Full text of "The judgment of the ancient Jewish church against the Unitarians"

See other formats

THE

JUDGMENT

OF THE

ANCIENT JEWISH CHURCH

AGAINST

THE UNITARIANS

CONTROVERSY UPON THE HOLY TRINITY

AND THE

DIVINITY OF OUR BLESSED SAVIOUR.

BY PETER ALLIX, D, D.

SECOND EDITION, CORRECTED BY THE AUTHOR.

OXFORD,

AT THE CLARENDON PRESS.
MDCCCXXI.

ADVERTISEMENT.

This new edition of Dr. Allix's " Judgment of the
u Ancient Jewish Church against the Unitarians''
is printed verbatim from a copy corrected by the
author, now in the possession of the Rev. Dr. Nott,
Prebendary of Winchester, with the use of which
he was pleased to oblige the Delegates of the Cla-
rendon Press.

Feb. 2, 1821.

a 2

THE

PREFACE.

Although the Jews, by mistaking the pro-
phecies of Scripture concerning the kingdom of
their Messias, expected he should have a temporal
kingdom ; and because our Lord Jesus was not for
that, therefore they would not acknowledge him for
their Messi as ; yet, all things considered, there is no
essential difference between our religion and theirs.
We own the very same God whom they formerly
worshipped, the maker of the world, and their law-
giver. We receive that very Messi as whom God
promised them by his prophets, so many ages be-
fore his coming. We own no other Spirit of God to
have inspired the Apostles, besides the Holy Ghost,
who spoke by the Prophets, and by whose manifold
gifts the Messias was to be known, as one in
whom all nations should be blessed.

This plainly appears in the way and method
which both Christ and his Apostles followed in
preaching the Gospel. They endeavoured to take
otf the prejudices the then Jews laboured under,
concerning the nature of the Messias, and the cha-
racters by which he was to be known : for they ar-
gued all along from the books of Moses and the
Prophets, and never proposed any thing to their
disciples but what was declared in those writings

a 3

THE PREFACE.

which the Jews acknowledged as the standard of
their religion ; which may be seen in Christ's dis-
course to the Jews, John v. 46. and to his disciples
after his resurrection, Luke xxiv. 27. and 44. in the
words of St. Peter, Acts x. 43. and of St. Paul, Acts
xxvi. 22.

The truth is, in those sacred Books, although
one only God be acknowledged, under the name of
Jehovah, which denotes his essence, and therefore is
incommunicable to any other; yet not only that
very name is given to the Messias, but also all the
works, attributes, and characters peculiar to Jehovah,
the God of Israel, and the only true God, are fre-
quently bestowed on him.

This the old Jewish authors, as Philo and the
Targumists, do readily acknowledge. For in their
exposition of those places of the Old Testament
which relate to the Messias, they generally suppose
him ,to be God ; whereas the modern Jews, being of
a far different opinion, use all shifts imaginable to
evade the force of their testimonies. The Apostles
imitated in this the synagogue, by applying to Christ
several places of the Old Testament, which un-
doubtedly were primarily intended of the God of
Israel.

But because they sometimes only touch at places
of the Old Testament, without using them as formal
proofs of what they then handled; Socinus and his
disciples have fancied that those citations out of the
Old Testament, which are made use of by the Apo-
stles, though they represent the Messias as being
the same with the God of Israel; yet for all this are
but bare allusions and accommodations, made indeed

THE PREFACE.

by them to subjects of a like nature, but not at all by
them intended as arguments and demonstrations.

Nothing can be more injurious to the writings of
the New Testament, than such a supposition : and
there can hardly be an opinion more apt to over-
throw the authority of Christ and his Apostles, and
to expose the Christian religion to the scorn both of
Jews and heathens. For the bare accommodation
of a place of Scripture cannot suppose that the Holy
Ghost had any design in it to intimate any thing
sounding that way; and consequently the sense of
that Scripture so accommodated is of no authority.
Whereas it is a most certain truth, that Christ and
his Apostles did design, by many of those quota-
tions, to prove that which was in dispute between
them and the Jews.

To what purpose should Christ exhort the Jews
to search the Scriptures of the Old Testament, be-
cause they testified of him, John v. 39. if those
Scriptures could only give a false notion of him, by
intimating that the Messias promised was the God
of Israel? This were to suppose that Christ and his
Apostles went about to prove a thing by that which
had no strength and no authority to prove it : and
that the citations out of the Old Testament are like
the works of the Empress Eudoxia, who writ the
history of Christ in verses put together and borrowed
from Homer, under the name of 'OfAYjpoKevTpa; or that
of Proba Falconia, who did the same in verses and
words taken out of Virgil.

It follows at least from such a position, that in
the Gospel God gave a revelation so very new, that
it has no manner of affinity to the Old, although he

a 4

THE PREFACE.

caused this old revelation to be carefully written by
the Prophets, and as carefully preserved by the
Jews to be the standard of their faith, and the
ground of their hopes, till he should fulfil his pro-
mises contained in it; and although Christ and his
Apostles bid the Jews have recourse to it, to know
what they were to expect of God's promises.

The Christian Church ever rejected this perni-
cious opinion. And although her first champions
against the ancient heretics did acknowledge that
the new revelation, brought in by Christ and
his Apostles, had made the doctrines much clearer
than they were before, (which the Jews themselves
do acknowledge, when they affirm that hidden
things are to be made plain to all by the Messias,)
yet they ever maintained that those doctrines were
so clearly set down in the books of the Old Testa-
ment, that they could not be opposed by them, who
acknowledge those books to come from God ; espe-
cially since the Jews are therein told, that the Mes-
sias, when he came, should explain them, and make
them clearer.

This observation is particularly of force against
those who formerly opposed the doctrine of the
blessed Trinity, and that of our Saviour's being God.
These heretics thought they followed the opinion
of the ancient Jews. Therefore they that confuted
them, undertook to satisfy them that the Christian
Church had received nothing from Christ and his
Apostles, about those two articles, but what God
had formerly taught the Jews, and what necessarily
followed from the writings of Moses and the Pro-
phets ; so that those doctrines could not be rejected,

THE PREFACE.

vii

without accusing the Divine Spirit, the author of
those books, of shortness of thought, in not foresee-
ing what naturally follows from those principles so
often laid down and repeated by him.

These old writers solidly proved to those heretics,
that God did teach the Jews the unity of his es-
sence, yet so as to establish at the same time a dis-
tinction in his nature, which, according to the no^-
tion which himself gives of it, we call Trinity of
Persons : and that when he promised that the Mes-
sias to come was to be man, at the very same time
he expressly told the Jews, that he was withal to
be God blessed for ever.

The force and evidence of the proofs of those
doctrines is so great, and the proofs themselves so
numerous, that heretics could not avoid them, but
by setting up opinions directly opposite to the
Scriptures. On the other side, the heretics were so
gravelled, that they broke into opinions quite con-
trary one to another, which greatly contributed to
confirm the faith of them whom they opposed in
those articles, so that it still subsisted; whereas the
opposite heresies perished in a manner as soon as
broached.

The meanness of Christ, and his shameful death,
moved the Ebionites, in the very first age after him,
to look upon him as a mere man, though exalted by
God's grace to the dignity of a prophet. But the
Cerinthians, another sort of heretics, maintained
that the Word did operate in him, though at the
same time they denied the personal and inseparable
union of that Word with this human nature.

In the beginning of the third century, some had

viii

THE PREFACE.

much ado to receive the doctrine of the Trinity, by
reason that they could not reconcile it with that of
the unity of God. But Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabel-
lius, who opposed that doctrine, were soon obliged
to recant: and then from one extremity they shortly
fell into another. For being satisfied that the Scrip-
ture does attribute to the Father, to the Son, and to
the Holy Ghost, the Divine nature, which is con-
stantly in the Old Testament expressed by the name
Jehovah; they undertook, contrary to the plain no-
tions of Scripture, to maintain, that there was but
one Person in God, which had appeared the same
under three differing names. Whereas some others
did so plainly see the distinction which the Scrip-
ture makes between the Persons, that they chose
rather to own three distinct Essences, than to deny
that there are three Persons in God, as the Scripture
does invincibly prove.

Two sorts of heretics did formerly oppose the Di-
vinity of Christ. Some did acknowledge, that, as to
his Divine nature, he was before the world, and that
by it he had made the world ; though himself, as to
that nature, was created before the world : and these
afterwards formed the Arian sect. Others, but very
few, such as Artemas and Theodotus, denied that
Christ was before he was born of the Virgin : they
acknowledged in him no other besides the human
nature, which, said they, God had raised to a very
high dignity, by giving to it a power almost infinite:
and in this they made his Godhead to consist.

But these two sorts of heretics were happily de-
stroyed one by the other; for the Arians on the one
side did confound Artemas's disciples, by proving

THE PREFACE.

from places of Scripture, that Christ was before the
Virgin, nay before the world. And on the other
side, absurdity and idolatry were proved upon the
Arians, both because they acknowledged more than
one Divine nature, and because they worshipped a
creature ; whereas by the Christian religion, God
alone ought to be worshipped.

Artemas's disciples were so few, and so severely
condemned, even whilst the Church laboured under
persecutions, that their name is hardly remembered
at this day ; which clearly shews how strange their
doctrine appeared to them who examined it by the
books of the Old and the New Testament.

As for the Arians, they made, it is true, more
noise in the world, by the help of two or three of
Constantine's successors, who by violent methods
endeavoured to spread their opinion. But that very
thing made their sect odious, and in a little time
quite ruined the credit of it. Within a hundred and
fifty years, or thereabouts, after their first rise, there
hardly remained any professors of it ; which plainly
shews, that they could not answer those arguments
from Scripture which were urged against them.

I observe this last thing, that AriusV heresy was
destroyed by proofs from Scripture for the eternal
Divinity of our Saviour, (though it was a long time
countenanced by the Roman emperors, by the Van-
dal kings in Afric, and by the kings of the Goths
both in Spain and in Italy;) lest any should fancy it
was extinguished only by imperial laws and tem-
poral punishments. Besides, that the first inventors
of that heresy had spread it before such time as
Constantine, by vanquishing Licinius, became mas-

THE PREFACE.

ter of the world. Whoever shall consider that the
Christian religion had, before Arius, already suffered
ten persecutions without shrinking under them, will
easily see that all the power of Constantine, and of
his orthodox successors, who punished the Arian
professors, had never been great enough to suppress
their opinion, if it had been a Gospel-doctrine :
not to say that these laws, and their authority, ex-
tended no further than the Roman empire.

What had happened in those ancient times, soon
after the Christian Church was established, hap-
pened likewise again in the last century, at the re^ «
formation of the western Church. As in those early
days there arose many heresies entirely opposite
one to the other ; so in these latter times the very
same was seen among us. For when God raised
up many great men to reform the Church in this
and our neighbouring kingdoms, there appeared soon
after some men, who being weary of the Popish
tyranny, both in doctrine and worship, did fancy
that they might make a more perfect reformation,
if they could remove out of the Christian religion
those things which human reason was apt to stum-
ble at. And the Roman Church having obtruded
upon her votaries such mysteries as were directly
repugnant to reason, they imagined that the doc-
trines of the Trinity, and of Christ's Divinity, were
of that number ; and thus used all their endeavours
to prove that they were absurd and contradictory.

Had not these doctrines been grounded on the
authority of the books of the Old and the New Tes-
tament, they might easily enough have confuted
them. But being forced to own the authority of

THE PREFACE.

those books, which they durst not attack for fear of
being detested by all Christians, they fell into the
same opposite extremes, into which those heretics
of old had fallen, when they opposed these funda-
mental doctrines of Christianity ; and thus were as
divided in opinions about those matters, as the an-
cient heretics had been before them.

For whilst some of them, as Lselius Socinus, and
his nephew Faustus, denied the Divinity of Christ,
and thus revived the opinion of Artemas and his
disciples ; others seeing how absurd the answers
were that Socinus and his followers gave to those
places of Scripture, which assert the Trinity, and the
Divinity of Christ, run so far to the contrary of this
Socinian heresy, that they acknowledged three Gods.
And not only the adversaries of Socinus, but even
some of his disciples did oppose his opinion, moved
thereto by the authority of Scripture. For he held
it a fundamental article of the Christian faith, that
Christ is to be adored ; in which he was a down-
right idolater, in adoring Christ as true God, when
he believed Christ to be a mere creature. But his
disciples building upon this firm maxim of Scrip-
ture, that God alone is to be adored, justly con-
cluded against him, that he was not to be adored,
since strictly speaking he was but a creature, and no
God.

This division was plainly occasioned by the
strength of Scripture-proofs, which on the one hand
clearly shew, that none can be a Christian without
adoring Christ ; and on the other positively affirm,
that none but the true God ought to be adored.
Thus these two opposite parties did unwillingly do

xii

THE PREFACE.

the business of the true Churchy which ever op-
posed to the enemies of the Trinity, and of the
Godhead of Christ, the authority of the holy Scrip-
ture, which teaches that Christ ought to be adored,
and withal convinces the Arians of idolatry, who
adored Christ without owning him to be the true
God, though they bestowed on him a kind of a God-
head inferior to that of the Father.

I cannot but admire, that they who within these
few years have in this kingdom embraced Socinus's
opinions, should consider no better how little suc-
cess they have had elsewhere against the truths and
that upon the score of their divisions, which will
unavoidably follow, till they can agree in unani-
mously rejecting the authority of Scripture. Nei-
ther doth it avail them any thing to use quibbles
and evasions, and weak conjectures, since they are
often unanswerably confuted, even by some of their
brethren, who are more dexterous than they in ex-
pounding of Scriptures.

But being resolved by all means to defend their
tenents, some chief men amongst them have under-
taken to set aside the authority of Scriptures, which
is so troublesome to them : and the author of a late
book, entitled Considerations, maintains that the
Gospels have been corrupted by the orthodox party,
and suspects that of St. John to be the work of
Cerinthus.

It is no very easy task to dispute against men
whose principles are so uncertain, and who in a
manner have no regard to the authority of Scrip-
ture. It was much less difficult to undertake So-
cinus himself, because he owned however the au-

THE PREFACE.

xiii

thority of Scripture, and that it had not been cor-
rupted. But one knows not how to deal with his dis-
ciples, who in their opinion seem to be so contrary
to him, and one another.

They do now affirm the adoration which is paid
to Christ is idolatrous, thus renouncing Socinus's
principles, who looked upon it as an essential piece
of Christianity. So that they can no longer be
called Socinians, and themselves affect the name of
Unitarians : and as their chief business seems to be
to accuse the sincerity of Scripture writers, so the
main work of them who undertake to confute them,
must be the establishing both the sincerity and au-
thority of it, which is no very hard task : for even
Mahometans, though they take some of the same
objections, that the Socinians are so full of, against
the Divinity of Christ, yet are so far from accusing
Christians of having corrupted the Scripture, that
they furnish us with weapons against the Unitarians
of this kingdom, as the reader will find at the end
of this following book.

And although there be but small hopes of bring-
ing to right again men of so strange dispositions
and notions, yet they ought by no means to be left
to themselves. They have been often confuted by
them that argued from the bare principles of Chris-
tianity, that is, the authority of Scriptures of the
Old and New Testament, which are the very word
of God. And it has been plainly shewed them that
what alterations soever they have made in Socinus's
opinions, yet their new conceits are neither more
rational than his, nor more agreeable to Divine
revelation.

xiv

THE PREFACE.

I say that their opinions are not more agreeable
than his to right reason* For when all is done, to
affirm, that Christ received from God an infinite
power to govern the world, without being essen-
tially God, is to affirm a downright contradiction,
viz. that without partaking of the Divine essence
he received one of the attributes which are essen-
tial to God.

It is true, some Popish Divines allow the soul of
Christ to be all-knowing, by reason of its immediate
union to the Divine nature ; wherein they do much
service to the Socinians, in holding as they do that
a creature is capable of receiving such attributes.
But Protestant Divines reject this notion as altoge-
ther false, as false as many of the Schoolmen's spe-
culations, even the absurdest of them that are ex-
ploded by the Socinians.

They have been also further refuted as to what
they aver, that Justin Martyr was the first that
taught the doctrines of the Trinity, of Christ's eter-
nal Godhead, and of his Incarnation.

And at last, that learned divine Dr. Bull having
observed, that the Jewish tradition was favourable
to those doctrines of which the Socinians make
Justin to have been the first broacher ; howsoever
M. N. treats him for this, neither like a scholar, nor
a Christian, I shall venture his displeasure in mak-
ing out this observation, without meddling at all
with his arguments drawn from the Fathers, to shew
clearly, that the like exceptions of M. N. against
Philo, as being a Platonic, and against the ancient
Jews, and their tradition, can help him no way in
the cause he has taken in hand.

THE PREFACE.

The doctrine of our Church being the same
which was taught by Christ and his Apostles, it
will be an easy matter to prove it by the same places
of Scripture by which Christ and his Apostles con-
verted the Jews and the Gentiles over to the Chris-
tian faith ; and by which the heretics were confuted,
who followed or renewed the errors which the Jews
have fallen into since Christianity begun.

But I will go farther, and prove, that the ancient
Jewish Church yield the same principles which
Jesus Christ and his Apostles builded upon ; and by
this method it will plainly appear, that the Socinians
or the Unitarians, let them call themselves what
they please, must either absolutely renounce the
authority of Scripture, and turn downright Deists,
or they must own those doctrines of the Trinity,
and the Divinity of Christ, as being taught us by
God himself in the holy Scriptures, and acknow-
ledged by the ancient Jewish Church.

THE

TABLE OF CHAPTERS.

THE PREFACE.

CHAP. I.

The design of this book, and what matters it treats of P. 1
CHAP. II.

That in the times of Jesus Christ our blessed Saviour, the
Jews had among them a common explication of the
Scriptures of the Old Testament, grounded on the tra-
dition of their fathers, which was in many things ap-
proved by Christ and his Apostles 9

CHAP. III.

That the Jews had certain traditional maxims and rules for
the understanding of the holy Scripture - 25

CHAP. IV.

That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of
the Christian doctrine by this common traditional expo-
sition received among the Jews, which they could not
have done, (at least, not so well,) had there been, in
those texts which they alleged, such a literal sense only
as we can find without the help of such an exposition 42

CHAP. V.

Of the authority of the apocryphal books of the Old Tes-
tament - - - - - - 53

CHAP. VI.

That the works which go under the name of Philo the Jew
are truly his; and that he writ them a long while before
the time of Christ's preaching the Gospel; and that it
does not appear in any of his works that he had ever
heard of Christ, or of the Christian religion 60

XVlll

The Table of Chapters,

CHAP. VII.

Of the authority and antiquity of the Chaldee para-
phrases --------6*7

CHAP. VIII.

That the authors of the apocryphal books did acknowledge
a Plurality, and a Trinity in the Divine nature - 79

CHAP. IX.

That the Jews had good grounds to acknowledge some kind
of Plurality in the Divine nature - - -93

CHAP. X.

That the Jews did acknowledge the foundations of the be-
lief of a Trinity in the Divine nature; and that they had
the notion of it - .. .-. - - - - 111

CHAP. XI.

That this notion of a Trinity in the Divine nature has con-
tinued among the Jews since the time of our Lord Jesus
Christ - - - - - - 127

CHAP. XII.

That the Jews had a distinct notion of the Word as of a
Person, and of a Divine Person too - 146

CHAP. XIII.

That all the appearances of God, or of the Angel of the
Lord, which are spoken of in the books of Moses,, have
been referred to the Word by the Jews before Christ's
incarnation ------ 161

CHAP. XIV.

That all the appearances of God, or of the Angel of the
Lord, which are spoken of in Moses's time, have been
referred to the Word of God by the ancient Jewish
Church - - - - - 172

CHAP. XV.

That all the appearances of God, or of the Angel of the
Lord, which are spoken of in the books of the Old Testa-
ment after Moses's time, have been referred to the Word
of God by the Jews before Christ's incarnation 187

The Table of Chapters.

xix

CHAP. XVI.

That the ancient Jews did often use the notion of the Aoyog,
or the Word, in speaking of the Messias - - 203

CHAP. XVII.

That the Jews did acknowledge that the Messias was to be
the Son of God - - - - - 213

CHAP. XVIII.

That the Messias was represented in the Old Testament as
being Jehovah that should come, and that the ancient
synagogue did believe him to be such - - 223

CHAP. XIX.

That the New Testament does exactly follow the notions
which the ancient Jews had of the Trinity, and of the
Divinity of the Messias ----- 235

CHAP. XX.

That both the Apostles and the first Christians, speaking of
the Messias, did exactly follow the notions of the ancient
Jews, as the Jews themselves did acknowledge 251

CHAP. XXI.

That we find in the Jewish authors after the time of Jesus
Christ, the same notions upon which Jesus Christ and
his Apostles grounded their discourses to the Jews 262

CHAP. XXII.

An answer to some exceptions taken from certain expres-
sions used in the Gospels ----- 272

CHAP. XXIII.

That neither Philo, nor the Chaldee paraphrasts, nor the
Christians, have borrowed from the Platonic philo-
sophers their notions about the Trinity; but that Plato
hath more probably borrowed his notions from the books
of Moses and the Prophets, which he was acquainted

with - -- -- -- - 283

CHAP. XXIV.

An answer to some objections of the modern Jews, and of
the Unitarians - - ■ - - - 293

The Table of Chapters.

CHAP. XXV.

An answer to an objection against the notions of the an-
cient Jews compared with those of the modern 305

CHAP. XXVI.

That the Jews have laid aside the old explications of their
forefathers, the better to defend themselves in their dis-
putes with the Christians - - - - - 314

CHAP. XXVII.

That the Unitarians in opposing the doctrines of the Tri-
nity, and,our Lord's Divinity, do go much further than
the modern Jews, and that they are not fit persons to
convert the Jews - - - - - - 332

A Dissertation concerning the Angel who is called the Re-
deemer, Gen. xlviii. ------ 349

THE

JUDGMENT

OF THE

ANCIENT JEWISH CHURCH

AGAINST THE

UNITARIANS, &c.

CHAP. I.

The design of this booh, and what matters it
treats of.

F the doctrines of the ever blessed Trinity, and
of the promised Messias being very God, had been
altogether unknown to the Jews before Jesus Christ
began to preach the Gospel, it would be a great
prejudice against the Christian religion. But the
contrary being once satisfactorily made out, will go
a great way towards proving those doctrines among
Christians. The Socinians are so sensible of this,
that they give their cause for lost if this be ad-
mitted : and therefore they have used their utmost
endeavours to weaken, or at least to bring under
suspicion, the arguments by which this may be
proved.

It is now about sixty years ago since one of that
sect writ a Latin tract about the meaning of the
word \oyo$ in the Chaldee paraphrases, in answer
to Wechner, who had proved that St. John used

2 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

this word in the first chapter of his Gospel, in the
same sense that the Chaldee paraphrases had used
it before Christ's time ; and consequently, that it is
to be understood of a Person properly so called in
the blessed Trinity: which way of interpreting
that word, because it directly overthrew the Soci-
nian doctrine, which was then, that St. John by
the word Xoyog understood no other than Christ as
man, it is no wonder that this author used all his
wit and learning to evade it.

The construction which Socinus put upon the
first chapter of the Gospel of St. John, was then
followed generally by his disciples : but some years
since, they have set it aside here, as being absurd
and impertinent. And they now freely own what
that Socinian author strongly opposed, that the
Word mentioned by St. John is the eternal and es-
sential virtue of God, by which he made the world,
and operated in the person of Christ. Only they
deny that Word to be a person distinct from the Fa-
ther, as we do affirm it to be. And whereas Soci-
nus taught, that Christ was made God, and there-
fore is a proper object of religious worship ; now
the Unitarians, who believe him to be no other
than a mere human creature, following the prin-
ciples of Christianity better than Socinus, condemn
the religious worship which is paid to him.

As they do believe that the Jews had the same
notions of the Godhead and Person of the Messias
which they have themselves, so they think they
have done the Christian religion an extraordinary
service in thus ridding it of this double difficulty,
which hinders the conversion of the Jews. Mr. N.
one of their ablest men, having read Justin Martyr's
Dialogue with Trypho, in which Trypho says, that
he did not believe that the Messias was to be other
than man, makes use of this passage of Trypho to
prove, that the doctrines of the Divinity of the Mes-
sias, and by consequence of the Trinity, were never

against the Unitarians.

acknowledged by the Jews. This he does in a
book, the title whereof is, The Judgment of the
Fathers against Dr. Bull.

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

1st. That since the Jews, byTrypho's testimony,
did own the Messias to be nothing more than mere
man, therefore the Jewish authors, quoted by Dr.
Bull against the Socinian opinions, must have lived
after the preaching of the Gospel.

2dly. That the books that are quoted against
them were written by some Christians in masque-
rade, that lived since Justin Martyrs time ; and
this he applies in particular to the works of Philo
the Jew, and to the Book of Wisdom.

3dly. That since the Jewish authors could not
possibly mention any thing like the doctrines of
the Trinity, and of the Messias's being God too,
to which they were such perfect strangers; what-
soever occurs in any of the ancient Jewish books,
that favours those doctrines, must needs have been
foisted in by the Christians after Justin Martyr's
time.

Lastly, he supposes, that if any thing, either in
the Scripture or Jewish authors, sounds that way,
it probably came from the Platonics, of whom both
Jews and Christians borrowed many notions, and
mixed them with Christian doctrines, to persuade
the Heathens the more easily to embrace the Chris-
tian religion.

Now though it seems unnecessary to dispute any
further against him, having already clearly shewn,
in my discussion of Mr. N.'s Judgment of the Fa-
thers, that Justin Martyr was not the broacher of
those doctrines, as Mr. N. pretends ; yet I am will-

B 2

4 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

ing to give a more full satisfaction to the world
about it, by examining what either Mr. N. or any
others have said or can say on this subject^ and
shewing that the bold answers to Dr. Bull's proofs
concerning the opinion of the Jews before Christ
about those doctrines, are not better than Mr. N's
supposition, that Justin Martyr was the first that
maintained those doctrines.

I was particularly induced to undertake this task,
in hopes that by examining this matter to the bot-
tom, I might set these controversies in their true
light; shewing how little credit some divines do
deserve, who, playing the critics, have favoured
the modern Jews and the Socinians with all their
might, and do mislead those who upon such un-
grounded authority too rashly believe, that these
fundamental doctrines of Christianity came from
Plato's school ; when on the contrary it is certain,
that Plato himself, by conversing with the Jews in
Egypt, borrowed of them the best notions he had
of God.

To do this in the best method I can, I will first
of all consider in general, what the Jewish tradition
w as before Christ : let the reader give me leave to
use that word as the Fathers commonly use it; not
for a doctrine unknown in Scripture, but for a doc-
trine drawn from Scripture, and acknowledged for
the common faith of the Church; and I shall shew,
that both before and after Christ, the Jews had a
current way of expounding the Old Testament,
which they had received from their fathers ; and
that Christ and his Apostles used and approved this
way of expounding their Scriptures in many parti-
culars.

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

against the Unitarians.

3dly. I will shew by some examples, that Christ
and his Apostles did prove many articles of the
Christian doctrine by this exposition, commonly
received among the Jews ; which thing they would
hardly have done, had they had nothing else of their
side, but only the letter of those places which they
quoted.

This being premised in general as a necessary
foundation, I shall particularly examine the author-
ity of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament,
and of the books of Philo the Jew that are extant,
and of the Targum or the Chaldaic paraphrases on
the books of the Old Testament ; these being the
chief helps by which we may find out the tradi-
tional sense of the Old Testament, as it was received
in the synagogue before Christ's time. This is ab-
solutely necessary to be done ; for without proving
the authority of those apocryphal books, of Philo,
and of those paraphrases, we cannot with any force
and weight use their testimony in this controversy,
as I intend to do.

This being despatched, I shall prove clearly, that
the Jews before Christ's time, according to the re-
ceived expositions of the Old Testament, derived
from their fathers, had a notion of a plurality of
Persons in the unity of the Divine essence; and that
this plurality was a Trinity. And further, that con-
trary to what Mr. N. has imagined, the most learn-
ed amongst them have constantly retained those
notions, though perhaps they were divided in their
opinions about the Messias's Godhead, and the doc-
trine of the Trinity, as we do apprehend it.

And because, if it be granted that the Word was
a Person, that goes a great way toward proving the
doctrine of the Trinity ; and the Socinians affirm,
that it was not the uncreated Word, but a created
angel, that appeared to men under the Old Testa-
ment dispensation, and was adored as being God's
representative ; I shall inquire what was the opin-

B 3

6 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

ion of the ancient Jews concerning these matters;
and shew, that they owned the Word to be a divine
Person ; and that it was that Word that appeared
in the Old Testament ; and consequently, that no-
thing is more false than what some Socinians teach
after Grotius, (upon the Book of Wisdom, ch. xviii.
15.) grounding it upon his opinion of an. angel's ap-
pearing and being adored; that therefore it was
lawful for the Jews under the Old Testament to
worship angels ; but that afterwards it was first
forbidden to Christians under the New ; as namely,
by St. Paul, Coloss. xi. 18.

And that the Socinians may have nothing left
them to reply against this, I shall descend to parti-
culars, and shew at large, that, according to the
doctrine of the old synagogue, the Jews appre-
hended the Word as a true and proper Person ;
and held, that that Word was the Son of God ;
that he was the true God ; that he was to be in the
Messias ; and that the Messias was promised under
the Old Testament, as Jehovah ; and accordingly
the old synagogue expected that he should be Je-
hovah indeed.

It is of great moment to satisfy the world of
these truths, and to make the Socinians sensible
that they cannot truly profess the Christian religion
without owning those doctrines, to which yet they
seem to be so averse. Therefore I will go farther,
and distinctly shew, that the whole Gospel is
grounded on those very notions which the Jews
before Christ entertained ; that the first Christians
after the Apostles exactly followed them ; and that
the Jews themselves, following generally those very
notions upon the chief texts of the Old Testament
which Christians quote in those controversies, bear
witness, that they were the undoubted doctrines
both of them and of the Christians before Justin
Martyr's time.

The men that we have to do with, do very con-

against the Unitarians.

fidently affirm any thing that comes into their
heads, be it never so little probable, so they may
thereby give any plausible solutions of the difficul-
ties by which they find themselves entangled and
perplexed : and they are much given to brag of
their unanswerable arguments, so they call them,
which are many times but weak objections, such as
men of learning and wit should be ashamed of.

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

After this I shall make it appear, that however
some of the modern Jews have changed their opin-
ions in these articles, yet the Socinians can make
no advantage thereof, because the Jews have really
much altered their belief since Christ's time, and
are guilty of great disingenuity, as is common to all
those who are obstinately set upon the maintaining
of erroneous doctrines.

In fine, I shall plainly shew, that the Socinians,
to defend themselves against the orthodox, have
been forced to imitate those modern Jews, and
have much outdone them in changing and shifting
their opinions when they dispute with Christians,

I hope to manage this controversy with the Soci-
nians so plainly and fully, as to satisfy the reader,
that as on the one side they most falsely accuse the
Church of having corrupted the New Testament to
favour the doctrines of the Trinity, and of Christ's
Godhead ; so they cannot on the other side get any

B 4

8 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

ground upon the Jews in their disputes with them,
though they fancy they got a great way towards
their conversion by rejecting those doctrines.

In a word, both the ancient and modern Jews
do so far agree in those things which make on the
Church's side against the Socinians, that if they
appeal to the Jews, they are sure to lose their
cause ; and when they have better considered this,
they will find it their best way for the maintaining
of their opinions to abandon the Jews altogether,
as men that understood not their own Scriptures,
viz. the Old Testament, and to reject both, as they
have gone a great way towards it, in rejecting that
traditional sense of the Old Testament, for which
it was quoted in the New, and without which it
would have signified little or nothing to those pur-
poses for which it was alleged. And so it will ap-
pear that for all their brags of the aptness and even
necessity of their way for the conversion of the
Jews, they have taken the direct way to harden
them, by giving up that sense of the Old Testament
Scriptures, which Christ and his Apostles made use
of for the converting of their forefathers.

But we have the less reason to complain of them
for this, when we see how apt they are to question
the authority of the books of the New Testament,
as oft as they find them so clearly opposite to their
doctrines, that they cannot obscure the light of
them by any tolerable exposition. To shew that I
do not say this without cause, I shall make it good
in some instances in the last chapter of this book.

against the Unitarians.

CHAP. II.

That in the times of Jesus Christ our blessed Sa-
viour, the Jews had among them a common ex-
plication of the Scriptures of the Old Testa-
ment, grounded, on the tradition of their fathers,
which was in many things approved by Christ
and his Apostles.

The Jews have to this day a certain kind of tra-
dition received from their forefathers, which contains
many precepts of things to be done or avoided on
the account of their religion. This they call their
oral Law ; by which name they distinguish it from
the written Law, which God gave them by Moses.
They make five orders of such a tradition, which
are explained by Moses de Trano in his Kiriat Se-
pher, printed at Venice, anno 1551. The first is,
of the things which they infer from Moses and the
Prophets by a clear consequence, and they are cer-
tainly of the same authority as the rest of the re-
velation, though they call it a tradition. We are
not such enemies to names as not to like such a
sort of tradition, and we receive it with all imagin-
able reverence ; we like very well the judgment of
Maimonides, who leaves as uncertain whatsoever the
Jewish doctors speak upon many things, as being
without ground when their tradition is not gathered
from texts of Scripture, de Regib. c. 12. The se-
cond order is of the ceremonies and rites which
they keep, as having been delivered once upon
mount Sinai, but of which there is not a word in
the Law. The third order is of the judiciary laws
upon which the two schools of Hillel and Shammai
were divided. The fourth is of some constitutions
of the ancients, which they look upon as an hedge
to the Law. The last is of their customs, which
are various in the several places of their dispersion.
Though in many things they cannot but see that

10 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

those last four orders of tradition do not agree with
the Law of Moses, or are quite unknown in it, yet
they seem to like it never the worse. Nay, their
rabbins professedly ascribe a much greater author-
ity to this Oral Law than to the Law of Moses.
They say in the Talmud Avoda zara, c. i. fol. 17.
col. 2. that a man who studies in the Law alone
without these traditions, is a man which is without
God ; according to the prophecy of Azariah, 2 Chr.
xv. 3. Of this sort were all the traditions which
were condemned by our Lord Jesus Christ: he
plainly calls them the commandments of men,
Matt. xv. 9. and has purposely directed several of
his discourses against them ; because even where
their observing these traditions would not consist
with their obedience to God, as particularly in the
case of Corban, Matt. xv. 3. yet they gave their
tradition the preference, and so as our Saviour
there tells them, ver. 9. they made the command-
ments of God of no effect by th eir tradition.

The authors of these traditions, or new laws, as
one may term them, did almost all of them live
since the time that the Jews were under the powTer
of the Seleucidse, and they were the leaders of those
several sects that corrupted their religion, by adding
to it a great number of observations which were per-
fectly new. We have therefore no reason to look
upon this sort of tradition as the source from
whence the Jews in Christ's time drew their mea-
sures of the sense and meaning of the writings of
the Old Testament.

But for the interpreting of their Scriptures, the
Jews in Christ's time had some other kinds of tra-
ditions, much different from those which Christ so
severely condemned : and these I shall explain more
particularly, giving some examples of their use, and
also of their authority.

1. They had by tradition the knowledge of some
matters of fact, which are not recorded in their

against the Unitarians. 11

Scriptures ; and of other things they had more per-
fect and minute accounts, than are recorded in the
writings of Moses and the Prophets.

Particularly Philo the Jew, writing of the life of De Vita
Moses, declares that what he had to say of him was^^dS.
taken partly out of Scripture, and partly received Genev. ib.
by tradition from their forefathers. Of this latter p' -'
sort was the long account he there gives of Moses
being brought up in all the learning of the Egypt-
ians ; for there is nothing of this in the Old Testa-
ment. Therefore when St. Stephen says the same
thing, Acts vii. 22. we know that he also had it not
from Scripture, but from tradition.

Hence also it is, that St. Paul has gathered the
names of Jannes and Jambres, two of the magicians
that resisted Moses and the truth, 2 Tim. hi. 8. for
their names are no where in Scripture, but they are
in Jonathan's Targum on Exod. i. 15. and vii. 11.
from whence also they are taken into Talmud San-
hedrin jnmft, c. 0.

Hence also St. Paul knew that the pot wherein
Moses laid up the manna was made of gold, Heb.
ix. 4. which also the Seventy, and Philo the Jew
(De Congr. queer, erudit. gratia, p. 3/5. edit. Gen.) Mechii. fofe
do assure us of. And though the modern Jews deny e^anchu-
this, and say the pot was of earth, yet it is acknow-mah, foi.
ledged by the Samaritans that it was of gold. This 29' co1,4,
must have been from tradition, because there is no
such thing said in Scripture.

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

12 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

From hence also St. J ude, ver. 9. had that passage
of the dispute that Michael the archangel had with
the Devil about the body of Moses ; which body, as
Josephus probably says, (Ant. iv. 8.) if any relic of it
had been kept, would have drawn the people into
idolatry. That passage, we are told by some of the
Fathers, was taken out of an apocryphal book called
the Analepsis of Moses, [Clem. Alex, in Jud. et Ori-
gen. 7T€p) 'Apx&v, iii. 2.] Grotius tells us, the Jews
have the like things in their Midrash on Deut. in
the Aboth of R. Nathan, and in some other books.

It was from hence that St. Paul understood that
some of the prophets were sawn asunder, Heb. xi.
37. Though he spoke in the plural, he meant it only
origen.Re-of one, saith Origen, namely of the prophet Esay,
African**1 wno was sawn asunder by the command of Manas-
ses, according to the Jewish tradition. Which also
is mentioned by Justin Martyr, as a thing out of
dispute between him and Trypho the Jew; and it is
taken notice of in the Gemara tr. Jevamot, ch. iv.

It was from hence that Christ took what he said
of the martyrdom of Zachary the son of Barachiah,
who was hilled between the temple and the altar,
Orig. ib. Matt, xxiii. 35. which Origen there also mentions as
p.232,&c. a jewjsn tradition, though, he says, they suppressed
it as being not for the honour of their nation.

I do not deny but that there might be some an-
cient authors, besides the canonical writers, who
kept the memory of these names of persons, and
Joseph. other matters of fact: as for example, that there
Ant. 1. 10. were eighteen high priests who officiated in the first
temple, though they are not all mentioned in Scrip-
ture. But if there were any such authors, it is very
probable that they were lost in the captivity, or in
the bloody persecutions of the Jewish Church, long
before the time of our blessed Saviour and his holy
Apostles. Josephus, who lived in that age, and
writ the history of the Jews, makes no mention
of them, and gives a very lame account of the things
which passed under several kings of Persia.

against the Unitarians.

2. Besides the canonical books, they had writings
of a less authority, wherein were inserted by the
great men of their nation several doctrines that
came from the Prophets, which were in a very
high esteem and veneration among them, though
not regarded as of equal authority with the
writings of the Prophets. It is not improbable that
St. Matthew had respect to some book of this na-
ture, when he quoted that which is not found in ex-
press words in any of the writings of the Prophets ;
as that the Messias should be called a Nazarene,
Matt. ii. 23. if he doth not allude to the idea of the
Jews, who referred to the Messias the Netzer, or
Branch spoken of by Isaiah, xi. 1. So Christ him-
self may seem to have alluded to a passage in one
of these books, John vii. 38. where he saith, He that
believeth on me, as saith the Scripture, out of his
belly shall flow rivers of living water; for there is
nothing perfectly like this in any of the canonical
books that are come to our hands.

St. Paul, as Jerom (in Ephes. v. 14.) observes,
has cited divers such apocryphal books, accommo-
dating himself, no doubt, to the Jews, who gave
much deference to their authority. Thus he did,
Rom. ix. 21. and perhaps in some other places of
his Epistles, from the Book of Wisdom, which is
still extant in our Bibles. Elsewhere he has quo-
tations out of books that are lost, as, 1 Cor. ii. 9. out
of an apocryphal book that went under the name of
the prophet Elias ; and, Ephes. v. 14. out of an apo-
cryphal piece of the prophet Jeremy, as we are told
by Georgius Syncellus in his Chron. p. 27. A. But
the most express quotation of this kind is that
which is alleged by St. James, iv. 5, 6. For these
words, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to en-
vy, are not in any books of the Old Testament; nor
are the following words, God resisteth the proud,
but he giveth grace to the humble : and yet both
these sayings are quoted as Scripture by the holy

14 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

Apostle. Of the first he saith plainly, tj TpacpYj \eyei,
the Scripture saith. Then he goes on to the other,
and of that he saith also Xeyei, without any nomi-
native case but y Tpacfy/j before mentioned, which
implies that the Scripture saith this also. Now
what Scripture could he mean ? for it is certain that
neither of these sayings is any where else in our
Scriptures. He must therefore mean one or other
of the apocryphal books. And one of the Fathers,
that was born within a hundred years after St.
James's death, gives a very probable guess at the
book that he intended. It is Clement of Alexan-
dria, who saith of the latter quotation, " These are
" the words of Moses," Sti*om. iv. p. 376. meaning
in all likelihood of the Analepsis of Moses, which
book is mentioned by the same Clement elsewhere,
on Jude ver. 9. as a book well known in those times
in which he lived. Therefore it is very probable
that the words also of the former quotation were
taken from the Analepsis of Moses, and it was that
apocryphal book that St. James quoted, and called
it Scripture.

This can be no strange thing to him that consi-
ders what was intimated before, that the Jews had
probably these books joined to their COITD, or
Uagiographa ; and therefore they might well be
called Tpacfyou, without any addition. The apocryphal
books that are in our Bibles were commonly called
so by the primitive Fathers. Thus Clement before
mentioned, Strom, v. p.431.B. quotes the words that
we read in Wisdom vii. 24. from Sophia in the Scrip-
tures : and the Book of Ecclesiasticus is called 07 Tpa-
cf>v] seven or eight times in his writings, [Peed. i. 10.
ii. 5, et ver. 8vis. et lOmis. iii. 3, 11.] So it is quoted
by Origen with the same title, Orig. in Jerem. Horn,
xvi. p. 155. D. There are many of the like instances
to be found in the writings of the ancientest Fa-
thers. They usually called such books the Scrip-
tures, and sometimes the holy Scriptures ; and yet

against the Unitarians.

they never attributed the same authority to them,
as to the books that were received into the canon
of the Old Testament, which, as the Apostle saith,
were written by divine inspiration, 2 Tim. iii. l6.

The same is to be said of the prophecy of Enoch,
out of which St. Jude brings a quotation in his Epi-
stle, ver. 14, 15. Grotius, in his annotations on the
place, saith, this prophecy was extant in the Apo-
stles' times, in a book that went under the name of

the Revelation of Enoch, and was a book of ore at

.... . ®
credit among the Jews ; for it is cited in their Zo-

har, and was not unknown to Celsus the heathen
philosopher, for he also cited it, as appears by
Origen's answer to him, \Origen. in Cels. lib. v.]
Grotius also shews, that this book is often cited by
the primitive Fathers ; and he takes notice of a large
piece of it that is preserved by Georg. Syncellus in
his Chronicon. And whereas in this piece there are
many fabulous things, he very well judges that they
might be foisted in, as many such things have been
thrust into very ancient books. But whether his
conjecture in this be true or no, it is certain that
the piece which is quoted by St. Jude was truly
the prophecy of Enoch, because we have the Apo-
stle's authority to assure us of the historical truth
of it.

3. It is clear that the Jews had very good and
authentic traditions concerning the authors, the
use, and the sense of divers parts of the Old Testa-
ment. For example, St. Matthew, xxvii. 9. quotes
Jeremy for the author of a passage which he there
transcribes, and which we find in Zechary xi. 12.
How could this be? but that it was a thing known
among the Jews, that the four last chapters of the
Book of Zechary were written by Jeremy, as Mr.
Mede has proved by many arguments. It is by the Medc's
help of these traditions, that the ancient interpreters^^
have added to the Psalms such titles as express 1022.
their design, and their usage in the synagogue.
Certainly these titles, which shew the design of

16 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

many of the Psalms, contribute much to make us
understand the sense of those Psalms ; which a man
that knows the occasion of their composing, will ap-
prehend more perfectly than he can do that reads
the Psalms without these assistances. And for the
titles of several Psalms in the Septuagint, and other
of the ancient translations, which shew on what days
they were sung in the public worship of the Jews ; as
Ps. xxiv. xlviii. lxxxi. Ixxxii. xciii. xciv. &c. though
these titles are not in the Hebrew, and therefore are
not part of the Jewish Scriptures; yet that they
had the knowledge of this by tradition we find by
Maimonides, who though a stranger to those trans-
De Cuitu lations, yet affirms that those several Psalms were
Tract de sung on sucn and such days ;• and he names the very
Sacrificiis days that are prefixed to them in the said titles.
^sect.V It is from the same tradition that they have
these rules concerning the Psalms : I. This rule to
know the authors of them ; namely, that all Psalms,
that are not inscribed with some other name, are
David's Psalms, although they bear not his name ;
Praefat. in a maxim, owned by Aben-Ezra, and David Kimchi;
Psaimos. an(j we gee an mS£ance 0f this rule in that quotation

of Ps. xcv. 7. which is ascribed to David in Heb.
iv. 7« II • From hence they have learnt also an-
other rule, by which they distinguish between the
Tehiiiim Psalms spoken by David in his own name, and as King
psa 24. foi. °f Israel ; and those which he spoke in the name of
22. col. 2. the synagogue, without any particular respect to his
own time, but in a prospect of the remotest future
Tehiiiim times. From thence they have learned to distin-
Rab' lb* guish between the Psalms in which the Holy Ghost
spoke of the present times, and those in which he
speaks of the times to come, viz. of the time of the
Messias. So R. David Kimchi and others agree,
that the Psalms xciii. xciv. till the Psalm ci. speak
of the days of the Messias. So they remark upon
Ps. xcii. whose title is for the sabbath-day, that it
is, for the time to come, which shall be all sabbath.
Manasseh Ben Is. in Exod. q. 102.

against the Unitarians.

By the help of tradition also they clear the text,
Ex. xii. 40. where it is said, that the sojourning of
the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was
four hundred and thirty years. It would be a great
mistake of these words, to think the meaning of
them should be, that the children of Israel dwelt in
Egypt four hundred and thirty years : for in the truth
they dwelt there but half the time, as the Jews
themselves reckon, and all learned men do agree to
it. But the Jews understand by these words, that
the sojourning of the children of Israel, all the while
they dwelt in Egypt and in the land of Canaan,
they and their fathers, was four hundred and thirty
years. Thus all the rabbins do understand it, and
thus it was anciently explained, by putting in words
to this sense, in the Samaritan text, and in the Alex-
andrian LXX. That they were in the right, we see
by the Apostle's reckoning the time to have been
four hundred and thirty years, from the promise
made to Abraham at his coming into Canaan, till
the giving of the Law upon mount Sinai, which was
but fifty days after their coming up out of Egypt.

In like manner from tradition they filled up that
place, Gen. iv. 8. where it is said, that Cain talked
with Abel his brother, by adding the words which
he spoke, " Let us go into the field." This insertion
is not only in the Alexandrian LXX. but the Sama-
ritans have it in their Bibles, and they had it
there in St. Hierom's time. It is also extant in
the Jerusalem Targum. Philo the Jew philoso- Lib. qd.
phizes on these words much after the same man-^ ^
ner as the Targum doth.

4. It is certain that they have had very common
among them the knowledge of the most illustrious
prophecies of the Messias. This we may see in the
answer of the Samaritan woman to our blessed Sa-
viour, John iv. 25. where she saith, / know that
when the Messias is come, he ivill tell us all things.
For though it is no where plainly said so, yet the

18 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

Samaritans knew full well, that the Messias would
explain all things, according to the traditional sense
of that prophecy in Deut. xviii. 15, 18, 19. which
hath been so constantly referred to the Messiah,
that we find till this day in the Midrash upon Ee-
clesiast. ch. i. 9. that the last Redeemer shall be
like the first, that is, Moses. And in consequence
of this knowledge commonly received among the
John xii. Jews, did they of Christ's time hold for certain, that ,
the Messiah should remain for ever ; which their
posterity not knowing how to reconcile with their
notion of the Messias, they fancied that the Messias
should die after a long reign, and leave his crown to
his children from generation to generation.

Hence it was that the Sanhedrin answered Herod
without delay, Matt. ii. 5, 6. that the Messiah should
he horn at Bethlehem, according to Micah's pro-
phecy, though it is not plainly said so in the text
of that prophecy, Micah v. 2. Hence also it was
that John the Baptist, Matt. iiis 5, 6. found the
people of the Jews so well disposed for repentance,
that they might escape God's judgments threatened
on the nation at the coming of the Messiah, accord-
ing to Joel's prediction recited Acts ii. 16. and that
other prophecy in Malachi iv. 5.

Hence it was that when John the Baptist sent
his disciples to our Saviour to ask him, Whether he
were the Messias or no; our Saviour gave them this
answer, Matt. xi. 4. Go and tell John the things
which you hear and see ; the blind receive their
sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the
deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have
the Gospel preached to them. This is commonly
taken to be a quotation from Isaiah xxxv. 1 . There
some indeed of these characters do point out the
Messiah ; but our Saviour did not content himself
with those, but added others that are not in that
text, nor in any other, but such as no doubt the
Jews had at that time in their common tradition.

against the Unitarians,

This remark is of great moment to confound the
boldness of some critics, as Grotius, who suppose
that some places in the apocryphal books, which
shew that they were exactly acquainted with the
ideas of the prophets upon the Divinity and the
glory of the Messias, such as we see in the Book
of Wisdom, in Ecclesiasticus, and in Baruch, have
been foisted in by the Christians in those books,
when to the contrary they might have seen that
the Jews have laid aside these books for that very
reason, viz. because they were a strong proof that
the Apostles did apply the prophecies of the Old Tes-
tament according to the sense of the synagogue
before Jesus Christ.

It was from hence that our blessed Saviour in the
same chapter, Matt. xi. shewed the multitude, that
John the Baptist was the messenger promised by
God in Malachi iii. 1. as he that should be the fore-
runner of the Messiah, and that should prepare his
way by exhorting the people to repentance: and he
proves that John the Baptist was so, by the great
success of his preaching, in the conversion of those
that seemed the most corrupt of the nation.

5. It is as certain, that they had by tradition
sundry explications of the Scripture grounded upon
allegories. Philo affirms this positively, [lib. de The-
rapeutis, p. 69 1.] St. Paul gives us several examples
of it. We have one in Heb. iv. 9. where St. Paul
thus argues from the words of David in Psalm xcv.
11. There remains therefore a rest for the people
of God. His argument depends upon the Jewish
exposition of the six days of the creation, as fore-
shewing that the age of the world should be six
thousand years ; and understands the sabbath, or rest,
of the times after ; founding their exposition on the
words of the xcth Psalm, A thousand years in thy
sight are as hut one day : that is to be seen in R.
Abraham bar Hiya Hannashi Megillat ha Megillat
Saar. 2. in Ramban upon Gen. ii. 2. in Abarbanel

20 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

Miphaloth Eloh. lib. i. c. 4. See Manasseh Ben Is.
Concil. q. 30. in Genes, et de Great. Problem xi.

Another example of this thing we have in the
same St. Paul, Galat. iv. 24. drawn from Sarah and
Hagar, as being types of the two covenants. Philo
the Jew [de Cherub, p. 83.] found a mystery there
before St. Paul, as we see in a book of his that was
much more ancient than that epistle.

A third example may be found in the same St.
Paul, who uses it, Rom. v. 14. and 1 Cor. xv. 47. in
comparing the first Adam with Jesus Christ, whom
he calls the second Adam. The Jews have the same
idea of the Messias, as of the second Adam, who
shall raise all his followers from the sepulchre, as
we see in Pirke Eliezer, chap. 32.

This method of explaining the Scriptures ought
to be carefully considered, because it gives us to
understand the reasons why the Jews have looked
upon the Song of Songs as a part of canonical Scrip-
ture, and have referred it to the Messias, as we see
they do in their Targum, in Cant. i. 8. iv. 5. vii. 14.
viii. 1,4. The same reflection may be made on their
acknowledging of the divine authority of the Book of
Ruth, wherein their Targum mentions the Messias,
chap. iii. 15. And the like may be said of Eccle-
siastes, certain texts of which, as chap. i. 18. and
viii. 25. they refer to the Messias, which otherwise
seem not to have much relation to him.

In truth, one cannot well deny that the Jews had
this common knowledge of great truths of their
religion, and a traditional exposition of great pro-
phecies, from their ancestors, to clear their ideas
thereof, if he considers attentively these following
remarks.

First, that since their return from the Babylonian
captivity, they were never guilty of idolatry : except,
for a little while, in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes,
when some wicked men apostatized, and brought a
force upon others, by which many were driven to

against the Unitarians.

idolatry. But some chose rather to die than to yield
to it, 1 Mac. i. 62, 63. ii. 29, 30, 37, 38. Which is
an argument, that the rebukes of the Prophets had
made great impression on their minds, and raised a
great concern in them for their religion, and for the
study of the Scripture, which contained the precepts
of it. But it was impossible that in reading the
writings of the Prophets, and hearing them explain-
ed by their Doctors, they should give no attention
to the great promises of the Messias, whose coming
was spoken of by some of the Prophets, as being
very near at hand. See Dan. ix. Hag. ii. Mai. iii.

The second is, that their zeal for the Scriptures,
and their religion, was really much quickened by
the cruel persecution which they suffered from An-
tiochus Epiphanes; whose tyrannical fury did par-
ticularly extend to the holy Scriptures, 1 Mac. i.
56, 57. and to whatever else did contribute to the
maintenance of their religion.

The third is, that it appears from history, that
there were more writers of their nation since the
captivity, than we read of at any time before : so
saith Josephus, lib. i. contr. Apion. Especially
since they came under the power of the Ptolemies
and the Seleucidse, who, being princes of a Greek
original, were great lovers of learning, and did much
for the improving of good letters.

The fourth is, that learned men among the Jews,
applying themselves to this business, did write,
either at Jerusalem, at Babylon, or at Alexandria,
several extracts of ancient books of morality for the
instruction of their people. Such were the Books
of Baruch and Esdras, which seem to have been
written in Chaldee ; and those of Wisdom and Ec-
clesiasticus, which were written in Greek.

The fifth is, that the great business of the Jews
in their synagogues, and in their schools, hath been
ever since to understand the Books of the Pro-
phets, and to explain them in a language intelligible

c 3

22 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

to the people ; the knowledge of the Hebrew being
in a great measure lost during the time of the Ba-
bylonian captivity.

The sixth is, that it does indeed appear, that
this was the proper time in which the Jewish para-
phrases began first to be formed. They were began
and carried on insensibly ; one adding some Chaldee
words in the margin of his book, opposite to the
text, which the people did not understand so well :
another adding to these some notes in another
place ; till at length Jonathan and Onkeios, or some
other Doctor of Jerusalem, gathered together all
these observations, and made thence those para-
phrases which we have under their name.

For the confirmation of this conjecture, consider,
1. That we find in these paraphrases very many
explications, which can by no means agree with
the ideas that the Jews have framed to themselves
since the propagation of Christianity. For since
their disputes with the Christians, they found them-
selves obliged in many particulars to reject the
opinions and refute the confessions of their ances-
tors. 2. We see the very same thing has happened
among the Christians, and among the Greeks, that
set themselves to write scholia, or notes on the
Scriptures : which are only abstracts of authors who
have written or preached more at large on these
books. The same thing, I say, happened among
Christians in the eighth century, and the following
ages, when most of their learning was reduced
within this compass ; to compile glosses, and to
collect the opinion of those that went before them,
upon difficult places ; and after that, to form out of
all these glosses one continued paraphrase upon the
whole book, as if it had been the judgment and
work of one and the same author. It is the cha-
racter of all the books which they call Catena upon
Scripture.

I know that some critics call in question the

against the Unitarians,

antiquity of these paraphrases; and have remarked
how ridiculous the miracles are which the Jews say
were wrought in favour of Jonathan the son of Uz-
ziel. But what does this make for their doubting
the antiquity of these pieces ? Do we question whe-
ther there was a Greek version of the Old Testa-
ment before Christ's time, because we can hardly
believe Aristseas's history to be true, or because we
cannot say that the Greek version is delivered down
to us in the same purity as it was at first written?
Ought we to suspect St. Chrysostom's homilies on
St. Paul's Epistles, or those of Pope Gregory the
First ; because the Greeks have storied that St. Paul
came to inspire St. Chrysostom with the sense of
his Epistles, while he was meditating an exposition
of them ; and because the Latins do relate the like
fable in favour of Gregory the First ?

After all, the authority of these paraphrases does
still further appear, in that the works themselves
are spread almost as far as there are Jews in the
world, and are highly esteemed in all the places of
their dispersion.

Some may perhaps imagine, that the Jews being
fallen into great corruptions about the time of our
blessed Saviour s coming into the world, must ne-
cessarily at that time have lost much of that light,
which their ancestors received of the Prophets,
and of those that succeeded the Prophets. They
may think, it may be, that their nation being be-
come subject to the Greeks, did by insensible de-
grees change their principles, and alter their expo-
sitions of the Scripture, as they adopted the ideas
of the Greek philosophers, whose opinions they
then began to borrow. In short, it may be con-
ceived by some, that the several sects, which arose
among the Jews long before Christ s time, did con-
siderably alter the opinions of the synagogue, and
did corrupt their tradition, and the notions they
had from the most ancient doctors of their schools.

24 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

In answer to all this. It is certain that the cor-
ruption that reigned among the Jews was princi-
pally in their morals ; for which, though they had
very good precepts in their Law; yet the true mean-
ing of them was spoiled and corrupted with glosses,
which were devised, as I have shewed, in later
times ; and with these, being stampt with the name
of tradition, they evaded the force of the laws*.
There were then but very few that had not an
aversion to the Greek learning, and those few ap-
plied themselves to it, while they were in Judaea,
with great caution and secrecy, lest they should be
looked upon as heathens. Josephus witnesseth of
that, Antiq. 1. 20. c. ult. As to what is inferred
from the many sects among the Jews, the quite
contrary is clear. For the opposition of one sect to
the other, hindered any one of them from becoming
masters of the people and their faith in so general
a manner, as to be able to corrupt absolutely their
traditional notions of religion.

Moreover, these sects, all but the Sadducees, who
were abhorred by the people, knew no other way
to distinguish themselves and be esteemed, but by
a strict observation of the Law and its ceremonies,
to which they pretended that the rules they gave
their disciples did very much contribute ; whence
they called their traditions the hedge and the ram-
pier of the Law.

To conclude, we ought carefully to take notice,
1. That St. John the Baptist did not find it needful
to correct the errors in opinions that reigned among
the people ; but only exhorted them to repentance
for their sins and immoral actions. 2. That one
of the chief concerns of our Lord Jesus Christ in
his discourses with the Jews, was to purge them
of all that corruption which their loose casuists had
introduced into their morals; with which he charges
the Scribes and Pharisees in particular. 3. That
the doctrine of the Sadducees, which he refutes on

against the Unitarians.

some occasions, had but a few followers. 4. That
the Essens and their party, who applied themselves
altogether to piety, and the study of the Law, had a
great authority with all lovers of religion. This we
may learn from Philo in some pieces of his works,
especially lib. quod omnis probus sit liber, p. 6/8.
5. That the Jews, though they have entertained
very gross ideas concerning a temporal kingdom of
the Messias ; and though to support these ideas,
they have confounded the sense of divers prophe-
cies, in endeavouring to reconcile them to their car-
nal notions, and in bringing in new explications of
the Old Testament ; yet have they not been able
quite to extinguish their ancienter ideas and princi-
ples : their new ideas passing for no more at the
best than the opinions of their celebrated doctors,
which another doctor may oppose if he will, espe-
cially when he is backed with those that are an-
cienter and of a greater authority.

CHAP. III.

That the Jews had certain traditional maxims
and rules for the understanding of the holy
Scripture.

What I have now said concerning the tradi-
tions of the synagogue, will, I believe, be scarcely
disputed by any learned man ; I am sure he will
have less reason to oppose it, that considers the
rules, which, as appears to us, were followed by
the Jews in explaining the prophecies concerning
their promised Messias.

1. It is certain that the Jews held this as a max-
im, that all the prophets did speak of the Messias,
and were raised up by God for this very end. This ^e[acf^h*
we find more than once in their Talmud; and thatsaniied.

c. 11.

26 The Judgment of ' the Jewish Church

it was a common tenet among them in Christ's
time, we see it in many places of the Gospel. No
doubt what they did in settling this rule, was not
without a due and serious examination of it first.
And here we cannot but deplore the rashness of
some critics among Christians, who instead of
making use of the confessions of the ancient Jews
upon places of the Old Testament, which they re-
ferred constantly to the Messias ; whereas some of
the modern Jews endeavour to wrest them in an-
other sense, not only follow these modern, but give
occasion by these means to despise prophecies, and
the clearest of them, as things quite insignificant.
This is the absurdity Grotius fell into, who in the
53d of Isaiah, by the servant who is spoken of
there absolutely, understands Jeremy the Prophet ;
whereas the ancient Jews refer that chapter directly
to the Messias, as you can see in the old Midrash
Chonen, in the Targum, in the Talmud Sanhed.
fol. 98. c. 2. and that is acknowledged by R. Alshek.
in h. 1. to be the sense of the ancient Jews. And
indeed they hold as a maxim, that whensoever it is
spoken absolutely of the servant, the place must be
understood of the Messias, Zohar in Exod. fol. 225.
and consequently they explained that prophecy of
Isaiah as concerning the Messias. I can say the
same upon another maxim of the ancient Jews,
which is of great use, that wheresoever it is spoken
of the King absolutely, the place must be under-
stood of the Messias, Zohar in Gen. fol. 235. If
Grotius had known it, he never would have referred
the lxiid Psalm, and some others, to Solomon in his
literal sense as he hath done, but would have re-
ferred it, as it must be, directly to the Messias.
Certainly that shews us, that many of the ancient
Jews understood the Prophets much better than, to
their shame, such critics now do. I wonder many
times at divines, who confess they cannot give any
tolerable account of the Song of Songs, and look

against the Unitarians.

upon it as a piece composed by Solomon upon the
occasion of his marriage with the daughter of E-
gypt ; whereas the Jews look upon it constantly as
the last piece he composed after his repentance;
and we have reason enough to believe it, when we
compare this Song with the xlvth Psalm and the
fifth of Isaiah, that Solomon spoke then of the Mes-
sias, the essential Word spoken of by him, Prov. 8.
chiefly when we see the ancient Jews do agree
upon it. See Philo de Colon, apud Grot, in Prov.
viii. 22. Bresch. Rabba par. 1. the first words, and
Midrash in shir hash, in Mercessu. But let us
come back to our subject.

2. I say 2dly> that it is reasonable to judge,
that the later Prophets having considerably cleared
the prophecies of those that went before them, by
diffusing throughout their writings a much greater
light ; they who read the later Prophets, were not
so careless as to neglect these helps for the under-
standing of the more ancient prophecies, whose
sense was otherwise not a little obscure. In these
cases it was necessary to begin with the Prophets
that writ last, and by their light to clear the an-
cient prophecies. According to this method, the
paraphrases ascribe to the Messias, what we read
of the seed of the woman, Gen. iii. 15. and what
Balaam prophesied, Numb, xxiii. and xxiv. And
no one can doubt, but that after that great light
that Isaiah gave them concerning the Messias and
his unction, in his prophecy, chap. xi. they referred
to him those words also of Moses, Deut. xviii. 18.
God shall raise thee up a Prophet like unto me,
which are cited by St. Peter, as spoken of the Mes-
sias, following herein the principles of the syna-
gogue, Acts iii. 22.

3. It is not to be doubted but that experience
was a great help towards their understanding of
prophecies. If it had not been for this, the Jews
would have looked no farther than to Isaac, for the

28 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

fulfilling of that prophecy, Gen. xviii. 18. In thy
seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
and likewise to Solomon, for that which we read
2 Sam. vii. 16. and Psal. lxxvi. But seeing the
prophecies were not accomplished in their persons,
nor did answer their characters; and it is impos-
sible that the prophecies should be false; the Jews
were convinced, as they had reason, that they ought
to refer these prophecies to the Messias ; as also
St. Paul did, according to the way of his nation.

4. It is clear there were certain general characters
of the Messias, which, wheresoever they were found,
were commonly thought to denote that that place
should be understood of the Messias. And it is
worth observing, that the light still increasing from
one age to the other, and the characters of the
Messias being every day better unfolded and more
open, it was easy for them that studied the pro-
phecies to compare one with the other, and from
thence to draw rules to find out the ideas of the
Messias, in those promises which seemed not so
distinctly and evidently to speak of him.

To give some examples of the rules which they
gathered for their direction in discovering the pro-
phecies that relate to the Messias ; I say, that the
most conspicuous character of him, and that which
they most set their hearts upon, was this, that he
should come in the later times to deliver his people
from their enemies, and to reign over the whole
earth in great peace, and prosperity, and glory.
This in the main will be acknowledged by all the
Jews in our age. But to consider these matters
yet more particularly. It is worthy to be observed,
that by comparing these texts which speak of the
low estate and sufferings of one that is there also
described as being in the highest glory and dig-
nity ; they have been convinced, that both these
descriptions are of one and the same person ; and
therefore notwithstanding the prophetical descrip-

against the Unitarians.

tions of the glory of their promised Messias at his
coining, they have acknowledged those prophecies
to concern him also, which speak of his humilia-
tion; as that in Zech. ix. 9. where he is represented
riding upon an ass : so you see in the Targum and
in the Talmud ; and that upon Isa. liii. where he is
said to be loaded with griefs, and to be the most
despised of men ; as you see in the Targum, in the
Talmud, and in Midrash Conen. To which may
be added that of David, Psal. xxii. and that of
Zech. xii. 10. which treat of the same matter, and
were referred to the Messias, as I shall shew after-
wards.

Thus we see, wherever salvation is spoken of,
they refer those prophecies to the Messias, as to
him who should be the author of salvation. It is
by this rule that Isa. Hi. and liii. and Hab. iii. are
understood of the Messias.

Thus those places wherein the subjection and
conversion of the nations are foretold, were by them
judged, without any hesitation, to regard the times
of the Messias. Saadias Haggaon interprets Zech.
ix. 9. of the Messias, because v. 10. his universal
dominion is spoken of. And so R. David Kimchi
refers to the Messias' s time the place of Zech. ii. 10,
11. Upon this known foundation does St. Paul
build his interpretation of the Messias, Heb. i. 10.
out of Psalm cii. 25, &c. and Rom. xv. 11. out of
Psalm cxvii. 1. And, in short, all those Psalms
which represent God as reigning over the whole
earth, do relate to the Messias, according to the
sense of the ancient Jews, as may be seen in many
places of their paraphrases, and of their interpret-
ers ; as Rashi Kirnchi and R. Joel Aben Soeb
upon the Psalm xcix. and c.

Thus again, when the Scripture foretells the call-
ing of the Gentiles to the knowledge of the true
God, they fail not to understand those predictions
of the times of the Messias, who should spread the

30 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

true religion throughout the world. Hence it is
that Isa. ii. is so understood by them.
f^pC364 ^n tQ*s manner did they reflect on the prophe-
etlib. de cies that spake of the Messias's priesthood, after
Somn. p. that David had enlightened them in Psal. ex. as
R.Menach.may De seen from the notions of Philo the Jew,
de Reka- touching the priesthood of the Word, by an allusion
Pentat m. to tnc history of Melchizedek.

18. coi. 1. So likewise did they own that the promises of
coif°i. edit. God to reestablish the house of David were to be
Venet. accomplished by the Messias, and by this rule they
Talmud in affirmed that Anna's song did concern the time of
^t^barb ^e Messias, f°r tne words of that song do not
L l Sam. agree neither to Saul nor to David, but to the time
foiS99bcoi °^ ^e ^ess^as- As a^so they understood in like
2. cited in manner the prophecy of Amos ix. 11, 15, lG, 17»
the Acts, according to the sense of the synagogue and the

prophecy of Zechary vi. 12, &c. Rabboth. fol. 271-

col. 4.

They acknowledged according to these rules of
interpretation, that where ascension into heaven,
and sitting on God's right hand, was spoken of,
they were spoken of the Messias; and thus they
referred to him Psalm ex. and Psalm xlv. and Psalm
Ixviii. and Psalm xcvii. and what is said Deut.
xxxii. being all so many texts insisted upon by the
writers of the New Testament, as passages wbich
in the judgment of the Jews did concern the Mes-
sias.

We ought especially to observe that they never
failed to make those considerations upon those par-
ticular Psalms, whereof the composers, as they un-
derstood them, spoke in the name of the synagogue,
with respect to future times, and who mention
there a posterity that was to partake of the deliver-
ance there promised. And from this allowed max-
im also does St. Paul, Heb. i. refer Psalm cii. to
the Messias. For this character is found expressly
in ver. 22. of this Psalm ; as well as the calling of

against the Unitarians.

the Gentiles, and the subjection of the kings to
God is foretold, ver. 15, l6, 17.

We must take notice of another thing, which is
a consequence of what they observed in some emi-
nent prophecies, viz. they understood them very ra-
tionally, by the help of those ideas which they met
with in other prophecies which otherwise seem not
so clearly to concern the same Messias which is
spoken of in clearer prophecies. It was according
to that rule that they referred the hymn of Anna,
1 Sam. ii. 5. to the times of the Messias, Kimchi in
h. 1. compareth it with the words of Isaiah, ch. liv.
Rejoice thou barren that bearest not, 8§c. It was
according to that method that they being convinced
that the Psalm xxii. was to be referred to the Mes-
sias, did refer also to him the Psalm xli. as it is re-
ferred by St. Paul, Heb. x. the same ideas of suf-
fering being found in both Psalms. R. Menach. de
Rekam fol. 19. col. 2. in Pent at. It was according
to the same method that they referred to the Se-
kinah, or Messias, all the Psalms which have the
title Shosannin, viz. Psalm xlv. lxix. Ixxx. as we
see in the same R. Menachem fol. 106. col. 2. in
Pent. The Song of Songs, as I have observed,
was the key which made them understand the sub-
ject of those Psalms, as the song of Isaiah chap. v.
made them to understand the Song of Songs.

I am not ignorant that the greatest part of the
Jewish nation being oppressed with the Roman
yoke, and finding no comfort for it in these notions,
which are for the most part spiritual, did therefore
about our Saviour's time frame to themselves more
carnal notions concerning the kingdom of the Mes-
sias : fancying that he should come as a victorious
Prince, to conquer, and to avenge them of their
enemies They removed from their thoughts the
hints and prophecies of his death, as contrary to
those glorious descriptions which suited better with
their minds. They expected the Messias should

32 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

come to restore presently the kingdom unto Israel ;
and, in a word, following their own desires and ima-
ginations, they confounded Christ's first coming
with the second ; and then confirmed themselves
in this mistake, partly, because the Prophets seemed
to describe the kingdom of the Messias very car-
nally, partly, because they knew not what to think
of a celestial or spiritual kingdom, such as his
should be, who was to sit on the throne of God.
And these false conceits of theirs, joined with the
worldly interests of their leaders, brought them to
reject the true Messias at his coming.

But after all, it is certain, 1. That the contrary
opinions, concerning the spiritual sense of the pro-
phecies, was the constant ancient doctrine of their
nation. 2. That those Jews that were converted to
Christianity by the ministry of Jesus Christ and his
Apostles, were converted upon these maxims, which
were then the maxims of the wisest and the reli-
giousest part of their nation. 3. That the Apostles
in their writings, as well as Christ Jesus in his dis-
courses, cited the texts of the Old Testament ac-
cording to the commonly received sense of the syn-
agogue ; and in truth the authority of these proofs
in that received sense did not a little contribute to
the conversion of both Jews and Gentiles.

In order to make the reader of my mind, I en-
treat him to take in good part my entering a little
further into the examination, of what the most stu-
dious Jews in the holy Scriptures do commonly
propose under the name of tradition. Let them be
looked upon by some men as whimsical authors,
that busy themselves in inquiries altogether vain
and fruitless ; yet it is no hard task to vindicate
them from this hard imputation. 1. I have this to
say for them, that that which appears so fantastical,
(because not understood by most of those which
have been accustomed to the Greek methods of
teaching,) ought not therefore to be despised and

against the Unitarians.

wholly rejected. None but fools will think this a
sufficient reason why all Pythagoras's doctrines
ought to be contemned ; because that he having
been a scholar of Pherecydes the Syrian, and other
learned men in Egypt and Chaldea, did borrow
thence his way of teaching theology by symbols,
which is attainable only by few, and those of no
common capacity.

2. I observe that most of the true Jewish doctors
that followed the tradition of their schools, had this
design principally in their eye, to make men fully
understand the secrets of God's conduct for the re-
storation of fallen mankind. To this in particular
they bend their thoughts, and in this they endea-
voured to instruct their readers, explaining to them,
according to this sense, some places of Scripture,
which at first sight seem not immediately to have a
regard to so important a subject.

3. I observe that oftentimes, where they attribute
these interpretations of Scripture to a tradition de-
livered down to them from their fathers, it is only
in order to render their reflections on the Scriptures
so much the more venerable to their hearers For
it is plain enough in some places, that an attentive
meditation on the words might have discovered the
same things which they refer to tradition.

For example. They remark that God said con-
cerning Adam, Gen. iii. 22. And now lest he stretch see Reuch-
out his hand, and eat of the tree of life, and live1™^'^
for ever; therefore God, as it follows, drove him '
out of Paradise. From hence they infer, that God
gave Adam hopes of becoming one day immortal,
by eating of the tree of life, which they thought
should be obtained for him by the Messias. Now it
appears that our blessed Saviour did allude to this
common opinion of the Jews, which was then es-
teemed as a tradition, Rev. ii. 7- To him that over-
cometh will I give to eat of the tree that is in the

34 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

paradise of God. And this notion is repeated,
Rev. xxii. 2, 14.

Again they remark that God said, Behold, Adam
is become like one of' us, Gen. iii. 22. And they
maintain that he speaks not this to the angels,
who had no common likeness to the unity or es-
sence of God, but to him who was the celestial
Adam, who is one with God. As Jonathan has
also observed in his Targum on these words of Ge-
nesis, calling him the only-begotten in heaven.
Now it is plain that St. Paul has described Jesus
Christ as this heavenly Adam, 1 Cor. xv.

They assert that the first prophecy, Gen. iii. 15.
was understood by Adam and Eve of the Saviour
of the world ; and that Eve, who was full of the
prospect of this, being delivered of her first son, she
R6n n b ca^e(^ him Cain, saying, / have got a man, or this
p. G29. man from the Lord; believing that he was the pro-
mised Messias. They tell us farther, that Eve be-
ing deceived in this expectation, as also in her
hopes from Abel, asked another son of God, who
gave her Seth ; of whom it is said, that Adam begot
another son after his own image ; another with re-
spect to Abel that was killed, not to his posterity
by Cain, for they did bear the image of the Devil,
Re<noLlt rather than that of God. They maintain the name
' of Enos to have been given to Seth's son upon the
same account, because they thought him that ex-
cellent man whom God had promised. They make
the like remarks on Enoch, Noa, and Sem, and
Noah's blessing of Sem they looked on as an ear-
nest wish, that God in his person would give them
the Redeemer of mankind.
Refi^' ib They affirm that Abraham had not been so ready
p' ' to offer up his son Isaac a sacrifice, but that he
hoped God would save the world from sin by that
means ; and that Isaac had not suffered himself to
be bound, had he not been of the same belief. And

against the Unitarians.

they observe that it was said to Abraham, and after-
wards to Isaac, on purpose to shew them the mis-
take of this opinion, In thy seed shall all the na-
tions of the earth he Messed. A plain argument
that the Jews anciently thought that these words
did relate to the Messias, as did also St. Paul, Gal.
iii. 16.

