Such was the opinion of R.. Moses Gerundensis.+ He has deduced the term from, 28, god; and, O/7, they ; supposing it to comprehend in its signification all spiritual powers * Vid. Yad Yoseph, fol. 177.. + Vid. Abarbinel, on Gen. c.i. y. 1. 92 A TRINITY OF PERSONS and virtues, whatever, originating from the deity ; and has defined it, as if it were written—OM OND —They exist from God. But to this it is well objected by the learned Abarbinel,* that he has assigned no reason for the omission of the Mem, in the beginning, so necessary to the sense which is here affixed to it; nor why the Jod, contrary to all propriety, should be inserted in the middle: and still less reason, why in every case of affixation it should be treated asa plural. The notion, more- over, is repugnant to the authority of the Maso- rites; who, by placing the Holem point to direct the pronunciation, clearly manifest the opinion of antiquity, that, ovo, was written defectively for, DORN, the plural form of, mds, the deity. The same arguments nearly will hold good with respect to Abarbinel himself; who thinks it a compound of, 28, and 1, signifying the god, Jah ; and so urgest by way of recommending the hypothesis, that nothing will be found to have been created without the express mention and agency of this Jah. He instances Ephraim, Metsraim, Chilaim, and Chushim, as proofs, that the termination, zm, does not necessarily signify many; and regards the Mem as added, in the present case, to distinguish the absolute from the construct form. But this is a specimen of rea- * Vid. Abarbinel on Gen. c. 1. v. 1s #"Ibidem. IN THE GODHEAD. 93 soning unworthy of the great Abarbinel. There is in the first place a strange and unprecedented transposition of the two letters, He and Jed; in order to form from, mon, the term, WON : as the author proposes. _ The instances adduced are by no means in point; being all of them proper names, and never used either with an affix or an emphasis, like the noun Elohim. Neither has he assigned any reason, why this alone of all the names of the Supreme Being should be accompanied sometimes with verbs and adjectives in the plural number. The most evident cause of complaint, however, is, that contrary to the established usage of the language, he derives, by the addition of a Mem, a singular absolute from a singular construct form. Indeed the author himself appears to be dissatisfied with his own opinion ; and, as though he foresaw, that it would not carry conviction to the mind of the reader, has endeavoured to account for this plu- rality in another way; by comparing the deity with the soul of man, in respect of the number and variety of its operations. But here the wonted perspicacity of the author has again deserted him. For though it be very true, that we observe resulting from the self same mind of man a variety of actions and operations, without ever calling in question the singularity of its 94 A TRINITY OF PERSONS number; yet does that add nothing to the support of his argument, because in no language with which we are acquainted, is the human mind ever expressed in the plural number on that account; and, therefore, affords no reason why the noun, Elohim, should be so used, on account of the multiplicity and variety of its operations. It remains, then, that we contemplate this appellation of the deity as being actually in the plural number, agreeably to both grammar and analogy ; and as expressing a number of persons in that Godhead, to which it is rightly and for the most part appropriated. I have been the more particular in setting forth the grounds of the present argument in general, and above all this last circumstance, the evident plurality of the term, Elohim: for it appears to me, that by fairly demonstrating, that the different names and epithets, belonging to God, are spoken and pre- dicated of him, rather as a form or species of being, than as an individual subsistency ; we make a considerable advance towards the truth and confirmation of our second proposition. nce CHAPTER V. Tue final argument, with which the leading position was submitted to be closed, is drawn IN THE GODHEAD, 95 from the deity being observed not unfrequently to speak of himself in the first person plural. This, indeed, is so natural and popular a way of arriving at the conclusion; that, to most of the defenders of the trinitarian hypothesis, it has seemed the only thing necessary to be urged and maintained. Though not the only, it is certainly a very cogent argument; as will shortly appear from the worthless and futile attempts, which have been made, to diminish its prepollency. The following are the most remarkable of those passages, in which the style of speaking now alleged by way of argument is found to occur. UMN TD 1N7¥2 OTN Aw ONS TON ““ And God said: Let us make man in our own “image, according to our own likeness.” WON+ 2 nyt? 1200 TANIA IN yD ods a -Y1) « And God Jehovah said: Behold the man is ‘as one of ourselves, in the knowledge of good “and evil.” DNDw Dw M239) 7772737 st «Come, “ let us descend, and there confound their speech.” D7 TIMI IW Yd NN TON ITN Ip NN yowNG “And I heard the voice of my Lord, saying: «© Whom shall I send, or who will go for us.” That the deity is actually the speaker in all the foregoing passages, is universally allowed; the * Gen. c.i. v.26. + Gen.c.iii. v. 22. + Gen.c. xi. v.7. 4 Isaiah, c. vi. v.8. 96 A TRINITY OF PERSONS only difference of opinion being in accounting for the plurality. To prevent us from taking the words literally, and from imbibing the notion, that the Godhead exists in a plurality of persons ; the modern Jews have instituted two general modes of interpretation; the first of which 1s, That it is the regal form of speaking, in which the plural is used for the singular; the other, That it is the deity conferring with his angels in council, The former opinion has been main- tained chiefly by R.Saadias Gaon; * who al- leges in support of it a number of scriptural texts, all which R. Abraham + is pleased to call, “pw ‘72, false allegations; and has not only shewn their irrelevancy, but demonstrated, that the opinion itself, has no manner of foundation. Indeed, there is not the smallest authority for it in the compositions of the Old Testament; which, being penned with that simplicity peculiar to the early ages of the world, introduce all princely characters expressing themselves invariably in their own proper number, and with the strictest erammatical propriety: nor does it distinguish, in that respect, between the most potent of sovereigns and the very lowest of the human species. But the other opinion, That it is the deity conferring with the angels in council ; has been * Vid. Aben Ezra on Gen. ¢. i. v.26. + Ibidem. IN THE GODHEAD. 97 sanctioned by almost every authority in the Jewish church, and especially by the modern commen- tators, who to a man expound those passages, as of a monarch deliberating in the cabinet on measures of policy. The grounds, however, upon which this explication is taken up, together with the consequent disparagement to the dignity and ex- cellency of the godhead, in being thus consociated with spirits of an inferior rank, demand the gravest and most serious consideration. That angels should act as coadvisers and coadjutors in the administration of the affairs of the world, is not only repugnant to the very meaning of the term angel, itself; which denotes a being deputed on a mission from God; but is wholly unsanctioned by any declaration to that effect, either in Moses or in the prophets. It is, indeed, difficult to deter- mine, whether the absurdity or the impiety, with which the creator is thus supposed to consult with the created on such highly important matters, — deserves the greater execration. True it is, that, in this imaginary council, the deity presides ; is decorated with the exalted appendages of majesty ; and invested with the most despotic and arbitrary power. But with all the magnificent sway, that either reason can suggest, or the imagination can conceive; I still! maintain, that, by being closeted with the angels in council, the deity is N 95 A TRINITY OF PERSONS degraded. The sovereigns of the earth, by being enthroned in splendor, and attended witha privy council superior to themselves in mental accom- plishments, command honor and respect from the rest of the species: but the sovereign creator of the worlds, by being supposed to confer with the angels, on every weighty and important occasion, is absolutely debased and insulted ; and suffers a higher indignity from this erroneous interpretation of the Jewish church, than man could possibly do, by being supposed to confer with quadrupeds and reptiles, on the design and propriety of human actions. For what has been sometimes alleged in extenuation of that paganic folly, which assigns to Jupiter a council of gods and demigods, That it is all allegory, or poetic fiction; cannot be alleged in favor of this council of angels, who being allowed by the Jews themselves to have a real existence, permit nothing to be affirmed of them, that is incom- patible with their condition. Neither will the apology of Jarchi* avail aught towards depre- cating the blasphemy ; That, though they sit in council, they do not furnish to the deity any sort of help: for to say, that they sit in council without being consulted, or that the deity con- venes them solely with the view of communicating * Com. on Gen. c.i. v.26. IN THE GODHEAD. 99 to them his motives of action, is highly ridiculous and absurd, as well as contrary to the very institution of a council, which is usually formed with the expectation of benefit being derived from their accumulated wisdom and conjoint deliberations on the measures propounded. Be- sides, if this angelic cabinet be really an accession of glory to the supreme being, why did it not always exist? How came it to pass, that for the production of the worlds out of nothing, for the separation of the light from the darkness, for the disposition of the heavenly bodies, and even for the formation of the angels themselves, the individual mind of the deity shall be selfsufficient ; but, that, for the creation of man, and for other matters of inferior moment, it should be necessary to hold a council of angels? Surely, if acts the most illustrious for wisdom and power, could proceed solely from himself; it. must be the summit of folly, not to say impiety, to bring to his aid a council of inferior and subordinate spirits, in the accomplishment of subsequent and minor achievements. By these and similar ar- guments, which result from a bare consideration of the question itself, the absurdity of the opinion is amply exposed. The whole body, however, of Jewish professors are not chargeable with this error. The Cabbalists, at least, are a__ iGO A, TRINITY OF PERSONS splendid exception; and especially KR. Simeon ben Jochai,* who adverting to the plurality of person in the first of the alleged examples, has thus expounded it. “ON JNO? DIN Aw] TW 120 DPRT ST YRTNTT TY) TON YY NON ONT : "Dp «Moreover, to whom does he say; Let “ys make man? Doubtless, the primary cause is « addressing Jehovah, who is in the midst of the « ten Numerations.” Here we have it asserted, on the authority of a most eminent and dis- tinguished Cabbalist, that this conference was not between Jehovah and his angels; but between the first cause and Jehovah, that is, between god and god; or, between one numerical subsistency of the godhead and another, as will hereafter appear, when we proceed to speak of the ten Numerations. But besides the two general modes of inter- pretation now mentioned, every endeavour has been used to explain away those texts singly ; so as to forestal any argument, which might thence be deduced for the pluripersonality of the godhead. By a few it has been argued, that, in the first text, the word, MWY3, is only the par- licipial form of the verb, in Niphal, signifying, made; and, that the plural suffixes do not refer io God, but to the narrator of the speech, that is, * Tykune Sohar, Tyk. 70. fol. 119, col. 1. Sek St Pe SO IN THE GODHEAD. 101 to Moses or the human species. But to this R. Abraham * has well replied ; that, admitting it to be the participle only, it ought still to have been preceded by the verb, ¥, in order to render the passage, as they would have it; Let man be made: and, that, with respect to the suffixes, they must needs be referred to God ; as it is said almost immediately after, that God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them ; so that this criminal attempt to pervert the sense of the original completely fails, Aben Ezra himself being our patron and defender, In the second text we find some of the highest authorities + expounding the phrase, 122 MN), in the sense of, W¥V2A WINS, As it were alone by himself; instead of, Like one of us; which, if correct, would entirely overturn the grounds of our argument. But in this, as in the former instance, I shall call to our aid the same learned commentator ; | who has plainly shewn that con- struction to be contrary to the rules of grammar, and, I may add, wholly unexampled either in the scriptures or in the Talmud. MN M7 IWS mi ON MIDI WWI OYA MD Op MmND3 1D Sy wa way MND{D) PD ap INNA MDT IMS WD wD 9 wd pp ID jam 8? * Com. in loc. + Onkelos, Jarchi, &, + Aben Ezra in loc. 102 A TRINITY OF PERSONS pat vss sgyon Spa mmo ay oye 200 ws 192 DAT pw? 0 "| Ny'T? Dy 179 “«* As often as the numeral, IS, one, is pointed *‘ with a Segol under the Aleph, it is accompanied ‘ with an accent, and its signification is absolute ; “but when it is pointed with a pathach, it is in ‘regimen; and thus we read it in the passage, ‘As one of the tribes of Israel. It ought not, “« therefore, according to the rules of grammar, to “be here expounded, as though it were one ‘absolute. Besides, what accent has it? The ‘* author of the accents too should, in that case, “have connected the pronoun, 132, of himself, ‘‘ with the verbal noun, ny, as to the know- “ledge, that is, of good and evil. The true “ exposition, however, of the pronoun, 13/27, is, ‘of us, in the plural number; just as it occurs ‘in the expression, A man of us.’’ Such is the language of Aben Ezra, with regard to the pro- priety of affixing to the words any other meaning, than that which allows the speaker to be in the first person plural. To the remaining texts no violence has been offered, to pervert the sense of them ; if we except the two general modes of interpretation already confuted. Thus rescued from every material objection, our argument remains firm and unshaken ; and, when subjoined to the others. preceding it, forms a IN THE GODHEAD. 103 eround or basis, on which the pluripersonality of the godhead, and consequently the leading position, which was proposed to be demonstrated, will stand with security. Indeed, if, as has been. clearly proved, all spiritual substances, besides the godhead, do really exist in a diversity of persons ur subsistences; if every spiritual essence is but an emanation from the deity ; if the most proper and sacred appellations of God be common to many individuals; and, if God be known to speak of himself not unfrequently in the first person plural; the belief of a plurality of persons, subsisting in the unity or the sameness of the godhead, must follow of necessity. Nay, Mai- monides* frankly concedes, that the contrary opinion of an unity of person has no foundation, ‘ but in the tradition of their church; that it can neither be demonstrated on rational principles, nor plausibly vindicated by the ablest’ meta- physicians, without denying all the attributes of the godhead, even its wisdom, power, and good- ness; which however, not only the Jewish church, but the learned theologist himself is obliged to admit, as the foundation of the principal doctrines, which they profess to maintain. * More Nevoch, Part i. c. 75. Sis! “Als KY in. EES LE 104 A TRINITY OF PERSONS CHAPTER VI. Tuus haying, by the formal establishment of a plurality of persons in the godhead, dispatched the leading part of our General Proposition, I press to the consideration of the latter part; which is, That the plurality of persons for which we contend, is a trinity. The first argument in its support I draw from reason itself; which inculcates, that the trinity alone is both a perfect and a necessary number. Previous, however, to © my developing the origin of number, it may not be amiss to consider the equivocal import of the term, unity ; and to defend the expression of, a trinity in unity, or of, an unity in trinity, from the odious imputation of being a contradiction in terms. Now unity has two senses; that of identity or sameness of being, when applied to substances ; and that of singularity of number, when applied to persons or individual subsistences. In the expression of, a trinity in unity, or, an unity in trinity; it is taken in the former acceptation. for when we assert, that an unitysof the god- head exists in a trinity of persons, or, that a trinity of persons subsists in an unity of the godhead ; we do not mean an unity of person or ST IN THE GODHEAD. 105 of number, which would indeed bea contradiction in terms: but only an unity, oneness, or sameness of being, which is diametrically opposite to unity of person, and consequently to unity of num- ber: for these, as must appear evident to the least discerning, are equivalent phrases. It is on this, and on no other account, that, in dis- coursing of the unity of the godhead, I prefer the term, sameness, to, unity; as being wholly un- equivocal, and much better calculated, from its familiar use and signification, to guard my meaning from being mistaken and perverted. But not to retard any longer the prosecution of this argument, I shall briefly lay down the origin of number; from which the weight and force of it will instantly appear. Number, then, is either singular or plural ; is the consideration. cither of an individual unit standing apart by itself, or of many such units taken collectively. But the singular, from which the plural is immediately formed, and into which it may always be resolved ; can subsist only so far as the thing itself may be separately counted and distinguished from some other thing, either of its own or of a different species. Things, however, cannot be separated nor regarded individually, without some. essential mark of distinction, whereby they must of ne- cessity differ; which, doubtless, with respect to 0 106 A TRINITY OF PERSONS all bodily substances, is diversity of situation. Diversity of situation, then, is evidently to them the origin of number; and, though we cannot restrict incorporeal or spiritual substances to situation; yet, as they do certainly differ indi- vidually, as well as corporeal beings, diversity, though not of situation, must still be the ground of their numerical subsistency, But diversity, of whatever kind, necessarily implies three per- sonalities or subsistences; this, that, and a some- thing besides, which causes the this, to differ from the that, and destroys the solidity or sameness of their being. Conformably to this doctrine, and on principles strictly logical and metaphysical ; R. Shabtai* denies, that any thing less than trinity constitutes number, 18 WOSYI TANT SIDI) aw mwa ADAM ID TAD ‘<*™@he unit of itself is not a number; as the « definition of number, or that which perfectly “* constitutes number, is a trinity, which consists «of equal and unequal, that is, of two and one.” Thus is the trinity both a perfect and a necessary number. Itis perfect, in that it requires nothing to be understood for the support of its subsistency ; and necessary, in that even unity itself cannot subsist without it. « Cited by Rit. but without any reference, in his Edition of Sepher Jetsira, p. 73. IN THE GODHEAD. 107 That it should be so constantly preferred to every Other plural, not founded in circumstances, but left to be determined at discretion ; is to be charged solely on its numerical perfection. ‘Thus the prophet Hosea,* being enjoined by God to beget children of an adulterous wife, but without any number being specified; begot Jezreel, Loruchama, and Loammi; but no more: the number being now perfect, and consequently the injunction itself strictly obeyed. So, when Balaam + was invited by Balak to curse the people of Israel; the attempt was made three times, after which it was relinquished as hopeless and vain. Joash,t being ordered to strike the earth, struck it thrice, and then desisted; natu- rally concluding, that, as no particular number had been prescribed, a trinity of times must needs be sufficient. The prophet Elijah,§ when sacri- ficmg to Jehovah in the presence of the priests of Baal; ordered water to be poured on the wood three times, previous to the invocation. The prophet Jeremiah,|| being charged with a solemn denunciation against the land of Israel; calls on it three times, before he utters the pro- phecy. ‘The same prophet,@1 expostulating with * C.ii v. 2, &e. + Num. c. xxiii. et xxiy. t 2 Kings, c. xiii. v. 18. § 1 Kings, c. xviii. v. 33, 34. | C. xxii. vy. 2. " Wf C. viiev. 4. 108 A TRINITY OF PERSONS his countrymen on the impiety of their conduct, and reproving them for implicitly confiding in their possession of the temple, that he might somewhat mimic their too frequent repetition of the word, temple; reiterates it thrice: thus substituting a certain for an uncertain number. Now, why on the former, and similar occasions, the trinity should be preferred to every other plural, has never yet been explained by the Jewish commentators on general principles; nor, indeed, on any principle, competent to the illus- tration of the simplest cases. But if we admit, what I think has been amply proved, that it is the first number, which can with strictness of propriety be denominated perfect; not only the foregoing, but a hundred other instances of the like sort, will have a rational solution. Such is the argument, on which I primarily fix the subsequent position. It contains in itself a sufficient answer to that objection, with which the trinitarian. hypothesis has been repeatedly as- sailed; That, if three persons may subsist in the eodhead, why not ten: the reply being prompt and certain; that the former is a perfect and necessary number, whereas the other is not. It is firmly opposed to the advocates for an unity of person, by shewing, that unity of person is but unity of number, which cannot subsist alone, but a IN THE GODHEAD. 109 requires, that other subsistences co-exist along with it; thus obliging them to profess, either the pluripersonality of the godhead, or polytheism strictly so called. For, unless we insist with the philosopher of Stagira, that matter is cozeval with mind, which is polytheism, in the literal accep- tation of the term; we seem compelled to relin- quish the notion of the deity subsisting in unity of number, and consequently in unity of person. Nay the Jews themselves, anticipating the force of this argument, and wishing to forestal it; have denied, that the unity for which they contend, is unity of number, or any kind of unity that the mind can comprehend. So says R. Judah Levita: * 5w> IN ION? AA TW bys OSS Maen nA op? 89 NaI DD WOINT AD AT PPI PAW 7 ISS INNA 1D DNS DD) TINS MH INS OMY TOS AWS OY pawn AI WoO WT IW yor. WxM ADIT DON PONT OST) 3 NAN Iw INN syann Oow> Tax ON ATMAM «In this ‘manner is he affirmed to be one, to deny of “him plurality; and not to affirm of him that “unity, which we ourselves comprehend. For “ with us, that is one, whose parts adhere to ‘‘each other, and have the same appearance : ‘as, when we say, one bone, one hand, or one * Sepher Cosri, Mem. il. p. 78. 110 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “‘ water; or, when speaking of time, in the ‘ similitude of a body compacted together ; we “say, one day, or one year. But the divine “essence is exempt from cohesion and division ; “and is called one, to the denegation of a plu- “ yrality.”. So R. Moses ben Maimon.* Wd “pwn JONI ID VAT yoy apwr yo Aw NYIANT PRD Wo) AY oINNN Apa Pw smamxa oso ans xi Dax woxy you py ‘ Like as multitude is erroneously predicated of “‘ him, as an accident ; so also is unity erroneously ‘ predicated of him as an accident ; that is, unity ‘in him is not any thing in addition to himself or ‘‘ his substance; but he is one without any unity.” So R. Jedaiah ben Bedrashi:+ NYINN 8? TAS NW ST¥ 92D 2 pn yaqn yio2 9ax 727 «* He is one, but that oneness is not of number; *‘ on the contrary, he is exempt from multiplicity ‘ and division in every respect.” So R. Abraham ben David: + 0 Poy yom NO yD prow 227 1D NAIM 1 Nd “Know, that of ‘s the Supreme Being we can affirm number of “no sort; neither the singular, nor the plural “number.” But to this I would first of all * Sepher More Nevochim, Parti.c. 57. + Bechinath Olam, c. xli. ¢ Com. on the second of the thirty-two ways of; wisdom: prefixed to Sepher Jetsira. ee ee ee ee ee | 4 IN THE GODHEAD. Th reply, that, if they do not mean unity of number, nor.any kind of unity with which the mind is acquainted, they cannot mean unity of person, which is in reality unity of number ; and, if not unity of person, then, as they deny the trinity, the godhead, according to them, must be a perfect non-entity ; at least, regarding the grounds, on which the generality of modern Jews profess to stand in this matter, I cannot possibly foresee, how the inference is to be avoided. By denying, that the unity which they intend, is unity of person; they deprive themselves of all offensive weapons against the advocates of the trinity, and seem tacitly to confess, that the doctrine of the Christian church makes as near an approximation to divine truth, as any thing which they themselves can oppose, or institute against it: for surely, when driven from every other entrenchment, the trinitarians will always be able to defend themselves, on the same prin- ciple that they do; by denying, that the trinity which they predicate of the divine essence, is any thing positive, but only a denegation of that numerical unity, which is admitted on both sides to be incompetent to the godhead. This singular propensity of the Jewish divines to affirm nothing positively of the deity; but to regard his highest attributes, merely as negations 112 A TRINITY OF PERSONS of certain imperfections ; has led them into several errors, as well in metaphysics as in theology. R. Judah * has even gone so far as to assert, that the predicate, living, when affixed to God, is not to be considered as any thing positive, but only as a negation of death; because whatever Is not living, must be dead: in which assertion there is, certainly, much to be reprehended. First of all, neither, dead, nor, living, is a negative term; not, living; because this is positive, and has a negative of its own, inanimate ; nor yet, dead ; for that is privative, and so far from being a ne- gative attribute or quality, is not an attribute of any sort. But should it be urged in reply, that their intention in denying the reality of any of those attributes, goes no farther than to deny, that those properties adhere to the godhead, in the manner conceived and ascribed by man; I would seriously intreat the Jew to reflect on the tendency of such metaphysical principles ; for if / | nothing is to be affirmed of God, because nothing | can be adequately conceived, they will be compelled \ ito deny that he actually exists; as the notion which we have of his existence, is as inadequate, and falls as far short of the truth, as that which we eniertain of his attributes and perfections. This view of the subject involves the Jewish * Mem. ii. p. 77- | IN THE GODHEAD. 113 adherent, as the reader must perceive, in a certain dilemma. For on the one hand, he is not at liberty to argue, that the divine unity which he maintains, is simply a negation of plurality, without any regard to singularity of number ; that it may signify either something, or nothing, or neither, just as he thinks proper to consider and explain it; because if, one, has any relation at all to, many, it must be in respect of number ; that being the only way in which, one, and, many, can stand as correlatives. But on the other hand, if he concedes, that this unity is singularity of number; then will he be obliged to admit the co-existence of other two numerical subsistences along with it, from which it cannot be separated, not even by the utmost effort of the human mind, without self-destruction ; so that, if in the godhead a singularity of number be once avowed, a trinity _ of persons will of necessity be inferred. enn GE ETN ITSO CHAPTER VIi. Bur the truth of the position derives no small support from the many symbolical actions and expressions in sacred history ; in whick nothing, except a trinity of persons subsisting in the *godhead, can possibly be insinuated. They p 4 A TRINITY OF PERSONS differ, materially, from, the examples adduced in favor of the trinity being a perfect number; as in those the only matter of astonishment was the predilection of the trinity; but, in the instances now to be alleged, either the power, the glory, or the habitation, of the deity is visibly mani- fested: so that the various circumstances, with which each action or speech 1s accompanied ; must necessarily be referred to him, as their principal subject. The restoration of the dead child to life, by the prophet, Elijah ; which was effected solely by the power and miraculous interposition of God; was evidently an action of this complexion. ancy Os sapy Va we TN by Tam * yanp by min sa wal 82 wn ON TP TOS qanp oy Toy wa? awn ws oypa mim pow spy « And he stretched himself over the child ‘three times: and invoked Jehovah, and said : « Q Jehovah, my God; let the life of this child, «© | pray, return into the midst of him again. And « Jehovah attended to the intreaty of Elijah : and c the life of the child returned into the midst of «him again, and he lived.” Now, if we may not be permitted to view the trinity of number, so eminently displayed in this transaction, as a symbol of three ,persons in the godhead; I can % 1 Kings, ¢. Xvil. ve 21. IN THE GODHEAD. 115 suggest no manner of reason, why it should have been used on so solemn an occasion; and, cer- tainly, the Jews themselves afford none that is worthy of attention. Kimchi* has alleged, that as Jehovah was pleased to grant the prayer of the prophet, on his having extended himself three times; it was not necessary to do it any oftener: but this is leaving the question, just as he found it; for seeing that the reanimation of the child did not at all depend on the gestures of the prophet, but only on the will of God, the difficulty still recoils upon us; why the deity, who does nothing without sufficient motives, should have deferred the gracious act till the number, three, was accomplished ; if something mystical had not been intended, by this numerical symbol. The transition of the glory of Jehovah, as beheld by the same prophet; was another action of this sort, M272 MI Jay A Aa + xO mrad ovo naw) on prasad Fim 2mm wy7a xd wr man ane) mM nna OP WNA ANN AD wkl 87 WX wea NI pt 27 * And behold Jehovah passed by ; “and there was a great and strong wind, which ‘¢ shattered the mountains, and rent the rocks ‘ before Jehovah; but Jehovah was not in the * Com. in loc. + J Kings, c. xix, ¥, BID A2. 116 A TRINITY OF PERSONS * wind: and after the wind, there wasa rumbling ‘noise; but Jehovah was not in the rumbling “ noise: and after the rumbling noise, there was ‘¢a fire: but Jehovah was not in the fire: and ‘¢ofter the fire, there was a low, shrill voice.” R. Isaac Abarbinel, who in commenting on this text, has exercised the utmost ingenuity ; asserts that the three terrors, preceding the articulation of the deity, corresponded to the three miracles, which had been previously wrought by the pro- phet, without any order from God: namely, the prevention of rain for a term of years, the resto- ration of the dead child, and the bringing down of fire from heaven to consume the victim : that the glory of the Lord was revealed thus terribly to reprehend his past presumption ; and, that the tenuity of the voice was designed to signify to the prophet the great detriment, which the glory of Jehovah had actually sustained, by the achieve- ment of those miracles without the divine autho- rity. But, surely, this is indulging in conjecture io a criminal pitch. For though it is not ex- pressly said, that Jehovah was consulted on each of those occasions; yet it by no means will follow, that the prophet did not consult him, or that he was not directed by the holy spirit in the framing of his petitions. Never could any miracles have appeared so opportunely for the reclaiming of the IN THE GODHEAD. 117 Jewish nation, as the visitation of their country with drought, under the reign of a most wicked and idolatrous prince ; as the calling down of fire from heaven, in, the midst of so many religious apostates, and idolatrous priests; and as the resti- tution of an only child to the arms of his mother, which, whilst it did prejudice to no one, served as a just reward for her piety and hospitality; and furnished, in the midst of so many advocates for infidelity and apostacy, a well timed testimony of the divinity of Jehovah. The learned commen- tator, indeed, is constrained to own, that the prophet performed those miracles with a pious intention ; and, that this was the reason, why they were permitted to be wrought: still maintaining, however, that he acted presumptuously; which, in a writer of such uncommon discernment, is something extraordinary. How should that pro- phet, I would ask, who was so highly favoured with the directions and admonitions of the holy spirit, and against whom not a word of accu- sation was ever uttered, not even in this angry visit, as esteemed by our author; be charged with presumption ? The declaration, that Jehovah was not in any of the three terrors; is no corro- boration, as he has imagined, of the truth of his exposition. ‘That Jehovah was as much in the terrors, as in the still small voice ; is apparent 118 A TRINITY OF PERSONS from the manifestation being called a transition ; which would have been wholly improper, if the divinity had not been as personally present in the terrors themselves, as in the voice that followed them. It was the necessity of receiving all spiritual communication in this peculiar manner, which makes the prophet deny, that Jehovah was in any of the forms, preceding the allocution ; it being incompetent for man to know, except by such signs and demonstrations, whether a spirit be really present or not: for though it may well seem a great indignity to God, to be literally pre- sent in any of the elements of nature ; it can be no less so, to be present in the articulation of speech; which is but a corporeal effect, or acci- dent; and has no existence, independently of matter, Seeing, then, that this interpretation of Abarbinel, though highly ingenious, and the only thing worthy of being noticed in opposition to our argument; cannot be maintained on plausible grounds; I claim this transition of Jehovah as a symbolical action of the three persons in the godhead; and the tenuous articulation as sig- nificant of that illustrious event, the incarnation of the word of God. The appearance of Jehovah to the patriarch Abraham, in the forest of Mamre; is to be regarded as a most certain and undoubted inti- IN THE GODHEAD. 119 mation of the sacred trinity. 7 Mr sys son ons Oaxm mina aw 81) 8D NI poy DDY) OwIs nwo MIA SP PY Rwy SOY nw) OANT minad MNP? PR 8 S2yn 83 O8 PID TNR NI DN UTS TONY sy Tay oy «¢ And Jehovah appeared to him in “ the forest of Mamre; and he was sitting at the ‘6 door of the tent, it being the hottest part of the ‘day. And he lifted up his eyes, and looked ; “ and behold, there were three persons, standing ‘© towards him: and, as soon as he saw it, he ‘<< hastened from the door of the tent to meet them, ‘and bowed himself to the ground, and said: “My Lord, if now I may find grace in thine “ eyes, do not, I pray, pass by, without calling ‘upon thy servant.” That the three person- ages, who thus appeared to Abraham, sustained only the character of angels, is evident, as well from the consideration of the story, as from the circumstance of two of the angels having come down to Sodom, in the evening ; which fully im- plies, that the other one, from whom they had parted company, was also an angel; and had been left behind, in conversation with the patri- arch. But whilst I agree with the generality of the Jewish divines, in supposing the visitors to be allangels; I wholly differ from them, in the reason * Gen, c. xvi Vv. 1—3. 120 A TRINITY OF PERSONS to be assigned for this manifestation of Jehovah, in a trinity of persons. To account for their plurality, they lay down the position, That no individual angel is ever charged'with a multiplicity of legations at once; which, though not to be contradicted, will be insufficient to account for the number, on the present occasion. For not to mention, that R. Solomon* assigns to the first of them the annunciation of the birth of Isaac, to the second the curation of Abraham, and to the third the destruction of Sodom ; whereas the Jerusalem Targumist+ assigns to the first the annunciation of the birth of Isaac, to the second the deliverance of Lot, and to the third the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; not to mention, I say, the discrepancy of expositors. in allotting to each of the angels his own proper mission ; how happened it, that they all met together at the door of the tent; that they all dined with the patriarch, and all inquired for Sarah ; that they all set off together for Sodom, in company with Abraham; that both of the angels, who arrived in the city that evening, tarried with Lot, put forth their hands, and rescued him from the fury of the Sodomites ; that both declared themselves sent to destroy the town ; that both took hold of Lot and his family, and * Com. in loc. + Ibidem. IN THE GODHEAD. eee | placed them beyond the reach of danger ; finally, how happened it, that the angel with whom the patriarch conversed alone, should manifest his intention of going to ascertain in person, whether the impiety of the Sodomites were altogether as gross, as had been previously represented; if each of these angels was invested with a separate mission ? ‘T’o this the commentator, who contents himself with applying the forementioned position to the case; can furnish no answer: nor is it in the power of man to invent a solution of the text, less liable to exception, than that which is here proposed, in defence of the present argument. R. Abraham ben Ezra,* indeed, though he does not assent to the notion itself; yet candidly con- fesses, that some, alluding no doubt to the Cabba- lists, inferred, from this very passage, a trinity of divine persons subsisting in the godhead, NYP M37 PTI NIN IAN NIT WIN DOWD ON ‘‘ Behold some say, that Jehovah is three per- “sons; that he is both one and three, and these ‘© undivided.” | | The invocation of the Seraphic host, is another scriptural intimation of this complexion. "P) +. MINA AWD wp wp wtp rox ar box mp YTD PANT 9D N70 « And this called to that, “and said; Holy, Holy, Holy, is Jehovah of * Com. in loc. + Isaiah, c. vi. v. 3, 122 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “ hosts: all the earth is full of his glory.” The manifest embarrassment under which Jonathan, * R. Solomon Jarchi,+ R. Judah Levita,t and R. David Kimchi,§ labour, in severally attempt- ing to explain this triplication of holiness; fully ‘convinces me, that it is to be regarded in no other licht, than as a development of the sacred triunity. It'is absurd to contend with any of those authors, either that it is an allusion to the three worlds; or that it is the mutual cheer, and joint acclamation of all the Seraphs; or that it is an hyperbolical way of predicating holiness of God: as none of these elucidatory principles will account for the number being employed on other occasions; nor, indeed, on this, if the propriety of their application be strictly investigated. The belief of three worlds, though generally received in the Jewish church; is not so plainly revealed in the sacred writings, as to be taken, in all cases, for a certain and infallible truth. But even admitting it as an axiom, the pertinence and utility of manifesting to the prophet a trinity of worlds, by thrice predi- cating, holy, of God; remain to be explained. That it originated from the mutual emulation, and provocation of the Seraphic host, to extol the majesty and sanctity of Jehovah; isa supposition, * Isaiah, c. vi. V. 3. + Com. in loc. , + Sepher Cosri, Mem. iv. p. 263. § Com. in loc. IN°- THE GODHEAD: 123 which, however highly to be applauded in other respects, does not account forthe bare triplication of the predicate, holy ; whether we contend with R. Solomon for the conjoint acclamation of all the Seraphs, or with R. David for the mutual cohortation of each of them singly. Nor will the difficulty vanish on adopting the exposition of R. Judah, that the superior sanctity of Jehovah can be denoted, and expressed, only by an excess of repetition: for in that case, the Seraphs would have said, holy, oftener than thrice; and the prophet must have prevaricated in recording a definite for an indefinite number of times. The plain, however, and literal acceptation of the text must needs be; that each of the Seraphim, what- ever might be the exact number of their chorus. or of their several and distinct repetitions, re- hearsed in full what is thus recorded of them, Holy, Holy, Holy, without any pausation or interruption of the speech. So says:R. Abraham ben Ezra.