They maintain, that Jacob believed that God Reuchi. ib.
would make good to him the first promise made top'633,
Adam, till God undeceived him by inspiring him
with a prophecy concerning Judah, Gen. xlix. 10.
and by signifying to him, (which things also Jacob
tells his sons,) that the Messias should not come
but in the last days, ver. 1. when the sceptre was
departed from Judah, and the lawgiver from be-
tween his feet, ver. 10.

They declare that ever since this prophecy, the Reuchi. ib.
coming of the Messias for the redemption of man-
kind has been the subject of the discourses of all
the Prophets to their disciples, and the object of
David's and all other prophets' longings and desires.

They maintain that David did not think himself Reuchi. ib.
to be the Messias, because he prays for his coming, p" 634'
Psalm xliii. 3. Send out thy light, i. e. the Messias,
as R. Salomon interprets it. And from hence they
conclude, that he speaks also of the Messias in
Psalm lxxxix. 15.

They did think Isaiah spake of him, ch. ix. 6.
So R. Jose Galilseus prsefat. in Eccha Rabbati, as
it is to be seen in Devarim Rabba Paras. pn/lW at
the end of it; and in Jalk. in Is. 284. And in-
deed what he there saith could not be meant of
Hezekiah, who was born ten years before ; nor was
his kingdom so extensive nor so lasting, as is there
foretold the Messias's should be, but was confined
to a small part of Palestine ; and ended in Zede-
kiah, one of his successors, not many generations
afterwards.

And it is the general and constant opinion of the
d 2

36 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

Jews, that Malachi, the last of the Prophets, spake
of him, ch. iv. under the name of the Sun of Right-
eousness : for this see Kimchi.

4. It ought to be well considered, that we owe
the knowledge of the principles on which the Holy-
Ghost has founded the doctrine of types, to the
Jews, who are so devoted to the traditions of their
ancestors; which types, however they who read
the Scripture cursorily, do ordinarily pass by, as
things light and insignificant; yet it is true what
St. Paul hath said I Cor. x. 11. that all things
happened to the fathers in types, and were written
for their instruction, upon whom the ends of the
world are come, or who live in the last times, as
the economy of the Gospel is called, and the last
days by Jacob, Gen. xlix. 1. That is, acknow-
ledged by the wise men of the nation in Shemoth
Rabba Parasha 1, and by Menasseh ben Israel q.
6, in Isaiah, p. 23.

Indeed the Jews, besides the literal sense of the
ancient Scriptures, did acknowledge in them a mys-
tical or spiritual sense ; and this St. Paul lays down
for a maxim, 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, 3, &c. where he ap-
plies to things of the New Testament all these fol-
lowing types; namely, the coming of Israel out of
Egypt, their passage through the Red sea, the his-
tory of the manna, and of the rock that followed
them by its water.

We see in Philo the figurative sense which the
Jews gave to a great part of the ancient history :
he remarks exactly, (and often with too much sub-
tilty, perhaps,) the many divine and moral notions
which the common prophetical figures do suggest
to us.

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

We see that they reduced to an anagogical sense

against the Unitarians.

all the temporal promises, of Canaan, of Jerusalem,
of the temple; in which St. Paul also followed
them, Heb. iv. 4, 9. quoting these words, if they
shall enter into my rest, from Psalm xcv. 11. which
words he makes the Psalmist speak of the Jeru-
salem that is above ; and this also is acknowledged
by Maimonides de Pcen. c. 8.

This remark ought to be made particularly on \
the mystical signification which Philo the Jew
gives to several parts of the temple ; of which the
Apostle St. Paul makes so great use in his Epistle to
the Hebrews. Josephus in those few words which
he has concerning the signification of the taber-
nacle, Antiq. iii. 9* gives us reason enough to be-
lieve, that if he had lived to finish his design of
explaining the Law according to the Jewish Mi-
drashim, he would have abundantly justified this
way of explication, followed by St. Paul, with re-
spect to the tabernacle of the covenant.

It is hard to conceive how the Apostles could
speak of things which came to pass in old time, as
types of what should be accomplished in the per-
son of the Messias, without any other proof than
their simple affirmation : as for instance, that St.
Peter should represent Christ as a new Noah, 1 Pet.
iii. 21. and that St. Paul should propose Melchize-
dek as a type of the Messias in respect to his sa-
cerdotal office, Heb. vi. vii. unless the Jews did
allow this for a maxim, which flows naturally from
the principle we have been establishing; namely,
that these great men were looked on as the persons
in whom God would fulfil his first promise; but
that not being completely fulfilled in them, it was
necessary for them that would understand it aright
to carry their view much farther, to a time and a
person without comparison more august, in whom
the promise should be perfectly completed.

It may be asked, why the prophecies seem some-
time so applied to persons then living, that one

D 3

38 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

would think he should not need to look any farther
to see the fulfilling of them ; as namely the prophe-
tical prayer, as in behalf of Solomon, which is in
Psalm lxxii. as the birth of a son promised to Isaiah,
chap. vii. and chap. ix. 6. and where Isaiah seems
to speak of himself, when he saith, Isa. lxi. 1. The
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, and the like. But it
is not hard to give for this a reason ; with which
the ancient Jews were not unacquainted. And it is
this ; that though all these predictions had been di-
rected to those persons, yet they had by no means
their accomplishment in them, nor these persons
were in any degree intended and meant in the pro-
phecy. To be particular, Solomon was in wars
during the latter part of his life ; and so he could
not be that King of peace spoken of in the pro-
phecy; and his kingdom was rent in his son's time,
the smaller part of it falling to his share, as the
greater was seized by Jeroboam ; so far was the
kingdom of Solomon from being universal or ever-
lasting, Isa. vii. 14. The son born to Isaiah, nei-
ther had the name of Emanuel, nor could he be the
person intended by it ; as neither was his mother a
virgin, as the word in that prophecy signifies : and
for the Prophet himself, though the Spirit of the
Lord was upon him, and spoke by him, as did it by
all the other Prophets, 2 Pet. i. 21. yet that the
Saadia Ga- Unction here spoken of, Isaiah lxi. 1. did not be-
iioth c!Ui8. long to him, but to the Messias, is acknowledged
ej\D- ^n by the Jewish writers, and seems to have been so
nii'D. understood by those that heard our Saviour apply
this prophecy to himself, Luke iv. 22. So that
nothing was more judiciously done, and more agree-
able to the known principles of the synagogue, than
the question proposed to Philip by the eunuch, who
reading the 53d of Isaiah, asked from him, Of
whom did he speak P of himself, or of another P

Again, it may be asked, why the Prophets called
the Messias, David ? and John the Baptist, Elias ?

against the Unitarians.

Not to trouble the reader with any more than a
mention of that fancy of some of the Jews that
held the transmigration of souls ; and say particu-
larly, that the soul of Adam went into David, and
the soul of David was the same with that of the
Messias ; I say, to pass by that, the true reason of
such use of the names of David and Elias is this ;
because David was an excellent type of the Messias
that was to come out of his loins, Acts ii. 30, 31.
And for John the Baptist, he came in the spirit and
power of Elias, Luke i. 17; that is, he was in-
spired with the same spirit of zeal and holy courage
that Elias was formerly acted with, and employed
it, as Elias did, in bringing his people to repentance
and reformation.

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

Before Jacob's prophecy, there was no time fixed
for the coming of the Messias; but after the deli-
very of that prophecy, Gen. xlix. 10. there was no
possibility of being deceived in the sense of those
prophecies which God gave from time to time, full
of the characters of the Messias. It was necessary,
1. That the kingdom should be in Judab, and not
cease till the time about which they expected the
coming of the Messias. 2 That the lesser author-
ity, called here the lawgiver, should be also esta-
blished in Judah, and destroyed before the coming
of the Messias, which we knew came to pass under
and by the reign of Herod the Great, and some

40 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

vears before the death of our Saviour. And indeed
the Talmudists say, that forty years before the de-
solation of the house of the sanctuary, judgments
of blood were taken away from Israel. Talm. Jerus.
I. Sanhedr. c. dine, mammonoth. et Talm. Bah. C.
Sanhedr. c. Hajou Bodekim,. And Raymondus
Martini, who writ this Pugio at the end of the
thirteenth century, quotes Part III. Dist. 3. c. 16.

46. One R. Rachmon, who says, that when this
happened, they put on sackcloth, and pulled off
their hair, and said, Wo unto us, the sceptre is de-
parted from Israel, and yet the Messias is not
come.

And therefore they who had this prophecy before
them, could not mistake David, nor Solomon, nor
Hezekiah, for the Messias : nor could they deceive
themselves so far as to think this title was applica-
ble to Zorobabel, or any of his successors.

In short, there appeared not any one among the
Jews before the times of our blessed Saviour, that
dared assume this title of Messias ; although the
name of Anointed, which the word Messias signi-
fies, had been given to several of their kings ; as to
David in particular. But since Jesus Christ's com-
ing, many have pretended to it. These things be-
ing so, it is clear, that the prophecies which had
not, and could not have their accomplishment in
those, upon whose occasion they were first deli-
vered, were to receive their accomplishment in the
Messias, and consequently those prophecies ought
necessarily to be referred to him.

We ought by all means to be persuaded of this.
For we cannot think the Jews were so void of judg-
ment as to imagine that the Apostles, or any one
else in the world, had a right to produce the sim-
ple words of the Old Testament, and to urge them
in any other sense, than what was intended by the
writer, directed by the Holy Ghost : it must be his
sense, as well as his words, that should be offered

against the Unitarians.

for proof to convince reasonable men. But we see
that the Jews did yield to such proofs out of Scrip-
ture concerning the Messias, in which some critics
do not see the force of those arguments that were
convincing to the Jews. They must then have be-
lieved that the true sense of such places was the li-
teral sense in regard of the Messias, whom God
had then in view at his inditing of these books ;
and that it was not literal in respect of him, who
seems at first sight to have been intended by the
prophecy.

And now I leave it to the consideration of any
unprejudiced reader that is able to judge, whether,
if these principles and maxims I have treated of
were unknown to the Jews, the Apostles could have
made any use of the books of the Old Testament
for their conviction, either as to the coming of the
Messias, or the marks by which he was distinguish-
able from all others, or as to the several parts of his
ministry. But this is a matter of so great an im-
portance, that it deserves more pains to shew that
Jesus Christ and his Apostles did build upon such
maxims as I have mentioned : and therefore all
those that call themselves Christians, should take
heed how they deny the force and authority of that
way of traditional interpretation, which has been
anciently received in the Jewish Church.

42 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

CHAP. IV.

That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers
points of the Christian doctrine by this common
traditional exposition received among the Jews,
which they could not have done, {at leasts not so
well,) had there been, in those texts which they
alleged, such a literal sense only as we can find
without the help of such an exposition.

If we make some reflections which do not require
a great deal of meditation, it is clear that Jesus
Christ was to prove to the Jews that he was the
Messias whom they did expect many ages before,
and whose coming they looked for, as very near.
He could not have done so, if they had not been
acquainted with their prophetical books, and with
those several oracles which were contained in them.
Perhaps there might have been some difference
amongst them concerning some of those oracles,
because there were in many of them some ideas
which seem contrary one to another. And that
was almost unavoidable, because the Holy Ghost
was to represent the Messias both in a deep humi-
liation and great sufferings, and in a great height of
glory. But after all, the method of calling the Jews
was quite different from the method of calling the
Gentiles. The first had a distinct knowledge of the
chief articles of religion, which the heathens had
not. They had all preparations necessary for the
deciding this great question, whether Jesus of Na-
zareth was the Messias, or not. They had the sa-
cred books of the Old Testament, they were ac-
quainted with the oracles as well as with the Law.
They longed after the coming of the Messias. They
had been educated all along, and trained up in the
expectation of him. They had not only those
sacred books in which the Messias was spoken of,
but many among them had gathered the ideas of

against the Unitarians. 43

the Prophets upon that subject, as we see by the
Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. And indeed
we see that Jesus Christ and his Apostles spake to
the Jews according to the notions which were re-
ceived among them. What I say will clearly ap-
pear, if we do examine some of the citations made
by Christ and his Apostles from the Old Testament.
For though Jesus Christ had in himself all the trea-
sures of wisdom, and though his Apostles were di-
vinely inspired, yet they ought to proportion what
they said to the capacity of their hearers. Their
miracles were to move and dispose them to the re-
ceiving of the truth, but their proofs and arguments
were the properest means to convince their hearers
of it.

1. The doctrines of the immortality of the soul
and the resurrection from the dead being denied by
the Sadducees, who required an express text of
Moses for the proof of those doctrines, and affirmed
that there was not any such to be found in the
writings of Moses; our Saviour proves it against
them by these words, which stopped their mouths,
and raised the admiration of the multitude, / am
the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob; but God is not the God of the dead,
but of' the living, Matt. xxii. 32. His proof was by a
known and necessary consequence from that text
out of the Law, which he inferred according to the
received method among the Jews : for the Jews at
this day do gather the same doctrines from the same
words, Exod. iii. 6, 15, l6. which Jesus Christ al-vide
leged to prove them by. The astonishment of the Rede's
people on this occasion did not proceed from thep. soi/
newness of his argument, as if they had never
heard the like before ; for they gathered also the
doctrine of the resurrection from Moses's song, as
we see in Josephus de Macchab. p. 1012. but it
arose from another cause, to wit, his giving them
such a spiritual notion of the resurrection as was

44 7"he Judgment of the Jewish Church

not clogged with the difficulties drawn from that
instance of a woman's marriage to more husbands
than one, which the Sadducees justly urged against
that gross idea of a resurrection that many of them
had, wherein marriage and other actions of mortal
life should have place.

2. Our blessed Saviour, in the same 22d chapter
of St. Matthew, ashed the Pharisees whose son the
Messias was to he P They answered, The Son of'
David; i. e. the Scripture saith, he should descend
from the line of David. Against which Christ
raises this objection, How then does David in spirit,
or inspired by the Spirit, call him Lord P And he
alleges, to prove that David calls him Lord, the
words of Psalm ex. 1. The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thy enemies
thy footstool. If then David by the Spirit called
him Lord, how is he then his son P It appears that
Jesus Christ in making this objection, did take
these three things as granted by the Jews at that
time: 1. That Psalm ex. was the work of the Pro-
phet David. 2. That this Psalm concerned the
Messias. 3. That the name Adonai is in this place
equivalent to the name Jehovah. There is not any
one of these things which the Jews will not dispute
at this day. But that their forefathers did hold
that these words were spoken to the Messias, it ap-
pears by their Midrash on the Psalms, and Saadia
Gaon on Dan. vii. 13. Indeed their Targum justi-
fies all that our Saviour said in this place, not only
in acknowledging that this Psalm was composed by
David, but also that it was written for the Messias,
who is therefore instead of Adonai called Memra,
or the Word, according to Fagius's reading, which
is most natural to the place. But that Memra, the
Word, denotes the Messias, shall be shewed in the
sequel of this discourse.

St. Paul has taken the same way, Acts xiii. 34.
where he quotes these words from Isaiah lv. 3. /

against the Unitarians. 45

will give you the sure mercies of David. He refers
this passage to the sending of the Messias, though
the text seem obscure enough for such a reference.
But he does it in pursuance of the explication given
of it by the ancient Jews, who understood this
chapter of the Messias. So does R. David Kimchi
upon this verse, and Aben Ezra and Sam. Laniado,
and R. Meir Ararma and Abarvanel. Upon the same
ground he applies to the Messias in the same chap-
ter the words of Psalm xvi. 10. Thou wilt not leave
thy Holy One to see corruption. He proves that
they could not be understood of David, seeing that
his sepulchre, the monument of his corruption, re-
mained till that day. He ought first to have proved
that this Psalm was spoken of the Messias, and then
have proved that it could not belong to David. But
this method was needless, since he went on this
known maxim among the Jews, that whatever
Psalm was not fulfilled in David ought to be under-
stood of the Messias.

Let us proceed to another clear proof of this
proposition : St. Paul, in Heb. i. 6. quotes a text
from Moses's song, Deut. xxxii. 43. according to the
LXX. version. It is commonly believed that the
quotation is out of Ps. xcvii. 8. but the very words
Let all the angels of God worship him, are not
found in that Psalm. They are in the Greek of Mo-
ses's song without the least alteration, though it must
be confessed they are not there in the Hebrew text.
I will not dispute, whether the Jews have or have
not lost out of their Bibles this part of the ancient
text since St. Paul's time? They may in their own
vindication shew, that neither have the Samaritans
in their text this quotation, which is extant in the
LXX. It seems therefore that this song of Moses
was copied separately from the rest of the Penta-
teuch, for their convenience who were to learn it by
heart; to which some pious persons added a few
yerses out of the Psalms that concerned the same

46 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

subject. Which copy, with the additions, was trans-
lated by the LXX. because the people had generally
committed this to their memory. What I conclude
from hence is this, that St. Paul made no difficulty
to quote words that were only in the LXX. ver-
sion, because they contained things conformable to
the ancient sentiments of the Jews: and following
the genius and doctrine prevailing in his nation, he
refers these words to the second appearance of the
Messias, when all the angels of God shall pay him
their adoration.

If we read St. Paul's citation, Gal. iii. 8.l6. of
the promise God made to Abraham, that in his seed
all the nations of the earth should he blessed, which
he understands of the promise of the Messias, we
shall quickly judge that he followed herein the
sense of the ancient synagogue. I know the great-
est part of the modern Jews do understand it of
Isaac; as if God had said, All the nations of the
earth shall wish their friends the blessing which
God gave to Isaac. But the ancients understood it
otherwise, as we can judge by the Book of Ecclesi-
asticus, chap, xliv, 25. They referred it to the call-
ing of Gentiles by the Messias, as we see in Sepher
Chasidim, 961. and to the abode of the Sekinah
or Aoyog, as it is explained by R. Joseph de Carnisol
Saare Isider, fol.3. col. 4. et fol. 4. col. 1. And so
St. Peter supposes it to be spoken of the Messias,
Acts iii. 25.

We may make the like consideration on the pro-
mise God made to the people, Deut. xviii. 15. to
raise them up a Prophet like unto Moses: St.
Peter makes use of it as being spoken of the Messi-
as, that he should give a new law, Acts iii. 22. But
the modern Jews do all they can to evade this ap-
plication. Nevertheless, it appears to have been the
idea of the ancient synagogue, because we read that
they speak of the law which was to be given by the
Messias, as of a law, in comparison to which all

against the Unitarians.

other law was to be looked upon as mere vanity.
So Coheleth Rabba in c. ii. and in c. xi.

It is not without some surprise that we read the
application St. Matthew, ii. 15. has made of these
words in Hosea xi. 1 . Out of Egypt have I called
my son; which seem only to be spoken of the
children of Israel, and not of the Messias. And
yet in the book Midrash Tehillim Rabba on Psalm
ii. we may see the Jews referred to the Messias
what is written of the people of Israel, Exod. iv. 22.
Which is an argument that St. Matthew cited this
passage from Hosea, according to the sense the Jews
gave it with respect to the Messias : " The actions
" of the Messias are related in the Law, in the Pro-
" phets, and in the books called Hagiographa [or
" in the Psalms]: in the Law, Exod. iv. 22. Israel
" is my first-born: in the Prophets, Isaiah lii. 13.
" Behold, my servant shall deal prudently : in the
" Psalms, as it is written, The Lord said to my
" Lord, Psalm ex. k"

St. Matthew, viii. 17. refers the words of Isaiah, liii.
4. to the miraculous cures that Christ wrought; and
he follows herein the ancient tradition of the Jews,
which taught that the Messias, spoken of in this
chapter of Isaiah, should pardon sins, and conse-
quently heal their distempers, which were the ef-
fects and punishments of their sins. From hence it
follows, that, according to their tradition, the Mes-
sias should be God, even as Jesus Christ did then
suppose, when he healed the man sick of the
palsy by his own power, Matt. ix. 6. and proves
that he did not blaspheme in forgiving sins, which
the Jews thought it belonged to none but to God
to do.

St. Matthew, i. 23. applies the words of Isaiah,
vii. 14. to Christ's being born of a virgin: Behold, a
virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, &c.
This he did likewise according to the ancient idea
of the Jews, which was not quite lost in the time of

48 The Judgment of the Je wish Church

Adrian the emperor: for R. Akiba, who lived and
died under that reign, makes the following reflection
on this prophecy. He had considered that Isaiah,
in the beginning of the following chapter, received
an order from God to take to him two witnesses,
viz. Uriah the priest, who lived in his time, and
Zechary the son of Berachiah, who lived not (as he
thought) till under the second temple. Upon which
he saith, that God commanded the Prophet to do
thus, to shew, that as what he had foretold concern-
ing Maher-shalal-hash-baz was true by the witness
of Uriah, who saw it accomplished ; so what he had
foretold concerning the conception and delivery of a
virgin must be accomplished under the second tem-
ple by the witness of Zechary, who lived then. See
Gemara. tit. Maccoth. c. 3. fol. 24.

3. We see that Jesus Christ, John iv. 21, &c. al-
ludes tacitly to the prophecy of Malachi, i. 1 1. con-
cerning the sacrifices of the New Testament. This
is a matter at present controverted between the
Christians and the Jews. But Christ delivered the
sense of the synagogue, as it is evident from the
Targum on those words of Malachi, which applies
them to the times of the Messias.

4. One would think it were only by way of si-
militude that Christ applied to himself the history
of the brazen serpent, inlaying, John iii. 14. As
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so
must the Son of man be lifted up. But there ap-
pears to be more in it than so. The ancient Jews
looked upon the brazen serpent as a type of the
Messias ; so we find by their Targum on Numb. xxi.
8. which expounds this serpent which Moses lifted
up, by the Word of the Lord, who is also called God,
Wisd. xvi. 7- compared with chap. xv. 1. though
Philo, whilst he hunts for allegories, gives another
idea of it, De Agric. p. 157.

5. It may also seem to be only by way of allusion
that Christ calls himself the bread that came down

against the Unitarians.

from heaven ; alluding to the manna which came
down from heaven, as we read, Exod. xvi. But he
that will look into the ancient Jewish writers shall
find that herein also our Saviour followed the com-
mon Jewish idea: for Philo, who writ in Egypt
before Jesus Christ began to preach, tells us posi-
tively that the Word or Aoyog was the manna. Lib.
quod Deter, pot. instd. p. 13 7.

St. Paul, Heb. i. 5. cites God's words to David
concerning one that should come out of his loins,
2 Sam. vii. 14. I will be to him a Father, and he
shall be to me a son, as if they had a respect to the
Messias. How could he do thus, when on the one
hand he calleth Jesus Christ holy, undejiled, harm-
less, separate from sinners ; and on the other hand,
in that promise to David, God takes it for granted
that that son of his might be a sinner, and there-
upon threatens in the very next words, 2 Sam. vii.
14. Jf he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with
the rod of men; which suits well with Solomon, but
not at all with the Messias? The reason is, St.
Paul followed the sense of this place which was
commonly received among the Jews, who, as they
refer to the Messias the Psalms lxxii. ex. and exxxii.
where the same ideas occur, so they must have also
referred to the Messias whatever is great in this
prophecy; and to others, whatever therein denotes
human infirmities. And indeed it was not very hard
to give to that oracle a further prospect, viz. to the
Messias; 1st, Because Solomon was made king
during the life of his father; whereas the Son whom
God speaks of was to be born after David's death.
2dly, Because it is spoken of a seed not born from
David, but from David's children. 3dly, Because
the mercy of God was to make the kingdom of
David last for ever; whereas the kingdom of Solo-
mon was divided soon after his death, and but two
parts of twelve were left to Rehoboam his son.

St. Paul, Gal. iv. 29. alludes to the history in Gen.

50 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

xxi. 9. as a type of the persecutions which the Jews
should exercise on the Christians. Whereon does
he build this ? First having proved it his way, that
the Christian Church was typified in Isaac the son
of the free-woman, and Israel according to the flesh
by Ishmael the son of the bond-woman ; and hav-
ing thus brought unbelieving Israel into Ishmael's
place, he proceeds upon the old Jewish notion re-
cited in Baal-Hatturim, that Ishmael should pierce
Isaac with an arrow, which they illustrate by Gen.
xvi. 12. instead whereof the text saith only, that he
laughed at, or mocked Isaac.

We see St. Paul, Rom. x. 6. applies to the Gos-
pel those words of Deut. xxx. 11 — 14, which seem
to be spoken of the Law given by Moses to the
Jews. But then the old synagogue applied these
words of Moses to the times of the Messias, as is
clear from Jonathan's Targum on the place ; which
is enough to justify the use St. Paul makes of the
words.

We read in the song of Zacharias, Luke i. 69. that
these words are referred to the Messias, He hath
exalted the horn of his Anointed. The very same
words are pronounced by Hannah the mother of
Samuel, 1 Sam. ii. 10. where the Targum refers them
in like manner as the sense of the synagogue.

The same Targum understands of the Messias
that passage 2 Sam.xxiii.3; and the LXX. have
the like idea with the Targum, which is a farther
confirmation of the tradition of the synagogue.

It is certain this notion of the Messias was very
common among the Jews; otherwise they would
not have thrust it into their Targums on places
where naturally it ought not to come in. For in-
stance. It is said, 1 Kings iv. 33. that Solomon dis-
coursed of all the trees, from the cedar of Libanus
even to the hyssop that springeth out of' the wall.
Now the remark of the Targum hereupon is this ;
And he prophesied touching the kings of the house

against the Unitarians.

of David, which should rule in this present world,
as also in the world to come of the Messias.

6. We see our Lord Jesus Christ was careful to
instruct the Pharisees of the two different characters
of the coming of the Messias, Luke xvii. 20. Of
which the one was to be obscure, and followed with
the death of the Messias ; the other was to be glo-
rious, and acknowledged by the whole world. Christ
instructed them in this the rather, to remove their
mistakes through which they confounded his two
comings: though in truth they were both of them
confessed by the Jews for some time after Christ's
ascension into heaven.

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

Lastly, we see St. Paul, Rom. x. 18. does refer
the words of Psalm xix. 4. to the preaching of the
Apostles, and saith, Their sound went over all the
earth, and their words to the end of the world.
What would an unbelieving Jew have said to this,
that Paul should apply the Psalmist's words in this
manner? But the Apostle was secure against this or
any other objection from the Jews, if he used the
words in the sense of their synagogue. And that he
did so, there is little reason to doubt. The encomi-
ums which David gave to the law of Moses, they
would most readily apply to the law of the Mes-
sias : and they expected he should have his Apostles
to carry his law throughout the world. To this ex«

52 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

pectation of theirs the Psalmist's words were very
applicable. That the divine Word is called the
Sun, Philo plainly affirms ; and if I understand R.
Tanchum aright, he understands that it was the
Messias that was called the Sun of righteousness,
Mai. iv. 2. St. John saw Christ in that figure of the
sun, and his Apostles as twelve stars ; and that in
heaven, which to him is the state of the Gospel,
Rev. xii. 1.

According to this figure, in this Psalm the Sun of
righteousness is described as a giant, which rejoiceth
to run a race,ver. 5. And here is a description of
his course, together with that of his disciples,
and of the manner by which they made their
voices to be heard. This idea shocked R. Samuel
in a book he writ before his conversion, chap. 18.
which he communicated with a Rabbin of Morocco.
And whoever considers that idea of the writer of
the Rook of Wisdom, xviii. 5. shall find it is no
other than that of this xixth Psalm, mixed a little
with that idea in the Canticles, which the ancient
Jews refer to the Messias, and with that of the song
of Isaiah v. touching the Messias, which served the
Jews for a commentary to understand the Song of
Solomon by.

I could gather a much greater number of remarks
on this head ; but having brought as many here to-
gether as I take to be sufficient for the proving of
what I have said, I think I ought not to enlarge
upon this any further. So I come next to search
out the storehouses, wherein we may find these tra-
ditions of the Jews, which Jesus Christ and his
Apostles made use of, either in explaining or con-
firming the doctrines of the Gospel.

They must be found in the ancient books of the
Jews which remain among us, such as the apocry-
phal books, the books of Philo the Jew, and the
Chaldee paraphrases on the Old Testament. The
authority of all these ought to be well established.

against the Unitarians.

Let us then begin by the apocryphal books, some
of which Mr. N. hath ridiculed very boldly. Then
we shall consider what he has said to Philo, whose
writings Mr. N. hath endeavoured to render useless
in this controversy : how justly, we shall consider
in the next chapters.

CHAP, V.

Of the authority of the apocryphal boohs of the
Old Testament.

ALTHOUGH the Protestants have absolutely
rejected the apocryphal books of the Old Testa-
ment, which the Church of Rome make use of in
controversies, as if they were of the same authority
with the Books of the Law and Prophets ; yet not-
withstanding they keep them as books of a great
antiquity. And we make use of their authority,
not to prove any doctrine which is in dispute, as if
they contained a divine revelation, and a decision
of an inspired writer, but to witness what was the
faith of the Jewish Church in the time when the
authors of those apocryphal books did nourish.
Any body who sees the Socinians making use of
the authorities of Artemas, or of Paulus Samosa-
tenus, to prove that the Christian Church was of
their opinion, must grant the same authority to the
Books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the like,
touching the sentiment of the Jewish Church in
the age of those writers.

Grotius, a great author for the Socinians, was so
well satisfied of the truth of what I advance, that
he thought fit to comment those very apocry-
phal books, and to shew that they followed almost
always the ideas and the very words of the authors
of the Old Testament. But as he was a man of a

e 3

54 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

deep sense, seeing that they might be turned against
the Socinian cause, which he favoured too much,
he did things which he judged fit to make their
authority useless against the Socinians. And first
he advanced without any proof, that those things
which were so like to the ideas of the New Testa-
ment, had been inserted in those books by some
Christians, according to their notions, and not ac-
cording to the notions of the synagogue. Secondly,
he endeavoured to give another sense to the places,
which some Fathers in the second and third century
had quoted from these books to prove the doctrine
of the Trinity, and the Divinity of our Saviour.

Now since the Socinian authors have employed,
against the authority of these apocryphal books,
the very solutions which Grotius made use of to
lessen their authority, it is necessary, being resolved
to quote them for the settling of the Jewish tradi-
tion, to shew how much Grotius, whose steps the
Socinians trod in, was out in his judgment.

1. Then I suppose with Grotius, that those apo-
cryphal books were written by several Jewish au-
thors, many years before Jesus Christ appeared.

The third Book of the Macchabees, which is in-
deed the first, hath been written by a Jew of Egypt,
under Ptolomseus Philopater, that is, about two
hundred years before the birth of our Saviour : it
contains the history of the persecution of the Jews
in Egypt, and was cited by Joseph us in his book
de Macchabasis.

The first Book of Macchabees, as we call it now,
hath been written in Judaea by a Jew, and originally
in Hebrew, which is lost many centuries ago. We
have the translation of it, which hath been quoted
by Josephus, who gives often the same account of
things as we have in that book. It hath been writ-
ten probably an hundred and fifty years before the
birth of our Saviour.

The second Book of Macchabees hath originally

against the Unitarians.

been written in Greek in Egypt, and is but an ex-
tract of the four books of Jason the Grecian, a Jew
of Egypt, who had writ the history of the per-
secutions which the Jews of Palestina suffered
under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes and his
successors.

The Book of Ecclesiasticus hath been written
originally in Hebrew by Jesus the son of Syrac,
about the time of PtolomyPhiladelphus,that is, about
two hundred and eighty years before Jesus Christ,
and was translated into Greek by the grandson of
Jesus the son of Syrac, under Ptolomy Euergetes.
Some dispute if that Ptolomy is the first or the se-
cond, which is not very material, since there is but
a difference of one hundred years. R. Azaria de
Rubeis in his book Meor Enaiim, chap. xxii. wit-
nesseth that Ecclesiasticus is not rejected now by
the Jews, but is received among them with an una-
nimous consent; and David Ganz saith that they
put it in old times among the D'QITD, that is, the
Hagiographes. So in his Tsemac David, ad an. 3448.

The Book of Wisdom according to Grotius's
judgment is more ancient, having been written in
Hebrew under Simon the high priest, who flourish-
ed under Ptolomeus Lagus. Grotius thinks that
the Greek translation we have of that book was
made by some Christian, who hath foisted into it
many things which belong more to a Christian
writer than a Jew. He raises such an accusation
against the translator of Ecclesiasticus. But it is
very easy to confute such a bold conjecture : first,
because that book was in Chaldaic among the Jews
till the thirteenth century, as we see by Ramban in
his Preface upon the Pentateuch, and they never
objected such an interpolation, but looked upon it
as a book that was worthy of Salomon, and proba-
bly his work. It was the judgment of R. Azarias
de Rubeis, in the last century, Imre bina, chap. 57«

e 4

56 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

The Epistle of Baruch and of Jeremy seems to
Grotius to be the writing of a pious Jew, who had
a mind to exhort his people to avoid idolatry. And
it is very probable that it was penned under the
persecutions of Antiochus, when it was not safe for
any to write in favour of the Jewish religion under
his own name.

The Book of Tobit seems to have been writ
originally in Chaldaic, and was among the Jews in
St. Jerome's time, who knowing not the Chaldaic
tongue, called for a Jew to his assistance to render
it into Hebrew, that so he might render it into
Latin, as he saith in his Preface to Chromatids and
Heliodorus. Grotius supposes the book to be very
ancient ; others believe, but without any ground,
that it was translated into Greek by the Septuagint ;
so that it would have been writ more than two
hundred and fifty years before Jesus Christ. What-
soever conjecture we may form upon the antiquity
of it, it is certain it was in great esteem among
the Christians in the second century, since we see
that Clemens Alexandrinus and Irenaeus have fol-
lowed his fancy of seven created angels about the
throne of God, and took that doctrine for a truth,
though we see no such idea among the Jews, who
have the translation of that book, but do not now
regard it very much.

Grotius thinks that the Book of Judith contains
not a true history, but an ingenious comment of
the author, who lived under Antiochus Epiphanes,
before the profanation of the temple by that tyrant,
to exhort the Jewish nation to expect a wonderful
deliverance from such a tyranny, which they groan-
ed under : and we see no reason to discard such a
conjecture, although R. Azarias thinks, Imbre bina,
chap. li. that this history was alluded to in the Book
of Esdras, chap. iv. 15. He judges the same of the
additions to the Book of Daniel, viz. the prayer of

against the Unitarians.

Azaria, the Song of the Three Children in the Fur-
nace, and of the History of Susanna, he looks upon
them as written by some Hellenist Jew.

So the additions to the Book of Esther, he judges
to be the work of some Hellenist, who invented the
story, which were afterwards admitted among the
holy writings, because they were pious, and had
nothing which could be looked upon as contrary to
the Jewish religion.

Grotius saith nothing of the third and fourth of
Esdras, and hath not judged them fit to be com-
mented, probably because they are not in the Canon
of the Church of Rome. And indeed the fourth is
only extant in Latin. But after all, a man must have
viewed the third with very little judgment, who can-
not perceive, first, that it is certainly the work of
an ancient Jew before Jesus Christ's time ; secondly,
that it was among the Jews as a book of great au-
thority: Josephus, p. 362. follows the authority
of that third Book of Esdras, in the history of
Zorobabel.

We have no ancienter writers than Clemens Ale-
xandrinus, St. Cyprian, and St. Ambrose, who have
quoted the fourth Book of Esdras, so I am resolved
not to make any use of it.

The antiquity and the Jewish origin of all these
books that we call apocryphal, being so settled, there
remains nothing to be done but to consider what
is the ground of the conjecture of Grotius, who pro-
nounces boldly in his Preface to the Book of Wis-
dom : Eum librum nactus Christianus aliquis Greece
non indoctus in Gracum vertit, libero nee ineleganti
dicendi genere, et Christiana qu&dam commodis lo-
cis addidit, quod et libro Syracidce quern disci evenit,
sed in Latino huic magis quam in Grccco, non quod
nesciam post Esdram explicatius proponi ccepisse
patient iam piorum, judicium universale, vitam &ter-
nam, supplicia gehenncr, sed quia locutiones quce-

58 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

dam magis Evangelhim sapiunt quam vetustiora
tempora.

But to speak my mind plainly, this conjecture of
Grotius is absolutely false, and without any ground.
1. Whence had he this particular account of the
Jewish faith and religion in the time of Esdras, so
as to be able to judge by it, whether a book had or
had not been written long after Esdras, and to shew
that the notions of these books are clearer than the
ideas which were among the Jews before Jesus
Christ? He goes only upon this principle, that the
Jews since they were under the Greek empire, be-
gan to be more acquainted with the ideas of eternal
life, and of eternal punishment, and of the last
judgment, than they were before, which is the prin-
ciple of Socinus and of his followers, but that
Christians had much clearer ideas of those notions
than the Jews had since Esdras's time.

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

3dly. To suppose that a Christian hath been the
author of the translation of some of those books, is
a thing advanced with great absurdity, since there
was a translation of these books quoted by Philo
and by St. Paul in his Epistles. Now I would ask
Grotius how he can prove that there was a second

against the Unitarians.

version of the Book of Wisdom made by a Christian
after Jesus Christ ? what was the need of it, since
there was one before Jesus Christ? And if any
Christian did undertake such a new one without
necessity, how came it to pass that it was received
instead of the version which was in use amongst
the Jews, and was added to the books of Scripture,
and of the copies which were in the hands of the
Christians ?

I need not urge many other absurdities against
Grotius's conjecture. I take notice only, 1. That
Grotius was far from ridiculing the Book of Wis-
dom, as the Socinian author of the book against
Dr. Bull hath done in his judgment of the Fathers.

2dly. That the ridiculing of such an author as
the Book of Wisdom sheweth very little judgment in
Mr. N. He had better have made use of the glosses
of Grotius, than to venture upon such rough han-
dling of an author quoted by St. Paul, whose quot-
ing him giveth him more credit than he can lose
by a thousand censures of a man who writes so
injudiciously.

3dly. That the very place which Mr. N. ridicules
is so manifestly taken from the Psalm xix. which
contains a prophecy touching the Messias, and from
the song of Isaiah, chap. v. that whosoever thinks
seriously upon such a ridiculing of the Book of
Wisdom made by Mr. N. cannot but have a mean
notion of his sense of religion.

After all, let Mr. N. do what he can with the
conjecture of Grotius, I am very little concerned in
his judgment ; 1st, Because the matter which we are
to handle is not the matter which Grotius suspects
to have been foisted in by some Christian inter-
preter. 2clly, Because I am resolved to make use
in this controversy only of those places of the apo-
cryphal books in which they express the sense of
the old synagogue before Jesus Christ, as I shall
justify they have done, by the consent of the same

6o The Judgment of the Jewish Church

synagogue after Jesus Christ ; and nobody can
suspect with any probability of the old synagogue
that they have borrowed the ideas of the Christians,
and have inserted them in their ancient books, writ-
ten so Jong a time before Jesus Christ's nativity.

CHAP. VI.

That the works which go under the name of Philo
the Jew are truly his ; and that he writ them
a long ivhile before the time of Christ's preach-
ing the Gospel ; and that it does not appear in
any of his works that he had ever heard of
Christ, or of the Christian religion.

To shew the judgment of the ancient synagogue
in the points controverted between us and the
Unitarians, we make great use of the writings of
Philo the Jew ; which if they are his, it cannot be
denied but that they do put this matter out of
question. Our adversaries therefore, as it greatly
concerns them, do deny that those works which
bear his name, were ever written by Philo the
Jew.

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

It is easy to refute this suggestion of theirs. And
yet I cannot but acknowledge it has some kind of
colour, from that which we read in Eusebius and
Jerome, who tell us, that Philo has given a cha-
racter of the apostolic Christians in his book de
Therapeutis : to which some have added, that at his
second coming to Rome under Claudius, to be am-

against the Unitarians.

bassador at his court, as he was before at Caligula's,
he then became acquainted with St. Peter the Apostle
of Christ.

I am therefore to prove these propositions :

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

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

3. That there is no foundation for what Eusebius
says, and also St. Jerome, who copied from Euse-
bius, concerning Philo' s account of a sort of Chris-
tians, whom he describes under the name of The-
rapeutse.

4. That the history of the conversation between
St. Peter and Philo is a ridiculous fable, which Eu-
sebius took upon hearsay, from he knew not whom,
or from an author whom he did not think fit to
name, for fear it should give no credit to his story.

The first proposition, namely, that these pieces
were written by one that was a Jew by religion, is
such that one cannot doubt of it, if he do but con^
sider these following observations :

1. That in all these pieces of Philo, wherever he
has occasion to make use of authority, he fetches
it only out of the Jewish Scriptures. And those are
the only Scriptures that he takes upon him to ex-
plain. He quotes Moses, (whom he usually calls
the lawgiver,) as we do the sayings of our Lord
Jesus Christ. And sometimes, though very rarely,
he quotes other writings of the Old Testament. But
I dare affirm, that in all his treatises he cites not
one passage from the New Testament, which thing
alone is sufficient to prove that he was no Christian.
For the first Christians used to cite the New Testa-

62 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

ment with as much care, and even affectation, as the
Jews did the Old.

But, 2dly, one had need have an imagination as
strong as Mr. N. to fancy that a Christian author in
the end of the second century could write, as Philo
does, upon most part of the books of Moses with-
out mixing some touches at least at the Christian
religion. And yet there is no such thing in all
Philo's works. He makes it his business to make
the Jews understand their Law, according to their
Midrashim, in an allegorical way, and to teach the
heathens that their prejudices against the Law of
Moses were unjust, and that they ought to acknow-
ledge the divinity of this Law, which he explained
to them. This is the end or design of this author
in all his works.

3dly. It appears that he, according to the opinion
of the Jewish nation, did expect the Messias as a
great temporal king yet to come, as is evident from
the interpretation he gives of Balaam's prophecy
touching the Messias in his book de Prsenaiis,

4thly. In all his works there is nothing peculiar
to Christ that Mr. N. can allege, except in what is
written of the Aoyo$9 which is the very thing in dis-
pute between us and him ; but even that doth not
hinder, but that the Jews themselves finding every
thing in Philo so agreeable to the notions that their
ancestors had in his age, do own them to be the
writings of a Jew, and of Philo in particular. As
we see in Manasseh ben Israel, who in many places
in Exod. alleges his authority, and shews that his opinions
p* 137, do generally agree with those of their most ancient
authors.

The second thing I have to shew is, that it ap-
pears from the books themselves and otherwise, that
many of them were composed before Jesus Christ
began to preach the Gospel. Christ began to preach

against the Unitarians.

in Palestine in the year of the building of Rome 783.
But the author of the book, Quod omnis probus sit
liber, which has always been accounted undoubt-
edly Philo's, does note, that the obstinate resistance
of those of Xanthus in Lycia against M. Brutus,
was an affair fresh in memory, as having happened,
ov Trpo 7rokXov, not much before the writing of that
book. Now this which he tells us of the Xanthi-
ans, happened not long after the death of Julius
Caesar, who was killed on the thirteenth of March
in the year of Rome 7095 for Brutus himself was
killed at the time of the battle of Philippi, which
was in autumn in the year 712- Therefore Philo
could not say, it happened not long since, if he writ
so long after as in the year urb. con. 783, when
Christ began to preach ; for according to the com-
mon manner of speaking, no man could say a thing-
happened not long since, that happened before the
remembrance of any man then living.

But if that book was writ before Christ began to
preach the Gospel, with much more reason may the
same be said of all those books which we make use
of against the Unitarians : for according to the or-
der, in which these books are ranked by Eusebius,
this book, Quod omnis probus sit liber, was one
of the last that Philo writ. The first that Eusebius
names were the three books of allegories ; after
which he goes on to the books of questions and
answers upon Genesis and upon Exodus ; he tells
us besides, that Philo took pains to examine parti-
cular difficulties which might arise from several
histories in those books ; and names the several
books that Philo writ of this sort. This order of
his books was observed in the manuscripts, which
Eusebius hath exactly followed ; and it is agreea-
ble enough to the Jewish method of handling the
Scripture by way of questions and answers, which is
still the title of many Jewish books of this nature.

We may gather the same truth from another part

64 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

of Philo, who tells us expressly that he studied the
Scriptures prima estate, when he was young ; and
he complains of his having heen called afterwards
to public business ; and that he had not now leisure
to attend to the study of the Scriptures^ as formerly
[Lib. de Leg. spec. p. 599.] Therefore all his books
before this were written in his younger days, and
especially his three books of allegories, which Eu-
sebius placeth first before any of the rest.

Josephus in his Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 10. assures us,
that Philo was the chief and most considerable of
the Jews employed by those of Alexandria in the
embassy to Caligula. This man, saith he, eminent
among those of his nation, appeared before Cali-
gula's death, which was A. U. C. 793, that is to say,
in the fortieth year of our Lord. Now Philo, in
the history of his legation to Caligula, says of him-
self, that he was at that time all gray with age, that
is, seventy years old, according to the Jewish no-
tion of a man with gray hair, Pirke Avoth. c. 5.
Suppose then that he was seventy years old when
he appeared before Caligula, it follows that he was
born in the year of Rome ?23. Suppose also that
he began to write at thirty years old, it will fall in
with the year of Rome 753, that is to say, thirty
years before Christ preached in Judaea. For Jesus
Christ began not to preach till the year of Rome
783.

The third assertion is as easy to be made good.
For though Baronius makes much of that fancy of
Eusebius, who, to prove the antiquity of monastic
life, held that Philo's Therapeutae were Christians ;
and who was herein followed by St. Hierom with-
out examination ; yet others of the most learned
Papists, as particularly Lucas Holstenius and Hen.
Valesius, have confessed, that herein Eusebius was
mistaken. Indeed one needs only read the book de
Therapeutis itself, or even the first period of it, to
be convinced that those whom Philo there describes,

against the Unitarians.

were the Jews of the Essen sect, and the Essens
were, as Josephus plainly shews in the account he
gives of them, as much Jews by religion, as the
Pharisees were. Photius, who was a better critic
than Eusebius, has very well corrected his mistake,
and shewn, that the book De Therapeutis describes
the life of a sect of the Jews, and not of the Chris-
tians. It is a surprising thing that Eusebius should
commit such a mistake, because he himself in his
books De Praep. Evang. does cite a long passage
from Porphyry taken out of Josephus, in the tran-
scribing whereof Eusebius could not but see many
things related of the Essens, such as Philo described
in his account of the Therapeutee.

But to this it maybe objected ; Does not Photius
report that Philo being at Rome in Claudius's time,
met with St. Peter there, and contracted a friend-
ship with him, which occasioned his writing that
book De Therapeutis, as of the disciples of St. Mark,
who was himself the disciple of St. Peter? Doth not
Eusebius fix this meeting of Philo with St. Peter to
the reign of Claudius, when he saith he read in full
senate his book, entitled, The Virtues of Caius Ca-
ligula ; (though it was the scope of that book to
shew the impiety of that monster that would be
worshipped as a God;) for which Philo was so much
admired, that not only this, but his other pieces
were ordered to be put into the public library, as
pieces of such great value, that they were worthy
to be preserved for ever ?

I know all this, and do believe that Eusebius did
not invent all this history. But if there be any
truth in it, this might be said of those books of
Philo only, which he writ against Flaccus, (who
died A. D. 38,) and the account of his embassy to
Caius, with three other treatises, containing the suf-
ferings of the Jews under Caius, now lost, that
were put in the public library. For I cannot ima-
gine, that the Roman senate should lay up in their

66 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

public archives his other pieces, which concerned
only the laws of the Jews.

But as for that which he tells us, that Philo saw
St. Peter at Rome, and there made an acquaintance
with him, it is a mere dream of Eusebius, who fan-
cying that his book De Therapeutis was written in
praise of the first Christians of Alexandria, and that
they were disciples of St. Mark, did go on to ima-
gine, that he might possibly have had some conver-
sation with St. Peter and St. Mark, and so came to
write in commendation of these first Christians.
This meeting of St. Peter and Philo at Rome, in
Claudius's time, (howsoever Eusebius fancied it as
a thing that would give some colour to his opinion
concerning the Therapeutae,) could not be true, be-
cause, as it appears by the writings of the New Tes-
tament, St. Peter was so far from being at Rome in
the forty-second year of our Lord, that is, in the
second year of Claudius, who succeeded Caligula,
that he did not leave Judsea or Syria till after the
death of Agrippa, (the same that imprisoned St.
Peter,) who died in the fourth of Claudius. All the
learned now-a-days know that St. Peter came not
to Rome before the first year of Nero, (if he came
thither so early.) i. e. A. D. 55, at which time it is
necessary that Philo, who was all gray A. D. 40,
and consequently was then about seventy years of
age, should be full eighty-five years old, which is
an age very unfit for travel or business, or even for
living so far from one's own home, as Rome was
from Alexandria.

This shews what credit may be given to this re-
port in Photius, that Philo was a Christian, but
afterward turned apostate. So it is, all errors are
fruitful, and from one fable there uses to arise many
more.

As for Eusebius, he is the less to be excused for
writing what he doth write of St. Mark's Gospel,
which he saith was first approved by St, Peter at

against the Unitarians.

this time of his being at Rome, and then made use chap.
of by St. Mark at Alexandria for the converting of VL
those Jews whom Philo describes under the name
of Therapeutse. When as Eusebius sheweth us
himself elsewhere in his history, he had so great an
authority as that of Irenseus to assure him, that St.
Mark's Gospel was not written till after St. Peter's
death. [Euseb. Hist. v. 8.] All that can be said
for him is only this, that when he was writing this
passage of Philo, he did not think of what he had
writ before. Indeed if he had thought of it, he had
not been that man we take him for, if he had suf-
fered it to pass, as it stands now in his history.

I thought it was proper to enter into this disqui-
sition concerning the writings of Philo, and the
time when they were written, that I might leave
no doubt in the minds of my readers, concerning
the authority of Philo, whom I intend to produce
as an authentic testimony of the opinions of the
synagogue before our Lord, in the matters disputed
between us and the Unitarians.

Let us proceed now to the Chaldee paraphrases.

CHAP. VII.

Of the authority and antiquity of the Chaldee
paraphrases.

I SHALL have occasion, in many points, to cite the
paraphrases of the Jews upon the books of the Old
Testament ; and perhaps it may appear strange to
some, that I oftentimes cite them without distin-
guishing between those which pass for ancient, and
those which are reputed by the critics altogether
modern. Therefore I think myself obliged once
for all to give the reasons of my doing thus, and to
satisfy my reader thereupon.

F 2

68 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. I shall not spend time to discover the original
vn* of these paraphrases. It is enough to mind the

reader, that the Jews having almost forgot their
Hebrew in the Babylonian captivity, it was needful
for the people's understanding the holy Scriptures,
which were read in the synagogue every sabbath
day, that some persons skilful both in the Hebrew
and Chaldee should explain to the people every
verse in Chaldee, after they had read it to them in
Hebrew. The Jews make this practice as ancient
as the times of their return from the Babylonian
captivity, Nehem. viii. 8. as one may see in the
Talmud, title Nedarim, ch. 4.

The Jews all agree, that this way of translating
the Scriptures was made by word of mouth only
for a long time. But it is hard to conceive that
they who interpreted in that manner did write no-
thing for the use of posterity. It seems much more
probable to believe, that from time to time those
interpreters writ something, especially on those
places which were most difficult, or least under-
stood.

Magii. c. 3. The first, according to the Jewish writers, who
attempted to put in writing his Chaldee version of
the Prophets first and last according to the Jewish
distinction, (except Daniel,) or rather, who inter-
preted the whole text in order, was Jonathan the
son of Uzziel ; who also not contenting himself al-
ways to render the Hebrew, word for word, into
Chaldee, does often mix the traditional explication
of the difficultest prophecies with his own single
translation.

The Jews seem to agree that this Jonathan lived
a hundred years before the destruction of Jeru-
salem; that is to say, he lived in the reign of Herod
the Great, about thirty years before the birth of
our Lord. And some critics believe our Saviour
does cite his Chaldee paraphrase Luke iv. 18. in
quoting the text Isa. lxi. 1. Thus much may at

against the Unitarians,

least be said for it, that all that which is there cited chap.
does agree better with his Targum than with the VIL
original text.

Onkelos, a proselyte, was he, according to their
common account, who turned the five books of
Moses into Chaldee. This work is rather a mere
translation only, than a paraphrase ; and yet it must
be allowed, that in divers places he does not endea-
vour so much to give us the text word for word, as
to clear up the sense of certain places, which other-
wise could not well be understood by the people.
This Onkelos, according to the common opinion of
the Jews, saw Jonathan, and lived in the time of
that ancient Gamaliel, who was master to the Apo-
stle St. Paul, as some would have it.

We find in Megillah, c. 1. that he composed his
Targum under the conduct of R. Eliezer and of
R. Josua, after the year of our Lord 70, and that
he died in the year of our Lord 108, and that his
Targum was immediately after made of a public
use among the Jews; what other Targums there
were on the five books of Moses having almost
wholly lost their credit and authority.

As to the other sacred books which the Jews
call Cetouvim, or Hagiographes ; they ascribe the
Targums of the Psalms, the Proverbs, and Job, to
R. Joseph Csecus, and affirm that he lived a long
time after Onkelos. And for the Targums of the
other books, they look on them as works of anony-
mous authors. However the most part of these
Targums have been printed under the name of Jo-
nathan, as if he had been the author of them all.

There are moreover some scraps of a paraphrase
upon the five books of Moses, which is called the
Jerusalem Targum ; and there is another that bears
the name of Jonathan upon the Pentateuch, and
which some learned Jews have said to be his. As
doth R. Azaria (Imrebinah, c. 25.) and the author
of the Chain of Tradition, p. 28. after R. Menahem

F 3

70 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, de Rekanati, who cites it under the name of Jona-

_than, following some ancient MSS. These Targums

ordinarily exceed the bounds of a paraphrase, and
enter into explications, some of which are strange
enough, and appear to be the work of divers com-
mentators, who among some good things have very
often mixed their own idle fancies and dreams.

Beckius, nineteen years ago, published a para-
phrase on the two books of Chronicles, of which
also there is a MS. at Cambridge. This deserves
almost the same character with these paraphrases I
spoke of last. For the author of this, as well as
those before mentioned, does often intermingle such
explications as taste of the commentator, with those
which appear to have been taken from the ancient
Perushim, or explications of the most eminent au-
thors of the synagogue. A man must be mighty
credulous, if he give credit to all the fables which
the Jews bring in their Talmud to extol the au-
thority of Jonathan's Targum ; and he must have
read these pieces with very little attention or judg-
ment, if he maintain that they are entirely and
throughout the works of the authors whose names
they bear, or that they are of the same antiquity in
respect of all their parts.

Onkelos is so even and natural, that, as it seems,
nothing, or very little, has been added to him ; and
he has been in so great esteem among the Jews,
that they have commonly inserted his version after
the text of Moses, verse for verse, in the ancient
manuscripts of the Pentateuch. And from thence
we may judge if there is any ground for the con-
jecture of some Jews, who would persuade us that
it is only an abridgment of the Targum of Jonathan
upon the Pentateuch. Certainly Jonathan's Targum
upon the Pentateuch must be of a very dubious ori-
gin, since we see that the Zohar cites from it the
first words which are not to be found in it, but in
the Targum of Jerusalem, (fol. 79. col. 1. 1. 17.)

against the Unitarians.

It is uncertain if the Targum of Jerusalem hath chap.

VII

been a continued Targum, or only the notes of

some learned Jew upon the margin of the Penta-
teuch, or an abridgment of Onkelos ; for it hath a
mixture of Chaldaic, Greek, Latin, and Persian
words, which sheweth that it hath been written in
the latter times, according to the judgment of R.
Elias Levita.

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

As to the Targums on all the other holy books
which the Jews call the first Prophets, it is visible
that all the parts of them are not equally ancient.
Those which we have on Joshua and Judges are
simple enough, and literal. That on Ruth is full of
Talmudical ideas. The same judgment may be
made of those on the two books of Samuel. Those
which we have on the two books of Kings are a
little freer from additions. But that on Esther is
rather a commentary, that collects several opinions
upon difficult places, than a paraphrase. In that on
Job attributed to R. Joseph in the Jews' edition at
Venice in folio, anno 1515, there are divers Tar-
gums cited in express terms, as there are also in the
Targum on the Psalms, which bears the name of
R. Joseph in the aforesaid edition of Venice. One
may also observe many additions in the Targums
on the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, but especially in
that upon the Canticle, all which have been pub-
lished under the name of R. Joseph. I have said
almost as much of that on the two books of Chro-
nicles, which Beckius published about eighteen or
nineteen years ago.

F 4

72 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. This being so, one may very well ask, with what
justice do you ascribe these books to those, who, as
the Jews now say, were the authors of them ? when
by the Jews' own confession, Onkelos on the five
books of Moses is perhaps the only translator in
whom you find none of these marks of corruption,
which you acknowledge in the other Targums you
quote. For the other Targums, it may be said,
that we ought to leave them out of the dispute:
unless we would impose the new sentiments of the
Jews that lived long after Christ's time, under the
pretence of producing the opinions of the ancient
synagogue before Jesus Christ. One may insist
upon it that we are to quote the books of Onkelos
only, and lay the other aside as books of no author-
ity, since we do confess, that they are full of addi-
tions, in which there are many fables and visions
borrowed from the Talmudical Jews.

I might hope to satisfy any reasonable reader,
that sticks at this difficulty, by telling him, first, in
few words, that I will scarce ever cite any of these
Targums, but when they say the same thing that
Onkelos doth ; and, secondly, that these, as well as
Onkelos, are owned by the Jews. And it cannot
with any colour of reason be imagined, that the
Jews since Christ's time have adopted books con-
trary to their religion, and used them in their com-
mon reading, as true versions of the Law and the
Prophets. It is certain that the Jews many centu-
ries ago have taken them for such. And therefore
these books, in whatsoever time they were written,
are sufficient testimonies of the opinions of the
synagogue.

But I have something more considerable to offer
for the establishing of the authority of these para-
phrases, as well as of that of Onkelos, in our dispute
with our Unitarians, against whom we shall have
occasion to make use of the testimony of these
paraphrases. For this, one needs only examine

against the Unitarians.

these paraphrases with an ordinary attention. I de- chap.
sire therefore the reader to consider, VIL

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

2dly. We see in the Misnah a clear mention made
of some Targums upon the Law and the first Pro-
phets, Megillah, cap. 4. sect. 9, 10. which must be
Onkelos and Jonathan.

3dly. We read in the Gemarah of Sabbath, cap.
l6. fol. 115. col. 1. an account of the Targum upon
Job which Raban Gamaliel (the grandfather to R.
Judah, who compiled the Misnah) had read. Now
if the paraphrase on the books of Job was in com-
mon use so anciently; who can doubt, but that
they had the like versions also on the books of
Moses and on the Prophets ? Nay, we see that Jesus
Christ upon the cross cites the 22d Psalm accord-
ing to the Chaldee paraphrase, and not according
to the Hebrew. This he did, that he might be
understood by them that were present at that time;
from whence it follows that the Jews in Judsea had
a paraphrase of the Book of Psalms, and that that
paraphrase was already received among them, be-
fore the time of our blessed Saviour.

I know some critics will not allow the Misnah
which speaks of the Targums to be so ancient as
I do suppose it to be. Their great reason is, that
this book is cited by none of the Fathers who lived
just after it was written, and that it is mentioned
by nobody before Justinian the Emperor's time.
But this objection proceeds only from an oversight
of these critics, who have not observed, that though
I should grant what they suppose to be true, it
would not weaken the authority of the Misnah,

74 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, when the author of the Misnah does witness the
VIL antiquity of the Targums ; because the Misnah is
not a book of a common form, but a collection of
many old decisions, as the book of Justinian, which
is called Digestum, which is not Justinian's work,
but his collection ; or as the book of Gratian, which
is called Decretum, which is nothing but the com-
pilation of canons, or decisions of Fathers, who
lived six or seven hundred years before Gratian.
That hath been judiciously remarked by Paul Arch-
bishop of Burgos in the preface to his Scrutinium,
and in this judgment he follows Maimonides in his
preface upon his Jad Kazaka. And indeed we
must observe, that almost all the famous Rabbins
who are mentioned in the Misnah are the very men

Com. on wno are mentioned by St. Jerome as the great

isa.viii. H. authors of the Judaic traditions.

If the learned do not like the conjecture of R.
Elias Levita upon the Targum of Jerusalem, but
will have it to be the rest of an entire work upon
the Pentateuch ; let them examine how it came to
pass that the Jerusalem paraphrase on the Penta-
teuch is almost all lost ; so that there remain only
some few remainders of it here and there on some
texts ; and then they will find that perhaps it is not
lost, but that it subsists in a great measure in that
which is under Jonathan's name on the Pentateuch.
Whence it is, probably, that in some MSS. it bears
the name of the Targum of Jerusalem, and in
others the name of Jonathan's Targum : it is easy
to judge how this came to pass. The Jerusalem
Targum differed from that of Jonathan but in some
places ; or perhaps it was the very Targum of Jo-
nathan, which was augmented from time to time by
divers explications. Then, when the Jews came to
make their paraphrase to be no longer than their
text, that they might have the text and the para-
phrase both together in their Bibles, they did not
give themselves the trouble to transcribe the Jeru-

against the Unitarians.

salem paraphrase all at length; but they contented chap.
themselves with transcribing those parts where it VIL
appeared to have some difference from that of Jo-
nathan ; and this they did after so scrupulous a
manner, that they transcribed the passages of the
Jerusalem Targum that agree in the sense, and dif-
fer only in the words, as well as those that have a
different sense from that of Jonathan.

I know very well that the Jews speak of several
paraphrases, besides that of Jonathan on the Pro-
phets, and that of Onkelos on the books of Moses.
As for instance, they speak of a Targum of R. Jo-
seph, who, they say, has translated the books of the
Prophets.

But, as to this, it ought to be considered, 1. That
it was the Jews' custom to teach their scholars these
paraphrases, not from a book, but from their me-
mory, and by heart ; and so the scholars might
very well ascribe to their masters that which they
had learnt from their mouths, and their verbal in-
structions, as well as if they had been delivered to
them in writing. 2. That the same places, which
are quoted from the paraphrase of R. Joseph on
some books of the Prophets, are to be found in ex-
press terms in Jonathan's paraphrase, which the
Jews esteem more ancient than Onkelos who writ
on the Law. 3. R. Joseph, whom they quote, does
himself cite the Chaldee paraphrase, as being of
authority in his time, and therefore it was not his
work. And this appears from his confession, that
he could never have understood the words of Isa.
viii. 6. without the help of the Chaldee paraphrase,
Gemara, ch. xi. tit. Sanhedr. fol. 95.

But notwithstanding the antiquity of these para-
phrases, I own they contain some additions that are
very new, which shew, that after they were written,
they were in such places enlarged with the glosses
of doctors that applied themselves to the study of

7 6 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, the Law, and took pains to shew how one part of it
VIL depended upon another; of which we find nothing
in Onkelos, which is almost a verbal translation of
the Hebrew text into Chaldee. And thus, I. we find
in many places the connection of one history with
another, which is very often the imagination of a
Rabbin who fancied what he pleased, and fathered
it upon Moses. 2. We find explications in these
later Targums different from the former ones, yet
added to the former with an impudence not to be
endured; and this in several places. 3. We there
find long narrations, which have no other foundation
than their method of explaining the Scriptures by
the way of Notarikon, (as they call it,) as where we
read of the five sins of Esau, which he committed
on the same day in which he sold his birthright to
Jacob; and in pursuance of their manner of ex-
plaining Scripture by Gematria, of which Ritangel
on Jetzira has given some examples, p. 31, 32, 33.

But all this makes nothing against the authority
of those places in the paraphrase, where they do
little more than render the text out of Hebrew into
Chaldee. In them there was no occasion to shew
any more than the sense of the words, such as the
paraphrasts had received by tradition from their
forefathers. Whereas the authors of those additions
thereby made a shew of learning out of the com-
mon road, and gave themselves the pleasure to see
their own fictions come into such credit, that they
were received as the oracles of God. But besides all
that, we must take notice, that as on one hand
those Targums have been enlarged by so many ad-
ditions, so on the other hand they have been altered
in many places, and new ideas substituted to the
old. To shew the alteration which was made in
those Targums by the modern Jews, we can remark
a thing which hath been often taken notice of by
Buxtorf in his Lexicon Talmud, viz. that there are

against the Unitarians. 77

many places cited from those Targums five hundred chap.
years ago by the author of Arouk, that are not to _
be found in them as they are now in print. So we
can prove clearly that new ideas have been put in
instead of the old, chiefly upon the points contro-
verted between the Jews and the Christians. For in
many places where St. Jerome in his comments
upon the Prophets brings the common explication
of the Jews as agreeing with the explication of the
Christians, we find the Targum brings in an expli-
cation quite different from what it ought to have
been according to St. Jerome's account.

It appears by this, that the Jews have done in
their books the same things which the Papists have
done in the books of the Fathers. They have
added many things to help their cause, and they
have cut out many places which might have done
great service to the truth.

As for the additions, I will scarce cite any of
them, but when it is evident that they speak the
sense of the ancients : and truly, whatever one may
say of the corruptions of these Jewish paraphrases,
I will maintain that it is as easy for an attentive
reader to distinguish these corruptions from the an-
cient text, (which it seems Arias Montanus had a
design to do in a particular treatise,) as it is for one
that looks on an old pot or kettle, to tell where the
tinker has been at work, and to distinguish his
clouts from the original metal. The ancient pieces
have a sort of simplicity that makes them to be va-
lued, and which easily shews their antiquity. The
additions are the rambling fancies of bold commen-
tators, which they devised in later times as occasion
required, and thrust them upon the ancient para-
phrasts who lived in those times when there were no
such occasions, nor could they foresee that there
would be any in after-times.

As for example, we do not find that the Jews
before Christ's time ever spoke of two Messias ; the

78 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, one the son of David^ who was to reign gloriously;

_ VIL the other a suffering Messias, the son of Joseph, of
the tribe of Ephraim. The reason is plain, for they
had no occasion for that fancy of a suffering Mes-
sias. That arose upon their disputes with the Chris-
tians, who proved that the sufferings of Christ were
no other than what the Messias was to suffer accord-
ing to the prophecies of the Scripture. At first the
Jews tried other ways to avoid the force of these
prophecies : but when no other would do, they came
to this, to devise another Messias the son of Joseph,
and to attribute to him the sufferings which the
Scripture attributes to the Messias the son of David.

In a word, all these conceits, of which the great-
est part of these additions do consist, do so evi-
dently demonstrate their novelty, that when one is
acquainted with a little of the history of the world,
as well as that of the Jews, it is scarce possible that
he should take them for the text of Jonathan, or of
the ancient paraphrasts. Besides all this, in the
modern paraphrases themselves we find very often
these words, another Tar gum, and sometimes yet
another Targum; which shews that the following
words are not the ancient Targum, but are the ad-
ditions of some modern authors, whom the copiers
of the paraphrasts have joined as a new light to the
ancient.

Whether the Jews' inserting such things into
their paraphrases has been out of fondness for these
discoveries which appeared to them new; or whe-
ther they have found it turn to account to insert
these additions in the body of their ancient para-
phrases, thereby to enhance the value of them ; or
whether they thought, by publishing them under
the names of those ancient commentators whose
authority is so venerable, to wrest from the Christi-
ans all the advantages they might draw from any
thing in their paraphrases, the things that they
added being oftentimes contrary to what the an-

against the Unitarians .

cients did teach : is a secret anions the Jews, but a ch ap.

• • VII
secret of little worth, since the providence of God

has preserved the apocryphal books and the books
of Philo, which can give us so much light into the
knowledge of what is ancient and what is modern
in these paraphrases.

I will add nothing upon this matter but this,
that we see in the most ancient books of the Jews,
as in the books called Rabboth, Mechista, and in
their old Midrashim, almost all composed before the
seventh century, and in the Talmud of Babylon, the
same ideas and the same doctrine which we meet
withal in the apocryphal books and in Philo's
writings. And those ideas have been constantly
followed by the most considerable part of the Jews,
those very men who have their name from their
constant sticking to the old tradition of their fore-
fathers.

CHAP. VIII.

That the authors of the apocryphal boohs did ac-
knowledge a Plurality, and a Trinity in the Divine
nature.

Having finished our general reflections on the
traditional sense of the Scriptures, which was re-
ceived among the Jews before the time of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and of the books wherein we can
find such a tradition, it is time for us to come now
to the chief matter we designed to treat of. The
question is, whether the Jews before Christ's time
had any notion of a Trinity, or not? For the So-
cinians would make us believe, that Justin Martyr,
having been formerly a Platonist, and then turning
Christian, was the first that invented this doctrine,
or rather adopted it out of the Platonic into the

80 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. Christian divinity; and that neither the Jewish nor
VIIL the Christian Church had ever before conceived
any notion of a Trinity, or of any plurality in the
Divine essence.

The doctrine of the Trinity supposes the Divine
essence to be common to three Persons, distinguish-
ed from one another by incommunicable properties.
These Persons are called by St. John, 1 John v. 7-
the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. There are
three, saith he, that hear witness in heaven, the
Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three
are one.

This personal distinction supposes the Father not
to be the Son nor the Holy Ghost, and that the Son
is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit ; revelation
teaching that the Son is begotten of the Father, and
that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and
the Son, or from the Father by the Son. And this
distinction is the foundation of their order and of
their operations.

For although the unity of the Divine nature
makes it necessary that these three Persons should
all cooperate in the works of God ad extra, as we
call them, nevertheless there being a certain order
among the Persons, and a distinction founded in
their personal properties, the holy Scripture men-
tioneth an economy in their operations ; so that one
work ad extra is ascribed to the Father, another to
the Son, and a third to the Holy Spirit.

But this distinction of Persons, all partaking of
the same common nature and majesty, hinders not
their being equally the object of that worship which
religion commands us to pay to God.

I touch this matter but very briefly, because my
business is only to examine whether the Jews had
any notion of this doctrine, or not ? And our opin-
ion is this, that though the Gospel has proposed
that doctrine more clearly and distinctly, yet there
were in the Old Testament sufficient notices of it,

against the Unitarians.

so that the Jews before Christ's time did draw from chap.
thence their notions concerning it. VIIL

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

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

2. That the same Jews, following the Scriptures of
the Old Testament, did acknowledge a Trinity in the
Divine nature.

I begin the examination of this subject by con-
sidering the notions of the authors of the apocry-
phal books. Now one cannot expect that these au-
thors should have explained their mind with re-
lation to the notions of a plurality, and of a Trinity
in the Godhead, as if they had been interpreters of
the books of the Old Testament. But they express
it sufficiently without that, and speak in such a
manner, that nobody can deny that they must have
had those very notions, since it appears that their
expressions in speaking of God do suppose the no-
tions of a plurality in the Godhead, and of a Trinity
in particular. Let us consider some of those ex-
pressions.

1 . They were so full of the notion of a plurality,
which is expressed in Gen. i. 26. that the author of
Tobit hath used it as the form of marriage >among
the Jews of old, Let us make unto him an aid. So
chap. viii. 6. Thou madest man, and gov est him Eve
his wife for an helper and stay: of them came man-
hind: thou hast said, It is not good that man should
he alone; let us make unto him an aid like unto
himself; whereas in the Hebrew it is only, / shall
make.

82 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. 2dly. We see that they acknowledge the creation

T7-TJY J J O

L_of the world by the Word of God and by the

Holy Ghost, as David, Psalm xxxiii. 6. So the Book
of Wisdom, ix. 1. O God of my fathers, and Lord
of mercy, ivho hast made all things with thy
Word, or more properly by thy Word, as it is ex-
plained in the second verse ; and ver. 4. he asketh
wisdom in these words, Give me Wisdom, that sit-
teth by thy throne ; and ver. 17. Thy counsel who
hath known, except thou give Wisdom, and send thy
Holy Spirit from above? where he distinguished
the Aoyog, or Wisdom, and the Holy Spirit, from
God, to whom he directs his prayer. And so the
Book of Judith, xvi. 13, 14. / will sing unto the
Lord a new song: O Lord, thou art great and glo-
rious, wonderful in strength, and invincible. Let all
creatures serve thee: for thou spakest, and they were
made, thou didst send forth thy Spirit, and it created
them, and there is none that can resist thy voice.

3dly. They speak of the emanation of the Word
from God : those are the words of the Book of Wis-
dom, vii. 25. For she is the breath of the power of
God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory
of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall
into her. That description of Wisdom deserves to
be considered, as we have it in the same place, ver.
22 — 20. For Wisdom, which is the worker of all
things, taught me: for in her is an understanding
spirit, holy, one only, manifold, subtil, lively, clear,
undefled, plain, not subject to hurt, loving the thing
that is good, quick, which cannot be letted, ready to
do good, kind to man, stedfast, sure, free from care,
having all power, overseeing all things, and going
through all understanding, pure, and most subtil,
spirits. For Wisdom is more moving than any
motion : she passeth and goeth through all things
by reason of her pureness. — For she is the bright-
ness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror
of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.

against the Unitarians.

And indeed St. Paul, Heb. i. 3. hath borrowed from chap.
thence what we read touching the Son, that he is VIIL
the brightness of God's glory, and the express image
of his person. So the Book of Ecclesiasticus saith,
chap. xxiv. 3. That it is come out of the mouth of
the most High.

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

For they acknowledge a Father ; and a Son, by a
natural consequence : thus the author of Ecclesias-
ticus, li. 10. / called upon the Lord the Father
of my Lord, in the same way as David speaks of
the Messias, Psalm ii. and ex. and as Solomon in
his Proverbs, viii. 25. as of a son in the bosom
of his father, and xxx. 4. What is his sons name,
if thou canst tell ?

They speak of the Aoyog as the Creator of all
things; so the author of Wisdom, ix. 1. O God of
my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all
things with thy Word ; or more properly by thy
Word. And so they call that Wisdom the worker
of all things, Wisd. vii. 22.

They speak of the Wisdom in the same words
as Solomon doth, Prov. iii. and chap. viii. 22, where
he expresseth the true notion of eternity. And in-
deed they attribute to her, to have been eternal,
Ecclus. xxiv. 18.

They refer constantly to God himself, that is, to
the Aoyos of God, as we shall hereafter shew at large,
what is attributed to the Angel of the Lord in many
places of the books of Moses, as to have delivered
the Israelites from the Red sea, so Wisd. xix. 9.
They went at large like horses, and leaped like
lambs, praising thee, O Lord, who hadst delivered
them. Again, to have had his throne in a cloudy
pillar, Ecclus. xxiv. 4. To have been caused by the

g 2

84 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. Creator of all things to rest and to have his dwell-
VIIL ing in Jacob, and to have his inheritance in Is-
rael, ibid. ver. 8. and so to have given his memorial
to his children, which is the law commanded for an
heritage into the congregation of Jews, ibid. 23.

So they attribute to him to have spoken with
Moses, Ecclus. xlv. 5. He made him to hear his
voice, and brought him into the dark cloud, and
gave him commandments before his face, even the
law of life and knowledge, that he might teach Ja-
cob his covenants, and Israel his judgments.

Again, to have come down from heaven to fight
against the Egyptians, Wisd. xviii. 15, l6, 17- Thine
almighty Word leaped down from heaven, out of
thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war into the
midst of a land of destruction. And brought thine
unfeigned commandment as a sharp sword, and
standing up filled all things with death, and it touch-
ed the heaven, but it stood upon the earth.

So they maintain that the angel who appeared
to Joshua, chap. v. was the Lord himself ; so the au-
thor of Ecclesiasticus, chap. xlvi. 5, 6. He called
upon the most high Lord, when the enemies pressed
upon him on every side; and the great Lord heard
him. And with hailstones of mighty power he made
the battle to fall violently upon the nations, and in
the descent [of Beth-horon~\ he destroyed them that
resisted, that the nations might know all their
strength, because he fought in the sight of the
Lord, and he followed the Mighty One. They refer
the miracles wrought by Elias to the Aoyog, as you
see in Ecclesiasticus xlviii. 3, 4, 5. By the Word of
the Lord he shut up the heaven, and also three
times brought down fire. O Ellas, how wast thou
honoured in thy wondrous deeds ! and who may
glory like unto thee ! Who didst raise up a dead
man from death, and his soul from the place of
the dead by the Word of the most High.

As there is nothing more common in the Old

against the Unitarians.

Testament than to call the Aoyog the Angel of the
Lord, because the Father sent him to do all things .
under the former dispensations, so one can see that
there is nothing more ordinary in the apocryphal
books, than to speak of an angel in particular, to
whom are attributed all the things which could not
be performed but by God.

Three things prove clearly that they did not con-
ceive that angel to be a created angel, but an Angel
who is God.

1st. Because they have this maxim, according to
the constant divinity of the Jews, grounded upon
Scripture, Deut. xxxii. 9. that God did take Israel
for his portion among all the nations of the world,
as if he had left the other nations to the conduct of
angels ; so Esther xiii. 15.

2dly. Because they refer to the Aoyog some histo-
ries of the Old Testament, which the Jews till this
day refer to an uncreated Angel, or to the Aoyog, or
Shekina, or Memra da Jehovah, as I shall prove after-
wards. We see it Wisd. xvi. 12. For it was neither
herb, nor mollifying plaister, that restored them to
health ; but thy Word, O Lord, which healeth all
things. So Wi sd . xvi i i . 1 5 , 1 6. Thine Almighty Word
leaped down from heaven out of thy royal throne,
as a fierce man of war into the midst of a land of
destruction, and brought thine unfeigned command-
ment as a sharp sword, and standing up filled all
things with death; and it touched the heaven, but it
stood upon the earth. I thought fit to repeat this
place here, to make Mr. N. ashamed, who hath ex-
posed those ideas, and laughed at them, which I be-
lieve he would not have done, if he had but consi-
dered two things ; the one is, that this Aoyog who is
spoken of, is that very man of war mentioned in
Moses's canticle, Exod. xii. 3. and in Judith ix. fx
the other is, that St. Paul hath followed the notions
of the Book of Wisdom, speaking of a sharp sword,
which is to be understood, not of the Gospel, but of

86 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, the Aoyog, Heb. x. 12. But Mr. N. was in the right
VIIL to ridicule such an authority, which destroys to the
ground the principles of the Unitarians ; for nothing
can be more clear, than that this author acknow-
ledges a plurality in God; that the Aoyog must be
a Person, and a Person equal to the Father, being set
upon the royal throne.

3dly. Because they bring such appearances of
that Angel, which shew they conceived him as the
God who ruled Israel, and who had taken their
temple for the place of his abode. And, on the
contrary, they speak of God, whom they consi-
dered as dwelling in the temple, in the same words
which are used in Scripture, when it is spoken of
the name of God, Exod. xxiii. 21. and 1 Sam. viii.
l6. of the angel of the covenant, Malachi iii. 1. and
such expressions. So you see in the first Book of
Esdras, chap. ii. 5, 7- If therefore there be any of
you that are of his people, let the Lord, even his
Lord, be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem
that is in Judaa, and build the house of the Lord of
Israel : for he is the Lord that dwelleth in Jerusa-
lem. And chap. iv. 58. Now when this young man
was gone forth, he lifted up his face to heaven to-
ward Jerusalem, and praised the King of heaven.
And Judith, chap. v. 18. and ix. 8. and 2 Mace. i. 25.
The only giver of all things, the only just, almighty
and everlasting, thou that deliveredst Israel from
all trouble, and didst choose the fathers, and sanc-
tify them. And chap. ii. 17. We hope also, that
the God, that delivered all his people, and gave
them all an heritage, and the kingdom, and the
priesthood, and the sanctuary. And chap. xiv. 35.
Thou, O Lord of all things, who hast need of no-
thing, wast pleased that the temple of thine habita-
tion should be among us.

I can add, 4thly, that they distinguish exactly
the Angel of God from the prophets, though they
are called by the same name of angels or messen-

against the Unitarians.

gers, and they distinguish him from angels, whom chap.
as creatures they exhort to praise God, as in the VI1L
song of Azaria, ver. 36. O ye angels of the Lord,
bless ye the Lord, praise and exalt him above all
for ever. Such a distinction appears in the first of
Esdras, chap. i. 50, 51. Nevertheless the God of
their fathers sent by his messenger to call them
bach, because he spared them and his tabernacle
also. But they had his messengers in derision ;
and, look, when the Lord spake unto them, they
made a sport of his prophets. So in Tobit v. l6.
So they were well pleased. Then said he to Tobias,
Prepare thyself for the journey, and God send you
a good journey. And when his son had prepared
all things for the journey, his father said, Go thou
with this man, and God, which dwelleth in heaven,
prosper your journey, and the Angel of God keep
you company. Just according to the prayer of Ja-
cob, Gen. xlviii. l6. The Angel which redeemed
me from all evil, bless the lads. And that very
Angel is called God by Jacob in the verse before.
So in Ecclus. xvii. 17. For in the division of the
nations of the whole earth he set a ruler over every
people; but Israel is the Lord's portion. So in the
Epistle of Jeremy, ver. 6, 7- But say ye in your
hearts, O Lord, we must worship thee. For mine
Angel is with you, and I myself caring for your
souls. Where in the Greek that caring for their
souls is referred to the same Angel. So 2 Mace. xi.
6. Now when they that were with Maccabeus heard
that he besieged the holds, they and all the people
with lamentation and tears besought the Lord that
he would send a good Angel to deliver Israel.

To shew that the Jews before Jesus Christ had
such a notion of the Koyog who was to save his
people, we must take notice of two things : the
first is, that the author of the books of Maccabees
speaks of God at the end of his book in the same
terms which are used by Jacob, Gen. xlviii. 15, 16.

g 4

88 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, and are to be referred to the Aoyog, not to a created
I angel, as I have explained it in a particular discus-
sion of that very place of Genesis.

The second is, that the Greek interpreters of
Scripture have used such method in translating
some places of the prophets, which sheweth they
understood that the Messias should be the very
Angel of the Lord who is called the Counsellor, and
that the Angel of the Lord was the Lord himself.
Two examples will shew that clearly ; the first is
in that famous oracle of Isaiah ix. 6. they have
these words, on ira&iov eyevvrjOv} ypiv, vlog kou ebofrq ypiv,
ov Yj apyy eyev/jOrj In) tov ujxov avrov, kou KaXeirai to ovofxa
avrov MeyaXvjg /3ov\y}$ ayyeXog, the Angel of the great
counsel, whereas in the Hebrew it is said, he shall
be called the admirable N^B, (which is the very word
that the Angel of the Lord gives to himself, Judges
xiii. 18.) the Counsellor of the mighty God ; and it
is clear that they did understand these words of the
Messias, who is spoken of as the son of David,
ver. 7« m the same words which are used in Psalm
lxxii. The other example is in this other famous
place of Isaiah lxiii. 9. in which they have translated
neither an angel, but himself saved them ; as if
they had read "ittfN1?, instead of ixttb, which we
read now. Some of the modern Jews are mightily
entangled in explaining that place, but it appears
that these interpreters of Isaiah looked upon the
face of God to have been God himself, which is
the reason of their translation, and shews that they
understood the face of the Lord, which is so often
spoken of by Moses, to be the Aoyo?, which is Je-
hovah. I can add a reflection concerning their ver-
sion of the third of Daniel, ver. 25. Species quarti
similis filio Dei, as saith Aquila a Jew, who lived
under Hadrian ; but the ancient Greeks had trans-
lated it similis An gelo Dei, as saith an old scholion,
related by Drusius in Fragmentis, p. 1213. which
shews that the ancient Hellenists had the same no-

against the Unitarians.

tion of the Angel of God as of the Son of God. But chap.
all those things shall be better cleared, when we VJIL
come to the authority of the other Jews, which we
are to produce.

Some perhaps may think that the Book of Ec-
clesiasticus supposeth the Wisdom which we main-
tain to be eternal, to have been created ; and so saith
that author, chap. i. e/crtcrBrj, and xxiv. 9. But I
take notice of three things: 1st. That such an ob-
jection may be good in the mouth of an Arian, but
not at all in the mouth of a Socinian, and much
less in the mouth of an Unitarian of this kingdom,
after their writers have owned that the Aoyog, or
Word of God, signifies the essential virtue of God.
2dly, That the author of Ecclesiasticus follows in
that expression the very words of the Greek version
of Proverbs viii. 22. in which it answers to the
word possessed, which is not e/rnV^, but €kty)8y). 3dly,
That the word eKTiaOrj, although we should suppose
it to be the true reading, hath a very large signifi-
cation ; and indeed Aristobulus, a Jew of Alexandria,
who lived about the same age of the authors of
those apocryphal books, and whose words are
quoted by Eusebius de Prasp. Ev. 1. vii. 14. p. 324.
declares that the Wisdom which Solomon speaks of
in the Book of Proverbs was before heaven and
earth, and the very author of Ecclesiasticus calls it
positively eternal, chap. xxiv. 18.

There is another objection which is backed by
the authority of Grotius, who by the Aoyog, or
Wisdom, understands a created angel ; but I shall
shew afterwards the absurdity of that opinion of
Grotius; and his error is so plain, that Mr. N. and
the Unitarian authors have been ashamed to fol-
low his authority in this point, daring not to main-
tain that the Aoyog in the first of St. John signified
an angel, which they would have done, if they could
have digested the absurdity of Grotius's notions
upon that place of Wisdom, chap, xviii. 15.

90 The Judgment of' the Jewish Church

chap. As for the Holy Ghost, that they acknowledged
VIIL him for a Person, and for a Divine one, there is as
much evidence from the same apocryphal books.

1. I have noted that they attributed to him the
creation of the world, as you see in Judith xvi. 14.
Thou didst send forth thy. Spirit, and it created
them ; which is an imitation of David's notions,
Psalm xxxiii. 6.

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

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

4thly. They acknowledge him to be the Coun-
sellor of God who knew all his counsels. So you
read in the Book of Wisdom, ch. ix. 17. And thy
counsel who hath known, except thou give Wisdom,
and send thy Holy Spirit from above ?

against the Unitarians.

5thly. They speak of him as of him who dis- chap.
covers the secrets of God; so Ecclus. xxxix. 8. He VI1L
shall shew forth that which he hath learned, and
shall glory in the law of the covenant of the Lord.
And ch. xlviii. 24,25. he saith of Isaiah, He saw by
an excellent spirit what should come to pass at the
last, and he comforted them that mourned in Sion.
He shewed what should come to pass for ever, and
secret things or ever they came.

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

After all, if we consider what notions they had
of the Messias who was promised to them, we shall
find that they had much nobler ideas than those
which are now entertained by the latter Jews, and
more like to them which we find among the Pro-
phets.

1. It is clear that they looked upon him as the
Person who was to sit upon the throne of God ; the
title of my Lord which is given by the author of
Ecclus. li. 10. shews beyond exception by a clear
allusion to the Psalm ex. and ii. which speak both
of the Messias.

2dly. They did not look upon it as an absurd
thing to suppose that God is to appear in the earth,
as you see in Baruch iii. 37. Afterward did he
shew himself upon earth, and conversed with men.
For they refer that either to his appearance upon
Sinai, or to the incarnation of the Aoyog.

3dly. They suppose another coming of the Mes-
sias, and then the saints are to judge the nations,
and have dominion over the people, and their Lord
shall reign for ever, Wisdom iii. 8. which words
have been borrowed by St. Paul, 1 Cor. vi. 2.

4thly. They acknowledge such appearances of
God, as we have an example in 2 Mace. xi. 6. and
xxi. 22, 23. Now when they that were with Mac-

92 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, cabeus heard that he besieged the holds, they and
VIIL all the people with lamentation and tears besought
the Lord that he would send a good angel to de-
liver Israel.

5thly. They speak of the appearances of God as
an e7ri<pavei'a, which is the very word used by St.
Paul for the first and second appearance of Jesus
Christ. So the 2d of Mace. xv. 27. and 34. So

every man praised toward the heaven the glorious
Lord, saying, Blessed be he that hath kept his own
place undefiled. So that fighting with their hands,
and praying unto God with their hearts, they slew
no less than thirty and five thousand men; for
through the appearance of God they were greatly
cheered.

6thly. They expected at the second coming of
the Messias such a manifestation of his glory as in
the consecration of the temple. So 2 Mace. ii. 8.
Then shall the Lord shew them these things, and
the glory of the Lord shall appear, and the cloud
also, as it was shewed under Moses, and as when
Solomon desired that the plaoe might be honourably
sanctified.

I believe these proofs are sufficient to demon-
strate, 1. That there was before Jesus Christ's time
a notion of plurality in the Godhead. 2dly. That
they believed that such a plurality was a Trinity.
3dly. That they looked upon the Son or the Aoyog,
and the Holy Ghost, not as created beings, but as
beings of the same Divine nature with the Father,
by an eternal emanation from him, as having the
same power and the same majesty.

But these ideas of the apocryphal books will ap-
pear more clear, when we take them in conjunction
with the explication of the like notions among other
Hebrew writers, which I shall now consider more
particularly. And withal those places of Scripture
on which they ground their explications.

against the Unitarians.

CHAP. IX.

That the Jews had good grounds to acknowledge
some kind of' Plurality in the Divine nature.

After what I have quoted from the authors of
the apocryphal books, which are in every body's
hands, to prove, 1. that the Jews before Jesus Christ
had a notion of a plurality in God, following herein
certain traces of this doctrine that are to be found
in the books of Moses and the Prophets ; and, 2dly,
that the same Jews did acknowledge a Trinity in
the Divine nature ; I will proceed to consider in
particular the grounds which they build upon to
admit such notions.

I begin with the first of those two articles, which
is, that the style of God in the Jewish Scriptures
gave them a notion of a plurality in God. To
establish this proposition, I do not intend to gather
all the texts of the Old Testament which might be
brought to prove a plurality in the Divine nature ;
nor will I answer the several solutions which the
Unitarians have invented to darken this truth, which
they oppose.

It shall suffice me to do two things: 1. To shew
that the style God uses in the Scripture, and that
of the sacred authors, leads one naturally to the
notion of a plurality of persons in the Divine es-
sence. 2. That this style made the like impression
on the Jews before Jesus Christ, as was made by it
anciently, and is still made by it in the generality
of Christians. So that the Jews generally have ac-
knowledged, that the Divine nature, which is other-
wise perfectly one, is distinguishable into certain
properties, which we call Persons.

For the proof of the first point, to wit, that the
Scriptures of the Old Testament suppose a plurality
in God ; I make these following reflections.

94 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

1. Moses, the chief end of whose writings was
to root out of the minds of men the conceit of poly-
theism, does yet describe the creation of the world
in words that insinuate a plurality. In the begin-
ning, saith he, Bara Elohim, the Gods created,
Gen. i. 1. He might have said, Jehovah Bara, Je-
hovah being the proper name by which God made
himself known to Moses, and by him to his people,
Exod. iii. 15. or he might have said, Eloah Bara,
and so he had joined the singular number of Elo-
him, which signifies God, with the verb Bara,
which is also the singular number, and signifies
created. But Moses uses the plural word Elohim
with a verb of the singular number, and he repeats
it thirty times in the history of the creation only,
though this word denotes a plurality in the Divine
nature, and not one single Person.

Had Moses joined always the , noun Elohim,
which is plural, with a verb or adjective in the sin-
gular, we might have judged, that by calling God
by a name in the plural, he had followed the cor-
rupt custom which then obtained among the hea-
thens, of speaking of the Gods in the plural, and
that he designed to rectify it by expressing the
single action of God by a singular verb or adjective.

But here this excuse will not serve ; for, 1 . he
had the word Eloah, God, in the singular, which he
uses Deut. xxxii. 15, 17- and in other places: he
had also several other names of God, which he uses
in other places, all of them singular, and conse-
quently any of them had been fitter for his use to
root out polytheism. 2. Moses himself sometimes
joins the noun Elohim with verbs and adjectives in
the plural. There are several examples of this in
his books, and more in the other sacred writers
that imitated him in it ; you may see it in Gen. xx.
13. and xxxv. 7- J°D xxxv. 10. Jos. xxiv. 19.
Psalm cxlix. 1. Eccles. xii. 3. 1 Sam. vii. 23. Is.
liv. 5. which shews the impudence of Abarbanel,

against the Unitarians. 95

who, to elude the force of this argument, maintains chap.
that the word Elohim is a singular. In Pent. fol. 6. iX'
col. 3.

2. Another reflection concerning the style of Mo-
ses, which ought to speak of God every where in
the singular number, and yet intimates a plurality,
is this, that Moses in the history of the creation
brings in God speaking to some one thus, Let such
a thing be made, and it follows, it was made ; and
again, God said — and — God said. This expression
is repeated no less than eight times within the com-
pass of one chapter, which is a thing very surpris-
ing in so concise an history. For whom did God
then speak to ? to whom did he issue out his or-
ders ? or who was he that did execute them ? There
were then neither men nor angels to obey him, nor
to hear him speak.

3. There is none that reads the account of man's
creation, but, if he considers what he reads, must be
struck with these words of God, Gen. i. 26. Let us
make man after our image and likeness. These
words in the plural number denote plainly a plu-
rality. Let US make, and OUR image, are such
lively characters of plurality, as are not to be passed
over without a particular regard.

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

All this is contained within one book only, that
of Genesis. We meet with the same notion in

96 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, these words of Deuteronomy, iv. 7« Who have the
IX' Gods so nigh unto them P

We may trace the idea of plurality still further
in the following books; as in Joshua xxiv. 19.
And Joshua said, You cannot serve the Lord, for
he is an holy God ; where in the Hebrew it is, the
holy Gods. So Solomon, Prov. xxx. 3. / neither
learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the Ho-
lies, instead of the Holy. And Eccl. xii. 1. Remem-
ber thy Creators.

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

2. That there is no way of speaking, by which a
plurality in God may be signified, but it is used in
the Old Testament. A plural is joined with a verb
singular, Gen. i. 1. In the beginning the Gods
created heaven and earth. A plural is joined with
a verb plural, Gen. xxxv. 7. And Jacob called the
name of the place Beth-el, because the Gods there
appeared to him. A plural is joined with an adjec-
tive plural, Jos. xxiv. 19. You cannot serve the
Lord, for he is the holy Gods. 2 Sam. vii. 23.
What one nation in the earth is like thy people, like
Israel, whom the Gods went to redeem for a people
to himself? So Eccles. v. 8. There be higher than
they, Heb. which stands for Gods, God be-

ing called the Most High. And in Eccles. xii. 1.
Remember thy Creators in the days of thy youth.
In conformity to which manner of speaking, Isaiah
says, liv. 5. For thy Makers are thy husbands, the
Lord of Hosts is his name. A verb in the plural is
joined with a name in the singular ; as you read,
Eccles. ii. 12. as it has been observed byR. Bachaie
in Parash bresch. fol. 11. col. 2. of the edit, in fol.
from which he infers that God and the house of his
judgment are expressed there ; for by the king
which is there spoken of he doth not understand
Solomon, but God ; as they do in the Targum upon

against the Unitarians.

1 Chron. iv. 23. which hath been followed by R. chap.
Bachaje, ibid, fol. 11. col. 3. and byLombroso in his IX>
Hebrew Bible. You have the same remark of St. Je-
rome upon Jer. xxiii.36. when you read D^TT DV6n
the living Gods, and from which he draws an argu-
ment for the doctrine of the Trinity.

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

This also we more particularly see in the history
of the destruction of Sodom, Gen. xxx. 24. where it
is written, That Jehovah rained upon Sodom and
Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of
heaven. There is Jehovah and Jehovah ; and if
they do not make two, I know not what will ex-
press a plurality. But we shall have more to say
of this afterwards.

I have given in short some marks of a plurality
in the Divine nature, which may be gathered out
of the writings of the Old Testament : for the fuller
satisfaction of my reader, I am next to shew that
the ancient Jews made the same reflections, and
formed the same notions that we have of the Divine
nature. To do this with the more clearness, I shall
observe this method: 1. To shew what were their
reflections touching the unity of the Divine nature.
2. To shew what their reflections were concerning
those passages of the Scripture, which note a plu-
rality in the unity of the Divine essence.

As to the first, Philo, who left a great many
pieces behind him, is best able to instruct us ; and
he asserts that the nature of God is incomprehen-
sible, i. e. that we cannot form a just idea of it.
Alleg. l. p. 43. F. G. Be Profug. p. 370. C.

That God's providence and existence are known

98 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

to us ; but as to his essence, we are altogether ig-
norant of it. De Mund. p. 889. D.

And having in several places of his writings ob-
served, 1. that Moses, the Lawgiver of the Jews,
made this his chief end, viz. to destroy the notion
of polytheism ; he then, 2. affirms, that though it
is said, God is one ; yet this is not to be understood
with respect to number. Alleg. 1. iii. p. 841. Not
that Philo would have it thought that there is more
than one God, but hereby he intimates the unity of
God to be transcendent, to have nothing common
with that of other beings which fall under number.

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

4. That God begets his Word. Who is therefore
said to be not unbegotten like God, and yet not be-
gotten like his creatures? Quis Rerum Divin. Hares.
p. 398. A. And on the account of this generation,
he calls him the first-born of God. De Agricult.
p. 152. De Confus. Ling. p. 267.

Again, he will tell you, that God begets his Wis-
dom, De Temul. p. 190. E. And that his Wisdom
is the same with his WTord. Alleg. 1. p. 39. F. fol-
lowing, no doubt, Solomon's notion, Prov. vim 22.
But did he own that this generation was made in
time ?

No: for, 5. he asserts, that this generation was
from all eternity ; for he saith, the Word of God is
the eternal Son of God. De Confus. Ling. p. 255.
D. p. 267. C.

6. When he would explain, in what respect or
for what reason God is called in Scripture, The God
of Gods ; he saith not, that it is in respect of the
angels, whose God he is, and who sometimes are
called Elohim, or Gods, even by Philo himself. De
Opif. p. 4. F. But he saith it is in relation to his
two powers, Lib. de Victim, off. p. 66l. G. which

against the Unitarians.

would be a ridiculous thing, had he thought these chap.
two powers were no other than two attributes of God. lx'

Indeed Philo is so far from thinking them mere
simple attributes, that he maintains, 1. That these
powers made the world, or by them God created the
world. De Victim, off. p. 663. F. De Confus. Ling.
p. 270. B. De Plant. Note, p. 176.E. Quis Rer.
Div. Hcer. p. 393. G. 2. That these eternal powers
appeared, acted, and spoke as real Persons, and in a
visible and sensible manner. Lib. de Cherub, p. 97.
D. De Sacr. Ab. p. 108. B. C. Quod Deus sit im-
mutab. p. 229. B. p. 241. C. D. p. 242. B. De Plant.
Noce. p. 176. D. E. Quod Rer. Div. Hcsr. p. 393. G.
De Somn. p. 457. G. De Mund. p. 888. B.

He also maintains, that the two cherubins which
were over the ark, were the symbols of the two
eternal powers of God. De Vit. Mos. iii. p. 517- F.
Quis Rer. Div. Har. p. 393. G.

These are in general the notions which the Jews
had of a plurality in the Divine essence, which is
otherwise single and one. I shall hereafter shew,
that the very same notions are spread throughout
the ancient Targums, as far as the nature of the
works, which for the most part are only naked
translations of the Hebrew into Chaldee, does give
occasion to the authors of these Targums to explain
themselves on these heads.

Now let us go on to examine the foundations on
which the ancient Jews grounded this notion of a
plurality in God : for it is not to be imagined that
they would have believed thus without some author-
ity for it in the books of the Old Testament, upon
which alone they pretended to found the doctrines
of their religion.

Secondly, then, as to the first words of Moses, In
the beginning the Gods created; I must own that
Philo, writing in Greek, did not express his notion
of plurality in expounding this text: for he followed
the version of the LXX. which reads Beo$ in the

h 2

100 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, singular, instead of the Hebrew Elo him in the plu-
TX' ral. But then he more than hints that this reflec-
tion was common among the Jews, seeing that he
rarely speaks of God without mentioning his two
powers, as I have newly observed to you. And in
one place he gives this reason why the name Seo$
is used throughout the history of the creation ; be-
cause that was the appellation of one of God's pow-
ers by which he made the world : ov yapw Kal Tji KOlT^
rov lepcoraTov Mgwv/v Koa^oiroua irao-v] to tov &eov ovofia
avaXafx^averat' ^pfAorre yap tyjv ^vvafxiv Ka$ rjv o ttqioov el$
yeve&iv aycov ertOero Kal §i€Ko<t [Metro, §ia ravrvjc Kai KaTaKXv}-
Qyvai. De Plant. Noce, p. 176. D.E. Which shews
evidently, that the notion of plurality did still re-
main among the Grecian Jews, when the plural
Elohim, which was the ground of it, was taken away
by their translators, for a reason that I shall shortly
mention.

But to shew that the word Elohim in the plural
has always made this impression on the minds of
the Jews, we must observe, 1. that long before Jus-
tin Martyr's time, there was a sort of men who
imagined that the angels did create the world,
grounding this opinion of theirs upon this place,
compared with those other texts where the angels
are sometimes called Elohim, as Psalm viii. 6. and
Psalm xcvii. 7. Such was the opinion of Menander,
the scholar of Simon Magus, in particular.

2. That the Talmudists themselves were so per-
suaded of a plurality expressed in the word Elohim,
as to teach in title Megilla, c. 1. fol. 11. that the
LXX. interpreters did purposely change the notion
of plurality, couched in the Hebrew plural, into a
Greek singular, as they did also on Gen. i. 26. and
xi. 7« lest Ptolomy Philadelphus should conclude,
that the Jews, as well as himself, had a belief of
polytheism. That was taken notice of by St. Jerome
in his preface to the book De Qusest. Hebr.

3. That however the construction of a noun plu-

against the Unitarians.

101

ral with a verb singular may render it doubtful to chap.
some, whether these words express a plurality or no; IX'
yet certainly there can be no doubt in those places
where a verb or adjective plural are joined with the
word Elohim; and such places, as I already have
made appear, are often to be found in the writings
of the Old Testament. That the word Elohim is to
be understood plurally, this the Jews, since Christ's
time, have acknowledged to be agreeable to their
sense of the word. For in 1 Sam. xxviii. 13. where
the witch of Endor saith, / see the Gods ascending,
tyby D*r6N they conclude, that there were two per-
sons that appeared to her, and so they think Moses
and Samuel to be the persons. Midrash Sam. Rab-
batha, cap. 27. and Tanchuma, fol. 63. col. 2.

It is natural for Christians to conceive, that where
it is said so often, Gen. i. And God said, there God
spoke to his Word, by which St. John writes that all
things were made, John i. 3. Socinus will not have
it that St. John, speaking of the Word, or Koyog, does
mean it of the first creation, but of the second. His
disciples here being convinced that this cannot be
maintained, have forsaken him in it, and do now
agree in what he denied. But then they suppose,
that the Word signifies no more than the virtue and
power of God ; and therefore by this phrase, Let it
be done, and it was so, no more is imported, than
God's exciting of himself to do this or that thing,
or that God said to himself, Let such a thing be
done, and he did it accordingly.

But if this evasion can satisfy an Unitarian, as it
easily may one that cannot maintain his opinion
without it ; yet it cannot satisfy an impartial reader.
For this we have the judgment of the ancient syn-
agogue, which looked on the Word, or Aoyog, as a
true cause and agent, to whom God spoke, and who,
by an infinite power, wrought the several works of
the six days.

Now that this was the judgment of the ancient
H 3

102 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, synagogue, and consequently that they acknowledged
* a plurality in God, will be evident to any man that
will be at the pains to consult Philo and the ancient
Targums.

For Philo, he hath drawn so full a system of the
Aoyog, as to leave himself nothing more to add on
that subject. According to him, it is the Aoyog in
whom were represented the first ideas of all things,
and who afterwards stamped the impressions of
them on matter: whence he is called Koa^og vorjrog,
Be Opif. p. 4. G. and p. 24. C. It is the Aoyog that
created the world, as I shall have occasion to shew
from several parts of his works, in the following part
of this discourse.

And for the Targums, to cite all the passages in
them that confirm this truth, would be a trouble
next to that of transcribing those books. I shall
therefore collect only some of the principal places.
Jonathan, on Isa. xlv. 12. declares his opinion, that
the Word created the earth ; and again on Isa. xlviii.
13. Thus Onkelos assures, that the heavens were
made by the Word of the Lord, on Deut. xxxiii. 27.
And he almost constantly distinguishes the Aoyog as
another Person from the Father, of which I shall in
the following chapters produce many proofs.

Indeed in this paraphrase of the history of the
creation, he uses not the word Memra, which in
Chaldee answers to that of Aoyog in Greek. Nor was
there any need, since he used all along the verb
Amor, from whence comes the noun Memra, and so
interprets the text word for word, which seems to
be his chief design in this paraphrase.

And here I must take notice of a thing of great
moment in this question, viz. that the Jews make a
great difference between that word Vajomer, which
is found in the history of the creation, and this
word Vajedabber; the first having a natural and ne-
cessary relation to the Memra, and the last signify-
ing no more than the speech of God or of any man.

against the Unitarians.

103

R. Menach. de Rekan. in Pent. fol. 124. col. 2. and chap.
fol. 152. col. 1,2. IX-

But Onkelos does three things which are equi-
valent to it: the one is, that instead of Elohim, he
uses the word Jehova, which the Jews read Ado-
nai, because it has the vowels of the word Adonai;
and both the word Adonim, which is the plural out
of regimen, so as God uses it in speaking of himself,
Mai. i. 6. and the vowels of the word Adonai in regi-
men, which they put under the letters of Jehova,
being also plural, both these things, I say, do ex-
press a plurality in God as much as the word Elohim
did in the Hebrew text.

The second is, that he doth render the words, in
the beginning, not by the Chaldaic word which an-
swers to the Hebrew, but by another which signifies
the first VDlpn, and not by RJTD"7p, as it is observed
by all the Jewish writers who make the same con-
sideration upon the translation of the Targum Jeru-
salami, in which we read not in the beginning, but
NriDDm by the Wisdom; as you see in a comment
upon the Targums, printed at Amsterdam not long
ago, where he follows those notions as the ancient
and the common doctrine of the synagogue.

The third is, that in the sequel of his paraphrase
he uses the word Memra, as signifying a person by
whom God acts and speaks in all his appearances
to men.

That these words, Let us make man after our
image, 8$c. have made a like impression on the an-
cient Jews, appears clearly from the pains they
take to explain them. I am sure Philo was con-
vinced that they note a plurality, when he, writing
on this text, maintained that God had fellow-work-
ers in the creation of man, De Opif. p. 12. B. E. It
is true, he sometimes vouches that God spoke these
words to the angels, or to the elements ; and he
has been followed herein by some Jews after Jesus

h 4

104 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. Christ, as we see in the explication of them in
IX- Bresh. Rab. §. 8. and in Jalkut. §. 12, 13. where-
in they pretend that God consulted the angels also
in the creation of the world ; though, according to
the Talmudical Jews, the angels were not created
till the second or the fifth day; and such a con-
sultation between God and his creatures is rejected
with scorn by Abarbanel in Pentat. fol. 19. col. 4.

But it is to be observed, that Philo's reason for
this exposition, was to give the better account of
the original of sin, which after the manner of divers
of the philosophers, with whom he was much con-
versant, he searched for in the matter of which man
was composed in respect of his body, as may be
seen in the place which I have now quoted.

For in other places he maintains, 1. That God
took his Aoyog, or Word, for his fellow-worker. De
Opif. p. 24, 25. 2. That man was created after the
image of the Aoyo$, or Word. De Plant. Noes, p.
199. D. But he saith nothing of the image of
angels, or of matter, which yet he ought to have
spoken of, had he writ coherently and suitably to
that other explication.

I say it again, that in many of his treatises he
asserts, the Word made man, and after the image
of the Word was man created, which he shews very
largely. Alleg. 11. p. 60. C. D. De Plant. Noa,
p. 16*9-

3. He maintains, that God spake this to his pow-
ers, as may be collected from his exposition of this
text, De Confus. Ling. p. 270. A. C. and as he
saith expressly, Lib. de Profug. p. 357- G. Movovtov
av8pcc7rov 00$ av [xera crvvepyoov krepcav e^Accxre §ia7r\acr8evTa'
erne yap, ((pYjcriv 6 Mwt/o%) 0 Seog, 7roiyj<7coff.ev av6pco7rov Kar
eiKOva Yjfxerepav, 7t\y]$ov$ §ia tov noivjawfAev efj*(f>aivofJ.evov'

^taXeyerai ovv 0 rcov oXcov irarrjp raig eavrov ^vva^ecriv'

that is, he shews that man only was formed by
God with fellow-workers ; for Moses tells us, that

against the Unitarians.

105

God said, Let us make man after our image, im- c
plying a plurality in the expression, Let us make.
God therefore speaks here to his powers.

4. He expresses himself in so particular a man-
ner on this head, as to leave no doubt concerning
his opinion of this place. It is in his first book of
questions and solutions, which is now lost, nothing
remaining of it but a fragment preserved by Euseb.
Prsep. Evang. vii. 13. p. 322, 323. His words are
these : Aia t'i cag irep) hepov Seov (pYjal to, ev eiKovi Qeov
eno'iyo-a. tov avSpco7rov, aAA* ovy) ryj eavTov ; itayKaXug kou
aortas tovt) K€,)Q)Y)<Tfj.u)})Y]Tai' 6vy]tov yap ovfiev aTreiKoviaQvjvai
irpog tov avoorarw kou irarepa tcov oXccv e^vvaro, aXXa. npog tov
^evrepov Seov, og eariv eKeivov Xoyog' e$et yap tov XoyiKov ev
av8pdo7Tov "tyvyr] tvttov, vno Seiov Xoyov yapayBTjvai^ ene^Y) o npo
tov Xoyov ®eog, Kpeiaaoov ecrriv y) naia XoyiKYj (pvaig' tco

V7T€p TOV XoyOV, Iv TJj j3eXTl(7TY] KOU TlVl e^CKipeTQ) KGlde<TT(OTl

l§ea, ov^ev Befxig y\v yewvjTOv e^ofAoiovaQoa. Why does God
say in the image of God made I man, and not in
his own image, as if he had spoken of another God?
This Scripture expression is grounded upon wise
and good reasons, for nothing mortal can be fa-
shioned after the image of the supreme God and
Father of all things, but of his Word, or Aoyog, who
is the second God. For the rational part of man's
soul ought to receive its impression from the Word
or Reason of God, because God himself, who is su-
perior to his Aoyog, is vastly beyond the nature of
all rational beings ; and consequently it was not fit
that any created being should be made after his
likeness, whose nature doth subsist in the highest
degree of excellence.

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

106 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. The Jerusalem Targum, Gen. i. 1. does indeed
IX' say, God made all things by his Wisdom, but then
he shews, that this is but another name for the Aoyog,
by saying elsewhere, ver. 27. the Aoyog, or the Word
of the Lord, created man after his image.

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

The Socinians cannot avoid being shocked a little
with the expression, Gen. xix. 24. the Lord rained
— -from the Lord out of heaven. Menasseh ben
Israel confesses the place too hard for him, unless
by the Lord who is on earth you understand the
angel Gabriel, who, as God's ambassador, bears the
name of God. q. 44. in Genesis. But the ancient
Jews found no such difficulty in it, as he and the
Socinians do at present find.
DeAbr. For Philo the Jew holds, that it was the Aoyog
p. 290. b. rajne(j fire from heaven, De Somn. p. 449. F.

As he otherwhere saith, it was the Aoyog that con-
founded the language at Babel. Again, Philo saith
in his history of Sodom, God and his two powers
are spoken of.

The Targum of Onkelos, though it speaks of
angels in this nineteenth chapter, yet it treats one
as Jehova who rains fire from heaven, ver. 24. and
thus it paraphrases the text, The Jehova rained
from before the face of the Jehova from heaven.

3. This notion of plurality must have sunk deep
into the minds of the Jews, seeing they have con-
stantly read the word Jehova, which is singular,
with the vowels of the word Adonai, which is plu-

against the Unitarians. 107

ral, instead of Adoni, which is singular: and this chap.
notwithstanding their dispute with the Christians, '
whom they accuse of Tritheism. I am not ignorant
that this manner of reading Jehova was in use
long before the birth of Jesus Christ. But this it
is that renders my remark the more considerable.
For all the other names of God, which represent
him by some one of his attributes, are singular,
as well as the name Jehova is singular, which is
the proper name of God ; and yet the Jews all
agree to forbear rendering the name Jehova by any
of his many names that are singular, but interpret
it by that of Adonai, whose plural vowels make
Jehova to signify plurally, as much as to say my
Lords ; and that for this reason, as it seems, because
there is more than one in the Godhead, to whom the
name Jehova is given in Scripture.

It is clear how sensible the Jews have been that
there is a notion of plurality plainly imported in
the Hebrew text, since they have forbidden their
common people the reading of the history of the
creation, lest, understanding it literally, it should
lead them into heresy. Maimon. Mor. Neboch.
p. 11. c. 29. The Talmudists, as I before noted,
have invented this excuse for the Septuagint, as to
their changing the Hebrew plural into a Greek
singular ; they say it was for fear Ptolomy Phil,
should take the Jews for Polvtheists. And to this
they have added another story, that Moses himself
was startled at God's speaking these words. Let us
make man, in which he thought a plurality was ex-
pressed, and that he remonstrated to God the dan-
ger which might arise thereby ; and at length re-
solved not to write them, till he had God's express
order for it, which God did give him, notwithstand-
ing the danger that Moses represented might fol-
low. Beresh. Rab. §.8.

Another thing relating to this head, which de-
serves our consideration, is this ; that the Samaritans

108 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, who were originally of the same religion with the
IX' Jews, but receive only the five books of Moses, have
shewed that they had in the Apostles' times the
same notions that are met with in Philo of a plu-
rality in God. We have a proof of it, Acts viii. 9.
where we read that Simon Magus had bewitched
that people, giving out that himself was rig peyag,
some great one ; he did not say what, but gave
them leave to understand it their own way. And
how did they take it? This follows, ver. 10. They
said, ovrog ea-Tiv vj §vva[xi$ rov Seov 7j [xeyakri, This person
is the great power of God. This they would not
have said, if they had not believed, that besides the
great God, there was also a person called y Ivva^igSeov.
I say a person, for I suppose Mr. N. cannot think
they took Simon Magus to be only an attribute.

But looking yet nearer into this text, I conceive
it is plain, that they understood that there was more
than one Ivvafxig, for, as it is in the text, they said
this is the great Ivva^tg, which seems to imply that
they believed there was another power less than
this. It seems yet plainer in another reading of
the text, which I take to be the true reading, for
we find it not only in the now vulgar Latin, but
also in Irenseus i. 20. which sheweth it was the cur-
rent reading in his time, and we find it also in seve-
ral manuscripts, some of which are of the highest
esteem with learned men, as namely, the Alexan-
drian in the King's library, and the ancient manu-
script of Lyons in the Cambridge library : in all
these the words are, ovrog eo~Tiv rj o^vvapig rov Seov vj kol-
Xov(jl€vy) [xeyaXvj, This person is the power of God
which is called the great power. For their calling
him the power of God, what that means we cannot
better learn than from Origen, who, speaking of
Simon, and such others as would make themselves
like our Lord Jesus Christ, saith, they called them-
selves sons of God, or the power of God ; which
he makes to be two titles of one and the same

against the Unitarians,

109

signification. \Orig. cont. Cels. lib. 1. p. 44.] And chap.
both these titles are given to the Koyog by Philo in ]X>
more places than we can number. For their calling
him the great power of God, which implies that
there was another power besides ; this also perfectly
agrees with the notions of Philo, who so often speaks
of the two powers of God, describing them as true
and proper persons.

We have a farther proof of the Samaritans hav-
ing these notions, in the account which their coun-
tryman Justin Martyr hath given us of the honour
they had for Simon Magus in his time, which was
about eighty years after the writing of the Acts of
the Apostles. It may seem very strange, that when
the charms of that Magus, wherewith he had be-
witched that poor people, were so entirely dissolved
by Philip's preaching and miracles, that not only
they, but the impostor himself had embraced the
Christian religion, yet after this he could so far be-
witch them a second time, as to raise himself in
their opinion from being the great power of God (as
they called him before) to be, in their new style, the
God above all power whatsoever. Yet that was the
title they gave him in Justin's time, as he sheweth
in his Dialogue with Tryphon, [Justin. Dial, cum
Try ph. p. 349. G.] Elsewhere Justin saith \Apol.
11. p. 69. E.] of Simon, they confess him to be the
first God, and as such they worship him. This no-
tion of a first God is manifestly the same with that
of Philo, who called the koyog the second God. [Eu*
seb. Prcep. Evang. vii. 13. p. 323.] But if the Sa-
maritans in the Apostles' time took Simon to be
the Aoyog, or second God, as I have shewn it more
than probable that they meant it by calling him the
great power of God; who should be the second God
now, since Simon was so advanced in their opinion,
that now they accounted him to be the first? Jus-
tin sheweth in the place before mentioned, [p. 69.
E.] that in his time, as they called Simon the first

110 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

' chap. God, so they called his companion Helen, the se-

cond God. His words are, Ty;v vtf avrov hvoiav 7rpcoTY]v.

What is that? one may easily guess ; for certainly
the first emanation from the Not)*- is the Aoy<fe. And
so, according to Justin himself, the 7rpa>TV) hvoia sig-
nifies. For in the same book he interprets it of the
Aoyo$, [Apol. 11. p. 97. b.] So that as the second
God was the Aoyo'g in Philo's account, so was Simon's
companion the same in the opinion of the Sama-
ritans.

This poor bewitched people were almost sin-
gular in this opinion in Justin's time ; for he saith,
then there were but few of their way in other na-
tions. And Origen, who wrote within sixty years
after, saith, that when he wrote, there were of Si-
mon's sect scarce thirty at Samaria, and none any-
where else in the world, \Orig. cont. Cels. 1. p. 44.]
Possibly there might remain some of them till those
times when other writers give other accounts of their
opinions ; and possibly their opinions might vary,
so that those later accounts are not to be much
heeded. We cannot be certain of any thing concern-
ing them, but what we have from Justin Martyr, who
lived when they were at the highest, and writing
as he did to the emperor an Apology for the
Christians, and acquainting him with the errors of
his countrymen at Samaria, which, as he more than
intimates, was not without some hazard of his being
torn in pieces by the mob, [Just. Dial, cum Tryph.
p. 340.] we may be very sure he would write nothing
of them, but what was so evidently true, that it could
not be denied by any that lived in those days.

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

against the Unitarians.

Ill

I shall not insist any longer on the arguments chap.
which confirm a plurality in the Divine nature, be- IX>
cause I shall touch on some of them again in the
sequel of this discourse, where I shall shew, that
those places of the Old Testament, that speak of
the Angel of the Lord, are to be understood, not of
a created angel, but of a Person that is truly Jehova;
and that this has been acknowledged by the ancient
Jews ; which alone is proof enough of this notion's
being sufficiently known by that nation, to which
God committed his sacred oracles, Rom. ix. 6.

Let us pass on now to the second article, viz. that
the Jews did so acknowledge a plurality in God, as
that at the same time they held that this plurality
was a Trinity.

CHAP. X.

That the Jews did acknowledge the foundations of
the belief of a Trinity in the Divine nature; and
that they had the notion of it.

In pursuance of the method laid down in the
foregoing chapter, I am now to shew these two
things: 1. That there are in the Scriptures of the
Old Testament so many and plain intimations of
a Trinity in the Divine nature, as might very well
move the Jews to take them for a sufficient ground
for the belief of this doctrine. 2. That these inti-
mations had that real effect on the Jews, that as
they found in their Scriptures a plurality in the one
infinite being of God ; so they found these Scriptures
to restrain this plurality to a Trinity; of which they
had, though much more darkly and confusedly, the
same notions that are now among Christians.

1. To prove that there is ground for this doctrine
in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, I might
shew, that oftentimes in these Scriptures where God

112 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, is spoken of, there is some kind of intimation given
x' of three in the Divine nature: but as for this, I
shall only touch upon it; my intention being chiefly
to shew, that there are three that are called God in
the Old Testament, and to shew who they are.

I need not prove it of the Father, since it will not
be denied that he is called God by them that will
deny it of any other. But I shall shew, that some-
times the Son is called so, whether by that name of
the Son, or of the Word, or some other name, with-
out any mention made of the Spirit. Next I shall
shew, that the Spirit is spoken of as God, even
when he is mentioned without the Son. And lastly,
that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are all three
mentioned as God, and all three spoken of together
in some texts of the Old Testament.

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

The like intimation we find in those words of the
Prophet Isaiah, which do both shew a plurality in the
Divine nature, and restrain it to a Trinity. Isa. vi. 3.
The Prophet heard the seraphims cry one to an-
other, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts. These are
titles, which, taken together, can belong to none but
God ; and the repetition of them shews something

against the Unitarians.

113

in it which cannot but seem mysterious, especially chap.
to one that considers those other words of God him- x'
self in the same chapter, ver. 8. Who will go for
us P words which clearly note a plurality of Per-
sons, as also in Hos. xii. 4, 5. and in some other
places.

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

The Son is expressly spoken of by David, (who
himself was a type of the Messias, and is acknow-
ledged for such by the Jews,) Psal. ii. 7- The Lord
said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I be-
gotten thee. That the Aoyos, who, as has been al-
ready proved, is called Wisdom according to the
Jewish notions, is the Son of God by eternal gene-
ration, himself sheweth, Prov. viii. 22, 23, 24. The
Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, be-
fore his works of old. I was set up from everlast-
ing, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When
there were no depths, I was brought forth. So in
Prov. xxx. A. Who hath established all the ends of
the earth ? what is his name, and what is his Sons
name ? The Son can be understood of no other
than of that eternal Wisdom that assisted at the
creation, as was before mentioned.

Elsewhere the Son, or the Word, is spoken of ac-
cording to the Jewish expositions of such texts,
where he is not named, and yet he is called God
and Lord ; as Psalm xlv. 7- O God, thy God hath
anointed thee: and Psalm ex. 1. The Lord said
unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I
make thy enemies thy footstool.

It was the same Son who appeared oftentimes
under the character of the Angel of the Lord, though
he was not a created angel, but the Lord Jehovah
himself. This I only mention here, being to treat
of it at large in some of the following chapters.

114 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. That the Spirit is spoken of as a Person in Scrip-
1 ture, none can but know, that reads but the begin-
ning of Genesis, where in the 2d verse he is named
the Spirit of God, and said to have his part in the
work of the creation. The Jews could not make
this Spirit to be an angel, because they all agree
that the angels were not yet created, when the Spi-
rit moved upon the face of the waters. Nor was
the Spirit of God a mighty wind, as some render it
in that place ; for as yet there was no air, much less
exhalations, till this work was done. But that Mo-
ses meant a Person, sufficiently appears by that
which followeth, Gen. vi. 3. where God saith, My
Spirit shall not always strive with man. It was the
Holy Spirit of God that inspired the holy patriarchs
to give those admonitions and warnings to the
wicked world of mankind before the flood, by
which he strove to bring them to repentance. It
was the same Divine Spirit whose operations the
Israelites were sensible of, in his inspiring the se-
venty elders, Numb. xi. 25, 26.

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

Lastly: in some places of the Old Testament
there are plainly three Persons spoken of together,
and especially in the beginning of Genesis, where it
ought to be remembered, that the word Elohim,
Gods, does naturally import a plurality. [R. Bechai
in Gen. chap. i. 1. and others quoted in the former
chapter.] Now there can be no plural of less than
two in number, and therefore at least God the Fa-
ther, and the Word, are to be understood in the
first verse ; the second verse adds the Spirit of God,

against the Unitarians.

115

as it has been just now mentioned. And it is very chap.
natural to think that God spake to these two, the x>
Word and the Spirit, in verse 26 of that chapter,
when he said, Let us make man after our image ;
as also afterward, Gen. iii. 22. Behold, the man is
become as one of us : and again, speaking of the
builders of Babel, Gen. xi. f . Let us go down and
confound their language: this must be to two at
least; for had he spoke to one only, he would have
said in the singular number, Come thou, and let us
confound their language : the manner of speaking
plainly imports a plurality; and they could be no
other than those three which were spoken of in the
first chapter.

As Moses brings in these three Persons into his
history of the first creation, so does the evangelical
Prophet in speaking of the mission of Christ, Isa.
xi. 1, 2, &c. The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon
him, i. e. upon the Messias, according to the re-
ceived opinion of the Jews, Isa. xlviii. 16. The
Lord hath sent me and his Spirit. Again, Isa. lix.
19, 20, 21. When the enemy shall come in like a
flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard
against him, and the Redeemer shall come unto
Sion. Again, Isa. lxi. 1. The Spirit of the Lord Je-
hovah is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed
me. And these are the words which Christ applied
to himself, Luke iv. 18.

It may not be amiss here to answer an objection
against the use that we have made of those texts
wherein God saith we and us in the plural ; which
manner of speaking, the Jews cannot but see does
denote a plurality. R. Kimchi on Isa. vi. 8. makes
this observation: but then he fancies it to be spoken
with relation to the angels, whom God is pleased
to call in by way of consultation.

In the text Isa. vi. those whom God consults
with are to send as well as he ; and those in Gen.

1 2

1 16 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. i. 26. are to make man as well as he, And surely
God would not join the angels with himself in the
sending of his Prophets ; much less would he give
angels a share in the glory of making man, the
master-piece of the creation. Angels are creatures
as well as man, and were but a day older than he,
according to some of the Jews ; a week older than
he they could not be : and at the making of man it
is believed with very good reason, that those angels
were not yet fallen, whom we now call devils. It
seems not very likely, that as soon as they were
made God should call them into council for making
of another of his creatures ; much less that he
should make them creators together with himself ;
especially when this gives them a title to the wor-
ship of intelligent beings, such as man ; who, if this
had been true, ought to have worshipped not only
angels but devils, as being his creators together
with God. But the truth is so far on the contrarv,
that as at first man was made but a little lower
than the angels, so there is a man since made Lord
both of angels and devils, whom they are to wor-
ship : this, I know, our Unitarians will now deny.
But to come to an end of this matter; it is cer-
tainly below the infinite majesty of God, in any of
his works whatever, to say to any of his creatures.
Let us make, or, Let us do this or that. And for
that idle fancy of a consultation, it is not only ab-
surd in itself, but it is contrary to the holy Scrip-
ture, that asks, Isa. xl. 13. Who has directed the
Spirit of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor P
which in effect is a flat denial that there is any
creature to be called into consultation with God.
And therefore whoever they were to whom God
said this, Let us make, or, Let us do this or that,
they could be no creatures, they must be uncreated
beings like himself, if there were any such then in
being. But that then at the creation such there

against the Unitarians. 1 1 7

were, even the Word and the Spirit, has been chap.
shewed from the beginning of that history, and, as x
I think, beyond contradiction.

Thus we have collected a number of places from
the Old Testament, which speak of a Trinity, and
consequently do reduce the plurality which we
proved before, to a Trinity in the Unity of the Di-
vine nature. We see there three distinct characters
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We
see the generation of the Son expressed, and the
mission of the Holy Spirit upon the Son, when he
came to live in our nature. We see the number
three still observed in begging pardon of sins, of
blessings, and in returning praises to God, intimat-
ing there are three from whom all good things
come, and who are therefore the objects of prayer.
It remains that we inquire, whether the like infer-
ences which we draw from these texts, were made
by the Jews before Jesus Christ ; which is the se-
cond particular of our proposed method.

I shall not repeat here what in the preceding
chapters I have proved, viz. that both Philo and the
Chaldee paraphrasts had such notions of the unity
of God, as were not repugnant to his plurality. The
reader cannot have forgotten already a thing of such
importance. My business now is to shew, that the
ancient Jews plainly own two powers in God, which
they distinguish from God, and yet call each of
them God ; the one being the Son of God, the
other the Holy Spirit, who is called the Spirit of
God.

Notwithstanding that I take the Chaldee para-
phrasts to be ancienter than Philo, yet I choose to
begin with Philo's testimonies rather than theirs,
for three reasons. First, because he writ by way of
treatises, and therefore he is much larger and clearer
than they are that writ only by way of translation
or paraphrase, adding nothing of their own, but only
sometimes a very short note on the text: and there-

i 3

118 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, fore their writings are much likelier to he explained
X' by his, than his by theirs. 2dly. Because the pas-
sages in Philo for the existence of the Aoybs as a
Person coeternal with the Father, are so evident,
as to leave the Socinians no other way of answering
them, but by denying, with Mr. N., that the books
that contain them were written by Philo the Jew.
3dly. A third reason is, because these passages of
Philo being written at Alexandria, and abounding
with expressions used by the Apostles when they
speak of Jesus Christ as the Aoyog, will contribute to
explain some of the quotations we shall take out of
the paraphrases in use at Babylon and Jerusalem.
These three great cities, Babylon, Jerusalem, and
Alexandria, were the three great academies of the
Jews, till the destruction of their temple under Ves-
pasian. So that whatever was received among the
Jews in these three cities before our Saviour s time,
may well pass for the opinion of the Jewish Church
at that time.

Let us proceed then to some of those passages
in Philo the Jew, wherein he declares that there
are two such powers in God, as we call two Per-
sons ; and no sense can be made of those passages,
in calling them otherwise.

1. In general, he acknowledges that God hath
two chief supreme powers, one of which is called
Beo$, God, the other Kvpio$s Lord. De Ahrah. p.
286, 287. F. Be Fit. Mos. iii. p. 517. F.

2. That these two powers are uncreated, [Quod
Deus sit bnmut. p. 238. A.] eternal, [_De Plant.
Nocb} p. 176. D.] and infinite or immense, and in-
comprehensible, [De Sacr. Ah. p. 168. B.]

3. On many occasions he speaks of these two
powers ; as De Cherub, p. 86. F. G. 87. A. De Sacr.
Ab.p. 108.A.B. De Plant. Noa3, p. 1 76. D.E. Quod
Deus est immut. p. 22Q. B. De Confus.Ling. p. 270.
E. 271. Lib. de Prof. p. 359, G. and especially p.
362, and p. 363. B. C. D. Quis Rerum Divin. Hser.

against the Unitarians.

p. 393. G. p. 394. A. C. De Somn. p. 457. F. De chap.
Monar. p. 631. A. B. C. De Vict, offeren, p. 66l. *•
B. De Mund. p. 888. B.

4. In particular; though he doth not directly
name these two powers, yet it is clear that by the
first he means the Aoyog ; for he saith it is the power
by which all things are created, or to which God
spoke when he made man ; which two characters
are ascribed to the Koyog by Philo in many of his
tracts. The other, which we call the Holy Spirit, is
often acknowledged by Philo, [Lib. Quod Deus sit
immut. p. 229. B.]

5. These things being considered, by what he
saith, it appears how God is three, and yet he is
but one : he sheweth how this was represented in
that vision to Abraham, Gen. xviii. where it is said,
ver. 1. that Jehovah appeared to him ; and ver. 2.
Abraham looked, and, lo, three men stood by him :
yet he spoke but to one, ver. 3. saying, My Lord, if
now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not
away, I pray thee, from thy servant, &c. This vi-
sion, according to the literal sense, he expounds of
the A&yog and two angels, as I have quoted him
elsewhere. But he saith that here was also a mys- ^j™-
tery concealed under this literal sense, like to Sa-p. 7*7. e.
rah's v7roKpv<f>ia, so the LXX. calleth the cakes that
were hid under the embers : according to this mys-
tical sense, he saith, here was denoted, 0 wv, the great
Jehovah, with his two Iwa^ig, of which one is call-
ed Beo$, and the other Kvpiog. These are Philo's
words, [De Sacrif Ab. et Cain, p. 108. B.] 6 0eo<r
§opv<f>opov(Aevog vtto §veiv toov avoordroo ^vvapecov, apxys re av

kou ayaSoTYjTog, el$ oov 6 fA.€(To$ Tpirrag (fyavraaiag heipya^ero
ry bpariKy ^v%y. God attended with his two supreme
powers, principality and goodness, being himself
but one in the middle of these two, makes these
three appearances to the seeing soul, which is re-
presented by Abraham. That these words did not
drop from Philo by chance, the reader may see in

1 4

120 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, another place, where he speaks purposely of this
X> matter. [De Abrahamo. p. 287- E.] Ha-njp fxh rS>v
okcov o pAo-tig, &c. In the middle is the Father of all
things, on each side of him are the two powers,
the eldest and the nearest to the 6 av, or Jehovah ;
whereof one is the creative power, the other is the
royal power: the creative power is called God, the
royal power is called Lord. He therefore in the
middle, being attended by these powers on each
side of him, represents to the seeing faculty the
appearance sometimes of one, and sometimes of
three. Philo after all warns his reader, that this is
a mystery, not to be communicated to every one,
but only to them that were capable to understand
and to keep it to themselves : by which he sheweth
that this was kept as a cabala among the Jewish
doctors : for fear, if it came out, the people might
misunderstand it, and thereby fall into Polytheism.

As for the Targums, they likewise are very clear
in this matter. For besides the Lord Jehova with-
out any addition, they speak of the Word of the
Lord, or the SheMnah of the Lord, and that so often,
that it would be endless to quote all the places :
some of them however must be cited, to put the
thing out of dispute.

1. Wherever the words Jehovah and Elohim are
read in the Hebrew, there Onkelos commonly ren-
ders it in his Chaldee paraphrase, the Word of the
Lord, as Gen. xxviii. 20, 21. xxxi. 49. Exod. ii. 25.
xvi. 8. xix. 17. xxxii. 20. Lev. xx. 23. xxvi. 49. Num.
xi. 20. xiv. 9. xxiii. 21. Deut. i. 30, 32. ii. 7. iii. 12.
iv. 24, 27. v. 5. ix. 3. xx. 1. xxxi. 6, 8.

The Targums commonly describe the same Per-
son under the title of Shekinah, which signifies the
Divine habitation.

The origin of that expression is in the Hebrew
word which we find in Gen. ix. 27. and is repeated
in many places of the Old Testament. I acknow-
ledge freely that in some few places of the Tar-

against the Unitarians.

121

gums it seems to be employed to express the Holy chap.

Ghost; so that Eliah in his Dictionary, and some ^!

others who have followed him, and transcribed his'
book in their Lexicons, takes the Shekinah and the
Holy Ghost to be the same. But, after all, I believe
that Eliah hath been mistaken, by not being fully
acquainted with the ideas of the most learned of
his nation. And indeed wre see that the most fa-
mous writers of the synagogue put quite another
sense upon the Targums, and decide that question
against Eliah, looking upon the Memra and the
Shekinah as the same. So doth R. Moses Maimo-
nides, R. Menachem de Rakanaty, and Ramban,
and R. Bach aye.

It is very easy to be satisfied that these famous
authors are in the right : for if you consider the
places where Philo the Jew speaks of the Aoyog,
you shall see that they are in theTargum explained
either by the Memra da Jehova, or by the Shekinah.
And on the contrary, if you except very few places,
you shall find that the Targums employ the term of
Holy Ghost as the proper name which we have in
the original. And even to this day the Jews do
oftener call the Spirit, as by his proper name, Ruach
hakkodesh, the Holy Spirit.

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

The mean while, we cannot but take notice, how
that doctrine of the Trinity passed current among
the Jews of the ancient synagogue, though they were
as zealous assertors of the unity of the Godhead

122 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

ch]ajp. as our Socinians can pretend to be at this day. No
x' doubt the ancient Jews could have found as many
contradictions in these two doctrines of Trinity and
Unity, as the Socinians do, if they had not been
more disposed to study how to reconcile them toge-
ther, being satisfied that both these doctrines were
part of the revelation which God had made to their
fathers.

We cannot say so altogether of the modern Jews,
who are very much alienated from the doctrine of
the Trinity, by seeing much clearer revelations of
it in the New Testament, and especially since they
are mingled in their disputes against the Christians,
that make Christ to be the Messias, or second Per-
son in the Trinity, which they can by no means
endure now to hear. This has set them to hunt
for ways to avoid the evidence of these texts that
speak of a plurality in the Divine nature; and in
this pursuit they forsake their ancient guides, and
strangely entangle themselves, and contradict one
another.

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

Others confess, that truly they do denote a plu-
rality. But that the plurality consists of God and
his angels, whom he joins with himself as his
counsellors. Ask but what instance they have in
Scripture of such a strange way of speaking, which
makes God and his angels as it were fellows and
companions, they presently allege that one passage
of Dan. iv. 17. This matter is by the decree of the
watchers, and the demand of the holy ones. Now
these watchers, and these holy ones, say they, are
the holy angels. But admit they are angels, all
that is said of them in this text will not prove what
they infer from it. For, 1. the thing that they would
prove is false, and contrary to Scripture, Is. xl. 13.

against the Unitarians.

123

which expressly denies, that God has any compa- chap.
nions or counsellors, as hath been already shewed. x-

2. The nature of the works consulted on in those
texts to which they would apply this, is such, as is
infinitely above the power of any creature, such as
the creation of man, and the confounding of lan-
guages, &c.

3. In this very text their most learned commen-
tators, R. Saadia Gaon, and Aben Ezra, do not find
any such consultation of God with his angels, as
these Jews imagine : they do indeed find that these
watchers and holy ones are the holy angels ; but they
say for the decree m prr prD, they pronounce
it from the mouth of God, and it is called their
decree, because they are the ministers of God to do
whatever he commands them. Thus Jer. i. 10. that
Prophet is said to be set over nations and king-
doms to destroy and to throw down, to build and
to plant; not that God shared that power with his
Prophet, or took him into counsel for such things,
but only that he by the appointment of God, as his
minister, was to declare the sentence and judgment
of God for the doing of such things.

4. This appears in the very decree here spoken
of, which concerns a revolution in a great empire :
but the disposal of kingdoms is that which properly
belongs to the eternal Wisdom of God, as Solomon
declares, Prov. viii. 15, l6. and not to angels, any
farther than they are employed by God for the pub-
lishing or for the executing of his sentence.

But after all this, though I have admitted that
the angels are here called watchers and holy ones,
yet I am rather of opinion that these words do not
signify angels, but the three Persons in the Trinity.
My reason is, because however that notion of eypy-
yopoi being angels has obtained among the Jews, I
do not find them called so any where in the Old
Testament. But God is often said to watch over his
people, Gen. xxxi. 49. Psalms vii. 6. cxxvii. 1. Jer.
xxxi. 28. xliv. 27. and even by this Prophet, Dan. ix.

124 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. 14. And for the other word that is here joined with
x" the watchers, viz. the holy ones, however this may
be used of angels elsewhere, yet here it is certainly
used of God in this chapter, ver. 8, 9, 18. and that
in the plural, as it is in Josh. xxiv. 19; and yet as
there in Joshua the Holy Gods in the plural are the
same with the Jehovah in the singular number; so
here the watchers and the holy ones in the plural
are the same with the watcher and holy one in the
singular, ver. 13. and the decree of the watchers and
holy ones in this verse is called the decree of the
Most High, ver. 24. and it is he whom Nebuchad-
nezzar glorifies as the sole author of his abasement,
and also of his restoration. I hope the reader will
easily pardon this digression, if he thinks it is one
at all : it seemed necessary that I should consider
this text at large, because it is, as far as I know,
the only place in Scripture which is brought by the
Jews to colour that interpretation with which they
think to elude the force of our arguments.

After all that I have alleged from Philo and the
paraphrases, I do not pretend to affirm that they
had as distinct notions of the Trinity as we have ;
nor do I deny but that sometimes they put a differ-
ent construction on the texts which we have cited in
proof of this mystery; nay, I own that their ideas
are often confused when they speak of these things ;
and particularly they refer sometimes that to the
second Person which should be ascribed to the third,
and that to the third which properly belongs to the
second : nay, more, I acknowledge that Philo by the
Spirit, Gen. i. 2. understands the wind ; [_De Gig. p.
223.] which is something strange, seeing the Greek
interpreters whom he followed read nvevpa 6eov, i. e.
the Spirit of God, and not simply the Spirit, which
might have stood for wind here, as it does in some
places of the Old Testament.

But Philo' s error is easily accounted for : he fell
into it by endeavouring to accommodate Moses's
notions to the notions of the philosophy that makes

against the Unitarians.

125

four elements of all things. And probably for such chap.
a reason some of the Targums might come into the x'
same interpretation. But for the other ancient Jews,
they expounded this Spirit, not by wind, but by that
Spirit which was to rest on the Messiah in Isaiah's
language, Isa. xi. 1. See Bresh Rabba in Gen. i. 2.
And truly Rashi on these words affirms, that the
throne of glory was in the air, and that it warmed
the heavens by the Spirit of the goodness of God
blessed for ever. Where by the way the Spirit of
goodness is the same with the latter of Philo's two
powers above mentioned. De Sacr. Ab. 108.

Those among the Jews who take the Spirit of
God for the will of God, as R. Abr. doth in Tzeror
hammor, and some mentioned in the book Cozri,
[p. 5. p. 329.] are not far from this opinion : and this
is the sense Maimonides gives to those words, The
Spirit of the Lord, in explaining of Isa. xl. 13.
[_Mor. Neb. i. 40.] It appears from Psalm xxxiii. 6.
that the hosts of heaven were made by the Spirit of
his mouth; words which no Jew has yet interpreted
of the wind.

I know Philo expresses his thoughts obscurely:
speaking of the two powers of God, [_De Che7*ub.
p. 86.] he saith, that the Word joins these two pow-
ers, which he afterwards calls his principality and
his goodness.

But this can raise no prejudice against our po-
sition. It shews indeed that our author, who had
gathered his notions, as the other Jews did, by
reading the books of the Old Testament together
with their traditional interpretations, was not so
much a master of them, as to make them always
consist with one another. Others perhaps will say,
he was not always consistent with himself; nor am
I concerned to have it granted that he was so.
We look not on him nor any of these writers to
be inspired, but esteem them only as eminent di-
vines of the old Jewish Church, and consequently as

1 26 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, subject to several weaknesses and oversights, which
x> are common to the greatest as well as to the mean-
est men. Even the most learned men in all ages,
though they agree in the truth of certain doctrines,
are yet often divided in their ways of expressing
them, and also in their grounding them on this or
that place of Scripture.

As for the Jews since Christ's time, we are less
concerned for what they say, because when they
had once rejected their Messias the Lord Jesus
Christ, they soon found, that if they stood to their
traditional expositions of Scripture, it could not be
denied, but he whom they had rejected was the
Word the Son of God, whom their fathers expected
to come in our flesh ; but rather than yield to that,
they would alter their creed, and either wholly throw
out the Word the Son of God, or bring him down
to the state of a created angel, as we see some of
them do now in their ordinary comments on Scrip-
ture. And so they deal with the Shekinah likewise,
confounding the Master with the servant, as we see
that some few, perhaps one or two, cabalists have
done in their books.

In consequence of this alteration, they are forced
to acknowledge, that the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, worshipped a created angel; and they
have left themselves no way to excuse them from
idolatry therein, but by corrupting their doctrine
concerning religious worship, and teaching that it is
lawful to pray to these ministering spirits ; which is
effectually the setting up of other gods, plainly con-
trary to the first commandment of their Law. Some
of them are so sensible of this, that they cannot
deny it to be idolatry. Which is certainly the more
inexcusable in the Jews, because on other occasions
they constantly affirm, that when God charged the
angels with the care of other nations, he reserved to
himself the sole government of his people Israel,
Deut. xxxii. 8, 9; and therefore it must be a griev-

against the Unitarians.

127

ous sin in them to worship angels, howsoever they chap.
should imagine it might be permitted to other x'
nations.

After all this, they have not been able so totally
to suppress the ancient tradition, but that in their
writers, even since Christ's time, there appear some
footsteps of it still : and to prove that it is so, I am
in the next place to shew, that notwithstanding their
averseness to the Christian doctrine, they yet have a
notion distinct enough both of a plurality and a
Trinity in the Divine nature ; which will be the
whole business of my next chapter.

CHAP. XI.

That this notion of a Trinity in the Divine nature
has continued among the Jews since the time of
our Lord Jesus Christ.

To begin with the Jewish authors who have writ
Medrashim, that is, a sort of allegorical commen-
taries upon Scripture, and with the caballistical
Jews, whom their people look upon as the wisest
men of their nation, viz. those that know the truth
better than all others, among them this principle
passes for an undoubted maxim.

I know very well that the method of those cabal-
listical men, who seek for mysteries almost in every
letter of the words of Scripture, hath made them
justly ridiculous. And indeed one cannot imagine
an occupation more vain or useless, than the pro-
digious labour which they undergo in their way of
Gematria, Notarikon, and Tsirouph.

But besides that this vice is not so general among
the Jews, I am fully resolved to lay aside in this
controversy all such remarks ; my design being only
to shew that the ancient tradition hath been kept

128 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, among those authors, who have their name from
XL their firm adherence to the tradition of their fore-
fathers.

So I am not willing to deny that some of the
books of those caballistical authors, which the Jews,
who are not great critics, look upon as very ancient,
are not, as to all their parts, of such an antiquity as
the Jews suppose them to be. But I take notice
that those who attack the antiquity of those books
are not aware, that notwithstanding some additions
which are in those books, as for example in the
Zohar and in the Rabboth, the very doctrine of
the synagogue is to be found there, and the same as
it is represented to us by the apocryphal authors,
by Philo, or those who had occasion to mention the
doctrine of the Jews.

After all, let us suppose that almost all those
books have been written. since the Talmud, and that
the Talmud was written since the beginning of the
seventh century, that could not be a prejudice
against the doctrine which the Jews propose as the
ancient doctrine of the synagogue; but, on the con-
trary, it would be a strong proof of the constancy of
those authors in keeping the tradition of their ances-
tors in so strange a dispersion, and among so many
nations ; chiefly since, in the articles upon which I
shall quote their authorities, they so exactly follow
the steps of the authors of the apocryphal books of
Philo the Jew, and of their ancient paraphrast, who
had penetrated deeper into the sense of Scripture.

I say then, that both the authors of the Midrashim
and the caballistical authors agree exactly in this,
that they acknowledge a plurality in the Divine es-
sence, and that they reduce such a plurality to three
Persons, as we do.

To prove such an assertion, I take notice, 1st,
That the Jews do judge as we do, that the word
Elohim, which is plural, expresses a plurality. Their
ordinary remark upon that word is this, that Elohim

against the Unitarians.

129

is as if one did read, El hem, that is, They are God. chap.
Bachaje, a famous commentator of the Pentateuch, XL
who brings in his work all the senses of the four
sorts of interpreters among the Jews, speaks to this
purpose upon the Parascha Breschit. fol. 2. col. 3.

2dly. It is certain that they make use of the word
7rpoa-co7rov to express those Persons, as they use to ex-
press the two first human persons, viz. Adam and
Eve. Thus speaks of them the same Bachaje, ibid.
fol. 13. col. 2.

3dly. They fix the number of three Persons in the
Divine essence, distinguishing their personal charac-
ters and actions, which serve to make them known.

4thly. They speak of the emanation of the two
last from the first, and that the last proceeds by the
second.

5thly. They declare that this doctrine contains a
mystery that is incomprehensible, and above human
reason, and that in such an unsearchable secret we
must acquiesce to the authority of the divine re-
velation.

6thly. They ground this doctrine upon the very
same texts of Scripture which we allege to prove
these several positions of ours ; which deserves a
great deal of consideration.

And indeed those things being so, we must ne-
cessarily conclude, either that they make fools of
their readers, or that tfiey do not understand what
they say; or one must acknowledge that the conse-
quences and conclusions which Christians draw from
the Scriptures, with relation to the subject of the
Trinity, are not so easy to be avoided as the Socini-
ans believe.

Let the reader reflect upon each of those articles,
while I shall bring him witnesses to establish
them.

I know that they pretend commonly, that the
name of Elohim, which is plural, is given to God to
express his several virtues : but beyond that, they
maintain that the Scripture hath affected this style

130 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, of plurality because of those two, the Cochma^ or
XL Wisdom, and the Bina, or Understanding, which are
spoken of Prov. iii. 19. where Solomon reflects upon
the Author of the creation ; and they allege upon
this subject the place of Ecclesiastes xii. 1 . where
Creators are mentioned. Bachqje in Pent at. fol. 4.
col. 2, 4. R. Joseph de Karnitol. in Saare Tsedec.
fol. 7. col. 2.

As they study in a special manner the history of
the creation, and consider very nicely every expres-
sion thereof, they take notice that the Jerusalem
Targum hath translated those words in the begin-
ning, Bereschit, God created heaven and earth, by
these, God created hy his Wisdom, which is called
the beginning, Prov. viii ; and so that Onkelos hath
not translated the word Bereschit by the word Kad-
mita, which signifies the beginning of time, but by
the word Bekadmin, which signifies the ancient or
the first, which is the title they give to Wisdom, ac-
cording to the same place of Solomon which I have
quoted. This is the notion of the book Habbahir,
of the Zohar, and of the Rabboth, whose words are
related at large by R. Menachem de Rekanati in
Pentat. fol. 1. col. 1, 2. of the Venice edition by
Bombergue.

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

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

And indeed they acknowledge not only that

against the Unitarians. 131

Wisdom to have been the efficient cause of the chap.
Word, but they acknowledge also the Bind as such XL
an efficient cause with God ; from hence they pre-
tend that God hath founded the world by his two
hands, as it is said by Isa. xlviii. 13. so Bachaje in
Gen. fol. 3. col. 2.

And this notion agreeth exactly with what is said
by Moses, that the Spirit of God moved itself upon
the face of the abyss. For it is not of a created
wind, but of a divine and uncreated Being that
Moses speaks there, and it is the same which is
spoken of by David, Psalm xxxiii. 6. as it is ac-
knowledged by Leo Hebreeus Dial, de Amore, and
by Menasseh ben Israel Concil. in Gen. q. 2. j%
and by many others.

It is to be noted, that as the first Christians
make use of the word number, when they speak of
the Divine Wisdom, acknowledging that it differs
in number, but not in substance from the eternal
Father; as Justin takes it in the same sense against
Tryphon ; and acknowledges some degrees between
the three Persons, as doth Tertullian in some places;
and as afterwards they have made use of the word
person : so the ancient Jews have among them the
same terms, which shews they had the same ideas :
they speak of the Sephiroth, that is, of the numbers
in the Godhead ; they speak of the several Mad-
regoth, which is degrees ; they speak of Prosopin,
which is Persons, as I have shewn before.

They cannot express their mind more distinctly,
than when they distinguish, 1. he and thou, which
is the characteristical distinction of persons, and
when they apply these pronouns to the Persons
which they conceive in the Godhead : so they say
that Thou belongs to the Wisdom, and He to the
God which is absconded. R. Menach. ibid. fol. 22.
col. 2. and fol. 45. col. 1.

They give to them their characteristical names ;
so they make the name Anochi to belong to the God

k 2

132 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, absconded; they refer the name of any to the She-
XL kinah or Memra, which names are the same to
them, as I shall shew afterwards. See R. Menach.
in Pent. fol. 14p,. col. 4.

They refer to these Persons the consultations and
speeches of God, as directed to many ; as, Let us
make man, which contains a deep mystery, as says
Bachaje ; (but which others would elude, by main-
taining that God speaks to angels:) so doth R. Me-
nach. de Rek. fol. 35. col. 4. So they conceive that
when it is said in Scripture that God speaks with
his heart, then God speaks with his Shekinah : it is
their remark upon Gen. xi. Let us come down. R.
Men. fol. 27. col. 2. and fol. 28. col. 2. So they ac-
knowledge distinctly in these words, Gen. xix. 24.
And Jehovah rained upon Sodom from J ehovah ;
that those two Jehovah are two Persons, which
they call expressly two Prosopin. R. Menach. fol.
11. col. 1. and fol. 63. col. 4. So in the history of
the tower of Babel. Ibid. fol. 28. col. 3.