* TON WON jaw DVD wow ‘wtp: “© Holy, “« three times ; for thus they say constantly.” To this may be added, that in the ninety-ninth Psalm, the sacred poet coincides with the Seraphs in pre- dicating, holy, of God, a trinity of times; and I call upon any man to shew the futility of that reasoning, which makes the triplication, in both * Com. in loc. 124 A TRINITY OF PERSONS places, ‘significant of the persons in the godhead, rather than of any other thing, that can possibly be suggested. The last, though by no means the weakest proof, that I shall bring forward of this sort; is the sacerdotal benediction. :J22UM AW JOID* Po PI MVP Rw TMM PIS Pa MTD IN . Dw 47 ow “ Jehovah bless thee, and keep « thee. Jehovah make his face shine on thee, ‘cand’ grant thee grace. | Jehovah lift up his «* countenance upon thee, and afford thee peace.” In this divinely prescribed form of blessing, what cannot but fix the attention, and stir up the curi- osity of every reader; is the triplication of the name, Jehovah, the most sacred appellation of God; without any apparent necessity of con- struction, or beauty of emphasis. The circum- stance, indeed, is so singularly striking, that it must have been observed by the Jewish critic: but whether from inability to state the true reason, or from a desire to refrain from saying any thing, which might seem to militate against the vulgar opinion ; all the commentators, that I have had an opportunity of consulting, are silent on the subject. R. Isaac Abarbinel,* it is true, has taken notice of the circumstance, and has premised his remarks on the whole of the benediction, in such * Com. in loc. IN THE GODHEAD. | 125 a manner, as to afford some hope that we should have it explained; but in this we are miserably disappointed : for, instead of relieving us from every doubt and uncertainty on the question, he has actually omitted its elucidation altogether ; which, in a writer of such stupendous learning: and ingenuity, is matter of astonishment accom- panied with suspicion. For, if there had been nothing extraordinary in it, to collect a few similar phraseologies, and to manifest to the reader the folly of his admiration; could never have been difficult for the pen of Abarbinel. But, if it be really a singular circumstance in the form of the benediction, and has no parallel but what is. equaily involved in mystery and obscurity ; let the embarrassment of the literal expositor be candidly acknowledged, and some higher mode of inter- pretation called in ; which may at once afford a rational solution of the text, and inculcate a doc- trine not unworthy of inspiration. The Cabba- list, 1 am persuaded, will perceive the necessity of expounding this,,as well as the other symbolical passages of the inspired penmen, here alleged ; with a reference to the superior Numerations of the godhead, which are thus most eminently and wonderfully displayed. ‘The whole of the exam- ples, indeed, to say the least we can of them, are fair intimations of a trinity of persons subsisting 126 A TRINITY OF PERSONS in the divine nature ; and, if we do but consider the urgent necessity there was, in the first ages of the world, to prevent mankind from dilapsing into a state of idolatry, and gross polytheism ; are as explicit declarations, perhaps, of the trinitarian hypothesis, as could well have been given. Eee CHAPTER VIII. - In proceeding to the discussion of an argu- ment, which is expressly deduced from what is called the mystery of the Metatron, it may not be improper to premise, that by the term, mystery, I do not mean any thing elevated above the grasp of human intellect, or that cannot be ren- dered comprehensible to the bulk of mankind; but a divine and important doctrine, which, from the abstruseness and religious scrupulosity with which it has hitherto been handed down in the Jewish church, is in a manner concealed from vulgar minds, and which, like many other theo- logical notions, requires to be metaphysically weighed before its nature and value can be duly appreciated. ‘I'he doctrine is simply this; That, in the writings of Moses and the prophets, there occurs frequent mention of a divine legate; whom the Jewish divines, from the godlike manner in . IN THE GODHEAD, 127 which he is every where designated in the sacred oracles, have been led to call, the Metatron; the great angel, the guardian or redeemer of Israel, the Almighty, nay, Jehovah also; as will even- tually appear from the testimonies to be produced. That this Metatron is a divine subsistency, and in essence and quality wholly corresponds with what we Christians understand by the second per- sonality of the godhead, is the sum of the present argument; and, therefore, without urging any further preliminary remark, I proceed to lay before the reader that evidence and authority, on which it is recommended to his favour and acceptance. The earliest mention of the angel, Metatron, by name, is in the Gemara; where R. Idith, by a reference to this personage, is applauded for the ingenuity with which he made answer to the follower of Sadok.* jNO ONT JOM] 37 OS soos ated mp agp opyy9 Ne pst O81 PND eps 299 /pyty $7 WON IA? vd wr es MO war oN Toy TON TOY TOR wD SN AIPA Vw 03 DNDT A Bw) yorw MOOD JATIN 8 1a Wan IS IND A? 1M2H2 37 wT ano Sus 09 in? paywa? Nw 8? JON yOx TONY DDT Nap 87 12 NPINIDI Pa 29 DDN TIO PS OX « R. Nachman said ; * Sanhedrin, perek 4. 128 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “¢ whosoever has the knowledge to answer a Sadu- “cean, in the manner of R. Idith; let him “answer him; if not, let him hold his tongue. <¢ he Saducean said to R. Idith: It is written ; “ And he said unto Moses, Come up unto Jeho- «“ vah. The expression should have been come “ up unto me. He replied: This is the Metatron, «¢ whose name is as the name of his master ; ac- “cording to the scripture: For my name is in ‘him. If so, let us worship him. But it is ‘¢ written: Make no change in him: change not ‘me in him. If so, what am I to understand ‘“‘ by the words ; He will not forgive your trans- “ ression? The other replied: Such is our faith ; ‘¢as we did not even receive him, in the quality ‘ of a substitute; according to what is written: ‘“ And he said, except thy presence go with “ys, &c.” In this important passage, there is such dignified mention made of the angel, Me- tatron; that I am surprised it has not been adequately noticed by those, whose pens have been employed in commenting on the Talmud. Fortunately, the defect of which I complain, is opportunely supplied by R. Moses Gerundensis.* TION joa Po wa ON Toy Rw TD7N 73K swo oxy api9D 1 DwD Tow wud AT mw Sx ON pus monn 7277 Dw IS * Com. Ex. Cc. XXiv. v- 1. IN THE GODHEAD. 4129 28 Fy OVO ‘A OWA NS prw www ox mdy 3 FIM 2795 WNoaN ow aw NII ops IN RDN Nad ow ww PNaAND nwo AID PRIM DISA ND 89D Iny~oA own N22 DAW. ow'™ answ mn. 45D MAN Ow on3ND NDIA AD PIP IW FDA PII NT WAI MaTw xox nox omar on mm 2eIw7 8100 pod M5 Nd “px aa Dow non 392 PIT Zax ADMIT Sytan MVD Py MANNS PAN paws Jott Ido by M273p ND Np INaNTD ON Jad) aI mow 2ap xo oxy oSdn PID PN ON Dnt 22) DDT NO Mw PD 723) T9D37 own wnba “But 3 NT Naa DPD0NA Ww pA “in the Talmud it is asked, why the words are ‘“ not, Come up unto me; and it is there replied, ‘ that this is the Metatron ; whose name is as the “name of. his master, that is; the Jehovah, “mentioned in the beginning of the narrative, “said unto Moses; Come up unto the Metatron, ‘“ who, like the name of myself, is called Jehovah: “the meaning of which is; Do thou ascend “unto the glorious place, where is the creat ‘angel; the intention being, that Moses should ‘‘ come unto the midst of the cloud, where was “the glory of Jehovah; but not that he should “ come unto Jehovah, personally so called; For ‘no man shall see me, and live. Nor was the R 130 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ¢¢ meaning of our Fathers at all agreeing with what R. Solomon Jarchi has written above. In Massecheth Sanhedrin, too, the learned Rabbi has perverted the matter. Their mean- ing, with respect to the name, I have already considered; nor is there any thing in all that they have said, which 1s not true: but what they affirm in this part of the Talmud, is inve- loped in obscurity ; for R. Idith did not reveal to the heretic, that interrogated him, the nature and mystery of the great Metatron ; by no means. But he told him, that this scripture Is spoken of the angel, the director of the way, in this inferior world ; and, therefore, his words to him are: For we did not receive him even in the quality of a substitute ; as it is written : Except thy presence go ; for we did not receive the legate without the elorious name. ‘The mystery of the presence, together with the © whole matter, I have already expounded clearly and plainly to those, who have any under- standing of the subject, in the giving of the law.” That the learned commentator has here viven the genuine sense of the Talmud, is most unquestionably true; and if no other authority could have been produced, it would have been an invaluable testimony in support of the present argument. IN THE GODHEAD. 131 In mysticising the Mosaic precept of not taking the mother, whilst sitting on her nest, either with eggs or young; the author of Tykune Sohar developes much of the cabbalistic doctrine. Under each of the terms contained in the text, that is to say, bird, nest, eggs, young, and so forth, he supposes something divine to be understood ; adducing at the same time confirmation as well from the Talmudic traditions, as from scriptural passages of a similar complexion. In unfolding the cabbalistic sense of that bird; he introduces from the Talmud a story of Rabba bar bar Channa; who, whilst he was sailing in a vessel, saw the very bird itself up to the legs in the sea; and accommodating that allegory to the case in hand, determines the bird, as will appear from the subjoined extract, to have been the Metatron.* [DS VERT APY PTRDD 707 O ‘NNT wOAD) Dw PD WANS Moy pI wx pot bint poy mw oD wept ap pA mx py STiay Iya nmap sn Son wy wr oun NON OD m9) OVO Oy Y DP PST SMWYOS ‘¢ But the lower throne is the salt sea, the 3; T7N “throne of judgment. The fowl, that is, its ‘bird, is the Metatron; of which it is said in “ scripture: For a bird of heaven shall convey ‘‘ the voice ; the voice of the lesson, Hear, O Israel, * Tykune Sohar, p. 2, eol. 2. 132 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “during the whole of the six holidays. It rules ‘over them, and takes up the voice, and flies “ with it unto the Central Column ; which is the “ voice of Jehovah upon the waters, and the ‘‘ waters are nothing but the law.” In this testi- mony, there is evidently ascribed to the Metatron a divine nature ; as well as the angelic function of transporting to heaven, on the most solemn festi- vals, the rehearsal of the Shema. The like title is expressly given to it by the same Cabbalist, in another part of this work.* DIN2 Mid dD DIN no wp wi 72 NT son) Ia DIN NT OTN Oy Tons 85 Fan NOodY MANN pd Spo INOD VENT DIN IST Nw TPT NIWDD VST TPNT ADP T RIPYTIA OTS MN) WOLD XT Say ae ho ed NP INT NP TY NTUTIMPSS soy NOM PO NT TNND) NMDSN NOW DWN 96 Sb ote on Sy pps tan ni saad xo ya wT s2s 10 95109 RIT Aap + MTD OY NDOD AMY T UPN ONTT Tw oY 4" ‘¢ Man, when he shall die in the tent. This is ‘“ the man of Belial; and from the side of this man ‘< was the predicate, dead, originally denominated ‘S even before the world was created ; but it is not ‘S affirmed of the man, who is from the side of ‘‘ holiness. For there isa man, that isan angel ; ‘and this is the Metatron. And there is a man in * Tykune Sohar, Tyk. 67, p. 101. IN THE GODHEAD. 133 ‘the. Image of God, who is an emanation from “him; and this is Jehovah, of whom can be ‘‘ affirmed neither creation, nor formation, nor ‘fabrication, but only emanation; and, in this ‘place, there is neither sin, nor death; and “hither also, is to be referred the scripture, ‘¢ Neither shall evil dwell with thee. But the ‘ man of Belial God commanded not to eat of “the tree of good and evil, nor to associate ‘‘ himself with good; for that would be to act the ‘part of him, who mixes sterling with dirt.” Let it not be supposed, however, that because he calls the Metatron, an angel; he really regards him as such, in the ordinary acceptation of that term. So far from this, he declares him to be above all angels, whatever; and every thing besides, which ranks in the creation.* VYWS 13 NIP Tap PO KIT WIwoD NT OPIN NA DIN UPS ST NON) ow Nay 799 muen NOVIT NIPMT NIPYTI PI Ty Maps wpa “In the beginning created he 3 SDD wW NA ‘“ Elohim. This is the Metatron, whom God ‘created the first, and the origin, of all the host ‘* of heaven and earth ; and this is that man, the ‘‘ less, whom God made in an image and figure ; ‘< that was celestial, without the mixture of evil.” So again: + OM) DP2N ND DPX NIA MwHNID * Tykune Sohar, Tyk. 67, p. 101. + Tyk.68, p. 102. 134 A TRINITY OF PERSONS NOD DYNA yy TITAS Wow? natn ann > NOP NT NWN ND WT OPINT poprt o> pinws ma) ver? NT JAIN noxnw> NOW TAINS 72 879 87 OT 827 soo NoONowid JAINN TD) wT NDS NTS 370? NIN JAAN 73) ANT NDS YN VRIND JAANS 7D) 7w29 JAIN DIS WITS NIpVT Wd DIN? JAINN NIVSONA VST 79302 ma ypinnsx mb a" ma ynanws x07 sows SIPYTM pmow IT ppyT xXvasooT ppv 22) syoua SoD NIT NIN) NOW TANNT ID 737 SYDID) 815107 NADI SPD) Nwaw) RVINI “In the beginning : D272) Y'2) DDN ‘“‘ created he Elohim. What is Elohim? The ‘‘ flame of the sword, which turneth itself to ‘‘ guard the way of the tree of life; the rod of ‘‘ God, no doubt. But this isthe Metatron ; and “ behold, we maintain concerning him, that he “‘ turns himself from judgment to mercy; and in ‘‘ him are varied all the images, which are different ‘¢ from each other. When he turns himself from “the right hand to the left he has the face of “an ox; but when he turns himself from the ‘“‘ left hand to the right, he has the face of a ‘¢ lion. When he turns himself from both of them, ‘“‘ towards the West, he converts his face, and ‘‘ changes himself to an eagle; but when he ‘turns himself from both of them, towards the IN THE GODHEAD. 135 “ East, which is in the middle, he changes himself “to aman. ‘There is no image in the world, “which is not expressed in him. In him are “seen the twelve signs, and all'the images of the angels, and the images of souls, and the images of all things, that have been created, in heaven and in earth. He is every thing in the heavens, the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, the signs, the thrones, the angels, the garden of ‘* Kden, and Hell.” ‘There are, indeed, in thfs book of Tykune Sohar, more indications of the Metatron than in any one work besides; but from its being constantly spoken of as a sub- sistency already known, it is no easy matter to detach from the context any particular mention of it, without adducing at the same time some other mysteries ; which to those, who are unac- quainted with the language of the Cabbalists, must appear highly obscure. I shall cite and illustrate, however, one or two more examples ; and first, where the clearest evidence shines forth of its being an emanation immediately from the eodhead.* ‘17911 Ww ID PROP Wp 34 moa mxoy xnrsw xmw yon) TaD NDDo WWD MP OD oY ToD ST pa Nas IND NWT IPSS UPN TDW TPR ST =v. IVURT NMOL TOND Mowe wan xn * Tyk. 69, p. 107. (14 €¢ 66 ce ¢¢ 136 A TRINITY OF PERSONS Nans xox moys mosa xin moow wan mm DPS PRI |DIND JNID) NOD pay ny p73 Mnx 1229 pala pmbyst an ppyot Iw “ For so have : NNN) ANI NNW 7'3p7 ‘ our Fathers laid it down, that all the souls are “ cut out from under the Throne of Glory ; and ‘there resides the upper Habitation. But there ‘ig no He without Jod, that is to say, the Habi- “tation, which is denoted by the letter, He, is ‘ inseparable from the whole of the godhead, de- “ noted by the Jod; and, therefore, since the ‘‘ hand is on the throne of Jah, it resides, that 1s, “the Habitation, resides, in the Metatron ; which ‘is an intelligent spirit, and an emanation of “ Jehovah. It resides too in the wheel which is ‘an intelligent soul by way of emanation. For “there are mind, spirit, and soul intelligent, not ““ by way of emanation ; but cut out, as is affirmed ‘Sof them. Now these three, the throne, the angel, and the wheel, that is to say, the Throne “of Glory, the Metatron, and the lower Habi- “ tation, are the justifiers of Israel; for by their ‘means the incense of prayers ascends to the “ letters of the Holy One, blessed be he, together “ with the upper, and lower Habitation.” In another place, in order to demonstrate the excel- lency, of the cabbalistic doctrine above that of the Mishna, he compares the former to the upper " IN THE GODHEAD. 137 Habitation, that is, to the deity itself; but the latter to the Metatron : and from that he isled on to draw other comparisons, all, as it should seem, to the disparagement of the Metatron ; which, finally, he makes to stand in the same relation to the upper Habitation, that a maid does to her mistress. The emanatory world being always the subject matter of the Cabbala, he proceeds to observe, that men do not investigate the ope- rations of it in unity, except with the letters, Jod, He, Vau; that is to say, men do not predicate of one individual being the various operations of the spiritual world, unless that be associated with the letters of the name, Jehovah; which having been pronounced by Moses to be one in essence, but not in subsistency, may have any act, whatever, that takes place in the intellectual world, affirmed of it, though it should be achieved by angels; for Jehovah includes always both God and his angels, Thus much being premised, the following testi- mony, in reference to the Metatron, will be some- what intelligible: * pwoyt non poxa ons Tamms Nd non pox gba) prepa sas yn TA Soy ADP IMRT ORM pS gt po Mnpow 853 wy. Sand ps 15) mMrpowa YM NOW INN YOON TON NT pPID M2 unwy Yaw 9212 IVAN OS IOS ST PII Ww NMw ony | * Tyk. 28, p74. S 138 A TRINITY OF PERSONS sep to topo ww is oO T PAs 17p3 ab swy Nod ONT Ips M7y2 yoo snDpaw spyt mp) poy Aa py Tenws sot MINN “ Certainly, with these three letters + SINUS “ they investigate the intellectual world in unity ‘of number; but without these three it has no “ ynity: and this is that mystery, that the Holy “¢ One, blessed be he, when above, is one with ‘¢ his Habitation ; but when below with the Me- “ tatron, without his Habitation, be is changed in ‘him. For this reason, says Elisha, there 1s « even another name ; how much more probable ‘«¢ig it, that there are two different authorities ¢ ‘Hence saith the scripture, change not mein “him; for my name 1s in him: because the “ Metatron is second to the King; and, when ‘¢the Habitation is without her husband, this “angel is called her Mishna, and she is changed ; “ for the powers are not recognized in her, nor ‘¢ what belongs to her as a consort.’? From these passages out of Tykune Sohar it is fully apparent that the Cabbalists regarded the Metatron as an emanation from the vodhead; and that in consi- deration of his personally supplying the place of the Supreme Being, in the direction of sublunary affairs, they esteem aud mention him, as an angelic subsistency. But the remarks which R. Moses Gerundensis IN THE GODHEAD. 139 has made, in reference to this illustrious personage, are particularly deserving of our notice and atten- tion. The Jehovah, or angel Jehovah, that ap- peared to Moses in the bush, he evidently explains of the Metatron; and though the language of the author in this place is uniformly the same with what he holds forth on every subsequent occasion, I shall not hesitate to accumulate testimony upon testimony, in order that the reader may be satisfied, what was the real and fixed opinion of R. Moses Gerundensis on the doctrine of the Metatron.* Monn ans ‘ax we nada pox 7 Nop sm MINT? WD °D ‘A ASPT IOS }D IND Rd DTN D OFAN 9 ION 199) ods PON Spy DPS YN 0D wD DN NINN NIA INDI 727) PAX OR oN ow ovo Ox oD 72 Awa. pops inow pwba mown SMa JNO yo MA MS no Nd AN ‘DY 034 PND TT TRIO ADT CwRIDD oR my “IDIN PTIMS ON pow ope a2 TANNA RIT DY ANTI ONDYOW DIP SD ID eNIpA ADI DX AN Aomnaw ‘oo wan syswn aD 12 TDF ANN? NTA Iw Daz ow oxo MINI? IVA PD AwSD ANIA NYT PDT Nd DOS POX SIP AY wm ANID pox mbans ST AN nas 7 Bn mot TN “ANW SVT AIPA yaw 2 Toxw Osun qydpn * Com. Ex. ili. 2. 140 A TRINITY OF. PERSONS ovo Pos SOP IONI 11 ON MD INTIS apy) 1) Sw nina qxbo NT 7d3 NIP? 78 qo moun tina m™ynD A NSP an S55 DUNT PID INOD) AND ND UNS) 75 nip 13) 7g NaI Ma Sw qNoD Sw Ta 2 Os 8) DINADI 12 TO8w NWT) “DH S¥On DNN Iw MIT TN7D) wpa ONS ‘And the angel of the Lord appeared to 28a “him, ina flame of fire. The scripture says at “ the first, And the angel of the Lord appeared : ‘but afterwards it says, And the Lord saw that “he turned aside to look, and God called to him. “ Hence R. Abraham asserts, that the God here ‘is the angel before mentioned: being used, as ‘in the text, For I have seen God face to face; “and, that the sense of the passage, I am the “God of thy father, is to be explained on the ‘principle, that the person, charged with the ‘“‘lewation, expresses himself in the character of ‘“ the person that has sent him. But this expo- “< sition is by no means probable ; as Moses, “being so mighty a prophet, would never have « concealed his face at the sight of an angel. In ‘© Bereshith Rabba, our Fathers affirm this angel to be Michael. Rabbi Jose, the Long, say “ they, wherever they might happen to see, they “called out, There is Rabbenu Hakkadosh ; so ‘¢ wherever Michael was seen,’ there also was the IN THE GODHEAD. 141 “glory of the Habitation, Their meaning is, ‘that at the first Michael appeared to him, and there too, was the glory of the Habitation ; but he did not perceive the glory, because he had not formed his mind to prophecy; but ‘when he had disposed his heart, and turned ‘“ aside to look, then was revealed to him a sight ‘““ of the Habitation, and God called to him’ from “the midst of the bush. Nothing, indeed, can be more true, than that the angel, here men- tioned, was the redeeming angel; of whom it is said, For my name is in him: the same who ‘said unto Jacob, I am the God of Bethel; and “of whom it is here said, And God called unto “him. ‘The reason why the term, angel, is ap- plied to him, is on account of his government “of the world. Thus it is written, And the ‘“ Lord caused us to go forth out of Egypt; ‘““ whilst it is equally written, And he sent. his “angel, and caused us to go forth out of “ Egypt. {tis said, moreover, And the angel of “his presence saved them, that is to say, the angel, who is the same with his presence ; as it “is written, My presence shall go, and I will ‘“ cause thee to have rest. The same is he of whom ‘it is said; But God shall suddenly come to his ‘‘ temple, the Lord whom ye seek, and the angel ‘“ of the covenant in whom ye delight, for certain 142 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ‘‘ will come.” The angel, here described, is not expressly denominated the Metatron ; but that he and no other, is to be understood, will appear manifest from the observations of the author on that celebrated text, Behold I send the angel before thee to guard thee in the way.* 777 oy’ TOOT NT NDI 12 VAM ANT NT NNN a8 2D Ip. Aw Dw ws ONUN sat 1p x ma Oxm ony oxy sim pny say NdD DNDN spy val paw? Tan IMA WA AW. ANN Dawa nam 72 nv 92D) 7770 77107 OW NIT WYP NID OS “ Jn truth, this :4y05 98 NIT] ot nwa ‘“‘ angel, in whom they are here made to confide, “is the angel of redemption; in the midst of ‘whom is the great name, Jehovah; for in Jah “¢ Jehovah is a rock of ages. The same is he ‘‘ who said, lam the God of Bethel; because it ‘is the custom of a king to dwell in his palace. ‘“¢ The scripture styles him an angel, by reason of “the whole government of this world being “ placed in that predicament, that is to say, in the “¢ ministration of angels. Moreover, our Fathers _“ affirm, that he is the Metatron; a name signi- “< fying the director of the road, and which I have “‘ already expounded in the section, Go in unto “ Pharaoh.” The exposition, to which he * Com, Ex. xxiii. 20. IN THE GODHEAD. 143 alludes, is as follows.* "WYN 79ND 8 Son owpon>oo-cmoinse mown mown vy xrywoau yw jd NIVIpIT TI N77 NIT PISA AYN MAD] ‘ONw WD TIT AN M7" D yas $a nxt awd prwws mwy2 Map Ww moww ovoa sa poa pow wto'pas Nou 3S piad nnombn aN ow Typ? pIwwA 38 Iw monn ox) Tow wD uN 77 MDIN wana a> Say ptN oe? Tove Mwy) ny DIP) NY IN MW D7 TON YI] IN ONY Wy pay RY oy Nom oNaw pray AIT Np? Py) pwyamow 3s nyow 151 D7 wpal ‘ And on all the gods of Egypt will I inflict judg- ‘ments; but not by the hand of the legate, to “be sent from the Lord for the achievement of ‘‘ all the exploits, to be wrought in the land; and ‘‘ who is the great angel, called for that reason ‘the Metatron; the import of the term being, ‘ the director of the road; as it is said in Stphre, “ The finger of God became a Metatron to Moses, ‘‘ and shewed him all the land of Israel. So also ‘in Yelammedenu, on the words, And Balak ‘‘ heard that Balaam had come; the gloss is, that “he had sent a Metatron betore him. So again, “in the same page; Behold I begin to move ‘‘ before thee: if thou turnest thyself, Lam thy “¢ Metatron ; nor wonder at this, for behold I shall * Com. Ex. xii. 12. 144 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ‘‘ do the office of a Metator before a man, not “circumcised, even before Cyrus, as it is said in “ scripture; I will march before thee: before a “¢ woman, too, shall I have to march, even before ‘Deborah and Barak, as it is said in scripture ; “Did not Jehovah proceed before thee? So also ‘(in many other places. I have heard, too, that “in the Greek language the word, Metator, sig- “« nifies a legate.’ These passages produced by the author, though he is doubtless in an error with respect to the Greek language, do plainly testify, that with the ancient Jewish Fathers. the term Metatron, was taken in the sense of a pre- cursor, or a guide of the road; and that the great angel was so denominated by them, on account of the commission which he had given him to conduct the Israelites into the land of Canaan. This, I think, we ought to regard as the proper signification of the appellative, Meta- tron; but as we have to decide on the quality of ihe personage, to whom the Fathers gave this name, and not on the etymology of the name itself, it is wholly a matter of indifference to us, from what source it may be derived, or. what may be its acceptation in the original dialect. That the Jewish divines, owing to their incom- petency in the learned languages, are by no means consistent. on this point; we have a sin- IN THE GODHEAD. 145 gular proof in the case of R. Levi ben Gersom; whose testimony of the Metatron I shall next pro- duce, not for the purpose of arguing a different etymology, but for the sake of shewing the trans- cendent honor and dignity, which he expressly ascribes to this divine subsistency.* NP M7 NUT ONT) JP Pax sym Non pox. ay vw ANT Tw omyyosa ws Synan Sawn 73pw ND vw ox ma mapa by wom DYoI YY MoOwA BNaT rw oD nn WISP D7 AN? wos mow mwa MoK “ Behold he 39277 pwoa oN NNW PIwWHD OF ‘* calls Jehovah, father: according to the scrip- “* ture: Is not thy possessor thy father? But the ‘** mother is the intellectual agent; through the “medium of which prophecy comes to us. He ‘““ assimilates it, in reference to Jehovah, to a ‘“‘ female; as it is that which receives virtue from “him; and Jehovah it is that effectuates the “ perfections of it; according to the meaning of ‘ the text: With the crown wherewith his mother “crowned him. For this cause, our Fathers of ‘“ blessed memory have denominated it the Me- ‘“tatron, the same with mater, or mother, in the “Latin tongue.” It may be permitted me, perhaps, to observe, without any disparagement to the fame of this learned commentator, that * Com. Proy, i. 8. T 146 A TRINITY OF PERSONS in applying the term, mother, to the Metatron, and in making it the author of prophecy, he has deviated from the conduct of other theologists ; and especially of the Cabbalists, who often, indeed, speak of the Habitation, as the celestial mother ; but néver once, I think, of the Metatron: though in doing this, as will hereafter be more clearly developed.in the subsequent chapters, he has only ascribed to one divine person what, with more propriety, would have been ascribed to another; a species of blame, which writers of the Christian, as well as of the Jewish church, have frequently incurred. | To the preceding authorities I must add that of Abarbinel; whose sentiments on the origin and quality of this illustrious being will be re- garded with interest.* “WS STI Noon rain nya opm 2392 92w 12 ADIT AN St naqto2 xON aT nT Pw Sanwa pom 52 n2’pm open opnyw aye pen Jw MAW) PIs OS DNA WII. Pw sa min nyt one owl AM wnt OYA NT SWI'ST DS TTT a sa Dany oma 555 pam ba mae Nw? Swans O ONIND Daw WOS Wa nw DO Sean qs9on op Sxqw. nave ann 1.707 DS mn NON Nw WW IM nsw aml Nis * Com. Ex. xxiii. 20. IN THE GODHEAD. 147 DIO IW OX AIMIAN WD DN Pao ty pws Dyn pn Oxeed mbowr eoosw ond POW DT ows \ewy miadoa Anws awry DION INW oI pIDX DoD Dwr oma T¥YD ON) 09 Ova oN Db pe ONI7I7 PAN DD8207 Nw ABAD Aa DTMTIN Nywi pays yay p> omnia PNW? MwA TNT DION NODA Ayo DY Pw iD pd) wD 2? MY AN» Sy oom MAN ADD PNM OANA win onD Im bs MMONwT Swe wan piy> tow ays ‘nnbysn Dw Nw yW> Myon oypo naa ay spain “A7TIVOF AS Iw DAW DD NYAnwA AS wed M23 FD Wen aA mM ow Typ swe bx dy Pw AD D> DIY Yswd MAIO Iho JW SAN por en yd) ny.) Ns AD Wa IO NIA nosNs mw doyw nwesas “ But, behold with respect to the ¢: M“DDws “angel here mentioned, the design was, that, as * he was an abstract intelligency, he shoald ““ govern them according to his own opinion and ‘‘ free choice; not that he should be considered ‘“‘ in the light of an instrument, but as a ruling “agent, who, in the place of God, should govern “and direct them, during the whole of the time ‘that they might be marching in the desart, til] “they should arrive at the habitable country, ‘“‘ which the Lord had in view for them. The 145 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “ objections as before stated to this opinion will “admit of a solution in the following manner. ce 6¢ First, as to the people being chosen, and yet during the period of his government only on an equality with the rest of the nations, with- out any superiority whatever; I would reply, that even during their abode in the desart the condition of Israel with the angel, their re- deemer, was accompanied with a degree of ex- cellency and power far beyond other nations, as well with respect to the governor, as with respect to the government: with respect to the governor ; for the angel, that was sent to Israel; is the primary effect or emanation from the godhead, sitting the first in the kingdom, having his name the same with that of his mas- ter, and diffusing his energy in a manner supe- rior to all the princes; whereas the governors of other nations are but secondary effects or emana- ‘tions, deriving their energy from him: so also with respect to the government ; for the govern- ment, of the othér angels over their several nations is according to the nature of the climate and the hours of their nativities, from the dis- “position of the heavens; whereas the angel, “sent to Israel, governs them according to the “© Law which Moses commanded us ; and in pro- “ portion as every man conforms to the statutes i ieee IN THE GODHEAD. 149 ‘‘ and Laws of God, so shall he prosper, though “it be contrary to the laws of nature, or the: disposition of the heavens; the tendency of his “ government being to establish the precepts, in “the same degree that the tendency of the ‘““ government of the other princes is with the ‘“ disposition of the heavens; for as they con- ‘‘ vert those, whom they govern, whithersoever “the spirit of the constellation and the planets ‘“‘ direct, so doth the angel, that rules Israel, “govern them in such a manner, that they may “fulfil the law and its precepts; and for that ‘reason it is, that this angel is the primary ‘‘ effect, in order that he may be able, by the ‘““ wisdom of his creator, to change the order of ‘the planetary system.” Though the angel here described, is no where in the whole of this quotation expressly called the Metatron ; yet he is so styled in the subsequent pages : but if even that had not been the case, it would have been a matter of no importance ; as the question is not about the name, but the person ; and that this is the same with the Metatron of the Talmudists, there can be no doubt with those, who have any knowledge of the subject. Finally, R. Elias Levita corroborates. by his authority, what has thus been advanced.* JWOD * Tishbi, p. 195. * an 150 A TRINITY OF PERSONS DOM ANNI WoO Nw ONOIN Oa Ww woww IPA wow DN Poy moyM TDN 1D WRU) UW MINTDOOID Wwe 137 Cows mow yp pwra own xD wD9N Otapma ‘“‘ The Metatron the prince ofthe : NID AN ‘‘ divine presence. ‘The Fathers assert, that it ‘is the angel, who always beholds the face of the ‘king of heaven; and of whom it is said in “ scripture: For my name is in him; as his name ‘ig the same with that of his master, Metatron “‘ being, in gematry, Shaddai, the Almighty. If ‘have been told by a cardinal, who was a pupil ‘of mine, that in Greek metator signifies a “legate: and, perhaps, it isso.” ‘The reference to the Greek, I think, might have been omitted ; if not for the credit of the author himself, who evidently makes no pretensions to a knowledge of the language; at least for the honor of the cardi- nal, who ought to have known better, than to make any such assertion. There is now before us, in support of what has been premised on the doctrine of the Metatron, such a collection of evidence as justly to warrant the conclusion; that in nothing is the Jewish church so uniform and consistent with herself, as in the belief, that the Metatron is a divine and eternal subsistency. For to assert, that he was created the first of all intelligences anterior to a IN THE GODHEAD. 151 the worlds, that his power and authority extend to every part of the universe, that he is the primary... emanation of the godhead, that his name is ~~ Jehovah and ‘Almighty, and that wherever he manifests his presence, the glory of the Habitation attends him; what is it but to maintain, that he is very god of very god, of the same light, essence, or substance, with the supreme being , from: whom he emanated, and coeternal with Rae for, if he subsisted. before the creation, of the world, he must have subsisted for ever ; there being no difference in metaphysics pee subsisting before the commencement of time, which is but an accident of the material world, and subsisting from eternity ? But admitting, that the angel, Metatron, is a personality of the godhead ; it may next be de- manded, how the trinitarian hypothesis can thus be established ; as we do not maintain the belief _of | one, or two; but of three. divine -subsistences, To this I reply, that with the Metatron there must of necessity be numbered the Jehovah him- self, whose name he bears; to which if we add the Habitation, of whom casual mention has been made in this chapter, we shall then havea trinity of personalities, all _equally. _partaking of one common essence; nor is it possible to think “otherwise, as the _godhead- Is purely bk ai li weal 152 A TRINITY OF PERSONS and these I shall demonstrate to be its primordial subsistences. That the Habitation is a divine personality, as well as the Metatron, might have been now proved at one and the same time; but as this will be more conveniently done in a subse- quent chapter, I for the present content myself with having set forth the doctrine of the Metatron; and advance to the prosecution of what comes next in order. 1 eae CHAPTER IX. It was, doubtless, the necessity of supposing the godhead to exist in a plurality of persons, that impelled the Cabbalists to invent the doctrine of the ten numerations, as they are commonly called ; and, with the school of Pythagoras, to look upon number, in a manner, as the essence of everv thing. The metaphysical subtlety, with which this doctrine has been laid down and maintained, excites the highest admiration. But as the plan of the present work requires no farther account of it, than as may immediately affect the truth of the general Proposition; I shall content myself with premising, that the doctrine of the ten numerations is founded, ina great measure, on the principles of arithmetic. In this art, by Os IN THE GODHEAD. 153 means of its ten figures or characters, the highest numbers are expressed without exceeding the ten; as ten units make a ten, ten tens a hundred, ten hundred a thousand, ten thousand a myriad, and sO on, agreeably to the principles of nume- ration, in which every ten, ascending, acquires a new denomination commencing with unity. So the ten numerations of the Cabbalists, like the ten figures of arithmetic, are supposed to comprize the divine nature, together with all thing's pertaining to it; and seem to imply, that every thing which subsists in the universe, is to be included in the being and attributes of God. Moreover, as in arithmetic the cypher, which is the foundation of all number, tells for nothing”, except in conjunction with the other figures ; so in the doctrine of the ten numerations, the Sy- preme Crown or Diadem, which is the first of them, and which by reason of its being used to denote the form of God considered in the abstract, is frequently called the Infinity, or the Nothing ; “cannot be reckoned separately by itself, but only in conjunction with the other numerations, to which it is the causation both of number and ex- istence. From the order and manner, however, in which we find them classed and distinguished ; a trinity of persons subsisting in the Godhead, is. plainly recognized. © The first numeration, as has U 154 A TRINITY OF PERSONS been already noticed, they style the Supreme Crown; being so called from the many resplendent | gems, supposed to be shining in it, and from which all other natures, however glorious or tran- scendent, derive their lustre: the second they term, Wisdom; and the third, Understanding ; each of which is invariably described as a spiri- tual and intellectual subsistency from eternity, and as preserving its own proper form in that of ihe godhead. The remaining seven are denominated, Mercy, Severity, Beauty, Victory, Glory, Stabi- lity, and Sovereignty ; and are termed the infe- rior numerations, being regarded as mere attri- butes which the higher numerations, Supreme Crown, Wisdom, and Understanding, possess in common with each other. This doctrine of the ten numerations is repeatedly inculcated in .the book of Creation, composed, as is vulgarly thought, by Abraham, the patriarch ; from which, as from a fountain, is derived all the learning, that has been displayed on the subject by modern Cabbalists. But in order that the account, which has been now given of them, may be properly attested; I shall set before the reader, as many authorities at least, as will render the matter, at once, clear and satisfactory. Only, for the better understanding of the passages to be recited, it may not be improper to admonish him, that the IN THE GODHEAD. 