They distinguish exactly the characteristical ac-
tions which belong to these Persons. So they at-
tribute to the God absconded, to have acted in the
creation by his Wisdom, and by his Understanding.
R. Menach. fol. 1. from Breschit Rabba ; and that
according to Solomon, Prov. iii. and to David, Psal.
xxxiii. 6.

They say that this Wisdom is called the Begin-
ning, although she is but the second Sephira, be-
cause beyond her they can know nothing, the first
Sephira being unknown to all creatures. It is the
doctrine of the book Jetzira, and of the Zohar re-
lated by R. Men. fol. 1. col. 3. They maintain that
it is the Shekinah, or Wisdom, which rules the
world, according to Solomon's words, Prov. viii.
R. Men. fol. 35. col. 1.

I shall shew in one of the next chapters, that
they refer to the Shekinah or Memra, almost all the
appearances of God which are mentioned in Scrip-

against the Unitarians.

133

ture, according to the ideas of the Targum. And chap.
this is to be seen in the comments of Ramban and XL
of Bachaje upon the Pentateuch. I quote here
only R. Menachem, because he brings the very
words of the authors who lived before him ; so that
his authority is not alone, but upheld by the con-
sent of old authors.

Now he and his authors teach constantly, that it
was the Shekinah which appeared to Adam after
his sin, and made him clothes, fol. 59. col. 4. that
it appeared to Abraham, fol. 35. col. 2. that it ap-
peared to Jacob at night, fol. 36. col. 2. and to the
same upon the ladder, fol. 41, 42. that it appeared
to Moses, Exod. iii. fol. 55, col. 2. and to the peo-
ple upon Mount Sinai, fol. 56. col. 2. that it spake
to Moses, and gave the Law to the people, fol. 57.
col. 2, 3. fol. 58. col. 1. and fol. 84. col. 1. and
col. 2.

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

So they give to the Shekinah the character of
Ruler and Conductor of the animals of glory, who
receive their virtue from the Shekinah, and live by
his glory, fol. 65. col. 2. and fol. 66. col. 4. Ac-
cording as we read in Ezek. i. 13. So R. Menachem,
following the Zohar, fol. 5. col. 3. and fol. 8.
col. 1.

They call the Shekinah the Adam from above,
after whose image Adam was created : and they
give to him the titles of Exalted and Blessed,
which they give only to the true God, R. Men. fol.
14. col. 3. They say, that it was he to whom
Noah offered his sacrifice. Ibid. fol. 2/- col. 1. and
fol. 34. col. 4.

They pretend that the Shekinah is the bride-
groom of the synagogue, according to the idea of

K 3

134 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. God by Isaiah lxii. 3. R. Men, fol. 15. col. 1. And
' that God having committed to angels the care of
other nations, the Shekinah alone was intrusted
with the care and conduct of Israel, fol. 28. col. 3,
and fol. 153. col. 2,

They pretend that he was in the captivity with
their fathers, R. Men. fol. 17. col. 2. 4. and fol.
51. col. 2. and that he smote the Egyptians, fol.
56. col. 4. without the help of angels, although
the angels attended him as their King, fol. 59. col.
1, 2. and fol. 6l. col. 3.

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

In a word, they look upon the Shekinah as the
living God, fol. 2. col. 1 : the God of Jacob, R.
Men. fol. 38. col. 3. And they acknowledge him
to be that very Angel whom Jacob looks upon as
his Redeemer, his Shepherd, and whom the Pro-
phets call the Angel of the Presence, and the An-
gel of' the Covenant. Ibid. fol. 73. col. 1. and fol.
83. col. 4.

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

This idea is grounded upon what is said, Thou
at*t our Father, which they refer to the Shekinah,
fol. 22. col. 2, 3, And they call her upon that ac-

against the Unitarians.

135

count the mother of Israel, and his tutor, R. Men. chap.
fol. 62. col. 3. fol. 64. col. 4. That idea of the XL
Holy Ghost as a mother, which R. Menachem
hath, fol. 114. col. 2. is so ancient among the Jews,
that St. Jerome witnesses that it was the name
which the Nazarenes gave to the Holy Ghost,
Hieronym. in Ezek. xvi. in Isa. viii. and in Matt,
xiii.

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

I acknowledge that sometimes some of them
seem to take the Shekinah for the Holy Ghost, and
the Holy Ghost for the Shekinah, although they
commonly call one the second Sephira, and the
other the third, viz. the Binah, as is to be seen in
R. Men. fol. 80. col. 2. So some of them refer to the
Binah the title of King of Israel, which occurs so
often in Scripture; see R. Men. fol. 132. col. 3.
although it is the common name of the Shekinah,
fol. 113. col. 1. Some other refer to the Shekinah
the name of the Spirit of God, which is mentioned
Gen. i. 1. So says the author of the book Jetzira,
in R. Menachem, fol. 3. col. 2.

But if some are mistaken in their ideas, I can
say that they are very few, and almost not worth
taking notice of. And indeed if we consider a little
what is the general sense of those authors about
the emanations which are spoken of in Scripture,

k 4

136 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, as by which the Divine nature is communicated to
XI- the Aoyog or Sheldnah, and to the Holy Ghost, we
shall know evidently that they had as distinct a
notion of a true Trinity, as they have of the plu-
rality of Persons in the unity of the Divine essence.

And first, the author of the Zohar, and the author
of the book Habbahir, pronounce that the third
Sephira proceeds from the first by the second ; and
R. Men. follows their doctrine, fol. 1. col. 3.

2dly. They attribute equally the name of Jehovah
both to the second and the third Sephira, viz. the
Wisdom, and the Binah, or Understanding. So
does the Zohar in R. Men. fol. 3. col. 3. and fol. 10.
col. 4.

3dly. They propose the manner in which Eve
was taken from Adam, as an image of the manner
of emanation of the Wisdom from the En Soph,
that is, Infinite. Ibid. fol. 105. col. 3. and fol. 14.
col. 1.

4thly. They propose the image of the two che-
rubim s who were drawn from the ark, to give the
idea of the two last Persons ; for the distinction of
the cherubims was evident, though there was an
unity of them with the ark. So R. Men. fol. 74.
col. 3.

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

And first, R. Menachem, with the Jewish authors,
supposes that not only the three Persons, whom
they call Sephiroth, are spoken of in the history of
the creation, but that they are also expressed in the
first command of the Law. See him, fol. 66. col. 3.
and fol. 68. col. 1.

2dly. They acknowledge those three Sephiroth,
and attribute to every one of them his operations.
Ibid. fol. 139- col. 4.

3dly. The author of Zohar is a voucher of great
authority; and he cites these words of R. Jose, (a
famous Jew of the second century,) where examin-

against the Unitarians. 137

ing the text, Deut. iv. 7- Who have their Gods so chap.

near to them P " What," saith he, " may the mean- XL

* ing of this be? It seems that Moses should have

" said, Who have God so near them P But," saith

he, " there is a superior God, and there is the God

" who was the fear of Isaac, and there is an inferior

" God ; and therefore Moses saith, The Gods so

" near. For there are many virtues that come from

" the only One, and all they are one."

See how the same author supposes that there are
three degrees in the Godhead, in Levit. col. 11 6.
" Come and see the mystery in the word Elohim,
" viz. There are three degrees, and every degree is
" distinct by himself ; and notwithstanding, they are
" all one, and tied in one, and one is not separated
" from the other." And again, in Exod. col. 75. upon
the words of Deut. vi. 4. Hear, O Israel, The Lord
our God is one Lord; " They must know that those
" three (viz. m»T, D\1^K, mrp) are one nnum ; and
" that is a secret which we learn in the mystery of
" the voice which is heard : the voice is one unum,
" but it contains three modes, viz. the fire, the air,
" and the water. Now these three are one in the
" mystery of the voice, and they are but one unum.
" So in this place, Jehovah, our Lord, Jehovah, are
" one unum."

You have this remark of the same author in
Gen. fol. 54. col. 2. de litera that the three
branches of that letter denote the heavenly Fathers,
who are there named Jehovah, our Lord, Jehovah.

R. Hay Hagahon, who lived seven hundred years
ago, said there are three lights in God ; the ancient
light, or Kadmon; the pure light, or m ; the purified
light, or rEtfTOD; and that these make but one God:
and that there is neither plurality nor Polytheism in
this. The same idea is followed by R. Shem Tov. in
his book Emunoth, part 4. cap. 8. p. 32. col. 2.

See again R. Hamay Hagaon in his book ryyn ot
Speculation, cited by Reuchlin, p. 651. Hi tres qui
sunt unum inter se proportionem habent ut

138 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. TIT IffVD unum uniens et unitum. He said before,
XL PflDI y^DN") W#T\ Dm simtf principium et medium et
finis, et h(EC sunt unus punctus et est dominus
universi.

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

The note of this R. Joseph Gekatilia is very re-
markable. The Jews, saith he, have been under
the severity of judgment, and shall continue so till
the coming of the Messias, who shall be united,
saith he, with the second Sephirah, which is Wisdom,
according as it is written, Isai. xi. 2. And the spirit
of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of Wis-
dom, fyc. And he shall cause the Spirit of grace
and clemency to descend from the first Sephifah,
who is called, syiD pa the Infinite; and he follows in
that Rabbi Salomon Jarchi, who saith upon Isai. xi.
that the Cochma, which is the second Sephira, shall
be in the middle of the Messias.

In a word, this notion of Plurality and Trinity,
expressed in the writings of Moses and the Prophets,
hath not only been observed by the Jews, but they
have found and acknowledged it, as well as the
Christians, to be a great and profound mystery.
And for the explaining of it the Jews have em-
ployed very near the same ideas that the Christians
use in speaking of the three Persons of the blessed
Trinity. For they conceive in God (Defaces, and
JTHH subsistences, which we call Persons, as one may
see in Sepher Jetzirah.

Moreover, we may observe, 1st. That when they
speak of the three first Sephiroth, they understand
the same thing by them as we do by three per-
sonalities, three modes of existence, active or pas-
sive emanations or processions, which are the foun-
dation of the personalities.

against the Unitarians.

139

2dly. That though they hold ten Sephiroth in chap.
all, yet they make a great difference between the XL
three first Sephiroth, and the seven last. For they
look upon the first as Persons, but upon the last as
attributes, according to which God acts in the ordi-
nary course of his providence, or according to his
several dispensations towards his creatures. Hence
they call the seven last Middoth, or measures, that
is to say, the attributes and characters which are
visible in the works of God, namely, his justice and
mercy, &c. And this is confessed in plain words
by the great Cabalist R. Menachem de Rekanati :
Tres primaries numerationes, quce sunt intellectu-
ales, non vocantur mensurcB, i. e. they are not attri-
butes, as are the seven last which he explains under
that notion. Rittangel hath already quoted that
place in his notes upon Sepher Jetzira, p. 193.

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

They gave the name of Father to the first of
their Sephiroth, whom they called En Soph, i. e.
Infinite, to express his incomprehensibility. This
we have in Zohar, from whence it is easy to con-
clude that they must own the Son also, the name
of Father being relative to the Son. But further
they knew that second Person by the name Cochma,
Wisdom, even that Wisdom by which the world was
created, &c. according to Prov. iii. 19. The Lord by
Wisdom hath founded the earth. This notion was

140 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, so ancient among the Jews, that the Jerusalem
XL Tar gum hath rendered the first verse of Genesis
thus : The Lord created by his Wisdom. The
Christians called him the Word, and Wisdom, al-
luding to divers places, especially Psalm xxxiii. 6.
and Prov. viii. 14. The Jews commonly call him,
W TQD the second Glory, and the Crown of the
creation. Rittang. brings their authorities for this
in Seph. Jetzira, p. 4, 5.

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

The same doctrine is to be found in several other
books of the Cabalists which are known to most
Christians, because they are printed ; and the same
thing is to be found in their manuscripts, which are
more rare, because the Jews have not yet printed
them. Of this sort is Iggereth Hassodoth, cited by
Galatinus, whose authority is vindicated by Planta-
vitius Bibl. Rabb. p. 549. Of this sort also is the
manuscript called Sod Mercava Eliona quoted by
Ritt. p. 35. where are mentioned the three modes
of existence in God. Notwithstanding which they
are all unanimous, that the Lord is one, and his
name is one.

If you would know on what foundations it was
that the Cabalists built this doctrine, you need but
to look over the texts on which they have not made
their remarks, and you will find them almost all the
same with those that were quoted to the same pur-
pose by the Apostles and apostolical men in their
writings.

Particularly if you would know their opinion
concerning this query, viz. who it was that God

against the Unitarians.

141

did speak to at the creation, Gen. i. 26. R. Juda chap.
will tell you God spoke to his Word. XL

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

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

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

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

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

If you would know whom that is to be referred
to, which we read of, Isai. xl. 14. R. Abraham ben
David will tell you, to the three Sephiroth.

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

But it may be said, that the Jews have adopted
this doctrine inconsiderately, without being sensible
of the absurdity of it. For how is it possible to
conceive such emanations in God, who is immut-
able and eternal ; and such an idea of Plurality and
of Trinity in God, who is over and above all ideas
of composition?

But I answer, 1. All these they have considered,
and yet they have owned this distinction in the
Divine essence, as a truth not to be contested. But
assert these three Sephiroth, which they call some-
times Spirits, to be eternal and essential in God ;
which they say we ought not to deny, because we

142 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, cannot easily conceive it: for the Divine nature is
_1_ incomprehensible^ far exceeding the limits of our
narrow understandings : and that the revelation God
hath given us does not make us more capable to
judge of the nature of the things revealed, than the
borrowed light of the moon, which is all that the
owls can behold, does render them able to judge of
the suns far more glorious light. Such are the
thoughts of R. Sabtay in Rit. on Jetz. p. 78, 79> 80-
Such are the reflections of R. Menach. who cites
Job xxviii. 7- to this purpose ; and the caution of the
Jewish doctors, who forbid to undertake the ex-
amination of things that are incomprehensible.

2. They have expressed their notions of this
matter much after the same manner as the Thomists
have done theirs. The book Jetzira, chap. 1. dis-
tinguishes in God, Sopher, Sepher, and Sippour;
which R. Abraham explaining, says they answer to
him that understands, to the act of understanding,
and to the thing understood.

All this is still the more remarkable, 1. Because
the generality of the Jews have well nigh quite lost
the notion of the Messias being God; and they gene-
rally expect no other than a mere common man for
their Redeemer.

2. Because the main body of the Jews are such
zealous asserters of the unity of God, that they
repeat every day the words of Deut. vi. 4. The Lord
our God is one Lord. It is a practice, which though
now they have turned it against the Christians, yet
doubtless was taken up at first in opposition to the
Gentiles, whose Polytheism was renounced in this
short confession of the Jewish faith. And hence it
is that they do so much celebrate R. Akiba's faith,
who died in torments, with the last syllables of the
word Echad in his mouth ; which signifies the
unity of God.

3. Because the Jews at the same time dispute
against the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; as doth

against the Unitarians.

143

R. Saadia, for instance, in his book entitled Sepher chap.
Emunah, chap. 2. XL

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

And yet notwithstanding all this opposition, the
Cabalists have passed, and do still pass, for Divines
among the Jews, and the Targumists for inspired
men.

Nor is it to be imagined that these notions of the
cabalistical Jews are new things, which they picked
up since their more frequent converse with the Chris-
tians : for we find them in the book Zohar, the au-
thor of which is reputed one of the chief Jewish
martyrs, (Jebhamoth, tr. 1. fol. 5. col. 2.), and to
have lived in the second century. I know some
have suspected that this book is a counterfeit, and
falsely fathered on R. Simeon, whose name it bears.
The Zohar was not known, say they, till about the
time of R. Moses Bar Nachman : so saith the book
Juchazin, p. 42. and R. D. Ganz in Tzemach Da-
vid, p. lo6\ But we find these notions in the be-
ginning of the Rabboth, which books they will
have to be more ancient than the Talmud. Fur-
thermore, we see in the Gemara of Sabbath, that
R. Simeon was dispensed with the necessity of his
being present at prayers in the synagogue, because
he and his scholars were at work upon the study of
the laws ; which supposes that he was writing some
such comments as we have nowT, though it is pro-
bable that they have been augmented in the follow-
ing ages. Besides, who can imagine that in all
places the Jews should have adopted opinions un-
known to their religion, and in effect destructive
of those points for which they then zealously con-
tended, if they had not been convinced of the truth
of such a doctrine?

144 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. And now give me leave to propose one argument
XT" to the Unitarians, which I believe they will not be
able to answer, and adhere at the same time to their
new-fangled position, that the Nazarenes were the
true primitive Christians, and the only depositaries
of the apostolic doctrine. It is a passage taken
from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, as cited by St.
Jerome on Ezek. xvi. where after noting that the
word Ruach, Spirit, in the Hebrew tongue is fe-
minine ; he adds, " In Evangelio quoque Hebrae-
" orum, quod lectitant Nazarsei, Salvator inducitur
" loquens, Modo me arripuit Mater mea, Spiritus
" Sanctus." This passage of the Nazarenes' Gospel
would never have been understood, if we had not
known that the Jews call the Holy Spirit Imma,
Mother, as well as Binah, Understanding ; as we
see in Zohar and other Cabalists. And perhaps
from hence Philo de Temul. calleth brioryfJLV}, the
mother of the world.

Nor are we to fancy that the Talmudists oppose
the Cabalists herein. No ; Maimonides, who is a
Talmudist, agrees in this with the Cabalists, as ap-
pears from his book De Fundament. Legis, chap. ii.
and Mor. Neb. p. 1. chap, lxviii.

Lastly, it ought not to be urged against what I
have said, that the Jews have formal quarrels against
the doctrine of the Trinity, as Saadiah SepherEmu-
noth, chap. 2. and Maim. Mor. Neb. p. 1. c. jHU For
we may remember, 1. That all their disputes with
the Christians are built on this wrong bottom, that
the Christians are Tritheists, and deny the unity of
the Deity. 2. That almost all those who dispute
against the Christians on this head, contradict them-
selves in their writings that are not polemical, but
are drawn up in cool blood, out of the heat of dis-
pute ; of which Saadiah Haggaon, as I have shewed
before, is a proof. 3. The study of their rites having ►
been the great business of the Jews for many cen-
turies, it hath happened that their greatest authors

against the Unitarians.

145

have applied themselves but little to the study of chap.
the traditions concerning their doctrines. In Mai- XL
monides, one of the greatest men the Jews ever had,
we have a plain example of it : he tells us, that it
was towards the declension of his life before he
could turn himself to study their traditions ; and he
laments his misfortune, in that he could not begin
this study sooner. This is related by R. Elias Chai-
im, who saith he had it from a letter of Maimonides
to one of his scholars.

I have said before, that these notions of the ca-
balist Jews are received in all the parts of the world
where the Jews are found in any numbers ; and I
say it not without good reason : for, 1 . The Rabboth
are books received wherever there are Jews ; now
this book begins with the notion of a second Per-
son. 2. As for the Cabalists, they are dispersed
with the other Jews; and in all places where learn-
ing is cultivated, and study encouraged, there they
are to be found. 3. We may well infer the universal-
ity of this tradition, from the several different au-
thors that have written alike on this subject, with-
out any consent or communication together that we
know of.

R. Saadiah Hagaon writ in Babylon in the tenth
century. He was an Egyptian by birth, and the
translator of the Pentateuch into Arabic, and wrote
a bitter book against the Christians, (which hath
been printed at Thessalonica, and since at Amster-
dam,) where he disputes against the Christians' Tri-
nity; yet he teaches not only the Unity, but this
distinction from everlasting in the Deity.

R. Moses Bar Nachman in the thirteenth cen-
tury, and R. Judas the Levite, writ in Spain ; and
yet we see how they agree in their notions with the
Cabalists, who nourished otherwhere.

R. Aaron writ at Babylon; and yet his notions
are as exactly like those of Spain, as if he had trod
in their steps.

R. Moses Botril writ in France, and he teaches

146 The Judgm ent of the Jewish Church

chap, the same things. He that would see the places
XL at large may consult their comment on the book
Jetzira.

It is now time to return to the judgment of the
ancient synagogue, and to consider how it either
agrees with or differs from us in the other matters
we have in hand.

CHAP. XII.

That the Jews had a distinct notion of the Word as
of a Person, and of a Divine Person too.

A. GREAT part of the dispute we have with the
Socinians depending on the true meaning of the
first chapter of St. John's Gospel, where the Aoyog
is spoken of as being he that created the world, and
was at length made flesh, and whom we Christians
look upon as the promised Messias, I think I cannot
do the truth a greater service, than by clearing this
notion of the Aoyog, and shewing what thoughts the
ancient Jews had concerning it.

Socinus confesses that the Aoyog is a Person ; for
he owns that St. John did describe the man Christ
Jesus by the Aoyog, and attributed to him the cre-
ation of the Church, which is, according to him,
the new world. But here in England, the followers
of Socinus will not stand by this exposition, but un-
derstand by the Aoyog that virtue by which God
created heaven and earth, as Moses relates^ Gen. i.
They obstinately deny this virtue to be a person, i. e.
an intelligent subsistence, and rather look upon it as
a Divine attribute, which, they say, was particularly
discovered in the mission of Jesus Christ for the
salvation of mankind.

It cannot be denied by them, that St. John, being
one of the circumcision, did write with an especial
respect to the Jews, that they might understand him,

against the Unitarians.

147

and receive benefit by it; and therefore it cannot be chap.
doubted, but that when he called Jesus Christ the X1L
Aoyog, he used a word that was commonly known
among the Jews of those times in which he lived.

Otherwise, if he had used this word in a sense
not commonly known to the Jews, he would have
signified to them the new idea he had affixed to
it. But he gives not the least intimation of any
thing new in it, though he uses the word so many
times in the very beginning of his Gospel. It is cer-
tain therefore, that he used it in the sense wherein
it was then commonly understood by the Jews.

Now the idea the Jews had of the Aoyog, was the
same they had of a real and proper person, that is,
a living, intelligent, free principle of action. That
this was their notion of the Aoyog, or Word, we shall
prove by the works of Philo and the Chaldee para-
phrases.

To begin with Philo. He conceives the Word to
be a true and proper cause : for he declares, in about
a hundred places, that God created the world by his
Word. He conceived the Word to be an intelligent De Opif.
cause; because in him, according to Philo, are the^c.D.61
original ideas of all things that are expressed in the
works of the creation.

He makes the Word a cooperator with God in the
creation of man, and says that God spake those Lib. Quis
words to him, Let us make man, Gen. i. 26. It may nxr.pj'
be added, that he calls the Word the image of God,400-E.F.
and makes man the image of this image.

These are some of the characters that represent
the Word as a true Person.

But there are others no less demonstrative of this
truth: as, 1. when Philo asserts that the Aoyog is
begotten of God, Alleg. ii. p. 76. B. which can agree
only to a person : and, 2. when he proves that the
Word acted and spoke in all the Divine appearances
that are mentioned in the Old Testament; which
certainly supposes a person. 3. Where he describes
the Word as presiding over the empires of the world,

148 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, and determining the changes that befall them. Lib.
' quod Deus sit immutab. p. 248. D. 4. Where he
brings in the Word for a mediator between God and
men, (Quis Rer. Div. H&r. p. 393.) that renders
God propitious to his creatures, De Somn. p. 447-
E. F; that is, the instructor of men, Ibid. p. 448, and
their shepherd, alluding to Psalm xxiii. 1.

The Chaldee paraphrases are full of notions and
expressions relating to the Word, conformable to
those of Philo touching the Aoyog: so that he must
wink hard, who does not see that in their sense the
Word is truly a Person.

And, 1. They almost always distinguish the Mem-
ra, or Word of the Lord, which answers to Philo' s
Aoyog, from the word Pithgama, which signifies a
matter or a discourse, as does in Greek.

2. They ascribe the creation of the world to the
Word.

3. They make it the Word "that appeared to the
ancients under the name of the Angel of the Lord.

4. The Word that saved Noah in the time of the
flood, and made a covenant with him, Onkel. on
Gen. vii. viii.

5. They say that Abraham believed in the Word,
which thing was imputed to him for righteousness,
Onkel. on Gen. xv. 6.

6. That the Word brought Abraham out of Chal-
dea, (Onkel. on Gen. xv. 7-) and commanded him to
sacrifice, Gen. xv. 9. and gave him the prophecy re-
lated ver. 13.

7. That Abraham swore by the Word, Onk. on
Gen. xxi. 23.

8. That the Word succoured Ishmael, Gen. xxi. 21.
and Joseph in his bondage, Gen. xxxix. 2, 3.

The like notions has Onkelos in his Targum on
Exodus.

1. It is the Word's assistance that God promises
to Moses, Exod. iii. 12. iv. 12. xviii. 19*

2. It is the Word in whom Israel believed, as well
as in Moses, Exod. xiv. 32.

against the Unitarians.

149

3. It is the Word that redeems Israel out of chap.
Egypt, Exod. xv. 2. XIL

4. It is the Word against whom Israel murmured
in Sin, Exod. xvi. 8.

5. It is the Word before whom the people march-
ed to receive the Law, Exod. xix. 17.

6. It is the Word whose presence is promised in
the tabernacle, Exod. xxx. 6. xxxvi. 42. which is re-
peated Numb. viii. 29.

7. It is the Word between whom and Israel the
sabbath is made a sign, Exod. xxxi. 13, 17? and so
Lev. xxxvi. 46.

8. It is the Word whose protection was promised
Moses, when he desired to see God, Exod. xxxiv.
22.

Much the same has Onkelos on Leviticus and
Numbers.

1. It is the Word whose commandments the Is-
raelites were to observe carefully, Lev. viii. 35. xviii.
30. xxii. 9. Numb. ix. 19. xx. 23.

2. It is spoken of the Word, that he will not for-
sake the people, if they continue in their obedience,
Lev. xxviii. 11.

3. By the Word God looks upon his people. Ibid.

4. The majesty of the Word did rest among the
Israelites, Numb. xi. 20.

5. It is the Word whom Moses exhorts the Jews
not to rebel against, Numb. xiv. 9. xx. 24.

6. They believed in the Word, Numb. xiv. 11.
xx. 12.

7. The Word meets Balaam, Numb, xxiii. and
opens his eyes, xxii. 31.

The same things, or the like, we find in Onkelos
on Deuteronomy.

1. The Word brought Israel out of Egypt, and
fought for them, Deut. i. 30. iii. 22. viii. 2. xx. 1.

2. The Word led Israel in the pillar of a cloud, i.
32.

3. The Word spake out of the fire at Horeb, iv.

l 3

150 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. 34 3g. Moses was mediator between the Word
XII •

and his people, v. 5.

5. Moses exhorts the Jews to obey the Word,
xiv. 18. xv. 5. xxvii. 14. xxviii. 1, 3, 15, 45, 62. xxx.
8, 19, 20.

6. The Word conducts Israel under Joshua to the
land of Canaan, xxxi. 6, 8.

7. The Word created the world, xxxiii. 27.

So agreeable, as you see, are the notions of Onke-
los to those of Philo, though the one writ in Egypt,
the other in Palestine, and both before the time of
our Lord Jesus Christ.

But besides Onkelos on the Pentateuch, we have
two other paraphrases : the one, which is very dif-
fuse, is said to be Jonathan's; the other, which is
called the Jerusalem Targum, and is short, and, as it
seems, imperfect. The reader may soon judge by
comparing them, whether they differ from Philo and
Onkelos, or no.

The Jerusalem Targum saith, that God created
the world by his Wisdom, which he grounds on the
word Bereshith, Gen. i. 1. And Philo means the
same things, when he calls the Aoyog, apyri, the first
emanation, De Conjus. Ling. p. 267. B.

The same Targum saith, the Word made man
after his image, Gen. i. 27.

Jonathan's affirms that the garden of Eden was
planted by the Word for the just before the creation
of the world, Gen. ii. 8.

And both Jonathan's and the Jerusalem Targum
say, the Word spoke to Adam in the garden, Gen.
iii. 9; the Word lifted up Enoch to heaven, Gen. v.
24.

Jonathan's affirms that the Word protected Noah,
and shut the door of the ark upon him, Gen. vii. \6.

That the Word threw down the tower at Babel,
Gen. xi. 6.

And both have it, that God promised Abraham
that his Word should protect him, Gen. xv. 1 .

against the Unitarians.

151

Jonathan's makes it the Word that plagued Pha- c^p*
raoh for Abraham's sake, Gen. xii. 17. *

The Jerusalem Targum saith, it was the Word
that appeared to Abraham at the tent door, Gen.
xviii. 1 ; and that the Word rained fire from before
the Lord, Gen. xix. 24.

And both this Targum and Jonathan's say, that
Abraham taught his people to hope in the name of
the Word of the Lord, Gen. xxi. 33.

The Jerusalem Targum makes Abraham say, The
Word of the Lord will prepare a sacrifice, Gen. xxii.
8 ; and asserts that Abraham invoked the Word, and
called him Lord in his prayer, Gen. xxii. 14.

Jonathan's Targum brings in Abraham swearing
by the Word of the Lord, Gen. xxiv. 3 ; and God
promising that his Word would succour Isaac,
Gen. xxiii. 24, 28. repeated Gen. xxxi. 3, 5, 42.
xxxii.9.

The same Targum says, that the Word of the
Lord made Rachel bear a child, Gen. xxx. 22; which
is consonant to what Philo saith, that the Aoyog
caused Isaac to be born, Alleg. 1. 2. p. 77.

According to this Targum, the Word sent Michael
to save Thamar, Gen. xxxviii. 25. The Word went
down with Jacob into Egypt, Gen. xlvi. 1 — 4.

The Word succours Joseph, Gen. xlix. 25; which
Joseph acknowledges, Gen. 1. 20.

We may trace the same notions in their Targums
on Exodus.

According to Jonathan's, the Word built houses
for the mid wives that feared God, Exod. i.21.

The Word caused that miraculous heat which dis-
posed Pharaoh's daughter to go and bathe herself in
the Nile, Exod. ii. 5.

It was he that spake, and the world was made,
according to Jonathan's Targum ; or it was the
Word of the Lord, according to the Jerusalem Tar-
gum, that spoke to Moses, Exod. iii. which clearly
shews that they made use of the word Memra to

l 4

152 The Judgment of the Jewish Church
chap, express what is so often repeated, Gen. i. And God

XII. • 7

said.

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

According to the Jerusalem Targum, the Word
appeared to Abraham by the name of the God of
heaven ; and the name of his Word was not declared
to the patriarchs, Exod. vi. 3.

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

The Word of the Lord hath appeared on three
remarkable occasions: first, at the creation of the
world ; secondly, to Abraham ; thirdly, at Israel's
departure out of Egypt : and a fourth time he shall
appear at the coming of the Messiah. Thus Jona-
than, and Targ. Jerusalem, Exod. xii. 42.

The Word wrought miracles by Moses, Exod.

xiii. 8.

The Word raised up those Israelites which were
killed by the Philistines that left Egypt three years
before the departure of their brethren out of Egypt,
Exod. xiii. ij.

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

It is the Word that looked on the host of the
Egyptians ; and to him the Israelites cried, Exod.

xiv. 24, 31.

It is the Word that gives the law concerning the
sabbath, Exod. xvi. 25. and he against whom Israel
murmured, ver. 8.

The Israelites hear the voice of the Word, Exod.

xix. 5, who speaks, ver. 9, and pronounces the Law,

xx. 1 ; being the same that redeemed Israel from
Egypt, Ibid, and Lev. i.

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

The Word punishes Israel for the golden calf,
Exod. xxxii. 35.

against the Unitarians.

153

The Word talks with Moses in the tabernacle, chap.
and the people worship him, Exod. xxxiii. 9, 11. XIL
Lev. i.

It is the Word whose appearance is promised to
Moses, Exod. xxxiii. 19. and the Word is distin-
guished from the angels that attend him, Exod.
xxxiii. 23.

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

The Word makes statutes, Lev. xxiv. lit Numb,
xxii. 18. according to the same Jonathan.

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

By the order of the Word of the Lord the Israel-
ites encamp, Numb. ix. 19, 23.

It is the Word to whom prayer is made upon re-
moving the ark of the covenant, Numb. x. 35, 36.

The Word spoke to all the Prophets before Mo-
ses, Numb. xii. 6.

The Word gives answer, Numb. xiv. 20.

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

It is before the Word that the idolatrous Israel-
ites were hanged, Numb. xxv. 4.

It is the Word that wrought wonders in the de-
sert in behalf of Israel, Deut. i. 1. iv. 34. vi. 22.
and whom the Israelites provoked, Deut. i. 1 .

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

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

The Word sits on a throne high lifted up, and
hears the people's prayers, and speaks from the
midst of the fire, and gives the Law, Deut. iv. 7> 12,
33. v. 23, 24, 25.

154 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

Moses is a mediator between the Word and the
people, Deut. v.

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

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

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

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

The Word destroyed Sodom, Deut. xxix. 23.
The Word sware to the Patriarchs, Deut. xxxi. 7.
The Word shall judge the people, Deut. xxxii.
36.

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

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

The Word shews Moses the generations of the
great men of Israel, Deut. xxxiv. 1.

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

To conclude, Moses dies according to the decree
of the Word of the Lord ; that is to say, the Word
recalls his soul with a kiss, and with a huge train
of angels inters his body; being the same Word
that had appeared to him, and sent him into Egypt;
and by so many miracles redeemed Israel from
thence, Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6, 10, 11, 12.

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

I know the word Memra in the Hebrew is some-

against the Unitarians.

155

times taken in another sense, as well as that of Aoyos chap.
is in the Greek. But all the personal characters of XIL
action, of commanding, of speaking, of answering,
of giving laws, of issuing out decrees, of being
prayed to, of receiving worship, and the like, are so
expressly given to that Word we now treat of, as
render it absurd to take it for any thing else but a
Person.

Let us next inquire into the nature of this Person,
according to the same testimonies of the ancient
Jews, whether it be angelical or divine, and conse-
quently whether this Person be truly God.

I propose this, not that I think there is any ne-
cessity of proving it after all that I have already ob-
served from the ancient Jews touching the Word ;
but for the clearer manifestation of the absurdity
into which our adversaries fall, by their striving to
force another sense upon the word, as the more
knowing men among them cannot but see, when
they consider these proofs with attention.

He who writ against Vechnerus endeavours in
general to persuade us, that in those places of the
Targums where the Memra is spoken of, it is used
to express the Divine providence over the faithful
of ancient times ; or else in particular it signifies
the attributes of God, his affections or actions, his
miracles, his appearances, his inspirations, and the
like. This he repeats in several parts of his disser-
tation, and at the end of his work he tries to apply
it to several texts in the Targum.

One might reasonably doubt whether he himself
were satisfied with his own performance in this.
I have two great reasons to think he was not. The
first is, that it seems he never consulted Philo's no-
tions of the Aoyog before he made this judgment,
notwithstanding that he could not but see them in
Grotius on St. John's Gospel, which he quotes;
and he could not but know how much they were
insisted upon by those writers whom he pretended

156 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, to answer. They do indeed so distinctly and clearly
XIL establish the personality of the Aoyog, that they ren-
der useless and unsuitable all the interpretations he
has found out for the texts in the Targums.

The second is, that he himself, though he fitted
his interpretations to divers passages in theTargum,
thereby to break the force of them when turned
against him, is yet forced to acknowledge, that
sometimes the word Memra signifies a person pro-
perly so called, according to our sense of it. The
several places where the Word is said to create the
world, give him much trouble to elude them. And
though he endeavours to rid his hands of them by
asserting that the Word does there signify the
power of God ; nevertheless he lets you understand,
that if you are not pleased with that solution, you
may have his consent to take it in the Arian sense
of the word, for a created God, by whom, as by a
real and instrumental cause, God did truly create
the universe.

This is the strangest answer that could be re-
turned to so great an objection. For he must have
lost his reason who imagines that God can make a
creature capable of creating the universe. Grant
this, and what character will you distinguish the
creature from the Creator by ? By what right then
could God appropriate, as he doth very often in the
Old Testament, the work of the world's creation to
himself, excluding any other from having to do in it
but himself? Why should God upon this score forr
bid the giving worship to the creature which is due
to the Creator? The Arians, who worship Jesus
Christ, though they esteem him a creature, and
those Papists who swallow whole the doctrine of
transubstantiation ; they may teach in their schools
that a creature may be enabled by God to become a
Creator. But as for us, who deny that any thing
but God is to be adored, as Philo denied it before
us, de Decal. p. 581. de Monarch, p. 628. we re-

against the Unitarians.

ject all such vain conceits of a creature being any chap.
way capable to receive the infinite power of a XIL
Creator.

There are other places also which he found he
could not easily elude, so that at length he consents
that the Memra does often denote a person in the
language of the Targums ; as where we read, the
Word spake, and the Word said. But what kind of
person? An angel, a created angel in his judgment,
that speaks in the name of God. And thus he thinks
the Word is to be understood in those paraphrases,
when they ascribe to the Word the leading of Israel
through the desert.

The reader may judge how many texts this an-
swer will fit, by reviewing what has been said in the
two foregoing chapters. He will find I have there
prevented this answer, and shewed that Philo and
the Targums did not take this for a created angel,
but for a Divine Person, who was called an angel in
respect of the office he discharged according to the
economy between the three Persons of the blessed
Trinity; and of whom the Targums generally make
express mention in places where the Hebrew text
hath Jehovah Elohim, or the Angel of the Lord;
and sometimes where it hath simply the name Je-
hovah.

However, to leave no doubt in this matter, we
will undertake to prove further, that the Word doth
not signify a created angel in Philo, or in the Tar-
gums, but a Person truly Divine.

It is true, that Philo sometimes calls the angels
Koyovg in the plural. But elsewhere he speaks of the
Aoyog singularly, in terms that express his acknow-
ledgment of him for the Creator of angels, and conse-
quently for God : this he does in his book De Sacr.
Abel. p. 202. where he declares him to be the Word
that appeared to Moses, and separates him from the
angels, who are the hosts of God.

Again, he describes the Aoyog under the name of
'Ett/o-t^, as true God, as Creator of the world, Lib.

158 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, de Temulentia, p. 190. D. 194. B; but the angels
XIL after another manner, De Plant. Note, p. 168. F. G.
De Gigant. p. 221. E. De Mundo, p.391.

It is true, he calls the Word an archangel, De Con-
fas. Ling. p. 267. B. but in the same place he calls
him the first-born of God, the image of God, the
Creator of the world, p. 258. A; and in another
place, the Son of God, that conducted Israel through
the wilderness, Quis Rer. Div. Har. p. 397. F. G.

He was so far from taking the Word to be an
angel, that he affirmed, the Word used to appear to
men under the form of an angel : thus, saith he, the
Word appeared to Jacob, De Somn. p. 465. D; and
to Hagar, p. 466. B. We are to observe this care-
fully, that we may make Philo agree with Philo:
for one while he saith, an angel appeared to the
patriarchs ; and another time he saith, the A&yog ap-
peared to them ; his design being to acquaint us
that the Aoyog is named an angel, because he ap-
peared as an angel in these kinds of manifestations
of himself.

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

1. Could they ascribe the creation of the world to
the Word, as they do, and yet think him to be a
creature ? Could they profess him to be the Creator
of mankind, without asserting his Divinity? Could
they think him to be no better than an angel, and
yet suppose him to be worshipped by men, whom
they know to be little lower than the angels ? Could
they imagine him to have given the Law on mount
Sinai, and not make some considerations upon the
preface of the Law; wherein the great Lawgiver
says, I am Jehovah thy God, that brought thee out
of the land of Egypt? The Word is not so often
called an angel in the Targums, as he is set forth
with these characters of God ; as the reader may
see especially in Jonathan s Targum, and in that of
Jerusalem, Exod. hi. 14. xii. 42. and in many other
places.

against the Unitarians.

2. The Targum s always distinguish the Word chap.

c XII

from the angels ; representing them as messengers

employed by the Word, as the Word himself is often
described as God's messenger. Thus the Targum
on 1 Kings xix. 11, 12. on Psalm Ixviii. 13, 18. on
2 Chron. xxxii. 21.

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

3. The Targum s represent the Word, as sitting
on a high throne, and hearing the prayers of the
people, Jonathan on Deut. iv. 7.

4. Jonathan saith expressly, that the Word that
spake to Moses was the same who spake and the
world was made, and who was the God of Abraham,
Exod. iii. 14, 15. vi. 4. So then if he who was the
God of Abraham, was only an angel that personated
God, then he who created the world was a created
angel ; which, as I have shewed, is absurd.

5. It is impossible to explain otherwise what the
Jews so unanimously affirm, that God revealed him-
self face to face to Moses ; which is more than he
granted any prophet besides, unless the Word that
appeared to Moses was the true God, and not a
mere angel. See Onk. on Deut. xxxiv. 10, 11. and
the other Targum s.

But what, say they, may not an angel bear the
name of God, when he represents the Person of God?
was not the ark called Jehovah, because it was a
symbol of his Person ?

Does not Jonathan on Numb. xi. 35, 36. say to
the ark, Revelare Sermo Domini et redi ? This is
indeed a notion which the Socinians have borrowed
of Abenezra on Exod. iii. and Joseph. Albo de Fund,
c. 8. And so they pretend that the pillar of cloud
is called the Lord, Exod. xiii. 21. xiv. 19. that the
ark is called the Lord, Numb. x. 35. that the angel
is called the Lord, Judges vi. 15. the name being

l6o The Judgment of the Jewish Church

cha.p given to the symbol, viz. the ark ; and to the second
I cause, namely, the angel ; because of their repre-
senting God.

But to the great displeasure of our modern Jews,
and Socinians, who have borrowed from them their
weapons, we have still enough of the ancient Jewish
pieces left, to shew how their sentiments in these
matters are quite contrary.

For, 1. they (as has been already observed) be-
lieved that the Angel spoken of in Judges vi. 15.
was the Word, and that this Word created the world,
as has been largely proved.

2. Just the reverse of what our moderns say, did
the ancients hold, as we gather from Philo. For
instead of an angel's taking the place of God, he
saith, the Koyog took the place of an angel. De
Somn. p. 466.

As to the ark, it is folly to imagine that because
God promised to dwell and to hear prayers there,
and enjoined worship toward it, therefore the ark
was called Jehovah. The ancient Jews spoke not
to the ark, but to God, who resided between the
cherubims. This is plainly expressed in those
words of Jonathan, Numb. xi. 35, 36. Revelare
Sermo Domini, &c. where the words are not ad-
dressed to the ark itself, but to him that promised
to give them some tokens of his presence, namely,
to the Word, who created the world, who redeem-
ed Israel from Egypt, who heard their prayers
from over the ark, and who had shut up therein
the tables of the Law, which he had given them
on mount Sinai.

And thus the Targum on 1 Chron. xiii. 6. David
and all Israel went up to remove the ark of the
Lord, that dwelleth between the cherubims, whose
name is called on it; or as 2 Sam. vi. 2. whose
name is called by the name of the Lord of hosts,
that dwelleth between the cherubims. In short, the
Scripture never gives to any place or creature the

against the Unitarians.

name Jehovah in the nominative case, either singly, c**^p-

or joined with any other noun in apposition: but

either in an oblique case, as mrP VPN, or with a verb
substantive understood, as Jehovah Nissi, Jehovah
Shamma. What the Socinians have to say more
against this, the reader may see fully answered by
Buxt. Hist, of the Ark, chap. i. and the reader
shall have a full satisfaction upon it, out of the fol-
lowing chapters.

It remains therefore certain, that the Word men-
tioned in Philo and the paraphrases, is not an angel,
but a Divine Person ; Beog, as Philo calls him many
times ; and if the expression be allowable, tievrepos
Qeoc, as he speaks in Euseb. Preep. vii. 13. p. 322,
323.

But we must now go on to that which will re-
move all difficulties from this subject, and convince
the reader, if any thing can do it, that the Jews
looked upon the Aoyog as a Divine Person. I speak
of the appearances of an angel who is called God,
and worshipped as God under the Old Testament :
and I thought fit for this very reason to enlarge
more upon this subject, to prevent the objections
of the modern Jews and of the Unitarians all at
once.

CHAP. XIII.

That all the appearances of God, or of the Angel of
the Lord, which are spoken of in the books of
Moses, have been referred to the Word by the
Jews before Christ's incarnation.

SoME of the late Jewish commentators that have
had disputes with the Christians, particularly those
whose comments are collected in the Hebrew Bible
printed by Bomberg at Venice, do oppose this pro-
position with all their might. They have laid it

162 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

CxmP ^own ^or a ru^c? ^at wherever God is said to be

L present, there all the celestial family is with him ;

i. e. the angels, by whose ministry (as they say) God
has ordinarily acted in his appearances to men. So
saith Rabbi Solom. Jarchi on Gen. xix. 24. Whereas
those ancient Jews who followed the tradition of
their forefathers, being not biassed by the spirit of
dispute, understood it of the Cochma and Bina, viz.
of the Wisdom and of the Holy Ghost ; as we were
admonished by R. Joseph de Karnitol in his Saare
Tsedec, fol. 25. col. 4. and fol 26. col. 2.

This collection of commentators being of great
use for the interpreting the Scriptures, several di-
vines that have applied themselves to the study of
the comments of the Rabbins, have been led by
them unwarily into this opinion. The renowned
Grotius fell into this snare, and has had but too
many followers. We have no cause to wonder that
the Papists do the same, being concerned, as they
are, to find examples in the Old Testament, of reli-
gious worship paid to angels, the better to cover
their idolatry.

But in truth, the modern Jews do in this abso-
lutely depart from the ancient sentiments of their
fathers: and they who follow the modern Jews
herein, do weaken (for want of due consideration
only, I hope) the proofs of the Divinity of Jesus
Christ, by yielding up to the modern Jews, as an
agreed point between them and the Christians, that
which is quite contrary to what the Apostles and
primitive Christians supposed in their disputes with
the Jews of their times ; and which our later Jews
themselves would never have submitted to, if they
had known any other way to avoid the arguments
that were brought against them out of their own
Scriptures.

It behoves us therefore to give their just force to
those arguments that were used by the Apostles and
the Fathers, and to restore to the truth all her ad-

against the Unitarians,

vantages, by shewing bow bad guides our modern chap.
Jews are in the matters now before us; and how xlIL
they have deviated from the constant doctrine of
their ancestors, to find out ways to defend them-
selves against the Christians.

I affirm then for certain, that the appearances of
God, or of any Angel that is called Jehovah, or the
God of Israel, or that is worshipped, spoken of in
the Old Testament, were not referred by the ancient
Jews to created angels, who personated God. And
further, I vouch, that generally the ancient Jews
referred these appearances to the Word, whom they
distinguished from angels, as they do God from the
creature; and thereby justified the patriarchs in
paying him that appeared to them divine worship
and adoration.

To prove this, I must return to Philo's opinion,
which I have had occasion to allege in several
places. I would willingly spare myself the trouble,
and my reader the nauseousness of repeating the
same things : but this is a matter of such import-
ance, as necessarily obliges me, by a particular enu-
meration of passages, to produce Philo's judgment
in this point, as I have done in the former. He is
indeed so ample, and so much ours in his testimony
concerning the dignity of the Angel that appeared
to the Fathers, that he could not say more, if we
had hired him to give evidence on our side.

In general, he asserts, that it was the Word that
appeared to Adam, Jacob, and Moses; though in the
books of Moses it is only an angel that is spoken
of, [De Somn. p. 46l.]

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

It was the Word that appeared to Abraham as
m 2

l64 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. an angel, and that called to him not to hurt his
. son, when he was about to sacrifice him, \_De Somn.
p. 46l. A— E.]

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

It was the Word that appeared so many times to
Jacob, though he be called the Angel that delivered
him out of all his trouble, \_Alleg. 11. p. 71- D- E.]
It was the Word that appeared to Jacob in Beth-el,
[Lib. de Migr. Abr. p. 304. E. p. 305. A. De Somn.
p. 460. G.] and afterwards directed him how to ma-
nage Laban's flock, [De Somn. p. 46l. F.] and ad-
vised him to return to the land of his kindred, [De
Somn. p. 46*0. G.] It was the Word that appeared
to Jacob in the form of an angel, and wrestled with
him, [De Somn. p. 454. E.] and changed his name
into that of Israel, [De Nom. Mut. p. 81 9. C]

It was the image of God, which in other places is
the same with the Word, that appeared to Moses in
the bush, [De Fit. Mosis, i. p. 475. E.] It was God
that called to him at the same time, [De Somn. p.
46l. D.] even the Word, [p. ibid. A.] whom Moses
desired to see, [Alleg. 11. p. 6l. A. De Sacr. Ab.
p. 102. A. C]

It was the Word who led Israel through the wil-
derness, Exod. xxiii. [De Agric. p. 152. B.] He was
the Angel in whom God placed his name, [De Migr.
Abr. p. 324. E. F.] That Word who is called the
Prince of angels, and who was within the cloud,
[Quis Rer.Divin. Hcer. p. 397- F. G.] and is called
[De Fit. Mosis, p. 534. G.] And this
Angel was he that appeared to Moses and the elders
of Israel on mount Sinai, Exod. xxiv. [De Confus.
p. 261. E. De Somn. p. 447. C] It was the Word
whom those Jews rejected, when they said, Let us
make a captain, and return into Egypt, Numb. xiv.
4. [Alleg. 11. p. 71. B.]

against the Unitarians,

165

It was the Word that governs the world, that ap- chap.
peared to Balaam like an angel, [De Cherub, p. 87. Xm'
F. G. Quod Deus sit immut. p. 248. G. 249. A.]

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

II. Let us come next to the Chaldee paraphrases,
and see how they render those texts that speak of
the Divine appearances in Scripture ; and let the
reader take these remarks along with him : 1. That
whatsoever he finds in those paraphrases, he may
be assured that it was the general sense of the Jew-
ish Church in ancient times. 2. That any judicious
writer may justly suspect those who first published
those Targums, of having mangled them in many
places, to favour the new method of their last
writers, which I have explained in the beginning of
this chapter.

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

God appeared again to our first parents after their
sin, Gen. iii. 8. where it is said, that they heard the
voice of the Lord God walking in the midst of the
garden. Now as Philo said to us, that it was the
Word of the Lord that appeared to Adam ; so both
Onkelos and Jonathan have it, that Adam and his
wife heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God

m 3

166 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, walking in the garden. Likewise in the Jerusalem

XIII " . . .

Targum, ver. 9, it is said, The Word of the Lord
called to Adam, &c. and again, ver. 10. where
Adam makes this answer to God, / heard thy voice
in the garden; both Onkelos and Jonathan have it,
I heard the voice of thy Word in the garden.

In the history of the Deluge, we see that there
was a revelation to Noah the preacher of righteous-
ness to build the ark, and to warn others while that
was preparing, 1 Pet. iii. 20. But who gave Noah
that warning? Jonathan saith, that the Lord said
this by his Word. And the Jerusalem Targum, It
was the Word of the Lord that said this. And ac-
cordingly Jonathan has it in Gen. vi. 6. that the
Lord judged them by his Word; and said, / will
destroy them by my Word. Likewise for the saving
of Noah, Gen. vii. 16. all the paraphrasts attributed
this to the Word : the Jerusalem Targum saith, The
Word of the Lord spared Noah. And Gen. viii. 1.
Jonathan has it, that the Word of the Lord remem-
bered Noah. Lastly, according to Onkelos and Jo-
nathan, The Lord said by his Word, I will not
again curse the ground any more for mans sake,
Gen. viii. 21.

After the Flood God appeared often to Abra-
ham. Now according to Jonathan on Gen. xv. 6. a
promise being made unto Abraham, that his seed
should be as the stars of heaven for number, Abra-
hams believing in the Word of the Lord, was ac-
counted to him for righteousness : therefore it was
the Word of the Lord that came to him in a vision,
ver. 1. and that made him that promise, ver. 5. It
followeth, ver. 7. that he said to Abraham, I am the
Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees.
Who said this to Abraham ? Even the Word of the
Lord, according to Jonathan's Targum ; for there
is no other nominative case of the verb in his para-
phrase. You see the same upon Abraham's divid-
ing the beasts, in order to his making a covenant

against the Unitarians.

167

with God; it was done at God's command, who chap.
thereupon did appear between the pieces to Abra- XIIL
ham, and did solemnly enter into a covenant with
Abraham, Gen. xv. 9, &c. Now, saith the Jerusa-
lem paraphrase on Exod. xii. 42. it was the Word
of the Lord that appeared to Abraham between the
pieces. And according to Onkelos and Jonathan,
Exod. vi. 8. it was by his Word that God made this
covenant with Abraham.

We must take notice that he that appeared then
to Abraham, saith, I am El Shaddai, which is here
translated, The Almighty God: for according to
Onkelos on Gen. xlix. 25. in the blessing of Jacob
to his son Joseph, these names, the Word of God,
and El Shaddai, are of the same extent : thus it
runs according to Onkelos, The Word of the God
of thy Father shall help thee; and El Shaddai
shall bless thee: where plainly El Shaddai is the
same that is called, The Word of the God of thy
Father.

As Philo taught us that the appearance of God
to Abraham, mentioned Gen. xviii. 1. was an ap-
pearance of the Word, Alleg. 11. p. 77- E. where
he calls one of the three angels that appeared to
Abraham the Xoyog, the Word of God ; and Jose-
phus, 1. 1. Ant. cap. 12. calls him God: so the
Jerusalem paraphrase has it in the end of the
next verse ; The Word of the Lord appeared to
Abraham in the valley of vision, as he sat warm-
ing himself in the sun, because of his circumcision.
Elsewhere the same paraphrase quotes these words
as being the words of Scripture ; saying on Gen.
xxxv. 9. The Scripture hath declared and said,
And the Word of /he Lord appeared to him in the
valley of vision. Jonathan also in his paraphrase
on Deut. xxxiv. 6. hath these words, The Lord hath
taught us to visit the sick, in that he revealed him-
self by the vision of his Word to Abraham, when
he was sick of the cutting of circumcision.

m 4

168 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. When God gave him a command for the sacri-
xiii • • •

___ficing of his son, Gen. xxii. 2. then, as Abraham was

doing it, the Angel of the Lord called to him out of
heaven, and told him, Now I know thoufearest God,
seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son,
from ME. This last word plainly sheweth that this
Angel was God himself, even the same that spake
to Abraham, and gave him that command, ver. 1, 2.
And that command was given by the Aoyog, the
Word, according to Philo, as it has been already
shewn. The Jerusalem paraphrase hath the same
on ver. 8. where, upon Isaac's inquiring for the lamb
that was to be sacrificed, Abraham answereth him,
My son, the Word of the Lord will prepare me
a sheep. And so, when Abraham found that the
Word did provide him a sheep, and accepted of that
for a sacrifice instead of his son, Abraham worship-
ped, and prayed to the Word of the Lord, say-
ing, (among many other things,) Thou, O Lord,
didst speak to me, that I should offer up Isaac my
son. In the other Targums, ver. l6, 17. where the
Angel of the Lord calls to Abraham out of heaven
the second time, (which last word sheweth that this
Angel was God himself; for it was God that called
to him out of heaven the first time, as it has been
already shewn,) and saith to Abraham, By myself I
have sworn, saith the Lord : because thou hast done
From me this thing, and hast not withheld thine only son from
Samaritan me ; therefore in blessing I will bless thee, 8$c.
andLxx. There both Onkelos and Jonathan have it, By my
Word I have sworn, saith the Lord. What should
be their meaning in this ? For the manner of speak-
ing, Thus saith the Lord, it was properly used by
the Word appearing here as an angel, and not ac-
cording to his own natural being : but for the form
of the oath, where, according to the Hebrew text,
chap. xx. God swore by himself, the paraphrasts
render it, that God swore by his Word: and well
they might, who understood that the Word was

against the Unitarians.

169

God. And indeed these Targums shew elsewhere, chap.
that where this form of swearing was used, it was XIIL
the Word of the Lord that swore, and held himself
obliged to perform what was sworn. Compare Exod.
vi. 8. with Deut. xxvi. 3. and Numb. xiv. 30. with
Deut. xxxi. 7.

We read of an Angel appearing to Hagar in the
wilderness, Gen. xvi. 7. He bid her return, and sub-
mit to Sarah her mistress, ver. 9. telling her withal
what a numerous issue she should have by the child
she now went with, and what sort of man he should
be. But as this Angel spoke in the style of God,
saying, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, ver. 10.
so she owned it was the Lord that spake to her;
and she said to him, Thou Godseest me, ver. 13. It is
clear that it was God himself that appeared, though
he is called an Angel in the text : and therefore not
only Philo calleth him the Aoyog in those places
above mentioned, but the Targums likewise shew
that he was the Word of the Lord, according to the
sense of the Jewish Church ; for so Jonathan ren-
ders ver. 13. She confessed before the Lord Jehovah,
whose Word had spoken to hei~: and the Jerusalem
Targum, She confessed and prayed to the Word of
the Lord, who had appeared to her.

Again, an Angel called to Hagar out of heaven,
Gen. xxi. 16. But he also said to her that which no
created angel could say; speaking of her son Ish-
mael, / will make him a great nation, ver. 18.
Philo saith that it was the Aoyog. And who per-
formed this promise? It was God the Word, ac-
cording to the Targums : for whereas the text saith,
ver. 20. God was with the lad; it is thus rendered
both by Onkelos and Jonathan, The Word of the
Lord was his support or assistance.

We read also of two Divine appearances to Isaac ;
one in Gerar, Gen. xxvi. 2. and the other at Beer-
sheba, ver. 24.

In the former of these places, Isaac being ready
to have gone down into Egypt, God bade him con-

170 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, tinue in Canaan, and gave him a promise in these
XI1L words, Gen. xxvi. 3. I will he with thee, and will
bless thee; for unto thee and thy seed I will give
all these countries, and I will perform the oath
which I sware unto Abraham thy father. So then,
he that appeared now to Isaac is the same that
swore this to Abraham ; so much we learn from this
text: but according to the Targums, it was God the
Word that swore all this to Abraham. Elsewhere
they also tell us, that it was the Word that swore as
well to Isaac as to Abraham, that he would give
them the promised land, Exod. vi. 8. xxxii. 13.

At the second appearance that God vouchsafed to
Isaac, Gen. xxvi. '24. he told him, I am the God of
Abraham thy father: but as the Jerusalem Targum
on Gen. xxii. 16. saith, that Abraham ivorshipped
and prayed to the Word of the Lord ; so, according
to Jonathan's Targum on Gen. xxvii. 28. Isaac
prayed for his son Jacob in these words, The Word
of the Lord give thee of the dew of heaven: "and in
the same Targum on Gen. xxxi. 5. where Jacob
saith, The God of my father hath been with me ; it
of thy fa- is rendered, The Word of the God of my father; or,
Z££ The Word being the God of my father.
audLXX. Amongst the Divine appearances to Jacob, those
two at Beth-el were more remarkable than the rest ;
one at his going to Padan-Aram, Gen. xxviii. 13. the
other at his return from thence, Gen. xxxv. 9. where
it is said expressly, that then God appeared to him
the second time.

The history of the first of these is given us at
large, Gen. xxviii. 13 — 16. Jacob himself gives
this account of the last to his son Joseph, Gen.
xlviii. 3,4. God Almighty appeared to me at Luz
in the land of Canaan, and blessed me, and said
unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and
multiply thee, &c. That it was the Word that
appeared to him, we have shewed already from
Philo in several places ; and that this was the
sense of the Jewish Church in his time, we have

against the Unitarians.

171

reason to believe: for as to this first appearance; chap.
in the introduction, ver. 10. where the text speaks XIIL
of Jacob's setting out from Beersheba to go to
Haran, there both Jonathan and the Jerusalem
Targum tell us of the sun's making haste to go
down before his time, because the Word had a de-
sire to speak with Jacob. Again, in the conclusion
of this history, Gen. xxviii. 20, 21. where Jacob
vowed a vow, saying, If' God will be ivith me, &c.
then shall the Lord be my God: here we read in
Jonathan's Targum, that Jacob vowed a vow to the
Word, saying, If the Word of' the Lord will be my
help, &c. then shall the Lord be my God. Why
should the paraphrast say, that Jacob made this
vow to the Word ; and not rather, to God, as it is in
the Hebrew text, but that they believed that it was
the Word that appeared to him ? And this being
so, we cannot be to seek who that Angel was that
spake to Jacob, Gen. xxxi. 11. for he declares, ver.
13. 1 am the God of Beth-el — where thou vowedst a
vow unto me. We see in the Targum on Gen. xxviii.
20. that it was the Word to whom Jacob vowed a
vow at Beth-el ; therefore, according to this Targum,
it must be the Word that is called an angel in the
place next before mentioned.

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

Whosoever will consider with some attention
those appearances of God to Jacob, and compare
them with what we read Gen. xlviii. 15, 16, and with
what Hosea the Prophet saith, chap. xii. concerning
the Angel who was God, cannot but take notice of
two things : the first is, that the Koyog, who is called
an Angel, was God indeed. The second is, that the

172 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, wrestling of that Angel with Jacob was a preparation

1_ for the belief of the mystery of the incarnation, by

which the Apostles were made able to say, That
which we have looked upon, and our hands have
handled, of the Word of life ; — this is our message,
1 John i. 1,5. But we must say more upon so im-
portant a subject.

CHAP. XIV.

That all the appearances of God, or of the Angel
of the Lord, which are spoken of in Moses's time,
have been referred to the Word of God by the
ancient Jewish Church.

We read of no other appearance of God, or of an
Angel of the Lord, till that which Moses saw on
mount Horeb, Exod. iii. 2. There we read that the
Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of
fire out of the midst of a bush. This is the only
place where Moses calleth him an Angel that then
appeared. Elsewhere he always calleth him God, as
particularly ver. 4. where he saith, that upon his
turning aside to see why the bush was not burnt,
when the Lord saw this, God called to him out of
the midst of the bush, and said to him, I am the God
of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob, ver. 6. whereupon
Moses saith of himself, that he hid his face; for
he was afraid to look upon God. After this, he
goeth on still calling him God, as we read almost in
every verse; so, ver. l6. he saith, God commanded
him to go to the elders of Israel, and say unto them,
The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abra-
ham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared to me. God
would never have commanded him to tell them an
untruth, and therefore we may be sure that it was
not a created angel, but God, that appeared to him.

against the Unitarians.

But why then should Moses once call him an Angel, chap.
as we see he did in the second verse ? A created angel XIV>
he could not be, for the reasons now mentioned : he
must therefore be God, and yet he must appear
as an angel that came on a message from God.
This is what Philo saith in one word ; he was the
Aoyog, or Word, who is both God and the messenger
of God, as we have shewn from him in several
places.

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

Moses being thus employed by the Word of God,
as his messenger to the children of Israel, for the
discharge of his ministry, had both his instructions
and credentials from the Word, according to the
Targums.

For the first of these, God appeared to him oftener
than to any before him. R. Akiba, who lived since
Christ's time, saith that Moses acted as mediator
between the Gevura, that is, the Word of God, and
the people of Israel ; and obscrveth, that God spake
to him a hundred and seventy-five times. They
were times without number that God spake to him,

174 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, from off the mercy-seat, upon the ark of testimony,
XIV- from between the two cherubims, Numb. vii. 89.
But those which R. Akiba reckons were appearances
upon extraordinary occasions. In both these appear-
ances, ordinary and extraordinary, it was the Word
of God that spake to Moses, according to the Tar-
gums ; thus of God's speaking to him from the
mercy-seat to appoint my Word for thee, as God
promised there according to Onkelos and Jonathan
on Exod. xxv. 22. xxx. 36. So Numb. vii. 89. Jona-
than saith it was the Word that spake to him. And
thus likewise in those occasional appearances, both
Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targums tell us, once
for all, Deut. xxxiv. 10. The Word of the Lord knew
Moses, 'rap bbftft bl b~)ftD speaking to Moses, as oft
as Moses spake to him on any occasion. For his
credentials were, as we see Deut. xxxiv. 11. all the
signs and wonders ivhich the Lord sent him to
do; or, according to the Targums, which the Word
of the Lord sent him to do, in Egypt, to Pharaoh,
and his servants, and all his land; and in all that
mighty land, and that great terror, which Moses
shewed in the sight of all Israel.

For the acts of his ministry, they were chiefly
these three: 1. His bringing the people out of
Egypt. 2. His giving them laws, and statutes, and
judgments from God. 3. His leading them through
the wilderness to the confines of Canaan. In each
of these it was the Word that appeared to Moses,
according to the Targums.

His bringing the people out of Egypt is wholly
ascribed to the Word by Onkelos and Jonathan on
Deut. xx. 1. and by Jonathan on Deut. xxiv. 18.
The people were commanded to teach this to their
children, viz. that it was the Word of the Lord that
did all those signs and wonders in Egypt, saith Jo-
nathan on Exod. xiii. 8. It was the Word that sent
all those plagues on Pharaoh, and his servants, and
all the land of Egypt, saith Jonathan on Deut.

against the Unitarians.

175

xxviii. 6. and xxix. 2. Especially, it was the Word chap.
that gave that stroke which finished the work, ac- XIV'
cording to the Jerusalem Targum, Exod. xii. 29.
namely, It was the Word of the Lord that appeared
against the Egyptians at midnight ; and his right
hand killed the firstborn of the Egyptians, and de-
livered his ownfirstborn the children of Israel.

After this, the Word of the Lord led the people
through the desert to the Red sea, saith the same
Targum on Exod. xiii. 18-. The Word of the Lord,
being their leader, in a pillar of fire by night, and of
a cloud by day, saith Onkelos on Deut. i. 32, 33. And
when the people being come to the Red sea, and
seeing Pharaoh with his army behind them, were in a
rage against Moses, and he cried to God, Exod.xiv. 15.
according to the Jerusalem Targum, the Word of
the Lord said to Moses, How long dost thou stand
and pray before me? — Bid the children of Israel
come forward, and do thou reach out thy rod, and
divide the Red sea : he did so, and according to the
Jerusalem Targum on Deut. i. 1. the Word divided
the sea before them ; so that the children of Israel
went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, Exod.
xiv. 22. the Egyptians following them. And at
morning, ver. 24. according to the Jerusalem Tar-
gum, the Word of the Lord looked upon the army
of the Egyptians, and threw upon them bitumen,
and fire, and hail out of heaven; and ver. 25. the
Egyptians said, Let us fly from before the people
of Israel, for this is the Word of the Lord that gets
them victory; but their flight was in vain, for by the
Word of the Lord the waters were made heaps,
according to Onkelos on Exod. xv. 8. And accord-
ing to him also, when God spoke by his Word, the
sea covered them, ver. 10. Thus, as the whole work
of the people of Israel's deliverance out of Egypt,
so every part of it, has been ascribed to the Word
of the Lord by the Targum s.

For the giving of the laws by which they were

176 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, to be formed into a church and kingdom ; first, im-
Xlv> mediately after their coming out of the Red sea,
Exod. xv. 25. according to the Jerusalem Targum,
the Word of the Lord gave them precepts and orders
of judgments ; particularly, as Jonathan has it, the
Word of the Lord gave them there the law of the
sabbath, and that of honouring father and mother,
and judgments concerning bruises and wounds, and
for the punishment of transgressors. Afterwards,
when they were come into the wilderness of Sinai,
Exod. xix. 3. the text saith, Moses went up to God,
and the Lord called unto him out of the mount, say-
ing, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Israel, &c.
there Onkelos saith, according to one of Clark's va-
rious readings, Moses went up to meet the Word of
the Lord, Exod. xix. 8. Moses returns with the
people's answer to the Lord, then, ver. 9- according
to the Jerusalem Targum, the Word of the Lord
said to Moses, Go to the people, and sanctify them
to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their
clothes, and be ready against the third day, for
the third day the Lord will come down in the sight
of all the people upon mount Sinai. Accordingly
the people having prepared themselves on the third
day, according to Onkelos, Exod. xix. 17. Moses
brought the people out of the camp to meet the
Word of God; yet the people only saw thunder
and lightning, and the mountain smoking, and felt
the earth quake under them : they also heard the
noise of the trumpet, which so affrighted them, that
they removed and stood at a distance, and said to
Moses, Speak thou to us, and we will hear; but let
not the Word from before the Lord speak with us,
lest we die, Exod. xx. 19. according to Onkelos, in
one of Clark's various readings. Moses therefore,
according to Jonathan on Deut. v. 5. stood between
them and the Word of the Lord, to shew them the
Pithgama, the matter and words that were spoken
to him from the Lord. What they were, we read

against the Unitarians.

177

Exod. xx. 1, &c. where, according to the Jerusalem chap.
Targum, the Word of the Lord spoke the tenor of XIV'
all these words, saying, / am the Lord thy God,
which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out
of the house of bondage ; then follow the Ten Com-
mandments, commonly called the Decalogue. That
it was God the Word that spoke this to the people,
the ancient Church could not doubt, as we see in
the Book of Deuteronomy, where Jonathan tells
us, that thus Moses minded his people of what they
had heard and seen at the giving of the Law, Deut.
iv. 33. Is it possible that a people should have heard
the voice of the Word of the Lord, the living God,
speak out of the middle of the fire, as you have
heard, and yet live ? Again, ver. 36. Out of heaven
he hath made you hear the voice of his Word, — and
ye have heard his words out of the midst of the fire.
Again, he puts them in mind of the fright they
were in, Deut. v. 23. After ye had heard the voice
of the Word out of the midst of the darkness on
the mount burning with fire, all the chiefs of you
came to me, and said, Behold, the Word of the Lord
our God has shewed us the Divine Majesty of his
glory, and the excellence of his magnificence, and
we have heard the voice of his Word out of the
midst of the fire, why should we die ? as we must,
if we hear any more of the voice of the Word of
the Lord our God ; for who is there living in flesh,
that hears the voice of the Word of the living God
speaking out of the middle of the fire, as we do,
and yet live ? Again, Deut. xviii. 16. he minds
them of the same thing in some of the same words.
Many more such quotations might be added, but
these are sufficient, to prove that it was the un-
doubted tradition of the ancient Jewish Church,
that their Law was given by the Word of God, and
that it was he that appeared to Moses for this
purpose.

As the Word gave the Law, it was he that vouch-

178 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, safed those many appearances to Moses throughout
XIV' his whole conduct of the people of Israel through
the wilderness.

To begin with that Divine appearance, which
was continually in sight of all the people of Israel
for forty years together throughout their whole
travel in the wilderness ; namely, the pillar which
they saw in the air day and night. Where this pil-
lar is first spoken of, namely, at the coming of the
people of Israel up out of Egypt, there it is expressly
said, that the Lord went before them in the pillar
of cloud by day, and fire by night, Exod. xiii. 21.
Afterward indeed he is called the Angel of God,
Exod. xiv. 19. where we read that the people being
come to the Red sea, and being there in imminent
danger of being overtaken by the Egyptians, by
whom they were closely pursued, the Angel which
had gone before the camp of Israel all day, re-
moved at night, and went behind them. That this
Angel was God, it is certain, not only because he is
called God, Exod. xiii. 21. xiv. 24. Numb. xii. 5. but
also because he was worshipped, Exod. xxxiii. 10.
which was a sure proof of his Divinity. Being
therefore God himself, and yet the messenger of
God, it must be that this was the Aoyo$9 or Word ;
and that this was the tradition of the ancient
DivSHaeres Church, we are taught not only by Philo in the
p. 397. f.g. place above mentioned, but also by the Jerusalem
Targum on Exod. xiv. 24. and Jonathan on Exod.
xxxiii. 9. and by Onkelos on Deut. i. 32, 33. as has
been mentioned.

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

against the Unitarians.

A month after their coming out of Egypt, they chap.
murmured for want of bread against Moses and XIIL
Aaron ; at which God shewed himself so much
concerned, that he made his glory appear to them
in the cloud, Exod. xvi. 7, 10. That according to the
sense of the ancient Church, this was the Shekinah
of the Word, has been just now newly shewed, both
from Philo and from all the Targums; and the same
we find here in this place, ver. 8. where Moses tells
them, Your murmurings are not against us, but
against the Word of the Lord, according to Onkelos
and Jonathan.

When, Exod. xvii. 8, &c. the Amalekites came
against this poor people that had never seen war,
and smote the hindmost of them, God not only
gave his people a victory over them, but also said
unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, —
that / will utterly put out the remembrance of
Amalek from under heaven,ILxod. xvii. 14. See how
Moses performs this, ver. 15. In the place where
they had fought he set up an altar, with Jehovah-
nissi, The Lord is my standard ; meaning that it
was the will of God they should be in perpetual
war against Amalek ; and this reason for it he en-
tereth in his book, ver. 16. according to Jonathan,
for the Word of the Lord has sworn by his glory,
that he will have war against Amalek for all ge-
nerations.

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

So for their places of worship, God promised ac-
cording to the Jerusalem Targum, Exod. xx. 24.

N 2

180 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. Wheresoever you shall mention my holy name, my
XIV' Word shall appear to you, and shall bless you; and
the temple is called, the place which the Word of
the Lord your God will choose to place his Shekinah
there, according to Jonathan's and the Jerusalem
Targums on Deut. xii. 5. Especially at the altar for
sacrifice, which was before the door of the taber-
nacle, God promised Moses, both for himself and
the people, according to Onkelos and Jonathan on
Exod. xxix. 42. / will appoint my Word to speak
with thee there, and I will appoint my Word there
for the children of Israel. Above all, at the mercy-
seat, where the ark stood, God promised to Moses,
according to thoseTargums on Exod.xxv. 22.xxx.36,
Numb, xxvii. 4. / will appoint my Word to speak
with thee there. And in sum, of all the precepts
in Leviticus, it is said at the end of that book, ac-
cording to those Targums on Levit. xxvi. 46. These
are the statutes and judgments and laws which
the Lord made between his Word and the children
of Israel.

When they entered into covenant with God,
obliging themselves to live according to his laws,
hereby they made the Word to be their King, and
themselves his subjects. So Moses tells them, Deut.
xxvi. 17. according to the Jerusalem Targum, You
have made the Word of the Lord King over you
this day, that he may be your glory. And ver. 18.
The Word of the Lord is become King over you in
his own name, as over his beloved and peculiar
people. In consequence hereof, as being their King,
he ordered them by his chief minister Moses to
make him a royal pavilion or tabernacle, and to set
it up in the midst of their camp. Both that and
all the furniture of it he ordered Moses to make
according to the pattern shewed him in the mount,
Exod. xxv. 40. Especially for the presence of the
great King, there was to be an apartment in the
inner part of the tabernacle separated from the rest

against the Unitarians.

181

with a veil embroidered with cherubim s,Exod. xxvii. chap.
31. which part was called the most holy place, or x '
the holy of holies, Exod. xxvi. 33. There was to be
placed the ark overlaid with pure gold, and having
a crown of gold round about it. In the ark were
contained the tables of the Law. Upon it was placed
the mercy-seat, overshadowed with the wings of two
cherubims that stood on the two ends of the mercy-
seat, Exod. xxxvii. 9. looking each of them toward
the other, and both of them toward the mercy-seat.
This provision being made for the place of his She-
kinah, the Word, who shewed himself before in a
cloudy pillar by day, and in a fiery pillar by night,
that stood over the camp ; now from thence came
to take possession of his royal seat in the tabernacle
over the ark ; from whence, out of the void space
between these cherubims, it was, that the Word
used to speak to Moses, and to give him orders from
time to time for the government of his people, ac-
cording to the paraphrasts on Exod. xxv. 22. xxx. 36.
Numb. xvii. 4. and especially Numb. vii. 8, 9- as has
been above mentioned. Henceforward, throughout
their whole journey through the wilderness, the pil-
lar was constantly over the tabernacle, and the peo-
ple attended his motion. But whensoever he gave
the commandment, then the pillar removed, and
shewed which way the camp was to go. Upon no-
tice of that, then Moses first gave the word, in a
set form of prayer, which we have in the first six
verses of the 68th Psalm. The first verse of it is
Numb. x. 35. in these words, according to the Je-
rusalem Targum, Arise now, O Word of the Lord,
in the might of thy strength. According to Jona-
than's paraphrase, Appear now,0 Word of the Lord,
in the strength of thy wrath. In both the Targum s
it followeth, as in the Hebrew text, and the enemies
of thy people shall he scattered, and they that hate
thee shall flee before thee. When they had per-
formed their journey according to the will of their

N 3

182 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. King, which they knew by seeing the pillar stand
XIV> still, then Moses used the form for the resting of
the ark, Numb. x. 36. according to the foremen-
tioned Targums, Return now, O Word of the Lord,
to thy people Israel ; make the glory of thy Shekinah
dwell among them, and have mercy on the thousands
of Israel. This being said, the priests (who carried
the several pins of the tabernacle) laid down their
burdens, and set up all things as before ; and the
pillar returned to its place over the midst of the
tabernacle.

In this state of Theocracy, their keeping of God's
laws is called by their Targums the believing and
obeying of the Word ; their breaches of his laws are
called their despising and rebelling against the
Word. Of the use of both these manners of speak-
ing there might be given more instances than can
be easily numbered.

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

On the other hand, according to the sense of the
ancient Church, it was the Word that punished
them for their disobedience, and also it was he
that forgave them upon their repentance. Of
both these kinds there are many remarkable in-
stances, as particularly, of the punishing of their
disobedience : according to Jonathan on Exod. xxxii.

against the Unitarians.

183

35, it was the Word that destroyed the people for chap.

worshipping the calf that Aaron made. For their '_

lusting at Kibroth-hattaava, Moses told them who it
was whom they provoked by it, Numb. xi. 20. (ac-
cording to Onkelos and Jonathan,) You have de-
spised the Word of the Lord, whose Shekinah dwell-
eth among you. Their refusing to go forward toward
the promised land, upon the evil report the spies
brought upon it, Moses tells them, according to
those Targums, Deut. i. 26. it was rebelling against
the Word of the Lord. Afterward, when they would
go up contrary to order, Numb. xiv. 41. Moses asks
them, Why do you transgress the decree of the
Word of the Lord? In their murmuring at Zal-
mona, Numb. xxi. 5. according to Onkelos in one Polyglot,
of Clark's various readings, they spoke against thevol iy'
Word of the Lord, and against Moses. Wherefore,
ver. 6. according to the Jerusalem Targum, the Word
of the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people.
Upon their whoring with Baal-Peor, Numb. xxv. 4.
according to the Jerusalem Targum, the Word of
the Lord said to Moses, Take all the heads of the
people, and hang them up before the Lord. In short,
according to the Targums on Deut. xxviii. 20, 21,
22, &c. it was the Word of the Lord that would
send all his judgments and curses that are there
denounced against impenitent sinners.

But on the other hand, according to those Tar-
gums, it belonged to the Wo?*d to grant pardon to
them that were qualified for it. So when Moses
begged pardon for his people that had sinned be-
yond mercy, if it had not been infinite, Numb. xiv.
20. according to the Jerusalem Targum, The Word
of the Lord answered him, and said, Behold, I have
forgiven, and pardoned according to thy Word.
And in case that, upon the inflicting of God's judg-
ments above mentioned, God's people should be
thereby brought to repentance, it was promised,
Deut. xxx. 3. according to Jonathan's Targum, that

N 4

184 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, then the Word should, accept their repentance ac-
' cording to his good pleasure, arid should have mercy
on them, and gather them out of all nations, &c.
So likewise, chap, xxxii. 36. according to the same
Targum, it is promised that the Word of the Lord
hy his mercy should judge the judgment of his
people, and should repent him of the evil that he
had decreed against his servants. It were easy to
add many more such instances out of the Targums ;
but these are abundantly enough to shew the sense
of the ancient Church, what they thought of him
that so often appeared to their fathers in the wil-
derness, and spoke to them by his servant Moses.

When Moses understood that God was not willing
he should live to bring his people into the promised
land ; thereupon he besought God to send him a
successor, in these words, according to Jonathan's
Targum, Numb, xxvii. l6. Let the Word of the Lord,
who has dominion over the souls of men, — appoint a
faithful man over the congregation of his people.
God having appointed Joshua in his steady Moses
gave him this charge in the hearing of the people,
Deut. iii. 21, 22. according to Onkelos and Jona-
than, Thy eyes have seen what the Lord hath done
to Og and Sihon, so shall he do to all the kingdoms
where thou art to pass; therefore fear them not,
for the Word of the Lord your God shall fight for
you. The same he repeated afterward to all the
people; telling them first, Deut. xxxi. 2,3. according
to Jonathan, The Word of the Lord hath said to me,
Thou shalt not pass over this Jordan, but the Lord
your God and his Shekinah will go before you.
Josh. iv. he addeth, And Joshua will go over before
you, as the Lord has spoken : and for all your ene-
mies, ver. 5. the Word of the Lord shall deliver
them up before you ; therefore saith he, ver. 6. ac-
cording to Onkelos, Fear them not, for the Word of
the Lord your God goes before you; he will not
fail nor forsake you, After this he calleth to Joshua,

against the Unitarians.

185

and saith to him before them all, ver. 7- according chap.
to Jonathan, Be strong and of a good courage, for XIV<
thou must go with this people into the land which
the Word of the Lord has sworn to their fathers
that he would give them — and the Shekinah of the
Word of the Lord shall go before thee, and his
Word shall he thy help; he will not leave thee nor
forsake thee ; fear not therefore, neither be dismay-
ed. He repeats it again from God to Joshua, ver. 23.
according toOnkelos and Jonathan, Thou shalt bring
the children of Israel into the land which I have
sworn to them; and my Word shall be thy help.

It was the same day that, together with this
charge, Moses gave to Joshua his prophetical song,
Deut. xxxi. 22, 23. and the selfsame day, xxxii. 48.
God bade him, Get thee up into mount Nebo, and
die: after which Moses stayed no longer than to
give the tribes of Israel his blessing before his
death, xxxiii. 1. That being done, he went up to
mount Nebo, xxxiv. 1. There, according to Jona-
than, it was the Word of the Lord that gave that
satisfaction to his bodily eyes, to see all the land of
Canaan before they were closed : so, ver. 5, Moses
the servant of the Lord died there — according to
the Word of the Lord. He was translated by the
Aoyog, according to Philo. It was certainly the cur-DeSacr.
rent tradition of the Church in his age, that his £b£p- 16
soul was taken out of his body by a Mss of the
Word of the Lord, as Jonathan renders it; or, ac-
cording to the Jerusalem Targum, at the mouth of
the decree of the Word of the Lord.

After his death, Joshua took upon him the govern-
ment, ver. 9. and according to the Jerusalem Targum,
the children of Israel obeyed Joshua, and they did
as the Word of the Lord had commanded, Moses.

Besides all these Divine appearances to Moses
and the children of Israel, there are also some few
that were made to Balaam on their account, and
are therefore recorded in the same sacred history.

186 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. Where these are first mentioned, Numb. xxii. 9.
XIV- both Onkelos and Jonathan have, that the Word
came from before the Lord to Balaam, and said
what followeth in that place. So again the second
time, ver. 20. according to the same Targums, the
Word came from before the Lord to Balaam by
night, and said to him what followeth in that se-
cond place. It is plain that so far the ancient Jew-
ish Church took these appearances to have been
made by the Word.

But what opinion had they of the Angel's appear-
ing to Balaam, ver. 22? Others may ask what they
thought of the dialogue between Balaam and the
ass that he rode upon, occasioned by the fright that
the beast was in at the Angel's appearing to him. All
MoreNe- this, as Maimonides saith, happened only in vision
b°42im U' °f prophecy : but that it was a thing that really
happened, we are assured by St. Peter, who tells us,
2 Pet. ii. 16. God opened the mouth of the dumb
beast to rebuke the madness of the Prophet. As it
cannot be doubted but that Balaam was used to have
communication with devils that spake to him in di-
vers manners, so there is reason to believe they spoke
to him sometimes by the mouth of dumb beasts ;
and if so, then to hear the ass speak could not be
strange to him. And why God should order it so,
there is a reason in Jonathan and the Jerusalem
MuisVa- Targum : the reader may see other reasons else-
ria' p* 9o' where, but they are not proper for this place. But
we are here to consider, whether this that appeared to
Balaam was a created angel or no. It appears by the
words, ver. 35. to have been the Lord himself that
appeared as an angel to Balaam ; for thus he saith
to him, Go with the men ; but only the word that
I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak. Now
it doth not appear after this, that any other spoke
to him from God, but God himself. Therefore Philo
saith plainly, that this appearance was of the Aoyog,
as -has been already shewed. And that this was the

agaimt the Unitarians.

187

sense of the Church in his age, we may see in chap.
the two following appearances to Balaam ; where, X1V-
as well as in the two that were before this, the Tar-
gums say, it was the Word that met Balaam, and
spoke to him. Thus both Onkelos and Jonathan, on
Numb, xxiii. 4, 16.

CHAP. XV.

That all the appearances of God, or of the Angel
of the Lord, which are spoken of in the books of
the Old Testament after Moses s time, have been
referred to the Word of God by the Jews before
Chris fs incarnation.

Thus far it has been our business to shew, that
it was the Word that made all those appearances,
either of God, or of an Angel of God that was wor-
shipped, in any part of the five books of Moses.
We have been much larger in this than was neces-
sary for our present occasion. But whatsoever may
seem to have been too much in the former chapter,
it is hoped the reader will not wish it had been
spared, when he comes to reflect upon the use of it,
to prove that the Word was a Person, and that he
was God. At present there will be some kind of
amends for the prolixity used hitherto, in the short-
ness of what we have to say in the following part of
this chapter. For being now to treat of those Divine
appearances that are recorded in the other books of
Scripture after the Pentateuch, we shall find those
appearances fewer and fewer, till they come quite
to cease in the Jewish Church. For when once the
Aoyos was settled as the King of Israel between the
cherubims, he is not to be looked for in other
places. And of those books of Scripture in which
the following appearances are mentioned, we have

188 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, not so many paraphrases as we have of the five
xv> books of Moses. One paraphrase is all that we
have of most of the books we now speak of. But
after all, we have reason to thank God, that that
evidence of the Divine appearances of the Word of
God has been so abundantly sufficient, that we have
no needs of any more. So that touching the follow-
ing appearances of God, or the Angel that was wor-
shipped, it will be enough to shew that the ancient
Jewish Church had of them the same notion that
they had of those already mentioned out of the five
books of Moses.

We read but of one Divine appearance to Joshua,
and that is of one that came to him as a man with
a drawn sword in his hand, calling himself the
captain of the Lord's host, Josh. v. 13,14. Some
would have it that this was a created angel : but
certainly Joshua did not take him foy- such, other-
wise he would not have fallen down on his face, and
worshipped him, as he did, ver. 14. Nor would a
created angel have taken it of him without giving
him a present reproof, as the angel did to St. John
in the like case, Rev. xix. 10. xxii. 9. But this Di-
vine Person was so far from reproving him for hav-
ing done too much, that he commanded him to
go on, and do yet much more, requiring of him
the highest acknowledgment of a Divine presence
that was in use among the eastern nations, in
these words, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot ; for
the ground whereon thou standest is holy. Now
considering that these are the very same words
that God used to Moses in Exod. iii. 2, 3. we see
a plain reason why God should command this to
Joshua. It was for the strengthening of his faith,
to let him know, that as he was now in Moses's
stead, so God would be the same to him that he
had been to Moses. And particularly with respect
to that trial which required a more than ordinary
measure of faith, the difficulty of taking the strong

against the Unitarians*

189

city of Jericho with such an army as he had, with- chap.
out any provision for a siege, the Lord said unto xv'
him, Josh. vi. 2. See, I have given Jericho into thine
hand. None but God could say and do this ; and the
text plainly saith, It was the Lord. And that the
Lord who thus appeared as a warrior, and called
himself Me captain of the Lord's host, was no other
than the Word, this was plainly the sense of the an-
cient Jewish Church; as appears by what remains
of it in their paraphrase on Josh. x. 42. xxiii. 3, 10.
which saith, It was the Word of the Lord that
fought for them; and ver. 13. which saith, It was
the Word which cast out the nations before them.

And indeed this very judgment of the old syn-
agogue is to be seen not only in their Targums till
this day, but in their most ancient books ; as Rab-
both, fol. 108. col. 3. Zohar, par. 3. fol. 139. col. 3.
Tanch. ad Exod. iii. Ramb. ad Exod.iii. Bach. fol.
69. 2. The learned Masius in Josh. v. 13, 14. hath
translated the words of Ramban, and he hath pre-
ferred his interpretation, which is the most ancient
amongst the Jews, to the sense of the commentators
of the Church of Rome.

As for divine appearances in the Book of Judges,
we read of one to Gideon, that seems to have been
of an Angel of God, for so he is called, Judges vi.
11, 12. and again ver. 20, 21, 22. In this last place
it is also said, that Gideon perceived he was an An-
gel of the Lord; i. e. he saw that this was an hea-
venly person that came to him with a message from
God. And yet that he was no created angel it
seems by his being oftener called the Lord, ver. 14,
16, 23, 24, 25, 27. and Gideon in that whole history
never addressed himself to any other but God. The
message delivered from God by this angel to Gide-
on, ver. 16. is thus rendered in the Targum, Surely
my Word shall be thy help, and thou shalt smite
the Midianites as one man The Word that helped
Gideon against the Midianites was no other than he

190 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, that appeared to Joshua with a sword in his hand,
xv* Josh, v. 13. that was now the sword of the Lord
and of Gideon, Judges vii. 18, 20. And what the
ancient Jewish Church meant by the Word of the
Lord in this place, one may guess by their Targum
on Judges vi. 12, 13. where the angel saying to Gi-
deon, The Word of the Lord is thy help; he an-
swered, Is the Shekinah of the Lord our help;
whence then hath all this happened to us? It is
plain by this paraphrase, that they reckoned the
Word of the Lord to be the same with the Sheki-
nah of the Lord, even him by whom God so glori-
ously appeared for their deliverance. And indeed
they could hardly be mistaken in the person of that
Angel, who saith that his name is Pele, the Wonder-
ful, which is used, Isaiah ix. amongst the names of
the Messias, which name the Jews make a shift to
appropriate to God, exclusively to the Messias.

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

In the first Book of Samuel we read of no other
such appearance, but that which God made to Sa-
muel, 1 Sam. iii. 21. and that was only by a voice
from the temple of* the Lord, where the ark was at
that time, ver. 3, 4. The same word byn signifieth
a temple and a palace, and so the tabernacle was
called in which the ark was then in Shiloh. There
it was that God revealed himself to Samuel by the
Word of the Lord, ver. 21 . But that, in the opinion
of the ancient Jewish Church, the Word of the Lord
was their King, and the tabernacle was his palace,
where his throne was upon the ark between the
cherubims, and that from thence the Word gave
his oracles ; all this has been so fully proved in the
foregoing chapters, that to prove it here again would
be superfluous ; and therefore I take it for granted,

against the Unitarians.

that, in their opinion, it was the Word of the Lord chap.
from whom this voice came to Samuel. xv'

In the second Book of Samuel we read how, upon
David's sin in numbering the people, God sent the
Prophet Gad to give him his choice of three punish-
ments; either three years' famine, or three months'
destruction by enemies, or three days' pestilence
throughout all the coast of Israel. This last being a
judgment from heaven, that falls as soon upon the
prince as the peasant, David made choice of it rather
than of either of the other two; saying withal, Let
me not fall into the hands of man, hut into the
hands of the Lord; for great are his mercies,
1 Chron. xxi. 13. Thereupon God sent a pestilence
upon all the coasts of Israel, by which there fell
seventy thousand men, 2 Sam. xxiv. 15. And to re-
present to David's bodily eyes an extraordinary in-
stance, as well of God's justice in punishing sinners,
as of his mercy to them upon their repentance and
prayer, God made him see an angel standing he-
tween the earth and the heaven, having a drawn
sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem to
destroy it, 2 Sam. xxiv. l6, 17. and 1 Chron. xxi. 16.
And when at this sight David fell upon his face, and
prayed, as it followeth, ver. 17. God said to the de-
stroying angel, It is enough, stay now thine hand:
then the angel came down, and stood by the floor of
Oman the Jebusite, (on which place God designed
that Solomon should build his temple, and declared
it to David upon this occasion.) There, according
to the angel's order by the Prophet Gad, David now
built an altar, and sacrificed thereon ; upon which
the Lord, commanded the angel, and he put up his
sivord into his sheath, 2 Sam. xxiv. 17. This was no
other than a created angel, whom God, that em-
ployed him in that service, appointed to appear in
that manner for all those purposes be-fore mentioned.

What the ancient Church thought of all this pas-

192 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, sage of history, we may easily guess by what has
' been already shewed, of their ascribing all rewards
and punishments to the Word, that had the conduct
and government over God's people. And though it
seems that care has been taken to conceal this notion
of theirs, as much as was possible, in the Targums
of the books now before us ; yet there is a passage
that seems to have escaped the correctors, by which
we may perceive that the sense of the Church here
was agreeable to what we find of it in all other
places. For in 2 Sam. xxiv. 14. where we find in the
text that David said, ver. 6. Let us fall now into the
hand of the Lord ; for his mercies are great : the
Targum thus renders these words, Let me be de-
livered into the hand of the Word of the Lord ;
for great are his mercies. It was therefore the
Word of the Lord into whose hands David fell : it
was his Angel by whom the judgment was executed:
and it was also his mercy by which the judgment
was suspended and revoked. The Targum on this
text sufficiently shews that all this was the sense of
the Jewish Church.

In short, the ancient Church considered the
Word as being their sovereign Lord, and King of
the people of Israel. All those kings whose acts are
described in the two Books of Kings, they looked
upon them as his lieutenants or deputies, that held
their title from and under him by virtue of his cove-
nant with David their father. This Solomon de-
clared in these words, 1 Kings viii. 15. Blessed he
the Lord God of Israel, who by his Word made a
covenant with David my father. Whatsoever God
did for his people under their government, in pro-
tecting and delivering them from their enemies,
they owned that it was^br his Word's sake, and for
his servant David's sake, 2 Kings xix. 34. xx. 6.
When they had quite broken his covenant, then
God removed them from before his Word, and gave

against the Unitarians. 193

them up to be a scorn to all nations, as he threatened chap.
he would do it, 1 Kings ix. 7- according to their xv"
Targum.

In these books we read of no more but two Di-
vine appearances in Solomon's time ; and both these
to Solomon himself, 1 Kings ix. 2.

The first was at Gibeon, chap. hi. 5. where the
Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, and
said to him, Ask what I shall give thee. He asked
nothing but wisdom ; which so pleased the Lord,
that he gave him not only that, but also riches and
honour above all the kings then in the world. The
Targum, as it is come to our hands, doth not say, it
was the Word of the Lord that appeared to him, and
that gave him all this. But that it was so according
to the sense of their Church, may be gathered from
the text, which tells us, ver. 15. that as soon as Solo-
mon was awake, he went presently to Jerusalem,
(which was about seven miles distant,) and there he
stood before the ark of the covenant of the Lord,
(which was there in the tabernacle set up by David
his father,) and he offered up both burnt offerings
and peace offerings, and made a feast to all his
servants. The haste in which all this was done
brings us presently to the occasion of it ; for of all
peace offerings for thanksgiving to God, the same
day that they were offered the flesh must be eaten,
Lev. vii. 15 ; the breast and the right shoulder by the
priests, all the rest by the offerer, and those that he
had to eat with him. It is plain therefore that this
was a sacrifice of thanksgiving to God. But why
should not Solomon have stayed at Gibeon, and
there paid this duty where he had received the obli-
gation? Especially since there at Gibeon was the ta-
bernacle which Moses made by God's command ; and
there was the brazen altar which Bezaleel made,
2 Chron. i. 2, 3, 4. and Solomon had come on pur-
pose to Gibeon to sacrifice upon that altar at that
time. The very day before this appearance of God,

194 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, he bad offered a thousand burnt offerings upon it,
xv' ver. 6. and in that very night did God appear to
him, ver. 7» Now Solomon having found that good
success of his sacrificing at Gibeon, that presently
God appeared to him, and gave him so great a boon,
would certainly have stayed there to have paid his
thanksgiving in that place, but that he understood
that he that appeared to him was the Word, whose
especial presence was with the ark at Jerusalem, as
we have abundantly proved. To him therefore he
hastened immediately to pay his burnt offerings, and
peace offerings of thanksgiving to the Word of the
Lord. This we cannot doubt was the sense of the
ancient Jewish Church, though it doth not appear
now in their Targums.

And if it was the Word that made that first ap-
pearance to Solomon, then it must be he that made
the second also ; for both these appearances were of
the same person. So it is said expressly in the text,
1 Kings ix. 2. The Lord appeared to Solomon the
second time, as he had appeared to him at Gibeon.
But of this second appearance, that it was of the
Word of the Lord, there is a clearer proof than of the
former; as the reader will certainly judge, if he con-
siders the circumstances of this second appearance,
and the words which God spake to Solomon on this
occasion. First, The time of this Divine appearance
to Solomon was when he had finished the building
of the house of the Lord, 1 Kings ix. 1. He had
brought the ark into the most holy place, even un-
der the wings of the cherubims, 1 Kings viii. 6.
The glory of the Lord had taken possession of this
house, ver. 10, 1 1. and Solomon had made his prayer
and supplication before it, ver. 12 — 6l. Thereupon
God appears, and tells him, I have heard thy 'prayer
and supplication that thou hast made before me : I
have hallowed this house which thou hast built, ix. 3.
that is, I have taken it for my own, to put my name
there for ever, 1 Chron. vii. 12. I have chosen this

against the Unitarians. 195

place to myself for a house of sacrifice. This was chap.
a plain declaration from God, that it was of this xv"
house that he had spoken by Moses in these words,
Deut. xii. 5, 11. There shall be a place ivhich the
Lord your God shall choose to place his name
there ; thither shall you bring all that I command
you, your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, &c.
Now see how those words of Moses are rendered in
Jonathan's Targum on Deuteronomy : There will
be a place which the Word of the Lord will choose
to place his Shekinah there : thither shall you
bring your offerings, &c. Here we cannot but see
that he that appeared to Solomon, and said to him,
/ have chosen this place, &c. speaking all along in
the first person, is the same of whom Moses said
all the same things, speaking of him in the third
person. And that as it appears in Jonathan's Tar-
gum, both ver. 5. and ver. 1 1. of that chapter, this was
no other than the Word, according to the doctrine
of the ancient Jewish Church ; though in their
Targum on 1 Kings ix. (which also is called Jona-
than's, but how truly the reader may see by this
instance) there is not the least mention of the Word
upon this occasion.

The Word of the Lord being now in his resting-
place in Solomon's temple, 2 Chron. vi. 41. and
having put an end to his theocracy, by setting up
kings of Solomon's race, that came in by hereditary
succession, and governed after the manner of the
kings of other nations ; after this, in the Scripture
history of those times, while the first temple was
standing, we no more read of such Divine appear-
ances as we had formerly.

There is only one to be excepted, namely, that
which was made to Elias in a small still voice,
1 Kings xix. of which something ought to be said
more particularly. It may be observed that this was
in that part of Israel which had no communion with
the temple. It was in Ahab's time, when the chil-

o 2

196 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, dren of Israel had not only cast off the seed of
xv' David, but seemed to have quite forsaken the cove-
nant which God had made with their fathers
by his servant Moses. To bring them back to
their duty, God had now sent Elias, who was a
kind of second Moses. God shewed he was so,
by putting him into so many of Moses's circum-
stances. After a fast of forty days, such as none but
Moses had ever kept before him, he comes to Horeb,
the mount of God, 1 Kings xix. 8. So called first,
Exod. iii. 1. in the history of God's first appearing
to Moses in that place. And as there, ver. 6. Moses
hid his face, being afraid to look upon God ; so did
Elias in this place, 1 Kings xix. 13. He wrapped
his face in his mantle ; and then God spoke to him,
as he had done at first unto Moses. He that spoke
now was the same that spoke then, as appears by
comparing the circumstances ; and he that spoke
then, was God the Word, as we have proved before
in the former chapter. This must needs have been
the sense of the ancient Jewish Church. And to
us Christians it cannot but look very agreeable, that
as when Moses and Elias were upon the earth, the
Word appeared to them, and spoke with them on
mount Horeb ; so when he was made flesh, and
dwelt among us, Moses and Elias came to him on
mount Tabor, and spoke with him at his transfi-
guration.

Of those appearances of angels to Elias, 1 Kings
xix. 5, 7- 2 Kings i. and of the angel that made that
slaughter in Sennacherib's army, 2 Kings xix. 35.
we have no more to say in this place ; because they
seem to have been no other but created angels,
and neither of them is called the Word of the Lord
in their Targum.

But we are concerned for that vision of God
which was seen by the prophet Micaiah, 1 Kings
xxii. 19. although he doth not say that God ap-
peared to him, nor that he saw any thing more of

against the Unitarians.

197

God than a mere resemblance of a king sitting in chap.
state, which was at that time visibly represented xv'
before him. For we must take notice of one thing,
which is of some moment, that is, that when he
saith, I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all
the host of heaven standing by him on his right
hand and on his left, &c. the most learned Jews
conceive that he saw the Shekinah with the angels
of his attendance, and that this vision of Micaiah
is the same which was shewed to Isaiah, chap. vi.
and to some other prophets.

In the prophetical books of Isaiah and Ezekiel,
there are two appearances of God, or of the Sheki-
nah in his temple, which we are obliged to give
some account of. And of these, as I shall shew,
we have no reason to doubt, but that it was the
Word that appeared to those prophets according to
the sense of the ancient Jewish Church.

First for that in Isai. vi. 1, &c. the prophet saith,
I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high, and
lifted up, and his train filled the temple ; above it
stood the cherubims, 8$c. crying one to another, and
saying, Holy, holy, holy Lord of hosts, the whole
earth is full of' thy glory. — And the house was
filed with smoke. That this house was the temple
is expressly said at the end of the first verse. And
the smoke was the token of the Shekinah of God,
with which the temple was filled now, as it was at
his first entrance into it, 1 Kings viii. 10, 11. So
that here, the Lord sitting upon his throne, was no
other than God sitting upon his mercy-seat over
the ark ; that is, he was the Word of the Lord,
according to the opinion of the ancient Jewish
Church, as has been abundantly proved before in
this chapter. Of which there are also some remains
in their paraphrase ; for whereas the prophet speak-
ing still of the Lord whom he saw sitting on his
throne, ver. 1. saith, ver. 8. Also I heard the voice of
the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send? the Targum

o 3

198 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, thus renders it, I heard the voice of the Word of the

'—Lord, saying, Whom shall I send? We Christians

need not thank them for this, being fully assured, as
we are by what the Apostle saith, John xii. 41. that
this was no other than our Lord Jesus Christ. For
there the Apostle having quoted the words that
Isaiah heard from the Lord that spoke to him, IsaL
vi. 9, 10. tells us, These things said Isaiah when he
saw his glory, and spoke of him. That the Apostle
here speaks of the Word made flesh, it is clear
seeHac, enough from the text. But besides, it has been
put.". S proved by our writers beyond all contradiction.

In like manner that which the prophet Ezekiel
saw, was an appearance of God, represented to him
as a man sitting on a throne of glory, Ezek. i. 26,
28. x. 1. which throne was then upon wheels, after
the manner of a sella curulis. These were living
wheels, animated and supported by cherubims, i. 21.
each of which had four faces, i. 6. such as were
carved on the walls of the temple, xli. 19. In short,
that which Ezekiel saw, though he was then in
Chaldea, was nothing else but the appearance of
God as yet dwelling in his temple at Jerusalem ; but
quite weary of it, and now about to remove, and to
leave his dwelling-place to be destroyed by the
Chaldeans. To shew that this was the meaning of
it, he saw this glorious appearance of God, first, in
his place, iii. 12. L e. on the mercy-seat, in the
temple, ix. 3. Next, he saw him gone from his place,
to the threshold of the house. Judges use to give
judgment in the gate ; so there over the threshold
of his house God gave sentence against his rebel-
lious people, ver. 5, 6, 7. Afterwards, from the
threshold of the house, x. 4. the prophet saw the
glory departed yet farther, and mounted up from
the earth over the midst of the city, x. 18, 19- And
lastly, he saw it go from thence, and stand upon the
mountain on the east side of the city, xi. 23. that
is, on mount Olivet, which is before Jerusalem on

against the Unitarians.

199

the east, Zech. xiv. 4. and so the Targum has it on c**^p-

this place. After this departure of the Divine pre- . 1_

sence, Ezekiel saw his forsaken temple and city de-
stroyed, and his people carried away into captivity,
xxxiii. 21, &c. After this he saw no more appear-
ance of God, till his people's return from his captivity;
and then, the temple being rebuilt according to the
measures given from God, xl. xli. xlii. the prophet
could not but expect that God would return to it
as of old. So he saw it come to pass in his vision^
xliii. 2. Behold the glory of the God of Israel came
from the way of the east, (where the prophet saw
it last, at mount Olivet.) So again, ver. 4. The
glory of the Lord came into the house by the way
of the gate whose prospect is toward the east. And
ver. 5. Behold the glory of the Lord filled the house.
So again, xliv. 4. It Jilted the house now, as it had
done in Solomon's time, 1 Kings viii. 11. All along
in this prophecy of Ezekiel, there was but one per-
son that appeared, from the beginning to the end.
In the beginning of this prophecy, it was God that
appeared in his temple over the cherubims ; and
there we find him again at the end of this prophecy.
But that it was no other but the Word that so ap-
peared in the temple, according to the sense of the
ancient Jewish Church, has been proved so fully
out of their Targum s elsewhere, that we need not
trouble ourselves about that any farther, though we
cannot find it in the Targum on this book.

In the books of Chronicles there is nothing re-
markable of this kind, but what has been consider-
ed already, in the account that we have given of the
Divine appearances in the books of Kings. And
there is no mention made of any such appearance
in any of the other books that were written after the
Babylonian captivity, except in the books of Daniel
and Zechariah. Of Daniel the Jews have not given
us any Targum, therefore we have nothing to say of
that book. They have given us a Targum, such as

o 4

200 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

Cxv? 1Sy °^ ^e °^ Zechariah, which is the last

__L_we have to consider.

In this book of Zechariah we read of three angels
that appeared to the prophet. The first appeared to
him as a man, i. 8, 10. but is called an angel, ver. 9.
in Zechary's words, the angel that talked with me:
by which title he is often distinguished from all
others in the same book, i. 13, 14, 19. ii. 3. v. 5, 6.
vi. 4. A second angel appeared to him also as a
man with a measuring line in his hand, ii. 1. But
whosoever compares this text with Ezek. xl. 3, 4, 5,
&c. will find that this, who appeared as a man, was
truly an angel of God. Next, the first angel going
forth from the place where he appeared, ii. 3. an-
other angel comes to meet him, and bids him, Run,
speak to this young man, (whether to the angel sur-
veyor, or whether to Zechary himself,) and tell him,
Jerusalem shall he inhabited, &c. ii. 4. He that
commands another should be his superior. And yet
this superior owns himself sent from God. But he
owned it in such terms as shewed that he was God
himself. This the reader will see more than once
in his speech, wThich is continued from ver. 4. to the
end of the chapter. It appears especially in ver. 8,
9, 11. of this chapter. First, in ver. 5. having de-
clared what God would do for Jerusalem, in these
words, according to the Targum, The Lord hath
said, My TVord shall be a wall of fire about her, and
* After the my glory will I place in the midst of her; he goes
SheMnah* on to ver. 8. and there he delivers a message from
turnldlnto^0^ to ^s People> ln these words ; Thus saith the
the temple, Lord of hosts, After the glory # hath he sent me to
when that fne nafwns that spoiled you, Sec. Here the sense is

was rebuilt, . r .r *J . 1 x J £•

they should ambiguous ; ror it seems strange that the JLord or
soon after nosts should say, another hath sent me. But so it

seeBabj-lon . J\ , . .

itself taken, is again, and much clearer expressed, in ver. 9. where
byAeir an- ne sa^tri5 Behold, I will shake my hand upon them,
dent ser- and they shall be a spoil to their servants. This
PerstaS? none but God could say : but he addeth in the next

against the Unitarians.

201

words, And ye shall know that the Lord of hosts chap.
hath sent me; which words plainly shew that, xv'
though he styled himself God, yet he came as a
messenger from God. This is plainer yet, ver. 11.
where he saith, Many nations shall be joined to the
Lord in that day, and shall he my people, and I
will dwell in the midst of thee, (thee, O Zion, ver. Thee,
10.) This again none but God could say: and yet™™'
it followeth, Thou (O Zion) shall know that the*\}f&m-
Lord of hosts hath sent me to thee, (O Zion.) ^" e^
Here are plainly two persons called by the name brew, and
of Jehovah; namely, one that sends, and another Jjf three6
that is sent; so that this second Person is God, andre.fert°
yet he is also the messenger of God.

So likewise in the next chapter, ver. 1. the angel
that used to talk with the prophet shewed him
Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel
of the Lord, and Satan standing over against Joshua
as his adversary. And ver. 2. the prophet hears the
Lord say unto Satan twice over, The Lord rebuke
thee, for being so maliciously bent against Joshua,
that was come out of the captivity as a brand
plucked out of the fire. He that was called the
Angel, ver. 1. is here called the Lord, ver. 2. and
this Lord intercedes with the Lord for his protect-
ing Joshua against Satan. That which gave the
Devil advantage against Joshua was his sins ; which,
as the Targum saith, were the marriages of his sons
to strange wives. His sins, whatsoever they were,
are here called filthy garments ; and Joshua stand-
ing in these before the angel, ver. 3, 4. the angel
commands them that stood about him, saying, Take
away the filthy garments from him. Here again,
by commanding the angels, he sheweth himself their
superior. Afterwards, when the filthy garments
were taken off, this Angel saith to Joshua, Behold, I
have caused thy iniquity to pass from thee ; words,
which, if a man had said them to another, the Jews
would have accounted it blasphemy, Matt. ix. 2, 3.

202 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. For who (say they) can forgive sins but God only?
xv' But here was one that exercised that authority over
the high priest himself. This could be no other
than he that was called of God, a priest for ever
after the order of Melchizedeh, Psalm ex. 4. of
whom the Jewish high priest, even Joshua himself,
was but a figure. But he goes farther, adding, /
will clothe thee with change of raiment, that is,
according to the Targum, / will clothe thee with
mm righteousness, ver. 5. And he said, (again command-
ed a<? in g the angels,) .Le£ them set a fair mitre on his

said, Jon. © © J .

Targ. head; and they did so, and clothed him with gar-
ments, and the Angel of the Lord stood by. Here
again he is called an Angel, at last, as he was at firsts
ii. 3. It is an angel's office to be the messenger of
God ; and so he often owned himself to be, in say-
ing, The Lord sent me. And yet this messenger of
God commands the angels, ii. 4. iii. 4, 5. and him-
self stands by to see them do his commands, ver. 5.
This angel calleth Israel his people, and saith, he
will dwell among them, ii. 10, 11. He takes upon
him to protect his people, ver. 5. and to avenge
them on their enemies, ver. 10. He intercedes with
God, iii. 2. He forgives sin, and confers righteous-
ness, iii. 4. If all these things cannot be truly said
of one and the same person, then here are two
chapters together that are each of them half non-
sense, and there is no way to reconcile them with
sense, but by putting some kind of force upon the
text, whether by changing the words, or by put-
Socin. in ting in other words, as Socinus honestly confesseth
w**;1-"- he has done in his interpretation. And he saith,
p* ' they must do it that will make sense of the words.
It is certain they must do so that will interpret the
words as he would have it. But he and his follow-
ers bring this necessity upon themselves. They that
will set up new opinions must defend them with
new Scriptures. For our part we change nothing
in the words ; and in our way of understanding

against the Unitarians,

203

them we follow the judgment of 'the ancient Jewish chap.
Church, that makes all these things perfectly agree

to the Aoyog. This we see in Philo, who often call- De Somu.

eth the Aoyog God ; and yet as often calleth him anP-466 B-

angel, the messenger of God; and our high priest, fi" .s i s! *v'

and our mediator with God. The same hath been^f^

shewed of the Word elsewhere out of the Targums.phiio, 1. 1.

And here in this Targum, though no doubt it hath Q^^-i*
, r „ P * , & . , Sol. as Phi-

been carefully purged, yet by some oversight it is io calls the

said, ii. 5. that the Word shall be a wall of /zreFat~her'

about Jerusalem. And if the modern Jews had

not changed the third person into the first, it would ^^416

have followed, that his Shekinah should be in theB.4i8.c.

midst of her ; as himself saith afterward, ver. 10, H.§irin^Hae-

he would dwell in the midst of her ; meaning in the res. b. p.

temple, where the Word of God had his dwelling- oisomn.

place always before its destruction, as has beenp-457-B.

abundantly shewed in this chapter, and as we shew- ^umSut!

ed from Ezekiel it was promised he should dwell p-2.4^b.

there again after its restoration. mln. ukr.

p. 397. G.

De Soran. p. 463. F. De Prof. p. 364. B. De Prof. 466. B. De Somniis, p. 594. E.
Quis Rer. Divin. Haer. p. 397. G. Vit. Mos. iii. p. 521. B.

CHAP. XVI.

That the ancient Jews did often use the notion
of the Aoyos, or the Word, in speaking of the
Messias.

I HOPE what I have said upon the appearances
of the Word in the Old Testament, proves beyond
exception that the Word, which is spoken of in the
ancient books of the Jews, is a Person, and a Divine
one. From thence it is natural to conclude that St.
John and the other holy writers of the New Tes-
tament who made use of the Word Aoyog, could
not rationally apply to that word Aoyo$ any other

204 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. idea, than that which was commonly received among
XVL the Jews.

Nothing more can be required from me than to
refute fully the Unitarians, who pretend that the
word signifies no more than an attribute or the
eternal virtue of God, and who, to confirm this as-
sertion of theirs, observe that in the Targums the
term Aoyog is never employed when they speak of
the Messias. The Socinian author who wrote a-
gainst Wecknerus insists very much upon this ob-
servation.

Let us therefore examine how true that is which
he affirms; and supposing it true, how rational the
consequence is which he draws from thence. In
opposition to it I lay down these three propositions,
which I shall consider in as many chapters : the
first is, that in several places of the ancient Jewish
authors the Memra, or the Aoyog, is put for the Mes-
sias. And so that it is certain that St. John hath
followed the language of the Jews before Jesus
Christ in taking the Aoyog for a Divine Person, that
in the fulness of time, as it was foretold by the pro-
phets, did assume our flesh, John i. 14.

The second is, that the Jews of old did acknow-
ledge the Messias should be the proper Son of God.

The last is, that the Messias was represented in
the Old Testament as being Jehovah that should
come, and that the ancient synagogue did believe
him to be such.

I begin with the first of these three articles.

And upon this I must put my reader in mind,
that it should not be a just subject of admiration,
if we could not prove such a thing by many of the
Jewish books. It is clear that when the Jewish
authors did consider the Aoyog, they considered him
as the true Lord of heaven and earth, and chiefly
of their own nation. Whereas the Messias is often
represented to the prophets as one that should ap-
pear in a very mean condition ; and whatsoever

against the Unitarians.

205

glory is attributed to him in other places of the an- chap.
cient revelation, which brought them to believe XVL
till the last times that the Shehinah was to be in
him; there were some characters which could hardly
be applied to him as being personally the Word
himself. Such are his sufferings described, Psalm
xxii. and Isai. liii. Such is his riding upon an ass,
and coming to Jerusalem, which they refer con-
stantly to the Messias, as you may see in their ce-
remonial book, or Aggada of Pesach.

But though we should suppose that the places
we are going to cite cannot expressly evince this
truth : yet we might establish it by necessary con-
sequences from them.

For example, It is universally received, that Jacob
speaks of the Messiah, Gen. xlix. 10. Onkelos pa-
raphrases it, The people shall obey him. And yet,
Gen. xlix. 24. he makes the Word the governor of
the people.

The ancient Jews hold, that the Word delivered
Israel out of Egypt, and to the Word they apply
all the appearances ascribed to the Angel of the
Lord. Does it not follow from hence, that they
understood the Messiah by the Word? since they
confess, that the Messiah is called the Angel of his
presence, Isai. lxiii. 9. the Angel of the covenant,
Mai. iii. 1. which words they refer constantly to
the Messias.

The ancient Jews affirm, that it was upon the
motion of the Word that their ancestors were to
move, and that he ordered them to prepare them-
selves for a sight of God. Onkelos on Exod. xix. 17.
And is not this it which Amos demands of the peo-
ple with respect to the Messiah? chap. iv. 12.

The Jews relate that the temple was built for
the Word, as was also the tabernacle, where the
majesty of the Word resided. After this, whom
could they understand, but the Word of the Lord,
of whom Malachi promised that he should come to

206 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, his temple? chap. iii. 1. which words relate con-
XVL stantly to the Messias.

The Jews took him to be the Messias that is
spoken of by Zech. vi. 12. And whom else could
they think him to be but the Word, who is named
by Zechariah the East, and the Sun of Righteous-
ness by Mai. iv. 2 ? Especially since Philo interprets
that place of Zechariah of the Aoyog, De Confus.
Lin guar. p. 278. where he speaks of him as of the
firstborn of God, and of the Creator of the world.

The Jews held, that it is said of the Word, God
is a consuming fire, Onkelos on Deut. iv. 24. which
renders it natural to understand of him what is to
the same sense spoken of the Messias, Mai. iii. 2.
iv. 1.

The Jews believed that there was a promise of
the Messias, Deut. xviii. 15. But Onkelos notes
here, that the Word shall revenge himself of them
that disobey the Messias.

They maintained with Philo de Agrip. p. 152. B.
De Somn. p. 267. B. that the Aoyog was the first-
begotten of God. Could they then imagine, that
any other but he was meant in the places where
the like titles are owned even down to our times to
be given to the Messias ? as Psalm ii. 7- lxxxix. 28.
lxxii. 1.

They held, as did Philo, that the Aoyog led the
people through the desert, and referred to him
Psalm xxiii. wherein he is called the Shepherd.
And could they do this without reflecting, how
often this title of Shepherd is given by the prophets
to the Messias?

They held that the Aoyog was adored in his ap-
pearances to the patriarchs ; and could they doubt
whether the Messias, whom all the kings of the
earth must adore, Psalm lxxii. 11. had any affinity
with the Aoyog ?

They assert, that the Aoyog is the great High
Priest, Phil, de Somn. p. 463. F. And how could

against the Unitarians.

207

they deny that the Aoyog should be the Messias, chap.
when they constantly ascribed to the Messias what XVL
we read of his priesthood, Psalm ex. 4.

Whom did Isaiah see in that vision, chap. vi. but
the Messiah r And yet the Targum there calls him
the Word of the Lord.

When Isaiah speaks of the Messias, chap. viii. 14.
that the Lord shall be a stone of stumbling ; the
Targum reads the Word of the Lord, using it as
one of the names of the Messias. The like it does
on chap, xxviii. 16. where it is manifest the Messias
is spoken of.

Isaiah saith, chap. xii. 2. Behold God my Sa-
viour, I will trust in him. Jonathan renders him,
Twill trust in the Word of Salvation, i.e. in the
Word the Saviour.

The same prophet, chap. xli. 4. having called
Jehovah the First and the Last, he attributes to the
Word the title of Redeemer, ver. 13, 14, 16. which
title properly belongs to the Messias. And so the
whole is applied by Jesus Christ to himself, Rev.
i. 8, 17. xxii. 13.

God is called, Isa. xlv. 15. the Saviour of Israel ;
and the same thing is said of the Word, ver. 17, 22,
24. where the Messias is treated of.

But I foresee these consequences will not seem
strong enough to a Socinian. Let us therefore pro-
duce out of Philo and the Targums some places
where the notions of the Aoyog and the Messias do
appear positively the same.

As for Philo, 1. He declares that the Aoyog is the
firstbegotten of God, in Euseb. Praep. vii. 13. p. 323.
which he had from Prov. viii. 25. Psalm ii. 7- But
this proves unanswerably that in the judgment of
the ancient Jews, the Messias should be the same
Person with the Aoyog, seeing the Messias is called
the firstborn, Psalm lxxxix. 27.

2. He explains the last, Zech. vi. 12. by the Aoyog.
The text runs thus, Thus speaks the Lord of hosts,

208 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, saying, Behold the man whose name is the Branch;
XVL (or, as the Greek has it, the East;) he shall grow up
out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the
Lord. This is understood by the Jews of the Mes-
sias. But Philo plainly says, that this East here
spoken of is the Word, the firstborn of God, the
Creator of the world. De Conf. Ling. p. 258. A.

This place of Philo deserves a very particular
consideration. For it teaches us what notion the
Jews had of the Messias before our Lord's min-
istry, and discovers the tricks and fopperies of the
modern Jews, who, having a mean opinion of the
person of the Messias, have invented quite another
sense of the Memra, so frequent in their para-
phrases, than what the ancient Jews had of it.

Nor is it of less use to confound the Socinians.
For it is an undeniable proof of St. John's following
the language of the old synagogue, when he speaks
of the Aoyos in the first chapter of his Gospel ; and
shews that they have no other answer to the many
testimonies of the Targum objected against them,
but what they borrow of the Jews.

3. Another place of Philo in the same book, p.
266. F. is much to the same purpose, where he calls
the Aoyo$ a man. We know the Messias is inti-
mated to be a man in many places; as Ps. xxii. 22.
I will declare thy name to my brethren. Ps. Ixix. 8.
I am become a stranger to my brethren. Ps. cxxii.
8. For my brethrens sake. For these Psalms do all
regard the Messias. So also where he is called Da-
vid, Ezek. xxvii. 25. as the Targum and the modern
Jews do own he is, Hos. iii. 5. and where he is
called Solomon, as in the Targum on Canticles.

But, saith Philo, the Aoyog is called a man; which
must be understood either upon the account of his
frequent appearances as a man, and so he is called
Exod. xv. 3. or to his intended manifestation in hu-
man shape, as a servant. This latter is the notion of
Ps. xxii. above quoted, and of Isa. xlii. 1 . Behold my

against the Unitarians.

209

servant, which Jonathan refers to the Messias. And chap.

again of Isa. liii. where the Messias is represented as

a man afflicted and tormented ; which has been their
sense so constantly, that from hence the Jews since
Jesus Christ have taken occasion to assert that the
Messias was leprous.

As for the Chaldee paraphrase, it is visible from
Isa. xlix. where the Messias is spoken of throughout,
that the Memra should become the Messias : these
are the words of Isaiah, ver. 1 — 6. Listen, O isles,
unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The
Lord hath called me from the womb; from the how-
els of my mother hath he made mention of my name.
And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in
the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me
a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me; and
said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom
I will be glorified. Then I said, I have laboured in
twin, — yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and
my work with my God. And now, saith the Lord
that formed me from the womb to be his servant,
to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not
gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the
Lord, and my God shall be my strength. And he
said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my
servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore
the preserved of Israel : I will also give thee for a
light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my sal-
vation unto the ends of the earth. Now as Philo
hath observed that the Aoyog is not only called a
man, but Israel, [De Confus. Ling. p. 266.] which
hath a natural relation to this place of Isaiah, so the
Targum expressly ascribes ver. 5. as also ver. 16. to
the Word, which speaks of the calling of the Gen-
tiles. And so every Jewish writer confesses that the
restauration of the ten tribes, which is foretold there,
shall be the work of the Messias.

We read, Isaiah lxiii. 14. As a beast goeth down
into the valley, the Spirit of the Lord causeth him

210 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

to rest: so didst thou lead thy people, to make thy-
self a glorious name. Where, notwithstanding the
text hath the Spirit of the Lord, the Targum reads
the Word, whom it treats as Redeemer, ver. 14. that
guided them through the wilderness, that is in the
heavens, ver. 15. and hath the name of Redeemer
from everlasting, ver. l6.

Indeed, that the Word should become the Mes-
sias, i. e. should reveal himself in the Messias, ac-
cording to the judgment of the old Jewish Church,
may be gathered from the method of the Jews in
explaining certain places of the Messias, which they
referred to the Word of the Lord. Till now they do
agree, that Moses spake of the Messias, Exod. iv. 13.
Send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt
send: R. Meyr Aldabi so interprets it, as he treats
of the Messias, in his book Sevile Emunoth, ch. 10.
But the Jews formerly referred it to the Word of
the Lord, as we see in Onkelos on Exod. iii. 12.
And God said, Certainly 1 will be with thee : and
this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee:
When thou hast brought forth the people out of
Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain. On
which words Onkelos observes, that God promised
Moses to assist him by his Word in the trust com-
mitted to him, and repeats it on Exod. iv. 12, 15.
from which it is to be concluded, that it is he whom
he intends, ver. 13. The like remarks are made by
Jonathan's Targum on the same texts, from whence
the like inference may be drawn.

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

against the Unitarians.

211

2dly. The ancient Targum s acknowledge that the chap.

y t> o XVI

Messias was to be a prophet. So Jonathan owns on L_

Isa. xi. 2. The same Isaiah declares, liv. 13. that they
shall be all taught of God: which is explained by-
Jonathan of the Messias; as also Isa. liii. 5, 10, 11,
12. From whence it is evident, that they took the
Messias and the Word of God to be the same.

3dly. You see that God having said, Hos. i. 7-
that he would save his people by Jehova their God,
which is translated by the Targum, by the Word of
the Lord, the Jews kept always for a maxim, that
the eternal salvation was to come to them by
the Messias. Rashi refers to him that which we
read in Isaiah xlv. 17- and he follows in this the
Targum of Jerusalem upon Gen. xlix. 18. where the
salvation by the Messias is called by Jacob the sal-
vation by the Word of the Lord. It is upon the
same foundation, that they refer to the Messias that
which is spoken Isa. xliv. 6. that the Messias shall
be the last King, as he hath been the first; which
they infer from Psalm lxxii. 8. and Dan. ii. 35, 44.
in Bresh Rabba ad Gen. xlii. 6. Now this is the very
description of the Word of God, as you see in Jona-
than's Targum upon Deut. xxxii. 39. Quando reve-
laverit se Sermo Domini ad redimendum populum
suum, dicet omnibus populis, Videte quod ego nunc
sim qui sum etfui, et ego sum quifuturus sum, nec
alius Deus prater me.

4thly. Jonathan, on Micahvii. 14. has the same
notion. The text runs, Feed thy people with thy
rod, the flock of thy heritage, which dwell solitarily
in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed
in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old. But
Jonathan paraphrases it thus, Feed thy people by
thy Word, the people of thy heritage, in the age to
come; a term always used to denote the times of
the Messias ; and consequently shews that the
Word shall be in the Messias.

5thly. The same Jonathan, who affirms that the
p 2

212 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

Cxvi t^wd gave the Law on Horeb, and made a cove-
. - ' nant with Israel, refers to the Messias what Philo
saith of the Word, Zech. vi. 2. as we see it on Mai.
iv. 2.

We might infer the same thing from those pro-
phecies that speak of God as of the Anointed, as
Psalm xlv. 7; of God as being sent, Isai. xl. 9; of
God, for the sake of whom God forgives, Dan. ix. 17.
For the Targum in many places applies these ex-
pressions to the Word, though the passages them-
selves are supposed by them to concern the Messias.

The same truth may be also collected from hence,
that the Word is clearly distinguished from God who
sends him, and from the Holy Spirit, who is to rest
on the Messias in respect of his human nature:
which is a good argument that the Word and the
Messias, according to the common notion of the an-
cient Jews, was to be one and the same Person.

That sense was so well known in the synagogue,
that you see in Midrash Tehiltim upon Psalm xxxiii.
that the Shekinah which was in heaven was to leave
them, and to be upon the earth ; and that though it
was not possible for any mortal to see her in this
life, in the future age, which is the second coming
of the Messias, she is to be seen by Israel, who is
then to live for ever, and to say, as you see in Isa.
xxv. 9. Here is your God: and according to Psalm
xlviii. 15. He is God our God, as it is observed by
Tan chum a and many others.

But this I shall shew more distinctly, in evincing,
2dly, that the Jews, who esteemed the Aoyog as the
Son of God, did likewise believe the Messias should
be the Son of God.

against the Unitarians. 213

CHAP. XVII.

That the Jews did acknowledge that the Messias
was to he the Son of God.

God having by a great number of appearances
settled it in the minds of the Jews, that there was a
true distinction between the Lord, and the Angel of
the Lord, to whose care they were committed ; did
afterwards intimate to them, more plainly than he
had done to the ancient patriarchs, who and what
this Angel was : I mean, he gave them positive re-
velations in the Scripture concerning the nature of
the Messias, in the expectation of whom he had
trained them up by so many extraordinary appear-
ances.

For this purpose he raised up David to the throne,
and made him a prophet, that his dignity might
cause attention to his prophecies, and his authority
establish the Psalms, which he writ by inspiration,
into a form of worship most acceptable to God. We
therefore find in his Psalms all the passions which
the promise and hope of the Messias naturally pro-
duce, arising from more distinct notions of him than
were formerly given. And afterwards God raised up
other prophets until Malachi, who all tread in Da-
vid's steps, and pursue his notions, as far as they
concern the Messias.

It might be gathered from several things in the
writings of Moses, as Gen. iii. 15. that the Messias
was to be more than a man, because he was to de-
stroy the works of the Devil ; and whosoever did
that, must be stronger than he, as our Saviour shews
in the parable of the strong man, Matt. xii. 29: be-
cause God, respecting the coming of the Messias,
promised to dwell in the tabernacles of Shem, Gen.
ix. 27. which the ancient Jews understood of the
Shekina, [Talm. Bab. Joma, fol. 9. col. 2:] because

p 3

214 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

ch ap, be was to bless all nations, as was promised to Abra-
L_ ham, Gen. xii.3. as it is acknowledged by the au-
thor of the book Chasidim, §.961. and that could
not be done but by the Shekinah dwelling among
them, as the Jews acknowledge it : because he was
to be the King of all nations in the earth, as Jacob
prophesied, Gen. xlix. 10. and as Balaam foretold of
the Messias, according to Onkelos, he was to smite
the corners of Moab, and to destroy all the children
of Seth ; or, as Onkelos renders it, to have dominion
over all the children of men, Numb. xxiv. 17.

But it was necessary that the notion of the Mes-
sias should be yet more distinct. And to this end,
there was a constant succession of prophets from
David to Malachi, who by their particular characters
of the Messias, excited a more ardent desire in the
Jews, that God would fulfil his promise concerning
him.

Let us then inquire a little, by what degrees this
light became more distinct, and shew what im-
pressions it caused in the Jews before the coming of
our Lord.

I lay it down then for a truth, that the prophets
from David do constantly represent the Messias as
the proper Son of God, one begotten by a proper,
and not a figurative generation.

That God hath a Son, is declared in Solomons
question, Prov. xxx. 4. What is his name, and
what is his Sons name? For it appears clearly,
by the description of God's works and attributes,
which goes before these words, that this question
cannot be understood but of the true God and of
his true Son, the same which is spoken of, Prov. viii.
22. as being Eternal, and verses 24, 25. as being be-
gotten by God. And indeed though the author of
the Zohar refer sometimes those words, What is his
Sons name? to the people of Israel, who is called
the firstborn of God ; nevertheless he gives them
their true sense in referring them to the Messias,

against the Unitarians.

215

who is spoken of in Psalm ii. in these words, Thou chap.

• XVII

art my Son, and Kiss the Son. Part iii. fol. 124. L

col. 3.

Philo in his treatises hath preserved the sense of
the ancient Jews in this matter that this Son was
the Aoyos; as when he saith, that the Word by
whom they swear was begotten. All. 11. p. ?6. B:
that God begat his Wisdom according to Solomon,
Prov. viii. 24. De Temul. p. 190. D: which Wisdom
is no other than the Aoyog, lb. p. 194: that the Aoyog
is the most ancient Son, the eternal Spirit of God ;
but the Word is the Son of God in time, Quod Deus
sit immut. p. 232: that his Word is his image and his
firstborn, De Conf. Ling. p. 266, 267. B : that the
Word is the Son of God, before the angels, Quis
Rer. Div. H<zr. p. 397. F. G: that the Unity of God
is not to be reduced to number; that God is unus
non unicus, TIT tibl inN as the Jews say in their
book of prayers ; which are the very steps we take
to shew that an eternal generation in the Divine
nature is no contradiction.

Nothing can be more express for to prove that
there is a Son in the Godhead, than what we read
in the Targum of Jerusalem, Gen. iii. 22. The JVord
of Jehovah said, Here Adam, whom I created, is the
only begotten son in the world, as I am the only
begotten Son TIT in the high heaven.

3. The prophets positively teach the Son of God
(who the Jews thought (as under the former head
appears) was the Aoyog, the eternal Wisdom of God)
to be the Messiah. Thus David, Psalm ii. 6. brings
in God speaking of the Messiah, Thou art my Son;
this day have I begotten thee: ver. 8. Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and lest you perish. For thus it
ought to be rendered according to Aben-Ezra, and
the Midrash on this Psalm, and the Zohar in the
place I have quoted just now, which expression is
also used by Solomon, Cant. i. 2. Let him kiss me
with the kisses of his mouth; which the ancient

P 4

2\6 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. Jews refer to the Messias in Shir hashirim Rabba,
XVIL fol. 5. col. 2, 3. and in Midrash Tehillim ad Psal.
lxviii. 4.

I confess that we read in Tehillim Rabbathi upon
this second Psalm a kind of answer to this place,
JTHN *b ]2 Wft but n/lN m he doth not say,

Thou art a son to me, but Thou art my Son; and
they pretend that God speaks to the Messias as a
master to his servant. The Inquisitors of Italy take
great care to blot out that answer in the books
which they give leave to the Jews to keep in their
houses : but it is a ridiculous fear, for the solution is
so absurd, that it is exploded as soon as one looks
upon the description of that Son which is in the
Book of Proverbs, chap. xxx. 4.

I own also, that we find not in the body of Philo's
works any formal explication of these words, This
day have I begotten thee, from whence we can di-
rectly conclude, that he understood them of an eter-
nal generation. But we find something equivalent
to it. For speaking of these words, You who were
obedient to the Lord, are alive this day; he adds,
Ub (tyj (7V][Mepov) eariv o onreparog kou abiegiryjTog aicov, fAYj-
vccv yap kou hiavrw kou avvoXcog yj>ovuv 7repio§oi, ^oyfxara dv-
Spdircov elaiv apiQfxov eKTertfxyjKOTccv, to 8' dxpev^eg ovofjuz alwvog
7] o-yjpepov. De Profug. p. 358. E.

That this is not a simple conjecture, appears from
the manner of Philo's explaining his own meaning,
as he speaks of the Aoyog in two places cited by
Eusebius [PrcBp. Evang. vii. p. 323.] out of Philo de
Agric. 1,11. For in the first place, he calls the
Aoyog the firstborn of God : and in the other, the
eternal Word of the eternal God, begotten by the
Father, Aoyog 6 dialog Seov rov alcoviov.

The same title of Son is given to the Messias,
Psalm Ixxii. 17. That this Psalm was understood of
the Messias by the ancient Jews, it is acknowledged
by Raschi, who, against their unanimous consent,
thinks fit to apply it to Solomon ; now the Hebrew

against the Unitarians.

217

word there is Innon, being formed from Nin, which chap.

• • • "WIT

signifies a son. Hence it is that the Jews make '_

Innon one of the titles of the Messias in Midrash
Tillim on Psalm xciii. and in the Talmud Sanhedrim,
c. 11. fol.98. col. 2. and in Rabboth, fol. 1. col. 3.
And it follows in the text, that he had this name
before the sun, that is, before the creation, as eter-
nity is described, Psalm xc. 2. Prov. viii. 22, 29.

Again, Psalm lxxx. 15. where the Psalmist prays
God to look down and visit his vine, and the vine-
yard which his right hand hath planted ; the Tar-
gum renders these last words, and the plant which
thy right hand hath planted, that is, King Messias.
The Psalmist goes on in these words, and the branch
which thou madest strong for thyself. The Targum
reads them, even for thy Sons sake, and interprets
them, even for the sake of King Messias. So like-
wise in ver. 17. where we render the words, Let thy
hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the
Son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself
the LXX. have only, on the Son ; and the Targum
interprets them of King Messias.

God saith, Psalm lxxxix. 25, 26. / will set his
hand in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.
He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father. The an-
cient Jews refer this to the Messias, and also many
of the modern Jews finding such difficulty in apply-
ing to Solomon many of the characters in this Psalm,
agree with the ancients in their interpretation.

The following writers of the holy Scriptures are
as express as David is in this matter. Prov. viii. 22,
23, 24, 25. is well worth perusing, principally for
this title given Wisdom, of a Son in the bosom of her
Father. Upon which take Philo's reflection De
Profug. p. 358. A. To the question, Why is Wisdom
spoken of in the feminine, he answers, It is to pre-
serve to God the character of a Father ; from whom
he thought the Aoyog drew his nature ; as being, as
he elsewhere, de Agric. calls him oiihog rov alwiov
Ylarpog vlog, the eternal Son of the everlasting Father.

218 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. And nothing is more common amongst the Jewish

YVTT • • •

writers, than, 1. To maintain that the Shekinah, the
Wisdom^ and the Aoyog, are the same. 2dly, To re-
fer to the Messias, as being the same with the She-
kinah; those very places which are to be understood
of the Shekinah, and to the Shekinah those places
which are to be understood of the Messias. If any
man casts his eyes upon Jonathan's Targum and the
Targum Jerusalami commented by R. Mardochay,
and printed lately at Amsterdam, he shall find that
by the common consent of the Jewish interpreters,
whose words he fully relates, the Wisdom which is
spoken, Prov. hi. and viii. is the same by which the
world hath been created. 2dly, That this Wisdom,
which is the same which is called the Shekinah, the
Memra, is called by Philo the Aoyog. Let him now
look upon the places of the prophets in which it is
constantly spoken of the Messias, and he shall find
that they are referred by the best authors of the
synagogue to the Shekinah ; so that it is clear they
had the same idea of the Shekinah and of the Mes-
sias, and must have looked upon the Messias as he
that must have been the proper Son of God. I will
shew some instances of what I advance, to spare the
trouble to my reader.

1st. They maintain that this Wisdom by which
God hath founded the earth, as David tells us, Psal.
ciii. 24. is the same which is spoken of by Solomon,
Prov. iii. 19. it is the sense of all the Targum s,
Midrashim, and Cabalistic authors upon the first of
Genesis, as you see in R. Mardochay, and in Mena-
chem de Rakanati upon the first of Genesis.

2dly. They take indifferently this Wisdom and
the Shekinah, or the Memra or Aoyog, for the same
Person, referring to it the same actions, the same
power, the same worship, the same majesty.

3dly. They understand the Wisdom which rules
the world, as it is said, Prov. viii. to be the same
which is spoken of, Prov. iii. 19. and to be the Son
of the living God, the same who spoke by Ezek.

against the Unitarians.

219

xxii. 2. see R. Menach. in Pent. fol. 1. col. 2. from chap.
Bereshit Rabba, and from Zohar. ibid. fol. 2. col. 1. XVIT>
fol. 35. col. 1. and fol. 44. col. 1.

And 4thly, They refer many places to that Wis-
dom which is the Aoyog, the Shekinah, and the Son,
to the Messias ; for example, it is clear that Psalm
xlv. belongs to the Messias, as being the bridegroom
of the Church. Now they suppose that the She-
hinah is the Bridegroom of the Synagogue, R. Me-
nach. in Pent. fol. 15. col. 1. and they refer to the
Shekinah the place of Isaiah, chap. lxii. 3. which is
nothing but the same idea of Psalm xlv.

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

It is notorious that the Goel, that famous Re-
deemer who is promised in so many prophets to
the synagogue, is the Messias. Now the constant
idea of the Jewish writers is, that the Shekinah is
to be that very Redeemer. Rab. Menach. de Reka-
nati in Pent. fol. 58. col. 4. and fol. 59. col. 1. and
fol. 83. col. 4. and fol. 97. col. 4.

So that nothing is more evident, than that the
Jews, who took the Wisdom to be the Aoyog, and the
proper Son of God, and look upon the Shekinah or
the Aoyog, as being to be the Messias, must have
looked upon the Messias as being the proper Son
of God.

In Isaiah iv. 2. the Messias is called the Branch
of the Lord, no doubt as properly as he is called
the Branch of David, Jer. xxiii. 5. In that day, saith
he, the Branch of the Lord shall he beautiful and
glorious, which is in Jonathans paraphrase inter-
preted of the Messias. From which it is natural to
conclude, that the proper Son of God was to be the

220 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. Messias, and the Messias was to be the proper Son
XVIL of God. " V

In Isaiah ix. 6, 7- we read of a Son given: and
what are the characters of this Son? they follow;
His name shall be Wonderful, Counsellor, The
mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of
Peace. The Jews long after Christ understood this
place of the Messias ; and Solomon Jarchi, who died
in the year 1180, is perhaps the first after R. Hillel
that forsook the common traditional sense of his
nation, by referring these titles to God, and not to
the Messias.

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

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

Zachary, chap. vi. 12. doth also call him the
Branch, which not only the Jews before Christ, as
we have shewed from Philo, but those after Christ,
[Echa Rabbathi, p. 58. col. 2.] interpreted of the
Messias, as being the Word.

And here let me remark to you a few of Philo's
notions, which may serve for a key to the right un-
derstanding of the sentiments of Philo concerning
divers prophecies in the Old Testament. One while
he saith, Lib. de Conf. Ling. 267. that God is one,
but without excluding his Word, who is his image
and his firstborn, from being one with him. An-
other time he calls the Word an archangel, a man,
he that sees Israel, &c. Whence comes this, but that
he saw the Aoyog was sometimes represented as the
head of the angels in respect of his Divinity, and
at other times as a man with regard to his intended
coming in the flesh ? To this coming he seems to
apply the promise, Levit. xxvi. 11, 12. I will walk

against the Unitarians.

221

among you, and be your God, De Nom. mut. p. 840. chap.
C. I am sure the later Jews, as Ramban upon that XVIL
place after the author of Torath Cohanim, do build
hereupon the opinion of a real habitation of the
Divinity amongst them in the times of the Messias,
and that they derive from one of their most ancient
traditions, that the salvation of Israel shall be made
by God himself, which they prove by Zech. ix. 9.
where it is spoken of the Messias by the confession
of the Jews till this day.

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

It suffices to remark here, first, that the synagogue
in Philo's time held it for a maxim, that the name
Jehovah expressed the essence of God. [Philo Lib.
Deter, pot. ins. p. 143. C] Secondly, that the name
Jehovah was the proper name of God, the name of
the First Cause, and consequently communicable to
no creature, [Philo de Abrahamo, p. 280.] a truth
of great moment, which is confessed also by Manass.
Ben Israel, q. in Exod. iii. Thirdly, that the Aoyos,
whom he takes to be meant by the Branch, in Zech.
vi. 12. was to become the Messias, and therefore that
the Messias is justly called in this respect the Son
of God.

And now it is easy to judge of the sense the an-
cient synagogue had of the Person of the Messias.
It acknowledges this Son and this Aoyog, for a Per-
son subsisting from all eternity. Of this, if we had
no other, the text of Mic. v. 2. is a good proof,
which the Jews in Christ's time expounded of the

222 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. Messias, Matt, ii, 7. Johnvii. 42. But the notions of
XV1L Philo every where do confirm it. Eusebius remarks

it, De Prsep. xi. 15. p. 533. and his book de Somn.

de Confus. Ling, et de Prof. p. 466. are full to this

purpose.

To conclude, Let it be observed, that the Sanhe-
drim calls the Messias the Son of God, Matt. xxvi.
63. and when Jesus applied to himself a prophecy
of the Messias in Dan. vii. 13. Hereafter shall you
see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven,
Matt. xxvi. 64. we are told by St. Luke what they
replied, Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of
God P Luke xxii. 70. which is an argument that
though the title of Son of man did very well ex-
press the humble estate of the Messias, yet they
were not ignorant that the Aoyog should be the Mes-
sias, and that the Messias should be the proper Son
of God ; such a Son, as for whom the clouds, the
chariot of the Divinity, should be prepared to attend
his triumph, in the time when he should reveal
himself from heaven.

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

But having shewed that the Word is God, and
that this Word was to be the Messias, we will now
shew, that the Jews, in conformity to their Scrip-
tures, did believe that the Messias, as being Jehovah^
would appear for the salvation of men.

against the Unitarians.

223

CHAP. XVIII.

That the Messias was represented in the Old Tes-
tament as being Jehovah that should come, and
that the ancient synagogue did believe him to be
such.

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

This we may discern in the earnest longings of
the faithful, so frequent in all the writings of the
prophets, and in those several passages of the Old
Testament, which the Jews constantly interpret of
the Messias ; though some of them seem not to be
spoken of Jehovah, but of the Messias ; others to
be spoken of Jehovah only, without making men-
tion of the Messias ; but all have a particular re-
gard to that salvation which the Jews expected from
the Messias.

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

224 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. The ground which they built upon, to refer those

1_ words to the Messias, is clearly seen to those who

shall take notice of the constant notion of the syna-
gogue, which believes,

1. That the Shekinah is Jehovah, a second Je-
hovah to whom God spake in saying, Let us make
man, \R. Menach. fol. 8. col. 3.] the Jehovah mer-
ciful, the Wisdom which hath founded the earth,
R. Menach. fol. 145. col. 3.

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

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

4thly. That as they look upon the Shekinah as
the Angel, the Redeemer, so all their ideas of the
redemption and of their salvation have a necessary
relation to that Redeemer who is Jehovah; so that
all that is spoken in all the prophets, of the redemp-
tion by the Messias, must by a necessary consequence
be referred by them to Jehovah's being the Messias,
or to the Messias, as being Jehovah indeed : Isaiah,
chap. xlvi. 1. begs, Oh that thou wouldest rend the
heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the
mountains might flow down at thy presence. Who
doth not see that he speaks of the coming of God
in the time of the Messias, by an allusion to the
time of the coming of God to give the Law upon
mount Sinai ? and now the Jews confess it was the
Shekinah who gave the Law upon mount Sinai, [R.
Menach. fol. 57- col. 2. and fol. 48. col. 1;] and who
can imagine that a meaner person than the same,
and the very Shekinah itself, should raise such de-
sires and such prayers ?

Micah speaks with great assurance, chap. vii. 7» I
will look unto the Lord, I will wait for the Lord of
my salvation. Again, ver. 19. He will again have com-
passion upon us, he will subdue our iniquities, and
will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea. So

against the Unitarians.

225

Hab. ii. 3. Though he tarry, wait for him; because chap.
he will surely come, he will not tarry. And chap. '
iii. 13. Thou went est forth for the salvation of thy
people, even for salvation with thine anointed; thou
woundedst the head out of the house of the wicked,
by discovering the foundation unto the neck.

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

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

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

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

But we ought to remark especially, 1. That the
Targum plainly owns on Psalm xlv. 6. Thy throne,
O God, is for ever and ever ; and ver. 7. O God,
thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness
above thy fellows ; that the Messias is God. This
truth is yet more clear in Isa. ix. 6. applied to the
Messias by Jonathan ; and the present Jews cannot
satisfy themselves with any answer they make to it,
as appears by their different ways of evasion, and

226 The Judgment of the Jewish Church
chap, their changing the very text to avoid the evidence

X V J II. r» • .

- of it.

2dly. The Targum on Isai. xxviii. 5. hath these
considerable words, In that day the Messias of the
Lord of hosts shall he crowned with joy, instead of
the Lord of hosts, as it is in the text.

3dly. The Targum on Jer. xxiii. acknowledges
the Messias to be there treated of, and yet he is
called in this place, the Lord of our righteousness.
See to the same purpose the Targum on Jer. xxxiii.
14. The learned M. Edzardi has proved that the
same interpretation of these words of Jeremy hath
continued among the Jews from the time of Jesus
Christ without interruption till these latter days ;
and this he hath done from a great number of Jew-
ish authors, and even from their Liturgies them-
selves, which I have no mind to transcribe. His
book was printed at Hamburgh anno 1670.

4thly. They have been so sensible that the Mes-
sias is represented by the prophets as God, that in
Psalm ex. where it is said of the Messias, that he
shall be a priest according to the order of Melchi-
zedek, they refer the priesthood of the Messias to
God, or to the Shekinah who is Jehovah. So doth
R. Menach. fol. 18. col. L and fol. 31. col. 1.

Without that3 it is hard to conceive how Philo
should so often mention the Koyo$ as a Priest and
Prophet of God, and at the same time believe the
Aoyog to be God, unless he gathered it from Psalm
ex. 1. where the Messias, who is represented as sit-
ting at the right hand of God, and equal to God, is
also described as an high priest of a new order ; and
from Isa. xi. 2. where the Messias is promised to re-
ceive the spirit of prophecy in the highest degree.

I need not cite the paraphrasts any further on
this subject. What I have already quoted out of
them is more than enough to shew how common
this idea was among their nation.

against the Unitarians.

227

As for the Jews in the ages next to these para- chap.
phrases, I ought to observe this one thing of Pirke XVIIL
Eliezer, chap. 14. There they assert that God de-
scended nine times, and that the tenth time he will
descend in the age to come, i. e. in the time of the
Messias. The first time was in the garden of Eden ;
the second at the confusion of tongues ; the third at
the destruction of Sodom ; the fourth at his talking
with Moses on mount Horeb ; the fifth at his ap-
pearance on Sinai ; the sixth and seventh when he
spake to Moses in the hollow of the rock ; the eighth
and ninth in the tabernacle : the tenth will be, when
he shall appear in the times of the Messias. Such
is their ancient opinion.

The prophecies that speak of it as being one of
the ends of the coming of the Messias, to judge his
people and the nations, do constantly ascribe the
name of God, or of Jehovah, to the Messias. We
see it in Psalm lxxxii. 8. Arise, O God, judge the
earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. Which is
followed by Daniel, chap. vii. 13, 14. in these words;
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the
Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and
came to the Ancient qf days, — and there was given
him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all
people, nations, and languages, should serve him:
his dominion is an ever lasting dominion, which shall
not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall
not he destroyed.

The Jews confess three things : one is, that Psalm
lxxii. is to be understood of the Messias ; the second
is, that in the vision of Ezekiel, chap. i. that form of
a man sitting upon the throne signifies the true
God ; the third, that the vision of Daniel, chap. vii. is
the same in substance with that of Ezekiel i. So
that the Messias, as a man, receives an absolute em-
pire upon all nations, and sits upon a throne as God.
Now it would be the most absurd thing in the

a 2

228 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, world to conceive the Messias as a man only, when
XVIIL he is invested with such an empire which cannot be
governed but by the true God, and by Jehovah,
whose character is represented so often as the ruler
of all nations. See Gen. xviii. 25.