155 plural term, which has been thus far rendered, numerations ; is, by some authors, translated, lights, or splendors ; and commented on as such, in their development of the doctrine. Nor is it to be denied, that, as often as the deity is consi- dered under the notion of a resplendent substance, diffusing: itself from a point or center into so many ramifications or modes of light, as there are counted numerations ; the latter way of rendering the term by, lights, or, splendors, is rather to be preferred. The names of the inferior numerations vary somewhat in different authors; but, in general, they accord with what has been just premised of them, as the subjoined illustrations on the subject, from the author of Tykune Sohar, will abundantly: testify:* MINT DMP Pao ION wPoN ming 22 Oy ANY NA max yawNa gd In ws RD‘N Mawna m? pono ba Sy smn proy 12 MP) PNPM wy OPES max 455 472 NOT pono pooy naa xy PAD wy 32 AS DINN PAD pPanst pow ywdine FINT PAD 2 TA 2 DwpT gw naw Nws wy POND AN yO IN wat ND 5D NIbD PDS PPA WY poNr7a was oxo ed pwrins NIT DINAN WP IN TS I pa por NNN? NVR ND TD OMIT WOM DONT * Tykune Sohar, p. 13, Amst. ed, 156 A ‘TRINITY OF PERSONS yma wet pb npn punnd sw 920 8 INIpNNT po nypn pars) kw302? paws NT SPN pn popdy poses puna? xav MONDA NONOw RYVIIT ANI] NPD NII TON MIS NOUITNOYO TOM pPpyw Pqn WT MS2 Sai. xm moip ay'ay mn mp ma2D wp m3 Sy pap masa? spade maw ys 72.n “¢ Blijahu spoke :/™9 NIINDIT BND pan pox ‘‘and said; Master of the worlds, thou art one, ‘but not by calculation; thou art supreme above ‘all supremes, and mysterious above all mys- ‘‘ teries; there is no thought, which can at all “apprehend thee. Thou hast produced the ten “ constitutions, called by us the ten numerations, ‘‘ wherewith to govern as well those worlds which ‘are invisible, as those which are visible; and “ by which thou hast inveloped thyself from the ‘¢ children of men. Thou hast bound, and united ‘them together; and since thou existest in the ‘© midst, whosoever divideth the one from the ‘ other of those ten, is to be reputed the same ‘as though he had divided thee. ‘Those ten ‘© numerations move in their order; one long, ‘and: one short, and one betwixt the two. “ Thou governest them; but there is none that ‘“ voverneth thee, neither above, nor below, nor ‘Con any side whatever. Garments hast thou ‘ appointed for them, as from them issue the souls 0 EE IN THE GODHEAD. 157 ** unto the children of men; and numerous bodies “ hast thou appointed for them, as the garments, “‘ with which they cover themselves, are denomi- “nated body; and they are called, in this Tykun, “‘ Mercy, the right arm; Might, the left arm; ‘ Beauty, the body; Victory and Glory, the “two legs; Foundation, the sum or fulcrum of ‘ the body, the sign of the holy covenant; King- ‘‘dom, the mouth, the law which is called oral; ‘ Wisdom, the brain, that is, thought from out ‘of it; Understanding, the heart with under- “standing in it. But of these two last it is ‘“‘ written: The hidden things belong unto the “Lord.” So again, in another part of the’same work :* -YOWN) {NI IONS wpa A2’p mn? 7D TPNT OW) Dw DON wya oma Sp ns Pa wow AyD. AN Pumset dd an PST Ppa pam AN|an AN.) ION HST Iw SUMP aay MwIT no No’ Ta ny? IRIDWYOSTN TOY VENT INI TAIN YA? ‘* When the Lord descendeth, during the reading ‘‘ of the Shema; it is said of the living creatures, ‘* And I heard the voice of their wings, in‘ ten ‘“ species of psalms; in the song simple, which’ ‘is, Jod, that is, the Crown; in the song double, ‘‘ which is, Jod; He, that is, Wisdom and Under- ‘standing; in the song triple, by or with, Jod, * Ibidem, p..3. . | Tbs A TRINITY OF PERSONS ‘© He, Vau, that is, Mercy, Might, and Beauty ; ‘‘ in the song quadruple, with Jod, He, Vau, He, “that is, Victory, Glory, Foundation, and King- ‘© dom; which keep among them the holy bird, ‘Israel; and call Israel by it, that is, the central “ column.” This author is, indeed, replete with the doctrine of the ten numerations ; and when- ever there is full mention made of them, the above denotation and order are generally retained. That the Supreme Crown is the godhead itself, diffused through the whole of the numerations, and that, when numbered with wisdom and understanding, it forms a trinity of nume- rations, which are considered as prior, and in all respects superior, to the rest; are posi- tions of which the same learned Cabbalist has exhibited the clearest proof, in the passages that follow: IND9 WIND? 73990 WYN pip? Dw 228 say xoo oy nby > wep PR NT pad Ny ITNT prp? by TD OwANN Ma) INDI PIN - smo 7 yrao mw D220 Ap. ‘7 Sn" ‘¢ But the name, Jehovah, is the chariot which <¢ makes manifest the Supreme Crown; and, there- ‘fore, there is none holy like Jehovah, who is “exalted above every thing, being hidden and “ concealed in the Crown; and from which his “‘ light is diffused unto the Jehovah, that is to say, * Tykune Sohar, p. 5. IN THE GODHEAD. 159 “unto the Jod, Wisdom; He, Understanding ; * Vau, the whole of the six numerations next in “ order ; and He, Kingdom.” So in another part :* YN) TIN OWI) Pip? OWA INMPNY Aad MT 27 NoMmINd OT aw MN NTPID INMANS YS INN (2207 NIP T yTonwE pat NWS T VWF NID PINT jIDYw MX) way IND IDWI NTT pont oD wwa xeon pox 250 mo mo b> oy PIs bay won 'Don sin “¢ Behold the numerations are called : 99D pars “by the name, Jehovah; and by the name ‘* Adonai. The former are created, and there- ‘* fore their names resemble the seal of the king, ‘“ with which is expressed the effigy of the king, “and the consort, ina real figure; but the names ‘‘ of the latter are, as it were, the exaration of “ the figure of the seal in wax; and so they fear “that exaration, as though it were literally the “king. Nevertheless, the Lord over all has not “any of those figures.” So again:+ “N5 pax AMA Ayan Som snp yoy Ox “pns PON DTIAN PON VPN ADM INMAN po aA moavat swe Oya Ose apy oposr pny RTT SIWDD NVI WNIT $9) DIM “The Crown is called the Most { SMYNON ‘ High, possessing all things; and as to Wisdom ‘‘and Understanding, Understanding is. called * Ibidem. + Tyk. 70, p. 122. 160 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ‘“‘ our God, but Wisdom the God of our Fathers ; ‘‘ the same with the God of Abraham, the God of “ Tsaac, and the God of Jacob; the great God, ‘‘in respect of greatness; the mighty God, in “respect of might; and the formidable God, in “respect of the central column.’ ‘T'o the above many other passages. of a similar complexion might easily be added; but these, for the present, will be considered sufficient. The author, however, who of all others has developed the doctrine of the numerations in the most clear and satisfactory manner, is R. Bechai ; whose language, on account of the importance of the subject, I shall cite at full length.* 7 oy VINTON) DOWN NS DVIS 813 NWN AAPM aT y~INT Dwr MIVvad Wy ND ATA uw om odabin S920 opxw pron pam sown wea no) DYNA yIN) DIP Yow owIPIN 1D) DIN Mw any pyd oan IN NaN S59 aD] Maw NW ADM? 17 nvan by my on 920m) ANWR MINA wR N72 SND ‘DDN 1D OND Jwor.boAw >) ADONA WRI ‘TaD. aw ww oD By ANDNITNeA nye a Owonha wera onnomiwn. py? sn MO no pA APAaADA IAW MmwN Nw ADDN TP mp2 727 92 Ww? pres pS 777 Ws? ayn py x¥von proms * Com. Gen, p.5, col. 2. IN THE GODHEAD. 161 WaT AN) Nea Ow Ep a Sn pp oye P72 SID JN Na OMY nox sn NYO AM PT aN IA gwd yadys Spy. TWP APY Aad WaRD MN ANNA 9 soy moyen WYOAS Sawer pen shy swy moobapap (2 Dw? woansa aw pen xd swy weps NVIOD 12799 Maw. |a0 ANw Sowond Som TwWY A N21 we ID NIN DoAw yar apy 817.99 19 yD? m9 9227 9 aw pRw Dd 871 UN? PY IOI PN DIIIIT NI MYA Moy 2w MITAD wy Dba niyad awy Hw? TPS WAN IIASA AD Yap Moyes Ios Ap 4 sw mayer noyd too sine ay Sy wp ‘ox MSN On ‘wy Sow a1 swyn b5n mbynd TTA Mav Noy sonw Sxyyon pn 1202 OW DNDw AD wy nox yd79 wep, INST W ANIA ppm yD ear 8h) ppm pay ow OW MN DAW AD DDN PIPNA AAI oD Maan NMS jw yy WN anDA ppny NAD) NAD AAD. 32 OM) WAND 9D NSS) "D7 NMI 199 AAD ANP) MDMA TAD AS TP3 TMD) NAD OY OSD NRW ADNAN OTR APIA $ID TaD Marys ‘DOM AR DNS IOS {31 p19) Ava pwd ayy qa sD OI DwINT 7D NS snow say ODA SI DAN TT DIED WN TADS DN PIR WR DWN? DIN 229 WAY NIDDM INW NIT NAD STINT ID TMT SIT ADMD yTy oa sath D, ¢ 162 A TRINITY OF PERSONS YW TT Sw DNDN S17 STN Vad }2 ON) O'Y ANAwN aD ND 1D MYT YAM YR) Jw Iw mow mwa on smap nwo 4242) DA? IMS apy onwow Daa Mminsw TAN IPWD INV INS IpY OF 37 ow Sw npn nIyd JWI Siw ans sw Ddws ppinn sin numa yan? yo wy yD pr ep myn pun baw) pm 1? pw ow ind ‘ONw MD AID N72 YOR DAWA NID RM Fawn wis pay DANY ainsw 70) Twn wNIa wndan MY SITIOS 1D) WaN2 INN 8" Oy ood ON O82 9082 Atwnn Q saps obs ox oor NN] Sw API msop awnm sapn aprad ‘“ But according to the :MNWN7 wan pa ‘“‘ doctrine of the Cabbala, there is contained in “the pasuk, In the beginning God created the ‘heavens and the earth, the mystery of the ten ‘ numerations ; the heavens and the earth being ‘‘ interpreted of the highest heavens and earth, ‘which form no part of the spheres, but are ‘* called, the one the heavens of old, and. the “other the earth, or the land, of the living, ‘ 27 DYNAN MADD I DY ‘2 mW? ADD 7793 03D) Nwoa DYYNIT poy oman aeow maa dy maa oysa gin * Ibidem, 168 A TRINITY OF PERSONS 723 ‘99 DOYNIT TNw oY TaDDD No 724 N17 10D DWIIPA Owe wD wid NNT 2 O'S 1D DENI IIIA DDN DMs oye bwaniny j222 ‘manon ownwn 95 by ww DPI IY 72371} pM Da yPYANIM D2 “Tn like ¢ DN? IY INN pM I) a4 46 manner as to the Crown, although alone, and in respect of itself, it be no number, as we have expounded it above, because it is unlike the numerations ; nevertheless, in respect of the number of emanations, that is to say, when we reckon up, how many emanations there are ; it is included in the consideration of the number, to indicate that it, also, is an emanation ; and that there is a lofty one, watching above the lofty one; and lofty ones above them ; therefore, is it: taken into account with the other ema- nations, soas to be reckoned at the head of the ten first holy ones: for it is also an emanation, as weil as they, and is taken into the consi- deration of the number of emanations ; as the Infinity, blessed be he, is the root of all roots, uniting itself with them all, and diffusing: itself through them all; being both within them, — without them, and on all sides of them ; they all standing in need of it, whilst it stands in no need of them.’ “i The 'Talmudists rarely touch on the subject of IN THE GODHEAD. 169 the ten numerations; as being a height in theo- logy, to which they never aspired. R. Samuel Eliezer, nevertheless, in his celebrated commen- tary on the Gemara, has taken some notice of the doctrine; and, so far as he enters into an expla- nation of their nature and properties, accords precisely with what has here been laid down.* 912 ANAND ANNA DANA N72 OMIT} N72) [TAwW SIT DWT OAT A Aes NYVAD TwY maw? ‘asap peniwa in oy “7 DM jaw xopa “oaypan ina ww 2onw MaaMl nwa) or SIA Aw IDIweTDND OvOw 1D VIS ID) MOIAIA INST TAN} (A227 ADIN AIP nypaon mawpd 12 Ayan. ‘* By ten words or things was the world created, “ by Wisdom and by Understanding, &c. From “ considering them, those ten things whereby the “‘ world is here supposed: to have been created; “appear with their names to have some affinity ‘* to the names of the ten numerations, to which ** the Cabbalists, on expressing them by name, “ uniformly adhere; and those are the ten lights “ by which, according to their tradition, the world ‘was created; but more especially by Wisdom “ and: Understanding, for which they allege the - “scripture: By Wisdom hath he founded the “ earth, establishing the heavens by Understand- * Com. Een, Yaacob, p. 163, col. 3. Amst. ed. Y 170 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “ing; for, in the names of the Numerations, «© Wisdom takes precedence of Understanding.” Here we have a confirmation, amongst other things, of the remark already made; that, with many writers, the ten numerations of the god- head are denominated the ten lights. That the superior numerations are real per- sonalities, and not mere attributes, like the inferior numerations; is explicitly avowed by R. Menachem Rakanatensis.* MWR WOW IN sma wapi xz nybsw on “ But the three ‘first are intellectual, and are not called pro- ‘“‘ perties.”” R. Judah Levita,+ though he deems strength and other faculties to be properties of the deity ; denies, that his wisdom isa property. MOOMm oyy Nimwow|ap 39> DM IMN Nop sana PRI “So he is said to be wise of ‘‘ heart, because he is the very essence of wisdom ; ‘wisdom being no property in him.” Nor does R. Bechai allow the superior numerations to be attributes, or properties; but, in this respect, has well discriminated betwixt them and the rest, t maw ine Sas ns 1a nyt ans past WW IS TW) wn? 17 Sw PAs Ty SIN’ DAMN nvaw? ron Ninw Nan sn. * Cited also by Rittangel but without any references. t Sepher Cosri, Mem. ii. p. 79. ~ Com. Ex. iii, 14. IN THE GODHEAD. 17] veto wasn nwa pyoa2 onwow moixann sawn sa ono wn Ay oy ADaN? 109 Own 0D PIN NID NT TID NT NaN? ys) Inn? WOT DA MWe NYMIs ww TANNIN qd want Ww yn? 17 Mans one JOS) 13D DW MWS AYNIS Nw TINA pit Mita DPW OY IDR Dd NUM Nw yD 87) 592 NNT Mw NY D1] WWD *D Das YIP ja nya WAR oN 2 1D YINP AID ow YTS Ow Sw NA S.ONy aI pw ams wny jans2 No 727 “Moreover it behoves you to know, that, I am, ‘* takes in the first two numerations; and further, “that, I am, stands for Returning; and also, “that the third, I am, without the letters, He, ‘“‘ He, Aleph, stands for inward compassion, “which is the beauty of the whole trinity com- ‘“‘ prehended in the same name; as the Jod stands “for Wisdom, together with its point, which “stands for the Crown; He stands for Re- “turning; Vaw for Beauty; and He corresponds “with He. Hence it is observable, that of the * sacred name, Jehovah, the first two letters ‘represent his real essence; but the latter two “his attributes. Besides it deserves to be re- ‘¢ marked, that in the Law the first two letters “form a noun substantive, Jah; but not so the *Jatter two; as they make no name: and the 172 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ‘reason of this is, that when we make mention ‘of the first two, the latter two are compre- “hended; because those are the beginning, and “ it is impossible that in them there should be any “ separation; but if the latter, which are nota “«* name, had really been a name, there would have ‘© been a separation of one half of the name from “ the other; and, therefore, the latter two letters “ are no where written as a substantive.”’ But the proper distinction between the superior and the inferior numerations-will be best perceived from the words of R. Shabtai ;* who has compared them to the root, stem, and branches of a tree. pr sys ww we ww posses Swan SDI DI ww MIT OT DDI IND) Pri pon oma S3ann pas tay yx .29N pridoinyawn mo poy2 sym ww oa Daya wNyawr AD yum ya INNA boon oa) od DAYNDON DWI INNNDI ewe naw xo Dwwl PIN) PINNND bb92 0b3 nt apaw TWiwaym p22 Daw pwn SnD7 se 2w WANT YD WD TAN PS NIP mam IN Dov wwe NIA ATP Nw waw Sw ANP. DIAS Yad on nyo ow Yd DIANRND DD ow nivad Tol wawn wnw Appia “nxn 59D3 79D) * Thus cited by Rittangel. without any references; though I suspect all the citations from this author to be taken out of Shepha Tal. IN THE GODHEAD. 173 TM jPDI aw wwh oD Dy) Dw ww simyawna yD MX “Let the doctrine be illus- “trated under the figure of a tree. First, there “is its root; from the root issues the stem, and ‘from the stem issue.the branches; which are ‘“‘ three degrees. or. orders of existence, namely, ‘‘ the root, the stem, and the branches ; and yet ‘‘ they are all but one tree. The only difference ‘between them is that of concealment and ap- ‘“‘ pearance. For the root is concealed, but mani- ‘* fests its influence in the stem, and unites with “¢ it ; the stem manifests its influence in the boughs, “and unites with them, they branching out of it ; ‘‘ whilst they altogether remain fast, and unite ‘‘ themselves to the root: for, were it not for the ‘influx of the root, both the stem and the boughs ‘¢ would wither away; so that for this reason, the ‘‘ whole of them taken together, is denominated ‘‘ one tree. So is it in the case before us. The ‘“ Crown, which is the same with the central ‘“¢ point, is the root concealed; the three minds “are the stem, uniting with the central point, ‘¢ which is their root ; and the seven numerations, ‘“‘ which are the same with the boughs, unite ‘themselves to the stem, that is, to the three ‘minds: whilst they all equally unite with the ‘“ central point, which is the root, in the mystery of root, name, and substance. For it is the -~ an 174 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “root, which diffuses its influx through them all ; ‘‘ and, by that means, unites them into one.’ That each of the higher numerations is a spiri- tual subsistency, is asserted by R. Moses ben Nachman.* OVX MINIT OID Nw yoy nD © AND OV ADIN MID A SA ADA pyr ‘‘ The Supreme Crown, which is the first, is the ‘“ spirit of the living God ; Wisdom is the spirit ‘of spirit; and Understanding the waters of “ spirit.”” If any doubt should remain, from the preceding testimony, of the numeration, Under- standing, being a spiritual subsistency ; the subse- quent authority of R. Abraham ben David} will be sufficient to dispel it : } 17 MII ASAP) Ayan “The Understanding is called spirit of spirit.” So R. Moses Botril: t 77 mo on why IT wap mn Ow mn XY A AND DD POA AA AD MY NVI yD wow mn ‘ ADIT STIw Mw “« There is a third way of | ‘* illustrating, in a satisfactory manner, this expos- ‘ tulation of the letter, Aleph, with the deity, “ according’ to the doctrine of the Cabbalists. ‘* It cannot but be already known to you, that the ‘““emanatory world proceeds in the order of, ‘““ Crown, Wisdom, and Understanding. It must “be equally known too, that every, Elohim, ‘which occurs in the history ¢ of the creation ; 1s. Raabe: same with Understanding. ~ Hence the ex- are plication of the import of the first words of 176 | ( A TRINITY OF PERSONS ‘‘ Moses, according to the opinion of the Cabba- “ Jists; is to this effect. In the beginning, that ‘is, By Wisdom; as.it is written: The fear of “the Lord is the beginning of wisdom ; created ‘the creator Elohim; which accords with the “ declaration of the inspired penman, I was, ‘ and so forth: the Law thus affirming, I was the “instrument of the workmanship of God. In “this manner may the expostulation be rendered “ perfectly intelligible. The letter, Aleph, said, ‘ for the purpose, that the Epicureans might not “assert the existence of two principles; Why ‘ hast thou not created thy worlds by me, that is, “ why is it not said, Elohim created in the “beginning? The deity replied: How shall “JT invert the order of the Beginning? If ‘¢ Understanding, which is the same with Elo- ‘¢ him, emanated from Wisdom, which is the same «¢ with Beginning ; how shall I say contrariwise, ‘that from Elohim, which is Understanding, ‘emanated Beginning, which is Wisdom 2” How distinctly subsisting, and yet how closely associated, this trinity of personalities is sup- posed to be; will appear from the efforts of the Cabbalists to shew, that the very names of the deity imply that number of subsistences. ‘Thus R. Simeon,* speaking of the appellation, Ps, * Tykune Sohar, Tyk. xlii. fol. 84, col. 1 et 2; as cited by Rit. IN THE GODHEAD. 177 Nothing; observes—" "N23 '8 yAD Non dbs ADI | MIA—< It comprehends the three nume- *‘yations; Aleph denotes, Crown; Jod, Wisdom : “and Nun, Understanding.” The same doc- trine is likewise inculcated in many of their explications of the sacred text. Thus R. Simeon* on the words of the Psalmist: OOX 727 ANN PRI TPAD NIN SAO Nw Ans cnyow tony PINS ON AN) AMS ANS pT oonst “Once, hath God spoken; twice, have I heard “the same. One time, and two times: lo! these “are the three heavenly numerations, of which ‘< it is here said, one, one, one; there being three “ones.” R, Meir ben Sodros+ compares them, in regard of the necessity of their union, with the spiritual, rational, and vital parts of man. TDI" ADT) YD Ow MWR 3D YDS SWB) awa) mM mstpn nyoow mepao of “ We find, that the three first, namely, Supreme “Crown, Wisdom, and Understanding, are the ‘intellectual numerations ; and called, Spirit, ** Soul, and Life.’ But R. Simeon t resembles their union with each other to that of the head, the mind, and the heart. NnV2 yoy SnD NueT * TykuneSohar, Lib. i. Tyk. 38. + Sepher Liphne Liphanim as cited by Rit, but without other references. ¢ Tykune Sohar, Tyk. 10, fol. 122. “Z 178 A TRINITY OF PERSONS span 252 mya Hoa “The head is the “< representative of the Supreme Crown, the mind “ of Wisdom; but Understanding is represented “ by an understanding heart.” So R.Bechai:* qnoq tap pat O55 aD Nw INT WRT NOX TIDT wT Ina nya 329 we inw s22 ots Qwoaam ind 1 ond wo an iD) OPN on Ans) Moo Hw PO ITI ey APA Ww pm mp 192 Aan N22 pytana 93) DIN Dw NIN? NIN 7D ANID 435) mavnot mind m5201 yi pwn 42 bs5 sawn moon ana wD Mapa nyt -’s99°t “The head of the man, which is the “ glory of the whole body, corresponds with the | “Crown, which is the head of all the nume- ‘¢ rations ; and this is what is written, The head of « thy word is truth; and again, His head is the ‘¢ purest gold. The brain and the palate of the « man correspond with the interior Wisdom ; and ‘* so it is written, His palate is most sweet. Thus “by the term, Wisdom, is represented brain, ‘¢ palate. His tongue corresponds with Under- ‘standing; which brings forth all the powers or ‘energies to light. This is what is written ; «“ He is altogether lovely. Thus the tongue ‘ brings forth, and makes manifest, the powers of ‘the mind. But you must be already aware, * Com. Gen. p. 9, col. 2. IN THE GODHEAD. 179 * from the Cabbala ; that the Crown, the Wisdom, “and the Returning, are all one thing.” So again:* NS7pPI) ADwN? 17 PAX ow TW Nw D2 A? mMoTpA nao snw owas NUT NNDI PWT PAN AA OND NdyNd MonpA mipaom cnw oy wm ADwnn }O WWINOT PAN WW DIS DD a 9 NT Dw INN 727 Say pwrot aa “Moreover, 3 Ma'ph 2’ pny Yaw youn “the appellation, I am, represents Returning, “ which is called by the appellation of the two *‘ numerations preceding it; as it is emanated “‘ from their energy. Now, it is the former, I am, “‘in the text, that is Returning; but the latter, ‘“‘ which represents the two numerations anterior “‘ to it: so that the import of the text, I am THar “Tam, is, lL am that which is drawn from the ‘‘ first Lam. But the whole are one thing; and ‘¢ this is that exalted name, which exists in all the ‘attributes of the deity.” If to this it should be made an objection, that the Cabbalists, by comparing the higher nume- rations with the head, brain, and heart: or with the spiritual, rational, and vital parts of man; do not thereby regard them as distinct subsistences, but merely as parts of a subsistency; I answer, that the objection is of no force: for though it be * Com, Ex. iii. 14. Se 180 A TRINITY OF PERSONS true, that the head, brain, and heart, exist together, as parts of a man; yet, whenever we discourse of those parts, it is always with the presumption, that they are capable of subsisting singly ; and the reason why the Cabbalists adopt such com- parisons, is not that they would deny the actual subsistency of each by itself, but that they may seem to maintain the common sameness of their nature; and lest the reader should be led to suppose, that the third numeration is not equally divine with the first or second; or that they do not all subsist alike in the godhead, without any inequality or distinction of substance. Thus argues, indeed, a learned commentator on R. Simeon ben Jochai:* VST AD TWOSw [aD TINA TID) TV MPD ADS VT PaoAY pa poms) wad) yypor yw yao APN x5 mov ANON NOM NWT mPa? Aad TIA PS MINAS Mpsyy3 pom RMD) Y Spo ‘‘ He whe asserts, that the virtue of the + NI “ lieht, which is in that numeration, is not in this “ numeration; or that the virtue of the light, ‘¢ which is in this numeration, is not in that nume- “ yation; thus severing, separating, and dividing ‘¢ between one numeration and another; commits “a most egregious sin; inasmuch as he severs, * Com. on Tykune Sohar, p. 13, as cited by Rit. but without further references. IN THE GODHEAD. isi “* separates, and divides the very essence of the “unity of the infinite being, blessed be he.’ To corroborate this attestation of the expositor of R. Simeon, we may further add, that the mere supposition of their being emanations of light, is sufficient to prove the identity of their sub- stance; as the light from which they flow, and of which they severally consist, must needs be the same ; the only thing difficult of comprehension being, how they can have actually subsisted, in that manner, from all eternity. The actual subsistency of each from eternity, however, is a point, which is much insisted on by the Cabbalists in general. R. Shabtai * seems by way of anticipation to have stated, at full length, whatever can be urged against the truth of the position; and afterwards replied to it with his accustomed ability. Jwyns sow TN? AM OF D0 Dw Own paya ww Taw wIpan Apimiw NOX PWNIT DIN OD WwINMw OWT sans op mpox mbapa pin moe NWP boy ops mpoxm mpox psy oo nipaonw sip sos por onda jor N¥oO N2N yO nn sy Oyo sim moan ya wn?a ony 4p Oya MpoNty 12 [DM PR jd ON) JOT NS On) PT mass answ win ins nw AMPS 1D pt Syao pw N77 TN? INIPSN * Thus quoted by Rittangel ; but as before, without any references. 182 A TRINITY OF PERSONS sim ays > joyy Fa xo oR Tl Nn PRD ON IAT pw “TD oN mann? TD OTP wT yosy Twas pp oy ox aan wre W PINS PAID WN wom nRwamimdys ni? D932? Wwara Mao ex pin ona Ow Syma BN sD Oy aman pS MD « But *‘ observe, it is not sufficient, that we reject “ the exposition, which we have been giving, in ‘“¢ the case of new and old ; seeing that the latter ‘“‘ may be called new, in some sense, because they ‘‘ were once new, though not now, as was, for ‘< instance, the first man; but we must institute a ‘“‘ very weighty and important objection, which ‘* here offers itself to us, in this divme doctrine of “ the Cabbala. For since that the numerations ‘“are the very substance of the deity, and the “‘ deity does not fall under the predicament of ‘* time, but exists in time without time, is primor- ‘¢ dial, eternal, infinite, and the very cause of ex- ‘‘ istence to time itself; how can it be asserted, “that the deity is emanated ; as, doubtless, the ‘“emanation of it must be the creation of it; ; for ‘‘ after the emanation, it should seem, he was ; ‘“‘ hut before the emanation, he was not? To this “we reply, that their emanation was in respect “of the created beings, and not in respect of ‘themselves; for their emanation was for the “< purpose of © riieteatine themselves to the crea- IN THE GODHEAD, 183 “ tures, in order that these, after being created, ‘might enjoy their light, and be directed by “them. But as to themselves, they existed ‘ before their emanation in a superiority of excel- ‘“‘ lence, and in a superiority of strength ; their ‘light being so powerful and resplendent, that, ‘“‘ for its transcendent greatness, it was incom- _** petent to created beings to enjoy its ‘splendor, “or to be guided by the means of their trans- ‘“‘ cendent light.” ‘he author then prosecutes the argument still further by observing, that, as it happens in attempting with our naked eyes to look at the meridian sun, we blink, and nearly turn blind, without any possibility of perceiving the object, and that, not by reason of the privation or defect of the solar light, which is then the strongest, but on account of the debility of our vision, which is unable to sustain its meridian brightness ; so also in the emanation of the god- head, the glory or splendor of the numerations, previous to their emanating, was so transcen- dently bright and powerful, that our intellectual sight would have been dazzled and obscured, in trying to apprehend them. That their emanation was only an extension of their light from some- thing, which had the power of emanating, to something which was made to emanate; and from that which was made to emanate, to some- ets a ee dll 184 A TRINITY OF PERSONS thing which was emanated, or had been made to ~ emanate-again, “according: to their several ora- dations ; in order r that | they might be, at least in part, apprebended byt the “creatures, in their re- ‘motest, ‘splendor. That to deny the subsistency of each antecedent to their emanation, merely on the ground, that we cannot apprehend it; would be as absurd as for bats to contend, that the sun does not exist, but only the moon; because the weakness of their vision wholly prevents them from seeing the former luminary, whilst it readily permits them to behold the latter. I know, indeed, of no objection to which this argument, drawn from the doctrine of the Cab- bala, is liable; except that it makes for the eter- nal subsistency of the inferior, as well as of the superior numerations, But if we call to mind, that the inferior, as is universally admitted, pro- ceeded or emanated from the superior, and, con- sequently, are posterior to them, as well in re- spect of duration, as in point of order: the force of the objection will be considerably diminished. For though we may easily form in our minds an idea of God existing without the seven inferior numerations, that is, without Mercy, Severity, Beauty, Victory, Glory, Stability, and Sove- reignty : their necessity being apparent only in the creation, and in the administration of the IN THE GODHEAD. 185 world; not to mention, that many of the Jews interpret them of angels; yet we cannot form any notion, whatever, of God existing without the superior numerations, Celestial Crown, Wis- dom, and Understanding; which seem essential to the very being of God, and which claim to themselves eternal subsistency, chiefly from this consideration, that they cannot be supposed not to subsist. CHAPTER X. To the truly sublime doctrine of the Cabbalists, concerning the ten numerations of the godhead, I may subjoin that of the Daruschists, concerning the seven pre-existences of the world ; in which the truth of our trinitarian hypothesis is most eminently displayed. This doctrine of the seven pre-existences, like most other doctrines peculiar to Judaism, has its rise in certain curious and subtle expositions of the sacred text ; and is to be found inculcated chiefly in the writings of the Daruschists, who do not, however, universally agree, either in the names, or in the number of the pre-existences. ~The general opinion is, that they are seven in number; being named by some, The Law, Repentance, The Garden of Eden, 2A 186 A 'TRINITY OF PERSONS Hell, The Throne of Glory, The Sanctuary, and The Name of the Messias; by others, The Law, The Throne of Glory, The Fathers, Israel, The Name of the Messias, The Sanctuary, and Repentance ; but by others, The Garden of Eden, The Law, The Saints, Israel, The Throne of Glory, Jerusalem, and Messias, the Son of David. Sometimes we find only six mentioned, and Re- pentance added as the seventh, on the authority of R. Abhu bar R. Zeira, the Talmudist. But in every account of them, whether six, or seven, in number; we always have the Law, and the Throne of Glory; and are taught to distinguish between them and the rest, in that these two were caused actually to subsist before the creation of the world; whereas the other five pre-existed but ideally, in the mind of the creator. The subse- quent extract, taken from a work of the very highest authority,* will confirm the preceding statements. DIA MN? WIP OAD meu ssunoa voyw ond um Nw Dn wy 99 ATIN NIA TAIN NOD ATTN M7377 pi TID XDD IIT MWR Ip. 7 WNW yw) 9'2) ONIwW) MIAN 1) IND TNOD 752 WDN3aw pip MAN MN? Mawnl yy mw Ww paras pro ONqw 1977277 Dw) WRI DID Tad NOD WONIw Py 7"a OTP Map TW * Medrash Rabba Par. Berescheth, fol. 1, Amst. ed. IN THE GODHEAD. 187 TOSI PID Mw Iw dw wIPD DPD pwssn FAR IOS SVVTOII IA AS an Dow) yw orp Tw AMIN ITY OA Dw. INIw ADwn “Six things preceded $43) NDT TW WIN IwN ‘* the creation of the world; some of which were “actually created, and some only in agitation “to be created. The Law and the Throne of ‘* Glory were actually created. From what scrip- ‘ture is the Law proved to have been thus cre- “ated? From the text: Jehoyah possessed me, “as the beginning of his way. From what the “Throne of Glory? From the words: Thy ‘* throne was established before any time, and so “forth. The Fathers, Israel, the Sanctuary, and “the Name of the Messias, were in contempla- ‘tion to be created. The Fathers, whence ‘“ proved to have been so? From the text: Like “ grapes in the desart, and so forth. Israel, “whence? From the words: Remember thy “ congregation, which thou hast possessed from ‘‘ antiquity. The Sanctuary, whence? From the ‘* passage: The place of our Sanctuary is a lofty “throne of glory, from the beginning. The ‘“ Name of the Messias, whence? From the ‘words of the Psalmist: His name shall be for “ever, and so forth. R.Abhu bar R. Zeira “said, Repentance may also be proved, in like “manner, from the text: Before the mountains 188 A TRINITY OF PERSONS << were formed, from that very hour, thou reducest ‘© man to destruction, and so forth.” From the foregoing testimony, It is abundantly manifest, that the Law and the Throne of Glory, by being made to subsist anterior to the creation of the world; ought to be regarded as divine subsistences, corresponding with the numerations, Wisdom, and Understanding ; and standing in the same order and relation with the Supreme | Being, that Wisdom and Understanding do with the Supreme Crown. The priority, indeed, of the Law to the Throne of Glory, has not always been positively and absolutely declared ; though now generally ‘neulcated on the arguments and authority of R. Abba, the Talmudist. ‘Thus we read in Medrash Rabba.* Tt °8 YIN DS aN esa Tao xDD AIP ANN BS BNP om S219 TD NAN 037 WS sqind oT NAD ROD mweoa ap A qwasaw TA spond mp Ip ANNA PRD JNDD Po 12 Pnav ymx> ONpP 32995 © But 1 know not which of these two was prior ; ‘‘ whether the Law was prior to the Throne of « Glory, or the Throne of Glory was prior to the “ Law. RB. Abba bar Cohena says ; The Law preceded the Throne of Glory, because it Is “ written ; Jehovah possessed me, the beginning “of his way; prior to that of which it 1s * Ibidem. IN THE GODHEAD. 189 “ written; Thy throne was established from ‘ that time.” The above are, unquestionably, the most ancient testimonies, that can now be pro- duced, of the antemundane existences ; and from these was derived whatever has since been pro- mulgated of the doctrine by modern theologists. But seeing that the actual, and not the potential, pre-existences form the ground of this argument ; it behoves us to restrict our remarks to the former, that is, to the Law and the Throne of Glory ; which are maintained to be spiritual subsistences, and to have emanated in order from the godhead, before the foundation of the world. Though of these two divine personalities many illustrious things have been said by many exposi- tors; yet by none have their ineffable essence and transcendent glory been so ably pourtrayed, as by R. Moses Alshech, who, as will appear from the subsequent extracts, has placed the truth of their divinity and personality, but especially those of the Law, beyond the possibility of an assault. * ROD An Dow) wtp onat TD ots man wTIDO I www sawn Aas Nas NOD? MIP NT D Dw Ts O22 FD woy¥N [ON D9 DIP IND POYDD DIP WDRaw TON NT WI We 7D PIV AIT IND INDS p12 8727 Ox sap Nd Mal ND DT bap Sp * Com. Prov. viii, 22. Oe. ee ey OA Re Tes aR i toa th hidinth 4 tn Sale she glinatty 7 : i190 A TRINITY OF PERSONS sya aoyonw IN npn sand vows DIY sDoT NT nya PYNT Dy IY TMID 7D Vy mow poy dyad ja pry 2 pas one 'N g42) DID NIT IIIND MwINwi YY pris 805 Mt NIT "an ND npn OSs aws DW ey 9995 Snyi im IDd7 28 OND TN NAS yap mbowonwt 317 12779 pI wa Nw SWI TPT TNT ONT ON 73772 PVT 28 NIT nya manny oDoys Ss nw IIR WIT SSay pM ms PITA IPS IX TD Mawant qq D2 ROT D IPN pS W NIT MAI wo M33 nsot op oy nym aan Nod PENA IM satay Now oo Poy pra nywonws MON ND TP UN MITINY DS *D WAIT DI W oby mows (N12 CWRID NWN PT RT nypw? $929 in DTT oS omni wna awn MOYEN Sw AD myx 70173 177 ws Ps DIP my NOD ap TNA DIT NT IWS NTT omp Spay O37 777 DT IND NT IWS yoyan SNDD }1D2 "O82 MIVw IIT XDD podooaw pow nym Oged io sw 7D we VT Is aon yoo Sysadmin dyin pwn na ST yaa wan mips 2D DTT 87 Dw m> « Behold our Rabbies of blessed memory + YT) “assert, that seven things were anterior to the ‘ world; the Law, the Throne of Glory, Israel, ‘the Garden of Eden, the Sanctuary, Repen- y tance, and the name of the Messias; as 1s well iN THE GODHEAD. 19] ‘** expounded to us in Bereshith Rabba. They €¢ ce ce a4 also affirm, in the same work, that the Law pre- ceded the Throne of Glory, according to the scripture, Before his works that were prior to time; therefore, before the Throne of Glory, of which it is merely said, Thy Throne was established prior to time. Now no person, that is conversant in the writings of the Jewish Church, can be ignorant, that, without the Throne of Glory, there would have been no proceeding, after the termination of spiritual existences, to the creation of the material world ; but that, by means of the Throne of Glory, a being was extended to it, according to the received opinion. Moreover, we know, that that which caused the spiritual natures to emanate, was the Way of the Lord, to whom it refers its extraction; but this was not the case in the production of any thing of bodily sub- stance, that deriving its existence, as hath been already observed, by means of an extension from the Throne of Glory. For the Lord, before that the material world was created, caused to emanate from himself, blessed be he, the spiritual existences; as well he as the Throne of his Glory, which refers its extraction to his Way, blessed be he; but afterwards, extension was left alone, without his Way, to 192 A TRINITY OF PERSONS 66 66 create every thing that is corporeal, according to the received opinion. But to return to the subject. The holy law here says: Look up, and see: though you view me black or unseenily, dressed in a somewhat material form; yet let me not be esteemed vile in your sight ; for unquestionably the honor of my rank is exalted above every thing that is exalted, without either bounds or limits. Is it not a fact, that the deity caused to emanate the Throne of Glory, whereby to give an aptitude to the diffusion of the creation? It must, therefore, be needless to assert, that I was not created by the Throne of ‘« Glory: on the contrary, I was anterior to it; and this is the sense of. the scripture: The Lord possessed me the beginning, not in the begin- ning, of the creation of the material world; it not belonging to his Way to create corporeal existences; but the beginning of his Way, that is, the beginning, whatever it may be, of spiri- tual emanation, which is his Way, he pos- sessed me singly: for, doubtless, before those works of his, which were prior to time, those seven things, which he wrought before the world, in which is included the Throne of Glory, it being said of it, Thy Throne was established prior to time ; befure those works, I say, there was the beginning, whatever it may be, of his IN THE GODHEAD. 