The prophecies that speak of Jehovah as the King
and Bridegroom of his Church are constantly in-
terpreted of the Messias. For example, where God
said to his people, Hos. ii. 19, 20. / will betroth
thee unto me for ever; I will betroth thee unto me
in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-
kindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee
unto me in faithfulness : and thou shall know the
Lord. This the Jews generally understand of the
Messias. It is the judgment of R. Menachem in
Genes, fol. 15. col. 1. where he reflects upon Isaiah
lxii. 3. And it is agreeable to what is said, Psalm
xlv. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11. Thy throne, O God, is for ever
and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of
righteousness. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest
iniquity: wherefore, O God, thy God hath anointed
thee with the oil of gladness above thy felloivs.
Kings'' daughters were among thy honourable wo-
men: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in
gold ofOphir. Hearken, O daughter, and consider;
forget thy own people, and thy father s house ; so
shall the king greatly desire thy beauty : for he is
thy Lord, and worship thou him. Whereas the Tar-
gum, ver. 2. interprets it all of the Messias ; so R.
Meir Aram a says, all agree that that Psalm is to be
understood of the Messias.

We cannot have a better proof that the Messias
was to be Jehovah, than Zech. xii. 10. which the
Targum also interprets of the Messias, and the mo-
dern Jews would refer to the feigned Messias, son
of Joseph. The words are these; / (Jehovah) will
pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabit-
ants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of sup-

against the Unitarians. 229

plications: and they shall look upon me whom they chap.

have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one

mourneth for his only son.

In Malachi iii. 1. we find this expression, Behold,
I will send my messenger, and, he shall prepare the
way before me : and the Lord, whom, ye seek, shall
suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger (or
the angel) of the covenant, whom ye delight in.
Now you may take notice, that whereas it is said
after in the Hebrew, Here he is coming, the Greeks
have read, avrog 7rpo7ropevaou.ai. Now since it is cer-
tain that he is the Jehovah to whom the temple is
here said to be built and dedicated, and who is wor-
shipped in it; and since the Jews understand this
place of the Messias, it must follow that the Messias
is Jehovah.

It is evident, that the Lord, and the Messenger or
the Angel of the covenant, are the same Person,
whose coming is promised to the Jews as a thing
very near. But it is no less evident, that this Angel
of the covenant is the same who is spoken of by
Jacob, Gen. xlviii. 15, l6\ as the Redeemer, and is
named by Isaiah, chap, lxiii. the Angel of the face.
Now all the ancient Jews agree, that that Angel, or
Messenger, is the Shehinah, or Jehovah himself; as we
see in R. Menachem de Rekanati, fol. 54. col. 2. and
fol. 66. col. 2. fol. 72. col. 4. and fol. 73. col. . And
they agree all that the Shehinah and Jehovah is the
same. It is a point agreed by the Talmud ist and
by the Cabalist, as it is explained by R. Menachem,
fol. 73. col. 3. and fol. 77. col. 4. and fol. 79. col. 3.
This being so, who can deny but that the text of
Malachi is an undeniable proof that the Messias was
to be Jehovah himself, according to the ideas of the
most ancient Jews ?

If we had not such confessions of the Jews, it
would be an easy thing to supply the want of them
by the help of the general tradition that reigns

a 3

230 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, among them, and proves clearly that the Messias

XVIIL was to be Jehovah himself.

They hold that the Messias shall be greater than
all the patriarchs, and even than the angels them-
selves. Neve shalom, 1. 9. c. 5. How can this be, un-
less he be truly Jehovah ? And whence could they
take this notion, except from Psalm xcvii. 7- where
the angels are commanded to worship him ?

It is very easy to reconcile that idea with the no-
tions of the ancient Jews touching the Messias, sup-
posing him to be the Shekinah and Jehovah, and that
this Shekinah or Jehovah was to be the same Person
with the Messiah, as they confess. R. Menach. fol.
73. col. 3. and fol. 77. col. 4. and fol. 79. col. 3. They
teach constantly that the angels receive their virtue
from the Shekinah, R. Menach. fol. 8. col. 1. and fol.
12. col. 1. They teach that the Shekinah is the God
of Jacob, R. Men. fol. 38. col. 3; that he appeared
to him at Beth-el, and promised him to govern him
without the ministry of angels,i£. Menach. fol. 41,42.
They say the Shekinah is the Jehovah who appeared
to the patriarchs, R. Menach. fol. 56. col. 1. They
maintain that the temple was built to worship the
Shekinah therein, R. Menach. fol. 63. col. 1. and fol.
70. col. 2. and fol. 73. col. 4. and fol. 74. col. 2. They
maintain on the other side, that it is not lawful to
pay any religious worship to angels, although sent
by God as his messengers, or as mediators, R. Men.
fol. 68. col. 2. They deny that the ancient patriarchs
ever paid any other but civil worship to the angels,
when they appeared to them, R. Menach. ib. col. 3.
But it is impossible to reconcile those ideas with the
opinion of the Messias's being only a mere man.

Indeed, he that will seriously consider all these
prophecies, will be far from thinking, that, when the
high priest asked Jesus whether he was the Son of
God or no, and Jesus answered that he was so, the
Jews did understand only that he made himself a

against the Unitarians.

231

great prophet. Both the Jews and Socinians own chap.

• • • • XVI 1 1
that in this answer he made himself the Messias, 1

who, according to both of them, is more than a great

prophet; and the high priest was so sensible of it,

that he called it blasphemy.

In short, the angels, who are God's ministers,
could not have served nor obeyed one that was, as
well as themselves, a mere creature only. He must
be God, to have the angels subjects to him. He must
be God, to govern the world, and to discern the
thoughts of the heart, without which he could not
be a competent judge. And they that imagine a
creature could be made capable to know the hearts
of men, and to exercise those other acts, which are
the characters of the Divinity, do form to themselves
the greatest chimera in the world.

It is therefore necessary, that the ancient Jews,
having these notions of the Messias, should have
conceived an intimate and close habitation of the
Word in his person, by which all these prophecies
should receive their accomplishment, and all the
promises of God concerning the Messias should be
perfectly fulfilled.

The Unitarians conceive they have done a great
service to the Christian religion, when, to court the
Jews' favour, they deny the divinity of the Messias,
and condemn, as being idolatrous, that worship which
Christians pay to Jesus Christ. In this they argue
more consistently than Socinus himself, as I have
said in my preface to this book. But after all, I can
say, that besides that they cannot answer Socinus's
argument for the worship of Jesus Christ, they shall
never get from the Jews what they pretend by their
opinion : indeed the Jews would be in the right to
condemn us as idolaters, if we did worship Jesus
Christ as a mere creature. But they cannot do that
justly, if they reflect seriously upon the grounds
which we lay for the adoration of the Messias.

As it is a thing which, I hope, may be of some
gl 4

232 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, use to undeceive the Unitarians, I am willing to add
X.V1II ■ •

1 L_to the foregoing observations upon the Trinity, and

Divinity of the Word, the sense of the synagogue
as to this article. And indeed it would be an uncon-
ceivable thing, if the Jews had believed the Messias
to be the true God, and would not be ready to
worship him.

It is a thing which Christians and Jews are agreed
upon, that there is but one God, and he alone
that is to be worshipped. The Jews and the ancient
Christians did agree that the angels must not be wor-
shipped. From which it follows, that if the Jews
acknowledged that the Messias is to be worshipped,
they must have acknowledged him to be God, and
vice versa.

Now there are positive orders of God to worship
the Messias, as Psalm ii. 12. Kiss the Son. Who is
that Son spoken of in this place? It is the Messias,
as it is granted by the ancient synagogue, as we see
in Ecclesiasticus, I called upon the Lord the father
of my Lord. And Tehillim Rabba, with many others,
apply this place of Psalm ii. to the Messias. So the
Breshit Rabba in Gen. xlix. so the Talmud in Succa,
c. 5. Saadias in Dan. vii. 13. with the ancient, wit-
ness R. Salom Jarchi in his Comment.

I know that the Greek interpreters have translated
those words of the second Psalm, IpdlaaQe mmbiw§.
But that version is rejected by the Jews, who read
now, in their Spanish translation printed at Ferrara,
Besad hiio pro que non se insanne, which is the
sense of Lombroso in his short notes upon that
place. So it is understood by R. Abensueb in h. I.

We read in Psalm viii. 3. From the mouth of babes,
&c. It was so well known that this place was re-
lated to the Messias, that it was used at our Saviours
entry into Jerusalem, Matt. xxi. l6. Since that time
it is related to the Messias. as we see in the Midrash
upon Cant. i. 4. where these very words are referred
to God, whom the babes of Israel were to bless ;

against the Unitarians.

233

which shews plainly that the praises which are ch ap.
spoken of arc praises which are acts of adoration; XV11L
and so in the Midrash upon Eccl. ix. 1.

The same positive order for the worship of the
Messias is given in Psalm xlv. 11. He is the Lord,
worship thou him. There is no doubt but that Psalm
is to be referred to the Messias : it is so acknow-
ledged by the Targum, and by all the Jewish inter-
preters. What then can be said against the worship
of the Messias ? If the Jews of old had denied that
the Shekinah was to be in the Messias, then it would
be rational to conclude that they did not own any
worship to be paid to him. But they have acknow-
ledged the Divinity of the Messias, as we read in
Midrash Tehillim in Psalm x. Stetit divinitas Mes-
s'ke et pradicavit. From whence it follows by a ne-
cessary consequence, that they thought themselves
obliged to worship him.

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

We read the same in Psalm Ixxii. where it is
said, ver. 11. that they shall fall down and worship
him. Nobody doubts but that Psalm relates to the
Messias.

I have taken notice in the second chapter of this
book, that the Jews refer constantly to the time of
the Messias all the Psalms from the xc. to the c.
Now in Ps. xcv. 6, 7« the words seem to be spoken
of Jehovah ; but they were understood by the Jews
of the Messias, who was to have the name of Je-
hovah, as you see in Midrash in Echa. i. 6.

After David, what saith Isaiah of the worship of
the Messias ? he speaks as distinctly as can be, chap,
xlix. 23.

The Jews understand it of the Messias, whom

234 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, they look upon as the Redeemer to whom all people
XVI11' are to make their confession from their heart, as you
see in Breshit Rabba upon Gen. xli. 44. where they
refer these words to the Messias, Isa. xlv. 23. You
see the same in Midr. Tehin. in Psalm ii. 2. these
words, when they have seen his great tribulation,
they shall come and shall worship the king Messias,
as it is said Isa. xlix. 23.

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

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

I shall then conclude this matter by the solemn
prayer of the Jews in the feast of Succoth, where
they have these words *U njwn Vf) "ON Ego, et ille,
Salva nunc, p. 53. of the Venice edition in 8vo. con-
cerning which words the Jews labour very much to
explain who is that ille ; but the most understand-
ing apply them to the two first Middoth, viz. to the
Father and to his Koyog, as we have shewed before.

Having now produced the sentiments of the an-
cient Jews, as to several points that concern the
Trinity, and the Divinity of our Lord, we ought next
to consider how Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and
the primitive Christians, did follow these notions of
the synagogue.

against the Unitarians.

235

CHAP. XIX.

That the New Testament does exactly follow the
notions which the ancient Jews had of the Tri-
nity, and of the Divinity of the Messias.

Whoever shall attentively examine the me-
thod which our Saviour and his Apostles follow in
the New Testament, will find it exactly suited to
the notions which the Jews had entertained, and
which they had from the writings of the prophets.

It was absolutely necessary it should be so, be-
cause the doctrine concerning the coming of the
Messias began to be more narrowly inquired into
among the Jews, when they saw Herod, who was
an Idumaean, settled in the throne of Judaea ; it be-
ing then the very time that was marked out for the
coming of the Messias by Jacob's prophecy, Gen.
xlix. 10. The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh
come; and unto him shall the gathering of the peo-
ple he. An angel therefore appears to the Virgin
Mary that was to be the mother of Christ, and re-
veals to her the manner of his conception, which
was to be by the operation of the Holy Ghost. He
names the child who was to be born of her, Jesus,
and declares that he should be the Son of the High-
est, and that of his kingdom there would he no end:
alluding to Psalm ii. and to many other places of
Scripture, where the Messias is described as one
that was to be the Son of God.

Next the Angel appeared to Joseph, when he
was upon parting with his betrothed wife, the blessed
Virgin, and told him, she should bring forth a Son,
and that he must name him Jesus, because he would
save his people from their sins. Whereupon the
Evangelist saith, that this child was he of whom

238 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, the prophet had foretold that he was to be Emanuel,
X1X' God with us. He was to do that for his people,
which none but God was able to do, viz. to save
them from their sins. How could he have shewed
better that he was the God of the Jews, to whom
Judsea belonged as his subject country, and the
Jews as his people, as it wTas foretold, Isa. vii. and
viii? That God, whose very name Habakkuk had
named, Hab. iii. 18. the God of my salvation, so
called, saith Jonathan's Targum, because of the won-
derful things that God would do by his Messias.

Another angel brings to the shepherds the news
of Christ's birth ; and what words does he use ? He
names him the Christ, the Lord, Kvpiog or Jehovah,
by God's own proper name, Luke ii.

The wise men came from the East to Bethlehem,
guided by a new star, to worship him ; and amongst
other gifts, they presented him with frankincense,
which by the Law was to be offered to God alone :
shewing thereby that they owned him for that hea-
venly star spoken of by their countryman Balaam,
Num. xxiv. 17. And for that king of whom it was
foretold, Psalm lxxii. 10, 11. The kings of Tarshish
and of the isles shall bring presents : the kings of
Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all kings shall
fall down before him, all nations shall serve him.

Simeon, inspired by the spirit of prophecy, said,
that Christ was to be a light to lighten the Gentiles,
Luke i. 79- alluding to Isaiah xlii. 6. and ix. 1. which
speaks of the Messias.

He said further, that this child was to prove the
fall of many in Israel, according to that prophecy,
Isai. viii. 13, 14. Sanctify the Lord of hosts him-
self; and let him be your fear, and let him be your
dread. And he the Lord of hosts shall be for a
sanctuary ; but for a stone of stumbling and a rock
of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and
for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In

against the Unitarians.

237

which place the prophet speaks of the Lord of chap.

hosts, and clearly points out the Messias, or the

Word according to Jonathan's Targurn.

And because the angels had celebrated the na-
tivity of Christ with acclamations, St. Paul, Heb. i. 6.
applies to him what the Jews had added to the song
of Moses in the LXX. Deut. xxxii. 43. Let all the
angels of God worship him, at his coming into the
world : which words are also found, Psalm xcvii. 7.
from whence they had added them ; as well as some
others borrowed from other places of Scripture,
which the Jews understand of the Messias.

Hitherto a judicious reader will find no notion,
but what is perfectly consonant with those of the
Old Testament, and of the writings of the Jews,
about those places of Scripture which call the
Messias Jehovah, or represent Jehovah as being
himself he that was to be the Messias.

Mr. N. who does suspect the primitive Christians
to have added these words, Matt, xxviii. 19. Go and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of' the Holy Ghost, to
favour the new doctrine of the Trinity, might as
well at one blow have cut off those places in St.
Matthew, ch. i. 20. and St. Luke, ch. i. 79. which do
more strongly assert that doctrine. For there we
find the Highest, the Son of the Highest, and the
Holy Ghost, three Persons as distinct as words could
make them : and the Messias is as plainly called
Jehovah as can be. Both angels and prophets ei-
ther shew or own the ancient prophecies to have
been fulfilled in Christ. There is nothing in all
this that looks like a collusion.

John the Baptist, Luke iii. 3. preached repent-
ance, as it is written, Isa. xl.3. The voice of one
crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of
the Lord, make his paths straight ; and all flesh
shall see the salvation of God ; owning the Messias

238 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, to be God and Jehovah. When the Jews took him
Xlx> to be the Messias, he told them, that he was not
worthy to unloose the latchet of his shoes ; that he
was before him; that he shall baptize them with the
Holy Ghost and with fire ; and that he was spoken
of, Mai. hi. 1. Now Malachi calls him Jehovah,
though he also calls him the messenger of the cove-
nant, as I observed before.

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

The Holy Ghost descended like a dove, and
lighted upon him, to fulfil the prophecy of David,
Psalm xlv. 7- O God, thy God has anointed thee
with the oil of gladness above thy fellows : and that
of Isa. xi. 2. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest
upon him. The three Persons of the Trinity did
then so visibly manifest themselves, that the an-
cients took from thence occasion to bid the A-
rians, Go to the river Jordan, and you shall see
the Trinity.

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

In his conversation with Nathanael he begins to
discover to him the mystery of his being God, by
comparing himself to the ladder which Jacob saw
in a dream, John i. 51. Hereafter you shall see
heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and
descending upon the Son of man. And I observed

against the Unitarians.

239

before, that Philo attributed that apparition to the chap.
Aoyo$, as the restorer of intercourse between God XIX>
and man.

At a marriage in Cana, to shew that his commis-
sion was much above the meanness of his education
and trade, he spoke something sharply to his mother,
John ii. 4. Woman, what have I to do with thee 9
In the same manner as he had done, being yet but
twelve years old, when upon her complaining that
his Father and herself had sought him sorrowing,
he gave her this answer ; How is it that you sought
me P wist ye not that I must be about my Fathers
business ? Luke ii. 49.

Soon after he went up to Jerusalem, and drove
out of the temple the sellers and money-changers,
and told them, Take these things hence, make not
my Fathers house a house of merchandise, John ii.
16. The Jews, surprised at that commanding style,
asked him a sign, to shew his authority: to whom
he answered, Destroy this temple, and in three days
I will raise it up, ver. 19. foretelling his resurrec-
tion, and declaring that he was to be the author of
it, ver. 21. which, in the opinion of the Jews them-
selves, is the proper character of God, who has, say
they, the key of the womb to make it fruitful, the
key of the heavens to send down rain, and the key
of the grave to raise the dead out of it. Beth Israel
ex Sanhedrim, fol. 140. col. 3.

To satisfy Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, about
the greatness of his Person, he tells him, contrary
to the opinion of some Jews, Pirke R.Eliezer, c. 41.
who believed that Moses had ascended up into hea-
ven from mount Sinai, that no man had ascended
up thither, but he that was come from thence, even
the Son of man who was there, John iii. 13. But
how could he be in heaven, and have descended
from thence ? Because he was the Son of God, whom
God had sent to save the world, ver. 17. in which
expressions he alludes to the prayers of the ancient

240 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. Jews before mentioned, where the Church begs,
XIX* that a Saviour would come down from heaven, even
the true Jehovah, Is. lxiv. 1.

When John's disciples came to their Master, to
complain that he whom he had lately baptized did
himself baptize, and draw the multitude after him ;
to give them a nobler notion of Christ than they
had before, he told them plainly, that he was only
the friend of the bridegroom, but that Christ was
the bridegroom himself', John iii. 29. Intimating
by that similitude that Christ was God, according
to the prophecy in Hosea, chap. ii. 19, 20. / will
betroth thee unto me for ever. This John's disciples
knew very well ; and that the Messias was spoken
of, Psalm xlv. in which he is expressly named God :
that Solomon's Song did speak of him: and the
Jews believe to this day, that God was spoken of
there by Solomon. And this has obliged the holy
writers to give to the Messias the name of bride-
groom, and to the Church that of a bride, as may
be seen in St. Paul and in the Revelation.

John the Baptist further tells his disciples that
Christ was before him in dignity, because he was
in being before him, John i. 15, 30. and yet John
was born six months before our blessed Saviour.

Jesus tells them that he came from above, where-
as himself, though inspired and a prophet, was only
of the earth : that Christ was come from heaven,
and above all, that God was his Father, and that he
had given all things into his hand, John iii. 31, 35.
shewing thereby, that it was he whom God spoke
of, Psalm ii. 8, Ash of me, and I shall give thee the
heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost
parts of the earth for thy possession.

Christ said, Luke v. 20, 21, 24. to a man sick of
the palsy, Thy sins are forgiven thee; which the
Pharisees taking ill, because, as they told him, God
alone could forgive si?is; he cured the poor man,
to shew that he had power to forgive sins ; and eon-

against the Unitarians.

241

sequently, that he was God by their own confession, chap.
And he performed that according to the prophecies XIX'
which attribute to God, and to the Messias,the for-
giveness of sins, Jer. xxxi. 34.

The Jews being angry with him, because he
had cured an impotent man on the sabbath-day,
John v. 16. he tells them, to justify what he had
done, My Father works hitherto, and I work, ver. 17.
At which words they sought more to kill him, be-
cause he had not only broken the sabbath, but said
also that God was his Father, making himself equal
with God, ver. 18. What would a good man have
done in this case, one that had been only a man as
we are ? He would certainly have declared his ab-
horrence of such blasphemy as was contained in
these words. But then he would have told them
at the same time, that these were not his words, but
theirs. He would have made them understand him
aright, by saying, he did not make himself equal
with God, but that in working a miracle on the
sabbath, he only acted as the prophets did, to
whom, say the Jews, it was lawful to break some
of the precepts of the Law.

But instead of making any such interpretation,
he goes on in the same tenor of words, and a
second time gives himself the title of the Son of
God, and tells them, that whatever his Father did,
he might do likewise, ver. 19. That he would raise
the dead, to prove himself equal with God, that as
the Father raised up the dead, and, quickens them,
even so the Son quickens whom he will, ver. 21.
That that extraordinary power was given him by
his Father, it being his will that all men should ho-
nour the Son, even as they did the Father, ver. 23.
He proves again that he was the Son of God, by
the power he had to raise up the dead ; As the Fa-
ther has life in himself, so has he given to the Son
to have life in himself: and has given him autho-

242 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, rity to execute judgment also, because he is the Son
X1X' of man, ver. 2o, 27. He applies to himself what
was said in Daniel xii. 2. concerning the resurrec-
tion of the dead, ver. 28, 29. The hour is coming,
in the which all that are in the graves shall hear
his voice, and shall come forth : they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life ; and they that
have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
He appeals to John the Baptist, who had testified
that Jesus was the Son of God, ver. 33. At last he
bids them search the Scriptures, ver. 39. in which
they would find that he was that Son of man de-
scribed, Dan. vii. 13, 14. and consequently equal
with God : for who can sit on God's throne besides
the true God, as it is declared, Psalm ex. 1. The
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,
until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Which
words the Jews understood of the Messias, agree-
ably to other prophecies, in which he is so often
called Jehovah, and the Son of God.

He justified his curing the sick on the sabbath-
day, because he the So?i of man was Lord of the
sabbath. But how could he be so, but because he
was that Word which had given the Law to the
Jews ; that Son of God equal with his Father, who
consequently was master of his own laws ?

He opened the eyes of the blind, and made the
lame to walk, to fulfil the prophecy, Isa. xxxv. 4,
5, 6. Behold, your God will come, he will come and
save you ; then the eyes of the blind shall be open-
ed, and the ears of the deaf unstopped : then shall
the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the
dumb sing.

He multiplied the loaves in the desert, to shew
that he was that same Word to which the Jews
attributed the miracle of manna in the wilderness.
He tells the Jews, to the same purpose, that he was
the bread come down from heaven, John vi. 51.

against the Unitarians.

243

upon which it may be observed that Philo main- chap.
tains that the Word was manna, or at least manna XIX'
the type of the Word. Lib. quod deterior. p. 13 7.

Having wrought so many great miracles be-
fore the Jews, he asked his disciples, what people
said and thought of him ? To which St. Peter an-
swering according to the people's various opinions,
and at last confessing the faith of himself and the
other disciples, that he was Christ the Son of the
living God, he commends this confession in Peter,
though he had before refused to receive it from
the Devil ; and tells Peter, that God, even his
Father, had revealed it to him, and therefore it
must be true, Matt. xvi. \6, 17- And so it was; for
God had spoken of it by many of his prophets,
as I shewed before, by the very confession of the
Jews.

He shews his disciples how Elijah was come in
the person of John the Baptist, Matt. xvii. That
therefore himself, to whom John had borne witness,
was the Messias, the true Jehovah, whose forerun-
ner Elias was to be, according to the prophecy, Mai.
iii. 1 . Behold, I will send my messenger, and he
shall prepare the way before ME; and the Lord,
whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple,
even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight
in, saith the Lord of hosts.

He gives his disciples the power of binding and
loosing, that is, of forbidding some things which
Moses had permitted, and permitting some which
he had forbidden ; reserving still to himself the
power of directing them infallibly by his Spirit in
those acts of their ministry ; to shew that he was
that very God who was to make a new covenant, as
Jeremiah had foretold, chap. xxxi. 33. And that he
had in him the authority of a supreme Lawgiver ;
for who can give laws to men's consciences, but the
only true God?

In the treasury of the temple he tells the Jews
R 2

244 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, that God was his Father ; that he did nothing of
himself, but as his Father had taught him, John
viii. 28. that he had spoke that which he had seen
with his Father, ver. 38. naming thus God, his Fa-
ther, many times, which no prophet ever had done,
nor no mere man could do without the highest
presumption.

He tells the Jews (who objected to him, that by
saying that they who believed in him should never
see death, ver. 51. he made himself greater than
Abraham, ver. 53.) that Abraham had seen his
day, and was glad, ver. 56. And as they replied,
that what he said was impossible, because Abraham
had been dead many hundred years, whereas him-
self was not yet fifty years old, ver. 5/. he answers
with a repeated asseveration, Verity, verily, I say
unto you, before Abraham was, I AM, ver. 58.
plainly affirming two things; first, that he was the
Aoyog which had appeared to Abraham ; and se-
condly, that he was that God, whose name is, I AM,
Exod. iii. 14. which the Jews apprehending, took
up stones to cast at him, ver, 59. as at a blasphemer,
who made himself God, and equal with God.

Soon after he opened the eyes of one that was
born blind, and had this confession from him, which
he had before suggested to him, that he was the
Son of God ; and accordingly accepted of his adora-
tion, John ix. 35, 38.

He said, he was the good shepherd, that he
gave his life for the sheep, John x. 1 1 . that he
had other sheep whom he would bring into his fold,
ver. 16. that is to say, that both Jews and Gentiles
belonged to him ; that he laid down his life for
them; and that he had power to lay it down, and
power to take it agai?i,ver. 18: shewing by all these
expressions, that he was God, and the Messias, for
the title of shepherd is given to God, Psalm xxiii. 1.
and in many other places, which the Jews under-
stood of the Messias.

against the Unitarians.

245

Being in the temple of Jerusalem at the feast of chap.

the dedication, the Jews desired him to tell them

plainly whether he was the Christ or no, John x. 24.
To whom he answered from ver. 25 to 37. / told you,
and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Fa-
thers name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe
not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto
you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them,
and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal
life ; and they shall never perish, neither shall any
pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which
gave them me, is greater than all ; and none is able
to pluck them out of my Fathers hand. I and my
Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again
to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good
works have I shewed you from my Father ; for
which of those worths do ye stone me P The Jews
answered him, saying, For a good work we stone
thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou,
being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered
them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
gods P If he called them gods, unto whom th e word
of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken ;
say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and
sent into the world, Thou blasphemest ; because I
said, I am the Son of GodP It may be observed
from these last words, that having been already ac-
cused of blasphemy, because he made himself equal
with God, not only he affirms it still, but proves it
besides by an argument from a lesser thing to a
greater. For, says he, if God names magistrates Elo-
him, because they are his deputies ; how much
more may his Son be called so, whom he has con-
secrated and sent into the world? alluding to the
Psalms ii. and ex. in both which Psalms mention is
made of the Messias, as the Son of God, and God.

Some days before his passion he declared that the
death of Lazarus had happened, that the Son of God
might be glorified thereby, John xi. 4. He affirmed

R 3

246 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, that he had power to raise up the dead, ver. 25. Iam
the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in
me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And he
received Martha's confession in these words ; Lord,
I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God,
which should come into the world, ver. 27.

Having kept his last passover with his disciples,
he promised to send them the Holy Ghost, as an-
other Comforter, Paraclet, or Menahem, (by which
last name the Jews mean the Messias,) which shews
the Holy Ghost to be another Person. He speaks of
this very emphatically, John xiv. 16, 17. I will pray
the Father, and he shall give you another Comfort-
er, that he may abide with you for ever ; even the
Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, be-
cause it seeth him not, neither knoweth him : but ye
know him ; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be
in you. And again, ver. 26. But the Comforter,
which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will
send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and
bring all things to your remembrance. And John
xv. 12 — 15. he gives the very same notion about
him which the Jews had.

He expressed himself so plainly concerning his
coming from above, that his disciples had no further
doubts or difficulties about it, John xvi. 27 — 30. The
Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved
me, and have believed that I came out from God. I
came forth from the Father, and, am come into the
world : again, I leave the world, and go to the Fa-
ther. His disciples said unto him, ho, now speakest
thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now are we
sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not
that any man should ask thee : by this we believe
that thou earnest forth from God.

Finding them so well informed in the space of
four years' discipline under him, he puts up a prayer
to God in their behalf, John xvii. 1—5. Father, the
hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may

against the Unitarians. 247

glorify thee: as thou hast given him power over all chap.

flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as L

thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that
they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee
on the earth: I have finished the work which thou
gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou
me with thine own self, with the glory which I had
with thee before the world was. He could not more
clearly express his eternal preexistence, and shew
he was the Aoyog which had appeared to Abraham,
but was before Abraham, because he was God ; as
Philo affirms it in divers places which I have already
quoted.

Being by Judas's treason apprehended, he de-
clared that the angels were his ministers, and would
have defended him, had he been pleased to make
use of their service, Matt.-xxvi. 53. Thinkest thou
that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall
presently give me more than twelve legions of an-
gels? For what he said about his asking his Father
for them was, because he was then in a state of hu-
miliation. He did not ask, when he came attended
with angels at his giving of the Law on mount
Sinai, nor when Isaiah saw his glory in the temple,
and heard them sing, Holy, holy, holy. They were
then upon duty, which, as the Jews understand their
prophets, is to adore the Messias.

Being brought before Caiaphas, at whose house
the council of the Jews was met, upon Caiaphas's
adjuring him by the living God to tell them, whether
he was the Christ the Son of God, Matt. xxvi. 63.
Jesus said unto him, ver. 64. Thou hast said: never-
theless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the
Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and
coming in the clouds of heaven. Upon which he
was condemned to die as a blasphemer. From
whence it appears what notion the Jews had of the
Messias ; and that they believed that Son of man

r 4

248 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, spoken of, Dan. vii. 13, 14. to be the very Son of
XIX- God ; who had a second throne set for him, and came
with the clouds of heaven as God: this being the
ordinary description the prophets make of him.

Being condemned as a blasphemer, for taking the
title of Jehovah, and of the Son of God, the people,
by way of mockery, called him the King of the
Jews, the Son of God, and Saviour; which justified
his pretension, Luke xxiii. 35 — 38. And the people
stood beholding. And the rulers also with them de-
rided him, saying, He saved others; let him save
himself, if he he Christ, the chosen of God. And
the soldiers also said, If thou he the King of the
Jews, save thyself. And a superscription was writ-
ten over him, This is the King of the Jews. And
Matt, xxvii. 39 — 43. They that passed by reviled
him, saying, Save thyself. Jf thou be the Son of
God, come down from the cross. Likewise also the
chief priests said, He saved others; himself he can-
not save : if he be the King of Israel, let him now
come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he
will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

He cried upon the cross with a loud voice, Eli,
Eli, lama sabachthaniP My God, my God, why hast
thou forsaken me? Matt, xxvii. 46. These words
are the beginning of the xxiid Psalm, and are very
agreeable to those words in Psalm xlv. where he
that is God himself, or the Psalmist for him, does
nevertheless call the Father his God ; saying, O
God, thy God has anointed thee. Accordingly the
centurion that guarded him, having heard this cry,
and also that with which he expired, saying, Father,
into thy hands I commend my spirit, said, Truly,
this was the Son of God, Mark xiv. 39.

After his death, his side was run through, that
the Scripture might be fulfilled, John xix. 37. re-
lating to that prophecy, Zech. xii. 10. which the an-
cient Jews understood of the Messias. \Bresh. Rabba

against the Unitarians.

249

on Gen. xxviii. and Rabbi Abenezra on this text.] chap.
And yet the words of that prophecy come from the x '
mouth of the Lord Jehovah, Zech. xii. 1, 4. saying,
/ will pour upon the house of David, and upon the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of
supplications ; and they shall look upon ME whom
they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as
one mourneth for his only son.

Being risen from the dead the third day, as he
had foretold, the angel that gave the women the
first news of it, called him Lord, that is, Jehovah,
Matt, xxviii. 6. as the angel had done, who gave the
shepherds the tidings of his birth, Luke ii. 11.

Soon after, he appeared to his disciples, and did
constitute them heralds of the new covenant, which
he had made with mankind in his blood ; of which
covenant Jehovah is said to be the author, Jer. xxxiL
40. / will make an everlasting covenant with them :
and I will put my fear in their hearts, that they
shall not depart from me* Afterwards he did pro-
mise to send them the Holy Ghost, Luke xxiv.
46 — 49. He said unto them, Thus it is written, and
thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from
the dead the third day: and that repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in his name
among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And
ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I
send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry
ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued
with power from on high.

Before his ascension he gave them symbolically
the Holy Ghost, which he was to send fully
upon them forty days after, John xx. 22. He
breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy
Ghost.

Thomas not being then present, nor believing
what the other disciples told him, viz. that they
had seen the Lord Jesus, Christ appeared to him,
and so throughly satisfied him of the truth of his

250 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, resurrection, that thereupon he remarkably owned
xlx' him for his Lord and his God, ver. 28.

He bids them baptize in the name of the Trinity,
Matt, xxviii. 18, 19, 20. All power is given- unto me
in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Fa-
ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teach-
ing them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway,
even unto the end of the world. In which words he
visibly relates to many Persons, and where he repre-
sents himself as the Shekinah that was always with
the people under his conduct.

Being ready to go up into heaven, he received
their adorations, Lukexxiv. 51, 52. While he blessed
them, he was parted from them, and carried up into
heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to
Jerusalem with great joy.

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

I thought it necessary, thus in short, to sum up
the chief particulars which the four Evangelists
have observed about the life of our Saviour; to
prove plainly and briefly, that the Gospel follows
the same notions which the Old Testament had
given of the Messias, and which the Jews in Jesus
Christ's days had generally received : First, that in
the Divine nature there is a Father, a Son, and a
Holy Ghost. Secondly, that the Son, who was the
Aoyog, is the promised Messias. Thirdly, that the
Holy Ghost was to be given by the Messias, and to
come, being sent both by the Father and the Son,
as the Son was sent by the Father to save the
world.

This is a subject of moment ; our adversaries are
men of parts and wit. And because, to rid them-
selves of all difficulties in these mysteries, they

against the Unitarians.

251

maintain that the Gospel proposes only this one chap.
fundamental article of faith, that Jesus, as man, is XIX'
the Messias; therefore it will be convenient to add
to what has been observed out of the Gospels, some
more observations drawn from the writings of the
Apostles and the first Christian writers, to shew what
notions they had of these things ; namely, the very
same which are expressed in the Gospels, and were
then acknowledged by the Jews.

CHAP. XX.

That both the Apostles and the Jirst Christians,
speaking of the Messias, did exactly follow the
notions of the ancient Jews, as the Jews them-
selves did acknowledge.

It being of great moment to shew that the Apo-
stles did not make a new platform out of their own
heads, when they preached the Gospel, I will ex-
amine several hypotheses of Philo, which the Apo-
stles did follow in their doctrine and most usual
expressions, when they spoke of our Saviour Jesus
Christ.

Philo vouches that the ideas of the world were in
the Word of God ; therefore he calls him the Virtue
which made the world, which came out of the True
Good, as its original, De Opif. p. 3, 4, 5.

That the world was made by the Word, Lib. 2.
All. Seq. p. 6o. and Lib. quod Deus sit immut. p.
255. F. He says, he is Sermo omnium art if ex, Lib.
Quis Rer. Div. Har. p. 388. F. That by it as by an
instrument God made the world, Lib. de Cherub, p.
100. That it is the Word of him who is not be-
gotten, which made all things, Lib. de Sacr. Abel.
p. 109. That he is the Wisdom who created all

252 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, things, and that the Wisdom is the Word; manifestly
xx' alluding to the third and eighth chapters of Proverbs.
Lib. de Tern, p. 190. E. F. and p. 144. B. and Alleg.
lib. 1. p. 36. F. and De eo quod deterior. p. 128.

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

Philo affirms that the Word of God governs the
world, Lib. de Cherub, p. 87. F. G. Lib. de Agric.
p. 152. and he affirms, according to the notion which
Solomon gives, Prov. viii. that he presides over the
revolutions which happen in kingdoms, Lib. quod
Deus sit immut. p. 248.

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

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

Philo vouches that that Wisdom (which, accord-
ing to him, is the same with the Word) was the
Rock in the wilderness, Alleg. leg. lib. 3. p. 853. A.
In the same sense St. Paul affirms that the Rock was
Christ, 1 Cor. x. 4.

Philo saith that it was the Word which appeared
to the Jews upon mount Sinai, Lib. de Conf. Ling.
p. 265. D; that God spoke to the Jews when he
gave them his laws, Lib. de Migr. Abrah. p. 309.
D. E. F; that himself immediately gave his Law,
Lib. de Decal. p. b?6. and 592. and Lib. de Pr&m.
p. 705 ; that he created the voice which was heard by
the Jews, Lib. de Decal. p. 577- F. And this very
thing St. Paul affirms, Heb. xii. 25, 26. where he
supposes that Christ uttered that voice upon mount
Sinai.

R. Solomon owns that the Messias is pointed at

against the Unitarians.

253

Ps. xxxvi. 10. by the Light of which the Psalmist chap.

there speaks; and Ps. cxix. 105. Isaias likewise

means him, chap. lx. 1 ; and ver. 19, 20. he says that
the Lord was to be that Light, naming him God.
Micah also, chap. vii. 18. says, that the Lord was to
be a Light to his people. Daniel says, chap. i. 22.
that the Light dwells with God. And Malachi,
chap. iv. 2. names him the Sun of righteousness.

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

If one desires to know how the Apostles came to
apply to the Messias those things which the Jews
understood of God's Word; he may for his satisfac-
tion observe the following things.

Philo owns that the Word was the eternal Son
of God, Lib. quod Deus sit immut. p. 232. F. G; but
withal that this eternal Word is spoken of, Zech. vi.
12. Behold the man whose name is the Branch, or
the East according to the Greek translation. Ibid,
He calls him the firstborn, and the Creator of the
world, Lib. de Conf 'us. Ling. p. 258.

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

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

Another ground upon which they applied to the
Messias what the ancient Jews understood of the
Word was this: the ancient Jews did own that the
Aoyog, who guided the Israelites in the desert, was
their Shepherd, Philo de Agric. p. 152. From

254 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, whence they concluded, that the twenty-third Psalm,
xx- The Lord is my shepherd, was to be understood of
the Messias, Phil, de mutat. Nom. p. 822, 823.

The Apostles therefore did of course apply to the
Word, as to him who was to be the Messias, those
prophecies which mention the Messias as the Shep-
herd whom God was to send to his people, Isa. xl.
10, 11. Jer. xxxi. 10. Ezek. xxxiv. 11,12. and xxxiv.
23. Mich. ii. 12. Zech. xiii. 7- For all these places
are understood of the Messias by the ancient para-
phrases, and by the Midrashim.

The ancient Jews did own that that Word was
God ; that he had made the world ; and that he was
to be the promised Messias. Upon this ground the
Apostles applied to the Messias those places of the
Old Testament which say that Jehovah made hea-
ven and earth, as St. Paul did, Heb. i. where he ap-
plies to Jesus Christ, as the confessed Messias, the
words of Psalm cii. 25.

Philo affirms that the Word was the true and
eternal Priest; Lib. de Prqfug. p. 364, 365. that it
was he that divided the victims, when he appeared
to Abraham, Lib. Quis Div. Rer. H&r. p. 390. A.
399, and 401 ; that he is God's Priest, Lib. de Somn.
p. 463.

From this common doctrine it was natural to con-
clude, that the Messias, being the same with the
Word, was to be the High Priest of the New Testa-
ment, as St. Paul explains it at large in his Epistle
to the Hebrews.

Philo says that the Word is Mediator between
God and man, Lib. Quis Div. Rer. Har. p. 398. A.
that he makes atonement with God, Lib. de Somn.
p. 447. E. F.

From this it was easy to see that the Messias was
to be endued with a noble priesthood ; especially
David having mentioned it, Psalm ex. represent-
ing the Messias, whom the Chaldaic paraphrase
often calls the Word of God, as being a Priest after

against the Unitarians. 255

the order of Melchisedec. And this St. Paul affirms chap.
likewise in his Epistle to the Hebrews. xx>

Philo says, that God having appeared by the
Word to the patriarchs and to Moses, spoke by the
same Word to the Israelites ; and that he was the
Prince of the angels, Lib. Quis Rer. Div. Hcer. p.
397. F. G. and the Light and the Doctor of his
people, Lib. de Somn. p. 448. calling the Word Ivo-
jyfas Dei, De Norn. Mutat. p. 810. E.

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

It is necessary to take notice of these principles
of the ancient Jews ; first, that we may well under-
stand the reason for which Jesus Christ and his
Apostles quoted several places as relating to the
Messias, which are meant of Jehovah in the Old
Testament.

Secondly, that we may see for what reason they
supposed, as a thing owned by the Jews, for whom
they writ, that those places related to the Messias,
though the Jews applied them to the Aoyog.

And, thirdly, that we may understand how na-
turally they applied to the Messias those places of
the Old Testament, which, by the confession of the
ancient Jews, related to the Aoyog.

And certainly the meanest capacity may appre-
hend, that if, under the Old Testament, God acted
by the Aoyog, (though that dispensation was much
below that of the New,) much more he was to act
under the New by that same Aoyog, by his own Son,
as St. Paul concludes, Heb. i.

What I said of the Apostles, and the other writers
of the New Testament, that they exactly followed

256 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, the doctrines of the ancient Jews, who followed the
Divine revelation in the Old Testament, may justly
be said of Justin Martyr, and of those who both be-
fore and after him writ in defence of our Saviour s
Divinity. I need not quote many of them, to shew
that they went upon the same grounds with the
Jews before Christ.

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

Justin having proved that nothing certain can be
learned from philosophy, by Plato's example, who
entertained gross errors about the nature of God
and of the soul : and declared that he came to the
knowledge of the truth only by the help of Divine
Revelation. He affirms in general, that the Chris-
tian religion which he had embraced, is all grounded
upon the doctrine of Moses and the prophets. He
does particularly instance in that of our Saviours
person and office, though the Jews looked upon it
as impious, that the Christians, as they reckoned,
trusted in a man crucified.

He lays for a foundation, that the Scripture
speaks of two comings of Christ ; the one indeed
glorious, mentioned, Dan. vii. and Psalms ex. and
lxxii. but to be preceded by another altogether mean
and despicable, as David had also foretold, Psalm
ex. at the end.

He maintains, that the Messias is clearly described
as God, Psalm xlvii. where he is called the Lord,
our King, and the King of all the earth. Psalm
xxiv. where he is called the Lord strong and mighty,

against the Unitarians. 257

and the King of glory. Psalm xcix. where it is said chap.
that he spoke to the Israelites in the cloudy jpillar. xx
And Psalm xlv. where he is named God's anointed,
the Lord God, and proposed as the object of our
adoration.

He affirms that Christ was to be God, and though
the same in nature, yet a different Person from him
who made heaven and earth : he proves it by the
several apparitions, wherein the true God is men-
tioned, appearing to Abraham in the plains of
Mamre, Gen. xviii. 1. to Jacob in a dream, Gen.
xxxi. with whom he wrestled in the figure of a man,
Gen. xxxii. and assisted him in his journey to Padan
Aram ; and to Moses he appeared in the burning
bush, Exod. iii.

He maintains that he was to be God, because he
executed the counsel of God : hence he is named by
Joshua the captain of the Lord's host ; and an Angel
which is the Lord. And because the Scripture de-
scribes him as begotten of God, and called the Son,
the Wisdom of God, and the Word, Prov. viii.

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

He proves from Psalm ii. This day have I begotten
thee, that his generation is from all eternity.

And from Psalm xlv. that the Church ought to
adore Christ, because it is said, He is thy Lord, wor-
ship thou him.

He repeats the same things towards the end of
his dialogue, where he proves that the Messias ap-
peared to Moses, Exod. vi. 2. to Jacob, Gen. xxxii.
30. to Abraham, Gen. xviii. 16, 17- to Moses, Num.
xi. 3. and Deut. iii. 18. and to all the patriarchs and
prophets.

He prevents an objection, (that this wras not a
Person, but a Virtue from the Father, which is

258 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, called sometimes an Angel, sometimes his Glory,
' sometimes a Man, sometimes the Word^) by shew-
ing that the Scripture makes out first a real dis-
tinction between the Son and the Father, as between
Jehovah and Jehovah, Gen. xix. 24. 2dly. A true
plurality, as Gen. iii. 22. The man is become as one
of Us. 3dly. A true filiation, as Prov. viii. whence
he concludes, that he that is begotten is different
from him who begot him.

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

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

2dly. That he confutes the false explications
which the Jews gave to many places of Scripture ;
for instance that which understands Isa. ix. of king
Hezekiah ; for this mistake was older than Justin ;
some Jews in his days had revived it, and the au-
thor of it was not Rabbi Hillel, who lived after
Justin, but he made himself famous by propagating
it. That Rabbi by the destruction of Jerusalem
having lost all hopes of the Messias whom God
had promised them, made this a maxim, There is

against the Unitarians.

259

to be no Messias in Israel, because they had him in chap.

the days of Hezekiah king of Judah. Gemara ad _

Sanhedr. cap. Chelek.

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

R. Eliezer, who lived under Trajan, had this
maxim, Study the Law with diligence, that thou
may est be able to answer the Epicureans. R. Jo-{^tl}J|rae'
chanan explains that maxim of R. Eliezer, as con-Coi.3.
cerning not only the heathens, but chiefly the Jews
who had renounced their religion. And who could
these apostate Jews be ? It is easy to guess, by the
objections which they made to the Jews, and by
the maxim which R. Jochanan proposes, to prevent
the Jews from being overseen in their disputes with
these Jews.

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

As Gen. i. 26. Let us make man in our image.
Gen. xi. 7. Let us go down and confound their lan-
guage. Gen. xxxv. 7- where Elohim, that is, the

S 2

260 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. Gods, appeared to Jacob. Deut. iv. 7. What nation

_. has the Gods so near unto them ?

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

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

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

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

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

These nine arguments the Christians made use of
to prove a plurality in the Godhead. And we find
that they were grounded upon the exact quotation
of the Hebrew text, and not of the Greek version.
For the Greek leaves room only to few of these
remarks, which shews that Justin, who was born a
heathen, had them from men bred among the Jews,
who had read the Bible in Hebrew, and had made
their observations upon the original text of Moses,
and other sacred writers.
Bethisr. If a man should ask, how ancient were those
objections about a plurality in God; I answer, that
they were as old as the preaching of the Gospel
amongst the Jews. For R. Meir, R. Akiba's master,
had endeavoured to answer in his sermons the ob-
jection taken out of Gen. xix. 24. now R. Meir was
born under Nero, and Akiba died in Hadrian's days,
. about an hundred and twenty years after Christ.

Neither were the Jews agreed in the manner of
answering those objections, about a plurality in the
Divine nature.

1st. They thought they might answer most of
them by this general maxim, that God never did
any thing without consulting with his family above,
that is, the angels. And this they pretended to

against the Unitarians.

261

prove by these words, Dan. iv. 17- This matter is hy chap.
the decree of the iv ate hers, and the demand by the xx'
word of the holy ones. Which answer was destroy-
ed by what others said, that God spoke of himself
in the plural number ; that Moses did also speak of
God, they having regard to his sovereign dignity.
Though at the same time they observed that in
those places, Moses joined a verb in the singular
with that noun in the plural, to assert the Unity of
God, and for fear the reader should think there were
many Gods. Thus when men dispute against the
truth, what one of them builds up, it is presently
pulled down by another.

2dly. They were also divided about the thrones
set, Dan. vii. 9. For to what purpose many thrones,
if there were but one Person? R. Akiba maintained f^th 1 sr.
that there was one for God, and another for David.
He seems by David to have understood the Messias.
But R. Jose looked upon this as impious, and af-
firmed that one of these thrones was set for God's
justice, the other for his mercy. R. Akiba was at
last convinced, and received this explication, which
R. Eliezer son of Azaria hearing, was so far from
approving of, that he sent away Akiba with indig-
nation, and told him, Why dost thou meddle with
expounding the Scripture ? Go to the army, and
Jight : this he said, because Akiba had followed
Barcosba. As for R. Eliezer himself, he said that
these two thrones signified only that there was one
for God, and a footstool to it.

3dly. They were hard put to it by the objections
drawn from Exod. xxiii. 21. about that Angel whom
God had promised for a leader to Israel, in whom
God's name was to be, and who is called by the
Jews Metatron. For, said the Christians, if the
name of Jehovah was in him, he was to be adored.
This the Jews evaded by altering the text, and
reading with the LXX. Thou shall not rebel against
him ; or, Thou shalt not change me with him ; that

s 3

262 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, is to say, for him. When the Christians objected
that this Angel must needs be God, because God
said of him, lie shall not pardon thy transgressions ;
and the property of God is to forgive sins, as the
Jews did object to Christ: they answered, This is
our opinion ; therefore we did not receive him as an
ambassador.

4thly. In time they took this prudent method in
their divisions ; they forbade their people to dispute
with Christians upon those subjects, unless they
were well used to the controversy; "Let him dis-
" pute with heretics, that can answer them," as R.
Idith. "But if a man cannot answer them, let him
" forbear disputing." This was the counsel or law of
Rab. Nachman, one of the authors cited in the
Gemara, de Sanhedrin, c. 4. §.11. in Beth Israel.
For R. Eliezer, who lived under Trajan, had ob-
served that the reading of the Old Testament made
the Jews turn heretics, i. e. Christians : himself was
suspected to be inclinable that way. So that in after-
times they preferred the study of the Mishna, that
is to say, of their traditions, before that of the Law
itself.

CHAP. XXI.

That we find in the Jewish authors, after the time
of Jesus Christ, the same notions upon which
Jesus Christ and his Apostles grounded their
discourses to the Jews.

Although what I have said shews clearly
that all the notions which are in the New Testa-
ment are exactly agreeable to those that are in the
old Jewish Church, yet I believe that I can add
some light to it by some particular remarks upon
some places of the New Testament, which are

against the Unitarians.

263

mightily cleared, if compared with the ideas of the chap.
Jews since Jesus Christ's time. And this, I hope, XXL
will serve to shew that the Apostles did advance
nothing but what was commonly received by the
learned men of the synagogue, and that they have
offered no violence to the sacred text of the Old
Testament, but that they quoted it according to its
natural sense ; those very ideas being common till
this day among the learned Jews, and among those
very men, who, applying themselves fully to the
studies of the holy Scripture, are looked upon as
the keepers and depositaries of tradition. I will
bring those remarks without an exact niceness or
care as to their order, choosing to follow only the
order of the New Testament.

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

Nobody can read the fifth of St. Matthew, but he
must take notice of that authority wherewith Jesus
Christ speaks upon the mount in that famous ser-
mon, in which he vindicates the Law from the cor-
ruption of the Pharisees: But I say unto you. But
he will be more sensible of that, if he reflects upon
the common notion of the synagogue, in which the
proper name of the Shekinah is ^N, as, / the Lord
have spoken: R. Men. fol. 33. col. 4. and fol. 40. col.
4. and that it was the Shekinah which gave the Law
upon mount Sinai. R. Menach. fol. 67. col. 3. and 68.

s 4

264 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. col. 1. They cannot but take notice of the title of
XX1' the Bridegroom, which is given by John the Baptist
to Jesus Christ, and which Jesus Christ assumes,
Matt. ix. 15. It is evident that they make an al-
lusion to Psalm xlv. and to the Song of Songs, which
is of the same argument. But this will be clearer to
those that know that the Jews maintain that it is
the hoyo$, or the Shekinah, who gave the Law, and
then sought after Israel as his bride ; that St. John
the Baptist speaks of himself as the paranymph, and
as Moses, who said that he came out to meet God,
Exod. xix. 17. as it is noted in Pirke Eliezer, chap.
41 ; and that it is the Shekinah that is spoken of in
that Psalm xlv. under the name of the King; that
the name of the King expressed the Messias, when
absolutely used, Zohar in Exod. fol. 225; and that
they acknowledge in this an inexplicable mystery.
R. Menach. fol. 7. col. 3. and fol. 143. col. 4.

Jesus Christ saith to the people who followed
him, Matt. xi. 29. Take my yoke upon you; for my
yoke is easy. If a man ponder that expression, he
shall find that Jesus Christ speaks as God. And in-
deed nothing is more common than to see the pro-
phets reproach the Jews that they have cast off the
yoke of God, Jer. ii. 20. and v. 5. But who doth not
see that he speaks as the very Son of God, who is
spoken of, Psalm ii. 3. the Shekinah, who gave the
Law upon mount Sinai, and so had the sovereign
authority to bring men under his Law, let their au-
thority be never so great.

We see, Matt. xxi. 13. why Jesus Christ speaks of
the temple as the house of his Father, and as his own
house ; and the Jews perceived well enough, that he
made himself God. But he did that according to
the notions of the Jews, who maintain till this day,
that the Shekinah, or the Aoyog, are the same, and
that the temple was dedicated to God and to his
Shekinah. R. Men. fol. 63. col. 1. and fol. 70. col. 2.
and fol. 73. col. 3, 4. and fol. 79. col. 3.

against the Unitarians, 265

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

How often, saith Jesus Christ, Matt, xxiii. 37-
would I have gathered thy children together, even
as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings !
What signifies that expression ? A Jew understands
it very well, that Jesus Christ had a mind to tell
them that he was the Shekinah. For it is the com-
mon notion of the Jews till this day, that the people
of Israel is under the wings of the Shekinah. R. Men.
fol. 107. col. 4.

Jesus Christ speaks to his disciples, Matt. xxvi. 53.
He shall presently give me more than twelve le-
gions of' angels. Those who read those words do
not understand them well, if they do not know, that
Jesus Christ speaks as the Shekinah in the camp of
Israel, and that he hath the twelve legions of angels
as the twelve armies of the twelve tribes, at his
command, and under his authority: this is the doc-
trine of the Jews. R. Menach. fol. 51. col. 3.

Pilate put this title upon the cross, The King of
the Jews, Providence having ordered it so, because it
was the title of the Shekinah, or of the Messias, as
you find it often in the Zohar. And Jesus Christ on
the cross makes use of Psalm xxii. not only because
he would shew the accomplishment of that pro-
phecy, but also because it was the common idea of
the nation, which lasts till this day, that Psalm xxii.
is to be referred to that righteous Word, and to the
Shekinah who was promised to Israel as his Saviour.
R. Men. fol. 62. col. 2.

Jesus Christ promiseth to his Apostles to remain
or be with them till the end of the world, Matt.

266 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, xxviii. 20. What is the import of such a promise,
XXI' hut that he had a mind to tell them that he was the
Shekinah by which God remaineth in Israel, accord-
ing to a promise of the like nature, as it is acknow-
ledged by the Jews ? R. Men. fol. 85. col. 4.

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

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

St. John speaking of the Messias before he was in
the flesh, calls him the Word; he saith that the
Word was God, and that he was with God; that all
things were created by him, and that nothing was
made without him. This is exactly what the Jews
teach of the Wisdom which is the Memra, the Aoyog,
whom they conceive to have been in the bosom of
God, and being so, the Anion, the Son, or, as it is,
the Omen, the Creator of all things. R. Menach. fol.
1. col. 1, 2. where he quotes the most authentic au-
thors of the synagogue, who agree exactly upon that
notion.

It is clear that St. John has called him the Aoyog,
with relation to the history of the creation, in which
these words, And God said, are so often repeated.
And indeed till this day the Jews derive the title of
Memra da Jehovah from this repetition ; and they
take notice that Moses hath made a vast difference

against the Unitarians.

267

between these words vajedahher, where he speaks chap.
to men in giving the laws, and the word Vajomer^ XX1,
which is used in the first of Genesis. You see that
remark in Men. fol. 65. col. 2. and fol. 124. col. 2.
and fol. 154. col. 1, 2.

It is visible that the same St. John hath affected
the term of kcrKrjvcaaev, chap. i. ver. 14. when he
speaks of the Aoyoq, supposing that the Aoyog, or
Memra, and the SheMnah are the same ; and
this is acknowledged by the Jews, who maintain
that the Memra, so many times spoken of in their
Targums, is the Jehovah, the Angel of the covenant,
the Angel Redeemer whom Jacob invoked, Gen.
xlviii. 15; this very ruler of Israel, to whom they
refer all things related in the books of Moses, Men.
fol. 59. col. 2. And such an expression of St. John
is the more to be remarked, because he manifestly
looks upon the words of Jesus Christ to the Jews,
John v. You have not the Word of God dwelling in
yon; which St. Athanasius hath well judged to be
understood of the Aoyog, or the SheMnah, not of the
doctrine of the Law, as many interpreters would
have it to be understood.

The same St. John saith, chap. i. 18. that the Fa-
ther never appeared; which he hath from Jesus
Christ, who saith so, John vi. 46. And all that, ac-
cording to the notion of the Jews, who, acknow-
ledging the Aoyog, as the Angel that is the Mes-
senger of God, refer to it all the appearances of
the old dispensation, and have established it as a
maxim, that the SheMnah is called Thou, and the
God absconded is called He. R. Menach. fol. 22.
col. 2.

John the Baptist speaks of Jesus Christ as of the
Lamh which takes away the sins of the world, John
i. 29. The allusion to the type of the paschal lamb
is sensible enough ; but it is more sensible, if we
consider two things, which are commonly taught
among the Jews: 1st. That it is the SheMnah that

268 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, delivered Israel out of Egypt. 2dly. That the She-
XXL kinah was typified by the paschal lamb. R. Menach.
fol.5. col. 1.

Jesus Christ saith, John iii. 13. that he descended
from heaven, which is the style of the Jews, who
acknowledge that the Shekinah, or Koyog, was he
that descended from heaven in all the appearances
of God to the people of old, as to judge Sodom, &c.
R. Men. fol. 36. col. 2.

Jesus Christ saith, John v. 22. and 26. that God
gave all judgment to the Son,— that the Son hath
the life in himself. All that according to the style
of the Jews touching the Aoyog. For they refer those
words to the Shekinah, He shall judge the world in
righteousness. R. Men. fol. 46. col. 1. and fol. 122.
col. 4. And so the Zohar mentions that it is he
who is spoken of in these words, Thou quickenest all
things; the word Thou being the proper name of
Adonai, that is, of the Shekinah. R. Menach. fol. 2.
col. 1, 2.

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

He saith, Before Abraham was I am, to shew
that he was the Aoyog, as well as the Messias, of
whom Micah saith that he was Mikkedem, which
expression the Jews relate to the eternity of the
Divine essence, from which the Aoyog or the Memra
proceeds. R. Menach. fol. 12. col. 1.

He saith to the Jews, John xiv. 6. No man cometh
unto the Father, but by me; to hint to the Jews, that
he was the Aoyog. For their maxim is, that they
cannot approach to the eternal King in the Sanctu-
ary, but by the Shekinah. R. Men. fol. 107. col. 2.

Jesus Christ saith of his Father, The Father is

against the Unitarians.

greater than I: but in these very words he shews he chap.
was the Aoyog, because the Jews believe till this day, XXL
that though the Aoyog is Jehovah, nevertheless the
Father is the superior Light ; and they call it the
great Luminary. R. Men. fol. 135. col. 2.

He saith to his disciples, John xv. l6. Whatsoever
ye shall ask of ' the Father in my name, he may give
it you; to hint to them that he was the Shekinah,
by whom they were to have access to the Father;
the same of whom God said, My name is in him, as
the Jews acknowledge. R. Menach. fol. 56. col. 3.
and fol. 53. col. 4.

He speaks of the Holy Ghost, John xv. 26. as pro-
ceeding from the Father; and the Jews have this
idea, when they suppose that the third Enumeration
or Person, which they name Bina, and which they
render by the Holy Ghost, as you see in the famous
book Saare Ora, proceeds from the first by the se-
cond. So Zohar, and the book Habbahir, quoted by
R. Menach. fol. 3. col. 1.

In the same chapter he represents his emanation
from the Father as the Jews conceived the ema-
nation of the Wisdom, or Aoyog, from the first Enu-
meration, from whom it draws all the influxes and
blessings. This is the doctrine of R. Nechounia ben
Cana, and of the Rabboth quoted by R. Menach.
fol. 1. col. 2.

He saith, John xvii. 21. Thai all may be one, as
thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee. Just accord-
ing to the idea of the Jews, who say of the time of
the Mcssias, that God then shall be one, and his
name one, Zech. xiv. R. Men. fol. 135. col. 4.

We see in the Acts of the Apostles, chap. vii. 52.
St. Stephen reproaching the Jews, that they sold
the Just for money: what is the ground which St.
Stephen builds upon ? It is clear, according to the
Jewish notions, who give to the Shekinah the name
of Just, and apply to him the words of Amos,ch. ii. 6.

270 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, where it is spoken of the just sold for money. R.
XXL Menach. fol. 17. col. 3. and fol. 19. col. 2.

St. Paul, Acts xx. 28. saith, that God hath re-
deemed the Church by his blood; and that accord-
ing to the Jewish notions, whose constant doctrine
is, that the salvation of Israel is to be made by God
himself, who refer to him Psalm xxii. and the place
of Zechary, chap. ix. 9. and who pretend that the
Shekinah shall be their Redeemer. R. Menach, fol.
19. col. 4. and fol. 58. col. 4. and fol. 59. col. 1.

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

He makes a long and deep reflection, Ephes. v.
upon the love of Jesus Christ to the Church, who
gave himself for her redemption ; he considers the
Church as his wife ; and seeks in the first match
between Adam and Eve, a great and a deep mystery,
and a type of that between Jesus Christ and the
Church. In all these he follows the Jewish notions,
who look upon the Shekinah as the bride of the
Church. R. Menach. fol. 15. col. 3.

St. Paul, Hebr. vi. and vii. considers Melchisedec
as a type of Jesus Christ, and that according to the
notion of the Jews, who agree that Melchisedec was
the type of the Shekinah, which they call the King
of Peace, and the Just. R. Menach. fol. 18. col. 1.
and fol. 31. col. 1.

He calls God, Heb. x. 27. and xii. 19. a consum-
ing fire; and applies to Jesus Christ that very idea.
But he speaks so, after the Jewish manner, for they
believe that the power of judging the world belongs
to the Shekinah, and they refer to him what is said
in Deut. iv. 24. that God is a consuming fire. R.
Menach. fol. 6. col. 4. and fol. 8. col. 3.

against the Unitarians.

271

He supposes, Heb. xii. that Jesus Christ gave the chap.
Law, and spoke upon mount Sinai; but this, accord- XXL
ing to the Jewish idea of the Aoyog, or Shekinah,
whom they believe to have given the Law, and to
have appeared then, and to have spoken with the
Israelites. R. Menach. fol. 56. col. 2.

Jesus Christ calls himself, Apoc. i. the First and
the Last, because Isaiah hath spoken so, chap. xliv.
but chiefly according to the notion of the Jews who
did acknowledge the Word to be the first King, and
that he shall be the last ; all nations being to be
subjected to him after the destruction of the fourth
and last monarchy spoken of in the second and in the
seventh of Daniel. He calls himself King of kings,
Apoc. xix. 16. But exactly according to the Jewish
notion, which is, that such a title belongs to Jehovah,
and to the Shekinah, that is Jehovah. R. Menach.
fol. 64. col. 2.

So in the last chapter of the Revelation, xxii. 2.
you see that it is spoken of the Tree of life, as of
the eternal Food. What is that Tree of life ac-
cording to the Jewish notion ? They conceive it is
the very Shekinah, or Aoyog, who is the food of
angels, as saith R. Menach. fol. 65. col. 2. and fol.
66. col. 4. And they give him that name in rela-
tion to the happiness it will cause to those who
shall be saved by him. R. Menach. fol. 143. col. 3.
and fol. 146. col. 1.

I could easily enlarge much more upon this ar-
ticle, but it would be more fit so to do in a comment
upon the New Testament, than in such a work as
that we are now engaged in. What has been said
shews sufficiently that the first Christians followed
exactly the steps of the Apostles, and that the
Apostles and Jesus Christ himself followed exactly
the notions of the ancient synagogue.

272 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

CHAP. XXII.

An answer to some exceptions taken from certain
expressions used in the Gospels.

What has been said about the notions which
the Evangelists, the Apostles, and the first Christians
had of the Messias, shews plainly that they were
the same that were then common among the Jews.
But because some objections are made against what
has been said, I will, for a further satisfaction upon
the point, examine those which seem most material,
and might prejudice that which I have already
established.

The first is raised from our Saviour's expressions
when he speaks of himself: it is that which St.
Chrysostom, T. i. Horn. 32. observes, that though
Christ declared himself to be God, (as appears by
his way of speaking all along,) and named himself
the Son of God ; yet he never actually took upon
him the name or title of God, whilst he lived upon
the earth. Which seems very strange; for there was
great reason to expect that he would have expressed
himself more clearly upon so important an article,
on which the authority of the Christian religion
does depend.

I answer first, that Christ used that caution for
fear of destroying in the opinion of the Jews the
reality of his human nature. Had he said plainly,
I am God, the Jews who in their Scriptures were so
much used to Divine appearances, might have had
just grounds of doubting the truth of the incarna-
tion of the Word. They had looked upon his flesh
as a phantasm ; which persuasion of theirs would
have destroyed the notion of his human nature.
Therefore to persuade them of the truth of his hu-
man nature, he was born as other men are; he grew
by degrees, as other men do; he suffered hunger and

against the Unitarians.

273

thirst, was subject to weariness, and all other infir- chap.

• • •• • X.XII

mities incident to a real man ; even increasing in .
knowledge and wisdom by degrees, as other men do.
It was absolutely necessary it should be so, because
he was to be like his brethren in all things, sin only
excepted, as St. Paul says, applying to him that
place of Psalm xxii. 22. where the Messias says, he
would declare the name of God to his brethren ;
and of Psalm xlv. 7- where he mentions his fellows :
and also because he was to be the seed of the wo-
man spoken of, Gen. iii. 15.

And if, for all these real marks of his being a true
man, some heretics, called the Valentinians, be-
lieved his body to have been only a phantasm,
without any reality ; and others, named the Apol-
linarians, affirmed that the Word supplied in Christ
the functions of a rational soul, though he had
really no such soul ; had Christ expressly styled
himself God, he had given the Jews and heretics
occasion of fancying that his human nature was
not a reality ; but that this last apparition of God in
a human body, was like the ancient ones, when
God appeared in the form of a man, and wrestled
with Jacob, though it was without a true incarna-
tion, the thing being done by a body made of air
on purpose, or by the body of a real man, but bor-
rowed only for the time, and presently after put off

2dly. Let it be considered that Christ used that
caution, that he might not give the utmost provo-
cation to the Jews, who were much offended to see
him in so mean a condition. For, though they
might perhaps have owned such a despicable man
to be a prophet, yet they could by no means own
him to be the Messias, of whom they expected that
he should be a temporal and a great king. There-
fore they could hardly bear our Saviours discourse
about the dignity of his Person ; they took up
stones to throw at him, when he told them he was
greater than Abraham, and before Abraham, John

274

The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. viii. They said he had a devil, when he told them
xxu • •
l_he had power to raise himself from the dead, and

also those who did believe in him. How then
could they have heard from him an express decla-
ration, that he was God, and the maker of heaven
and earth ?

3dly. It must be also observed that there being
many prophecies, by the fulfilling of which the
Messias was to be known ; Christ declared himself
by degrees, and fulfilled those prophecies one after
another, that the Jews might have a competent
time to examine every particular. To this end he
did for some years preach the Gospel ; he wrought
his miracles at several times, and in several places ;
he wrought such and such miracles, and not others;
imitating herein the sun, which by degrees appears
and enlightens the world. This might easily be shewed
more at large, but that the thing is plain to any that
have attentively read the Gospel. What I have noted
is sufficient to shew that Jesus Christ was not to as-
sume the name of God in the time of his humiliation,
though he hath done the equivalent in so many
places, where he speaks of himself as of the Son
of God, the Memra, the Shekinah, the Aoyog, who
is God. 2dly. That 'it was more fit for him to let it
be concluded from his performing all the ministry
of the Messias, as it was by Thomas, John xx. 18.
Not that they knew then and not before that he
was he from whom life, and an eternal life should
be expected : upon which Grotius seems to ground
his Godhead in h. I. but because then they saw in
him a full demonstration that he was the true God,
the Aoyog, from whom the life of all creatures is de-
rived, as is said John i. 3, 4.

A second objection is taken from the word Aoyog,
which St. John has used in the first chapter of his
Gospel, to denote our Saviours divinity. For if we
hear the Unitarians, first, it is not clear that any
other of the writers of the New Testament has

against the Unitarians. 275

used the term of Aoyo$ in that sense. And then, the chap.
notion of the word Aoyog seems to he grounded only XXJI-
on Greek expressions, and not on the Hebrew
tongue, as it is used in the original of the Old Tes-
tament.

To answer that objection, I must take notice,
1. That the word Aoyog was not unknown to the
Jews before Jesus Christ, to express the Shekinah,
that is, the Angel of the Covenant. So we see in
the Book of Wisdom, chap, xviii. 15. Omnipotens
Sermo, Aoyog, tuus de ccelo a regalibus sedibus durus
debellatoi^ ; and so in some other places of the Book
of Ecclesiasticus, as chap. i. b.Trvjyyj o-ocj>lag Aoyo$ Seov ev
vxpiaroig.

I know that Grotius pretends upon the place of
Wisdom, that Aoyog there signifies a created angel;
and quotes Philo to confirm his explication. But
I maintain that nobody but Grotius could have ad-
vanced such a false explication, and be so bold as
to quote Philo for it, whose testimonies, as I have
quoted before, are so clearly against him, and distin-
guish so exactly the angels from the Aoyog. I make
this remark only, that if the Aoyog signifies here a
created angel, then it was the current notion of the
synagogue concerning the Aoyog ; so that when St.
John speaks of the Aoyog in his' first chapter, either
it was only his meaning that such a created angel
was made flesh, and the Hellenist Jews could not
understand it otherwise ; or St. John was to explain
the sense of the Aoyog according to a new, an un-
known, and unheard of signification ; that he never
did, and so he helped the Arians, and confounded
the orthodox.

Somebody will perhaps excuse Grotius, who
saith in the preface to his Annotations upon this
book, that such a piece hath been inserted by a
Christian, who hath fobbed in many other things ;
and it was the sense of Mr. N. in his judgment of
the Fathers. But Grotius, who believes the works

T 2

276 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, of Philo to be genuine, hath shut that door against
XXIL this evasion/ when he confirms the truth of that
saying of the author, by the authority of Philo the
Jew ; and it is so strange an accusation, and with
so little ground, that it came in nobody's head be-
fore Grotius advanced it.

2dly. I answer, that, according to Athanasius's
meaning, Jesus Christ himself speaks of the Aoyog,
when he saith, John v. 8. Ye have not the Word of
God remaining in you. And it is true that it can-
not be understood of the Law and prophecy, which
St. Paul affirms to have been trusted to the Jewish
nation. And it is mighty probable that St. John
taking the Skekinah and the Aoyog for the same,
saith that the Aoyog eo-Kyvaaev ev ypiv, by an opposi-
tion to his absence from the Jews, who had rejected
his direction and conduct.

I answer, 3dly, That many of the ancient doctors
of the Church did remark, that St. Luke, Luke i. 2.
Acts i. and St. Paul, Heb. iv. 12. used the word
Aoyog in the same sense, to denote the second Person
of the Trinity ; and that therefore it was not pecu-
liar to St. John to do so.

4thly. I say that the word Davar, in the room
of which the Jews since the Babylonian captivity
do ever use that of Memra, to express the second
Person of the Trinity, was in use even in David's
time ; as appears by Psalm xxxiii. 6. where the
LXX have rendered it by Aoyog ; which version be-
ing common among the Jews, and generally receiv-
ed, St. John could not use a term more proper to
express the divinity of the second Person who took
our nature upon him. And if it is no matter of
wonder, that the other Evangelists should give to
our Saviour the name of the Messias, or that of
the Son of God, which were first given him by
David ; it ought to be none that St. John has given
him that of Aoyog, which likewise was given him by
David ; and does withal so well express the author

against the Unitarians.

of the creation, who was this very A&yos, who said, chap.
Let such or such a thing be, and it was: for which XXIL
reason St. Paul says, that God made the worlds by
him, Heb. i. 2. and St. Peter, 2 Epist. chap. iii. 5.
where he ascribes the creation of the world to the
Aoyog, or Word, as it is acknowledged by Grotius.

The reason why St. John is more particular in
his expressions about the second Person, whom he
makes to be the Creator of the worlds, and then
represents him as being made man, was because
the other Evangelists had given so full an account
of his birth and genealogy, and everything else that
was needful to prove the truth of his human nature
against the Sirnoniani and other heretics, that would
make him a phantasm ; that this Evangelist found
himself obliged to be the more express in asserting
his Divinity, against the Ebionites, who abused some
places of the other Gospels, to maintain that Christ
was a mere man ; and against the Cerinthians, who
affirmed that the Word was not inseparably united
to the flesh.

Lastly, St. John used the word Acyo? to express
the Unity of God, though there be three Persons in
the Divine nature : therefore he says that the Word
was with God, and that he was God. He observes
that Christ said that he was in the Father, and the
Father in him : that he and the Father were one ; as
he had before expressed himself in his first Epistle,
chap. v. 7- These three are one; to shew the Unity
of the Divine Monarchy, after the manner in which
the Jews did apprehend it : wherein he was followed
by the first Christians.

Another objection, which seems very plausible,
and therefore is confidently made by the Socinians,
is grounded upon those places in the Jewish writers,
where they attribute to the Aoyog what is affirmed
in the Scripture to have been said or done by an
angel in very many apparitions ; as Exod. iii. 2. and
Acts vii. .30. where St. Stephen, after Moses, affirms

T .3

278 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, that the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in
XXIL the hush : in which places of Scripture, a created
angel, not the Son of God, seems to have appeared
to Moses. Whereas the Jewish writers take this
angel to have been the Word, as I shewed before.
Which mistake must invalidate their testimony in
this case.

Accordingly, some interpreters, as Lorinus the
Jesuit, and other Papists, suppose him to have been a
created angel, but who represented the Person of the
Son of God, and therefore acted in his name, and
spoke as if he had been the Lord himself. This
opinion they ground upon two things: 1st. Because
he is expressly distinguished from the Lord, both
by Moses and St. Stephen, who call him the Angel
of the Lord. And 2dly. Because the Son of God
never took upon him the nature of angels, as he
did that of men ; and therefore cannot be called by
their name.

This has been thoroughly considered before, to
which I might refer the reader for an answer. But
to save his trouble, we shall here shew him reason
enough to believe that those texts speak of one
that was more than a creature. 1st. Because the
Angel is presently named the Lord, or Jehovah,
both by Moses and St. Stephen ; even as Gen. xxxi.
the Angel who wrestled with Jacob is called God.
2dly. Because he declared formally, that he was the
Lord, when he said to Moses, / am the God of A-
braham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;
which can never be said of a mere creature, under
whatsoever commission or dignity.

The prophets did formerly represent God, and
they acted as well as spake in his name ; but for
all this they never spoke as the Angel mentioned by
St. Stephen ; they said barely, Thus saith the Lord,
or Jehovah, I am God, &c.

Likewise Christ represented his Father, as being
his ambassador and his deputy ; and yet he never

against the Unitarians.

2/9

took the name of Father. We read of many appa- chap.

• " • r XX.II

ritions of angels in the New Testament, yet no
man can pretend to shew that any of them either
spoke or acted as God, though sent by him, and
speaking to men in his name. It had been as ab-
surd and as great a crime for them to have done so,
as for a viceroy to tell the people whom he is sent
to govern, I am your king, when at the same time
he only represents the king's person.