193 ‘“< Way, to cause to emanate the spiritual. exist- “ences; for by me the illustrious name here “mentioned began to emanate, but finished by “the Throne of Glory; as this last, also, is his “ Way, it being, according to the received ‘‘ opinion, a powerful spiritual emanation.” So likewise in another part of the same comment :* MINDN IND IIT NT nN py Ox 1 8 MIMD pr oD pam by md yD ondy Iw ID7D WD AX OMWAN DDN INND DN NP Nw ANN DD) TAM nia NMA: Dow NMI Na FAM wna Das oDaN No 8D INYNID a9 W ovaw ayaa xo wninaY SION. Ja DDNID w8NNID JFIaM sn ww NIA UR OM Dy NN YD TDIND anya paw 3N7DD TmDonT os vta> ovow MoO AON WN IT22 DO PR IMDNO NAM mown SD TAT PS Dado Sy awed owyon by NWN pd wn? ?7inw DI» ann; Dn yim {PINS UN DW OW PDN AN nox. 12 pst STON ID WN TAM No own oy yn TID JIIN ST NV¥p3a OMS YI DdDNoomw POISPIDITD ND IN TS DAT DW. yyyoNa maw md? dn 2p Sy TON) T1093 NNN opIM nen? 2 791) pipe Pm on 2 by quan SIV Sw Moy SVD D WHA PT FIANNA m3 amew ow mana smowanna sna * Com. Prov. viii. 27. 2 B 194 A TRINITY OF PERSONS q79) 707 58 pa Taam Ys mayan noma Spr) Daw PIO A NWT PIA yD 8? MID mt729 DANN 82 DUN Dw nT Dy wosya jn ‘But to return to the subject; < spon 3200 €¢ The Law saith, that it may not enter into your minds, that 1am nothing but a spiritual sub- sistency, like one of the angels which attend the presence of the king of the world, distinct and separate from his individual essence, and espe- cially since I have been begotten ; do behold, and regard the excellency of my majesty ; for I am his Wisdom, blessed be he, and inseparable from his essence. In fixing the heavens on a basis, as an habitation for himself; because that the deity, blessed be he, scrupled to give exist- ence to the angels, for fear men should say, that they had been in the number of his coadjutors, according to the words of the scripture, Who was with me?—I only was there present. He saith, moreover, Who stretch out the heavens by myself; but if I had been as one of the m- nisteringe angels, of a different quality from himself, how could he have been alone? That he did not entertain the same scruples about my subsistency, as he did about that of the angels, is demonstrable from this, that I and he are considered as one. For though I have been “ produced; the original womb, from which f IN THE GODHEAD. 195 “sprang, 1s in reality coalescent and closely “united with him. This, too, is the sense of the “passage, When he prepared the heavens, I was ‘“* there; when he set a circle on the face of the “abyss: for the deity was apprehensive, lest “men should say, that the angels had taken hold ‘‘ of the extremities of the world; and that he, ‘“ superadding as it were the circle, had measured “* by their means. Lonly, therefore, was present “on his adapting the extremities of it; and “‘ setting the circle, to'‘measure withal. But he “‘ saith, On the face of the abyss; why? Because ‘‘ darkness was upon the face of the abyss; and “‘ because, since the Lord is aloof from darkness, ‘‘ for with him dwelleth the light; and the Law, ‘‘ by its extension, was there the agent ; men — “ might have taken occasion to say, that the work “‘ was not ascribable to the deity ; but to some- “ thing different from himself. This, however, ‘‘ was not the case. He alone by himself it was, ‘that prepared the heavens, and set the circle ; ‘¢ although I was there with him: for I am not to ‘** be referred to any essence, different from him- “self; by no means.’”’ So again: * PMID $2 FD! mo 92> san nny ‘« For the Law isa divinity. It was :DOWMnK ‘“the instrument of the workmanship of side * Com. Prov. viii. 22. 196 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ‘‘ whereby he created the world.” In like manner, on another occasion: * A7INT NT WRINITD pba op staiw oat qyaw> we nw o> yw SID Nw vw NT WNIT IM Wwe “ For, unquestionably, his head + 2210 NN “ being is, the Law; which is the head of the “ seven things, that were created before the ‘‘ world; which is the very head of him, who “ created it ; and by the instrumentality of which ‘ arises all our happiness.” ‘That the Law, then, is a divine personality of the godhead, the above citations from R. Moses Alshech afford competent evidence. In addition to what has been already affirmed of the Throne of Glory, that it is a mighty spiri- tual emanation; the following testimonies from the same author are worthy of being alleged in this place:} “IDF NOD W Aw’ ON ARIN sw27 DT NODA NOD Dwar ya nw 879 sw prs Daw 99197 AT DAWA MDs yo 7 six) 5123 ya NOD PRw jDIND MNO DIV TODS WND 8D ID) POWYS 19D 7ADwsT PS by pon sons Sawn odie ‘meinniwn pro DoT NN ON IMWANT MD NIT NAINA NOD sy2wm 1p)D OT pINaw wpa maw «And :oown Swps pw2dna Dow nwa “ T saw the Lord, sitting on the Throne of Glory : * Com. Cant. v, 11. + Com, Isaiah, vi. 1. — = ee ——— — ee ee a ee IN THE GODHEAD. 197 “ not that the act of sitting can be imagined or “ delineated in Jehovah; for the Throne is high “and elevated; high above the situation of this «“ world, which contains the heavens and the “earth; and elevated, in a manner, above the ‘< world of the angels; as the Throne is infinite, ‘‘ and therefore literally speaking, there can be no x 5 sitting, as described in the vision. And its $f ee and so forth: not because I exalt him “so high, do I therefore make the providence of “¢ God rise above this lower world; for do not the ‘“‘ fringes of the Throne of Glory, that is, the ‘* plenteousness of its extension, fill the temple ‘of the sanctuary, which is in the land? These ‘are the wings of the Habitation; which are ‘‘ here made to extend themselves, and to put on ‘‘ a dress, under the metaphor of fringes.” Thus again: * 9xqw 93 ‘> 'Ro DYoyar DyS AT 43 DB NINN ww jw?) 22 NAINA? OMS war DOING JD WT sow NIDA NDI nan AwpA ‘“ But notwithstanding this, they are all compre- ‘“‘ hended as one: for the whole of Israel is termed ‘one soul, seeing that all their souls have issued ‘‘ from the root of the holy unity, from under the ‘“'Phrone of Glory; which is not the case with “the Gentile nations.” This opinion of the souls of Israel being cut out from under the * Com. Cant. vi. 8. Nesta 198 A TRINITY OF PERSONS Throne of Glory, and which the author has evidently transcribed from the volumes of the Talmud, is a clear demonstration of the Throne being a spiritual essence; as well as leads to the belief, that, with the ancient Jewish Fathers, it was never regarded as a created being, either of the heavens or the earth; but as a divine ema- nation, from which every immaterial subsistency, “whether angelic or human, has derived its origin; and by the instrumentality of which the very worlds, themselves, were created and perfected. Indeed, that both the Law and the Throne of | Glory were employed as agents in the fabrication ~ of the universe, is the doctrine of the Cabbalists. Thus the author of Tykune Sohar:* 2 NID PWN UPS 'T NTIS DIN NID MUNI vawind ND'DT PD NDT DYN YPRT ND ID ‘¢ This is the meaning of the text, In : O48 “the beginning created Elohim: By the Law, “ which is, the Beginning; created the Throne, “ which is, Elohim: for thus the letters of, the “ Throne, amount, by calculation, to those of, “ Blohim.” Hence, Elohim, or God, in the account of the creation, is understood by the Daruschists and Cabbalists, either of the Throne of Glory, or of the Numeration, Understanding ; * Fol. 4, col. 2: IN THE GODHEAD. 199 which, as will hereafter appear, denote one and the same subsistency. But, if these antemundane existences actually created the heavens and the earth; they must have been omnipotent spirits, and personalities of the Godhead. Besides R. Moses Alshech, I know of no writer, who has treated this subject, in all its parts, with so much learning and ingenuity, as R. Moses Ilpeles. I do not, however, accord with him in all his’ assertions. For amongst other things he lays down, that all the pre-existences, as well actual as ideal, equally originated at the first in the mind of the deity; but that the former, after having been formed in thought, received an actual subsistency; whereas the latter did not. To this unqualified position I cannot, by any means, assent; as it seems to me to be repugnant, not only to the principles of metaphysics, but to the words of the Daruschist, whom he has attempted to explain. It is not affirmed, that the Law and the Throne of Glory existed in idea, or in the mind of the ‘deity, previous to their existing actually; but Yather the contrary, that they, always existed actually, and never ideally; this being the difference intended to be expressed between them and the rest. Neither can the distinction of the author between actual and ideal existency be maintained, on metaphysical grounds, 200 A TRINITY OF PERSONS For since it is argued by himself, that the two _ -pre-existences. in question existed, as well in the ‘act as in the mind of the deity, prior to the con- “ception and formation of the world; and as it is admitted, on all hands, that time did but commence with the creation of the world; there must be a ~ strange absurdity in supposing, that the two sub- _ sistences existed, first in the mind of the deity, | and afterwards actually; when as yet time itself, and consequently its distinctions of fore andafter, had not begun to exist. If the Law and the Throne of Glory were actually in being before the formation of the world, they must have been so from eternity; for the only conception we can form of any thing subsisting from eternity, is, that, when time commenced, it was actually subsisting. But though the author has not expressed him- self unobjectionably on this pomt; the reason which he has assigned, why the other pre- existences of the world did not subsist actually, as well as in idea, is worthy of admiration. His opinion is, that God did not actually form them, on account of the Epicureans. . For if all those things, which were the final cause of the creation, had actually existed before the world was made; the Epicureans might have denied, that God created the worlds by himself, and have alleged IN THE GODHEAD. 201 this as an argument for a plurality of gods. The reasoning of the author, it must be confessed, is highly ingenious; and, so far as it attempts to account for the things not having been actually formed, as soon as conceived, is equally satis- factory. But with respect to the two subsistences, which did actually exist prior to the creation ; we cannot reply to the Epicureans, in this manner. They will, on the contrary, have just grounds for concluding, that God did not make the worlds by himself; but had to co-operate with him, both the Law and the Throne of Glory. This objection Ipeles certainly foresaw, and has endeavoured to obviate it by demonstrating, that God, the Law, and the Throne of Glory, are all one and the same thing.* 97 707) MN) DON JID UN WASA Soa sn Syd TORN 1931 8°F-797 NOM ANT Naw LI 773) 077 FAS dod denen ads obs 93 72 M8 NID NM NaI NdI Sw IAD ow TT WD3 POS TORIW WD TINT Sw PARA OX wn Dow) wD Ow J wpa qos 3 pay? a> ow 7929 jos) 7-25 oN os) MNO) Pry uxwoamsead ayn myban 5 WNAD ROD ANTM Nw 729 oDWA nN)’ “Butif sow ya TWtmdan 5 IMs 927 b5n “you should ask, why the Law and the Throne * Hoil Mosche, Perek iy. p. 20. AG 202 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “ of Glory were actually created, but the others “not; I will tell you the reason. It is because ‘¢ Jehovah, the Law, and the Throne, are all ‘one and the same thing. For like as you say, ‘© Blessed be Jehovah God, the God of Israel ; “you can say, And blessed be the name of his “ olory, that is, the Throne of Glory ; And all the earth is full of his Glory, that is, of the ‘‘ Law. And as, Amen, is affirmed after the ‘‘ expression, Blessed be Jehovah ; so is it affirmed after the phrase, And blessed be the name of ‘‘ his glory for ever ; this being what the Psalmist “ intends by, Amen and Amen; Amen to, Blessed “ be Jehovah, and Amen to, Blessed be the name “ of his glory for ever. He then subjoins: ‘The “ prayers are ended; that is, Since I have de- ‘© monstrated to you the existe of Jehovah, ‘and the creation of the world by himself alone ; “and that he, and his Law, and the Throne of “‘ his Glory, are all one and the same thing; the “ prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended.” But if God, and the Law, and the Throne of Glory, be one and the same thing ; and, if the same honor and respect be paid to the one, as to the other; then have we three divine subsistences, partaking of one common nature or essence ; and “as strong an argument for the doctrine of the trinity, as the Jew can demand. For since, on “~ Lay IN THE GODHEAD. 9203 the one hand, it must be foreign to the intention of the Daruschist to assert, that these are dis- tinctions without a difference; that the Law is absolutely the Throne of Glory, and the ‘’hrone of Glory the Law, or, that Jehovah is both the Law and the Throne of Glory ; ; and as, on the other hand, it is strenuously maintained by our author, that they are all one and the same thing ; it remains for us to conclude, that they are really the same, in respect of their divine nature or § substance ; and that the only difference, which obtains between them, is that of Pereosniyy: of subsistency. ee CHAPTER XI. Bur besides the metaphysical. or numerical distinctions of the “Cabbalists, and_ the actual yre-existences of the Daruschists } the three per- sonalities of the godhead stand expressly designated in the very highest authorities of the Jewish church, the Targumists ; } from whom, with little or no variation of the names appropriated to them, they found their way among the professors of christianity. The first person they denominate simply, Jehovah, or God; that being to him, what the term, Adam, was to the first of man- kind, both a proper and a common appellation. 204 A TRINITY OF PERSONS The second. person they call, the Word, of God, , the ‘Word. of Jehovah ; and the third, the Habitation, of | God, or, the Habitation of Je- hovah. | ‘It may justly be disputed, perhaps, how the Targumists were originally led to designate the two latter persons by the names of, Word, and, Habitation ; but to me the truth of the matter appears to be this. Perceiving in the Mosaic account of the creation, as also in the writings of the prophets, that whenever God said: Let any thing be; it instantly was, without the aid or instrumentality of secondary causes ; they naturally inferred from his Word being always self-suflicient for the accomplishment of his will, ‘that it must be something widely different in its properties from that of man, who, whatever his authority may be in the world, can effect nothing by the word of his mouth, without the actual help and co- operation of others. Hence they were led to contemplate the divine Word, not as an accident, for that would have been inconsistent. with what is expressly declared of it; but as a real per- sonality, which, in the pt aanad of the world, sustained the character of an agent, and super- seded the necessity of all secondary causes. But the Habitation of Jehovah they so denominated, nooner a om ucaed, being. Aso $ attwell,in ——s ee ee es IN THE GODHEAD. — 205 certain parts of of the world, rather than in others ; but especially, in the highest h heavens, in the land of Judea, in the Sanctuary between the. che- rubim, and_ in the minds of his saints: so that whilst, as a divinity, he is omnipresent; as an inhabitant of the world, he must be local and fixed. The Habitation of Jehovah, therefore, differs from both the other subsistences ; in that he is an abiding spirit, manifesting to the world his power and glory, by miraculous effects and supernatural appearances. | That both the Word and the Habitation are _/divine, and not created, ‘at least not according: to the vulgar acceptation ‘of the term, created; that they are real personalities, and not accidents of the Supreme Being; nor yet” ciréumlocutory modes of expression fom God himself; require the fullest possible demonstration, since it is an argument that has been much controverted, and to the. admission of which it is difficult to say, whether certain Jews or Christians have shewn ereater hostility, 1) shall endeavour, therefore, in treating. this. part of the subject, to remove every shadow of objection to the truth of these positions; and to demonstrate the evidence, on which this argument, drawn from the language of the Targumists, is capable of being esta- blished. 206 A TRINITY :OF PERSONS Wirst of all, then, I would observe, that it _ seems impossible to furnish stronger proofs of the divine nature of any being than, that he created the world, and the noblest things in it; that he is constituted as the God of all true worshipers; nor yet of his personality than, that he is dis- tinguished from other individuals by a proper name of his own; that he is endued with voice, speech, anger, compassion, the power of de- creeing events, hands, and the word of prophecy; that he is invoked by his votaries, builds, guards, talks, leads, turns from wrath, multiplies the human species, delights, rejoices, and confers blessings on the deserving. But all these attri- butes the Targumists predicate of the Word, as will instantly appear.* ‘72N8 7D TNO TpP ary) NOY MT mm x10? Kow WW ~T NID. NUD) NON AN OY DMD Nw AN 2 NvaTP 8D Mm py ama I aI “The first night was, when the Word of Je- ‘““hovah appeared to the world to create it. The ‘world was a chaos, and darkness was spread ‘“ over the face of the abyss ; whilst the Word of ‘‘ Jehovah was splendid and luminous. This is “ called the first night.” NOW Payne mmo + ‘“And by his Word was the world created.” * Jerusalem Targumist, Ex. c. xii. v. 42. t Onkelos, Deut. xxxiii. v. 27. ee IN THE GODHEAD, 207 MDI. AMINO. OTIS M YT SVWOv sa * PAM Sa MM IT AM $I OP yo ‘And the Word of Jehovah created Adam, in “ his own likeness; in a likeness from God, cre- ‘ ated he him; man and wife created he them,” spo 9087 07ND DYN YT NID Nop Ww) NVA NDwM wip 2 nat Noy ONT Sans (oIp 1 77 WAD NS Pio 7p «“ And the Word of Jehovah God called MJ “ out to Adam, and said to him: Behold the “ world, which I have created, is naked before “me; light and darkness are manifest to me: ‘“‘ how, then, canst thou suppose, that the place, ‘¢ wherein thou now art, is not equally naked “before me?” DMIAN Oy » AoA Mansi t NID) Dw) wot NN. apy Oy pry oy ‘¢ And Jehovah by his ; W719 YTS ROOT ‘ Word was manifested to Abraham, to Isaac, ‘and to Jacob, by the God of heaven; but the ‘name of the Word of Jehovah Idid not make “ known to them.” 22) 8? “T NIDD Pg ST NWO PR ma wom WwW? yo SMP : pO] TMS WO DIwIDT NMP WI N? «‘ Unless the Word of Jehovah shall build the “city, the architects of it will labour in vain ; ‘¢ unless the Word of Jehovah shall guard the * Jerusalem Targ. Gen. c. 1. v. 27. + Ib. Gen. c. ili. v. 9. + Ib, Ex... Vi. Vv. 3, § R. Jose, Psalm cxxvii. v. 1 208 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “ city of Jerusalem, the centinel will keep watch “inyain” OMoOR ™T NID Op mr wow Noy mod ena AnD “ And they heard ‘the voice of the Word of Jehovah God walk- “ing in the garden, at the close of the day.” sono Ty voy 87909 ST NID FPDINI + ‘¢ But the Word of Jehovah continued to speak ‘with me further, saying.” “TN ID% WANT «And ¢ SOT ROT SID MNS Soy OM «the Word of Jehovah led the people along ‘‘ the desart of the Red Sea. “IT NWOYD WON) § sunny DIP YD) DXP AX AOKX Ty mw? O1p cnyt pam os pI wIp JAY wn “ And the Word of Jehovah 3 JT? NDP ‘“ said to Moses: How long wilt thou stand and ‘pray before me? thy prayer is heard in my ‘‘ presence, though the prayer of my people “ preceded thine.” “T NW2YD {YD INA FOR) || JAD way Jorma yy aM FN pn yo “And he ; 81 (IT MDX NYON) NNN “said: Turn, I pray, O Word of Jehovah, ‘“ from thy powerful indignation ; and return to ‘Cus with thy exuberant kindness; bless the ‘myriads, and augment the thousands of the ‘‘ children of Israel.” “T NTAPMWD JON Moa * Onkelos, Gen. c. iii. v. 8. + Jonathan, Isaiah, c. viii. v. 5. + Jerusalem Targ, Ex. c. xiii. v.17. § Ib. Exve. xiv. v. 15. | Ib. Num. c. x. v. 36. @ Ib. Deut. c. xxxiv. Vv. 5. IN THE GODHEAD. 209 | sey so mo oe Oy oxasioT INA «¢ And there died Moses, the servant of Jehovah, “in the country of the Moabites; according to “the tenor of the decree of the Word of Je- ¢ hovah.” NOY WD PND YT KID Mm ssmoxd poo nooo pt“ The Word of Je- ‘¢ hovah you have this day constituted over you, “ to become your God.” 2 M PNAM {32 + 207 NID TW INIw? “ In this manner have ‘‘ ve rescued the children of Israel from the hand “of the Word of Jehovah.” WIN8T NA ft 20°) m2“ My chosen, in whom my Word « delighteth.”. + 7199 NaN NY 1079 “ING ‘And my Word shall rejoice over them, to do “ them good.” : Ina aD Dapni|| “ And ‘¢ thou shalt receive a word from my Word.” S19D mpmD Sav Tayo> m2 upot mMnio4| mn. tay waded pot 7 DOD Sows r‘* In proportion as : mm wna? gw xD ‘a man disposes himself to do good, in the '“ same proportion will the Word of heaven do i good to him; andas he disposes himself to do «* evil, so according to his evil will the Word of ‘¢ heaven cause evil to him.” Let the foregoing * Jerusalem Targumist, Deut. c. xxvi. v. 17. + Jonathan, Joshua, c. xxii. v.31. + Ib. Isaiah, c. xlii. v. 1. § Ib. Jer. c. xxxil. v. 41. | Ib. Ezek. c..iii. v. 17. @ Targ. Eccl. c, iv. v. 4 2D 210 A TRINITY OF PERSONS examples be deemed sufficient. for the con- firmation of the divinity and personality of the. Word. I should not, indeed, have produced so many, but for the sake of the Jewish reader ; who will with difficulty, perhaps, be brought to confess, that there is any thing extraordinary in the use of the term, Word, as applied to Je- hovah by the Targumists, unless convinced by the number and force of their testimonies. Tf, however, he will take the trouble of se- riously and impartially examining the alleged authorities, he will find sufficient reason for be- lieving, not only that it is a personal designation, but that its import is wholly foreign to the common acceptation of the term, word, and bears yo manner of relation, whatever, to the faculty of speech. For to say nothing of its leading the Israelites through the desart, of its hearing the prayers of Moses, of its turning from anger to pity, and increasing the numbers of the children of Israel; to say nothing of its being crowned by the Jewish nation for their king and ‘god, of its delighting in a person, and rejoicing to do him good ; of its imparting a word of prophecy, and remunerating the actions of mankind according to their merits; fo say nothing, I exclaim, of these actions here at- tributed to it being wholly unconnected with the IN THE GODHEAD. 211 power of speech, how shall we make it the © creator of the universe, and at the, same time hearken to the. supposition, that it signifies nothing but a word of mouth in the ordinary acceptation. of that term? ‘True it is, that with sovereigns possessed of ministers and at- tendants, the word. of command. is all that is necessary often for the accomplishment of an action; but before the creation of the world, there was no ministring spirit or angel, to whom such command could have been given; and to contend, that God commanded himself on the occasion, or that he uttered a soliloquy, which fabricated the worlds, would be to reason on the subject with the most consummate folly. 1 know; that the Law expresses. itself always in the language» of mankind, and that terms trans- ferred from human specch are but metaphors or translations, when applied to the deity ; but with all due deference to that principle of interpre- tation, I deny. the possibility of proving the Word of the Targumists to be either an ac- cident or a quality, or any other thing than a _personality of the godhead. The argument is not at all invalidated by the consideration, that it is mostly in regimen with, Jehovah, or takes its pronominal suffix ; for had either, j2, or 72, that is, Son, been 212 A TRINITY OF PERSONS aged ‘instead of it, such constant and uniform construction would have been equally necessary. The Targumist of the Psalms, however, has employed it actually divested of both regimen and suffix; and so plainly authorised the manner in which it is used by St. John, in the opening of his gospel. I would further remark, too; that, WOVD, Memar, is never put for, 27, Dabar, meaning a word of prophecy ; nor yet for, 1870, Angel ; as the former is invariably rendered by, DAMD, Pithgam ; and the latter by TID, Maleach, as often as they occur in the original Hebrew. ' This I consider as no mean argument of the eminent signification affixed to it by the Targumists; for had they intended to convey by the term no higher meaning than either a mandate from God, ora messenger charged with such mandate, it would be difficult to divine the reason, why they should have neglected to employ it on those special occasions. Indeed, to a number of our most learned theologists, the divinity and personality of the Word have appeared in so convincing a light, that they have gone into the opposite error, asserting, that the Word of Jehovah is_ but an elegant periphrasis for Jehovah himself, like the strength of Hercules, instead of Her- , cules; the body of Agamemnon, instead of IN THE GODHEAD. 213 ' Agamemnon; the backs of oxen, instead of oxen; and similar phrases: or, that it is an idiom in the Chaldaic, as it is in the Romaic dialect, and is applied to men as well as to the deity. This, however, is a most unfounded suspicion. In the language of the Targumin it cannot be so much as pretended, that any of those rhetorical circumlocutions are ever used. But had the case been otherwise, and the Tar- gumists had really been inclined to express the divinity by an elegant periphrasis ; it is highly improbable, that they would have selected for that purpose the term, word, which implies nothing essential to the grandeur of any being ; but rather, majesty, glory, wisdom, power, or strength; which, by being placed in construction with Jehovah, or God, might have formed a periphrasis not unworthy of the deity. The circumlocutory designation of a person is never employed in the invocation of that person, un- less accompanied with a pronominal adjunct ; nor even then so as to admit of a verb agree- ing with it in any other person than the third, either singular or plural: whereas the Word of Jehovah is not only invoked, but followed, as we see, by verbs of the second person singular, which proves irrefragably, that itis the Word, and not the Jehovah with which it is in regimen, Q\4 A TRINITY OF PERSONS that is the object of the invocation. It 1s not put for the Jehovah, or God, of the inspired penmen, indiscriminately ; but employed chiefly in the narration or prediction of those perform- ances, of which both the author and the agent are expressly defined. But what I regard as the death blow of the opinion is, that the Word is found to stand by itself, absolutely ; without the accompaniment of either Jehovah or the suffix, as in the Targum of the thirty-seventh psalm, NYIN PND si. pansy 7wd “< For they who 3 poNU XNA poorwnay ‘Care blessed by the Word, shall inherit the ‘earth; but they who are cursed by death, shall “be annihilated.” So also in that of the forty- fourth psalm.—Mi2] 8Ppyd Ns723,—“ By ‘the Word shall we vanquish our enemies.” This use of the term completely destroys the supposed periphrasis, and shews, if any thing can, that the Word is a something subsisting of itself, and forms no part whatever of the per- sonality of Jehovah. To strengthen the argument, however, still more, I will produce a variety of examples, in which a marked distinction may be observed between Jehovah and his Word. 7. S7.%D)* RWIT wD My) DIDI Soy OY mn mn * Jerusalem Targum. Gen. c. xix. vy. 24. IN THE GODHEAD. 215 WD) MWD PPT yO SAINN pI xo mot soot Os NA Sut NWO pant mnd nn? IN Map 22 Nw say Poy yD” DIP yO Nw RMA py “ And the Word of Jehovah poured down upon “ the people of Sodom and Gomorrah gracious ‘rains, to induce them to repent of their ‘‘ wicked works. But when on seeing the “oracious rain, they said; it is because our ‘‘ wicked works are not manifest in his sight ; “he then began to pour down upon them fire ‘‘and brimstone from Jehovah from heaven.” 10 JO NMWD NDI) NID 1 1D PP’ Aw * pos Ss J bg 2 «“ Moses 3 PIII Pa WW YT SW) Say “ shall come out of the desart, and the king ‘‘ Messias out of Rome. This shall march at ‘© the head of a cloud, and that shall march at ‘¢ the head of a cloud; and the Word of Je- “ hovah shall march between them.” Mat 43 + soy panos wT 890702 PIPIANT ONAN ATT "DIDI NIP “yA NAINA Nnwpa ppran ‘¢ But on the house of Judah I will + pwr “ have mercy, and will redeem them by the «© Word of Jehovah, their God; and they shall ‘‘ not be redeemed by the bow, nor by the sword, * Jerusalem Targumist, Ex. c. xii. v. 42. + Jonathan, Hosea, c. i. v. 7. 216 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “nor by an army; neither by horses, nor by “horsemen.” IM MYMIN TDA NAIN NIN 7 NPVOV ooo « But thou, O God, by thy Word “ shalt cast them down to the deepest hell.” amas xoapoo xpowd apn ww pan + 72 PIO. MRI Y mow “T Nana mM “Their heart they rendered as (8D 7P NYA3 ‘‘ hard as adamant; so as neither to receive the ‘law, nor the words which Jehovah of hosts ‘had sent by his Word, by means of the ** ancient prophets.” NyIND Po IIWHT Tt “ Who sendeth his Word upon the earth.” ‘« And sent his Word 3 PI TA MPIDND TW “ like arrows.” 2 DM Mow DTN Y Wd | «¢ And now Jehovah God hath sent me and his « Word.” Mow) ™T Nowa YY RIS DIE ‘pao << But I will intreat the name of Je- ‘ hovah, and he will send his Word.” SNS) ** woot xobma oman m2 » oIp ja 72% ‘“ And the Word came from Je- : mo 908) ‘‘ hovah to Abimelech, in a dream of the night ; ‘and said to him.’ “ OIP OQ WO PW t+ > ON) mae] Nona yw) oY2A7 « And the “ Word from Jehovah met Balaam, and put. * R. Jose, Ps. lv. y. 25. + Jonathan, Zech. c. vil. v. 12: $ R. Jose, Ps. exlvii. v. 15. § Ib. Ps. xviii. v. 15. | Jonathan, Is. c. xlviii. v.16. @ Ib. 1 Kings, c. xvill. v. 42. ** Onkelos, Gen. c. xx.¥. 3. +t Ib.Num. ¢. xxiii. Vv. 20. IN THE GODHEAD. Q17 ‘* the wordin his mouth, and said.” SV nm NPrT* ‘* And behold he : % OP jO W212 WINS ON “was not ; for he was taken up by the Word “from Jehovah.” 2 * OTP jo AD TPM + “* Is the Word from Jehovah curtailed ?” For the better conviction of the reader, that each of these instances makes wholly for the pre- sent argument, and is exactly in point; it may not be absurd to remark, that, with respect to the first of them, we find the Targumist evidently distin- guishing between the Jehovah, who, according to the inspired penman, poured down upon the devoted townsmen of righteous Lot, fire and sul- phur; and the Jehovah, mentioned towards the clause of the verse, from whom this combustible matter descended out of heaven; seeing that the former is regarded in the character of an agent or minister, and paraphrased, the Word of Jehovah ; whereas the latter is rendered simply by, Jehovah, and is represented as being still in heaven; whilst the Word was wielding terror and destruction round Sodom and Gomorrah. It is not to be dissembled, however, that, in commenting on this text, both Jarchi and Aben Ezra consider the latter Jehovah, as an elegant repetition of the noun in- stead of the pronoun; and of which they furnish, indeed, a few seeming examples: but, that the Pa- * Jerusalem Targ. Gen. c. v. v. 24. + Jonathan, Micah, c. ij. v. 7. ° 9 free E 218 A TRINITY OF PERSONS raphrast understood it differently, is manifest from the distinction, which he has drawn between them; and, that the former must needs: be meant of a person in reality different from the latter, was the opinion not only of R. Menasseh ben Israel, but of many other divines of the highest authority in the Jewish church, as the words of R. Menasseh* will abundantly testify.. Hine quoque explican- tur verba illa: Et Dominus demisit, pluviam sul- phuris a Domino ccelorum : alioqui locus is satis arduus est. Quamvis autem Aben Ezra schema- ticam locutionem esse existimet, melius»tamen R. Helbo, ex sententia R. Simonis putabat; per primum nomen Domini designari angelum Gabrie- lem ; ut legatus usurpet nomen ejus a quo missus et potentia donatus erat, ad consummanda desti- nata. Ideoque ait, demisit (tanquam causa in- strumentalis) pluviam sulfuris et ignis a Domino coeli, prima causa, et proximo agente. “ Hence “too are explained the words: And the Lord ‘“ rained down sulphur from the Lord of heaven ; «“ the place being otherwise rather difficult of in- “terpretation. For though Aben Ezra looks ‘upon the expression as figurative, R. Joseph “ Albo, with much more reason, imagined, ac- “ cording to the opinion of R. Simeon, that, by “the first name of the Lord, was meant the angel, * Concil. Quest. xliv. p. 67. IN THE GODHEAD. 919 ‘Gabriel; having the name of him by whom he ‘< had been sent, and endued with power to con- “ sumimate the design. . The scripture, therefore, “ says; Jehovah, that is, the instrumental cause ag it were, rained down fire and sulphur from << the Lord of heaven, who was the primary cause ‘Cand proximate agent.” In the selected case that follows next in order, though the words contain no exposition of any part of scripture, so as to afford an opportunity of collecting their sense from the sacred text; yet will no Jewish reader be disposed to argue, that the Word of Jehovah, stationed between Moses and the Messias, can signify any thing else than ‘a legate’ from heaven, appointed to attend and conduct them in their march. The third instance from Jonathan, on the pro- phet Hosea, is equally free from any solid objec- tion. For if the Word of Jehovah convey to the mind no other-idea, than that which is already expressed by the term, Jehovah; nor mean any other person than that, which is the chief subject of the sentence ; why is it appended as the instru- ment of action, and contrasted with the military means of acquiring emancipation ; seeing that no person can be at the same time the agent of an action, of which he is declared to be only the in- strument > It is true, that, in maintaming the con- 220 A TRINITY OF PERSONS vertibility of the terms, the Christian theologist may insist, that, when Jehovah says, I will deliver the kingdom of Judah, by Jehovah, or by the Word of Jehovah, their God, all that is meant by the expression in either case is, that he will deliver them by himself, agreeably to what has been ob- served of this form of speech on another occasion : but to the Jewish divine, who lays it down asa ». certain and infallible position, that Jehovah per- ‘forms no work with his own hands, but only by his legates or ministering spirits; it is by no means competent to argue in that manner. So far, indeed, are both Aben Ezra* and Kimchit from confounding, in this prophecy, the agent with the instrument ; that they expound the latter of the angel that was sent from God against the camp of Senacherib. In the fourth, the same reasoning will obtain as in the third; that a palpable distinction is here made between Jehovah, the author of the wicked being cast into hell; and the Word of Jehovah, the agent or instrument, by whom the punishment is to be inflicted. This is perfectly clear in the present case; for in the original Hebrew, there is nothing of which the Word, in the Targum, can be considered as a translation; and to render it reciprocally, as if the Targumist had intended to * Com. in loc. + Ibid. rs IN THE GODHEAD. 99] say: Thou, O Jehovah, by thyself shalt cast them into the deepest hell; would be charging him with the use of an emphasis, equally ridicu- -Jous and absurd. The fifth is entitled to particular attention. By his Word, in this Targum, is put for, By his Spirit, in the Hebrew; and that it could not be the individual subsisting spirit of Jehovah himself is demonstrable from the circumstance, that it was sent by him charged with mandates for the people by the hands of the prophets. R. David Kimchi* has expounded the term spirit, in this place, by, the spirit of prophecy.— YAY ARI ANA WNA *« By his spirit, that is, ; DSI OY Ma ‘« by the spirit of prophecy, which discoursed with ‘the prophets.” Here we evidently have the opinion of the author, that this spirit was a divine subsistency, distinct from the person of Jehovah, “and was the speaker sent from God, not the thing spoken or imparted to the prophets. Let it not, however, be supposed, that the Targumist here means by the term, Word, the spirit of prophecy ; as his constant practice of expressing the prophetic spirit by the phrase, NII] AM, puts the matter out of doubt. The only reason for citing Kimchi was to shew, that the term, Word, in the Targum, to come up to the sense of the original, can mean * Com, in loc. a 299 A TRINITY OF PERSONS neither Jehovah personally, nor the word of his mouth ; the very sum of the argument which | am endeavouring to establish. Indeed, that it cannot signify the word of his mouth, is evinced in that he is here said to have sent words by this Word ; and that it cannot be understood of him- self individually, is equally evident from the sense- less jargon consequent on the supposition, that the Targumist meant to say: The words which Jehovah sent by himself. | The sixth and seventh instances no less distin- -guish between Jehovah and his Word, in making the latter to have been sent by the former; it being utterly impossible that two names, standing in any sentence in this relation to each other, should be understood of one and the same person. The Hebrew term, corresponding to the Word of the T'argumist, is, in the one case, Speech ; and, in the other, Arrows: where it is worthy of remark, that, for the latter, he has not deemed Word a rendering sufficiently literal, but has added, as it were arrows; insinuating, no doubt, that the language of the Psalmist is here highly firurative, and that the Word of Jehovah, like the arrows of a warrior, can strike terror and dismay into the hearts of his enemies. The eighth is of a similar complexion with the fifth; his Word, being the targum for, hs Spirrt, IN THE GODHEAD. 293 and having the joint authorities of Aben Ezra and David Kimchi for its being a person of itself, in that they both render, Ais spirit, by, his angel. The ninth derives no elucidation from a com- parison with the Hebrew; as it seems an illus- tration, and not a translation, of the sacred text. It fulfils, however, the purpose for which it is here adduced equally. with the preceding. The two next examples present themselves in the most convincing shape. Here we find’ the Word OP j, from, not, of, Jehovah; coming to Abimelech and Balaam ; admonishing the. for- mer in a dream by night, and putting into the mouth of the latter that word of prophecy, which he was to declare unto Balak. In the Hebrew it is, Elohim, on both occasions; and of how general an import that term is, the reader does not now surely need to. be informed. R. Abraham, in the case of Abimelech, has expounded it of an angel; and, though the Paraphrast has not low- ered its signification to that degree, there can be no doubt of his intention to convey something more definite by the expression, the Word from Jehovah, than it was. possible for him to do by the term, Lord, or God only, as it stands in the Hebrew. The twelfth and thirteenth, as they follow in order, have the same grounds of recommendation 224 A TRINITY OF PERSONS with the two last mentioned. In each of them we find the Word represented as a divine agent, and that, DIP 2, from, Jehovah ; a circumstance to which I would have the reader particularly to advert ; because, whenever two nouns are con- nected in this manner, they must of necessity be different and distinct subsistences. It cannot now be denied, I think, that, from the instances adduced, I have completely demon- strated the construction in question to be no periphrasis for the Supreme Being ; and, that we are fully justified in discriminating between the personality of Jehovah, and that of his Word. Indeed, if the Targumists had not actually intended to make this distinction, they would have proved themselves the most frivolous of interpreters, in using words without meaning; as the Jewish commentators in general, to throw more light on the text, and to render the sense of it less embar- rassing to the reader, frequently explain the term, Jehovah, by, the angel of Jehovah ; which the Targumists seldom or never do, and therefore give us reason to conclude, that their adoption of the phrase, the Word of Jehovah, was with the design of illustrating, as well as translating the original. This certainly agrees with what R. Nathan ben Jechiel* has recorded of the style * Sepher Aruch, Aruch Targem, p. 165. IN THE GODHEAD. 925 and use of the Targumin, on the authority of the Fathers, Mf “IT INNND pioa oN WMT Osw omds ne ww PID wrya ow72 72 wap PRw owt Ar oat Ow. NAN NON? mom) yoann) yoy ADV AN NW Meyer tao ya Aro ONwsTt RODS NAN APY mom om xox qwdo aon ‘He who paraphrases the scripture, $ 287W"T ‘‘ according to the letter of it, makes himself a “liar. For instance, should he paraphrase the “text, And they saw the God of Israel, by, ‘““ And they saw the God of Israel; this would “be making himself a liar, because the deity, ‘ blessed be he, cannot be seen: and should he ‘“‘ add to it, and paraphrase it, And they saw “the angel of the God of Israel; he would be ‘a reviler and a blasphemer, in asserting the ‘‘ glory to be an angel: but he must paraphrase ‘¢ it, And they saw the glory of the God of Israel.” Now if this be the principle, on which the Chaldee Paraphrasts always went, in translating the scripture; and, if Onkelos, in a certain text, has rendered the term, God, by, the glory of God, because neither, God, alone; nor, the angel of God, would have given the sense of the original ; we have fair grounds for concluding, that as often as they have paraphrased, Jehovah, or, God, by, the Word of Jehovah, or, the Word 2F 226 A TRINITY OF PERSONS of God, they intended to express something dif- ferent from Jehovah or God himself, considered as a divine person or subsistency of the godhead. - To the preceding considerations I beg to sub- join, that for the feet, the eyes, the face; the tongue, the mouth, the hand, the palm, the arm, the might, the sceptre, the zeal, the desire, the speech, the breath, the commandments, the heart, and the soul, of Jehovah, in the sacred text; we have in the Targumin,* for the most part, the Word of Jehovah; which evinces beyond a doubt, that they had formed in their minds a distinct and adequate conception of its divinity -and personality; seeing that no member of the body is the body itself, but may be severed and separated from it without destroying its subsis- tency. Besides, on the supposition that they meant by it only a certain accident of the divinity; no substantial reason can be assigned, why they should ‘have comprehended under it so many other accidents or properties of a different com- plexion ; for what affinity have either the hands, the eyes, or the feet, with speech, that they should be thought equivalent, in the deity, to the word of his mouth ? * Vid. Targumin of Isaiah i.20; xxx. 27, 28; xxxvil. 32; xlviii. 13; Jer. xv. 175 xxxil. 31; Hos. x. 10; Joel ii. 11; Mic. vii. 14; Hab.iii. 4; Ps. cvii. 11; Job xxxiii. 45 Ex. xxxiii. 09; Ps. xvili. 24; &c. &c. IN THE GODHEAD. 2271 The great R. Moses ben Maimon, so far from confounding the Word of Jehovah with Jehovah himself, and, under the colour of a periphrasis, describing them as synonymous expressions ; makes them correlatives, asserting that the former is something created, and is used by Onkelos as the targum of, Jehovah; not indiscriminately, and without any regard to the nature of the verb of which it is the subject; but when some- thing is announced as having been achieved by the particular order or word of God, who being so august and powerful a sovereign, may well be thought to put his designs into execution, not with his own proper hands, but by the hands of his angels or ministers, according to his will and express direction. But how R. Moses, or any other theologist, can discover in the major part of the examples selected in this argument, not to mention others that might yet be produced ; the least shadow of a command or order, so as to establish his position, I am at a loss to know, and may despair of instruction. Neither can E subscribe to his opinion, that the construction of this, and similar phrases, by the Targumists, was for the purpose of removing corporeity from the godhead ; because it often occurs, where nothing of the kind was to be apprehended, and. is very generally omitted in cases, where, had 928 A 'TRINITY OF PERSONS that been the design of the expression, it ought certainly to have been used. The remarks of the author, indeed, are restricted im a great measure to Onkelos on the Law, and, therefore, may not have been meant, perhaps, to be ex- tended to the rest of the Targumists. It will evidently appear, however. from what has been already stated, that the Word of Jehovah was, in the opinion of Maimonides, something widely different in subsistency from Jehovah himself, and formed no part, whatever, of his personal divinity. But though this notion of Maimonides, that the design of Onkelos, in forming the periphrasis, the Word of Jehovah, was purely to keep out of mind the idea of corporeity in the godhead, can never obtain the sanction of a scholar, who will fairly sit down, and diligently weigh all the texts, in which the expression occurs; yet as it tends to overthrow the grounds of this argument, and has even been somewhat applauded for its in- eenuity by one of the greatest Hebraicians* that christendom ever produced, it cannot be deemed unnecessary to obviate the force of such respect- able authority, and to prove from a writer of equal celebrity with himself, that his remarks, on the style of this paraphrast, are founded in error ; * Hackspan, vid. Tract. de Usu, &c. py. 403. IN THE GODHEAD. 229 and that the hypothesis, on which he goes, is in- competent to the solution of the periphrasis in question. Hear the reply of R. Moses Nachma- nides.* NDI PWN pra Wd 7H AW ANS) WIND ONO OY TIS WIS WW %5 D137 NOD IPPON NINT POY UPR NIN noy 22 TaN b5 pw DIopix 1D ON) pas YT mM. aw b5) NI We TDD ODI "OwWIT PTI? INA OD yO oy ONION minwn PND RYDY WR sow Ik NID N22 oy ANAT py Dw RANT ND TINY MOEPST YD TPT IN) INA SIN IND TIN 72 {Dd ON WN V2 SITY pay noma ‘oxw WIyI °D 37 “NAT "WTR wit hon mewn Ost) ov? TDR swp mn xd mynd TAD N? MON NAD bso AYIDD DRI TWND “ONO IAD? DI2PIN? wrod Mw MWD TAD 87 TVON WAD NWT msdn ANDI IN DIMA ‘oNw 7 p22 war Moxy md) PD) ANID) Anal ‘aNw MD Pa) MSDN IN IND ON IDI) wIMD 7273 DpIk pYMAw ION j2) PIT VN mor® ON RIT IIIA AYIA Mwy Cw ‘pO 732 Town gbap) DIP prow ‘an AP|N DAP I yaad a5 397 MNDID IIT YD ON) PN'NAp PAPR Dl row pry) Ayan yo DYPIs M93 moet yO ma 89) myows Oy mnw wns pond pl oIpD “Ww ONPA yO NPD HAWN * Com. Gen. xlvi. 1. 230 A TRINITY OF PERSONS yam po > HoMD TONDO. pr ‘Nws pa Sn 8 D2 8) wae spr» bd oy HORT WM DIP YD VONM 139719 A) mae wW 19D PVD MNT DD YIN AN YT Ip? oR) mpown pm mod) AOA ITA AI Naw ‘ON IW ONT ‘MS OPIN Pps pra sh by may wes 2ow miwe poy Sy spo ann IONN NNTD Ayowl AP Nw wd pun niws ys mMapo ans psa J5wa sawn oy 2 DI DINN Mp pow mw dpb ompay vow NO Mad pow MIN pow wPSs Fan ja4n yor 29127798 ' 9p> wown prow ox myyowT Oo NP? 19 TT 82 IdpaN 77-939 7D. soya psa cata ndap by pa aan oy MOWAD ‘MIS DIIN 738 pa WA MRI 1 AI [WND IAN 7272 PN wD IIAw PD 4552 aww PAS Sv 7293 Ps aww wow 97 ON WWND ID YN DD ON IN STDS SWOT AN yu NS DD)2 ANDY OAD Pw pre Syn oo ny 222 IIT AN OMS y) onwsa miww day M2 Aya a7 nyt. sbyy opos xb ons Bwm mI 727 °D ™ NY MoD IONw 35 NV WIN NIT DMN DIN OMMANA mIDpD DIIN) DYPIk AID AYayT pwr ons DowA NDS IW mays ~™ IapNy yp by m Gay pw? yon sd nyt x29 saws I ew PR 43 ON DIN Paw 7D -~D NWI’ Aon IN THE GODHEAD. | 231 x7 pao pied nay a pox on N57 Mwy NDI Aion yd AP AIM WIP Vay TH AS Sxtw NM pips jd) DPR 122 8 SNIP al Sse ima on AN 12 PNW Fwy qws pwd Ad 2377 1a: 7B soo Do Tmano gv a sd) NN2I7 NP PINND OND owns 372 4D) 99D "my AD Dwr 312 yPNw 1D) YT RVAYNI TIN YAMIN AND Ww IIIT PANNA DPN 107 NT WN OD MIMD NOX WHS SNM miny nam pon yo IND N7 MID aNd IDO. NON ONIN TY PIN yO {DI NOW) Ww m Api TD om Aswan 7 TR) NOOID NYVVIND) NPN NPD ON) NPN TT PR RMT. pnn wD wawNA INNM 42) Snwt Nw NI PIR wow SPIN an am oom py nonna and apa 7m DINM) OD DYpPIX IN| AYIN IAYW D0 sym on xd omy any Tt Np NM RM JOY wDIN AIT DIAM oN Nww Naya 1DD TOY NIN ND WN XV Po. D9 MDD Nqw oD Oy AND JOY Mn’ NaN DIINY SIND DIIN) Mw2 wn. oA Mosiw 727 98D TON) WOW DY IN NIN TD OY TTI "Oy IDV NAD MIS MNT 7? AN yay AND obs SDV OIINN MyM} OPIN WAN TW) > Ss ods xa oo Dna TaN OR yyrw TON ON) DIP j2 70% NAN DN. 932 A ‘TRINITY OF PERSONS ay ma aun pond not meat Nan Nw by os ANID Poa MND MwA mn wD aodons jay ims gam 9A yn maou amx WDD) DMs WON 7a px Aw? Ae oop wp? Oxi DMD TON] WR ams mown by my wx Niwa DW soy IIIT {Db wD wewon pam pn SYR IMS MADW YN? DVM] ANI Xv sets mon ona xinw i WONIw 7 2D 8 10 1) moTw DYN NT 7AN Wid NY aps Now MAD yD avd mony wn 2K wiona Sw modma ms pw? mvs oan yD) a mn ay2TDIII) VIM ONNe by ambs oy 1D panna xb propor ID) MOWIT YO IMA) AND IND PRD OWT SIP sain by Noy DIY RI Twl) OvN2 VAIN syn war o> par vs paropNII WA ja) MT WD) II A NYPD) YT NOVO TIO PA ST SUD TW DAIN WT SIV Jor’ FAS) DIN RD Do PR OI NVOwWIA ONY 77317 PRI VAD % pyown yD) TY AAyw 12 TaNw [823 Py PID DYAWIT {DIT SIO" 9? BYP onoN2 325 ND NYPD) ON ONDA Yaw us seray pws jv DWN? YIP OTD) DYPIN? pyp 12 way ind y’a yy owy 37 IN Dy pms) any) yom yA ON 727) DIbPIN IN KANDI AVM poy 77 22_29N 359 TA a pM Tay pwho NVM x? iN THE GODHEAD. 235 S100 Sy WOM TOTP ONpP Ss AST Oy ow NOD AVI Ply Dwr DPN 3 JI WOXw AA 1D DYPIN AA NIA Wad Mew Apown om wos mows ia nave Asa Naan DD MT RAP GaN TA 9D ON MII NM IDOE Spy IAIN SIS 897 yam aay pDNoD2 OPIN IID ONIN ODNIDA OM 27 ADNw OD MOwIT wIya NII) 2d DOIN DNTY PST yO wpm Sow ys A OwOR oNSD Awyy vOD IANS) oI D2. obey wm ot xoxdo comm ons oa IN DB VIN NDI NIADIN AYIw Lp 73Iw Pw IND DIT AWM wD JIM 73335 DwND 28 PR ON DIN NIT Mad O37 Op) xo wn sana ssonp Jnpaw mo ox an JAD DWM PIN ga3 IAD wy 373 pam so NUT 792 wpr y) Dk Iasw Fam box Ja qyano sy Ndy PIB? TD ‘Nod 13) NADI wsya ON wy Tw wpad Satn ns 02> 7s pa own poww INN IR NDT mw WON Awys MIT ws NT pian yD) NPA MT NnYaw wo WN 1227p sax omnes Som sd op ne ms Osin 8? yd INP ION) NWPN UPN 87 TN NPI TNaD7 ON PnpSw ma INNO '™T Np PIA spe) UNON NVI OY TANIA I Ay AN Mat yD DTI way TNID NS $v Iw Siw TON OND now) md) Ins 32 DI 2G O34 A TRINITY OF PERSONS 877’ TAD) pioal 290 Sw anyt> NID) TAS 1237 FI 13. wap pond jw mx W3ID AT AMIy Taw soa Maas Soanym Nw Ap Dw ow Oy ay oa oat oma JIM) DYPIN? ANT Owe Say mam Syn DyTN? OND) Mapa oyry oat Sry a nv 92 Dbpy DMM oD AN tHe im TWD) 'T SIND IN SIP Awl IA ods 727) 12 7o8 85 Inyo own qwran pon VWYA A PIX TW) 1090 ADDND snow DS DR TIM opxw ony AD Tam Dwi Mt yoyo ™ om AKA pat 52 PIwM oD Ap o> Ox aaT OAD DD INI M39 JOY MIMS NIN IRD Ioxw AD bax pr OTay Hpaw ony 153 poxw AD 32 1 maw pw) 15) AED JOY TAN (SDN IONDw TVANT AI DAWA NDD oNw) TOXw OND mM os) mound cnevay ws ow soa ‘97 WRD OD DWwa 1D Nds ond dy JOY SIN NM DIIN? ja ND apa ow Say Pavan YY AVI AIM Bnd ows Hays Wid WOWED IDRWY DVPIN N¥Ow MAD pI 77) WONT IDA TW py oNwy won maw : WIA RW 12 TOY 1D ION Nd) PDI ‘“ But the author of More Nevochim, Part i. ‘“ ¢. 27. states, that for the Hebrew, I will descend “with thee into Egypt, and will bring thee up “again, the targum in like manner is, I will IN THE GODHEAD, 935 “descend with thee into Egypt, and will bring “thee up again; where he takes the opportunity of expressing his high admiration of the knowledge of Onkelos, averring, that in his relation of any transaction in the Law, Onkelos applies all his powers to remove from the divine nature every idea of corporeity ; and that what- ever terms occur expressive of motion, such idea of motion he thence transfers to the created glory or providence of God, paraphrasing, And ‘“ the Lord descended—And the Lord manifested himself; Let me go down and see—Let me manifest myself and see; and, therefore, he institutes the inquiry, why the targum of the passage before us should be rendered exactly “as in the original—I will descend? To this his reply is, that since in the opening of the “ narrative the scripture had set forth, that God ‘‘ spake unto Israel in a vision of the night; it being the relation of a discourse, and not of an ‘* action; there was no need for Onkelos to hesi- ‘ tate about relating the speech in the manner it ‘¢ had been uttered in the nocturnal vision; as it ‘¢ was the relation, not of an action that had taken ‘place, but of a discourse. ‘That there is a ‘“‘ wide difference between what is declared in a ‘dream or nocturnal vision; between what is “uttered in a prophetic trance; and what is 236 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ‘ uttered in a real and proper speech, such as; ‘The word of the Lord came unto me, saying. ‘“'hus argues the learned Rabbi. He asserts, ‘“ moreover, that Onkelos removes from the deity ‘ the sense of hearing; which he expounds in the ‘ targum by the object coming to the creator, or ‘‘ the petition being received; adopting as para- ‘‘ phrases—It was heard with the Lord—He ‘‘ accepted his intreaty. But if the case actually ‘‘ be, as the author has stated it, how comes it ‘‘ to pass, I would ask, that Onkelos, from an ‘‘ apprehension that they would imply corporeity, ‘‘ should scruple to predicate motion, and should ‘remove the sense of hearing; but on no oc- ‘‘casion has abstained from the predicates of ‘saying, speaking, and calling, whether in a ‘‘ dream, or ina vision, or in a real and actual ‘“‘ conference? In all these cases, the language ‘of the targum is—The Lord said—The Lord ‘“‘ spoke—The Lord called unto Moses. ‘These “ accidents, most unquestionably, imply corpo- “ yeity; and, therefore, according to the exposition “‘ of the learned Rabbi, of saying and speaking ‘the targum ought to have been—It was said “from the Lord—'The glory of the Lord said— ‘or, The Lord acquiesced; as the exigency of “the case might seem to require. Besides, why “does he remove the sense of hearing, but not IN THE GODHEAD. 237 “ that of seeing; since for the latter the targum “is-—-And the Lord saw? For as to the de- ce a4 ¢ an c¢ claration of the author, that the verb employed to denote ocular perception, has reference equally to intellectual apprehension ; the same, or more, may be said of the verb, to hear; ‘which is to be understood of intellectual ap- prehension and complacency, on numberless occasions. Thus; And Abraham hearkened unto the voice of Sarah—Hear the voice of my sup- plications—Though ye multiply intreaty, I will not hear-—Behold, to hear is better than sacrifice —And it shall be, if ye will hearken to the voice of the Lord, your God—So also, a hearing heart; not to mention ‘many other examples. Hence we may gather, that Onkelos had no reason to be afraid of predicating the verb, to hear, seeing that it has the signification of accepting a thing, or of acquiescing in the tenor of it. Neither has he, on any occasion, avoided the use of the verb, to see; but, when- ever the object of it is apprehensible by the sight alone, he paraphrases it literally; and when the object is not to be perceived by the sight, he paraphrases it, as the context may seem to require; as in the passages, For the Lord hath beheld my affliction—Seeing I have seen the affliction of my people—And God saw the 238 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “ children of Israel; these not being objects of ‘sight, that he should see their bodies, but that “he should attend to their distress, and take “ proper notice of it: and this, be it observed, ‘“is his usual mode of paraphrasing throughout ‘“‘ the whole of the Pentateuch; not in the sense “ascribed to him by the learned Rabbi, that is “ to say, according to what he has asserted in “his forty-eighth chapter on the passage, An “ the Lord saw that the wickedness of men had ‘“ waxen great, together with the other two texts : ‘that he has paraphrased them, and uses the “verb, to see; but that the paraphrases are not ‘‘ genuine. Moreover, according to the doctrine “ of the learned Rabbi, in the accident of passing “ Onkelos makes an addition to the sense ; para- “ phrasing, And the Lord passed before his face ‘““—And the Lord caused his Habitation to pass “ before his face; because, in his opinion; that “which passes, is something created; and be- ‘“ cause he does not predicate of the deity any “thing implying motion. But if this be true, ‘“ how happens it, I would ask, that of the text, “The Lord, thy God, himself passeth before “thee; his targum should be, The Lord, thy ““ God, himself passeth before thee? Doubtless, “ this attribution is a species of motion, and that, “ too, in the relation of something which had been IN THE GODHEAD. 939 ‘* performed ; and yet we behold Onkelos not afraid ‘“ toaffirm it. So also; of the words, And Israel “saw the mighty hand, his paraphrase is—And ‘ Israel saw the powerfulness of the mighty hand ; ‘‘ where, in consideration of what had been ‘* achieved, powerfulness, is asserted as the object; ‘‘ but, miehty hand, he still retains, and seems ‘¢to have been under no fear of ascribing it to ‘‘the deity; employing it, as we see, without ‘any alteration. Such, too, is his way in pa- ‘‘ raphrasing the construction, By the finger of ‘the Lord; which he always renders-—By the ‘¢ finger of the Lord: for as to the illustration of ‘‘ the learned Rabbi, that Onkelos makes the ‘“‘ finger a created instrument, which, at the ‘‘ pleasure of the creator, unfolded the tablets, it ‘‘ is wholly destitute of truth; for the text, From ‘‘ his own right hand received they a fiery law ; ‘‘he paraphrases, The writing of his own right ‘hand; being herein no more afraid to attribute ‘“‘ the inditing right hand, notwithstanding it im- ‘plies corporeity, than he is to attribute the ‘‘ finger. He, moreover, says; Thy right hand ‘hath exalted—Thy right hand, O Lord, hath ‘bruised its enemies. Thy strong hand, he ‘< paraphrases—Thy powerful hand; and says— ‘‘ By a mighty hand, and by an uplifted arm. “So again, And my hand shall be strong in— 240 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ‘‘ judgment, he renders—And my hand shall be “strong in judgment. In like manner, he para- “phrases and says—The eyes of the Lord, thy ‘* God, are perpetually upon it from the beginning ‘to the end of the year. Now, of Jacob it is ‘expressly said in the commencement of the ‘“‘ narrative, that he dreamed, and, behold, there ‘* was a ladder fixed to the earth; but Onkelos, ‘‘ avoiding the literal interpretation, paraphrases ‘“ the beginning of the subsequent pasuk—And “behold the glory of the Lord stood upon it; ** not, Behold the Lord; because it was in a dream. “So likewise, And behold Iam with thee, he “* renders—And behold my Word is thy support ; ‘“‘ he does not say, Behold I am with thee, as in ‘the paraphrase, I will go down with thee; ‘although it is the relation of a speech, which ‘“ had been uttered in a dream equally with the ‘‘ other. So again, And I will be with thy mouth ; ‘“he renders—And I will be with thy mouth ; ‘and where it is said, For I will be with thee, ‘and this shall be a sign unto thee; his targum ‘¢ is—Behold my Word shall be with thee. More- “over, in dreams Onkelos is particularly on his ‘“‘ guard, having paraphrased the two texts, And ‘‘ God came unto Abimelech in a dream of the “night; And God came unto Laban ina dream ; “-by—-And the Word came from the Lord. Should IN THE GODHEAD, 241 “you say, that he was solicitous, lest the act of “coming should be anterior to the dream, and ‘ that it should be considered as something real ; ‘it may be answered, that of Solomon it is written—In Gibeon the Lord appeared unto “ Solomon, in a dream of the night; which, by ‘‘ Jonathan, is paraphrased—The Lord. mani- ‘‘ fested himself unto Solomon. If the speech is “uttered in a dream, they report it as it was ‘‘ spoken in that dream; nor ought this to be “ objected to them, although the speech should ‘¢ imply corporeity ; for since it takes place in a dream only, they can plead for themselves, that it is not real. ‘The thing tov, which is said to appear in the dream, thes do rightly to report it as it is; as the bare mention, that it hap- “pened in a dream by night, is sufficient. to “ shew, that it is nothing in reality ; but is a ‘“‘ dream, which is likened to that thing by him- ** self, Nor let it be imagined, that Jonathan ‘* ben Uziel has so paraphrased, because that, in ‘‘ the Chaldee dialect, the expression, to. see in ‘“ dreams, is not in use; for, And I saw in my “« dream, is, in the reel And I saw; and of “ Nebuchadnezzar it is said, And 1 saw in my “dream. Moreover, for the text, Your. mur- “murings are not against us, but. against ‘Jehovah; the targum of QOnkelos is—But_ 2H 6c 6¢ ce €é cé 249 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “against the Word of Jehovah; where there ‘was no need at all to have been afraid of cor-— “ poreity. In like manner the passage, And the « people spoke against God, and against Moses ; ‘ig paraphrased—And the people murmured ‘against’ the Word of Jehovah. So again, « Between me and you; Between God and every ‘< living creature ; are paraphrased— Between my ‘© Word——-Between the Word of Jehovah; the ‘« like to which we find in an infinite number of ‘places. So also the targum of, Jehovah shall “ pour out, is The Word of Jehovah shall “ pour out; of, God is witness—The Word of « Jehovah is witness; in which the paraphrast “could have entertained no fears about cor- “ poreity; neither would it be sense to ‘affirm of ‘the Word, considered as a word, that it poured ‘¢ gut, or, that it was a witness. In like manner, « Swear unto me by God, is paraphrased—Swear “unto me by the Word of Jehovah: and so “ those who swear, say, 1 swear by the Word « of God; not to mention many similar con- « structions to be found in Onkelos, the true “import and mystery of which are known to ‘“‘ the intelligent. Moreover, in respect of the “ accident of standing, the learned Rabbi asserts, « that Jonathan ben Uziel has studiously applied ‘¢ himself to render it by, firmness ; and, there- IN THE GODHEAD. 243 ‘* fore, the text, And his feet stood; he para- ‘ phrases—And his might appeared; and so, ‘in like manner, every instance of acting and ‘““ moving he paraphrases by, might. Certain it ‘‘ is, however, that Onkelos by no means is afraid “* to predicate the accident of standing; but the ‘‘ text, Behold I will stand before thee there ‘in the rock; he paraphrases—Behold I will “ stand before thee there in the rock. But fur- “ther, as to the assertion of the author, that ‘ Onkelos makes motion signify the manifestation ‘“‘ of the Habitation, or, the displaying of the ‘created glory; it is very clear, that Onkelos “scrupulously avoids giving to the glory any “such signification: for of the words, And the “ glory of the Lord appeared unto all the as- ‘‘ sembly ; his targum is—And the glory of the - Lord appeared; just as he says—And the Lord ‘“appearéd; he does not say in the targum— ‘“‘ And. the glory of the Lord was seen. | Nay, “ he even paraphrases, and affirms of the angels; ‘‘And he appeared or manifested himself. But ‘* if, as the learned Rabbi contends, Onkelos had ‘‘ actually regarded the angels and the created ‘‘ glory as bodily substances; there would have ‘‘ been no need for him to have abstained from “‘ speaking of them as objects of mortal sight: ‘“‘ but he might have paraphrased, and said of - 244 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ‘‘ them—And he was seen; in the manner he ‘‘ has rendered the words, For I have seen God “ face to face; the targum being—For I have “seen the angel of the Lord. God forbid, «‘ however, that what is called the Habitation, ‘“ or the created glory; should, as the author in ‘‘ this, and several other chapters of his work, ‘‘ seems to have imagined, be any thing distinct ‘“‘ from Jehovah himself, blessed be he. ‘The ‘“‘ words, If thy presence do not go with us; the “ Targumist renders—If tiny Habitation do not “vo with us. Now Moses would ‘never have ‘< acquiesced in a created glory proceeding along ‘‘ with him without the glorious name. blessed be ‘he; as the Lord had already said, ‘Behold my ‘ angel shall go before thee; but with this he was “not satisfied; on the contrary, he urged the “ request, that the deity would go along with «< him, in his own person and glory. So, after ‘that the Lord had hearkened to his voice, and “ said; The thing, which thou hast mentioned, ‘©] will also grant; Moses saith, Let my Lord, ‘J pray, proceed amongst us; the targum— “‘ Let the Habitation of Jehovah, now, proceed “amongst us. So again, the targum of, Thou ‘‘ canst not see my face; is—Thou canst not “see the face of my Habitation; for no man ‘‘ shall see me. Jonathan ben Uziel, moreover, ad IN THE GODHEAD. 945 ‘“‘ says; Blessed be the glory of Jehovah from “the place of the temple of his Habitation. “Now, since by, glory, in scripture, is meant ‘‘ the very substance and essence of the creator ; “‘ and that interpreted, as in the text; Let me, ‘‘] pray, behold thy glory; according to the ‘¢ exposition of the learned Rabbi himself; we, ‘“‘ therefore, have here the properties of place, “‘ temple, and, that it dwells, expressly comme- ‘‘ morated of it: but, if we maintain, according ‘to the opinion of the author in the pasuk, And ‘‘ the glory of the Lord filled the temple, and so “ forth, that it is a created glory; how can it be ‘¢ affirmed of it, that it is blessed; not to mention, ‘“‘ that the person is blessing and intreating a ‘“‘ created glory, in the manner of an idolater? | ‘“‘ In the writings of the Fathers, there are many ‘‘ passages, which inculcate respecting the name ‘¢ of the Habitation, that it is God himself. But “these constructions of Onkelos and Jonathan “ ben Uziel are things to be learnt in the Cabbala; ‘* and to those, that enjoy the favor, their mys- ** tical import is revealed. In the station on “¢ mount Sinai; wherever, throughout the whole “ section, the term, Elohim, God, occurs; the ‘‘ targum has either the glory, or the Word, of ‘* Jehovah: but, wherever, Jehovah, or Lord, “occurs; the targum is otherwise; all which, 946 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “no doubt, has been considerately and wisely “designed by him, as with the divine assistance “‘ IT shall hereafter take occasion to shew. That ‘« the text, And God spoke all these words, should “‘ be rendered by Onkelos, And Jehovah spoke “all these words: is not any exception to the ‘ position laid down: his reason for so doing “ being, because it is elsewhere said, The Lord ‘* spoke face to face unto all the congregation ; ‘* which the intelligent will not fail to consider. ‘* But with respect to the targum now before us, “ I will go down with thee; it was intended to “insinuate what they say in the Talmud: If ‘ they were exiled to Egypt, the Habitation was “with them; as it is written, I will descend ‘with thee into Egypt; if they were exiled to ‘“ Elam, the Habitation was with them; as it is “ written, And I will set my throne in Elam. ‘‘ Now, as I have already observed above, saying, ‘* and, descending, are of equal import, and there “© was no possibility of paraphrasing otherwise ‘* than this, as I have intimated before; but. of ‘*. Jacob it would have been inconsistent to have “« paraphrased, And behold I am with thee; be- “cause it is there written, And behold Jehovah “stood on the top of it; which let him, that ‘* understands, duly consider: for Onkelos per- ‘‘ ceiving, that it was not to be taken literally, | IN THE GODHEAD. 947 ‘* abstained from paraphrasing it as such; re- ‘“stricting its signification to that of help only, “and saying—My Word is thy support ; not— ‘© My Word is with thee; as he had said of “« Moses.’ It were useless to dilate on the veracity and importance of these remarks of Nachmanides, which, .whilst they fully attest the correctness and extent of his own erudition, com- pletely overthrow the principle on which R. Moses ben Maimon has attempted to illustrate the lan- guage of Onkelos; and especially in its appli- cation to what is more immediately the subject of this chapter, the Word and the Habitation of Jehovah. The import of these two phrases, indeed, he has no where, himself, particularly defined; but satisfied with having refuted the opinion of Maimonides, he refers us to those who have a knowledge of the Cabbala, which, we “may rest assured whateyer it may inculcate re- specting them, will add no sanction to the belief; that they are created existences, and substituted by the Targumists for the purpose of removing from our minds all idea or notion of corporeity in the godhead. ‘This it was the more necessary to notice, on the present occasion; because, with christian writers in general; the positions of - Maimonides are held to be of the very highest authority in the Jewish church; and, therefore, 248 A TRINITY OF PERSONS in, all} questions of theology, they are absurdly admitted as the very canons of the synagogue ; though nothing can be more remote from the real principles of Judaism, nor at greater va- riance with the most established opinions of the Jewish people, than many positions of Mai- monides. The fact is this. In a knowledge of the Talmud, of the mathematics, of the Greek and Arabic philosophy, and of profane literature in general, Maimonides vastly excelled the rest of his countrymen, and is deservedly reputed an authority of the first rank ; but in a knowledge of the Targumin, of the Cabbala, and of the more abstruse parts of scripture, he has been infinitely surpassed by others; and, in any one of these departments of learning, either Nachmanides himself, or Bechai, or Alshech, or Abarbinel, is worthy of. the preference. , But there is still another objection, which remains fo be answered, before I can close this part of my subject. It has been repeatedly urged by writers of the very highest authority in this department of learning, that there are instances of this phraseology of the Targumists being applied to men, in the same manner as. to God; and that it cannot possibly be any thing else than a mere idiom of the dialect. To ob- viate this objection, completely, I shall produce IN THE GODHEAD. 249 all the passages that are to be found of this com- plexion; and then demonstrate the invalidity of the grounds, on which it is advanced. The passages are those which follow: “O22 JY * sums gd) « Thy eye is upon my word, and lam “not.” SM “OVO Wiaw1 AN pod OVIN + SyPMIANTONT “But seeing that my rational part ‘« still decides in my word, and the spirit of God ‘Cis yet in my nostrils.” OD Pann) Mvp t “J rise; but thou disregardest my word.” RW NI IDO pay MDD pa RYO pyITs > TTANS “Who placed asword between his word ‘and Michal, the daughter of Sau), the wife of “ David.” + JID Pai MW paxop|| “There ‘“‘ is a league between my word and thy word.” Noy OD pay moo pa orp yr aN Py DIP wown oy> 1007 NobOT NIDW pm ‘“¢ Jehoiada struck a league between his word, and _ * between ail the people, and between the word ‘‘ of the king; that they should become a people, ‘“‘ serving Jehovah.” MINS PY MaN** PND YD “I saidin my word, I am cut off from “the world.” 8D9D7 NOV Dw? ANNI ++ :wiiwns << And he wrote in the name of the * Job, c. vil. V+ 8 + Job, c. xxvii. v. 3. + Job, c. xxx. v. 20. § Ruth, c. iii. vy. 8. | 2 Chron. ¢. xvi. v. 3. 1 2 Chron. c. xxiii, v. 16. *%* Lam. c. iii. ve 54. tt Esther, c. viii: v. 10. 21 250 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “word of king Xerxes.” “M8 87727.) TON wt soa 55 som parma Pa Np DYp :8VN <« And Jehovah said to Noah, This is ‘* the covenant which I have established between ‘my word, and between the word of all flesh “upon the earth.” ‘Theseare all the examples to be found, in which the term, 2%, word, is apparently applied to man, in the same manner that it is to God. In making this assertion, 1 rely on the testimony of no author whatever ; as [ have all the Targumin,. and have carefully perused them for the very purpose of conducting this argument with the utmost degree of accuracy. Now the first thing that must strike the reader, in’ contemplating the above examples, is, that they are all of them, without exception, from the most modern of the. Targumin, and those but few in number. Neither Onkelos on the Law, nor Jonathan on the prophets, nor the Jerusalem Targumist, nor Jose on the Psalms, nor the major part of the Targumists on the other books of scripture; furnish any instances whatever. To grant, then, on the authority of the fore- soing examples, that, in one or two of the most recent Tiargumin, the word of a person is used as an idiom for the person himself; it will by no means follow, that the Word of Jehovah, in its * Jonathan ben Uziel, Gen. ix. 17. IN THE GODHEAD. 951 personal application, has no other meaning than Jehovah himself. Let this be exemplified from what we know of other idioms; and, especially, of the sacred dialects. In Hebrew and Chaldee both, nothing is so common as to say, By the hand of such a person or thing, when connected to a verb as the instrument of action. Now if applied to a man, as; by the hand of Moses, it has a distinct and proper signification ; but if to any thing not endued with hands, as; by the hand of a rock, it has no such propriety, and is to be tolerated only from the consideration, that it is an idiom of the dialect, So the term, Word, if applied to Jehovah, who employed his Word only, and the world was created by it, without the co-operation or instrumentality of any other being; has a personal import and significa- tion peculiar to the subject; but if to a man, who absolutely can perform nothing by means of his word, without the assistance of others to put it into execution ; it has no such personal import, but must signify either a word of mouth, accord- ing to its common acceptation, or nothing ; and makes no nearer an approximation in sense to, the Word of Jehovah, than, the hand of a rock, does, to, the hand of Moses. Thus I should argue, on the concession that the idiom in question really existed ; and, that the | 252 A TRINITY OF PERSONS we examples before us were a certain confirmation of it. The fact is, however, not one of those supposed proofs is of any validity; as the term, word, in each of them, is actually used for the word of speech, either conceived or expressed. In all the instances out of Job, it is put for the personal pronoun, in the Hebrew; and is an illustration of the text, as will immediately appear. In the first of them, the patriarch having dwelt largely on the misery and brevity of human life, adds to his other declarations; Thine eyes be upon me, and I am not; but, according to the Targumist; Thine eyes be upon my word, that is, upon what I am now saying, and I am not, that is, and I expire as it were with the conclusion of my speech. In the second, the Hebrew runs, As long as my soul is in me; but, the Targum, seeing that my soul still decides in my speech, that is, since my reason determines every thing which I speak, and the spirit of God subsists in my nostrils ; my lips shall not utter wickedness, nor my tongue articulate deceit. The other case is so self-evident, that it requires but little con- sideration. I stand up, that is, I stand up to plead; and thou regardest not my word, that is, but thou regardest not what I say. To perceive the real meaning of the term in that instance from Ruth, we must take into the IN THE GODHEAD. 253 account the delicacy of the subject. The sacred historian had represented Ruth as coming pri- vately to Boaz in the night time, whilst he lay exhilarated by the juice of the grape on his corn- heap; and as uncovering his feet, in order that, by so doing, she might rouse him from sleep, and thus have an opportunity of revealing her kindred. This the Targumist not only translates, but by way of applauding the chastity of Boaz on the occasion, compares his conduct with that of Jo- seph to his mistress, as also with that of Paltiel, the son of Laish; who, according to a Talmudic tradition to be found in Masseceth Sanhedrin,* fixed a sword between himself; but according to the Targumist, between his word, that is, be- tween his. honor, or his chastity; and Michal, the “daughter of Saul, the wife of David. The two examples from the second book of Chronicles may be regarded as one; the latter of which will easily explain the former, as well as the similar instance from Jonathan, ben Uziel. Here the Targumist says, that J ehoiada struck a league between his word, and between all the i a and between the word of the king ; that , Jehoiada interposed the solemnity and for- sat of an oath between the word, or joint declaration of himself, the people, and the king; * Perek ii. § 4. Q54 A TRINITY OF PERSONS which word or declaration was, that the people should become the servants of Jehovah only... In the other it runs, There is a league between my word and thy word; where, though the word or mutual declaration of both the parties be not recorded, as in the former case; 1t must be under- stood ; as men are not wont to strike leagues, and take oaths, without having first declared their in- tentions in a settled and preconcerted form of words. | That from the Lamentations of Jeremiah is an expression of the utmost propriety. Man, in other languages, is represented as saying a thing sometimes within himself, or within. his own mind; but the fact is, whatever thought or sen- timent has been once adequately conceived, is always tacitly expressed by words in the mind. So the Targumist; I said in my word, that is, in the speech of my mind, I am cut off from the world. This form of expression is found several times in the targum of Ecclesiastes, as also in that of the second book of Chronicles; of which, how- ever, I shall content myself with giving severally the references in the margin.* | Pm The last but one of the instances, from the book of Esther, gives the term in the acceptation * Ecc. i. 2; ii. bs vi. 33 Vil. 243 Vili. 14, 18; 1x. 16. 