It is true, the Angel mentioned by St. Stephen
is named the Angel of the Lord ; and as true, that
Christ did not take the nature of angels on him.
He did this favour only to men ; for them only he
humbled himself, and was made like them in all
things, sin excepted ; and for this reason he is truly
named man, and the Son of man, as well as the
Son of God. As for the apostate angels, he forsook
them, and left them for ever in their rebellion.

But it must be observed that the word angel
signifies properly a messenger, and denotes rather
the office than the nature of those blessed spirits,
sent forth to minister. And consequently their
name may well be given to the Son of God, who
always had the care of the Church that was com-
mitted to him, and by whom the Father has com-
muned with man ever since his fall into sin.

Upon this ground Malachi, chap. iii. 1. names
the Son of God the Angel, or Messenger of the
covenant. Which prophecy is owned to this day
by the Jews, to speak of the Messias. Isaiah, chap,
lxiii. 9. names him the Angel of the presence of
the Lord, who saved and redeemed the Israelites.
According to what the Lord said to Moses, Exod.
xxiii. 23. My Angel shall go before thee. And
Exod. xxxiii. 14. My presence shall go with thee.

The primitive Christians never doubted, but that
the Angel which appeared to Moses in the wilder-
ness, and guided the Israelites, was the Son of God :
St. Paul says expressly thus much, 1 Cor. x. 9. when

T 4

280 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, he affirms that the Israelites tempted Christ in the

L_ wilderness, by their rebellions. Lorinus himself,

quoting some places from the most ancient Fathers,
is forced to acknowledge it on Acts vii. And I
shewed before, that St. Paul has affirmed nothing
upon this point, but what is conformable to the
common notion of the Jews.

It ought not therefore to seem strange, that St.
Stephen does distinguish the Angel of whom he
speaks, from the Lord himself, when he names
him the Angel of the Lord : for the Son is distinct
from the Father, and the Son was sent by the Fa-
ther: but because they so partake of the same Di-
vine nature, that they are in reality but one and the
same God, blessed for ever; the Son in this respect
might well say, I am the God of Abraham, &c. and
be called the Lord Jehovah.

If it be asked why Moses did rather call him an
angel, than otherwise ; I answer, that he did so, for
these two reasons: 1st. Because the distinction of
the Divine Persons was not so clearly revealed un-
der the Old Testament, by reason that it did not so
well suit that economy. 2dly. Because God, since
he created the world, commonly employing angels
in those works which were not above their power
and capacity ; it may very well be that the Son of
God, when he appeared to men, used the ministry of
angels, either to form the voice and the words which
he spoke to his prophets, or to make the body or
the form under which he appeared.

It is objected in the last place, that St. Paul
seems to suppose, that an angel gave the Law upon
mount Sinai, and not the Aoyog, or the Son of God ;
and that that angel is called God, because he spoke
in God's name. Thus Gal. iii. 19. he says that the
Law was ordained by angels. Heb. ii. 2. that it was
spoken by angels. And Heb. i. 1, 2. making oppo-
sition between the Law and the Gospel, he says, to
elevate this last above the former, that God having

against the Unitarians. 281

formerly spoke to men by his prophets, has in these chap.
last days spoken to us by his Son: which could not XX1L
be true, if he had before made use of the Aoyog to
give his Law to the Jews. The Socinians look upon
this argument as unanswerable. And the truth is,
it has imposed upon many learned writers, as Lo-
rinus, Grotius, and others.

But it will be no difficult business to answer it, if it
be observed, 1st. That it hath been always the opin-
ion of the ancient Jews, that the Law was given
by Jehovah himself: 2dly. That it was likewise
their opinion, that Jehovah who gave the Law was
the Aoyog. And 3dly. That it is affirmed by Moses,
Deut. xxxiii. 2. That when the Lord came from
Sinai, and rose up from Seir} he came with ten
thousands of' saints ; from his right hand went a
fiery law. I say that it is enough to prove those three
things, to convince any man that when St. Paul
says that the Law was spoken by angels, h* ayyekcov,
he means only that they were present, as witnesses
where it was given ; not that they represented God's
person.

The first appears by Philo, who affirms that it
was God who spoke, when he gave the Law. De
Migrat. Abrah. p. 309. D E. F. And De Decal.
p. 576. D. C. and p. 593. F. he spoke by a voice
which he created. And Lib. de Praem. p. 705. The
Targum affirms the same that Jehovah revealed
himself, with multitudes of angels, when he gave
his Law, 1 Chron. xxix. 1 1.

The second is clear by Hag. ii. 6. where the Lord
speaking of the time when he brought his people
out of Egypt, saith, that he had shaken the earth ;
which relates to his giving the Law, as appears from
Psalm lxviii. 8. and Heb. xii. 25, 26. where St. Paul
applies that place to our Saviour. And it is acknow-
ledged also by the Jews as the author of Rabboth,
fol. 135. col. 3. Onkelos, Deut. iv. 33, 36. the people
heard the voice of the Word of the Lord out of the

282 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. fire. And also Deut. v. 24. And likewise Exod. xx.
• 7- Deut. v. It; and vi, 13. where the third Com-
mandment is mentioned in these words, None shall
swear by the name of the Word of the Lord.

The third point is evident, according to the
constant maxim of the Jews, that the SheJcinah, or
Aoyog, is always accompanied with several camps of
angels, who attend him and execute his judgments.

Those things being noted, I maintain that when
St. Paul saith that the Law hath been ordained by
angels, §i ayyeXuv, Gal. iii. 19. the text must be ren-
dered among angels, as St. Paul hath used the
word ha, 2 Tim. ii. 2. not to say by many witnesses,
but among or before many witnesses.

2dly. That when St. Paul speaks, Heb. ii. of the
word that hath been spoken by angels, he doth
not speak of the Law, but of the several threaten-
ings which were made by the prophets, to whom
the Aoyog sent his angels to bring back the people
of Israel from their wickedness : and of the several
punishments which fell upon Israel, and were in-
flicted by angels as executors of the judgment of
God.

It is necessary to understand it so ; or it is im-
possible to save St. Paul from having contradicted
himself in the same Epistle: for he supposeth, chap,
xii. 25, 26. that it was Jesus Christ, that being the
Aoyog, shook the earth, in which he follows the
words of Haggai the prophet, and of the Psalmist,
Psalm lxviii. 8. and who can reconcile that with St.
Paul saying, that many angels ordained the Law ?
Did they all personate God in that occasion ? No-
body hath ever imagined such a thing.

It cannot be objected, that St. Paul opposes the
Person of Jesus to Moses, as it hath been done by
St. John, chap. i. where he saith, that the Law was
given by Moses, but grace and truth hy Jesus
Christ. The reason is clear, and it is because he
opposes the ministry of reconciliation to the min-

against the Unitarians. 283

istry of condemnation : Moses hath been the medi- ^haK

ator of the first covenant, but Jesus Christ is the L

minister of the second, although both ministries
were originally from God.

I need not spend much time to confute the fancy
of those who say that the Angel of the Lord is
named Jehovah, because he was Jehovah's ambas-
sador. For it is a notion which the Unitarians have
borrowed from the modern Jews, such as Menasseh
Ben Isr. in Gen. i. 44, But I have fully proved that
it is a new notion forged by them to save their new
system. It is so certain that the ancient Jews be-
lieved that an angel could not say, lam Jehovah, as
we read Exod. xx. that even the Talmudists affirm,
that Jehovah himself spoke these words, / am the
Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of
Egypt; though they say that the rest of the Law was
spoken by Moses. Shir. Haskirin Rabba, fol. 5. col.l.

CHAP. XXIII.

That neither Philo, nor the Chaldee paraphrasts,
nor the Christians, have borrowed from the Pla-
tonic philosophers their notions about the Trinity;
but that Plato hath more probably borrowed his
notions from the books of Moses and the prophets,
ivhich he ivas acquainted with.

Having in the foregoing chapters shewed that
the doctrine of the Trinity is grounded upon the
writings of Moses and the prophets ; and that the
ancient Jews before Christ did acknowledge it, as
appears from many places in the apocryphal authors,
in Philo, and the Chaldee paraphrasts, who were
exactly followed by Christ, by his Apostles, and the
primitive Christians ; it may be seen how falsely

284 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, the Socinians pretend that Justin Martyr was the

V~ V ITT *^

author of the doctrine of the Trinity.

But to put them altogether from this evasion, I
will shew that nothing can be more absurd, than to
say, that if Philo was not a Christian, he was at
least a Platonist; and that the Fathers, particularly
Justin Martyr, brought into the Christian religion a
doctrine which they borrowed from Plato.

As to Philo's being a Platonist, I say first, that
though this were granted, yet it would do the Uni-
tarians no good. The reason is, because whatever
notions the Greeks had of divine matters, they had
them from Pherecides, a Syrian, who lived a long
time before Plato, and was Pythagoras's master.
Pythagoras (who afterwards was much followed by
the Greeks) travelled into Egypt, into Arabia, and
into Chaldea, after he had had Pherecides to his
master. Plotinus does ingenuously confess that the
three original hypostases were not of Plato's in-
vention, but were known before him ; and this he
makes out from Parmenides's writings, who had
treated of this notion, Plot. Enn. 5. lib. 1. Now
Parmenides had the notion of the Trinity from the
Pythagoreans, whose master Pythagoras had pro-
bably borrowed it from the Jews, with whom he
conversed in Egypt.

Secondly, I own that Philo was compared by
many with Plato, as to his style, and that lively elo-
quence Plato was so admired for. One may see by
his book, Quod omnis probus sit liber, and many
other of his works, that he was very conversant in
these Greek authors, both poets and philosophers.
But he had been so little acquainted with Plato's
works, that he brings some of Plato's opinions upon
the credit of Aristotle. We see that in his book,
Quod mundus sit, p. 728, 7^9- he never proves his
doctrines by the authority of Plato. He grounds
all he says upon the Divine authority, speaking in
the Old Testament, well meditated upon, as you see

against the Unitarians.

285

p. 288. where he speaks of the Three who appeared chap.

to Abraham. A Jew, as he was, could not well have '_

suited his notions with Plato's. For Plato believed,
for instance, that matter was eternal and uncreated;
which is positively contrary to what Moses says of
the creation of the world, and as positively rejected
by Philo in his books of Providence; and that mat-
ter had a beginning.

As to the doctrine of the Trinity, Plato speaks of
it so obscurely, that one may justly wonder how
some Christians formerly made use of his testimony
to prove it. Probably he had heard of it in Egypt.
But what he says about it in his Parmenides, though
quoted by Eusebius, shews that he had not a very
true notion of it. He speaks of an eternal and un-
begotten being. He attributes to that being, which
he calls avro ayaOov, a first understanding and a first
life. And Proclus does distinguish those three princi-
ples of Plato as three different beings. But Plotinus
does not agree in this with Proclus, but affirms that
these three are but one and the same thing.

The reason why many Christians have so much
esteemed Plato, is the nobleness of his morals ; the
maxims of which are much more elevated and
Christian-like, than those of other heathen philo-
sophers.

It is true, Philo seems to have followed Plato's
expressions, when he calls the Word of God Aevrepov
Seov, a second God. But it must be observed, first,
that Philo never owns above one God ; and, secondly,
that he used that expression, to mark the distinction
which is between Jehovah and Jehovah, as I shewed
already.

Let the thing be considered in itself. It is certain
that the notion of the Trinity cannot be had from
reason. It must therefore be a doctrine either re-
vealed by God, or devised by Plato, or some other
from whom he received it. But the Platonists are
so far from believing their master to be the first in-

286 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, ventor of it. that Proclus affirms it to be BeoirhixTvi

YYTTT • *

'__ Beokoyla, a piece of divinity delivered by God himself

And

Numenius, a famous Platonist, who lived under
the two Antonines, and was therefore Justin's con-
temporary, expressly maintains that Plato during his
thirteen years stay in Egypt had learnt the doctrine
of the Hebrews, as Theodoret tells us in his first
sermon against the Greeks. For it is certain that
many Jews fled into Egypt, after Nebuchadnezzar
had destroyed Jerusalem, and after the death of
Gedaliah.

These two testimonies are enough to prove that
Plato was not the first inventor of the notion of a
Trinity.

And that Philo borrowed not his notions from
Plato may further appear, because Philo lived at a
time when Plato's philosophy had long before lost
much of its credit. Aristotle did much lessen it.
But it was much more crest-fallen when the opin-
ions of Zeno and Epicurus prevailed. Zeno's philo-
sophy spread itself as far as Rome, though the max-
ims of it were barbarous and unnatural. And in St.
Paul's days that of Epicurus was much followed at
Athens. That of the Pyrrhonians got much ground
likewise. So that Plato had but a very few disciples
left him. In Plato's days there started up at Ale-
xandria a sect of philosophers, the head of whom
was one Polemo, who lived under Augustus : these
freely rejected the most famous opinions, and pick-
ed out what they found most rational in the several
sects of philosophers ; for which reason they were
called Electics, or Choosers. And one needs but
read Philo with judgment, to find that he followed
this sect.

It appears that Philo's great design in all his
works is to shew, that the Jews were infinitely
above the heathens, both as to virtue and know-
ledge : in which he followed Arrstobulus's notions,

against the Unitarians.

287

who had writ long before him, and was a Jewish chap.
philosopher. And of this opinion the Jews are to XXIIL
this day, as may be seen in Cozri, p. 29, and p. 131.
And as the Egyptians looked upon the Greeks as
children in learning, which they were fain to fetch
from Egypt ; so Philo calls often the Egyptians,
even those of the most ancient times, a heavy
people, and who wanted common sense, by reason
of the many gross errors they entertained, unworthy
of rational creatures.

In a word, I affirm, that if Plato had any distinct
notions in religion, he most certainly had them
from the Jews while he sojourned in Egypt, as it is
maintained by Josephus in his first book against
Appion.

As for the Chaldee paraphrasts, I do not see how
they can be suspected to have had a tincture of
Plato's doctrine : it must be a mere fancy to suppose
it. Let those gentlemen read exactly the books of
Philo, and find therein, if they can, such an ex-
pression as that we have in the Targum upon Hag.
ii. 4, 5. 1 am with you, saith the Lord of hosts, with
the Word which covenanted with you when you
came out of Egypt, and my Spirit which abideth in
the midst of you. Mr. N. hath been sensible of
this ; and therefore he does not accuse them of hav-
ing been Platonists: but he accuses the orthodox
Christians in general to have inserted in the Jewish
books whatever in them is favourable to the doc-
trines of the Trinity, and of the Divinity of the
Koyog. But certainly the Unitarians must have very
little correspondence with the Jews, to fancy that
they are so simple as to be thus abused. How can
it be imagined that the Jews should be such friends
to the Christians, as to trust them with their books,
in order to falsify them ? and afterwards so sottish,
as to spread everywhere these very books and Tar-
gums which their enemies had falsified ? This sup-
position is so ridiculous, that I cannot imagine how

288 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, anv author can write such a thing, or even conceive

VV ITT J, . °7

and suppose it.

What I said of the Gospel notions in the fifteenth
chapter shews plainly that neither Christ nor his
Apostles did adopt the system of philosophy which
was taught by the Platonists.

The angel who revealed the Lord's conception
used the word Lord or Jehovah, to denote his being
God : but when he named him Jesus, because he
was to save his people from their sins, which no
other could do but God, he intimated that it was
he who was foretold, not by Plato, but by Habak-
kuk, chap. iii. 8, 13, 18. 1 will rejoice in the Lord, I
will joy in the God of my salvation. In which place
the Prophet expressly calls God Saviour or Jesus,
by which name Christ by Divine appointment was
named.

In short, a man must be out of his senses, to find
any thing in the Gospel that savours of Plato's hy-
pothesis. When the devils own Christ to be the
Son of God, were they Platonists ? When St. Peter
owns him to be the Son of God, had Plato told him
this? When he was asked in the council of the
Jews, whether he was the Son of God, or no, was
the question made in a Platonic sense?

It is true, St. Paul has sometimes quoted heathen-
ish authors ; he was brought up at Tarsus amongst
heathens ; he had read Aratus, whom he quotes
against the Epicurean philosophers at Athens ; and
he quotes a place out of Epimenides the Cretan in
his Epistle to Titus, who was Bishop of Crete. But
we never find that he quoted Plato, or used his
testimony.

Christ chose illiterate men for his Apostles : St.
John, who speaks of the Koyog, had been a fisherman
about the lake of Tiberias : St. Paul and St. Luke
only were scholars. St. Paul was brought up under
Gamaliel, a doctor of the Law; and St. Luke, who
had been a physician, and was a learned man, fol-

against the Unitarians.

2S9

lowed St. Paul in his travels, and by his directions chap.
writ his Gospel. But it does not appear that our x 1L
Saviour taught those of his disciples who were illite-
rate the Motions of Plato; nor that those w ho were
learned, as St. Paul and St. Luke, ever used Plato's
authority in their preaching. This appears plainly
by the Book of the Acts, in which St. Luke gives
an account of the sermons of the Apostles, and of
the occasions as well as method of them. If at any
time St. Paul had a fair opportunity to make use of
Plato's testimony, it was when he disputed at Athens
against the Stoics and the Epicureans. These last
laughing at miracles, St. Paul wrought none there to
convince them : but he might have quoted places
out of Plato's Republic, to prove the resurrection,
and a judgment in the life to come ; yet he quotes
never an author, and was contented to argue the
case by dint of reason ; and this he did with that
force, that he converted one of the judges of Areo-
pagus, who probably was an Epicurean, and knew
what Plato said in his books, and did laugh at it.

This method of the Apostles was followed by the
first Christians ; Plato was not mentioned amongst
them, till some philosophers turned Christians ;
Justin Martyr amongst others. This Justin scorned
all other philosophers as mean-spirited teachers; but
commended Plato, as being one of a great genius,
that made him think of God and the immortality of
the soul in a more elevated manner than other phi-
losophers. But when all is done, how much did he
value Plato? But indifferently: he declares that it
was from the Gospel, together with the Law and the
Prophets, that he had the true notions of the Chris-
tian religion. He neither quotes Plato against the
heathens, nor against the Jews. If we had the book
he writ against Marcion, who out of Plato's writings
had broached his detestable opinions, we might very
probably have seen how little he valued Plato's au-
thority. Tertullian, who had read Justin's book, and

290 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, who saw that both the Gnostics and the Valentinians
XX]IL made much of Plato's authority, shews plainly how
little he valued Plato, when he says he was grown
omnium hcereticorum condiment avium, the sauce
which all heretics used to propagate their doctrines
by, and give it a relish; and that by which they
corrupted the purity of the Christian religion. And
much the same opinion touching Plato had they
that opposed the Arian heresy, of which it is
thought Origen was the first broacher.

However, I aver, first, that the first Christians
were no more Platonists than the Jews, that is, did
not use Plato's notions in their system of divinity.
They were so far from it, that they declared that
what they believed about the Trinity, they had it
from the holy writers ; Justin. Apol. 2. Athena gov as,
p. 8, 9. Theophilus of Antioch, p. 100.

Secondly, It is false that any of the ancient
Christians made any other use of Plato, than by
shewing that Plato had borrowed from Moses the
doctrine he taught; Justin in his Exhortation to the
Greeks, p. 18, 22, 24. Clemens of Alexandria, Strom.
1. 4. p. 517. and 1. 5. p. 598. Padag. 1. 1. c. 6. Ori-
gen against Celsus, 1. 1. p. 16. 1. 4. p. 198. 1. 6. p.
275,279,308. I.7. p. 351. and 371.

Thirdly, The very heathen authors own that Plato
borrowed his notions from Moses; as Numenius,
who (as Theodoret tells us) did acknowledge that
Plato had learnt in Egypt the doctrine of the He-
brews, during his stay there for thirteen years; Theod.
Serm. 1.

If any of the ancient Fathers have quoted any
thing out of Plato concerning the Trinity, they
looked upon it not as Plato's invention, but as a doc-
trine which he had either from Moses, or from those
who had it from him. Not to say, that, in what
manner soever Plato proposed this doctrine, it is
much at one. For his notions about it are not very
exact ; and no wonder, since it was as natural for a

against the Unitarians.

291

Greek to mix fabulous notions with what he had chap,
from others, as it had been for them to adulterate XXI1L
the true principles.

The truth which we profess, and draw from a di-
vine original in this matter, is not at all concerned
with Plato's visions. And yet, since the notion of the
Trinity could not possibly be framed by any mortal
man, two considerable uses may be made of Plato's
notion about it. First, to shew that this doctrine is
not of Justin Martyr's invention ; since Plato, who
lived five hundred years before Justin, had scattered
some notions of it in his books, which he had pro-
bably learned from the Jews, or from some other
philosophers who conversed with the Jews. And
secondly, to make men sensible that the greatest
scholars among the heathens did not find so many
absurdities in it, as our Socinians do now.

There is a difficulty of greater moment than all
the objections which the Unitarian authors can op-
pose, against my using the authority of the judgment
of the old synagogue ; and I will not keep it con-
cealed, although they have not been sensible of it.
It arises from the words of St. Paul himself, in his
Epistle to Timothy and Titus, where he rejects with
an abhorrence the Jewish fables and genealogies as
the fruits of the falsely named knowledge, ^evluvv-
[xov yvuaecof, 1 Tim. vi. 20, 21. which he compares
with a cancer.

I acknowledge freely that Irenaeus, lib. I.e. 20.
and Tertul. adv. Valentin, understood those expres-
sions of St. Paul against the Gnostics of their time,
who were come from Simon Magus. And I acknow-
ledge with Grotius upon 1 Tim. i. 4. that by those
infinite genealogies, which are spoken of by St. Paul
as coming from a vain philosophy, and controverted
by some of the heretic Jews, Saint Paul had a mind
to speak against several notions of the new Jewish
Cabala of that time, which was in truth a mixture
of the true tradition of the svnagogue, and of the

u 2

292 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, notions of the Platonists and Pythagoreans, who had
xxiii. bQrrQwec[ their notions from the Egyptians. And I
will not insist now too much upon the judgment of
those who think probably enough that the Egyp-
tians had borrowed their notions from the Jews.

But after all I maintain that this objection
against this part of the new Jewish Cabala, which
I mention as having such an impure birth, and hav-
ing been corrupted amongst the Jews, doth not
abate the authority of the proofs of the Trinity,
and of the notions of the Messias, which I have
brought from all the Jewish writers, and which hath
nothing common with those innumerable ceones
which are mentioned by Irenseus and Tertullian, as
received by the Valentinians, and which the Apostle
St. Paul hath condemned in some of the doctors of
the synagogue.

Let us suppose that there had been in the body
of the synagogue before Jesus Christ some Saddu-
cees, and some Baithussei, whose birth the Jews say
was as ancient as that of the Sadducees, but who
seem to be not so ancient, and to have their origin
from one Simon Boethus, an Alexandrian Jew, men-
tioned by Josephus. Let us suppose that from the
time of the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes,
some amongst the Jews had adopted some Platonic
or Pythagorean notions, what is that to the body of
the Jewish nation, which was not included in Pa-
lestina or Egypt, but was spread every where ?

On the contrary, I maintain justly that when St.
Paul condemns the Jewish genealogies, he confirms
all my proofs from the Jewish writers, who did not
ground their ideas upon the doctrine of Pythagoras
or Plato ; but upon the text of the Old Testament.
When St. Paul hath used the same notions which
are in the apocryphal books, in Philo, and in the
Chaldee paraphrases, which nobody accuses to have
used those foolish genealogies which were found
amongst the Valentinians, and are to be found now

against the Unitarians.

293

amongst some of the Cabalists; he hath secured chap.
my argument taken from the pure traditional ex- XXIIL
position of the ancient Jews ; this is all I have a
mind to contend for in this matter, leaving those
Cabalists, who have mixed some heathenish no-
tions with the ancient Divinity of the Fathers to
shift for themselves, and being not concerned in all
their other speculations, though, since they have
quite forgot this impure origin, they have very
much laboured to uphold them upon some texts
of Scripture, but not well understood, and taken in
another sense.

CHAP. XXIV.

An answer to some objections of the modern Jews,
and of the Unitarians.

That the reader may be fully satisfied of the
truth which I have asserted by so many proofs taken
out of the apocryphal books, out of the Chaldee
paraphrasts, and of Philo, the most ancient Jewish
author we have as to expounding the Scripture ; I
must solve some difficulties made by the modern
Jews and Socinians, about the use of the word Aoyo$,
so frequent amongst the ancient interpreters of
Scripture.

Moses Maimonides, who lived about the end of
the twelfth century, affirms that the word Memra,
which in Chaldaic is the same as that of Aoyog in
Greek, was made use of by the ancient paraphrasts
on purpose to prevent people's fancying that God
had a body: MoreNevoch. lib. 1. c. 21. He says also,
that for the same reason they often used the words
Jehara, glory ; SheMnah, majesty, or habitation.

But he does manifestly wrong them : for if it
had been so, they would have used that caution on

u 3

294 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, other occasions, whereas they often render those
texts of Scripture, where mention is made only of
the Lord, by these words, before the face of the
Lord, which are apt to make people fancy God as
being corporeal. Besides, if what he says were
true, they would have used the same caution where-
ever the notion of his being corporeal might be at-
tributed to God. But it is certain that in many
places, as apt to give that notion of God, they do
not use the word Memra or Aoyog : and as certain,
that in many others, they use it where there is no
danger of fancying God as having a body: as Gen.
xx. 21. Exod. ii. 25. vi. 8. xix. 17. Lev. xxvi. 46.
Numb. xi. 20. xxiii. 21. and in many more, quoted
by Rittangel on Jetzira, p. 96. and in his book
Libra Veritatis.

Besides, it is so palpable that the ancient Jews,
particularly Philo, have given the notion of the Koyog
as being a Divine Person, that Maimonides's answer
can be no other than an evasion. Nay it is observ-
able that the word Davar, which in Hebrew signi-
fies Word, is sometimes explained by that which is
a true Person, in the books of the old Jewish au-
thors, who lived since Christ ; even in those whose
authority Maimonides does acknowledge : one of
their ancient books, namely, R. Akiba's Letters, has
these words on the letter Gimel, God said, Thy
Word is settled for ever in heaven ; and this Word
signifies nothing else but the healing angel, as it is
written, Psalm cvii. 20. He sent his Word, and he
healed them. He must needs mean a person,
namely, an angel, though perhaps he might mis-
take him for a created angel.

Lastly, the notion which Maimonides does sug-
gest can never be applied to Psalm ex. 1. which is
thus rendered by the paraphrast, The Lord said to
his Word : where the Word does manifestly denote
the Messias, as the ancient Jews did fairly acknow-
ledge. It is true, that in the common edition, that

against the Unitarians. 295

place of the Targum is rendered thus. The Lord chap.

• 1 » XX.IV

said in his Word, ox by his Word; but to make . 1

this an argument against us, is a poor shift : for in
his Word, does certainly signify to his Word, or of
his Word, the 2 of the Chaldeans having naturally
that double signification ; as it appears from many
places. Thus it signifies concerning, or of, Deut.
vi. 7. Jer. xxxi. 20. Cant. viii. 8. Job xix. 18. Psalm
1. 20. It signifies to, in Hos. i. 2. Hab. ii. 1. Zech.
i. 4, 9, 13, 14. Numb. xii. 2, 6. 1 Sam. xxv. 39.

You may to this observation about Psalm ex. 1.
add that of the text of Jonathan's Targum on Isa.
xxviii. 5. where the Messias is named in the room
of the Lord of hosts.

The second evasion used by Moses Maimonides
is More Nevoch. p. 1. c. 23. where he tells us in
what sense Isaiah said, that God comes out of
his place, namely, that God does manifest his
word, which before was hidden from us. For,
says he, all that is created by God is said to be
created by his word, as Psalm xxxiii. 6. By the
word of the Lord were the heavens made ; and all
the host of them by the breath of his mouth : by a
comparison taken from kings, who do what they
have a mind to do, by their word, as by an instru-
ment. For God needs no instrument to work by,
but he works by his bare will ; neither has he any
word properly so called. Thus far Maimonides.

But it is not true, as I shewed before, that the
Word in the Chaldee paraphrase signifies no more
than the manifestation of the will of God. I have
quoted so many places out of the apocryphal books,
out of Philo, and out of the paraphrase itself, to
prove the contrary, that Maimonides is not to be
believed upon his bare word against so many formal
proofs. It is not true neither, that Psalm xxxiii. 6.
expresses only the bare act of the will of God, as
Maimonides does suppose. I shewed before that
the great authors of the Jewish traditions (which
Maimonides was to follow when he writ his

u 4

2$6 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. More Nevochim) give another sense to those words.

XXIV •

L_and do acknowledge that they do establish the per-
sonality of the Koyog, and of the Holy Ghost ; which
they do express by the second and third Sephira,
or emanation, in the Divine essence.

That which made Maimonides stumble was. that
he believed that the Christians made the Word to
be an instrument different from God., which is very
far from their opinion. For they do, as well as Philo,
apprehend the Word as a Person distinct from the
Father, but not of a different nature from his ; but
having the same will and operation common to
him and the Father, and this they have by Divine
revelation.

A famous Socinian, whose name I have men-
tioned already, being hard put to it, by the authority
of the Targums, has endeavoured in a tract which
he writ (and which has this title, I>isceptatio de
Verbo, vel Sermone Dei, cujus creherrima Jit
mentio apud Paraphrastas Chaldceos, Jonathan?
Onkelos, et Targum Hierosolymitanum) to shake
it off, by boldly affirming that the Word of the Lord \
is barely used by them to express the following
things: the decree of God; his commands; his
inward deliberation ; his promise ; his covenant and
his oath to the Israelites ; his design to punish
or to do good ; a prophetic revelation ; the provi-
dence by which he protects good men. In short,
the Word by which God does promise or threaten,
and declare what he is resolved to do : of which the
said author pretendeth to give many instances,

I have already proved the falsehood of what that
author so positively affirms, that the term Word is
never found- to be used by the paraphrasts, to de-
note a Person. The very place which I just now
quoted out of R. Akiba's alphabet may be sufficient
to confute him. I need not repeat neither what I
said, that supposing all were true which he affirms
of the use of the word Memra in the paraphrasts,
yet he could not but acknowledge that Philo gives

against the Unitarians.

quite another notion of the Aoyog, namely, as of a
real Person ; in which he visibly follows the author
of the Book of Wisdom ; and therefore the Unita-
rians of this kingdom do for that reason reject
Philo's works as being supposititious, and written
after our Saviours time.

I say therefore that the sense which he puts upon
the Targums, is very far from the true meaning of
the words which they use when they speak of the
Aoyog in many places. I shall not examine whether
in any place of the Targums the word Memra is
used instead of that of Davar, which in Hebrew
signifies the word or command of God. Rittangel
positively denies it: and the truth is, that the Tar-
gums commonly render the word Davar by Pit-
gama, and not by Memra. To be fully satisfied of
it, one needs but to take an Hebrew Concordance
upon the word Davar, and searcb whether the pa-
raphrasts ever rendered it by Memra.

But supposing Rittangel should deny the thing
too positively, however the Targumists do so exactly
distinguish the Word when they mention him as a
Divine Person, that it is impossible to mistake him
in all places, by putting upon them those senses
which the Socinian author endeavours to affix to
them, that he may destroy the notion which these
Targumists give of the Word, as being a Divine
Person. And though I have already alleged many
proofs of it, yet this being a matter of great mo-
ment, I will again briefly speak to it, to confute that
author, and those who shall borrow his arguments.

Let an impartial reader judge whether any of
the Socinian author s senses can be applied to the
word Memra in Onkelos's Targum, Gen. iii. 8.
They heard the voice of the Word of the Lord. And
Gen. xv. 1,5, 9. where the Word appeared to Abra-
ham, brought him forth, and commanded him to
offer a sacrifice to him.

And suppose that the word Memra should in

298 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, some places have some of the senses which the So-

XXIV »

L_cinian author mentions, does it follow that it has

not in many other places the sense we give to it,
and which Philo gave to it before Christ? Let it be
granted it signifies sometimes the command of God,
as Gen. xxii. 18. can it have the same sense in a
number of places where mention is made of the
laws of the Word of the Lord ? Let the word Memra
be taken sometimes in the Targums for the decree
of God, can it be taken in that sense in Jonathan's
Targum on Hag. ii. 6. where it is distinguished from
that decree ? or in those Targums upon the books
of Chronicles, that have been lately printed, and
where mention is made of the decree of the IVord
of the Lord, as 1 Chron.xii. 23. Were it not a ri-
diculous tautology, if in that place the Word was
said to signify the decree? The same maybe said
of all other places where the decree of the Word is
spoken of, as 2 Chron. vi. 4. 15. xxix. 23. xxxiii. 3.

Supposing that Memra signifies sometimes the
Word of God, can it signify so too, where we read,
according to the word of the Memra, 1 Chron. xxix.
23. Let it be granted that the Word signifies some-
times the oracles of God, can it signify them also,
where it is expressly distinguished from them, as
2 Chron. xx. 20. xxxvi. 12. and from the law of
God in the same place ? The truth is, the paraphrast
does suppose that it was theMemra who gave the law
and the oracles to the Jews : and that it was for re-
fusing to offer sacrifices to him, that the Jews often
fell into idolatry, 2 Chron. xiii. 11. xxviii. 19. xxix.
19. xxx. 5.

There are so many proofs, that the paraphrasts
mention it in many places in the very same sense
the ancient Jews gave to it, who acknowledged the
Word of God to be a Person, that no man can run
into a mistake in this matter, unless he does it wil-
fully. Many of their works have been printed al-
most two hundred years ago, and I have produced

against the Unitarians.

so many proofs out of them, that I need not allege chap.
any more. I shall therefore only produce a few out XXIV-
of the two books of Chronicles, which the learned
Beckius published about sixteen years ago.

The Targum on those two books of Chronicles
affirms the following things. That it is the Aoyog
who appeared in most of the apparitions in which
God appeared to the patriarchs: to Abraham, to
whom he spoke from between the victims, Gen. xv.
1 Chron. vii. 21. to Solomon, 2 Chron. vii. 12. to
Phinehas, 1 Chron. ix. 20. to David, 1 Chron. xvii. 2.
to Solomon, 1 Chron. xxii. 11.

That the Angel who hindered Abraham from kill-
ing Isaac, was the Word of God, 2 Chron. iii. 1.

He plainly distinguishes the Angel from the Aoyog,

1 Chron. xiv. 15. and xv. 1. He affirms that the
Word sent Gabriel to help Hezekiah, 2 Chron.
xxxii. 20. whereas David had said he sent his Word
and healed them, Psalm cvii. 20. See Cosri, p. 45.

He affirms that to the Word the temple was
built, 1 Chron. xxviii. 1, 3. and 2 Chron. vi. 1, 10.
and xx. 8. And that they offered sacrifices to him.,

2 Chron. xxxiii. 17.

David exhorts Solomon in the presence of all the
people, and of the Word of the Lord who chose
him king, to keep the law of God, 1 Chron. xxviii.
8, 10. He says that the judges judge before the
Word, and before the Holy Spirit, 2 Chron. xix. 6.

He affirms that it was the Word who helped Da-
vid, 1 Chron. xi. 9. xii. 18. And Solomon, 1 Chron.
xxviii. 20. And Abijah against Jeroboam, 2 Chron.
xiii. 15.

That the faithful seek the Word of the Lord, and
his power, and look always upon his face, 1 Chron.
xvi. 10, 11.

He says that the Word decreed with God, 2
Chron. vi. 4.

That the Word helps them that trust in him,
and destroys the wicked, 1 Chron. xii. 18. xvii. 2,

300 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. 2 Chron. xiii. 18. and xiv. 11. and xv. 2. and xvi. 7?
XXIV' 8. and xx. 20. and xxv. 7. and xxxii. 8. and xvii. 3.
and xviii. 31. and xx. 22, 29.

That the Word drove out of Canaan the inha-
bitants of it, 2 Chron. xx. 7- and fought for Israel,
2 Chron. xxxii. 8.

That by Solomon's orders the Word was prayed
to, 2 Chron. xx. 8.

That men are adjured by the name of the Word,
2 Chron. xviii. 15. Speak according to the mouth
of the Word, 2 Chron. xxii. *J. That it was the
Word that gave Moses leave to shew the tables of
the Law, 2 Chron. xxxii. 31.

That the Word saved Hezekiah from being burnt
in the fire, through which Ahaz made his other
children to pass, 2 Chron. xxviii. 3.

That the Word blessed the people, 2 Chron. xxxi.
10.

That the prophets spoke to Manasseh in the name
of the Word of the Lord, who is the God of Israel,
2 Chron. xxxiii. 18.

That men repent before the Word of the Lord,
2 Chron. xxxiv. 27.

That the Word of the Lord the God of heaven
commanded Cyrus to build him a temple, 2 Chron.
xxxvi. 23.

In a word the author of this Targum leaves no
room to doubt, but that by the Word he under-
stood and meant in many places a Divine Person, a
principle of action, such as we conceive him to be.
Though in some other passages he might use the
term Word in those other different significations,
which the Socinian author, who writ against Weck-
nerus, was pleased to put upon it in general and in
all places.

Another objection of the same Socinian, which
seems more plausible, is this, that there are some
places in the Targum, where, instead of the Holy
Spirit, as it is in the Hebrew, they render it by

against the Unitarians.

301

3femra, or the Word; of which he gives some chap.
instances, as Isai. xxx. 28. Zech. iv. 6. To which XXIV-
may be added, Isai. xlviii. l6. which in the Hebrew
is, the Lord and his Spirit has sent me ; and in the
paraphrase, the Lord and his Word.

I answer, that though in some few places the
Targums have a confused notion of the thing, yet
this ought not to balance the constant style of those
books, in others, and much more numerous places :
it being easy to confound those notions before the
Gospel-times, when they were not, by much, so
clearly apprehended, as they have been since.
Otherwise, the style of the Targums is pretty equal :
and here comes in very naturally Maimonides's ob-
servation about the style of Onkelos's paraphrase,
which he was well versed in. He thinks in his
More Nevochim, p. 1. cap. 48. that three or four
places of the Targum, in which his remark about
the constant method had no room, might have been
altered ; and wishes he could get some copies of it,
more ancient than those he used; and owns that
he did not well apprehend the reason which had
obliged the paraphrast to render in some places
otherwise than he usually rendered, which yet he
did for great reasons.

One great objection of theSocinian author, which
he much insists upon, is that the Christians never
quoted the authority of the Targum against the
Jews, before Galatinus, who lived at the beginning
of the sixteenth century. But that since that time
Heinsius, Vechnerus, and some others, followed him
in that fancy.

Supposing this to be true, I cannot see what ad-
vantage it would be to him. Put the case that the
ancients were not scholars enough to peruse the
Jewish books, can this ever prejudice the truth ?
And ought not they to be received, how late soever
they come, and by whose care soever they be vindi-
cated and asserted ?

302 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. But it is absolutely false that the Christians be-
fore Galatinus have writ nothing of the Jewish
opinions about this matter. I shewed in the seventh
chapter of this book, that Ribera and others, who
would have these paraphrases to be written after
St. Jerome's time, are much mistaken : and conse-
quently this Socinian author who followed them,
and Vorstius in his notes on Tsemach David, was
also mistaken about the antiquity of the Targurns.
But our Socinian says, if they are so ancient, how
comes it to pass that tbey have not been quoted by
the Christians that disputed against the Jews in an-
cienter times ? They were very few of ancient Chris-
tians that writ upon these matters. And of them
yet fewer understood the Chaldee, or even the He-
brew tongue : most of them rested upon the author-
ity of Philo, of the book of Wisdom, and of some
other authors who were famous among the Jews
before Christ, and who had writ full enough upon
this subject, as may be seen by what Eusebius
quotes out of them. And, no doubt, those places of
Philo, and those other Jewish writers, were well
known to Clemens of Alexandria, and to Origen,
whose work Eusebius much followed, as appears by
reading his books, and as he himself does acknow-
ledge.

Our Socinian affirms too positively, that Gala-
tinus is the first that used that authority of the
Targurns. He must not suppose a thing which is
absolutely false. Origen, lib. 4. in Celsum, speaks
of a dispute between Jason and Papiscus, in which
saith Origen, Christianus ex Judaicis scriptorihus
cum JudcEo descrlbitur disputans, et plane demon-
strans qucE de Christo extant et vaticinia Jesu ipsi
congruere, &c. What were those writings of the
Jews, but the Targurns, who had translated Becoc-
ma for Breschith, according to the Jewish notion
which I have explained so many times ; and for
which St. Jerome reflects upon Jason, who hath

against the Unitarians.

303

quoted the Targums, as if he hath read them in
Hebrew.

Besides, it appears by Justin Martyr's Dialogue
with Trypho, that in his time some Jews had al-
ready endeavoured to invalidate the proofs taken
out of Scripture in their so frequent style, about the
Aoyog, as we see them in the Targums. For Justin
undertakes to prove, that the Word is not barely an
attribute in God, nor an angel, but a Person, and a
true principle of action. And this he proves by his
apparitions, and by other characters and signs of a
real Person, such as are his executing his Father s
counsels, his being his offspring, and his Son, pro-
perly so called. Here I must add one thing, viz.
that St. Jerome hath expressed the sense of the
Targum in many places, especially upon the pro-
phets, which sense he had no doubt from the learned
Jews whom he had consulted, and they from the
Targums. I confess, that Jerome never made his
business to write against the Jews ; nor did any
other Christian, that was ever able to make use of
the Targums. Some, indeed, of the Fathers took the
pains to learn Hebrew, because the Old Testament
was writ in that language ; but those were very few,
and none of them ever troubled himself with the
Chaldee. St. Jerome himself, how skilful soever in
the Hebrew, understood not the Chaldee, as appears
by his writings. The first that set himself to beat
the Jews with their own weapons, was Raimundus
Martini, a convert of the Jewish nation, who lived
about the year of Christ 1260. He writ a book
against them, called Pugio Fidei, which shews he
had well studied their Rabbins, and he makes use
of their Targums to very good purpose. Out of this
book there was another composed, and called Vic-
toria adversus Judaos, by Porchetus Salvaticus, that
is said to have lived in the next century. Neither
of their books was much regarded in those ignorant
times wherein the authors lived. So that when

304 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, learning came more in request, one might venture
IV* to make use of their labours, and set them forth as
his own, with little danger of being discovered.
This very thing was done by Galatinus, who lived
about the end of the fifteenth century. He did
with great impudence transcribe as it were his no-
tions, and the arguments against the Jews out of
that work of Porchetus, without so much as men-
tioning his name. That Socinian mentions the Pugio
in the close of that book against Vechner, by which
it may be supposed he had read that book of Rai-
mundus above mentioned. Which if he did, and
compared it with Galatinus, he could not but see
that this work of Galatinus was, as to the main of
it, a stream from that fountain of Raimund's Pugio.
And if he saw it, he did very disingenuously in
making Galatinus the first among the Christians
that made use of the Jewish notions.

The last objection of the Unitarians (against what
I have proved about the Word's being a Person,
from the consent of the Chaldee paraphrases, when
they speak of the Memra of the Lord, and of his
actions) is made by the same Socinian author, who
affirms, that in the Targums the Memra implies no
more than that God works by himself, because the
word Memra is used of men, as well as of God.

I will not deny but that here and there in the
Targums, the word Memra has that sense, as Hac-
span well observes in his notes on Psalm ex. and
produces many instances of it, to which many more
might be added.

But when all is done, this objection, much the same
with that of Moses Maimonides, cannot absolutely
take away the force of those texts where the word
Memra is applied to God ; and to be satisfied of
this, it is but making the following reflections.

1st. That Philo, one of the most famous Jews of
Egypt, very well apprehended, and clearly declared,
that by the word Koyog, which answers to the He-

against the Unitarians.

305

brew Memra, the ancient Jews understood a real ^"iv'

principle of action, such as we call a Person. 1

2dly. That the Jewish authors, more ancient than
Philo, had the very same notion of it, as may be
seen in the Book of Baruch, and in that of Wisdom,
the notions of which Philo has clearly followed in
his book De Agric. apud Euseb. de PrcBpar. Evang.
p. 323. And lastly, That even since Christ, the
cabalistical authors followed, and to this day do
follow the same notion ; making use of those places
where the Memra and the Cochma, that is to say,
the Aoyo$, are mentioned ; to make out their second
Sephira, as I shewed before.

Neither must it seem strange, that the Jewish
paraphrase should use that word in various senses :
for the word Aoyog hath many senses in Greek, and
so might that of Memra have in Chaldee, without
prejudicing our arguments. For the places which I
have quoted are of that nature, that there can be
no equivocation in them, as any man will own, that
is not resolved to dispute against the truth.

CHAP. XXV.

An answer to an objection against the notions of the
ancient Jews compared with those of the modern.

A. GREATER objection than all these may be
very naturally made by a judicious reader, concern-
ing what I said of the testimonies of the Jews be-
fore Christ, about the distinction of the Divine
Persons, and the Divinity of the Aoyog. On the one
side, may he say, you own that the Jews after
Christ have opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, as
being contrary to the unity of God ; there are plain
proofs of it, even in the second century. And it is
certain thatTrypho did not believe that the Messias

306 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, was to be any other than a mere man, and so did

XXV • ... .

L_the Jews believe, as it is witnessed by Orig. lib. 2.

contr. Cels. p. 79- And on the other side you affirm,
that the Jews in the old times before Christ taught
a doctrine much like that of the Trinity ; and that
all their ancient authors affirmed that the Messias
was to have the Aoyos dwelling in him.

In answer to this difficulty, I cannot say that the
Jews have altered their opinion upon this subject,
since the beginning of Christianity ; for to this day
their caballistical doctors, whom they respect as
great Divines, do profess the same which Philo and
the Chaldee paraphrasts did. I cannot say neither
that they are divided into two sects, the one of
which follows these notions, the other opposes them:
for though the Cabalists are fewer in number than
those who stick to the letter of the law, and study
only to understand the ceremonies of it, to which
they add the traditions contained in the Misna and
the Gue?narra, yet it is certain that there is no great
controversy between them about those doctrines
which I have mentioned.

I answer therefore, first, by owning that whatever
notions the ancient Jews had of these matters, they
were neither so clear or distinct, but that they were
mixed with divers errors, of which there are many
instances both in Philo and the Targums.

Secondly, I maintain withal, that how confused
soever some of those notions are in those ancient
authors, yet it is certain that those Jews that turn
Christians in sincerity do it by going upon the prin-
ciples I have mentioned, namely, by following what
in their authors is conformable to Scripture, and re-
jecting what is contrary to it. And I dare affirm,
that all the learned Jews who become sincere Chris-
tians, do it by reflecting upon those old Jewish
principles which they originally read in the Old
Testament, and afterwards find them to be agreeable
with the principles of Christianity. This plainly

against the Unitarians.

307

appears in the Dialogue between Justin Martyr and chap.
Trypho, a Jew. For Justin having quoted those xxv'
places out of the Old Testament, in which God
calls the Messias, his Son, the Almighty God, and
one that is to be adored ; Trypho answers in these
words, I allow that those so many and so great proofs
are enough to persuade, p. 302. B. All the diffi-
culty he makes is about the application which
Christians, and Justin in particular, made to Christ,
of those places of Scripture. For it appears that
Trypho applying Psalm ex. and Isa. ix. to Heze-
kiah, was of the same opinion with Hillel, who
afterwards affirmed that Hezekiah was the promised
Messias, and that no other was to be expected.

Thirdly, I say farther, that the Jews, prepossess-
ed with the opinion of the Messias's coming to have
a temporal kingdom, and offended by the mean
circumstances of Christ and his Apostles, did reject
Christ's revelation, and were thereby hindered from
seeing how conformable it was with their ancient
notions. This will not seem strange to one that
considers the force of their prejudices, and what
was done by their ancestors in a like case. For these
killed the prophets, no doubt finding much contra-
diction at first, as they imagined, between the old
prophecies and the new ones, for which cause they
rejected the new prophets, and put the authors of
them to death : though afterwards they were forced
to receive those very prophecies, the authors of
which they had put to death, as going upon the
same grounds with the old prophecies, the truth
and authority of which they acknowledged.

Fourthly, I say, that the Jews who lived immedi-
ately after Christ, endeavoured to represent his being
put to death as a just and legal act ; for though the
synagogue had excommunicated him, yet he had con-
tinued to teach his doctrine, and to withdraw his
disciples from observing the law ; so that they pre-
tended that he was a false prophet; that he wrought

X 2

308 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, his miracles by the power of the Devil; and that

_he had been justly punished according to the law,

Deut. xiii. 5. and xviii. 20. To this end, before the
destruction of Jerusalem, they sent to their syna-
gogues all the world over, men of great authority,
to make them receive and subscribe the anathema
which they had drawn up against Christ and his
disciples; as Justin Martyr tells us in his Dialogue
with Trypho, p. 234. E. To which anathema it
seems St. Paul alludes, Heb. vi. 6. and 1 Cor. xvi.
22. as may be seen in the very place of Justin now
quoted, and in page 266. E.

In the fifth place, I say, that soon after the
preaching of the Gospel they begun to defame our
Saviour horribly, about the manner of his birth, as
may be seen in a book called Toledoth Jesu, which
was known long before Origen : and about his life
and conversation, as may be seen in the Talmud.
They likewise defamed the Apostles, as magicians,
who laboured to draw off the people from observing
the law. And though such calumnies were very
gross, and visibly false, yet they found credit with
their people to make them cry down Christianity ;
as it is usual in such cases. Thus when Papists im-
pute to Protestants, that they believe thus and thus,
though their accusations are visibly false, and them-
. selves are forced to acknowledge it, yet at the same
time they prevail with their people, and turn them
quite off from the Protestants.

I say in the sixth place, that afterwards they yet
more horribly traduced our Saviour, accusing him
to have trained up his disciples to idolatry, and to
have himself been guilty of it. This they took oc-
casion to say, from the superstitious respects some
Christians had for the cross, which made them give
out, that Jesus Christ having been excommunicated
by his master, and refused the absolution which he
begged of him ; thereupon he had withdrawn him-
self from him, and brought up his disciples after

against the Unitarians. 3 09

his example, to worship a brick, by which they un- chap.

derstood the figure of a cross. Sanhedrin, fol. 107. '—

and Sota, fol. 47.

Lastly, It may be observed, that the many here-
sies which arose in after-times among the Christians
concerning our Saviour's person and natures, gave
the Jews very great prejudices against the Gospel.
The Arians for two hundred years, then the Nes-
torians and Eutychians, but chiefly the Tritheists,
visibly taught doctrines contrary to the truth. In
particular the writings of John Philoponus, who
was a Tritheist, were much perused by the Maho-
metans and Jews, because they begun to study
philosophy, (in which John Philoponus had made
very great progress,) as Maimonides tells us, More
Nevochim, p. 1. ch. 71. Now this heresy destroy-
ing the unity of God, which is the fundamental
article of the Jewish religion, it could not but give
the Jews just matter of horror and detestation for
Christianity.

Besides, the Jews themselves confess that in their
dispersion they have lost the knowledge of many
of the mysteries of their religion. One cannot
think how it could be otherwise, if he considers,
1. The long time they have been dispersed, which
confounds the most distinct, and darkens the clear-
est matters. 2. Their extreme misery in so long a
captivity, which subjected them to so many differ-
ent nations, and many of them such as had a parti-
cular hatred both to their nation and their religion.
3. But chiefly if one considers that those mysteries
were communicated only to a few learned men, and
kept from the knowledge of the common people;
as Maimonides does acknowledge, and proves by
many reflections worth considering, in More Ne-
voch. p. 1. ch. 71.

After this, the Jews having still a great aversion
to the Christians, it ought not to seem strange that
the Cabalists should be so few in number among

x 3

310 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

Chap, them ; and that most of the Jewish doctors should
xxv' follow in their disputes against the Christians, ex-
plications and notions contrary to the Scripture,,
about the Trinity, and the Divinity of the Messias.
For even before Christ there were many errors
crept amongst some of them about those matters ;
so that they that lived after Christ did easily fol-
low the worst explications, and prefer them before
the better, in the heats of their disputes against the
Christians.

Neither is it to be wondered at, that the same
men should maintain contrary propositions, and de-
fend them equally in their turns, as they come to
have to do with different adversaries* The Papists
are a remarkable instance of this ; when they dis-
pute and write against the Eutychians, for the truth
of Christ's human nature, one would admire at the
strength and soundness of their arguments: but
when they are upon the manner of our Saviour's
existence in the Sacrament, as to his flesh and
blood, nothing can be more contrary to their for-
mer positions, than what they affirm on this occa-
sion ; they destroy quite what they said before, and
one would think they had forgot themselves.

The Jews do perfectly like the Papists in this ;
and having less knowledge, and labouring under
greater prejudices than they, it is no wonder if they
maintain principles that are contrary one to another.
This may be seen in some of the old heretics, who
sprung from amongst the Jews, and brought their
opinions into the Christian religion ; the Cerinthians
for instance, who owned that the Word had dwelt
in Christ, but did imagine that it was but for a cer-
tain time. And if the Patripassians, and afterwards
the Sabellians, who had the clear revelation of the
Gospel, yet for all this, opposed the doctrine of the
Trinity, as being contrary to the unity of God, and
affirmed that there was in God but one Person
which had appeared under three differing names ;

against the Unitarians.

311

it ought not to appear strange that the Jews, blind- chap.
ed as they are by their hatred against the Chris- xxv>
tians, should^ through their prejudices apprehend
that what their old masters taught about the three
Sephiroth, did not signify three Persons in God, but
only the three different manners in which God works
by one and the same person.

I have already hinted, that the Jews even about
the end of the fourth century had great offence
given them by the Christians in their worship of
saints and relics ; which being at last as idolatrous
as the heathenish worship, made the Jews look upon
them as no other than heathens. This may be
seen in many places of the Talmud, which they pre-
tend was finished about five hundred years after
Christ. But especially in their additions to those
books which they made when idolatry was so ripe
both in the east and the west.

One might make a book of those too just accu-
sations against the Christians, which caused the
Jews, because they made them, to be banished out
of many kingdoms. The Dominican friars made a
collection of most of them in the thirteenth cen-
tury, when Christians going much into the Holy
Land, did something retrieve their lost knowledge
of the Greek and other eastern languages. Since
that time the Jews transcribing their Talmud, and
their other ancient books, begun to use the words
of Samaritans, instead of those of apostates and
heretics, which they used before in speaking of
Christians, against whom in the old times they had
made many rules.

Besides, the violent and antichristian methods
which some Christian princes used against them by
a false principle of religion to make them, against
their will, profess Christianity, made them look
upon Christians as no better than savage beasts,
which besides their outward form had nothing of
humanity, and regarded neither justice nor religion:

X 4

312 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. for, though their own Jewish principles are perse-
cuting- enough^ yet they cannot but condemn the
same principles when used against them ; nothing
being more apt to make men reject the truth, than
persecution, because men's consciences ought to be
instructed, and not enslaved, as experience in all ages
does abundantly confirm.

It cannot be denied but that the Jews crucified
Christ for affirming himself to be the Son of God.
Neither can it be supposed that he meant no more
by it, but that he was God's adoptive Son, as were
some of their kings in particular, and the whole
nation of the Jews in general: for he spoke in an
ordinary plain intelligible sense. He meant there-
fore by it, not only that he was the Messias, but
that the Word of God dwelt in him, the same whom
the Jews acknowledged to be the offspring of God.
And for this the Jews crucified him, as he hints
plainly enough in the parable of the husbandmen ;
for he means the prophets by the name of mere
servants, and himself he calls the Son, in opposition
to the prophets ; and tells the Scribes and Pharisees,
that though they knew him to be such, yet would
they for all this put him to death. So that by
crucifying him they did purpose to destroy a person
whom they knew to be the true Messias, but by
whom thev were like to have lost their credit with
the people ; he having called them a parcel of hy-
pocrites, who made a trade of religion, who in their
hearts laughed at it, and only endeavoured to get
by it. This is the meaning of those words which
Christ puts in their mouths, and which was near
really in their hearts, Come, let us hill him, and let
us seize on his inheritance. And not only out of
hatred, but out of policy also, they opposed him,
that they might keep themselves safe and quiet.
They looked for a conquering Messias, who should
subdue all nations, and bring all their enemies un-
der them. But here they saw Jesus, a man desti-

against the Unitarians,

313

tute of all human succours necessary to bring chap.
about so great a design : they thought it therefore xxv>
more advisable to set him aside without following
his doctrine, than to espouse a quarrel which might
incense the Romans against them, and cause the
ruin of their nation : this is what they meant when
they said, The Romans shall come and take away
both our place and nation.

To be satisfied of this, one ought to observe that
speculative doctrines are not the common rules of
public deliberations and counsels. Let the Papists
be an instance of it. They proceed in their deci-
sions upon the principle of the Pope's infallibility ;
when at the same time hardly any one of them
believes it, and many do confute it both by reasons
and matters of fact not to be answered.

The Jews likewise, though they knew themselves
to be fallible enough, yet, Papists like, they acted in
their public assembly as if they had been infallible.
And this was enough to satisfy those who could not
distinguish, or would not further inquire into the
business, which was the case of the most ordinary
people, who make always the greatest number.
Accordingly, of the two thieves that were crucified
with Christ, one had observed the injustice of that
violent hatred the Jews had for him : but the other
cursed him, looking on him as a false prophet, justly
condemned by the greatest authority known to him
in the world.

Lastly, It is certain, that when a decision is once
made, the people for the most part do not much
inquire into the justice or reasonableness of it, but
quietly acquiesce in it, and rely upon the authority
of those who made it. The Jews had a particular
reason to do so, being assured that their religion
came from God, and not seeing any danger in pro-
fessing it, as it was delivered to them by their fore-
fathers. And this is now the only reason they have
for professing Judaism ; neither is it to be wondered
at, that the notions the ancient Jews had of it

314 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

Chap, should make but little impression on their minds,
xxv' no more than the doctrines of their doctors, which
they call Cabalists, because they follow the tra-
ditions of the old synagogue.

As for their late teachers, they being moved by
a spirit of contradiction, have raised many new ques-
tions about the characters of the Messias, and other
like articles of religion, controverted between them
and the Christians, by which they have plunged
their people into inextricable difficulties ; and they
are so exasperated now against us, that they can
hardly be calm enough to take notice of those
visible contradictions which may be seen between
their ancient writers and their modern doctors
writing upon the same subject. They deny now-a-
days what the ancient Jews freely granted ; and their
whole study is to keep their people in a blind sub-
mission to their authority: insomuch that they have
this maxim amongst them, that the people are
obliged to believe that the right hand is the left,
when their Rabbis have once declared it so to be.

But I shall make some more particular reflections
upon the proceedings of the modern Jews, and shew
that their obstinacy is altogether unreasonable, and
that there is no fairness at all in their way of dis-
puting against the Christians.

CHAP. XXVI.

That the Jews have laid aside the old explications
of their forefathers, the better to defend them-
selves in their disputes with the Christians.

Eas.Dem. It hath been long since observed by Eusebius,
Ev. Hb.iv. tnat the Jews have varied from the belief of their
fathers as to the sense of several places in the Old
Testament ; and it is no more than they themselves

against the Unitarians. 315

freely own in their disputes with us. Thus the chap.

• XXVI

humour of wrangling hath wrought much the same. J 1_

effect among the Papists (as Maldonat was not
ashamed to confess, on St. John, chap, vi.) Of this
alteration in the Jewish sentiments (which is ac-
knowledged by one of the Socinian writers, viz. Vol-
zogenius in Luc. xxiv. 27.) R. Solomon Jarchi fully
witnesses. He was the most famous commentator
the Jews had about five hundred years ago ; yet he,
in his exposition of Ps. xxi. 1. hath these words, Our
masters did understand this Psalm of the Messias,
(as indeed they did Gemar. onTalm. tr. Massechet
HIID chap. v. and Targ. on this Psalm, ver. 8. and
18.) but it is better to understand it of David him-
self, that we may the more easily reply to the here-
tics, that make an ill use of some passages in it.

But this is not the only place wherein the Jews
have changed the faith of their ancient masters.
There are many other examples of it ; some of
the chief of which I shall produce, after I have ob-
served the several degrees by which they arrived
to so wide a disagreement from their ancestors.

1. Their doctors, as I have already noted, did
early introduce new notions of several texts of the
Old Testament. I speak not now of their fabulous
fancies only, such as that of Philo, who, lib. de
Septenar. supposes the voice of God uttered on
mount Sinai to have been heard in all parts of the
world ; to which the Jews, Pirke Ellez. c. 41. Tan-
kuma, fol. 73. col. 1. have added many more new
conceits ; but I speak of such explications of theirs,
as were contrary to, and in effect did overthrow the
ancient notions of the prophets. As for instance,
where Philo seems in some manner to maintain the
transmigration # of souls; where he delivers the doc-* Lib. de
trine of the soul's preexistence before the body ^ ; 455""' p'
where he seems to give hint of the eternity of mat- 1 De
ter, according to Plato ^, though it is certain that, 891? P*

% Mund. Op. p. 211. De Mund. Iucor. p. 728. A. De Viat.-Off. p. 669. F.

3l6 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, in his treatise of Providence, he doth assert the cre-
XXVL ation of matter.

2. It is observable that, after Hadrian the em-
perors time, some of the Jews who expected the
Messias, according to Daniel's prophecy of the se-
venty weeks, but were out in their accounts of those
weeks, had almost entirely lost the hopes of his
coming : this we gather from the history of R. Hil-
lel in Gemara, tit. Sanhed. fol. 98. col. 2. and fol. 99.
col. 1. who maintained that the promise of the Mes-
sias was accomplished in the person of Hezekiah,
and that there was no more Messiah to be expected
by the Jews. Now they say that this Hillel was the
grandson of R. Juda, the compiler of the Misna.

3. We see how careless they have been in preserv-
ing the apocryphal books that were formerly in such
an esteem with them, and which indeed but for the
Christians had notwithstanding totally perished.
Philo has borrowed some of their notions in his se-
cond book of Agriculture ; and let any one compare
Job xxviii. 20. Psalm xxxiii. 6. Prov. viii. 12, 22. with
what is written, Wisdom, chap. vi. 24, 22. and so on
till chap. viii. 11. and he will find a great likeness,
if not the very same notions and words.

4. Through the same neglect they have lost
either all or some of the works of other ancient
and famous Jews, as namely, some of Philo the Jew,
who was in such reputation amongst them, as to
be chosen the agent or deputy of the Alexandrian
Jews in their embassy to the Roman emperor ; and
of Aristobulus, who lived in the time of the Pto-
lomies, and dedicated to one of them his explica-
tion of the Law, of which we have a fragment in
Eusebius ; which shews that his notions were the
same with Philo's, and that they did generally pre-
vail in Egypt, before Christ's incarnation, as well as
in Philo's time.

It is no hard matter to give some reasons of this
neglect. For, 1. their first destruction by Titus,

against the Unitarians.

and after by Hadrian, involved with it a great part chap.
of their books. They thought then only of saving
their Bibles, with which, it seems, their Targum
was joined, and so this came to be preserved with
the Scriptures. This was by the great care of Jose-
phus, as he himself relates, who begged this only
favour of Titus, that he might preserve the sacred
books.

2. After their second destruction by Hadrian, they
applied themselves straight to make a collection of
their traditions and customs, which thus collected
make now the body of their Misna, or second law,
as they call it. This spent them a deal of time: for
to compose such a work, it was necessary to collect
the several pieces from several men's hands who
had drawn certain memoirs for the observation of
every law that did more immediately concern them.

3. They then began to increase their hatred for
the study of the Greek tongue, abandoning them-
selves wholly to the study of their traditions. This
we see in the Misnah. Mas. Sot a, c. 9. §. 14.

4. About this time, being by the Christians
pressed with arguments out of these books, they
thought it best to reject the books themselves :
and because the Christians used the LXX. version
against them, they invented several lies to discredit
it, as we see in the Gemara of Megilla ; and lest
that should not do, they made it their business to
find out some men that might be able to make a
new version; such as Aquila in the time of Hadrian,
and Symmachus, and Theodotion, who turned Jews
toward the end of the second century. These three
interpreters were designed to change the sense of
those texts which the Christians (according to the
old Jewish traditions) did refer to the Messias. Of
this Justin Martyr has given some instances in his
Dialogue with Trypho, R. Akiba's great friend ; and
we see that St. Jerome, Ep. 89, complains of the
same.

318 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. And now what wonder is it, if the Jews in this
XXVL humour did neglect, or rather rejected those apo-
cryphal books, whose authority in some points was
set up against them by the Christians, as were the
books of Baruch, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus ?

As for Philo, though he wrote in a lofty style,
and after an allegorical way, (and therefore we find
in the Rabboth several thoughts common to him
and the Cabalists, and other allegorical authors,
whose notions are gathered in the Rabboth,) yet
the Jews soon lost all esteem for his works. First,
Because he writ in Greek, which was a language
most despised by them at that time ; they having
established it as a maxim, that he who brought up
his children in the Greek tongue was cursed, as he
who fed swine. Bava kama, fol. 82. col. 1. and Sota,
fol. 49. col. 2. Secondly, Because some Christians
challenged him for their own : for finding some of
his principles to be agreeable to those of the Chris-
tian religion, it came into their head (though it is a
fancy without any foundation) that he, while he was
at Rome, was converted by St. Peter. The same
thing befell Joseph us as soon as the Christians be-
gan to use his authority against the Jews ; notwith-
standing that the Jews have no historian better
than Josephus. Thirdly, Because the Jews had al-
most forsaken then the study of the holy Scriptures,
and given themselves up entirely to the study of
their traditions, or second law, as they call it. The
catalogue of their ancient commentators is very
small. Their first literal commentator is R. Saadiah,
who writ his comments on the Scripture in the be-
ginning of the tenth century. As for the others that
were long before him, as Zohar, Siphre, and Siphri,
Siphra, Mechilta, Tanchuma, and the Rabboth, they
all make it their business to explain allegorical ly, or
to establish their traditions.

As to the Targum, we see how heat of dispute
hath carried the Jews to such strange extremities,

against the Unitarians.

319

that now they reject no small part of those inter- chap.

pretations that were authentic with their forefathers. '_

It may not be amiss to give some proofs of this, to
shew that we do not accuse them without a cause.

And in general, there is not a more idle romance
than that which the Jews have devised touching
two Messias's that are to come into the world. One
must be of the race of Joseph by Ephraim, and
called Nehemiah the son of Husiel, who (as they
will have it) after a reign of many years at Jerusa-
lem, and after having sacked Rome, is at last to be
killed himself at Jerusalem by a king of Persia. The
other Messias is to be Menahem the son of Ham-
miel, who is to appear for the delivery of the Jews,
being sent from God on that errand, according to
Moses's prayer, Exod. iv. 13.

For the time of this second Messias's coming shall
be when the mother of the deceased Messias the
son of Joseph, having gathered the dispersed Jews
from Galilee to Jerusalem, shall be there besieged
by one Armillus the son of Satan, who is to proceed
out of a marble statue in Rome, and who in this
close siege shall be at the very point of destroying
them. Then they say that Messias the son of David
will come with seven shepherds, to wit, the three
patriarchs, Moses, David, and Elias, and eight of
the principal fathers or prophets, who are to rise
before the rest.

They say, that Moses at the head of them shall
convert the Jews without working any miracle, and
then all the Jews shall rise at the sound of a trum-
pet, passing under ground till they come to mount
Olivet, which shall cleave in two to let them out.
Then the Jews shall come from all quarters to form
the Messias's army, and the Messias the son of Jo-
seph shall be raised from the dead, to come in among
the rest ; and so the two Messias's shall reign with-
out jealousy of one another; only the Son of David

320 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, shall have the chief power, reigning from one end
xxvi. Q£ garth j-0 ^ne other, and that for forty years.

All this time the Jews shall continue in feasting
and jollity, using the other nations as slaves : and
then Gog the king of Magog, with the kingdoms
of the north, shall come to attack the Jews in Pa-
lestine, but he and they shall be destroyed by rain
and hail ; after which the land shall be purged of
the dead bodies, and they shall build the third
temple, and then the ten tribes shall return, and
offer sacrifices to God in the temple, and God shall
pour out his spirit on all Israel, and make them
prophets, as Joel hath foretold, chap. xi. 28.

This is the notion in short of the two Messias's,
which R. Meyr Aldabi gives us in his book entitled
Sevile Emuna, chap. 10. p. 123. But it is certain,
1 . that the ancient Jews knew but of one Messias.
Trypho knew not of two, as we see in Justin Mar-
tyr's Dialogue, which is a clear proof that those
passages of the Targum, which speak of two Mes-
sias's, are additions to the ancient text, made since
the Jews invented the conceit of a double Messias.

2. It is certain the Talmudists did not believe
firmly the return of the ten tribes, Tr. Sanh. c. 10.
§.3. Some did hope for it, as doth also R. Eliezer
Massech. Sanh. c. 30. §. 3. But R. Akiba was of
quite another opinion. And yet their posterity hath
been so much inclined for R. Eliezer s opinion, that
one of their greatest objections against Jesus being
the Messias is this, that if he had been the Messias,
he would have recalled and gathered the ten tribes.

3. Their confining of the Messias's reign to forty
years is contrary to the opinion of their fathers,
who held that the Messias was to reign for ever.
Some afterward thought that he was to reign forty
years, others that he was to reign seventy years, as
you see in the Gemara of Sanhedrim, chap. 11. fol.
97- col. 2.

against the Unitarians. 321

4. They suppose now that the Messias shall build chap.
a third temple. Whereas Haggai describing the se- xxvl-
cond temple as that under which the Messias was

to appear, expressly calls it the last, Hag. ii. 9. And
this R.David Kimchi and R. Azariah, and the Tal-
mud of Jerusalem, Megillah, fol. 72. col. 4. the
Talmud of Babylon, Tit. Baba batra, fol. 3. col. 1.
and several others, do acknowledge. Though some
few suppose Haggai's prophecy to have reference to
a third temple. See Abarbanel and Men. ben Israel
on Hagg.

5. It is the remark of one of the most celebrated
authors of the Talmud, and received amongst the
other Jews, that all the times noted by the prophets
for the coming of the Messias are past. Dixit Rav,
Omnes termini de adventu Messice transierunt, nec

jam remanet nisi in conversione, si Israel conver-
tatur, redimetur, quod si non convertatur, non redi-
metur. Since that time they have been forced to
quit that miserable shift; and now they maintain
that all the promises of the coming of the Messias
were conditional, and that he shall come when his
people the Jews shall be by repentance prepared to
receive him, Manas. Ben Israel, q. 27. on Esdras.
And yet the ancient Jews in the same place before
did affirm that the Messias must come in the most
corrupt age, fol. 97. col. 1.

To be a little more particular, the Jews did main-
tain, that all the prophets spoke of the Messias. See
Bethlem Juda in the word Goel. At present, they
dispute upon almost every text that we urge for
the Messias ; so that, instead of convincing them, we
can only put them to shame by laying before them
the authorities of their fathers, who understood these
texts in the same sense that the Apostles did.

The modern Jews are very sensible of the notion
of a plurality of Persons in the words, Let us make
man after our image, Gen. i. 26. Some of them
therefore are for changing the reading, and instead

322 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, of, Let us make man, would have it, Let man be

YYA7T *

__made, though the Samaritan text, the old version of

the Septuagint, and the Talmudists, and all their
ancient and modern translations, read as we do. See
Aben Ezra on the place, and R. David Kimchi in
Michlol, p. 9.

They will scarcely allow the Messias to be spoken
of in Gen. iii. 15. Although Jonathans Targum
and that of Jerusalem do clearly understand it of the
Messias.

The ancient Jews affirmed that the angel who
appeared, Gen. xix. and in other places, and who is
called the Lord, was (as I have before shewed) the
Word of the Lord; but many of their disciples do
say it was a created angel, as we learn from R. Shem
Tov. in his book Emun. and Men. Ben Israel, q. 64.
on Genesis. Such a thing cannot be done but by
an extreme impudence, since we see that they pro-
fess just the contrary in their own prayers, where
you read in their office of Pesach, And he brought
us out of Egypt ; not, say they, by the hand of an
angel, neither by the hand of a, seraphim, nor by
the hand of an envoy, but the Holy Blessed,
brought us out by his glory, and by himself, as the
Scripture saith, Exod. xii. 12. And so there they
refer almost all the appearances of the Angel of the
Lord, to God himself, and exclusively from any cre-
ated angel : and such are those appearances, Gen.
xiv. 15. xx. 6. xxxi. 24. xxxii. 24. where they say
that Israel wrestled with God, Exod. xii. 29, &c.

The present Jews are not for applying the text,
Gen. xlix. 10. to the Messias, but some refer the
words to Moses himself, as R. Bechay, others to
David, others to Ahijah the Shilonite, and others to
Nebuchadnezzar. Notwithstanding both Jonathan's
and the Jerusalem Targum note expressly this pro-
phecy to be spoken of the Messias.

And thus in the same text, the sceptre there
spoken of was explained in the old Talmudists by

against the Unitarians.

323

power and dominion, which should not depart from chap.

j • • • X.X.VI

Judah till the coming of the Messias ; though now_J '_

among some of the modern Jews it signifies only
affliction and calamities. R. Joel Aben Sueb.

At this day the Jews do obstinately deny any
promise to be made of the Messias, Deut. xviii. 18,
19- And some of them will have it spoken of
Joshua, some of David. So the author of Midrash
Tehil in Psalm i. and some of Jeremy. But it is
visible, that in and before the times of Jesus Christ
they were of another opinion, as may be gathered
from I Mac. xiv. 41. and is clear from what the
multitude say, John vi. 14. This is that prophet
who ivas to come into the world. See also Luc. vii.
16. John i. 19. Matt. xxi.

It was not questioned in St. Paul's time, whether
the second Psalm did relate to the Messias or no,
else St. Paul could not have applied it to Christ, as
he doth, Acts xiii. 33. nor was this made a question
for some ages after ; the Talmudical doctors being
of the same sentiment upon it. You see it in the
Gemara of Succoth, c. 5. in Jalkuth in Psalm ii.
in Midrash Tehillim. But their new expositors
have done their utmost endeavours to make it be-
long to David only, or to apply these words, Thou
art my Son, Psalm ii. to the people of Israel. So
doth R. Mose Israel Mercadon upon that Psalm in
his Comment, printed at Amsterdam.

The Jews in Christ's time did believe the twenty-
second Psalm to be a prophecy touching the Mes-
sias. And Jesus Christ, to shew the accomplish-
ment of it in his own person, cites the first verse of
it on the cross, Matt, xxvii. 46. Yet soon after, as
we see in Justin Martyr s Dialogue, they denied that
that Psalm belonged to the Messias ; but their folly
appears in this, viz. that they cannot agree among
themselves, some referring it to David, others to
Esther, and others to the whole people of the Jews.
Menass. q. 8. in Psalm.

y 2

324 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. The sixteenth verse of the same twenty-second
XXVL Psalm is thus translated by the Septuagint, They
pierced my hands and my feet: this reading is
proved by De Muis on this place, and by Walton in
Prolegom. p. 40. But our Jews now read it, As a
lion my hands and my feet, which is nonsense.
Their own Masora notes that it should be read, they
have pierced. However they have espoused the
other reading, and will not be beaten from it by any
argument, because they think this reading will best
destroy the inference which the Christians draw
from this place to shew that the Messias was to be
crucified, according to this Psalm.

The Psalm lxviii. by the ancient Jews was re-
ferred to the Messias, and so it is by R. Joel. Aben
Sueb refers the last part to the time of the Messias,
p. 158. in h Ps. It was also by St. Paul, Ephes.
iv. 8. referred to the ascension of our Lord: Where-
fore he saith,When he ascended up on high, he led
captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. The
very same subject is handled in Psalm xlvii. 5. which
Psalm David Kimchi does acknowledge to belong to
the times of the Messias, and there they cannot
deny but the true God is spoken of, the same Memra
who conducted the people in the desert, and gave
the Law at Sinai, as it is spoken ver. 8, 9. And yet
the modern Jews will apply the words of Psalm
lxviii. 10. to the ascension of Abraham, or Moses, or
the prophet Elias, to any rather than the Messias.