2Chron. xxv- 19. Jonathan ben Uziel, Num. xv. 32. IN THE GODHEAD, 255 of order or decree; a sense which it is allowed, to have on other occasions: And he wrote by the authority of an order of king Xerxes. These are certainly all the examples to be found in the ‘Vargumin, in which the term, word, can be supposed to have a reciprocal signification, when applied to man; and to militate against the asserted distinction between Jehovah and his Word. That they may be satisfactorily rendered without any regard to such reciprocity of meaning, has been now demonstrated ; though, if that could not have been done, from the paucity of the examples, the existence of the idiom might have been justly disputed. There is yet another argument, on which | would lay some stress ; that, though many of the Rabbinical authors have indulged in the idioms and style of the Targumin, not one of them has ever used this form; a sure sign to me, that they did not regard it in the light of an idiom, other- wise they would doubtless have adopted it as well as the rest, " From a full and candid examination, then, of the targumic interpreters, prosecuted with every deference to those scruples and objections which lay in its way; there is legal and rational ground for determining, that the personal distinction which we, maintain peryeen the Word of Jehovah and 256 A TRINITY OF PERSONS Jehovah himself, together with their identity of substance, was the antient doctrine of the Jewish church ; and that those who deny either the dif- ference of their personality, or the unity of their nature, are unable to allege any solid or substantial evidence, in support of their assertions. ‘The certainty of this argument however, though already fixed on the firmest foundation, derives additional confirmation from the combined testimonies of Philo Judeus and R. Moses Alshech; whose authority on the present question is the more to be admired, because, if we except their extraction and system of worship, they had scarcely any thing in common, being of different countries and languages, the one having composed his works in Greek, the other in Hebrew, and living at an interval of fourteen hundred years from each other; so that the only supposition, on which we can account for their marvellous agreement with the doctrine here inculcated, must of necessity be, that their ideas, on this head, they had equally imbibed from one and the same spring. The writings of Philo abound with comme- morations of the divine Word; but, as he was highly conversant in the philosophy of the Platonic school, it may not be unwise, in the first place, to make him give his own definition of the term, ‘in order that his conceptions of it may be seen to IN THE GODHEAD. yy flow, not from Greek but Jewish original. Now, Logos, in general; which may signify either, word, or, thought ; reason, or, speech; but which I shall uniformly render by Word only, he has thus defined -* Airtos YHOO Aoyosy EV TETW TayTI, Kat cy avOpwmre Quo’ HATA [LEY TO HAV, Oy TE TEL TOY AOWILATWY KEL MWA OAOEY La TIMCY Wewy, EF wy 0 vonTos EMAYN KOTLOS, HAL O WepL THY OLaTuYy, a on LLYANILATA XA ARUMOVISKATA TwWy tOoEwy EXELYDy EOTIY Gy 0 asoOnros Bros amrETEAciT‘O’ sy avOoumw 3 0 wey cotiy evdiaberos, 0 OE MpoPoginos* wat o (rev o1a Tis ENYN, oO Os YEYWYVOS, ar EXELYS eEwY" HAL TB (LEV EOTI Xvew TO NYEAOVIHOV, TS dg HATA TeoPopay, yrAwrla nar oropa Kat N aAAN Maca Dwyns Opyavorroluc* ‘ Word is twofold; that which regards the uni- ‘verse, and that which obtains in the nature of “man. The mundane Word has place as well “in the immaterial and exemplary forms, from “which the intellectual world is compacted, . as ‘in things visible; which are the likenesses and ‘“ portraits of those forms, and of which this “ material or sensible frame js composed. But “the human Word is partly intrinsic, and partly “‘ prolative ; the former of which being, as it ‘‘ were, the fountain, and the latter the stream “running from it. The seat of the one is the “mind; but of the prolative the tongue, the ‘mouth, together with the other instrumental ““ parts of the voice or speech.” From this it is : * De Vit. Mos. lib. iii. p, 672. ak 958 A TRINITY OF PERSONS apparent, how much the Logos of Philo is of Jewish, and how much of Platonic, extraction. The distinctions of, intrinsic, ‘and, prolative, which he here applies to the human ‘word, are, unquestionably, Platonic; but the notion of a mundane Word is exclusively Jewish; and the manner in Which the author makes ftiention of it throughout the whole of his works, will be in- telligible to those only, who have read what the Talmudists have written of the Metatron, and the Cabbalists of Wisdom. ‘The subsequent ex- tracts will shew the correctness of this assertion :* Kabaree yao Tiva WOLVnY, YY Katt vows Kal HELL UA WUC, HHL oom sy TETOS PUTA TS aU Kat Cova, Te [LEV Sunra ta de Sea? ert Je weave Quow, Kat NAw Hal cehmns @epiodous nat Toy aAAWY AOTEQWY T pom as TE GU KA Koeeras EVAQILOVIOUS y WS BWOMANY KO Basircus 0 Seos ayer nate Sueny xa VOWLOVs TOOTTNTAILEVOS TOV op Sov UTS AOYVOY WEWTOYOVOY ViOV, OS THY EMYLEAEIBY TNS LEQHS ravrns eyenns, cia Th peyahe Bacirews vmapxos Siadezer at. Kat yao eipnta: as" [dou eye ell, amoorenw aryleAov [AB ELS capoowNoy 68 TS Quruzas oe ev TH ow: For God, as it “ were a shepherd anda king, rules, like a flock, “ according to law and equity, the elements of “ earth, water, air, and fire; and whatever they « contain, whether ‘plants or animals, mortals “ gy immortals ; together with the pure nature <« of the heavens, the revolutions of the sun and * De Agricult, p. 195. “IN THE GODHEAD. 259 ‘“‘ moon, the regular returns and circumvolutions “of the other stars; having appointed his up- “right Word and first begotten son, like the “viceroy of a mighty king, to undertake the ‘‘ superintendance of this sacred flock. For in -“ a Certain place it is written: Behold I am, I ‘‘ will send my angel before thy face, to guard ‘‘thee in the way.” In like manner on another occasion :* Kay underw wevra tuyxavn tis akwoxecws wy vios Jes wpoomyogeverOat, omovdale nogucrabar nxt Tov Wew~ TOyovoy aUTe, Aoyoy Tov ayleaov wWeechuTaroy, ws aexaryle- Aov Woduwyyppov veaoyovTa, Awl Yap aLKN, Xak ovo Qs, xan Aoyos, wat o nar” eimova avOowmros, xas opwy Lapanr mpooayopeverat® di0 mponxOny orvyw wmporegoy Nie THs ARK aS TOY QDacnovTWy, OT: Wayres EO[LEYV VIO EVOS avOowms’ Hal yao a unmTw imavo: Des qaidss vounteaGas YEVOVALLEY, arhAw For rns audis cixovos aure hoye ve eowrars’ Su yag emo, Aoyos o weeaBuraros* ‘ But, if there be no ‘one worthy of being styled the son of God, «do thon strive to be adorned like his first be- “ gotten Word, the eldest angel; being, as it ‘“ were, an archangel of many names. For he ‘“‘is called, Beginning, Name. of God, Word, “¢ Man after an image, and Israelseeing. Where- ‘‘ fore, I was induced, a little before, to applaud ‘‘ the origin of those who said: Kor we are all “the sons of one man. For, if we are not fit to * De Confus, Ling. p. 341, 260 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “be thought the children of God, as yet; ‘we “ may, at least, of his’ everlasting image, ‘his ‘‘ most sacred Word; as the most ancient Word “is the image of God.’ So also :* Teixws de eqivoetTat ToTos® Mae LEVy Kee VITO TwW[LnTOS EXTEN AN= ewpnevn® Kara Seuregov Je TeOMV, 0 Seros Aoyos, ov exme- WANQWMEV OAOY 3? orwy gowwarols SUVaLESIY aUTOS O Seos. Esdoy ely ONT, Tov TOMO B EloT NUE! O Seos rou Loganr, ev w pLovov xa 1eQoupyEl aPnKey, arraxobl HUOUGAS* EIQNTat Yao avaRatvely els oy Tomy ov av exAcknra xugios o Seos, xaxet Suew Ta OAoxau- TOLaTe Kol OWT NLM, Mar Tas adRas awpss Jucias avaryeiy" Hata SE TOLTOV ONalVOMEVOY, aUTOS O Scos maAeiTat TOMS, Te EOLEX EL eV Ta OAa, Weolexerbar de weos [LNDEVOS ATAWS, Haut rw KaTaQuYNY THY CULMAVT@Y Eva AUTOV; Kat EMEIONTED AUTOS EGTI KX wE% AUT, HEX WONKWS EXUTOV XA ELA MEGOLAEVOS Lovw EaUTW® “* The term, place, has three significations. First, “it denotes the space which is occupied by any “body. Secondly, the divine Word, which God “himself hath filled all in all with spiritual 3 powers. I saw, saith he, the place where the «© God of Israel stood ; in which alone he hath ‘* given permission to sacrifice, having forbidden “ it to be done any where else. ‘The command “ig, to ascend to the place which the Lord God ‘may chuse, and there to sacrifice the whole « burnt offerings, and the peace offerings; and “thither to bring the unblemished sacrifices. * De Som. p. 574. IN THE GODHEAD. 261 “ Thirdly, God himself is called Place, in that _ “he surrounds all things, but is himself sur- “rounded by nothing at all; in that he is the “retreat of every thing; and, forasmuch as he “is his own place, taking in himself, and borne ‘“ within himself.” So again :* Avo yag, ws comer, bEQa Jes, Ey fAEV 00g O HOGLAOS, EV W XQ} HOXKIEQEUS ie) Wewtoyoves autre Jeos Aoyos* eregov Je Aoynn Wuyn, ns legeus. 0 @Woos arnberay avOowmros, 8 Eianne acdnroy o Tas WaTe0ous euvyxas Te Juows emirerAwy cots’ *¢ There are, it seems, two ‘* temples of God; the one this world, in which “the chief priest is his first begotten divine % peers the other the rational soul, the priest ‘ of which is real man, whose sensible likeness ‘‘ he is that offers vows and sacrifices, according ‘‘ to the institutes of his country.” From these and such like testimonies it clearly appears, that Philo must have derived his knowledge of the divine Word, not from the Greek authors; but either from the targumin of Onkelos and Jo- nathan, or what, perhaps, is still more probable, from some cabbalistic fountain to which both he and the Targumists had equal access. Indeed, it would be in vain to search amongst the Greek philosophers for any thing like an | illustration of what the author has here commemorated of the Word of God. For, not to mention the doc- * De Som. p. 579. 262 A TRINITY OF PERSONS trine of a mundane Word, which was wholly iy unknown. to. the Grecian, ‘schools; in what hea- “then writings shall we find the term; Place, appropriated as a name either to God or ‘to his Word; or ‘this: Jatter denominated, The many named. archangel, The name of God, that is, - Jehovah, or Shaddai; The first begotten son of God, The man after the image, or leyaél seeing? But all these titles, if we except that of, First begotten son of God, which, I believe, is peculiar “to Philo, are even now to ‘be found mentioned ~~ the works of the Targumists, Talmudists, and Cabbalists; and not only that, but mentioned in such a manner as to render it apparent, that they are meant of the same:person; as in the course of. this volume will be completely manifested. From the evidence, then, of Philo Judeus, who flourished within a very few years after Onkelos and ‘Jonathan, there exists just ground for con- cluding that, with the most ancient divines of ‘the Jewish church in general, and with the targumic interpreters in rhawiteillais the Word of Jehovah was regarded as a divine personality of the godhead; distinct im subsistency, but not in essence, from Jehovah himself. To the authority of Philo I proceed to add that of R. Moses Alshech, who, in speaking of the ten words or speeches of’ God, whereby, accord- IN THE GODHEAD. | 2963 ing'to the Talmudists, every thing was created ; strenuously maintains the existifying power of the divine Word, by which alone the thing spoken, whatever it might be, was made to subsist without any other cause. The ten words or speeches, whereby the world is said to have been created, are put for the ten acts or articulations of the divine Word ; for the divine Word itself, being always one and the same subsisting faculty or personality of the godhead, can have no plural; but the times of its articulation, or of its dis- playing its energy, may be many in number ; and for this reason it is, that in the Talmudic tradition alluded to, as well as in the illustrations of R. Moses Alshech, the ten utterances or arti- culations of the divine Word are called the ten words. Thus much being premised, the following most learned comment of our author will be found to apply to the argument under ‘con- sideration :* °N’ OMP) TWAT ON $A PION SO 0D IMS yt oNsiO mio Naa Mp 1] San NY) ws 1D TAT NS¥2 ANI WR bya pow yaw OwAM NY 7 IATA WY) jd cap opommw O81 Jan 373 7a 7317 IN SAN D2 ow) NIMw AD? OINTD TANT DN ayaa marondy wtp Sou oyp n?ar A2In 3n> JAam NIT DIN AyD) NT Wanna * Sh ushanath Haamakim, fol. 2. col, 1. ™ 264 A TRINITY OF PERSONS JR70 Iw NX yD San op inetd apm pry Dow ‘7 7292 answ spo yn Nom AW Mw VIVIAN Nw Nay 95 ya naw Pye Now NAY 7D my A DONNA TD yraa ond mat joam bes mw 352 MD? ININOT WIAD XOD NM anyswnw pr JAM ynvawM ynmawn pow Ox sy invad you 8Yo7_ SpA nypino Yawn odwe Ox INDIR PND NIM Ayn owano swsp mo Vy 9272 INVDIND XY MATION mp Sana Mp wows Ww md Wl samp mowannn 90002 2NaT N OwaND) NET MDs ome DIWA NII) OMAw NON Tw YD PAD PR 72 MND TN Wsy IDNOA FWam ya nm oD "WS AD IOND-99DD aya 8b AM 42 fo OWI TP AWD ID WONIW IID ‘m pao XY ON Dw) 8 oD NY Gwe MDT AD yD An [WE OS MOM NYDN WW ON Ney N'D OPN mw WAN SIT WsPI IIA DAN pono [WRD Any oo AMO) mone awse ms moyo INN MONOD PaO NV IWR em MIT pen NWI I TW PRI oD Gnwp> myp paw MTD JIB aD kN owe Sass npn 27) 727.932 yp bana pwon OxRDD Flam Pos AonVnaA AwMP No ow npn nso nm ona ANA new nyo Qwonway Vat Ty pon awa Now oy yma ‘MY Ww) DINAN 12920) |DINI IY TWA AND) IN THE GODHEAD. 965 yn.wa72 B27 PND 7797 IP ns INw aay, eo on). mn. yn. 037 by Dios ADDN. jN),D was wi y7 413), YaD Aww JIIM.. YP aD yw. ANAM) Ay ya. S8 OOMNN NIDNOD NIT POD kN Ws TIN 277 nya xda x9 ja) mya Tn 2-737 [279 pow wx Sop ww? op IND UN 137 T73w oy yoy NbN INS OY IIT WR 13 p1p 5? oapxns mop nya D2 Ww ow aT NID ATAPI DD RYPY NIN WNIT 2D pwnstpsY S37 5’y. O8ay b> pa AIA IDNIw 20D NID mbyp? imi>xw ay IN9D Awyl WX own2I0 TNOOA NID IMWwann “p Sy qoow NIN 1 ayn Oy wana 4D 819 N90 $923 30D XN Say) 49D 7 PD Oan vy 5 pRay 9D pp soy IIT MID °D DDNVOA on Dw ‘To illustrate this, we shall pre- ? IND. DMI" ‘mise two things, well known to the learned. ‘First, that as, on the issuing of a word from ‘“‘ the mouth of a man, we see the breath exhale ‘from, his mouth ; so ‘do we imagine, that, in “the Word of God, there proceeds or extends, ‘on his speaking, a self-diffusing influx, which ‘Cis assimilated to the exhalation of the mouth; id only they differ from each other with respect to ‘* the quality of the speaker. For man, being ‘a bodily substance, his exhalation is transient “and evanescent, and quite unholy; except so | B be tw 266 A TRINITY OF PERSONS 66 Cé €¢ ceé ‘a4 c¢ a4 4 far as the word spoken may have any merit in it, by its being agreeable to the law and the precept; but the deity being of infinite holi- ness, the very exhalation of his mouth - is unequaled in rank by either angel or seraph. Doth not the scripture testify so much, where it says: The heavens were made by the Word of Jehovah, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth ; which plainly demonstrates, that the breath of his mouth, which was in the Word, gave being to the host of heaven ? The fact is, that with God, as is well known, there is no word imaginable to express his greatness ; but from his Habitation, that is to say, from the Throne of his Glory, which is denominated mouth, seeing that he causes the exhuberance of his divine care and influence to extend to the lower world; from a mediety, I say, called the mouth, there proceeds an influx and holy efficacy, extending itself out- wardly; that is to say, from the mediety of his individual essence, by an exhalation of the mouth of the speaker, issuing from his mediety, whilst he speaks, and assuming, by means of the extension, a somewhat grosser form, so as to render the voice audible: nor is the agent of the action any thing else, than the very power itself so proceeding and diffused. For as to the * @ IN THE GODHEAD. 267 “ ten) words, whereby the world was created, “‘ there can be no doubt, that the breath of his *‘ mouth, blessed be he, which was in the words, ‘ was itself the cause of existence to every thing ‘“ spoken in it; and the same may be said of any ‘* speech whatever, that proceeds from his mouth, ‘* blessed be he; like unto the Word, of which it ‘is affirmed in the scripture: For as the rain ‘« descendeth, &c. so shall my Word. be, which ‘* proceedeth from my mouth: it shall not return ** to me vainly, without doing that which I please, and accomplishing that for which: 1 may have “sent it. Hence we see, that the Word, by itself, acts, makes, and effectuates, what is com- ‘“‘ mitted to its charge. Such, too, is the case here ; as his Word, blessed be he, which hath ‘‘ proceeded from his mouth, is of the words of ‘“‘ his law, which is of infinite holiness. For, ‘‘ on the promulgation of the law, nothing could ‘‘ be comparable to the holiness of the spirituality ‘“‘ of the exhalation, which at that time issued ‘‘ from the mouth of Jehovah; because in every ‘“‘ word, by the exhalation of his mouth, he ‘* caused, as it were, to be emanated and drawn ‘* somewhat of the spirituality of the quintessence ‘¢ of that holiness, which refers its extraction to “the deity; somewhat of the interior of the “* pellucidities of the law, which, as all know, 268 A TRINITY OF 'PERSONS o “ is inseparable from God himself, blessed be ‘he ; ‘ notwithstanding that the: Word’ moved ‘forth, ‘and extended itself, and to a ‘certain ‘degree ‘acquired a denser form, in order that corporeal “man might perceive it, and that Israel might ‘‘ hear its voice. How fine, too, is the language “‘ of our Rabbies of blessed memory, in Medrash “ Chazith ; where they speak of the words of the “ giving of the law, to the following effect. ‘¢ Some affirm, that he sucks it from his mouth; “and, that he gives to him; according ‘to the “ scripture: For the Lord, from his mouth, “ giveth wisdom, knowledge and understanding ; “‘ This clearly teaches, that the words of his mouth, ‘‘ blessed be he, in the law, which proceedeth “from his mouth, are of a quality wholly related “ to something hidden within his mouth, bléssed ‘be he; and, therefore, it is no wonder, that, “ the Word being a thing highly spiritual, and “‘ abiding for ever, a perfect man should be en- « abled to confer with it, as he would with one of the angels of the Most High: although the ‘form of the Word transcends them all, in an <¢infinite degree, according to the assertion of <<-our Fathers of blessed memory in Ain doreshin: ‘ Brom every word, which proceedeth from the ‘‘ mouth of Jehovah, there was an angel created ; ‘gg it is said in scripture, And all the host of them nerd IN THE GODHEAD. 969 « by the breath of his mouth. From. this saying « of theirs it is wholly manifest, not only that an “ angel was created from it, but that its quality ‘ transcends that of an angel ; because from it, ‘* by virtue of its extension, was the angel created. ‘Now the assertion, that from it was the angel ** created, is precisely what we have written on “¢ the text, And all the host of them by the breath ‘of his mouth; that by the exhalation of his « mouth, he gave them existence. But the host «of heaven are the angels ; as the quality of the ‘© Word rises imfinitely above them.” ‘The as- sertion, then, that the Word of Jehovah is a real subsistency, of the same quality and substance with Jehovah himself, has the sanction and au- thority’ of R. Moses Alshech. For, if, as the learned expositor is seen to inculeate, the pro- lative form of the Word be a literal and substantial emanation from the interior of the Supreme Being, by the efficacy and power of which the whole angelic host was brought into existence, its divinity is confessed; and, as to its individual subsistency, that is equally apparent, whether we regard its prolative, or its intrinsic, form; for, thought’ the -prolations of it may’ be ‘many én number, and in that sense there may be as’ many subsistences of the Word'as there are individual prolations 5 yet, ‘can there’ be but | ene ‘primary , i eoceeney na 270 A TRINITY OF PERSONS archetypal, and first-begotten prolative Word, to which all others in point of time, as well as in point, of order, are to be. deemed posterior ; so that its individual excellence, in whatever light we consider it, shall always be superior to theirs; but, if we regard its intrinsic form only, which the learned Rabbi. himself appears to do, when, speaking of it in general terms, he emphatically denominates it, the Word; we make it a sub- sistency inseparable from the godhead, I say, a subsistency, and not an accident, because nothing essential to the divine nature can be really an accident ; and that ideality, which constitutes the intrinsic. form of the Word, is necessary to the very being of a God, there can exist but one opinion in the metaphysical world. Neither is it to be ranked, as some may imagine, with what theologists call. .the essential attributes of the deity:; for .goodness, mercy, and other affections of. that complexion, not being strictly intellectual, but only relative modes of exercising the divine will; and incapable of existence without objects, suchas. man, on which to be employed; do not necessarily and eternally belong to the divine na- ture ; because those objects, which are required to give them birth, have subsisted neither of ne- cessity, nor from eternity ; but ideality, or the intrinsic form. of the Word, must always have IN THE GODHEAD. O71 subsisted; because, if we remove that, we leave nothing to exist, as God, except matter ; whereas if that be retained, we find in it alone whatever may be thought necessary for forming the divine essence. In either of the two cases, therefore, whether we apply the doctrine of the Word, as enforced by R. Moses Alshech, or as it may be collected from Philo Judzus, to the illustration of the targumic interpreters; we shall elicit a sense for the phrase, the Word of Jehovah, very different either from that which confounds the Word with the Jehovah himself, or from that which makes it a mere accident, and places it figuratively, not really, in the same relation to the Supreme Being, in which a word of the mouth or a word of command stands to ourselves; so that, to speak the most favorably of those who have propagated such erroneous opinions, we may well say, that they must have presumed to determine the question, before they had given themselves time to consider the subject. T next proceed to shew the personal divinity of the Habitation, or, as it is generally called by the Tareumists, the Habitation of Jehovah, the holy Habitation of Jehovah, or the Habitation of God. The annexed examples I have selected out of many others, as being amply sufficient to convey to us an adequate notion of the several purposes a2 A TRINITY OF PERSONS to which the expression is applied; as well as to - substantiate the truth of its divinity and person- ality. It will be proper to premise, however, that in all the passages in which the T'argumists have, the Habitation of Jehovah ; the inspired penmen have either, Jehovah, or God; and, that, like the Word of Jehovah, it is never once employed as the translation of, angel. Thus then Onkelos + Pow miawoa mniow en maya» nay “ Jehovah will widen Japheth ; and will fix his ‘¢ Habitation in the tents of Shem.”?. VS + 289 ox NINA MT NNIDW “Is the Habitation “ of Jehovah amongst us, or note” pwn t ma). pnd ANS TIONS SNw.r prwm STR ompnS » NwIPDa Y NMIpNN Waaw “Thou shalt make them ascend, and_ shalt ‘¢ plant them on the mountain of thy inheritance, “ the place destined for the temple of thy Habi- ‘tation, the place which thou hast prepared, O “ Lord; the sanctuary which thy hand, O Lord, ‘hath got prepared.” oy mninw » IN § PTD NIT NII MTA TVD 7D NIP) TAK nwp) ay Tayn2.wpM) 17.“ And Jehovah “caused his Habitation to pass before his face; ‘ond he exclaimed; Jehovab, Jehovah; a God ‘merciful, and gracious, of great forbearance; * Gen. c. ix. Vv. 27. + Ex. c. xvii. v. 7. /* Bx, c. xv. v. 17. : § Ex, ¢: xxXiv. v. 6. IN THE GODHEAD. 273 ‘‘and, that abounds in acts of goodness and truth,’ aw MnIDwT YT NO Mm pnypt Abn S2paI PT NO? IO) WYOIP PIVIA Pd 72 >DYSOiD “ Because ye have despised the Word “‘ of the Lord, whose Habitation dwelleth amongst “you; and have lamented before him, saying’; ‘Why did we come out of Egypt?” So Jonathan: JIN NX WIT pn Iayr xd + OD SIN NMP NS Ox oa and spy WW PPIT KI. Mays way my op Rodd RUNTP WIIW PIDIT VWI MW jD NIN “will :DIwIT TWoAIMS NPA ANN Nd ‘“ not execute my high indignation, neither shall ‘““my Word again devastate the house of Israel ; “for 1 am God, my Word subsisteth for ever ; “ neither are my servants like the servants of ‘“ mankind, that dwell upon the earth. Thus do ‘“ T decree by my Word, whose holy Habitation ‘js amongst you, that I will not exchange Jeru- “salem yet for another city.” So Jose, or whoever was the Targumist of the hundred and tenth psalm. DY NAD Jaw dy wt Kad t 2399920 411“ The Habitation of Jehovah, “at thy right hand, shall crush kings in the day “of his wrath.” So again: T3207 YD. Mnisw VY ANWR? MT NIV AM «Tt * Num. c. Xi. ¥. 20. + Hos. c. xi, v. 9, + Ps. cx: 'v..8. § Ps. Ixviii. v. 16. 2m Oa A TRINITY OF PERSONS ‘is low mount Sinai, on which the word of ‘« Jehovah desires to fix his Habitation,’ These testimonies, which might easily have been in- creased in number, will satisfy the reader, that the Habitation of Jehovah is a divine subsistency, distinguished as well from Jehovah himself, as from his Word, by the locality of its condition, The idea of place, however, is not always affixed to it, so as to confine its operations to a parti- cular spot; for that were inconsistent with ‘what is affirmed of its smiting kings, in the day of its wrath; and of its passing, in a visible manner, before the face of Moses. 'There>is, also, in several of the instances quoted, a manifest dis- tinction to be observed between it and the Word; a certain demonstration, that the Habitation of Jehovah is not to be confounded, in’ the: Tar- gumin, with. the word of Jehovah; but that, whilst they evidently assert a divinity common to both, they are careful to represent them as being different in personality. But the Talmudists, as well as the Targumists, make frequent mention of this Habitation; ascrib- ing’ to it omnipresence, and speaking of it, in every respect, as they would of the deity. ‘Thus we read in the Talmud; AN’ APDWMA PS * S YWITWYINII DOIN WN “The Habitation * Masseceth Nedarim, Perek 4. . IN THE GODHEAD. 975 “doth not rest but upon a man of wisdom, of. “ might, of riches, or of humility.” So R. Chasda: AMA ONw NOM ONp monn SION 3 Ip PMS TD wm ans 45 op sw py ADIw AMA wony yr) pina apa wbanp S07 AT NY 72 AND ND QW OND mponon “* R. Chasda said: At the first, before } P"NND ‘* Israel sinned, the Habitation abode with every “individual; according to that which is said in “the scripture: For Jehovah, thy God, walketh “in the midst. of thy camp: but, after they “sinned, the Habitation departed from them, “agreeably to what is written: And he will not “view in thee any nakedness; but will return ‘from thee.” So R. Eliezer: 45 “WON YR + my nov apaw mn mp2 we oN P™ prapa Man my Saw on 8s oy ‘* R. Eliezer said: Of every man, in whom there is * the spirit of pride, the Habitation thus speaks, “in the scripture: For Jehovah is high, and the ‘“‘ humble he seeth ; but the lofty he regardeth at ‘““a distance.” So also R. Hoshaia, R. Ishmael, R. Sheshet, and R. Abhu: TAD NYVwWA caqt ADIWTW Prd SIA WPS DID 452 ASy mw xo prmby p1ao-n sans ey DIpa 53 bw? pronwow pipad oT wa mow on) qw9 * Talmud, Masseceth Sota, Perek 1, + Ibid. <~ Talmud, Bava Batra, Perek Q. pe 276 A TRINITY OF PERSONS by pronwaw orpiad pow bay immoy pann TIAN DIM pra nownn aw ymreow pam TIAN 137) NON ONIN TON ND 17 7 PNVOU 127 ANT ops 992 AySwaw todo INYO 929 IT NNT OID 59a AYPSwhY IID TATA TNIO7 AIA Iw opa baa AYswRw PID TNT ND IMS InN p> x¥P INN WaT NYPD 27781" DIP 222 APawhw tn ins po Nox nww 279 Apt ope boa myow 2D nwy WO mo tad yop smn 525 mows API NOT Dw NK AyDw ma mot OWA 37 TANT AWA AYDw 720 INAS DT WD ‘““R. Hoshaia sup- :7 TS AMIN OND WIN “posed the Habitation to be in every place. ** For R. Hoshaia said : Whence can it be proved, “that the Habitation is in every place? From ‘“ the words, Thou art Jehovah alone ; thy mes- ““sengers are not like the messengers of flesh ‘and blood; for the messengers of flesh and ‘blood return from the place, whither they are “sent with their messages ; but thy messengers, ‘to whatever place they are sent, there they “return their answers, according to what is “ said : calllthot send the lightnings, so that “they shall go, and say to thee, Lo! here we “are? That they shall come and say, is not ‘written; but, go and say; which fairly in- ‘“ culcates, that the Habitation is in every place. sl IN THE GODHEAD. ORT ‘RR. Ishmael also was of opinion, that the Ha- “bitation is in every place. For it is the tra- ‘‘ dition of the school of R. Ishmael; Whence “is it demonstrated, that the Habitation is in “every place? From the text; Behold the “angel, who spake with me, went forth; and ‘* another angel went forth to meet him. It is ** not said, went forth, after him, but, to meet “him; which teaches, that the Habitation is in ‘‘ every place. R.Shesheth, too, believed, that ‘* the Habitation was in every place. For R. She- “sheth said to his servant; I may be faced to ** pray towards any quarter, except the East; not ‘** that the Habitation is not there, but, because ‘* the infidels inculcate, that it is there only. But “ R. Abhu thought, that the Habitation was in “ the West. For what, said R. Abhu, is Ouriah, “the West? It is, Our-jah, the air of Jah.” Thus from the manner, in which they contend for its ubiquity, they evidently regard it as a sub- _sistency of the godhead ; miraculously present in particular places” only, | but be present in all parts of the world. | ~~ Besides the Talmudists, however, we can allege in support of our position the most aseeHe of modern authorities ; where the essence of this Habitation, together with its ‘attributes or, pro- perties, is more fully declared. Great things are ~ e; ere ‘+h 218) oS A TRINITY OF PERSONS ~ predicated of it by R. Judah Levita;* who as- cribes to its efficacy the various mutations both of body and mind, that had happened to his countrymen. MIMD py APD TPONIDR 73D OTT II MIA Nya Ssswesa ams MDW TTA BA? naman posa ayn ony myn PAINOw mya aswar DAVINA) ONIDI2 Dyan TINwY DMD YAN ony nbono» pnp WRT DDIS WAN OND prina wns) A812 WWD D0 Dow WE pans JOD SNA MW TIN TIN ID NAVI DISND mn pray © T have already told you, that this hap- §+ aM “pened to them on account of. the recession of the virtues of the Habitation, For it acted ‘* the same part in Israel, that the spirit does in ‘the body of man; conferring on them divine “ life, and giving them splendour and glory in ‘their persons, in their vestments, and ha- “ bitations; but, when it withdrew itself from “them, their counsel became infatuate, their ‘persons degenerated into a brutal form, and “ their external beauty was completely changed. “And when it departed from individuals only, “ there might be perceived in the ground of such ‘‘ individuals some certain mark of the departure “of the light of the Habitation from them ; just “as we perceive sometimes on a sudden the _ * Sepher Cosri, Partii. p. 126. * IN THE GODHEAD. 279 “departure of the vital spirit, through terror ‘or grief, which quite changes the body.” The opinion of R. Moses ben Maimon, that it is a created light or glory, has already been noticed; the very contrary to which, it equally appears, was the belief of R, Moses Gerundensis. Thus in applauding the targum of Onkelos, the former observes:—722199 PY NOIN oDy* N22 718 NT WE ie “ But he makes ‘“‘ the Throne relate to his G ory, that is, to the ‘‘ Habitation; which is a created light.” And, as to the latter, he expressly declares in the pas- sage cited from him in a preceding part of this | chapter, that the Habitation is no other than Je- hovah himself; and that this, too, was the opinion of the ancient Jewish Fathers. It does not ap- pear to me, however, that R. Moses Gerundensis confounded the Habitation with the personal subsistency of Jehovah; on the contrary, he seems to have thought with the Talmudists, that it is something derived from the godhead, not the godhead itself personally considered. Thus on a certain text he is found to comment :-—777 5p} + Maw O83) woItn wna29 woth wow ‘ona TION WOO INWADNS TP INT I AS mNnd ‘« But in truth the sense of the :AyDw DDN “ words, To his dwelling shall ye seek, is, To * More Nevochim, parti, ¢. 28. t Com. Deut. xii. 3. 280 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “his glory shall ye seek ; and thither shalt thou ** come to behold the face of the Lord Jehovah, *< the God of Israel.’’ From it, too, say the sages, is derived the Habitation. Neither can I be persuaded, that Maimonides, in giving his defi- nition of it, had any other thing in view than the manifestation or splendour of the Habitation ; which, as will be hereafter demonstrated, is some- thing wholly distinct from the Habitation itself. R. Lipman,* in alleging the reason, why the Jews pray with their faces towards Jerusalem, or the East; has given a testimony of the Ha- bitation being every where present, only he claims for the sanctuary at Jerusalem a more special manifestation of its presence. OYANDUNWAD *, SITPRO WISTS sw 9 m9 mata Arsw 4) oD ops Soa syows ‘‘ But with respect to our $ wIpom Dour paw « praying towards the East; that is because we “< dwell to the West of Jerusalem. For, although * the Habitation is in every place; yet the mani- “ festation of the Habitation is over against the “ sanctuary at Jerusalem.” But the author, who of all others has written the most plainly and sensibly on this subject, is R. Isaac Abarbinel. He deems the Habitation the same with the Mm ‘325, the Glory of Jehovah, of the in- * Nitsachon, c. cxxxiii. p. 88. IN THE GODHEAD. 281 spired penmen, in the highest acceptation of that phrase; and defines it a spiritual subsistency, emanating immediately from the godhead, and superior to all other spirits. These are his words:* MIT TNaaw WI9 POI AAY 7D) 2 TaN on pwros ‘ndys by aos woyn SPI AM poy. mwen pow ndoan sin WIpy DwmIw NT pod ayy on nwa YOO S737 WS) AYoy oon aA owmpr aypaw wsapyw yD pl sd) AA aN MatD AD2w INP 7A8 yIOIW IID INIA INDNY_. inp) snwst Jam 300 Osean Soyr aim INMIwh Aw wpa 23> mun oxo 9959p YD TONY 103 INN DAA Wa WwhY AyD. RA oyA one) on om) BINA IED Nd vYTPA Ow OMIM SIT) 125 bw> low pwr IND NID PY ADS II2 ANID NT WN wp ND oD ow ooPIN nT NN AN “‘ Jt is, therefore, much *¢ PInM ry) WPT ‘more reasonable to assert, that the Glory of “ Jehovah, the spiritual most high, is meant of ‘‘ that which primarily proceeded, as an effect, “ from the deity ; for it is characterized as the ““ beginning of his ways, as well as the first of ‘his creatures; and is the same with what is “called, in the languagéof our church, the Gk AEP “For we are not to suppose with «¢ Habitation, - * Com. on Ex. c. xl. v. 34, 2N 982 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ““R. Moses ben Maimon, that the holy Fathers, ‘‘ of blessed memory, called that light which was “created, and which falls under the senses, the i Yee ele nor yet with R. Moses ben Nach- ‘man, that the meant by the Habitation the “very substance and quiddity of the Supreme ‘Being: on the contrary, they denominated ‘‘ Habitation that very being, which, by way of ** effect, emanated from the deity the first ; and “seeing that he comprehends within himself all __* other existences, and is the origin of them all, ‘ Moses was desirous of apprehending him, but “was debarred during this life, according to ‘‘ what is said: Because no man shall see me, ‘and live; for he being the primary effect, his ‘name is the same with that of his author, ‘and, as he is the very image of the Holy One, ‘¢ with his suffix annexed to him, Jehovah says of ‘‘ him: But my face shall not be seen. Such, no <¢ doubt, was the opinion of Onkelos; who has “‘ paraphrased the words, But my face shall not “ be seen, But the beginning of me shall not be ‘“ seen.” It were easy to produce many more pas- sages, in which the author has expressed himself to the same effect; but as the foregoing is sufficient to convey to us an adequate conception of what we ought to understand by, the Habitation of Jehovah, I shall refrain from quoting them. IN THE GODHEAD. 283 There is, however, in R. Bechai a passage, which relates so nearly to this part of our ar- gument; that I cannot but give it in his own words, without any abridgment. wn > awh * yr UN yaw wuod mown xi wD wD movin msm oxi owen oy powa wT oDInow I oY Iwirw snp) mimxa CNw SY DN Dw Pd MNP. nya MIN woe) oN. Aw owe ATA PT mS nn pwn 79 omni? 2 aR ae OA na yoy omam xow 7 ms max 2 mn nonin yo my maT pIn nq. Nox mw pa 727) sPaw NPI Nz NT IN mMywm mayan so mwoi Jan onrsw ovpns aan PR ON Dw JD pI myo xwqw way 32 JOYA PID PR ox mo Wyn OX oD PD wyn Ox saDm) MNANT NID wT NI99) DMSO ONIN NRSV TNT NID Mw °D AD *9953 pin Pa NN? Apin Pay 273 M52 Ww qo op by xo pyyD nos Om wot yt wos sw mw wp Sy sd) aw vt Oy x99 MINSNA ‘OD NAD wyysa mAa'pr Nox mn 275 ms p32 732 9 Ann ma’ Nal YRXD NAW AM onda AwyS not wey ms D2 199 72 NAT IWS 375 ONS DN YH ANw IPD AWS AMS N27 Ws IDI [ON MD Mw? wpa ps7 my eyo a * Com. Ex. xxxili. 14, 284 A TRINITY OF PERSONS My2 82) IND NIT NID AN Owes BAIN NX AN? 2A Nd > Dw ma wD APIA >IBD °D nNDw DR DIdpN MPSSA nnn sop. a> moyen sos am 2 MIB SP own ast b> noans5 oy bye 999 a mse Son Nd pwr NS DPA mm as: mb>yst ous oopbye AD SIT MPT ONS NIA AS AN OST AS pwr) aw bo “AYN NID nw ANAS OTP INN wD WO IAW INNS pwd DWN IND NDI) Syl Answh oD prem “© The Lord answered him: My face : MID SNA ‘“ shall go; the legate, Metatron, whereby I.am ‘known in the world for the stupendous, mar- “vellous, and grand exploits, with signs and “wonders, which were achieved, by his hand ; “on account of which the creatures both know “and fear me, according to the declaration of “scripture : ‘And Israel feared the mighty hand, ‘‘which the’ Lord wrought in Egypt; and the “people feared the Lord, and they believed in * the Lord. And I will cause rest for thee; in “ the sense of, a spirit resting, that is to say, I ‘will’ make him rest with thee; so that thy ‘people shall not be ruled by the property of “stern | judgment, but by the property of mild “judgment, made up of mercy. Now, this “legate is the glory, called the Habitation; and ” IN THE GODHEAD. m5 “€ therefore, Onkelos has paraphrased the words “My Habitation shall go. Moses, however, ‘“‘ did not acquiesce in him, because he was the “* property of judgment; and, therefore, he made ‘answer: If thy face do not go, permit us not ‘to ascend hence; if thy face do not go with “‘thy substance and thy glory, that is, the pro- ‘ perty of beauty and glory, allow us not to “ascend from this place ; for by these two pro- ** perties hast thou brought them forth out of ‘“ Keypt, as it is said: By a great power, anda ** strong hand; not, by a strong hand only. 6 | ‘our Rabbies of blessed memory speak of the “ deliverance from Egypt as having been effected “neither by an angel, nor by a seraph, nor by “the legate, called the Metatron; but by God “ himself, in his own person and glory, that is “to say, beauty and glory. The Lord, then, “replied to him: The thing which thou hast ‘“mentioned, I will also do; the particle, also, ‘fully manifesting the sense to be, as though he “had said; The thing which I myself mentioned “‘ to thee, My face shall go; as well as the thing, ‘““ which thou hast mentioned, that will Ido.. No “ gooner did he gratify him in this request, and “he found the opportunity favorable, than “he “ made a still higher request than this, and said; “Let me, I pray, see thy Glory, that is, the 286 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ‘‘ Crown: In this he was not complied with ; ‘“‘ but received for answer, Thou canst not see ‘my face. ‘The targum of Onkelos is, The face ‘“‘ of my Habitation ; for since the Habitation is, “amongst the heirs of its family, at the end of ** the emanations, he therefore terms the begin- “ ning of the emanations, the face ; because the ‘ first and supreme part of every thing is termed “its face. He answered him, therefore ; Thou “canst not see my face, that is to say, the “ highest front, the face of the emanations; but, « behold, there is a place with me, and ets shalt ‘“‘ behold my hinder parts, that is, the latter end ‘‘ of the emanations; it being what he had al- “‘ ready promised him, in saying, I will cause to “pass all my goodness. The signification of, ‘* my hinder parts, is to be deduced from, behind, “that is, West; as it occurs in the scripture: ‘* Behind and before hast thou formed me; and ‘‘ we know, that the Habitation is in the West. ‘But my face’shall not be seen; namely, the ‘“‘ beginning of the emanations.” It is a difficult matter, either from this or any other testimony of R. Bechai, to ascertain precisely what he un- derstood by, the Habitation ; but, that he deemed it a spiritual emanation inferior to the Crown or the Face of Jehovah, and so nearly allied to the Metatron as, in some measure, to be inseparable IN THE GODHEAD. I87 from it, is apparent from the above as well as from many other passages in his commentary on the Pentateuch. | From an impartial estimation, then, of all the preceding evidences, varying, as they certainly do, in circumstances not hard to be reconciled ; we may lawfully infer the divinity, as well as the personality of the Habitation. ‘The discrepancy to be perceived in the statements alleged, is rather apparent than real; and has originated in a high degree from the different sides, on which the subject has been contemplated. Such of the Targumists or T'almudists as speak of its residing in heaven, or in the sanctuary at Jerusalem; do not thereby intend to deny, that it is also in other places. Maimonides, in asserting it to be a created light, has committed no error; for such was the form, in which it used often to manifest itself: nor yet Nachmanides, im affirming it to be actually Jehovah; for such, no doubt, it is as to its substance or essence: still less has Abarbinel erred, in maintaining a definition somewhat dif- ferent from both ; as the refulgent splendor with which it was accompanied, when visible, was only accidental not essential; and the sameness which is conceded to obtain between it and Jehovah, personally considered, is not in respect of in- dividuality or subsistency, but of the divine nature 288 A TRINITY OF PERSONS or substance, That it should be occasionally de- nominated a legate, is not to be wondered at ; if we call in mind only the general acceptation of that term, which is used for any instrument whatever, and consequently might be easily ac- commodated to the agent in question, especially if made to appear in a visible shape. These obser- vations being duly attended to, we shall find no difficulty in reconciling with the more correct opinion of Abarbinel, whatever may seem to disagree with it, either in this or in apy, other work. Such are the nature and force of the present argument, the constituent parts of which I have been the more anxious to fix and establish; be- cause from the uncertain and imperfect manner, in which it had been always brought forward by our ablest divines, it could not obtain that credit to which it is entitled. peeps CHAPTER XI. — . "Tavs having from the Targumists, as well as ~ from the Cabbalists and the Daruschists, duly es- tablished a trinity of persons subsisting in the 7 Sathsall distinguished from ¢ each other by their proper” AgsigOAtIONS T advance to the confir- IN THE GODHEAD. 989 mation of the only remaining argument, which is, that these respective distinctions -of the Cab- balists, Daruschists, and Targumists, are applied to the same three persons; and in point of order, correspond with each other. This is, truly, an argument of great weight and importance ; for if the comcidence, now to be pointed out, cannot with any colour of reason be regarded as the effect of chance; it must be attributed to that necessity which the nature ef the subject imposed on them, when they made those distinctions. That they do not mean differently with respect to the first personal designation, is in need of no proof; for that were to suppose them at variance in their notions of the first cause. The Supreme Crown of the Cabbalists is, doubtless, the same with the Jehovah, or God, of the Targumists, and the Daruschists ; which, like ddam, the name of the first man, severally designate the form as well as the individual; and, therefore, whilst they stand as the proper designations of the first person, they are used at the same time as appellatives for the second and the third. This observation being diligently attended to, the confusion, naturally arising from their promiscuous application to all the personalities of the godhead, will easily be prevented. For some of the Cabbalists have dis- tinguished between the Infinity and the Supreme 20 290 A TRINITY OF PERSONS Crown ; intending, by the former, the godhead ‘<._ taken in the abstract ; but, by the latter, the first Numeration individuaily, to which the designation, Supreme Crown, is not unfrequently restricted. But others, on the contrary, as cannot fail to be observed from the various extracts contained in this work; speak of the Supreme Crown, as dif- fusing itself through all the other Numerations; and oblige us to understand it of the divinity in its abstract form, just as the humanity of Adam may be supposed to have diffused itself through the whole of his posterity. The equivocal sig- nification, therefore, of the term, Supreme Crown, is a circumstance to which the highest regard ought to be paid, in weighing what the eae have affirmed of the first Diuinahittond That the personal designations, the Word, tie Wisdom, and the Law, of Jehovah, together with the Metatron, are appropriated to the same in- dividual subsistency, and in all respects correspond with each other, will, by a mutual comparison of whatever has been separately delivered of them, be fully established. In the citations from Onkelos and the Jerusalem Targumist, it is repeatedly asserted ; that the world was created by the Word of Jehovah. Now this is an act of power, which is expressly affirmed by the Cabbalists of the second Numeration, the Wisdom of Jehovah. IN THE GODHEAD. 29} Thus R. Abraham ben Ezra, in opening his commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon, asserts; that by the Wisdom of which the inspired penman has given so grand and noble a personification, was created every thing out of nothing, as thé scriptures declare. 12 JOTI AINA pon my 3790929 w 8922 92.2 mapa nAyonn noyy ‘In this part of the admonition, the author de- ‘‘ monstrates the excellency of the primordial “ Wisdom ; as by it was created something out ‘of nothing.” R. Abraham ben David,* also attributes to its agency the creation of all things ; and corroborates the position from scriptural au- thority. 937 72D) Mwss ‘NY own INT DIN iD ONIN O99 NID AAW TID ONO PwyPd 109 70 aw oxy 555 mw spon “But : 7p PIS ANID Mwy mpona pd ’n “ whilst Jehovah is truly the beginning ‘and the ‘* cause of all existences, in the manner that form “js the cause of all those things which are in ‘actual being ; so is Wisdom the beginning of ‘‘ all existences, according to the scripture: How ‘ manifold are thy works, O Lord; by Wisdom ‘‘ hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy * possession !”’ R. Menasseh ben Israel+ inculcates the same doctrine, Cum vero certum sit, nihil * Com. on Sepher Jetsira, Perek i. Mishna 5; as cited by Rittangel. + Conciliator, Ques. }. p. 170. re 999 A TRINITY OF PERSONS in S. Scriptura perperam aut frustra seriptum esse, dicunt theologi, multa hane vocem mys- teria continere; quia TYWS12, Beresit, significet M25, Hochma, scientiam, unam ex decem il- lustrissimis lucibus. Unde colligunt, innui hic, per summam sapientiam mundum a Deo creatum, juxta verba sapientis, Dominus cum scientia fun~ davit mundum: i.e. scientia fuit causa instru- mentalis in creatione mundi. ‘“ But since it is ** certain, that nothing in the scripture is written ‘* without design ; the Divines assert, that this ‘term contains many mysteries: for Beresit, In “the beginning, signifies, Wisdom, one of the “ten most illustrious lights or numerations. “Hence they argue, it is here insinuated, that “‘ God created the world by the highest Wisdom ; “agreeably to the words of the wise author: “The Lord hath laid the foundation of the earth “by Wisdom, that is, Wisdom was the instru- * mental cause in the creation of the world.” To the preceding authorities I might add that of the Jerusalem Targumist ; who, in rendering the first words of Moses, has given, instead of, In the beginning, By wisdom, God created the heavens and the earth; that is, says R. Chajim Videl— iP 2y MDI NWYONa* “ By the me- ‘* dium of the celestial Wisdom.” But besides, that * Annot. on the Targumin, printed at Amst. 1682. i IN THE GODHEAD. 293 they manifestly identify themselves by their creative character; there is another mode of proving them to be one and the same from the consideration, that they both are called man after the image of God. In a quotation already made from Philo Judzeus, as well as in many other passages of his works, -the divine Word. is styled the image man, or the man after the image of the Supreme Being. Now, this has its origin from the doctrine of the Cabbalisis ; who often employ the term, man, to denote the divine nature in the abstract, in the same manner that it is used to express humanity in the abstract by other theologists. Hence the text, Let us make man in our own image, they expound of a conference among the numerations of the godhead; the second of which, -having emanated from the first numeration, the Supreme Crown, is called the man in the image of the Crown; and is made the author of the speech, Let us make man in our own image. Thus we read in Tykune Sohar:* VAST DIS NA VPI 11 PANDTNIPYIA VENT NOY ADIT NT DIN WY? ‘“‘ But what man is that who says, Let us make “man? This is celestial Wisdom, who is in the ““ image of the Crown.” The Word, therefore, denominated by Philo the man after the image of God ; and the celestial Wisdom, denominated by * Tyk, 70. fol. 119, Sw 294 A TRINITY OF PERSONS the Cabbalists the man in the image of the Crown, must needs be one and the very same subsistency. But the Law, in like manner, is asserted by the Daruschists to have been the instrumental cause of the creation; and for which nearly the _same passages of scripture are adduced, as for the second Numeration. Thus whatever So- lomon, in the book of Proverbs, has predicated of Wisdom; R. Moses Alshech and R. Moses Ilpeles* have applied to the Law; not to mention the many other testimonies, which those learned Daruschists supply of a similar tendency. The position is briefly maintained by R. Menasseh ben Israel.f Exemplum hujus regule habemus in WN, Beresit, cujus literee eundem efficiunt numerum quem. verba, 73) N32, Lege for- mavit. Hinc colligunt Legem fuisse causam in- strumentalem mundi. <“ Of this rule we have an “‘ example in the expression, Beresit, In the be- *“ ginning, the letters of which make up the same * number with, Battorah yatsar, By the Law he “ formed. Hence they infer, that the Law was “ the instrumental cause of the world.” That the Word is the same with the Law, may be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the reader in a variety of ways. The passages already al- leged from the Targumin of the Pentateuch on * Hoil Mose, Perek iv. p. 20. . + Concil. Ques, I. p.171. IN THE GODHEAD. | 995 the one hand, and from R. Moses IIpeles on the other; clearly demonstrate their individual same- ness, by making them one and the same instrument in the fabrication of the universe: Moreover; the former is constantly used by the Targumists for the, 17) NDS, of the inspired penmen; and that in this situation it can scarcely signify any thing besides the Law, the subsequent extracts will render apparent. Thus Onkelos:* 193 8 spIwe xd JOP FIO Nw <« For they have “observed the keeping of thy Word; and thy “covenant have they not changed.” Here it can have no other meaning than the Law of Je- hovah ; which was promulgated by the hand of Moses, and enjoined on the Israelites to be strictly observed. So the Targumist on the hundred and nineteenth psalm; N70] JID yD) “« And ‘“‘now I have observed thy word.” That is, according to R. Solomon:+ OFA MWiwA Any) 2 Ow INN «“ And now, since I have been “ occupied in the schools of divinity, I have kept ‘thy Law.”” So also in another pasuk: 3221p > Io. Noon won saysT RMD ony ‘‘ Mine eyes are ready, before either the morn- “ing or the evening watch, to rehearse in thy « Word.” That is, according to R. Abraham :¢ ADININ JNIDN3 Is Mwxw NnowK 459 op * Deut. c. xxxili. v. 9. + Com. in loc. t Ibid. 296 A TRINITY OF PERSONS PISA NOM one Oyen nbow rina ‘‘ Before any watch, do I meditate in thy word, ‘‘ which is written in the Law; that thou re- “compensest the wicked according to their “‘ wickedness, but deliverest the righteous.” The most direct, however, and unequivocal _ evidence is that of R. Moses Alshech. In one place he maintains, as a position universally ad- mitted, that the articulating voice of Jehovah is the same with the Law, which created the world.* DIA MN NAT Nay pn sina a Sp s5 -YTI5 “For, as is well known, the voice of “‘ Jehovah, that speaketh, is the Law by which ‘* he created the world.” In another place, having started the objection, how both assertions could be true, that the heavens were made by the Word, as well as by the Law of Jehovah; and, that, if, as the scripture declares, the heavens were made by the Word, then there could have been no necessity for the pre-existence of the Law; replies by observing, that the Law is ac- tually denominated the Word of Jehovah:+ 854 ‘2 WHI DYow 7373 TNs "OND Sear ay 77 IAT 9D ANAIN TOROS SPN ‘AAT AINA ‘* But this is not repugnant to the de- 712 *“elaration of scriptarc, That by the Word ® Shusanath Haamakim, fol 10, col. 4. + Com. Prov. viii. 22. | IN THE GODHEAD. - Gie ‘* of Jehovah were the heavens created ; because “the Law, according to the same declaration “‘ of scripture, is called the Word of Jehovah ; *‘ for the Word of Jehovah is in it.’ There is, therefore, the most ample ground for concluding, that the Word and the Law are individually the same thing. That the Metatron is not a different sub- sistency from either the Law, or the Word, or the Wisdom, of Jehovah, may be collected from the several testimonies already alleged in their respective places. It is, unquestionably, the same with the Word. For as the Word is designated by Philo Judeus the eldest and the chief angel, the Name of God, and, the man after the image ; so is the Metatron designated by the Jewish ex- positors in general the chief of the angels, the Almighty, the Jehovah ; and by R. Simeon ben Jochai, man the less, who was made in the image from above. It must needs, also, be the same with the Law and the Wisdom of Jehovah; for the Beginning, whereby the Elohim created the heavens and the earth, is expounded by the author of Tykune Sohar of the Metatron, no otherwise than we see it expounded by theologists, in ge- neral, of the Wisdom and the Law of Jehovah. For the confirmation of these positions, it is merely necessary to recur to the numerous au- 2P 298 A TRINITY OF PERSONS thorities respectively advanced in the course of this work. Let the foregoing evidences, then, be deemed sufficient proof of our argument; that the Word, the Wisdom, and the Law, of Jehovah, together with the Metatron, as defined respectively by the Targumists, Cabbalists, and Daruschists, agree with each other in import and signification, and exclusively refer to the second personality of the godhead. | That the Habitation, the Understanding, and the Throne of Glory, are severally meant of the third divine subsistency, admits of being proved in the most unequivocal manner. From the testimony of R. Moses Ilpeles and others, it is apparent, that the term, Elohim, as often as it occurs In the Mosaic account of.the creation, is interpreted by the Cabbalists of the numeration, Understanding. So, indeed, affirms R. Bechai :* SND TSN NNW TWwI POSIMN| INIA NIM qD DS T2007 1 TvNd Th Ow apy yaw oon NWOT SVW ADIT NOW DIRT Maw. “apy wn nA nsw Nn Twn pw Apy own 192 81) OVONT PII Aan qws oN Ox «The ~ ADWNT simw DON NI. myx ‘* import of the passage is; And he breathed into “his nostrils an afflatus, which was emanated * Par. Vajesma Jethro, fol. 104, col. 4, Amst. ed. IN THE GODHEAD. 299 “from the life of the king; which life is the * original principle of the king, and higher than “the king; therefore, the original principle of “* the soul of man is from the foundation of Un- ‘* derstanding, which is the same with Returning. ‘* There is its root, and thither shall it return; “and this is the sense of the text, But spirit “ shall return to the Elohim, who gave it: the “scripture says, Elohim; which has the same “ signification here, that it has in the text, In “ the beginning created Elohim, that is to say, “ Returning or Understanding.” ‘To this may be added the words of R. Abraham ben David :* Sw InN 9D NWI OD JOIN Spl Baan (O'Y) PIN TOY AINA AD ow A229 AI"PI MWSID WON) GID) AIIM!’ CAD OVow {ID «This way is de- ? (32D "728 87212) ‘¢ nominated the artificer ; for it is the instrument ‘‘ of the workmanship of God, that is, Under- * standing, as it is said: Jehovah by Wisdom ‘hath founded the earth, that is, diadem; es- ** tablishing the heavens, that is, beauty; with « consideration, that is, with Understanding. It ‘is also said: In the beginning, that is, By ‘¢ Wisdom; created God, that is, Understanding,” Now this yery agent in the creation, which the * Com. on the third of the thirty-two ways of Wisdom: pre- fixed to Sepher Jetsira. 300 A TRINITY OF PERSONS inspired penman simply terms, God; but the Cabbalists, Understanding ; is by R. Solomon Jarchi* expounded of the Throne of Glory. WRI WY WAS Nd. ‘namo onde mon WON 73"pA ow PANAMA oy NAM “And the Spirit of : 3p Sy nannom may ‘** God brooded, that is, the Throne of Glory ** stood in the air, and brooded on the surface of “ the waters, with the spirit of the mouth of God, ‘and with his Word; like as a dove broodeth ** over her nest.” The same Elohim jis likewise interpreted of the Throne of Glory by the author of Tykune Sohar, as cited in a former chapter. But with respect to the Throne of Glory and the Habitation, R. Solomon has certainly placed them in apposition, and, therefore, identified them; in his commentary on the vision of Eze- kiel: + FIDW NT PaVA DO ANAM yo mM Ay > PVD WONIW M3 AYPDIWM NID NOD << And ‘* behold a whirlwind came from the north, that ‘is, the chariot of the Throne of Glory, the Ha- ‘* bitation ; as is asserted in the story.” R. Lip- man{ seems to have explained the one by the sien and to have regarded them as terms wholly equivalent. DMSDIAYIWF ANIwy DYNO? NN Om ADIT Dw IM Ow pana dxpim I * Com. on Gen. c, i. v. 2. ¥ C.i. v. 4, t Nitsachon, ch. ccliii. p. 188; Com. on Jonah. IN THE GODHEAD. 830i “ That we find ;D7Y2 NDS ‘Now ‘sw oma “it asserted, that the Habitation dwelt in Egypt, “and with Ezekiel in the land of the Chal- *“* dees; is because the Habitation was with them “in their exile, as the scripture saith: And I “will place my Throne in Elam.” R, Isaac Abarbinel* expressly maintains, that they are one and the same divine subsistency. DY AIM %D NYON 8? NOD OW DOWN DIN. paw ny p29 27 29an M72 XP) N52 xd opy owa DW NIT TAIN NOD OWA Wopaw ADI WiANwsan mam ny by mea sada soy? « For certainly 3: Mann avon syown “ though the heavens be called in scripture by “ the term, throne; you can no where find, neither ‘in the scripture, nor in the writings of our “learned divines, of blessed memory, that the “ heavens are called the Throne of Glory; as this ‘is a term applied peculiarly and exclusively to “* the excellency of the first cause, and to the most “high spiritual Habitation.” This too agrees with the doctrine of the Cabbalists, as set forth by the author of Tykune Sohar.t ww }IP8T MPS TSA pnaw2 42 yonot xos>d mbyn “Which are 3 T122 8DD OS ANdY RnYowT ‘“‘ the six steps to the Throne; whence are all * Com. on Exodus, c. xxiy. y. 1. + Tyk. 69. fol. 116. 302 A TRINITY OF PERSONS _ “the souls by way of emanation from the upper “‘ Habitation, which is the same with the Throne “of Glory.” There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Throne of Glory and the siginniy oo are one and the same thing. Finally, that the Habitation and Ustdetataitain’ are designations of the very same cabbienidaps demonstrable from the circumstance, that the Elohim, which occurs in the first section of Ge- nesis, and which is expounded by the Cabbalists of the numeration, Understanding, is in like man- ner by R. Eliezer expounded of the Habitation. Thus we read in Tykune Sohar:* 29 “D8 ANA AA BND xd Xnrowa xm ays AX UTS Say a7 AD im moe gde DPOX MPNN XoyOw NOX oOpdse ond ots N12) DONS w3722 NDANNT Snow? Oy PNOPIWT NIPYII wIYI DING ms ope ‘““R. Eliezer said: But, behold, of the Habitation ‘it is not written, that it was created, but that “it emanated. . He should have said, And Elo- “him created the man: Who is Elohim? Doubt- ‘less, the Habitation is called Elohim; and of “ the soul, which was inspired into man, is it said, “ And Elohim created the man in his own image, “in the image of the Habitation’ In another part of the same work, the one is put in appo- | * Tyk. lxii. fol. 97. cole2. IN THE GODHEAD. 308 sition with the other, thus—8'7) TNYIN WN * mxmon mpap NnyDw—«< It is the third; and “ this is the Habitation, the third numeration,’ which establishes their identity in the most un- equivocal terms. Such are the proofs afforded by the present opportunity, that these several designations of the Targumists, Cabbalists, and Daruschists, are spoken of the same three personalities of the godhead; and coincide, as to the order and degree in which they rank with each other. The reader, however, is always to bear in mind, that, as the knowledge of the Cabbala is widely dif- ferent both from that of the Targumin and that of the Darushoth; and, as scarcely any author can be mentioned, who was equally conversant in each of them; it ought not to be a matter of wonder, if in some instances we find contradictory accounts, and these passages of holy writ applied to the one subsistency, which ought with strictness of propriety to have been applied to the other. Something of this complexion may be detected in a quotation from Abarbinel; who has accommo- dated those texts of Solomon to the Habitation, or Throne of Glory, which are invariably applied by other divines to the Wisdom or the Law of Jehovah. It is not, however, a mistake of any * Tyk. Ixx. fol. 119, col. 2. 304 A TRINITY OF PERSONS great magnitude; and may find its equal, even in a pillar of our own church. The great Ire- neus,* of whose orthodoxy it would be criminal to doubt, has actually dilapsed into the same error with Abarbinel; having expounded of the Holy Spirit those very words of Solomon, which are exclusively applied to the Word by the rest of the Fathers. See ee CHAPTER XIII. Tue various arguments, from which the se- cond general Proposition was offered to be proved, ‘being now concluded; it remains, that we take a retrospective view of what has been advanced, and recapitulate the evidence on which the decision is founded. The Proposition, as will easily be recollected, was, for the sake of method and perspicuity, divided into two parts; in the former of which was to be demonstrated, that the deity exists in a plurality of persons; and in the latter, that this plurality is a trinity. Sucha division of the argument may by some, perhaps, be thought to have been dictated without any regard to the utility of the subject ; the former position being evidently contained in the Jatter, ® Adversus Hereses, lib. iv. ¢. 37. IN THE GODHEAD. 305 in that the trinity is itself a plurality, and the only plurality which requires to be demonstrated. But the case is far otherwise. The chief difficulty, in attempting to recommend to the consideration of the Jew the trinitarian hypothesis, is to bring him to yield, that God exists in a plurality ae persons at all; for that being once duly acknow- ledged, the ile chdie of the trinity to any other number would readily obtain the sanction of the most scrupulous objector. I have, therefore, in treating this part of the Proposition, omitted no argument whatever, which appeared to me to be defensible at all points; some of which, indeed, have been urged by others before me, in the learned languages; but by none with that de- ference to the authorities of the Jewish church, and that anticipation of doubts and objections, which are the characteristics of this work, | By evincing, that the highest spiritual natures with which we are acquainted, next to the deity, have a sameness of essence existing in a diver- sity of subsistences; we derive from analog gya presumptive argument, that the eodhead, which is also a spiritual substance, must, to be consonant to reason, equally exist in a plurality of persons. This is followed by an argument.of no less weight and consideration, that, as all spiritual substances were not, like bodily forms, created at the first 2Q 306 A TRINITY OF PERSONS out of nothing, but were actual emanations from the divine being; we are compelled to infer the fructifying power of the first cause, and that the individual natures of man and angel were so many personalities of the godhead, substantially partaking of its essence; though not from eter- nity, nor in any way necessary to the support of its existence. 'To these proofs of a plurality are added, that in the sacred writings all the appel- lations of the deity have the construction of com- mon names, serving to many individuals; and that God is often found speaking of himself in the first person plural. These two positions appeared to the infidel, Volney, i 1 so clear and certain a light; that he has not hesitated to charge the Jews with having wilfully corrupted the scriptures, by converting all those verbs, which are now associated in the singular with the term, Elohim, from the plural to the singular form; in order that they might the better, and more. easily maintain their notion of the unity. But though I am far, yea very far, from suspecting the Jews of any such practices; I cannot but think, that, when supported by the opinion of a writer of so © much religious neutrality, the positions, as handled in this work, will appear to the more sceptical part of my readers to claim their regard. These arguments, as I have already observed, IN THE GODHEAD. 307 being severally adduced to shew, that the deity exists in a plurality of persons ; do not absolutely evince the truth of the Proposition; but they have a manifest tendency to corroborate it in degree, and may be received either as positive confirmations of the pluripersonality of the god- head, or, if the reader would rather, as negative testimonies, that it does not exist in one person only. The immediate. proof, of. its truth is, doubtless, from the latter division of the argu- ments; in which the necessity of a trinity is demonstrated on metaphysical principles, and in which the numerical unity, so vigorously opposed to it both by infidels,and heretics, is justly exploded. By this mode of arguing the point, the trinitarian hypothesis is recommended to the acceptance of mankind on rational grounds; and is rendered somewhat independent of the testi- monies both of Judaism and Christianity. Thus bottomed in metaphysics, the doctrine naturally acquires that accession of evidence, which arises from the many symbolical actions and expressions of the inspired penmen; from the Numerations of the Cabbalists ; from the actual Pre-existences of the Daruschists ; and from the personal desig- nations of the deity with the T'argumists ; not to mention the harmony and concordance of those several distinctions from a mutual comparison 308 A TRINITY OF PERSONS with each other ; all which arguments conspire to fix i¢ on an immovable basis, and to render the truth of the Proposition as impregnable as it is important. To me, indeed, it seems wholly im- possible, that a doctrine, so completely fortified by — argument and testimony, should be convicted of error, or overturned by the assaults of malignant opposition. Reclining, then, on the merits and strength of my evidence, I decide on the princi- ples of logical.deduction ; That in the sameness of the godhead subsists a trinity of persons. CHAPTER XIV. Tuar this is the very form and substance of the trinitarian hypothesis, as embraced by the whole Christian church, is too plain and evident to need confirmation. The very names, God, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, with which we designate the three subsistences of the godhead ; sufficiently manifest from whom we have derived the doctrine, and naturally instruct us. to place this fundamental truth of Christianity on the basis of Judaism. It will not be deemed any dispa- ragement to the Christian Religion to say, that all we know, either of the being, or of the attributes of God, the Father, is borrowed fromthe Jewish ~ IN THE GODHEAD. 309 church ; and, whatever does not accord with the “attestations of the inspired penmen concerning him, lai no ashe. of of our creed, In Mos kik the eumists, ‘Sold whom St. ‘Joute ‘the prince of the evangelists, ‘immediately took it, and we from him, as will be readily acknowledged. The third sub- sistency we call the Holy Spirit, in imitation of the most anciént Fathers of the Jewish church: with whom the Holy Spirit was regarded as ‘synonymous with the Habitation. This last, how- ever, being a point on which considerable diffi- culty seems to have arisen in the minds of the most learned Hebraists, I shall lay down such grounds of evidence as “may be necessary for the support of the position, and then remove the objections with which it is encumbered. it has been already established on the authority _of Abarbine), that the Habitation is the same sub- sistency with the Glory of Jehovah; which is justly represented as-a spiritual effect ; emanating or proceeding immediately from the godhead, and co- -existing along with it beforé the creation of the world. Now the manner, in which R. Judah Levita * has identified the Glory of Jehovah _ with the Holy Spirit, induces the belief, that, by } Holy Spirit, he meant the very substance of the ¥ Sepher Cost, Part i ii. p, 80. HAR La NG N ey 310 A TRINITY OF PERSONS Habitation; and, that with him these were but ~ two appellations for one and the same thing. DISN NPIA WINN PIA QwIA Ww WON 7D e023 pa nya ny WIP M7 yt tia. 29a aay jot oy sopn ‘‘ So is there formed from a subtle, ?°20 97 ‘spiritual, substance, called among the Jews, “the Holy Spirit; a number of spiritual forms ‘“in one, denominated the Glory of Jehovah, “and, by way of metaphor or translation, Je- “ hovah only; as: And Jehovah descended upon ‘“ mount Sinai.” Here we have the express declaration of the author, that the Glory of Je- hovah, which is universally granted to be the same with the Habitation, is formed of the Holy Spirit; nor are we permitted to draw any dis- _ tinction between them, except that the Holy Spirit is the form or essence, abstractedly consi- dered; and the Glory of Jehovah the individual appearance, which that Spirit assumes. But there are more coincidences of this complexion. In the Mishna* we read, that the Holy Spirit cohabits with the Saints ; and renders them meet for the resurrection of the body. NOM MAND An MN. waa myTOM nrpon vd mea SOO nynn 2 na wap AM wipA “The fear of sinning leads to the possession of * Masseceth Sota, Perek ix. a ee IN THE GODHEAD, 3ll ‘‘ piety; and piety leads to the possession of the ‘Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit leads to the ‘“ possession of the resurrection from the dead.” This agrees with what R. Judah Levita* affirms of the spiritual Habitation. MUNMDIN AY DwAAS D7 ya 2D OY TOTTI NTw 55 OY Ie mn WN? AID war 2d Nw wD Tt Nox ‘‘ But the invisible and spiritual Habi- — : Synus ‘tation is with every indigenous Israelite, and ‘“ with every strict observer of the true Law; who is blameless in his conduct, pure in his ‘‘ heart, and clean in his conscience towards the “‘ God of Israel.” So also in the Talmud + we read, that when the three prophets, ‘Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, died; the Holy’ Spirit departed from Israel. O82] INOW 7339 Van WIP M7 Apyno2 Nba AMD ONIN “The doctors have handed down to : YXTWD “memory, that when the latter prophets, Haggai, “* Zechariah, and Malachi, died; the Holy Spirit ‘“ departed from Israel.’’ Now this is precisely what R. Judah Levitat has recorded of the departure of the Habitation. M72NT ANID NUIT DIPIID Aw DYIIN Uw M2 wIN oY ANIIIw’ PWN MI Aw mApswm m3 “ For pro-. : AY2WN panda mponds nup3n a4 ‘ * Sepher Cosri, Part v. p. 384. + Masseceth Sanhedrin, Perek i. + Sepher Cosri, Part iij. p. 238. 312 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ‘““ phecy continued with the men of the second ‘‘ temple forty years, that is, with such of the ‘‘ elders as had been assisted by the power of the ‘ Habitation, which was in the first temple ; the “ regular art of prophecy having departed on the ‘* departure of the Habitation.” Finally, R. Elias Levita* declares, that the Fathers called the Holy Spirit, the Habitation ; and alleges a proof from the commentary of Jarchi. m9 4'%7 Wp (DD. Dea oy jaw sinw ow oy mow wpm PApow Poy Amy ow wpa Jpn mnonm ‘The doctors of our church, blessed be their ‘“ memory, called the Holy Spirit, the Habitation ; ‘‘ because it dwelt with the prophets: and ac- ‘ cordingly the words, And the spirit of Jacob “ revived, are expounded by R. Solomon Jarchi, ‘‘ And the Habitation rested upon him.” These evidences, which might easily be increased in number, indubitably prove, that the terms, Holy Spirit, and Habitation of Jehovah, at least when taken in their fullest acceptation ; are meant of one and the same thing. | But it has been urged as an objection, that they sometimes appear to be distinguished ; and especially in a certain place of the Talmud ;+ where of the five things, which were wanted in the second temple, two are asserted to have been, * Tishbi, p. 247. + Masseceth Joma, Perek i. IN THE GODHEAD. 318 the Habitation, and, the Holy Spirit. There is not, however, in this passage of the Talmud, if the matter be but duly considered; any real ground of objection. The glorious being of which we now speak, is defined, by the highest authorities, to be a subtle spirit proceeding imme- diately from the godhead, and to which all other spiritual natures, whatever, whether celestial or terrestrial, owe their origin and stand subordinate. By this the prophets of Israel were inspired; their champions endowed with supernatural strength; and the more religious part of their community assisted in their sacred meditations and devotional exercises. In short, there was no kind of heavenly communion, or divine inter- course, between the Jew and his God) either before or since the diruption of the Jewish polity ; which was not accomplished through the medium of the spiritual Habitation. ‘To the Israelites, when stationed under mount Sinai, it appeared in a luminous and visible shape; and continued to do so for many ages after, as well in the taber- nacle which was constructed by Moses, as in the temple of Solomon. ‘This splendor or visible appearance of it, which by the Targumists* is called, NMIDW AP", “the glory of the Habitation ;” by R. Judah Levita,f PVA PY MSA AY awa * Jer. Targ. Ex. xiv. 14, &c. + Sepher Cosri, Part y. p. 384. ZR : S14 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “ the Habitation ocularly seen ;” by R. Lipman,* IDI 99), “the manifestation of the Habita- “tion ;” and by R. Isaac Abarbinel,+ Myswn 594 “the insignia of the Habitation ;” is very often styled, simply, the Habitation; just as the Glory of Jehovah is sometimes, in the scriptures, ex- pressed simply by, Jehovah. To this equivocal use of the term had writers but paid the necessary attention, they would not have hesitated to pro- - nounce, that the Habitation and the Holy Spirit were one and the same thing; notwithstanding, that they were enumerated distinctly in the words of the Talmud. If we do but reflect, that the splendor’ which indicates the presence of the Holy Spirit, as well as the Holy Spirit itself, are denominated, the Habitation ; and, that the Holy Spirit, in this place of the ‘Talmud, according to the exposition of Baal Aruch,t is used in specie for the spirit of prophecy ; we shall feel no sur- prise at this assertion of the Fathers, nor regard it as repugnant to the truth of the position ; for, certainly, the glorious splendor of the Habitation, and the spirit of prophecy, were two of those things which were wanted in the second temple of Jerusalem. The use, indeed, of the Holy Spirit for, the spirit of prophecy only; and, * Nitsachon, c. Ixxviii. p. 50. + Com. 1 Kings, c. vili. ¥. 66. + Aruch Chabod, : | IN THE GODHEAD. . oe vice versa, the use of the spirit of prophecy for, the Holy Spirit, in its widest acceptation, are causes of much ambiguity in many of the Jewish authors; and we should do well to attend to this- observation in reading their works, If in the. following sentence of Maimonides* the terms, Habitation, and Holy Spirit, be not perfectly synonymous; they are to be distinguished only according to the rule which has been now laid down. DWI STD DYN) OMNIS Mw M33 wy 1807 [72 poxwi pa Nowa doy As) OIA Aw bw mw omen xow an ya pow perso PR) WIP AND DID sw yD 9D) wIpA nn “ They made in the {2p 9NWI PR YI Yow “‘ second temple, the Urim and Thummim, so as, * to perfect the eight vestments; although they ‘did not inquire with them. - But why did they “not inquire with them? Because the Holy ‘Spirit did not rest there; nor did they ever ‘inquire by any priest, who did not speak by “‘ the Holy Spirit, and upon whom the Habitation ‘did not rest.” Let it not, however, be sup-— posed, that, because the prophetic Spirit is here, and in other places denoted simply by, the Holy Spirit; it may not be equally expressed by the term, Habitation. R. Judah Levita, as must have been already observed, makes the art of . * Hilch, Kele Hammik. c. x. sect. 10; as cited by Wagenseil. 316 A TRINITY OF PERSONS prophecy depend entirely on the faculty of the Habitation; and in the subsequent testimony of R. Moses Ipeles,* they are plainly synonymous. AD ops Sao ww Sew Soy pry nawn DIYNAND AYE ON AT Dw APD 2D Me NII Aw yy? D3 7x xdy od 2 125% MVD kW NIT NS Ine DON IN On Dixw Dopp Soaw Sm spy ws ‘28 7312 NY ADO NT ANN nD Thaw sn VOD 228 750 (PN ANAM AN saw "3 Dob 2 22p? MD ond pS Od Pew wnd OsH ‘x “In answer to this it is : Dp Moipa my ay “to be observed, on the authority of the Da- ‘* ruschists, that no Israelite, who has not been “ circumcised, is able to behold the face of the “‘ Habitation. For this reason, Job said to his “friends: I too have a heart as well as you ; “he did not say, like you; insinuating, that the “spirit of prophecy, which was in himself, was ‘of a superior character; and as a proof of “it, he says, I was born circumcised : (agreeably ~ to what our divines of blessed memory assert, ‘‘ that, wherever it is said in scripture, he was a perfect or upright man; it means, that he was “ born circumcised) and this, says he, is the “reason why I do not fall amongst you, that is, “ when the spirit of prophecy comes upon me, I * Hoil Mose, Perek iii. p. 108, JN THE GODHEAD. 317 ‘< do not fall down like one of you; for they were ‘“‘ uncircumcised; and had no power in themselves “to meet the face of the Habitation with an “ upright countenance.” Let the foregoing evi- dences, then, be deemed a sufficient proof, that, with the most celebrated authorities of the Jewish church, the Holy Spirit is synonymous with the Habitation ; and, that, as such, it has been received into the Christian church for the third personality of the godhead. But the agreement of the names is not the only way, in which the consent of Judaism with Christianity, in this important doctrine ; admits of being proved. To each of the persons singly, the same attributes and perfections, the same operations and services, are ascribed by the Chris- tian, as by the Jewish divine; not to mention the order which is usually observed in naming them jointly; for in this respect, too, the Christian coincides with the Cabbalist and the Daruschist. ; To God, individually and properly so called, we assign that homage and adoration, which are due _ from creatures to their creator; that excellency and perfection, which must of necessity belong to so glorious a being ; together with all those attri- butes and properties, which have ever been de- clared by the. advocates of reason, as well as of revelation, to be worthy of the divine nature. He 318 A TRINITY OF PERSONS 18 styled by the Greek and Latin fathers in par- ticular, The Father, and the Lord of-the uni= verse ; titles on no occasion given either to the Word or to the Holy Spirit, but appropriated exclusively to God, the Father. In ‘the’ History of Christ, who was certainly a most zealous culti- vator, as well as a most eminent pattern of piety ; he is held up to the world, as the parent of mercy and goodness; as the author of our redemption. and salvation from sin and death ; as the rewarder of the just, and the avenger of the wicked. The very thoughts and actions of mankind are said to be open to his inspection; and to be. vile or acceptable in his eyes, in proportion as they assume the complexion of virtue. The incom. parable majesty, and intrinsic excellency, of his divine nature, are: no less. the theme of. our admiration and praise, than his bounty and good- ness. “Thou greatest and highest origin of the *‘ invisible world,” says the learned Arnobius, * mM a pious address to the Supreme. Being; / “ thou, who art invisible and comprehensible by _ “no natures at any time; thou art worthy; truly - “worthy, if so be only we may be permitted . “with mortal eloquence to say, that thou art “worthy; to whom every living and rational ‘‘ being should never desist from confessing: his * Adversus Gentes, Lib. i. p. 22. af iN THE GODHEAD, 319 $$ < obligations, ‘nd returning bis thanks; to whom “the whole animal creation in concert ought to kneel in adoration, and to supplicate with never ceasing prayer. Thou art the firet cause, the foundation of all things whatsoever, cafaiily unbegotten, immortal, perpetual, alone ; whom no bodily figure can describe, no boundary in- clude ; void of quality and of quantity, without sitnation, without motion, and without figure ; of whom nothing i is to be affirmed or dxpipada in terms of mortal speech ; of whom that we may form any conception, we must muse in “silence; and that. busy thought, wandering “through the gloom of night, may gain any “traces of thee, we must be hush and contem- ‘iplative,’?4 +6 nee is no necessity,” says the © eloquent Cyprian,* | “why you should inquire “into the name. of God. God is his name. It “is only when a number of individuals require to ‘‘ be distinguished by their own proper terms, ‘that names are necessary. But God, who “exists by himself, has God only for his name “or appellation. He is, therefore, one, and “ every where wholly diffused.” Here we find the Father maintaining, what in the course of this work has been frequently inculcated, that * De Idol. Vanitate, p. 15. 320 A TRINITY OF PERSONS God is a proper as well as a common appellation ; proper to the first subsistency of the godhead, the Father of all things; but common to the second and the third, which, though equally God 7 with ‘the first, do yet stand in need of being distinguished from it by the personal designations of the Word and the Spirit. But with respect to the second subsistency, the Word, Sr. Joun* expressly declares; that it is God, and the instrumental causation of every thing, that was created at the first, or which at present exists in the: world. Sr, Paun; ;¢ that it is God, and of an equality with the first person of the Godhead. Barnasas; t { that it is a subsist- ency anterior to the creation, and a brightness of splendor incalculably greater than that of the sun. Cremens Romanus; § that it is God, and Spirit. Ignavius ; || that it is God, eternal, invisible, impalpable, impassible, and spiritual and co-existent with the Father of the universe, before the creation of the world. Justin Mar- tyr; that it is a subsistency different from the first personality of the godhead | in number, but * Gospel, c.i. v.1.&c. + Ep. to the Philippians, c. ii. v. 6. ¢ Ep. Vos. ed. p.218,&c. § 2 Ep. ad Corinth. p. 14], et 159. | Ep. ad Polycarp. p. 12; et Ep. ad Ephes. p. 17; Vos. ed. 1 Apol. p. 44; et 2 Apol. p- 95, &e.; item, Dial. cum Tryph. p- 284, 287, &c. Colon. ed. IN THE GODHEAD. 32] not in mind; having existed with him anterior to the works of the creation; that it is God, and eternal; the primordial Vikdban the angel or legate of Jehovah. Tarian;* that it is God, and a spiritual subsistency, emanating from the Father of the universe. ATHENAGORAS: + that it is God, of the same substance with the first cause, the energy, of the godhead, and the framer of the universe. -LREnaws ; * that it is God, the maker of the world, and is glorified by the Father of all things; that it revealed the deity to mankind, and discoursed with the] patriarchs of Hagadiearcae ANTIOCHENUS ;§ that it is God, the Wisdom of God, the Beginning of the cre- ation, and the promulgator of the will of God. CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS: ;|| that it is the most Ne aalt PCACS Aee manifest deity, the Wisdom, evident goodness, — hae BADEN almighty, and truly divine power of God; the creator of the world, the genuine son of the divine mind, the original light of light, and equal with the Lord of the universe. Origen; that it is God, : the iw and the Wisdom of God. * Orat. con. Grecos. p. 145, et 146; Colon. ed. t Leg. pro Christ. p. 10, 27, &. + ‘Adversus Her. | Lib, iy. c. 14, 37, &e. ; Ad Autolycum, Lib. ii. p. 100; Colon. ed. j Strom. Lib. v. p. 547. Admon. ad Gentes, p. G2, 68, ke. @ Contra Cels. Lib. i. p. 52; et Lib. iii, p. 135. 28 322 A ‘TRINITY OF PERSONS Cyprian; * that it is God, the power, the Wisdom, and the reason of God. ~Arnosius;+ that it is God, in the highest acceptation of the term ; and that from eternity. Lacranrrus;{ that it is God, the voice, and Wisdom of God; of the same mind, spirit, and substance, with the Father of all things; and stands in the same relation to him, as the stream does to the fountain from which it flows, or as a beam of light does to the sun from which it emanates; that it is a spirit, which was caused to subsist prior to the formation of the world; and to which the appellation of deity is due on account of its paternal power and majesty, having been the instrumental causation of the angelic as well as of the sublunary world. I need not. say, that in all situations, in which it is named in concert with the other personalities of the godhead ; it ranks second in order. But the Holy Spirit has equal testimony given of it, as being both God and a person. Sr. Prrer§ inculcates ; that it is God, and the author of all prophecy. Sr. Paux; || that it abides with every true worshiper of God, confers on the saints all spiritual power and wisdom, and distributes them to every man, severally as it pleases. * De Idol. Vanitate, p. 15. + Adversus Gentes, Lib, i. p. 40: + De Vera Sap. Lib. iv. p. 403, &c. § Acts, c. ¥. 3, 4.— 1 Ep. c. iv. v.14. 2 Ep. c.i. v. 20. 1 Cor. c. xii. ¥. 4—11> = 4. <2. IN THE GODHEAD. 323 Ignatius; * that it operated by Moses and the prophets, and is of equal honor with God and his Word. Justin Martyr ;+ that it speaks by ~ the psalmist either in its own Li det or in that of the Father. AtTHENAGoRAs ;{ that it operated by the prophets, is an seeaige from God, streaming from him and returning to him again, “like a beam of the sun ; that it emanates from God as light does from combustion, and i is united ) in respect of power with the Father and the os Word. Inenaus;§ that it _proclaimed the cove- nants of God by the prophets, as well as jointly co-operatéd with the Word in the formation of ‘the worlds, whereby the ministration of angels to the “deity was rendered unnecessary ; for the Word and the Spirit, being his own form and offspring, ministered unto him in all things that he wanted. CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS ;|| that it is one in number, and in every place. Cyprian ; {7 that it is one in number, as well as one in mind with the Father and the Word; and cannot be. reconciled to the man who is “4 variance with | either of the other two persons of the godhead. | To this I may add, that in all cases in which the * Ep. ad Magnes. p. 33, 37. Ep. ad Philip. p. 99, 100. + Dial. cum Tryph. p. 255; item, 2 Apol. p. 56. $ Leg. pro Chris. p.10, 11, &e. § Adversus Her. Lib. iy. c. 37. | Ped. Lib. i. p. 102. { Ep.ad Jub. p. 203. Oxon.ed. 324 A TRINITY OF PERSONS mention of the three persons is made conjointly, or when it is necessary to determine the order in which they, are to stand with each other; the Holy Spirit is placed last, being postponed to the Word. Such are the testimonies on which I have chosen to manifest the agreement of the Christian with the Jewish professor, relative to the order, attributes, and perfections which they respectively assign to the personalities of the godhead. In making a selection from the Greek and Latin Fathers, 1 have been careful to adhere to such of them only, as lived in the first three centuries of the christian church. These, indeed, were the oracles of the times in which they flourished ; who, by their extraordinary learning and piety, conciliated throughout the whole of christendom such a degree of authority in matters of faith, that they are now regarded as subordinate only to the evangelists and apostles. To have de- scended to the single testimonies of the Fathers, jower than the end of the third century, would have been vain and nugatory ; as the beginning of the fourth gave rise to the admirable and divine Athanasius, who maintained the trinitarian hypothesis with. ‘such astonishing acuteness and success, that it was soon after formed into a creed or symbol, and has been received ¢ ever er since, with IN THE GODHEAD. 325 the exception of a very few schismatics, by the whole body of Christians as the standard of ortho- doxy. There remains, therefore, no doubt, that, the trinity, as here enforced, is the legitimate doctrine of Christ, and forms an essential part of that faith which ‘every true member of his church is bound to profess. camer GE Ee > CHAPTER XV. Bur if there be so remarkable and striking an agreement between the Jew and the Christian, in ‘their ‘metaphysical disquisitions of the divine na- _ture ; a question naturally arises, why, to this day, the professors of Judaism should be so avowedly hostile to the doctrine of the trinity, and should have been led to consider it, all along, as the most objectionable and blasphemous article of the Christian faith? To this I reply, that their hos- tility is founded in ignorance and mistake; origi- nating, in part, from the incompetent manner in which too many of our divines have handled the subject ; partly, from the misapprehensions of their own writers, who, being ill informed of the principles of our religion, are apt to charge us with the consequence of positions which we do not maintain ; but most of all, perhaps, from the 326 A TRINITY OF PERSONS circumstance, that, in two or three texts of scrip- ture, the vulgar sense has taken place of the true ‘one with respect to the divine unity. It is not to be dissembled, that a number of our writers have rushed to the defence and discussion of this tenet, without being in the least acquainted with the previous explanations of it by the Greek ~ and Latin Fathers; as well as without an ade- quate knowledge of the science of metaphysics ; so that many of their statements not only disagree with those of the ancient Fathers, but are repug- nant to right reason, and even inconsistent with each other. Some, on the contrary, there are; who, from a spirit of indolence, or something worse, dissuade us from meddling with the sub- ject in any fashion; and propose, that the doc- trine should be received, implicitly, without any investigation of its truth, or illustration of its meaning. Into such defenders of our creed, therefore, should the Jewish inquirer unfortu- nately cast his eye; it ought not to be a matter of wonder, if, instead of being constrained to ac- knowledge its credibility, he should be more strongly confirmed than ever in his prejudices against it; and should be finally led to contemn a religion, the rationality of which the very advo- cates themselves despair of demonstrating. | — But though the incompetency of a few polemics IN THE GODHEAD. 327 to furnish a proper and consistent account of it may be one impediment to its favorable reception ; the shameful ignorance and injustice, with which the generality of Jewish writers arraign and. condemn the doctrine, are still stronger impedi- ments; and are the more to be regretted, as they proceed entirely from a reluctant disposition, and highly culpable neglect, on their own parts, to become acquainted with the merits of the tenet, as unfolded by those who were masters of the subject. They erroneously conclude, that, be- cause we make God have a son, and speak of that son, as of a person of equal divinity with God the F ather ; we destroy the divine unity, and i in- duce a number of Gods. ‘This, however, is an error, In which they ought to be undeceived. That we affirm the second subsistency of the god- head to be the son of God, and God, personally so called, to be the father of that son; is not to be denied : but, in this affirmation, we assert nothing which is not equally implied in the appellations, Jehovah, and, his Word; as adopted into our church, and employed by themselves. To the Jew it cannot be unknown, that in the sacred dialect, any product or effect whatever may be termed a son; so that, with Moses,* the growth of a year is called the son of a year; and, with * Num. vii. 17. 328 A TRINITY OF PERSONS R. Moses Kimchi,* a word, consisting of four letters, is called a son of four letters ; the parts of speech, also, are denominated the sons of speech. Contemplating, then, the Wisdom or Word of Jehovah, as an effect of the divine mind; and R. Moses Botril+ has truly remarked, that, MOINM SYN Mawnan yo unt Y— “whether we will or not, Wisdom must pro- ‘ceed from mind;” the christian is justified i in naming” that effect the son, the only begotten son, or, as Clemens Alexandrinus has aptly expressed it, the genuine son of the divine mind; and the divine mind itself, or, if the reader Shot prefer it, then Jehovah himself, the father of that son; as these, like mind and wisdom, are correlative terms, the consideration of the one necessarily ex- citing alw ays the consideration of the other. That this is the light, in Which the Fathers of our church regarded the subsistency of the son; is ap- parent from Origen.{ ‘‘ Nor can Celsus,’’ says he, ‘* demonstrate, that, because we acknowledge “the son of God; we deny allegiance to the “ Supreme Being, and undermine his authority. “‘ Surely, in admiring the son, who is reason, “ wisdom, truth, and righteousness, and whatever * Mahalach Shevili Haddaath. Lib. ii.c. 8. Lib. i. c. 5. + Com. on Sepher Jetsira, Perek i. Mishna 4; as cited by Rit. $¢ Contra Cels. Lib. viil. p. 386, 387. IN THE GODHEAD. 329 “else we may have been taught to consider so “divine an offspring; we are honoring — the “ Father.” To this it soon after ~ subjoins : « But we, who have been taught to understand ‘ what the son of God is; that he is the reful- if gency of his glory, the character of his ‘sub- ‘stance, the stream of. the ‘power of God, the ‘8 pure promanation of the glory of the Almighty, ** the resplendency of the eternal light, the un- ‘“ spotted mirror of the energy of God, and the “reflection of his goodness; are sensible, that such a subsistency must be the son of God, and “‘ that God must be his father. Neither is there, “in this language, any thing unbecoming. or “ unworthy of the deity ; when we assert the “ subsistency of an only begotten son:.nor will ** any one be able to persuade us, thata being, “like this; is not actually, and truly the son of “the unbegotten God.” This account of the tenet by a writer, who flourished as early as the beginning of the third century, ought to satisfy the unprejudiced reader; that the Christian church, so far from destroying the unity of the godhead, by discriminating between the Father and the Son; maintains nothing, which is not fully “Wiaitted ‘by the Jewish theologists, and which is not equally conveyed to us by the terms, Jehovah, and, the Word of Jehoyah. Pay 330 A TRINITY OF PERSONS But of all the scruples, which deter the Jew from assenting to the trinitarian hypothesis, the notion, that it plainly contradicts the express declaration of scripture; will be the worst to remove. The words of Moses,* M71 Semun pow ary pep a oN—< Hear, O Israel! Jehovah, our “God, is one Jehovah;” are supposed to be a solemn attestation, that Jehovah, the God of Israel, is numerically one; and, that he exists a solitary person, not ina trinity of persons, as the christians contend. That unity of number is also unity of person, has been strenuously maintained in the course of this work; and, therefore, if the oneness here attributed to Jehovah, can be proved to be oneness of number, the notion of a trinity of persons subsisting in Jehovah will be completely refuted. But that this is by no means the sense of the text, shall be manifested by arguments and authorities of sufficient weight and number, I hope, to set the question at rest. First of all, I say, that the duplication of the noun, Jehovah, is of itself an insuperable bar to the meaning, which they would affix to the words ;: for, if the author had really intended to declare to the Israelites, that Jehovah, their God, was one in number; he would have said, TAN DTN A. siI—* Jehovah, our God, is one;’’? but not, * Deut. vi. 4. . —— eS ———— eee IN THE GODHEAD, 351 TNs AWD DON AWP—«< Jehovah, our God, is “‘ one Jehovah;’’ which, on the supposition, that the adjunct, one, denoted one in number, would be quite unintelligible. How should we reconcile it with common sense to say: Hear, O Israel! Samuel, our prophet, is one Samuel; or, David, our king, is one David; which, nevertheless, are constructions of the very same complexion with that under discussion ? Secondly, admitting, that the words might be so construed as to retain the signification, which they would assign to them ; how could they be connected with the pasuk, which follows, in the form of an inference: qwp) 992) 7229 922 PVN A AS naw “ And thou shalt love Jehovah, thy 7JI8D 2933 “ God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, “ and with all thy strength?” Is there, 1 would ask, any propriety or force of reasoning in the language, that, because Jehovah, the God of Israel, is one in number; therefore, they must love him with all their heart, soul, and strength? or rather, to a man of common apprehension, would not the contrary of this appear: infinitely more just; that, as Jehovah is but one God in number, and as there either are, or may be others besides himself, therefore they ought not to love him with all their heart, soul, and strength; but to make a distribution of their affections, accord- 332 A TRINITY OF PERSONS ing to the number and quality of the deities to whom adoration may be due? Such, nevertheless, would be the result of the supposition; that the adjunct, one, here predicated of Jehovah, denoted one in number. The right explication of the two verses is, doubtless, this. Hear, O Israel! Jehovah, our God, is Jehovah alone; that is, our God, who has been pleased to call himself by the name, Jehovah, from the consideration, that he-actually exists, 1s the only God who does exist; and to whom the name, Jehovah, can properly apply ; therefore, thou shalt love Jehovah, thy God, with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy strength: where it is worthy of remark, that the second, Jehovah, is a noun common, having the general sense of the verb, 714, to be, from which it is derived; and, that the adjunct, one, with which it is associated, is intended to express, not the unity of its number, but the solity of its essence. That this is the certain and undoubted signification of the phrase, TM8 7, “one Je- “ hovah;’’ may be further corroborated from the testimony of the prophet, Zechariah ;* who, in speaking of the times of the Messias, thus declares, TAS VV TAN TP TP SA OYA “< In that “« day, there shall be Jehovah one; and his name * Chap. xiv. ver. 9. IN THE GODHEAD. 333 ‘* one:” that Is, says R. David Kimchi,* the heathen will acknowledge, that Jehovah is alone, that there is no God besides him; consequently” there will be his name alone; as they will not make mention, by name, of any other God in the world; but will make mention of his name only. Here we have the same adjunct, one, annexed to Jehovah, as in the text of Deuteronomy ; and that accompanied with a circumstance of time, which precludes the possibility of interpreting it in any other manner, than as it denotes the solity of his essence, and the exclusion of other gods. Indeed, so great is the sameness of the two texts, that R. Solomon* has explained the one by the other; and what ought to cause no small degree of shame in those, who would make the declaration of Moses a ground for opposing the doctrine of the trinity, has made the passage, instead of a solemn attestation of the numerical unity of God, a prediction of the universal worship of Jehovah in the reign of the Messias. MAY IPMOX NIN 3 WINS ANA Poy sin mods dy pwa p75 NIP? TIA Naw ONY oN PDA Ix TAS VOW TAS SS OFYD SWI DYa 3px ™ * He, who is our God now, and not the God of “the gentiles; will, hereafter, be one common “ Jehovah; as it is said: For I will then pour * Com. in loc. + Ibid. 334 A 'TRINITY OF PERSONS “ out on the nations a pure lip; so that all of «them shall call on the name of Jehovah; and ‘as it is again said: In that day, there shall be ‘“‘ one Jehovah, and his name one.” ‘That part of the exposition of the words by R. Abraham,* which bears particularly on the point in question ; is as follows: DYPM OW NII TIDINI OWT TT DPT 2 ADwNM mv Oya TON? DY AD {2 ON) NPI NVI ONT ]D WNW PD Dwi OMY DW DIS by JOD Nw Ow WA At 1D) ADINA DyVo 9019 1D wd 9a TON NI APA IN MRas OWT D BaP PR IW APS 1727 OYOTM INS “ Know, that this glorious name is a proper TS ‘name; and, therefore, it may well be asked, ‘why it snould be here expressed the second “ time? The answer is, that as, Adam, is both “a proper name, and the name of an accident, ‘“ which is not proper, but a mere appellation ‘¢ from the substance of the earth; so also is the “name Jehovah; a proof of which may be ‘found, in that it is used in construction with the “term, MINI, hosts. In other words, he, our ‘‘ God, is the foundation of our faith; and is ‘ likewise doubled, on being called, one ; mean- ‘ing, by himself, or alone: for that Jehovah is ‘in this sense one, there are proofs without end.” The subsequent pasuk is justly regarded by him, * Com. in loc. eae ea ee ee ‘i IN THE GODHEAD. . 335 as an inference deduced from the doctrine; that there is no other God than Jehovah. }~SNW “81 254Nnw ons ayn 1727 NIT pp ANS MPs 122, “ And since we have no (MN MN 12? PRD ‘“ other God but him only; thou art bound to “love him: for we have no other God.” Baal Hatturim* has expounded the adjunct, one, as one in essence, not in number: ‘ PA pod wy Moyet AOD omxw op by AS 77 TIN? oo pI ntl ar oy NDoNw OD VAN “There INN 2297 7D °D 77 AR DOM NTA ‘is here a distinction between, Jehovah, and, ‘“ our God; that is to say; although you may ‘‘ have seen ever so many similitudes; and al- “ though I may come with the one name, when “I exercise my property of judgment, and with ‘‘the other, when I exercise my property of “ mercy ; though this may be the case, I say; “€ still they are all one.’ R. Bechai is too dif- fusive to be cited at full length; but that he viewed the unity in question as something widely different from that of number, will appear from what follows: ¢ SODwm D87932 717 PAY PR opxw “poy. p> pam yawn ops onw Sows ovoaw oyosy paw piym iw oYapA ssapnd on TMN "WEN N DIN707 WAIT DM JOD OITDIN WIND AMS W829 73.3 TN Dw * Annot. in loc. + Com. in loc, fol. 229, col. 4. 336 A TRINITY OF PERSONS Inovos 1 MDT 8YOI we Aw TOS P82 ON) —oynb os ano mans wv wai jd) W353 “waN oN 1D by awn mph myyna AnD sop NNT Mw DYDD NSIT NNDI DIw’? bbs own otoab mw ona Ins 87) InN owa SUT IAS DIN omy a 957 PIS NON oda sim onli OTA NNT TANT ST samy) Nw Ann IN I Op ovaw3 path wD ONT TORIw pa morTy? pr wraps bssun pow moapn put Oy) (wrtp TON TWN SHON TV psy pow pia pow P3s Ay TM TOD MONA PIP Wx yIsiwM Ipoar sand) o> ms am? aynniw ‘AD wy > mond mbyndn ox mbynd qunp DX ‘MND 797 ‘But it is unnecessary to dwell on sublunary “creatures, which are capable of mutation and ‘¢ division; for even in respect of heavenly ‘‘ beings, which do not admit of change and “ division, but are simple spiritual substances, ‘< that is to say, the souls and the angels, it cannot “ possibly be competent to any one of them to be “ designated by the title of one; as every angel ‘‘ has an equal or superior to himself, and there- fore is no such thing as one; for, behold, there ‘¢ exists his like as to his dignity and his power. ‘So also the soul has another of the same form “ with itself, or else superior to it, in knowledge ‘‘ and apprehension. It is not possible, therefore, IN THE GODHEAD. 337 “for any existent being, whatever, to be fitly “called by the title of one; nor is there any “one amongst them that this appellation will ** become, save the Lord of the universe, blessed ‘be he; who, after that they had been in a state ‘of privation, caused them actually to subsist. ‘He is the true one, which precedes the many. ‘“‘ He is the god in the heavens above ; and on ‘the earth beneath. He alone is the holy one, ‘« who has none like him; according to the scrip- **ture; But to whom will ye assimilate me, that “ T should have a likeness, saith the Holy One? «The exposition of, Hear, O Israel, according to «the Cabbala, is, Incline thine ears, and hear “the pasuk, Shema, the matter of the unity, “received and treasured up by him who knows ‘* the truth in the mystery of the unity of the ten ‘* numerations ; which we are bound to unite ‘‘ altogether, and to conjoin the whole as one, ‘* whether in an ascending, or a descending di- “rection.” KR. Lipman* expatiates at great length on this text; and takes occasion to ex- pound the sense of the adjunct, one, not only as it is used here, but as it is affirmed of the divine nature at all other times. First he observes: © mts pwoansapy ps pwd x17 an d5 TION) ANNA AMyw ww D> "| JN * Nitsachon, in loc. 2u 338 A TRINITY OF PERSONS Wwe gine 55 pIxw pom Oss Dap "DD TINY ST TNS MNT TS NT PIM DD MInwy msi my 5D pws wa) xwMw < ‘The term, Jehovah, as it is * AYA waorxw “‘ written, denotes, being; but as it is pronounced, «dominion. Therefore, the literal meaning of ‘‘the text is; that the Law commands, and ‘‘ says: Do thou, O Israel! hearken, and credit ; ‘that the Lord, how little soever the first and “* the last he may be, is the deity, and that deity “is one; meaning, that he alone is Lord for ‘‘ ever, and is subject to no change, as I shall « shew by the help of God.” Then endeavouring to manifest, how widely the unity of the divine nature differs from that of any other being with which we are acquainted; he presently adds: DVD Sung pry mp mont oo MINS PROT YET Nw Nos wD PNT? xd) OID 1D IMND WIT pr jd w wp pomam aa0n ana xdi O20 yO INNS Sapan owen! sy tnxa 83) Da “Ins? -y Sop ans xox moan pr ow pn ‘© So even the sun is singular, in that there is no ‘luminary, which rules by day, to give light to ‘‘ the world, like himself. But_he, Jehovah, is “ singularly one ; there being no unity such as “eis. Hence his singularity is not that of an “individual; nor that of a species; nor that of IN THE GODHEAD. 339 ** a compound, divisible into many units; nor that ‘ of a material element, which admits of division ‘ad infinitum ; but he is, in _every respect, one.” R. Isaac Abarbinel,* too, like R. ‘Lipman ; has dwelt on these words at considerable length ; but in no place has he so explained them, as to make the unity, here predicated of Jehovah, an unity of number. He justly remarks, that, in affirming God to be one, there are two species of unity, to which we ought particularly to attend, as insepa- rable from his nature. JUAN INA SW ws MaDAA pio2 midwan moana wyya ons DAINN 27 NI OMY DAT NI 8D NAIM ny wm wai? sin 8d) wana xd opp VOSP2 DW) TAS INS AAW Wh Ayawe D7 RO ANY NOX Dw vw oN paom Sia psy IMR VORA wy PNT pao ona 55 yond PIDAN TMI TOS ONT INNA Daw Oy mad) NOISY PWN Ow AS) Tow Da Dw NUT IMS DIO Ow DINNAD pws pont Ox by pon mmwan mana ow) wy INK NRDO WT NIIW IDA ™ AR MMT way PRUIAN DUNT MN Na nna dans Sam aDpw opr aw ON ann InN nd Dw “ The first species of unity is; that God is one “am his substance, being by perfection of ‘simpli- §§ city void of composition and multitude ; having #' Comiin loen! 340 A TRINITY OF PERSONS “ neither a multiplicity of substances, nora mul- "a tiplicity of accidents, whether animate or in- ‘‘animate. The second is the denegation of « duality. For after it had been stated, that he ‘was one. simply | in his essence; there would « gtill have remained a doubt, whether there were any other God besides that one. ‘To ‘remove, therefore, every sort of doubt; he ‘enlightens our eyes, by saying, one Jehovah. ‘‘ In order to indicate those two species of unity, ‘‘ he twice. mentions, in this pasuk, the name of <¢ Jehovah. The first, Jehovah, he associates ‘¢ with, our God; to indicate the former species “ of unity ; that the Jehovah, who governs and “« directs us, is one in his substanee ; being simple ‘* by perfection of simplicity : but to indicate ‘the second species of unity, he says, that Je- “ hovah, besides being Jehovah in respect of his -§ divinity, and not by virtue of the & deniers as «6 g as ‘to have no second; as the terhal one, has “ reference to both those meanings, which it “ expresses at once.’’ To these luminous com- ments of Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Baal Hatturim, Bechai, Lipman, and Abarbinel, the utmost de- ference and regard ought certainly to be paid ; as they are all of them authorities of the highest celebrity in that church to which they belong. IN THE GODHEAD. 341 But if none of these great men have been able to discover, in this text of Moses, a proof of the deity subsisting absolutely in unity of number ; nor have made it, in any respect, an argument for the subversion of the trinitarian hypothesis ; it must be an act of the most unpardonable pre- sumption, not to say ignorance, in any living opponent, to select it as a sacred ground, on which to assail the truest and sublimest doctrine of the christian religion. ‘The remark now made will particularly hold good in regard of R. Lip- man ; whose principal design, in composing his commentary on certain parts of the Old Testa- ment, was to corroborate Judaism, and to refute Christianity ; but who so far from taking advan- tage of any assistance, which this passage of the inspired penman might be supposed to afford his cause; has contented himself with endeavouring to shew, that the e triplication of the name of God _ _cannot, as some over-zealous Christians had fondly maintained, be an intimation of the trinity. To a mind, not deeply reflecting on the pro- pensity of the vulgar to error and misappre- hension, in matters of religion; the hostility of the Jews in general to this article of our creed, founded as it is, in a great measure, on the false assumption of a solitary text ; must appear some- what extraordinary. The history of the cause I 342 A TRINITY OF PERSONS believe to be this. In the infancy and puberty of the Mosaic dispensation, when the Jews were surrounded on all sides by polytheists and idol- aters; they were taught to despise the objects of Gentile worship, as being, what indeed they were in fact, either the inventions of mankind, or creatures of the universe to which no worship was due. In their fervency for the adoration of Jehovah, they contended against the advocates for a multitude of gods; that there was but one Supreme Being, whom they ought to honor as their sovereign creator; and that was Jehovah, their God; who is declared by Moses to be one, that is, as they erroneously conceived, numerically one ; this being the only kind of unity with which “the vulgar are acquainted : though the notion has been long renounced by their ablest theo- logists, as false and untenable. The rise of chris- tianity, which was often professed, without being either practised or understood ; gave occasion, as represented by some, to the numerical unity of Jehovah being still insisted on by the adherents to Judaism. The vulgar christians professed to believe in one God, as well as the Jews; from whom they also retained the erroneous idea of his being numerically one: but to their ‘adversaries, ey naturally appeared to involve themselves in contradiction, when they maintained ; that in this EO CT IN THE GODHEAD. 343 one God subsisted three persons of equal essence and perfection : the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. For if the three persons were actually distinct from each other, and yet equally divine ; they | must, as the Jews conceived, destroy _ nie numerical and personal unity of God, and form three Gods; just as Peter, ‘James, and John, being each of them singly acknowledged to be aman, must altogether form three men, and not one man, according to the christian extraordinary manner of reasoning on the subject. But if both parties had but laid aside their erroneous conception of the deity being one in number, that is, in fact,.one person; and had taken the term, God, as the denomination of the divine BRAIN Ste PRPS pe “nature or form, and as equivalent t to, deity, which imports the divine essence only ; ; just as the - term, man, is used not for this or that individual, but for the human form in its general acceptation, that is, for humanity; they would have experi- enced no embarrassment in reconciling the unity of Jehovah with a trinity of persons. For nei- ther in this sense of the term, man, can Peter, James, and John, be said properly to form three men, but only three subsistences of man; it being as repugnant to reason to make, man, have a plural number, when standing for, human nature ; and to contend, that they form three men ; as it 344 A TRINITY OF PERSONS would be to give, humanity, a plural ; and to argue, that they form three humanities. This, however, was not the way, in which the unlettered amongst the Jews and the Christians agreed to consider the unity of Jehovah; and consequently, their disputes on the subject eenerally terminated in anger and disappointment. To the man who is really conversant in the writings of the Targumists, Cabbalists, and Da- ruschists; and who permits himself to be guided by their direction and authority, the doctrine of the trinily can offer no scruples. The Targu- mist, certainly, distinguishes between, Jehovah, ‘the Word of Jehovah, and, the Habitation of Je- -hovah; by ascribing to each of them personal “actions and properties ; whilst he makes them all “equally God, by assigning to them those effects of wisdom and power which are peculiar to the first cause: and yet he is not accused of having established three Gods, nor of having denied the unity. The Cabbalist distinguishes between the “higher Numerations, Supreme Crown, Wisdom, ‘and Understanding ; which he asserts to be no properties, as the names might import, but eternal subsistences of the godhead: and yet he is not charged with having violated the unity of Je- hovah, nor with having induced three Gods. . Finally, the Daruschist vindicates the eternity and IN THE GODHEAD. 345 divinity of the Law, and of the Throne of Glory, by demonstrating, that they actually existed with Jehovah prior to the creation; and that, on the authority of the inspired penmen, they all denote one and the same thing, that is, one and the same God: and yet he is not condemned for having \dissolved the unity by the number of his pre- ‘existences. How then can the professors of Ju- daism with any colour of propriety object to that tenet, which agrees in every essential point with the principles of their own church? If they should scruple to denominate the second person- ality the Son of God, as being something -new to them; that might be obviated by using the appellation, Word, instead of it; the preference of the one to the other being a matter of no mo- ment to believers in Christianity. Thus invited by condescension to their prejudices on the one hand; and by a host of authorities, which they are bound to revere, on the other; they must evince obstinacy more than human, if they still persist in refusing their assent to the truth of this doctrine ; the arguments for which, now that I am going to close the Second Proposition, I would most ardently recommend to their serious con- sideration. END OF VOL. I. Qx A ei an ERRATA. Pp, 28, for the reference to R. Moses Alshech, at the foot of the page, give, * Shushanith Haamakim, fol. 12, col. 2; and rectify the marks of the other two references, P. 323 for Chapter V. read Chap- terI. P. AL, 1.21; for 9% read bis. =P: 47, 1.13; for WIP read map. P.'99, 1.14. for shall read should. | P. 169, 1.103 for avip read ‘319p._ ~P. 175, 1.8; for yw read yy. iP. 176, in the reference at the foot of the page; for col. 1,2 read col. 2, and omit the words, as cited by Rit. P. 194, 1.1; for soy read Ys. P. 273, bottom line; for ya %D read NAD. P. 280, 1.35 bring down the mark ” to the end of the next period, after the word Habitation. u , ’ ] 4 j ’ ( P _ SUBSCRIBERS’ NADIES, PRIS LILEPPLLIDOG DE FOTO Ob OG The following Names of Subsovibers having been forwarded to the Author, before it was determined to abandon .ihe idea of publishing by Sub- scription ; they are here printed, with all due acknowledgments for their promptitude and kindness in encouraging the design. GLPILP LE ILILIPOO OL GS POLS PF LP Allen, Rev. J. F., Shipton Andrew, Rev. J., Whitby Archibald, Mr., Tadcaster Ashton, Mr., Malton Broom, C. Esq., Malton Blomberg, Rev. F. W., Chaplain to His Royal Highness the Prince Regent Blackden, B. Esq., Hitchenden Green Caley, Dowager Lady, Brompton Green Cleaver, Rev. Dr., Malton . Cleaver, Rev. J., Holme Pierrepont Comber, Rev. T., M. A., Oswaldkirk Copperthwaite, Mr., Malton Currer, Rev. D. R., Sutton Currer, Miss, Eshton Hall Durham, Hon. and Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Duncombe, Charles, Esq., M.P., 2 Copies Davies, Rev. R., Malton Dixon, Rev. G., Helmsley Frere, Rev. R., Ganthorpe ae Oi Frey, Rev. J.S. C. F., Minister of the Gospel to the Jews © Friend to the Author, 2 Copies Fry, Rey. T., A.M. Graham, Rev. J., York Gray, Rev. W., West Rounton SUBSCRIBERS’ NAMES. Greenwood, Rev. Mr., Malton Hereford, Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of. Harding, Rev. J., Kirby Mispertem Jesop, Rev. T., York Jones, J. Esq., Franklin Kay, Rev. J., Nunnington Knox, Rev. Dr. V., London Knox Vicesimus, Esq., London. % Knox, Rev. T., Tunbridge : Liandaf, Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Legge, Hon. and Rt. Worspie Augustus, Archdeacon of Winchester Legge, Hon. Henry ; Lincoln, Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Lloy John, M. D., Whitby Moorsom, Richard, Esq., Whitby Oxford, Hon. and Rt, Rev. the Lord Bishop of Prowde, Rev. R., M.A., Hovingham; 2 Copies Rhodes, Rev. W., B. D., Tadcaster Richardson ayo ge ae Esq.; Whitby; 2 Copies Richardson, Rey.‘J., M.A., York Richardson, Rev. J., Old Malton Slater R. B., Esq., High Wycombe | Soulby, Mr. E., Malton Stevens, Mr. W., 2, Sion College Gardens, Aldermanbury St. David’s, Rt. Rey. the Lord Bishop of; 5 sig Thompson, Mrs., Skelton Lodge Walker, Mx,, 1 Malton Wilson, Mr. h 2 Whitby Worsley, Mrs., York Worsley, W., Esq., York Wrangham, Rev. F., M.A., Chaplain to His Grace the Archbishop of York Young, Rev. T., M.A., Gilling East Yeoman, Mr. J., Hovingham. Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries ip om Tee eae vis yep Yoon > Q | » ae wi, ’ a rey cal Maite be die : tell ne a 4 i ya f ML Sas Ap FA hey ‘ Nae "hk we ; - J i aie Rue ks He nhs 4 4 en nit ENS Ms aay t,! ve \ 0 de 7 - . r ae Re bed ; my? 4 a ‘ ae wal . ; 5 i: ' 7 4h: 7. & {' 6 7 ae 4 , : ? q ifi ' aie sie hae Se ante ie par ih ‘ ai ye is sh U a ie cA : a # ; ee ral et. aa 7 oy Dae uae) 7 i ah pee YA Pt shy AN qi Hay A eee ere ra rhea He | SOR: mate i 7 tie} ts hg eh OG HANNE 14 ys py ae 1 a ue : ais a LE a “ Cope ert ee ne) See A, oC RY ee sh xe - oF - Ree an att ins a Bitte shh? ‘4 i 4 Rak ae . : * cae 7 uv Sa o> = te ee st ge ‘ i 5 24 ¢ oa oes Boy a aa _ Dedeie 7 ee | Staak | oS < ‘aa ope se nese, x oa 2 ee Sap Sea ETT sara pent serstes aiita chon Soxtatac Pace ~ r SF S27 ==: > SPS, : % = i e red ort ~ ike, gees ane weneseted ae Sess =: % erase ae ee oe : eee seiast SESE : ‘y. <—. TREES = St ; Seon oes range Se! ty AS 2 oie awe sy Be Hs eee Bany Hari if if aa yp en yy ad Neat: ut i) jit i¢ atti ee ae ey OPES he ‘fate : A +4 4 yf et ae PATRIOT ee rail eg ey ee 4 4 ‘ atatatiseal atts eet Ait Aatit Be ead) state’ i 4 ap ist ot te Haat ee us sh shh! SS, : a - ey an 4 Oy si i) — { Hh aN . aie a -S eos Seren as cece iy sith Oni con epeatesel ys shu mie ae ia St 4 Da Ri . Hea ica it t 4s Heit Scie hh RY SN Hea ae a ag PR NRE EHS ie SR Sit aus on i ae a NSE RIE ae foe 4 x an by 7 oe % %, ‘, ‘} ie (ati ae ny ry € 2 * eaelcls dee oe a 4 ii Ae Sait | ant ; ie teat a ae 4 ae F’ os as Sees fi a He Le f aa 1 uf Ge a Heat PPaLeyteneye {4 Da ia é bi f ails ayy 4 teahe ihe 4 titrate aes 4 ay rt) ry eda AR a Pe ONY 1 ee Oe ee peer nbd ber reenter resmnrenears