It is granted by the modern Jews that their
fathers understood Psalm lxxii. of the Messias.
So R. Saadia on Dan. vii. 14. Salom. Jarchi on
Psalm lxxii. 6. and Bahal Hatturim ad Numb. xxvi.
16. And yet now they stick not (of which R. David
Kimchi is a witness) to interpret it only of Solomon.

In Jesus Christ's time the Jews confessed Psalm
ex. did belong to the Messias, ver. 1 . The Lord said
unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I
make thine enemies thy footstool. Christ's argu-

against the Unitarians.

325

ment, Matt. xxii. 44. necessarily supposes it. So chap.
was it understood in the Midrash Tehillim, and by KXVI"
R. Saadia Gaon on Dan. vii. 13. But notwithstand-
ing this, our later Jews affirm that it was made for
David or Abraham.

It was of old constantly believed, that the Wis-
dom, Prov. iii. and viii. did denote the Kayos. I have
shewed it from Philo the Jew, from the apocryphal
books, and from the Cabalists, and yet at this day
they explain it of the law of Moses, or the attribute
of Wisdom.

Jonathan in his paraphrase on Isa. ix. 6. inter-
prets the text of the Messias : For unto us a child
is born, unto us a Son is given, and his name shall
be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. And
so did the most ancient Jewish writers. But after
Jesus Christ, the Jews having broken up a new
way, it has pleased some of their late writers to
tread in the steps of R. Hillel, and to apply that
text to Hezekiah. So does Salomon Jarchi, David
Kimchi, Abenezra, and Lipman. As for the rest,
they quite change the present text by referring to
God all the names, which are evidently given to the
Messias, except that of the Prince of Peace.

For much the same reason do the latter Jews
make Zorobabel to be spoken of in Isai. xi. 12.
Manas, q. 18. on Isaiah. Though not only St. Paul
understood it of Jesus Christ, Rom. xv. 12. 2 Thess.
ii. 8. but the ancient Jews did generally refer it to
the Messias, as appears all along in the Targum of
that chapter, and the Jews shewed they understood
it so, by their rejecting Barcochba, when they found
he could not smell souls, as they thought the Mes-
sias should do, according to the second verse of the
said chapter. And St. Jerome witnesses upon that
chapter that all the Jews agreed with the Chris-
tians, that all that chapter was to be understood of
the Messias.

Y 3

326 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. The ancient Jews, as St. Jerome witnesses upon
XXVI- this chapter, ascribed Isa. xxv. 6. Then the eyes of
the blind shall he opened, and the ears of the deaf'
he unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an
hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing; for in the
wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in
the desert, to the times of the Messias.

But the modern Jews have endeavoured to wrest
it, and to make it agree to other times, because they
saw how the Evangelists applied it to the miracles
of our Lord. See Men ass. q. 17. on Isaiah. And
they are gone so far upon that fancy, that they give
it out now for an axiom amongst their people, that the
Messias shall not work any miracle. So Rambam.
R. Meyr Aldab. and R. Menass. ben Israel, who
would have the miracles which are there spoken
of, either to be understood metaphorically, or to be
referred to the time of the resurrection.

The impudence of R. Salomon on Isa. xlviii.
16. is amazing: the words of the text run thus,
From the time that it was, there am I: and now the
Lord God, and his Spirit, have sent me. From hence
it appears that the Messias, who is here spoken of,
according to the Targum, was on mount Sinai,
when God gave the Law from thence. R. Salomon
will by no means grant this to be spoken of the
Messias, but affirms that it is spoken of Isaiah.
But how was Isaiah on mount Sinai when the Law
was given ? Why, he answers, his soul was there, as
were the souls also of all the prophets, God then
revealing to them all those things that were to come,
which each of them in his time have since prophe-
sied of. A fancy, that R. Tanchuma, who lived a
long while before R. Salomon, never hit on : for he
maintains from Isa. lvii. 16. that the souls are thfcn
created^ as God orders men to be born in every
generation.

We see how positive they are in expounding the
sufferings of the Messias, which are described Isa.

against the Unitarians.

327

liii. of the people of the Jews. And yet they can- chap.
not but know that Jonathan refers the end of the XXVL
fifty-second chapter and the beginning of the fifty-
third to the Messias, as the Apostles refer it to Jesus
Christ, following herein John the Baptist, John i. 29.
And so did R. Alexandri among the Talmudists, as
we see in Sanhcdrin, fol. 93. col. 2. and in the Mid-
rash Conen in Arze Levanon, fol. 3. col. 2.

The prophet Micah, chap. v. 2. speaks of the
Messias : But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though
thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet
out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to
be ruler in Israel ; whose goings forth have been
from of old, from everlasting. The Jews cannot
deny this. But then to evade what is there spoken
of the Messias' s eternity, they pretend that it means
no more than his descent from David ; as if the
distance of time from David to Jesus Christ could
be called eternity. This is the way Manasseh ben
Israel, q. 5. on Micah, takes to rid himself of this
difficulty. Before him others took another way,
and affirmed that God decreed before the creation
of the world to send the Messias, and that in this
respect it is said in Micah, that his goings forth are
from the days of eternity.

Jeremy, chap, xxiii. 2. saith very expressly, that
the Messias shall be called Jehovah our Righteous-
ness; and he repeats the same, chap, xxxiii. 15, 16.
In those days, and at that time, will I cause the
Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David ;
and he shall execute judgment and righteousness
in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved,
and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the
name ivherewith he shall be called, The Lord our
Righteousness. R. David Kimchi owns it, and
quotes the authority of two eminent Rabbins for it,
namely, R. Aba Bar Caana, and R. Levi in Eccha
Rabati. But they will none of them own that this
, name Jehovah belongs any otherwise to him, than it

Y 4

328 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, doth to the ark; which is altogether impertinent;
XXVI- for the ark is never called Jehovah; nor doth Me-

nasseh prove that it is with all his talking, q. 18. in

Isaiah.

Jonathan, as well as Philo, ascribes to the Messi as
the prophecies, Zech. vi. 12, 13. And so Jonathan
applies to the Messias what is said in the same pro-
phet. But many of the modern Jews, among whom
R. Salomon is one, do refer them to Zorobabel.

These several places I have now mentioned may
serve as a sample of the confusion the Jews are in,
while they attempt to interpret the ancient prophe-
cies ; and I may confidently affirm, that all those
other places which I have omitted, that intimate
a Trinity, or the Divinity of the Messias, or the
time when he was to come into the world, are in
like manner explained so very triflingly, and forced-
ly, as that oftentimes their own authors, convinced
by the evidence of the texts themselves, have re-
futed them, and given a new interpretation of them.
Whence it comes to pass, that one that reads them
can find no certain sense of those texts to rest on,
but his understanding continues in an entire dark-
ness and unsettledness.

This ill luck they have of giving absurd explica-
tions is not of yesterday, as I have already observed.
Soon after Jesus Christ's time, they set themselves
to oppose what the Christians held of the two
comings of the Messias, though so distinctly de-
scribed, one of them, Zech. ix. 9. and the other,
Dan. vii. 13. And still to this day do they reject
that notion of his two comings, as may be seen in
Menass. on Zech. ix. p. 185.

But others of them, who found it impossible to
deny that the Scripture speaks of two comings of
the Messias, whom they expected, thought it better
to make two Messias's, than to acknowledge that
the Messias whom they expected was to be a suffer-
ing Messias. And thus they thought that they had

against the Unitarians. 329

removed the difficulties in the other opinion, that chap
made but one coming of the Messias, by owning XXVL
the Messias the son of Joseph should be a man of
sorrows, but the Messias the son of David was to
be a glorious deliverer.

As the disputes of the Jews with the Christians
increased, they advanced certain characters of the
times of the Messias, and all of them very mira-
culous ; which they inferred from some allegorical
descriptions in the prophets concerning the times
of the Messias. These they run up to ten, as we
see in Shemoth Rabba, Parascha 15. And they
make a great use of those miracles, which they
conceive should have been in the time of Jesus
Christ, if he had been the true Messias. Notwith-
standing all which Menass£, q. 7. on Isaiah, finds
himself obliged to assure us that David Kimchi, and
Abarbanel, and many interpreters, explain most of
these passages as being allegorical descriptions only
of the times of the Messias. And Maimonides is
of this opinion, that when the Messias comes, there
shall be no change in the order of nature, Jad Chaz.
lib. de Regibus. And in that he follows the opin-
ion of one Rabbi Samuel that is quoted in the Tal-
mud Tit. Bcracoth, where he saith that there shall
not be any difference between the times of the
Messias and the other times of the world, but the
subduing of the kingdoms by the Messias.

To conclude, the Jews being so often deceived
in their expectations of the Messias, and finding
themselves abused by a great number of false pre-
tenders to that character, have almost lost their
hopes of his coming: and finding his coming to be
a thing uncertain, few of them do look upon the
promise of the Messias with that assurance with
which the ancients did expect it.

Indeed it is observable that though Maimonides
professes to own the Messias, and hath inserted the
hope of his coming among the articles of the Jew-
ish faith, which he hath given us ; yet he other-

330 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, where speaks very indifferently of it. In one place
XXVL he asserts the observation of Moses's law, and the
recompenses annexed to it, to be the chief end of
the Jews' inquiry, and not the time of the Messias's
appearance ; as we are informed by the author of
the chain of the Cabala.

The same judgment may be made of Joseph
Albo, who writ with great bitterness against the
Christians : for, 1 . he vouches in his book of the
Principles, that R. Hillel was no apostate, though
he denied the coming of any other Messias, but of
Hezekiah, who was already come. And Albo gives
this reason for it, because the coming of the Messias
is no fundamental article of the Jewish religion.
Orat. 1. chap. 1. Nothing can be more wretched
than this excuse of his. For if the Messias had
come before the Babylonian captivity, in the person
of king Hezekiah, as R. Hillel would have it, and if
no other was to be expected, why did the Jewish
Church take those books into her Bible that were
written by the prophets that lived under the second
temple ? and why did not R. Hillel and his followers
declare against them as false prophecies, that spoke
of the Messias as being yet to come? namely, Ze-
chary, Haggai, and Malachi, who did all prophesy
of the Messias, as has been abundantly shewed, by
proofs out of the Targums of those books, and the
general consent of Jewish writers,

2. The same Albo is not afraid to assert, that the
article of the Messias has no other foundation than
the authority of tradition. For, saith he, there is
not any prophecy, either in the Law or in the Pro-
phets, that foretells his coining by any necessary-
exposition of it, with respect to him, or which may
not from the circumstances of the text be well ex-
plained otherwise. This is his position in his ex-
amination of Gen. xlix. 10. where he doth his ut-
most to evade the text, ver. 10. The sceptre shall
not depart from Judah, fyc.

3. He looks on the article of the Messias's com-

against the Unitarians.

331

ins: to be a matter of that small importance to the chap.

• XXVI

Jews, that he leaves it doubtful, whether or no the . '
Messias is come since the time of Onkelos their fa-
mous paraphrast, who expresses his expectation of
this promise in many places of the books of Moses ;
and if he be not already come, whether he shall
come in the glory of the clouds of heaven, or whether
he shall come poor, and riding on an ass; and because
of men's sins, not distributing those great blessings
promised and to be given at his coming, nor men on
the other hand regarding him as the Messias.

Certainly, R. Lipman in his Nitzachon, where he
examines the above-mentioned text, Gen. xlix. 10.
puts forth a rule which quite overthrows all proofs
from the holy Scripture. This Rabbi, seeing the
Jews give such opposite interpretations of Jacob's
prophecy, concerning the sceptre's continuance in
Judah, as were impossible to be reconciled, some
understanding empire by the sceptre, and some
slavery and oppression ; he lays this down for a
maxim, that the Law was capable of divers expli-
cations, and all of them, though never so incompati-
ble and contradictory, were nevertheless the words
of the living God.

This is very near the sentiment of R. Menasseh
Ben Israel, in his Questions on Genesis, where he
collects the several Jewish expositions of this text.
But granting this once for a principle, it is in vain
to consult the Scriptures, or to think of ever disco-
vering the meaning of them. The sense of them
must absolutely depend on the authority of the
Rabbins ; and what they teach must be all equally
received as the word of God, though they teach
things contradictory to one another. Such posi-
tions put one to a loss, whether their blindness or
their spite is therein most to be pitied.

332 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

CHAP. XXVII.

That the Unitarians in opposing the doctrines of
the Trinity, and our Lord's Divinity, do go much
further than the modern Jews, and that they
are not Jit persons to convert the Jews.

What I have observed of the alteration made
by the modern Jews in their belief, is enough to
shew that they were forced to adopt new notions,
because of the evident proofs drawn from the opin-
ions of their ancestors, which the Christians used
against them.

The very same prevarication may be charged on
the Socinians, in their explications of those places
of Scripture, that prove the blessed Trinity, and the
Divinity of our Saviour.

And, 1st. They have borrowed many of the Jews'
answers to the Christians, and often carried them
much further than the end the Jews themselves did
intend by them. 2dly. They have invented the way of
accommodation, for the evading of those quotations
in the New Testament, that are taken out of the
Old Testament, as finding this the most effectual
means to escape those difficulties which they can
no other way resolve. 3dly. The Unitarians, espe-
cially those of England, to make short work, do
not stick to assert, that the Christians have foisted
those texts into the Gospel, which speak of the
Trinity, and the Divinity of our Lord.

It is fit I should give particular instances of each
of these, for proofs of what I say.
DeDivin. Smalcius maintains in the general, that the books
Chr. c. 10. Qf ^ old Testament are of little use for the con-
version of the Jews. He gives this reason for it,
that almost all that which is said to be spoken of
the Messias in the Old Testament, must be inter-
preted mystically, before it can appear to be spoken

against the Unitarians.

333

of him, and by consequence very remotely from char
what the words do naturally signify. xxvii.

Then in particular: when we would prove a plu-
rality of Persons in the Deity against the Jews, from
those expressions of Scripture that speak of God in
the plural number ; though the Jews (as you may
see in their comments on Gen. i. 26. xi. 7- and espe-
cially on Isa. vi. 8.) are forced to own that a plu-
rality is imported in those expressions, and therefore
pretend that the number is plural, because God
speaks of himself and the angels his counsellors ;
yet the Socinians, as Enjedinus witnesses for them,
do deny that these plural expressions do denote any
plurality in the Deity, no more than expressions in
the singular number do. As for Socinus, he solves
it by a figure, by which, as he saith, a single person
speaks plurally when he excites himself to do any
thing. A figure of which we have no example in
the writings of the Old Testament.

Socinus has followed the Jews' evasion on the
words, Gen. iii. 22. Behold, the man is as one of us,
in maintaining that God does herein speak of him-
self and of the angels. And Smalcius has followed
him in this solution. The very same explication
they give of the words, Gen. xi. 7- Let us go down,
and confound their language ; borrowing entirely
the subterfuge of the Jews, who at this day teach
that God spoke it to the angels.

Crellius on Gal. iii. 8. espouses the Jewish sense
of the text, Gen. xii. 3. In thee shall all the families
of the earth be blessed : by which he overthrows the
force of St. Paul's citation, and makes it nothing to
the purpose. He supposes that St. Paul did herein
allude only to the passage in Genesis ; whereas it
appears, on the contrary, that he followed the literal
sense, as we have it, Gen. xii. 3. xviii. 18. xxii. 18.
xxvi. 4. xxviii. 14. and as the ancient Cabalists do
acknowledge at large in Reuchlin, L 1.

Smalcius, chap. 2. ib. asserts, that the promise of

334 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, the seed of the woman, Gen. iii. 5. can very hardly be
XXVIL understood of the Messias. And yet the ancient
Jews acknowledged it in their Targum of Jerusalem,
and it is owned too by the Cabalists, Tikunzoh. 21.
fol. 52. col. 2. and Bachaie, fol. 13. col. 3. in Gen.

Schlichtingius affirms that Ps. xlv. does literally
relate to Solomon, and that this is its first and prin-
cipal sense ; although the ancient Jews do all agree
that it treats of the Messias, and cannot be under-
stood of Solomon.

Socinus persuading himself that St. Paul cites
Heb. i. 6. from Psalm xcvii. 8. And let all the an-
gels of God worship him, does maintain that he
cites it in the mystical sense, because Jesus Christ
could not be adored by the angels before he was ad-
vanced to be their head. And yet the Jews of old
did refer it to the Messias, adding these words in the
end of Moses's song, Deut. xxxii. as we see there in
the LXX version, from whence it was indeed that
St. Paul took the words in Heb. i. 6.

Again, Socinus, to rid himself of Ps. xxiv. where,
according to the ancient Jews' opinion, the Messias
is spoken of, does pretend that the Messias is not
meant here in this Psalm, or at least he is described
only as the messenger of God : a salvo as ridiculous
as his answer; for most of the characters and works
of God are ascribed to him that is there spoken of,
and he is expressly called the Lord of hosts.

But this is not all. For our Socinians not only
follow the Jews, but exceed them in the bold ways
they take to get over those authorities which make
against them. Because the words of Ps. xl. 7» Thou
hast bored my ears, are cited by St. Paul in this
manner, A body hast thou prepared me, Heb. x. 5.
who follows herein the LXX text, who thus para-
phrases the Psalmist's words ; from thence Enjedinus
takes occasion to accuse the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews for not having cited the original, and
to traduce him as an apocryphal writer.

against the Unitarians.

335

They go further than the Jews do on Psalm xlv. 6. chap,
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever : a text J
cited by St. Paul, and applied to Jesus Christ, Heb.
i. 7) 8. The LXX translate it as we do : but the
Jews have tried all ways to deliver themselves of
this authority, which proves so evidently that the
Messias is God. As for Socinus, he pretends to reject
the solutions of the Jews. But his disciples have
invented another, which is worse than that of the
Jews, as may be seen in Enjedinus and Ostorodius.

Psalm ex. throughout relates to the Messias ; and
Jesus Christ applies it to himself, Matt. xxii. 43, 44.
and from thence proves that he is David's Lord, al-
though he is the son of David. But Enjedinus re-
futes this argument of Jesus Christ: and Schlich-
tingius looks upon it as being absurd. This is a thing
that deserves to be well considered, because these
gentlemen pretend that it is among them only that
true Christianity is preserved.

The like way they take to answer what the Apo-
stle saith of Christ's creating the heavens and the
earth, Heb. i. 10, 11. and his proof of it from Psalm
cii. 27, 28.

And with the same impudence do they elude the
citation from Psalm cxviii. 22. which is quoted
Matth. xxi. 42. though R. D. Kimchi, among other
Jews, refers it to the Messias.

It is strange to see how they take the Jews' part
in explaining as they do, Isa. vii. 14. a virgin, that
is, say they, a prophetess, Crell. on Matt. i. The
only reason of this explication is the word Immanu-
el, which there follows, to their great perplexity.
They therefore say, that Immanuel is spoken of the
Father in Isaiah's prophecy, and of Jesus Christ in
St. Matthew's Gospel in a mystical sense.

Isaiah, ch. xxxv. 5. has distinctly noted the miracles
which the Messias was to work, and has given us a
clear character of his Person. R. Solomon Jarchi
endeavours to shift off the proof of this text, and to

336 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, explain it of the deliverance of the people out of
xxvii. Babylon Socinus, who could not but know how
the Evangelists have referred it to the miracles of
Jesus Christ, does nevertheless establish, as well as
he can, the explication of the modern Jews. And
this he does for no other reason, but because the
appearance of God himself is spoken of in the fourth
verse of this chapter.

How audaciously does Crellius destroy the proof
of the place where the Christ was to be born,
Matth. ii. 5. taken out of Micah v. 2 ! The Jews,
saith he, cited it only according to the mystical
sense. But we know the Jews took it to be the
literal sense, as appears by their Targum.

The eighth chapter of Proverbs was understood by
Philo of the Aoyo$. And indeed such attributes are
given to the Wisdom in that chapter, as belong only
to a person ; such as being conceived, born, creating,
governing, exercising of mercy, and the like. But
Socinus is not content it should go so : he will
have all this attributed to the Wisdom of God by a
prosopopoeia, just as our later Jews do interpret it of
the Law.

Jer. xxiii. 5,6. relates to the Messias in the judg-
ment of all the ancient J ews. Our Socinians will not
allow of this ; but, rather than to own that the Mes-
sias is named God, they refer the title of, The Lord
our Righteousness, to the people there spoken of.

We have a remarkable prophecy for the proof of
the divinity of the Messias in Zech. xii. 10. They
shall look on him whom they have pierced. The
Jews anciently did, and still do, understand it of the
Messias : and Jesus Christ does apply it to himself,
Rev. i. 7- What saith Socinus to this? He declares
that this text, which is so like Ps. xxii. has been cor-
rupted by the Jews ; and thus he tries to render its
authority useless.

Here you have a sample of their conduct, in re-
jecting the literal, and setting up a mystical sense:

against the Unitarians. 33/

but there are other quotations cited in the New chap.
Testament, from which it is manifest that our Lord XXVIL
Jesus Christ is the God spoken of in the Old Testa-
ment, the authority of which texts cannot so easily
be eluded. And therefore to take away the evidence
of these, they have invented the way of accommo-
dation.

David, speaking of the God of Israel, has these
words, Ps. lxviii. 19. Thou art ascended on high, &c.
Hence we conclude that Jesus Christ is the God of
Israel, because St. Paul saith that these words had
their accomplishment in our Lord's ascension into
heaven, Ephes. iv. 8. The Jews say, that those
words in the Psalm were spoken of Moses. The
Socinians cannot deny but that they were spoken of
God ; but they deny that they were spoken of the
Messias literally. But, say they, these words were
applied to Jesus Christ by St. Paul only by way
of accommodation. Strange ! Is it not plain, that
David saith no more in this lxviiith Psalm of the
Messias, than he saith in Psalm ex. which the Jews
do refer to the Messias without such an accommo-
dation? Is not the calling of the Gentiles here
clearly foretold, ver. 33, 34. which is owned on all
hands to be the work of the Messias ? Is it not then
visible that St. Paul, in citing these words, has fol-
lowed the sense of the ancient synagogue, who un-
derstood Psalm ex. of the Messias, according to the
literal sense ?

Socinus owns that the words, Ps. xcvii. 7- which
are applied to Jesus Christ, Heb. i. 6. do respect
the supreme God. He cannot therefore deny Jesus
Christ to be the supreme God to whom they are
applied. But he does it, as he pleases, by this way
of accommodation, which he saith the sacred author
used in applying this text to Jesus Christ. And so
the adoration commanded to be given him termi-
nates not in him, but is to be referred to the supreme
God who commanded this adoration.

338 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap. Isaiah, ch. viii. 13, 14. has these words, Sanctify
XXVIL the Lord of hosts. The Jews interpret them of the
Messias, Gemar. Massech. Sanhedr. in ch. iv. and
they are cited by St. Paul, Rom. ix. 32. St. Luke ii.
34. St. Peter, 1 Pet. ii. 7- who apply them to Jesus
Christ. The Socinians, whose cause will not bear
this, viz. that Jesus Christ should be called the
Lord of hosts, do therefore deny that the Messias is
here treated of, or that any one else is here meant,
but God only; adding, that the holy writers of the
New Testament, in applying them to Jesus Christ,
turned these texts to quite another sense than was
intended by the Holy Ghost at the inditing of
them.

The prophet Isaiah again has these words, chap,
xxxv. 4, 5, 6. Behold, your God will come — and save
you, &c. Sal. Jarchi and D. Kimchi expound them
of the deliverance from Babylon ; contrary to the
ancient Jews' opinion, who, as these Rabbins con-
fess, understood them of the Messias. The Socinians
will not deny that Jesus Christ assumed them to
himself ; but to shew how little ground he had for
so doing, they insist on it, that he only accommo-
dated the words to himself.

The same Isaiah writes thus, chap. xli. 4. / am the
first and the last; and Jesus Christ has the same
expressions of himself, Rev. i. 17. The Chaldee pa-
raphrast was so persuaded that these words belonged
properly to the true God, as to paraphrase them in
this manner, / am the Lord Jehovah, who created
the world in the beginning ; and the ages to come are
all mine. Joseph Albo makes this text a proof of
the eternity of God, and notes that it is parallel to
Isa. xliv. 6. But if you will have Socinus's opinion
of the place, when it is applied to our Lord Jesus
Christ, it does not at all speak of his eternity.

Once more, we read, Isa. xlv. 23. / have sworn by
myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in right-
eousness,— That unto me every knee shall bow, every

against the Unitarians,

339

tongue shall swear. St. Paul refers these words to chap.
Jesus Christ, Rom. xiv. 11. nay, he proves our fu- XXVIL
ture standing before Christ's judgment-seat by this
quotation. Notwithstanding the Socinians believe
them only a simple accommodation, and not the
prime scope of the text.

I know the Apostles have sometimes cited texts
from the Old Testament, which have not their exact
accomplishment in that sense wherein they are used.
As for example, 2 Cor, viii. 15. St. Paul exhorting the
Corinthians to supply the wants of their brethren
with their abundance, addeth, As it is written, He
that had gathered much had nothing over, and he
that had gathered little had no lack. Thus alluding
to the history of the manna, Exod. xvi. 18. it is plain
that he accommodates that story to the beneficence
of the Christians, without any thing, either from
letter or allegory, to justify this accommodation.

They who think that John, ch. xix. 3^. does al-
lude to Exod. xii. 46. Neither shall ye break a bone
thereof, go upon this ground, that Christ was typi-
fied by the paschal lamb, and therefore what was
spoken of the paschal lamb is truly applicable to
Christ. But some others believe that St. John cited
this passage from Ps. xxxiv. 21. and applies what
David saith of all the just in general to the Messias,
who is often called the Just One, as being emi-
nently so.

I know that some think that a prophecy which
has been already accomplished literally, was accom-
modated by the holy penmen to a like event. And
thus they think St. Matthew, ch. ii. 17- applies the
voice that was heard at Ramah, and Rachel's weep-
ing for her children, to those expressions of sorrow
used by the women of Bethlehem, when Herod slew
their children : though this prophecy was before ac-
complished in the captivity of Judah and Benjamin
under Nebuchadnezzar.

But besides what I have said upon such places,
Z 2

340 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, the examples of this nature are but few; and those
XXVJL may be easily discerned by a careful reader from
such citations as are not accommodations, but
proofs ; and for the texts which are commonly and
generally quoted by the holy writers, they expose
the books of the New Testament to the scorn and
contempt of Jews, who suppose that the Apo-
stles went about to make converts from the syn-
agogue by such passages of the Old Testament as
had nothing of strength or reason to convince any
man; for such are the places quoted by way of ac-
commodation : and let any man but consult the
writings of the Jews against Christianity, and he
will find that the main argument they make use of
against the proofs brought by the Apostles, is, that
the passages they cite were never designed by the
Holy Ghost to that purpose, literally taken, but
were only made use of by them by way ef accom-
modation.

But the most wonderful thing of all in the Uni-
tarians' management of this controversy, especially
in our English Unitarians, is this, that they do not
only side with the Jews, and dress up their sense of
those texts of the Old Testament which are cited in
the New as proofs of our Lord's divinity, or which
are objected in confirmation of the Holy Trinity; and
that they have not been content to bring in the no-
tion of accommodation to elude the force of those
quotations on which the Apostles grounded several
doctrines ; but for the most part they give broad in-
timations, as if the New Testament writings were on
purpose falsified by the Christians, and many things
there inserted which were never thought of by the
authors of those writings.

If they could have made good this accusation, it
would have saved them a great deal of pains which
it has cost them to find out answers to the several
objections proposed to them. It is the most easy,
natural, and shortest way to join with the Deists in

against the Unitarians,

341

destroying the authority of the Gospel, and to en- chap.

deavour to shew that nothing certain can be drawn 1

from thence, seeing that since the Apostles' times
the Christian faith hath been corrupted, and new
doctrines have been foisted into their books, which
from the beginning were not there.

As for my part, I see no other way but this left
them for the defence of their bad cause. But by ill
luck, Socinus has stopped their retreat even to this
last refuge, by the treatise he writ concerning the
authority of the holy Scriptures. When they have
solidly refuted this book of their great leader, it will
be then time to take their charge against the sacred
books into more particular consideration.

Let them do this when they will. We promise
them, when they have done it, to reproach them no
more with Socinus's authority in defence of the in-
tegrity of the Scripture. But for the present we re-
fer them to the book of a famous Mahometan called
Hazzadaula, who has handled this matter with
length and force enough to confound both the Uni-
tarians and the Deists. I mean his third book of
the comparison of the three Laws, the Jewish, the
Christian, and the Mahometan ; of which there is an
extract in Jos. de Voisin de Lege Divina, in a letter
from Gabriel Syonita.

It has been thought by some, that Mahomet and
his followers did accuse the Jews and Christians of
having corrupted the writings of the Old and New
Testament. But we see this accusation is proved to
be false by such as have managed the controversy
against Mahometanism. And the more knowing
Mahometans do insult the Christian missionaries
for charging it on them, whereas Mahomet accused
the Christians only for wresting several passages in
Scripture, and putting a false and forced sense on
them.

But with what face the Mahometans can object
this, I know not, when they themselves do so grossly

z 3

3452 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, pervert the passages in Deut. xxxiii. 33. Hab. Hi. 3.

XXVI1- Deut. xviii. and xxxiv. in favour of Mahomet and
his Law; and in favour of Mahomet only, many
texts in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zephany, and other Pro-
phets, as you may see them alleged by Hazzadaula
in his fourth book ; but especially when they urge
all those places in St. John's Gospel, where the
Paraclete is spoken of, as so many promises of
Mahomet's coming.

I must confess some warm indiscreet Mahomet-
ans in their disputes with the Christians have given
them occasion to believe that the Mahometans ge-
nerally accused the Christians with falsifying their
Scriptures. Just as the petty controvertists of the
Church of Rome have impudently averred the
Scripture to be corrupt in many places, the better
to establish their Church's authority. And thus we
find Ahmed the Mahometan charging both Jews and
Christians with altering of their Bibles. Hotting*
Hist, p, 364.

But as there are in the Church of Rome men
wiser and calmer, that see the consequences of so
rash an accusation, and have therefore proved un-
answerably the integrity of the sacred text ; so are
there among the Mahometans more wary and cau-
tious disputants, who despise and disallow those
false charges brought by some of their party against
both the Jews and the Christians. Such a one was
Hazzadaula in the book before cited, who solidly
proves that by the care the Masorite Jews took to
ascertain the text of the Old Testament, it was
impossible they should be willing to corrupt it;
and that if they had been willing, yet they were di-
vided into so many sects that bore an unreconcilea-
ble hatred one to another, as rendered it impossible
for them to do it.

He then shews that the difference which is be-
tween the several versions, as between the Septua-
gint and the Syriac for example, was of no prejudice

against the Unitarians.

343

to the purity of the text itself; but that this arose chap.

from the several views the interpreters then had, 1

and from the different notions and senses they af-
fixed to the original words. He then passes to the
examination of the various readings which our Uni-
tarians triumph in; and shews that neither their
number nor variety ought to lessen the authority of
the originals. He gives reasons for his preferring
the Jewish Bible to that of the Samaritans. He
proves the corruption of the books of the Old Testa-
ment could not be made before Jesus Christ's time,
since he never reproached the Jews for it, which he
would certainly have done, had they been guilty of
it; nor could the corruption come in after Christ's
time, because the Jews and the Christians, who are
such mortal enemies, have had these books in their
several keeping, and do daily read them, though
they interpret them very differently.

In a word, we cannot easily meet with a more
perfect treatise on this subject, nor one more proper
to refute the bold insinuations of some, who, under
the name of Christians, and men skilled in critical
knowledge, have undertaken to shake the found-
ations of the Christian religion ; and for this pur-
pose would discredit the authority of the holy
Scripture, under the pretence of making it rest on
the authority of tradition.

The reader will, I hope, reflect on what I have
said concerning the conduct of the Socinians in
their disputes with us relating to the Divinity of
Christ.

To which I may add, that some of them, less
modest, though more sincere than Socinus, being
convinced that no answer could be given to the
quotations from the Old Testament that were used
to prove our Lord's divinity, thought fit to reject
the Epistle to the Hebrews, which contains those
quotations, as an apocryphal piece. This Enjedinus
has done, and thought it a quick way to rid himself

z 4

344 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, all at once of many difficulties, from which he could
Lnot otherwise extricate himself. For had he be-
lieved Socinus's answers satisfactory, he had never
betaken himself to this last and desperate shift.

Others, of whom Mr. N. is one, do suppose, that
whatever makes for the advantage of the Trinitari-
ans' cause is all forged. And so they abandon the
fanciful explications Socinus has given of the first
chapter of St. John's Gospel, as having no need of
them, so long as they can make one believe that
the Trinitarians have foisted into the New Testa-
ment whatever they pleased. This is still a shorter
answer than the former. The first rendered one
particular book only useless to the Trinitarians ; but
this makes all those books of the New Testament
useless, from whence any objection may be drawn
against the Unitarians.

What end the Socinians have in these dangerous
attempts, whether to facilitate the conversion of the
Jews, as they pretend, or to do service to the Athe-
ists and Deists, as it seems to be their real design, is
worthy every Christian's serious inquiry. If they in-
tend the conversion of the Jews, we may well ask
of them what way they will take to effect it?
Smalcius, one of their chief writers, has affirmed,
that the books of the Old Testament are of little
use to convert the Jews, De Div. Chr. c. x. already
quoted. His reason is, because if we interpret any
text in the Old Testament of Jesus Christ, we must
interpret it mystically, that is, according to quite
another sense than that which the words do natu-
rally import. And now admitting this to be true,
what use can a Socinian make of the Old Testament
against the Jews ?

Sommerus, and Francis David, (whose opinions
as to the denial of the worship of Jesus Christ are
embraced by Mr. N.) being forced to own that the
author of the Book of Proverbs did ascribe a Son to
God, ch. xxx. 4. and yet being not willing to ac-

against the Unitarians,

345

knowledge it for a truth, took the readiest way to chap.

mf -wr -*r xt | w

defeat the authority of this book, and placed it 1

among the apocryphal writings. It may be ad-
mired how such Socinians are like to be converters,
who call the Jewish Canon of the Scriptures into
question, and consequently leave no books from
whence, as from a common principle, they may on
each side deduce their reasonings.

As for the books of the New Testament, what
use can they make of them r Yes, very great, saith
the Socinian. If the books of the New Testament
were reformed, and those patches entirely taken
from them, which were never written by the Apo-
stles, though added under their names, such as the
Epistle to the Hebrews, which was brought in after
the year 140 of Christ, and stuffed with doctrines of
a Trinity, and Christ's Divinity, contrary to the faith
of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and the primitive
Christians ; then we might hope to have success in
the conversion of the Jews.

But in truth they are not likely to succeed with
their reformed Socinian Gospel, so well as they would
have us to believe : for it is reasonable to think that
every Jew of common sense would retort the book
on themselves, and tell them frankly, This is not the
Christians' Gospel from whence you offer to con-
vince me; this is a book of no authority, but an im-
posture, of which you are the father. We Jews who
are spread throughout all parts of the world, and
are intermingled among Christians of all persuasions,
never yet met with these books, such as you now
produce them, to shew that Jesus is the Messias.

You tell us, they were corrupted by the Christians
of the second age : produce copies more ancient, as
vouchers of this truth. The books which you con-
tend were falsified, are of no authority. What other
books have you besides these falsified authors, to
prove there ever was such a man as Jesus Christ,

346 The Judgment of the Jewish Church

chap, who did and suffered what you tell us of? Since you
XXVI1, accuse these books of additions and defalcations,
and all sorts of corruption, you have no solid proof
for the matters in them, which you say are true.
They who thus falsified the Scriptures, by adding
and substracting at their pleasure, or rather you
yourselves, by advancing this position, have spoiled
all the use that might be made of these books in points
controverted between us.

Thus much it is natural for a Jew of but an or-
dinary capacity to say, and to quote his Tanchuma,
and all the Rabbins who have disputed ever since
there were Christians, against the Gospel, on the
score of their attributing Divinity to Jesus Christ.

This Tanchuma is a famous book among the Jews,
and has a passage in it in the Parascha va-elle Mas-
sahe, which the Italian inquisitors blot out of all
those books which the Jews caused to be printed
by Bomberg at Venice. But this passage is still
preserved, and is to this effect, that Jesus Christ,
whom they call wicked Balaam, taught that he was
God, and, on the contrary, R. Tanchuma argues that
he was a mere man.

But should we call into the dispute a learned
Jew, that understands the original, and the meaning
of his prayers, he would laugh in the face of a So-
cinian that would go about to persuade him, that
Jesus is not represented in the Gospels as God, or
that the Christians were not of this belief till after
the 140th year after Christ.

And good reason for it is, that the learned among
the Jews know, that that prayer which in Christian
countries is called the prayer against the Sadducees,
and in other countries the prayer against the Min-
nim, the heretics and apostates, was truly and ori-
ginally written against the Christians, for being
teachers of a Trinity, and of Christ's Divinity, and
so, as the Jews judged, destroyers of the Unity of

against the Unitarians.

347

the Godhead. And this is R. Solomon's sense of chap.
that prayer in his notes on the Talmud. The Jews XXVIL
otherwise know that this prayer was composed un-
der R. Gamaliel, who died A. D. 52. i. e. eighteen
years before the destruction of the temple. That
this is no fable of the Talmud, which in more than
one place does relate it, they may evidently proveTaim.tr.
it from Justin Martyr's Dialogue, written A. D. 139. ^JJ^J"
who mentions this prayer, or rather this curse, isr. sect. *
against the Christians, as being already spread andG9,
received throughout all the synagogues of the world.

Our learned Jew deriding these Socinians, would
represent that he knew not how they could refuse
Jesus Christ that worship which the Christians ever
since the first preaching of the Gospel throughout
the world have paid him, on supposition of his be-
ing the true God. He reads how his ancestors saw
him adored by the Christians in the first century,
and he proves it to the Socinians from the Talmud, Sanhedr.
wherein are divers relations of R. Eliezer the great Gem™
friend of R. Akiba, who lived in the end of the first
century, and the beginning of the second, concern-
ing the Gospels, and the public worship paid to Jesus
Christ by the Christians.

In a word, any Jew who has sense enough to
reflect on it, may see that the Gospel proposes Jesus
Christ as the object of Christian worship. And not
to mention now their other prejudices ; the single
prejudice which will be taken against such a Soci-
nian Novel-gospel, will tend more to make them dis-
esteem the Gospel, and reject it altogether, than it
will dispose them to attend to the arguments of a
Socinian drawn thence in the behalf of Christianity.
These things I leave to the consideration of our
Socinians. For other Christians, they see whither
the method used by the Socinians in explaining the
Scriptures does lead, and cannot but behold with
sorrow the wounds they give to the Christian reli-

348 The Judgment of the Jewish Church 8$c.

xxvii S*on> un(^er pretence of making it more apt to gain

L the Jews ; but in truth they make it so ridiculous to

men of any ordinary capacity, that we cannot won-
der at their not having, after all their boasts, con-
verted so much as one Jew to the Christian faith.

A Dissertation concerning the Angel who is called
the Redeemer, Gen. xlviii.

SIR,

You do very truly observe, that the subject of
our last but short conversation is a matter of the
greatest moment, and deserving the utmost care in
the discussion of it. When mention was there made
of the Angel, whose blessing Jacob prayed might
descend on the sons of Joseph, I then asserted he
was no other than the Aoyoe, or Word. You were
not then very forward to embrace this notion, being
carried away with the authority of some great
names, and especially of Grotius, who understands
this Angel in Jacob's prayer to be only a created
angel.

But having not the time to hear the grounds of
my assertion, you were desirous I should put them
with what perspicuity I could into writing, in hopes
that the same arguments, if they should prove cogent
to bring you over to my opinion, might be of use
to others who were in the same sentiments with
yourself. So good an end being proposed, I set
myself without delay to your commands ; and hav-
ing digested my thoughts in this paper, I now send
them to you, entreating you to judge of them, as
you are wont of the labours of your friend, with all
impartiality and humanity, still remembering that
I made it my only care to express my thoughts
clearly, and to find out the truth, and to deliver it
naturally, according to the best of my understand-
ing. And so I come to the question in hand.

SECT. I.

Moses having related how Joseph took his two
sons along with him to Jacob his father that lay
sick, in order to obtain his blessing on them before

350 A Dissertation concerning the Angel

sect, he died, goes on to give us the form in which he
L blessed them, Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. C)DV Jltf "pnvl

oTt^Kn piw\ omnN ^ ydn "D^nm -raw arfcan
jn ted via town -[^Dn : nrn «i nrjy n^D \hn ronn
-w Dmn» yon on w ora Nip^i an^n ji» yd*

These words are thus rendered by the Greek
Interpreters, commonly called the Septuagint : Kai
evkoyyjcrev avrovg Kai eiirev, 'O Seog, a evypeo-TYjo-av 01 irarepeg
fxov ht&mov avTov, 'AfipaafA Ka\ 'laaaK, 0 Seog 0 Tpe<pcov €K
veoTY]Tog ecog ryg ypepag ravTyg, 0 AyyeXog 6 pvo^evog fxe €K
7ravT(cv ra>v KaK&v, evXoy/jo-ai ra 7rai$ia TavTa, Kai h:iKXr\Bri-
cerai ev avroig to ovopa \lov, Kai to ovofna tcov 7raT€pcov [jlov,
'AjSpaafL Kai 'l&aaK, &C.

And in the vulgar Latin version; Benedixitque
Jacob jiliis Josephi, et ait : Deus in cujus conspectu
ambulaverunt patres mei, Abraham et Isaac, Deus
qui pascit me ab adolescentia mea usque in pr&sen-
tem diem, Angelas qui emit me de cunctis malis,
benedicat pueris istis, et invocetur super eos no-
men meum, nomina quoque patrum meorum Abra-
ham et Isaac, &c.

You see there is little or no difference between
these versions and the Hebrew, with which also
agrees the Spanish version of Athias and Usquez,
which was printed in the last age at Ferrara, and
which is of great authority with the Jews, and serves
instead of the Hebrew text to them that are igno-
rant of it. It renders indeed, The God which fed
me, by El dio governan a mi, and the word 7^
that hath redeemed me, by El redimien a mi, or, my
Redeemer ; but the sense is not altered thereby.

Drusius notes in his fragments of the ancient in-
terpreters of the Old Testament, that the partici-
ple btiM here attributed to the Angel, is rendered,
ay%io-Tevg by the Greek translators in Ruth iv. 8.
which imports the next of kin, to whom the right
of inheritance belongs, and with it the relict of his
deceased relation. From this translation of the
word, St. Hierom, and after him many other di-

who is called the Redeemer. 351

vines, talcing this Angel to be the Messias, have col- se^ct.

lected a relation peculiar of this Angel to the family ' .

of Jacob, of which the Messias was to be born.
Christ, saith he, shall come and redeem us withHier. on
his blood; who, as the Hebrew has it, is of kin toIsa'hx*
Sion, and is descended from the stock of Israel ; for
so the word or ayxiarevg signifies.

But there is another sense of the words, bitt and
bttM according to which the Greek Interpreters do
more commonly render them, I mean that of kvrpovv •
and XvTpwTYjs, which confirms the use of the like
word in the Spanish version. If you would see the
places, you may consult Kirch ers Concordance.

The whole difficulty therefore of the place may
be reduced to three heads, which I shall propose by
way of question :

I. Whether the nv6tt spoken of, ver. 15. is the
very mrP whom the Jews acknowledge for their
God?

II. Whether the mentioned in ver. l6. is the
same with that CD^n^K ver. 15. or differs from him as
a creature doth from its Creator ?

III. Whether the prayer contained in Jacob's
blessing be made to God alone, or to the redeeming
Angel together with him ?

SECT. II.

In answer to the first question we need not be
much to seek : for Onkelos in his Chaldee para-
phrase expounds the word D\""6tf by mrP* The like
Jonathan has done in his version. Nor do I know
any Christian that ever blamed them for it. How
should they ? since it is evident to them that consi-
der this text carefully, as the Christians generally do
the holy Scriptures, that these Targumists have
herein faithfully expressed the mind of Jacob.

Jacob had been newly remembering that appear-
ance in which God had blessed him at Luz, in
these words, God Almighty appeared to me tf£xiviiL3,4.

352 A Dissertation concerning the Angel

sect. Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me, and
' said, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multi-
ply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of
people; and will give this land to thy seed after
thee for an everlasting possession. Now what can
be more absurd than to imagine, that Jacob, when
he blesses Joseph's sons, and prays for the increase
of his posterity by them, would direct his prayers
to any other than to him whose kindnesses he had
* so abundantly experimented, and whose promises
for the multiplication of his seed were even now
fresh in his memory ?

This I thought fit to observe against those of the
Jews that doubt of it, following as they think the
author of the book Rabboth, who notes that a lesser
title is given to the Angel, than to him that is called
Kehunn0t Elohim; as if he had a mind thereby to tell us that
f. 23. col. 4; fey the angel here mentioned, Jacob meant a mere

cohs'.108' anSel> and not God-

If the author of the Rabboth had understood

this of a created angel, he had certainly been in a
very great mistake. For, besides the absurdity of
this opinion, it is a blasphemy to suppose that Abra-
ham and Isaac are commended for walking before
the angel, as Jacob asserts they did before God.
God, saith he, ver. 15. before whom my fathers
Abraham and Isaac did walk. For the word to
walk in this place comprehends all the acts of their
religion throughout their whole lives, and so Moses
uses the word to describe the entire obedience of
Enoch, Gen. v. 22. This a modern Jew, R. Salo-
mon Aben Melek, acknowledges in his Michlol Jo-
phi on this place, where he says the word to walk
denotes the worship of the heart which a creature
owes to God.

But that the author of the Rabboth understood
it of an uncreated Angel, who is often called in the
Old Testament, Elohim, and Jehovah, and Jehovah
Elohim, I little doubt, because he quotes the same

who is called the Redeemer.

353

authority in this place, which we meet with in the sect.
Bab. Talm. Pesachim, cap. x. fol. 118. col. 1. and Hi
which makes this Angel to be God.

But if he was of another mind, we might have
other Jews, and of no less authority, to oppose to him,
that understand it as we do, particularly, we have
the prayers of the Jewish Church, many of which
alluding to this and the like places in Genesis do
refer to God only, exclusively from a created angel,
the title of Redeemer, who delivers from all evil.
See Talm. Hier. tt\ Berac. cap. 4. fol. 8. col. 1. and
their Liturgies.

I know Cyril of Alexandria would have Jacob Lib. vi. in
to understand God the Father by av6tf ver. 15. andGen p-210
the eternal Son of God by the redeeming Angel ;
which explication he would confirm by Ephes. i. 2.
Grace be to you, and peace from God our Father,
and the Lord Jesus Christ, because grace is nothing
but the blessing of God communicated to the Church
by the Father and the Son. But St. Chrysostom'sChrysost.

• i u ui i L Horn. 66.

opinion is much more probable to me, who asserts -m cen.
Elohim to be the eternal Son of God, that is de-P-7-
scribed in both the fourteenth and fifteenth verses
by different titles.

And herein he followed all the ancient Christians,
who used to ascribe to the Son all the appearances
of God, or of the Angel of Jehovah that are men-
tioned by Moses ; and who teach in particular, that
the blessing of the Aoyog was prayed for by Jacob
in this place.

I scruple not to assert that the ancient Christians
ascribed all the appearances of God in Moses' writ-
ings to the eternal Aoyos, having the following au-
thorities for my assertion. Just. Mart. cont. Tryph.
Clem. Alex. Peed. i. 7. Tertul. cont. Jud. cap. 9.
Orig. in Isa. 6. Cyprian, cont. Jud. ii. 5. Constit.
Apost. v. 21. Euseb. H. E. i. 3. Cyr. Hieros. Cat. xii.
the Concil. Sirm. c. 13. Gregor. Baet. tr. de Fide.
Theodor. q. 5. in Exod. Leo. i. Ep. 13. ad Pulch.
and many others.

a a

354 A Dissertation concerning the Angel

In like manner they refer to the Word those ap-
pearances of God, which he vouchsafed to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob himself, as you may see in Just.
Mart. Apol. for those to Abraham and Isaac ; and
for those to Jacob, in Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7- Novat. h
de Trin. cap. 26, 27. Proc. Gaz. in h. 1.

The ancient Christians did in this no more than
the ancienter Jews did before them, who by Elohim
in this place did not understand a created angel,
but the Aoyo$, whom the Targumists and the strict-
est followers of their fathers' traditions are wont to
express by the and the

Philo makes all the appearances which we meet
with in the books of Moses to belong to the Word,
and the latter Cabalists since Christ's time not only
do the same, but deny that the Father ever appear-
ed, saying, it was the Aoyog only that manifested
himself to their fathers, whose proper name is
Elohim. For this consult R. Menachem de Reka-
nati, from Beres. Rabba. on the Parasch. Bresch.
f. 14. c. 3. Ed. Ven. and on Par. ~]b "fo f. 30. c. 1.

I have often wondered how it came to pass, that
most of the Divines of the Church of Rome, who
would seem to have the greatest veneration for an-
tiquity, would so much despise it in this question
wherein the ancient Jewish and Christian Church
do agree. Sanctius in his notes on the Actsf chap.
7. says, it is a difficult question among Divines,
whether God's appearances in Scripture were per-
formed immediately by God himself, or by his
angels. And then having cited several ancient Fa-
thers, who thought it was the Aoyog that appeared, he
adds, Sed Theologis jam ilia, sententia placet, qua
statuit angelorum ministerio antiquis hominibus
oblatam esse divinam speciem, qua est sententia
Dionys. de c&lest. Hier. c. 4, &c. To the same
purpose Lorinus, another Jesuit, speaks in Acts vii.
31.

But this is not the worst of it that they forsake
the judgment of the ancients ; they do herein make

who is called the Redeemer. 355

bold to contradict the plain words of Christ him- sect.
self, John i. 18. Christ saith thus, No man hath u'
seen God at any time, the only-begotten who is in
the bosom of the Father he hath declared him. And
parallel to this text is John vi. 46. Certainly he
must be very blind who does not see that Christ in
these words not only denies that the Father had
shewed himself in those appearances that were
made to the ancient patriarchs, but that he also
ascribes them to himself, and not to the angels.

Away then with such Divines, who, setting aside
the authority of Christ, do choose to theologize in
the principal heads of religion according to the
sense and prejudices of the modern Jews. We do
not desire to be wiser in these matters than the pri-
mitive Christians were, among whom it passed for
an established truth, that the Elohim in Jacob's
prayer was the very Jehovah of the Jews, termed
by them sometime Shekinah, and sometime Memra.

SECT. III.

AS to the second question it would be no question
at all, but for the obstinacy of some latter Jews. He
that reads the Hebrew text without prejudice, can-
not but see that the Elohim in ver. 15. is called
\HN hWft "JN^Dn in the following verse, whence it
follows that this redeeming Angel is Jehovah.

But because this opinion is contradicted by some
of the chief modern Jews, as Abarbanel and Alshek
on this place, and by most of the Popish Divines,
as well as by some few of the Reformed, that have
not sifted this matter accurately, we will offer some
proofs for the conviction of them that are not ob-
stinately bent against the truth.

And, 1. If Jacob had had two Persons then in
his mind so different as God and a created angel
are, he would have coupled them together by the
particle which is not only conjunctive, but very
proper to distinguish the Persons of whom we
speak ; and he would have said, God before whom

a a 2

356 A Dissertation concerning the Angel

sect, my Fathers walked, God who fed me from my
ynnth; and the Angel that delivered me, bless the
lads. But Jacob is so far from doing thus, that on
the contrary he puts a pf demonstrative as well be-
fore the Angel as before God, without any copula-
tive between, which sufficiently demonstrates, he
means the same Person by God and the Angel.
Munsterus was well aware of this, and therefore
being willing to distinguish the redeeming Angel
from God, he translates it with an addition, the
Angel also.

2. It cannot be easily supposed, that Jacob would
in a prayer use the singular verb ■pD'* in common to
persons so very different in their natures as the
Creator and a creature are. He certainly ought to
have said, God and the angel, may they bless
the lads, if he had spoken of two. But his speak-
ing in the singular, may he bless, is an argument of
his having in his eye one Person alone, whose bless-
ing he prayed for on his seed. Otherwise it would
have been a prayer of a strange composition ; for
according to Athanasius, we do no where find that
one prays to God and the angel, or any other cre-
ated being, at the same time for any thing. Nor
is there any like instance of such a form as this,
God and an angel give thee this.

3. But setting aside those rules with which the
contrary opinion can never be reconciled, consider
the thing itself in Jacob's prayer, and you will find
it absurd to distinguish between the offices of God
and those of a created angel toward Jacob. The
office ascribed to God, is feeding him from his youth;
the office ascribed to the angel, is delivering him
from all evil ; which must be very distinct offices, if
the Persons be distinguished. And so R. Jochanan
accounts them, Gem. Pesasch. fol. 118. Though he
believes the Angel to be the same with JElohim, yet
he contends that feeding, the greater work, is at-
tributed to God ; and delivering, the lesser work, to
an angel. The same thing is said by the author of

who is called the Redeemer. 35/

Jalkut on this place; and R. Samule on the book
Rabboth above mentioned. But in the phrase of
these Jewish masters this distinction is very in-
sipid ; it is harshly formed, without considering that
Jacob in this blessing reflected on the words of the
vow which he made at Luz, afterwards called Beth-
el, because of God's appearing to him there. Now,
these were the words of Jacob's vow, If God will
be with me, and keep me in the way in which I shall
walk: if he will give meat to eat, and clothing
to put on, and bring me home in safety to the house
of my father, then shall the Lord be my God, Gen.
xxvii. 20, 21. Here you see it is from God that
Jacob expects to be kept in his way, i. e. to be re-
deemed from all evils that might happen, and that
he esteems this to be no less a benefit than suste-
nance or clothing, which he mentions in the second
place. Here is no angel spoken of here ; and since
the redeeming Angel is to be expounded from this
place, he cannot be a created angel, for here is no
other spoken of, but the Lord.

4. By fancying him a created angel who deli-
vered Jacob from all evil, they make Jacob to be
a mere idolater, as ascribing to a creature that
which belongs only to the Lord of the creation.
The Scripture appropriates to God the title of Re-
deemer, kolt efo%^v ; nor do godly men ever say of a
creature, that it delivers them from all evil, David,
I am sure, never does, but when he speaks of the
tribulations of the righteous; he adds, but the Lord
delivers him out of all, Psalm xxxiv. 20. And Jacob
on another occasion directs his prayer to the Lord
that appeared to him at Luz, saying, Save me from
the hand of my brother Esau, for I fear him much,
Gen. xxxii. 9, 10, 1 1.

5. God, as I said, has so appropriated the name
of Redeemer to himself, that Jacob could not with-
out sacrilege communicate this title to any creature,
though never so excellent. We cannot be ignorant,

358 A Dissertation concerning the Angel

sect, that David makes this the proper name of God,
' Psalm xix. 14. as does Isaiah, chap, xliii. 14. xlvii. 4.
And this Jonathan confesses on Isa. lxiii. l6. in these
words, Thou art our redeemer, thy name is from
everlasting, i. e. this is the name that was designed
for God from the beginning; which yet cannot hold
true, if in this place, Gen. xlviii. l6. it be ascribed
by Jacob to a created angel.

6. It appears plainly from Gen. xlix. that Jacob
neither desired nor expected any blessing from a
created angel, but only from God. Thus he prays,
&c. The God of thy father shall he thy helper, and
the Almighty shall bless thee with the blessings of
heaven above, &c. Not a word of a mere angel that
redeemed him from all evil ; so far was the Patriarch
in his former blessing from begging of an angel
the multiplication of his seed, which was the only
thing which he could now expect of God, as the
Jews own. Bechai Prof, in Pent. fol. 1. c. 1.

7« The same conclusion may be drawn from the
very order of Jacob's prayer. Had Jacob intended
a created angel by him whom he names in the last
place as a redeemer from evil, and whose interces-
sion with God he bespeaks in behalf of his chil-
dren, would he not have prayed to the angel in the
first place? It was most rational so to do. He that
wants the interest of a great man to introduce him
to the king, does not in the first place direct his
petition to the king immediately, but first to the
great man, and afterwards by him to the king. Let
the Papists therefore look to the absurdity of their
proceeding, while they pray first to God, and then
to saints and angels. Let those Jews who are of
the mind of Isaac Abarbanel and Franco Serrano,
in his Spanish notes on this place, and stickle for
angel-worship, see how they can clear themselves
of this difficulty, as well as reconcile themselves
with those ancienter Jews, who abhorred this sort
of idolatry. Maim. Per, Misna ad tit. Sank. c. xi.

who is called the Redeemer. 35$

SECT. IV.

HOW firm these reasons are, to shew the angel
here spoken of to be an uncreated, and not a cre-
ated angel, is, I hope, evident to every one. Some-
thing however of great importance may be still
added to illustrate this weighty argument, and that
is the judgment of the ancient synagogue. The
most ancient Jewish writers, and they that received
the traditionary doctrine from them, though mortal
enemies of the Christian religion, yet agree with
the Christians in the sense of this text. For, God
be thanked, such truths were not renounced all at
once by these enemies of our faith, but they began
to conceal or discard them by degrees, as they found
them turning against them in their disputes with
the Christians.

To begin with the writings of the Jews before
Christ, we find it is God the Word, ver. 12. who is
described as he that delivers from all evil, in the
Book of Wisd. xvi. 8. no doubt with respect to this
place, where he takes the angel that delivered Jacob
from all evil, to be God.

The same doctrine is to be met with in Philo the
Jew, that lived before Christ, and in Christ's time.
He expressly affirms of the Angel that delivered Aiiegor.H.
Jacob from all evil, that he was the Aoyo?. And so p*
does Onkelos in his Chaldee paraphrase, translating
the words of Jacob naturally, as they lie in the text,
without any addition.

Jonathan indeed seems to be of another mind in
his paraphrase, that runs thus, God before whom
my fathers Abraham and Isaac worshipped, the
Lord that fed me from the time I began to be till
this day, may be pleased that the Angel may bless
the lads, whom thou hast ordained to deliver me
from all evil. Here he distinguishes the Angel
from God ; but that he did not mean a creature by
this Angel, is clear, for that in other places he trans-
lates this Angel by the Word, or TH HIDE and espe-

a a 4

36o A Dissertation concerning the Angel

sect, cially in that remarkable place where the same Angel
IV' is treated of, Isa. lxiii. 8, Q, 10. he saith it was the
tFord that redeemed Israel out of all their afflictions.

Let us pass on to the Jews after Christ's time,
and shew that they did not immediately renounce
the doctrine of their forefathers.

The author of the book Zohar in Par. TT1 fol. 123.
hath these words, which he repeats often afterwards,

rvny nj-qw via bm itften nrr an Come, see

the Angel, that redeemed ?ne, is the SheMnah that
went along with him.

This is sufficiently intimated by the ancient au-
thor Tan chum a, in his book Jelammedenu, who
notes on Exod. xxxiii. that the Jews would not have
a created angel to go before them, but God him-
self, in these words, Moses answered, I will not
have an angel, but thy own self. Now the Jewish
commentators on this place of Exod. xxxiii. explain
of the Shekinah, the words, thy own self, and always
distinguish the SheMnah from all created beings.

R. Salomon in his notes on this text has these
words, The Angel that delivered me, i. e. The Angel
who was wont to be sent to me in my affliction ;
Gen. xxxi. as it is said, And the Angel of God spake to me in
n* l3t a dream, saying, Jacob, lam the God of Bethel, &c.

The note of R. Moses Ben Nachman on this text,
Gen.xlviii. l6\ is very remarkable. The redeeming
Angel, saith he, is he that answered him in the
time of his affliction, and who said to him, I am the
God of Bethel, &c. he, of whom it is said, that my
name is in him. The like he has on Exod.iii. where
the appearance in the bush is mentioned : This is he
of whom it is said, and God called Moses out of the
bush. He is called an Angel, because he governs
the world ; for it is written in one place, And Je-
hovah, that is, the Lord God, brought us out of
Egypt; and in another place, He sent his Angel
and brought as out of Egypt. And again, The
Angel of his presence saved them, viz. that Angel
who is the face of God, of whom it is said^ My face

who is called the Redeemer. 36 1

shall go before you. Lastly, that Angel of whom sect.
the prophet Malachi mentions, And the Lord whom lv'
you seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the
Angel of the covenant, whom you desire. At length
he adds, The face of God is God himself, as all in-
terpreters do acknowledge ; but none can rightly
understand this, without being instructed in the
mysteries of the Law.

R. Menachem of Rekan. on Gen. xlviii. \6. the
same who afterwards commented on the whole Pen-
tateuch, was no stranger to this notion. He means
the Shekinah, saith he, when he speaks of the re-
deeming Angel, f. 52. See also f. 55.

The like has R. Bechai, the famous Jewish writer,
whose comments are constantly in the hands of the
Jewish Doctors. He proves that this blessing is not
different from that which is afterwards repeated,
Gen. xlix. where no angel is mentioned. Whence
it follows, that the three terms in Gen. xlviii. God,
God that fed me, the Angel that redeemed me, are
synonymous to the mighty One of Jacob, chap. xlix.
which title the Jews in their prayers do frequently
ascribe to God, Bech. f. 71. c. 4. ed. Rivcz di Trento.
He also there teaches, that this Angel was the She-
kinah. As does R. Joseph Gekatilia in his book
called Saare Ora, according to Menasseh Ben Israel,
q. 64. in Gen. p. 118. Aben Sueb on this place,
a man of name among his party, writes much to the
same purpose on this place.

These are followed by two eminent authors of
the Cabalists. The one in his notes on Zohar, f.
122. toward the end, saith, The Angel that delivered
me from all evil is the Shekinah, of whom Exod.
xiv. 19. And the Angel of the Lord, who went be-
fore the camp of Israel, removed and went behind
them; and may God bless us in the age to come.
The other is he who contracted the Zohar on Gene-
sis, and is called R. David the less. He in that book,
ed. Thessalonic. f. 174. professes to follow the opin-
ion of R. Gekatalia in his Saare Ora.

362 A Dissertation concerning the Angel

Nor does Menasseh Ben Israel himself much dis-
sent from these in the above-mentioned place. For
though he attempts to reconcile Gen. xxviii. l6.
with the first commandment, Exod. xx. Thou shalt
have no other gods before me, by saying it was the
opinion of several of their Masters that there was
no contradiction between them ; yet at length he
produces the opinion of the Cabalists, for the satis-
faction of his readers, who possibly would not ac-
quiesce in his former reason drawn from modern
authorities only.

I mention not R. Levi ben Gersom's opinion,
who denies the Angel here spoken of to be a crea-
ture, but calls him the Intellectus Agens, because
he seems to have borrowed this notion from the
Arabian philosophers ; nor is it commonly received
by those of his religion. Many others might be
added to these Jewish testimonies ; but what I have
already produced is, I think, very sufficient.

SECT. V.

HAVING thus shewed the opinions of the ancient
Jews concerning Jacob's Angel, and that to this day
the tradition is not quite worn out that exalts him
above a created angel ; I now proceed to the third
question, the clearing of which will fully justify that
opinion of the ancient Jews concerning this text.

And that is, Whether this form of blessing be an
express prayer or no? The soundest and most part
as well of Jews as Christians do agree, that we can-
not worship angels without idolatry. This Maimoni-
des affirms, as I quoted him above; and the Pro-
testants, as all men know, do abhor this idolatry in
the Roman Church.

I do therefore positively assert, that these words
contain a prayer to the Angel, as well as to God, for
a blessing on his children. This the Jews cannot
gainsay, since Jonathan their paraphrast, and other
writers after him, do commonly term this blessing
T&^n or a prayer. And for this reason R. Menasseh

who is called the Redeemer. 36'3

thought it necessary to endeavour to reconcile this sect.
prayer of Jacoh with the first commandment; v'
which forbids angel-worship according to the Jews'
interpretation. R. Menach. deReh. inPent. f. 97. c. 4.

It is true Jacob's form of blessing does seem to pro-
ceed from him either as a wish or a prophecy: a
wish, as if he had said, Would to the Lord, God and
his Angel would bless the lads. A prophecy, as if
he had foretold that God and his Angel would in
after-times fulfil what he now wished. But it might
be both a wish and a prophecy, and notwithstand-
ing be a direct prayer to God and the redeeming
Angel. It is well known how the Jews commonly
delivered their petitions to God in this form. And
yet I cannot forbear giving one instance to confirm
it. You may read it in Numb. vi. 22, &c. And the
Lord said to Moses, saying, Speak to Aaron and his
sons, Thus shall you bless the children of Israel, and
say, The Lord bless thee, and keep thee: The Lord -pi*
make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto
thee: The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee,
and give thee peace. And they shall invoke my
name for the children of Israel, (so our translation
is to be mended,) and I will bless them. So that in
plain terms the form of blessing here prescribed by
God is called invocation.

I cannot therefore see what should hinder, but
that we, after Jacob's example, may offer up our
prayers to a created angel, supposing, as some do,
that Jacob prayed for a blessing to such a kind
of an angel. It is a necessary consequence thatDeSanct.
Bellarmine and others of his communion draw from Bei^- u-

c. 29.

this instance: holy Jacob invoked an angel, there- com. a.
fore it is not unlawful for the Protestants to do the^ °"v..
like; therefore one may worship others besides God;
these things, saith he, cannot be denied, unless you
reckon prayer to be no act of worship, and not to
be peculiar to God alone.

But let them who believe Jacob's Angel to have

364 A Dissertation concerning the Angel

been a mere creature, as they do in that Church, rid
themselves of these difficulties as well as they can.
Let them try how they can convince a Socinian
from Ephes. i. 2. and other places of Scripture,
where worship is ascribed to Christ. The Socinian
has his answer ready; he may wish and pray to
Christ for grace, though he be not God, since he
does no more than Jacob did, when he prayed for
a blessing on his children to a mere angel.

I am more concerned for these Divines of the Re-
formed Church, who have given the same interpret-
ation of Jacob's Angel with the generality of Papists,
though they cannot be ignorant they therein dissent
from the divinity of the ancient Jews, and the Fa-
thers of the Christian Church, and even the more
learned and candid Romanists, such as Masius was ;
I might add, (which perhaps they have not consi-
dered,) though they therein contradict the whole
strain of the New Testament. See Mercerus ad Pag-
nini Lexicon, p. 1254.

The intended shortness of this treatise will not
permit me to enlarge on this head. However one
thing I must not pass over, which ought to be taken
into consideration by the less cautious divines. It is
very certain, that the God that appeared to Jacob in
Bethel was the very God that fed Israel in the de-
sert, and against whom the Israelites in the wilder-
ness did rebel. Now the Apostle is express, 1 Cor.
x. that he was Christ, whom the Jews tempted in
the wilderness, i. e. that he was the Aoyos, and not a
mere angel. The Apostle takes it for granted ; and
it was a thing undisputed by the synagogue in his
time. And indeed, unless this be allowed, St. Paul's
reasoning in this chapter is trifling and groundless.

Well, what can Bellarmine say to this? he
who asserts a created angel to be spoken of, Gen.
xlviii. l6. He has forgot what he said on that text
when he is come to this place. He here strenuously
urges it against the Socinians, to prove that Christ

who is called the Redeemer. 365

was then in being when the Jews tempted him in sect.
the wilderness. And since hereby he owns that
Christ in his Divine nature was he that led Israel
through the wilderness, who is sometimes called
God, and sometimes an Angel, he inconsiderately
grants what he had denied before, that the Angel
who redeemed Jacob from all evil, being the same
Angel that conducted Israel, was also God.

SECT. VI.

YOU see what contradictions Bellarmine falls
into, out of his zeal to promote the doctrine of invo-
cation of saints. I wish there were not something
as bad in our Divines, that carries them in the like
contradictions. The best I can say for their excuse
is only this, They have not carefully attended to the
style of the holy Scriptures. Two or three things
therefore I will mention, which occur frequently in
the Scripture, that methinks would have suggested
higher thoughts of this Angel to one that considered
what he read.

He that considers how often our Lord Christ
is called in the New Testament the spouse, or hus-
band of the Church, and compares it with the same
title that God appropriates to himself under the Old
Testament estate, will make little doubt that it was
the same Christ who was then married to Israel.
By the same rule one may infer, that our Lord
Christ, in calling himself a shepherd, had a respect
to that title, by which he is so often described in his
dealings with Jacob and his posterity. This the an-
cienter Jews were sensible of ; and therefore both
here, Gen. xlviii. 15. and chap. xlix. 24. where God
is mentioned as a shepherd, they understand it of
the Shekinah or Aoyog. R. Menachem de Rekanah,
from the book Habbahir in Pent. f. 84. c. 2. Of
this also the Jews in Christ's time were not ignorant,
who hearing Christ in one of his sermons likening

366

A Dissertation concerning the Angel

sect, himself to the good shepherd, John x. did presently
1L apprehend that he would be thought to be the
Messias, and therefore they took up stones to stone
him. And then in the process of his discourse to ,
maintain this character, he made himself one with
the Father.

As Christ called himself a Shepherd, to shew
that he was the God that had fed Jacob and his
posterity like sheep ; so also is Christ most fre-
quently represented in the New Testament under
the notion of a Redeemer; intimating thereby that
he was the same redeeming Angel of whom Jacob

isa.ixiii.o.had spoken. It was he that was called the Angel
of his presence, by whom God redeemed his ancient

Mai.iii.i. people : and he is also called the Angel of the cove-
nant, in the promise of his coming in the time of
the Gospel.

Here I should have put an end to this tract, but
for two objections that lie in my way, and seem to
require some kind of an answer.

The first is taken from the doctrine of the Jews,
who, many of them, expound this redeeming Angel by
Metatron ; and Metatron, according to them, being
a created angel, or, as some say, no other than Enoch
that was translated, there seems to be as many au-
thorities against us as for us.

But let it be observed, 1. Though the Jews have
several names of angels which are not mentioned in
Scripture, yet they are all formed out of the names
of God, according to the rules of their Cabala, and
that with respect to the ten Sephiroth, as Buxtorf
has noted, Lex. Talm. p. 828.

2. This is plain from the word Actariel, which is
at the head of the Jewish forms of excommunication,
v. Barto- This is derived from ir\D the name of the first of the
et°45o! 4 ten Sephiroth, whence the Talmudists place Actariel
upon the throne, Beracotb, f. 7- c- 1- aDQ* distin-
guish him from the ministering angels that stand

who is called the Redeemer.

367

before the throne. But I refer the curious reader sect.
that would know more of this to the ancient Jewish VL
book entitled, Berith Menucha, c. 1.

3. This is no less plain of the Angel Metatron,
who, as they say, was he that discoursed with Moses,
Exod. iii. and the Angel in whom God placed his
name. So that they acknowledge, that though it is
framed from the Latin tongue, yet it expresses the
same that the Hebrew word Httf does, as R. S. Jarchi
on Exod. xxiii. confesses. Now St. Hierome on
Ezek. i. 24. notes, that the Greek Interpreters some-
times render God's name Httf by Koyog, which leads
us into the meaning of those ancient Jews that ac-
counted Httf and Metatron to be the same.

4. The generality of the Jews are so far from be-
lieving Metatron to be Enoch, that they believe
him to be the Messias, the Aoyog before his incarna-
tion, in our phrase, but in theirs, the soul of the
Messias, which they look on as something between
God and the angels, whom nothing separates from
the living God. See Reuchlin, 1. i. de Cabala, p. 651.
where he proves Metatron to be the Messias from
their writings : or, in short, take the confession of
Menasseh ben Israel, q. 6. in Gen. 2.

And truly if one would compare all those places
of the Old Testament that mention the Angel, whom
the later Jews call Metatron, he would find such
properties belonging to this Angel, as are incommu-
nicable to a creature. And this shews that they
who have departed in this point from the tradi-
tion of their fathers, did it on this ground, because
they were loath to acknowledge the Divinity of the
Messias, which seemed to be clear upon allowing
Metatron to be the Messias. They were more care-
ful to defend their own prejudices, than the opin-
ions of the ancients.

II. Another objection is made from the place in
Rev. i. 4. The words are these; John to the seven
churches that are in Asia, grace he to yon, and

368 A Dissertation conceiving the Angel

sect, peace from him that was, and is, and is to come,
VI' and from the seven spirits that are before his
thro?ie ; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful
witness, 8$e. For John here seems to wish and
pray for grace, not only from the Father, but also
from the seven angels that are before the throne of
God, and so Jesus Christ to be reckoned among the
ministering spirits.

This place is indeed abused by those of the Romish
Church, to shew that prayers may be lawfully di-
rected to angels. And the Jews themselves have
contributed to lead some persons of note into this
mistake. For, besides the four chief angels, whom
they make to preside over the four armies of angels,
which they have chiefly grounded on Ezek. i. they
speak of seven other angels, that were created be-
ll. Eiie/er, fore the rest, and that wait on God before the vail,
in capit. tjlat divides them from the Shekinah.

The hearing of these things so often repeated by
the Jews, has given occasion, I say, to some consi-
derable Divines, to believe those seven to be proper
angels, whom St. John mentions in his Revelation.
But then not apprehending how prayers could be
offered to them, nor why the precedency is given
them before Christ, they would not have John here
to have spoken a prayer, but only to have wished
grace on the seven churches ; and this they thought
a sense consistent enough with the angel-worship
forbidden by St. Paul, Col. ii. 18. and even in this
very book, Rev. xix. 10. and xxii. 9.

But to shorten this matter, I altogether deny that
St. John intended here any created angels. What
then did he mean by them ? Nothing else but the
Holy Spirit, for whose most perfect power and
grace on the seven churches he here makes sup-
plication. For as Cyril on Zech. iii. Q. To eirra rov
rekeioog eyovrog aei 7rwg eari aYifxavTiKOv. The number
seven is always a mark of perfection in the thing
to which it is applied. St. John therefore thought

who is called the Redeemer. 369

of no allusion to the Jewish opinion of seven sect.

angels, when he prayed for grace from the seven v '

spirits before the throne ; but had in his mind to
express the far more plentiful effusion and more
powerful efficacy of the Holy Spirit under the Gos-
pel than under the Law, and his never-ceasing min-
istration for the good of the Church, for which
purposes he hath received a vicarious authority un-
der God, immediately after Christ, as Tertullian
speaks, de Prsesc. Haeret. c. 13. and for this interpre-
tation I have Justin Martyr, Parsen. ad Graec. and
St. Austin on my side.

St. John's way of expressing himself is borrowed
from Zech. iii. 9. where God is represented as having
seven eyes running through the earth, to signify by
this figure God's perfect knowledge of all things, as
Cyril Alexandrinus notes. Hence we read of Christ,
Rev. iii. 1 . These things saith he that hath the se-
ven spirits of God. And in another place seven
eyes and seven horns are ascribed to him. But
we never read (which is worth our observation) of
these seven spirits, as we do of the four beasts and
twenty-four elders, that they fell down and wor-
shipped God.

But why does St. John put the Holy Spirit before
Christ ? If I should say St. Paul has done the like
in Gal. i. 1. and Eph. v. 5. to teach us the unity and
equality of each Person in the blessed Trinity, or
because St. John in the following verses was to
speak more at large of Christ, I think I should not
answer improperly. But I shall add another reason,
which may explain the whole matter.

In a word, I do believe this difficulty must be
resolved another way; for that which makes this
place so intricate according to the judgment of
many interpreters, is their referring to the Father
the words of the fourth verse, Grace he unto you,
and peace from him, which is, and which was, and

B b

370 A Dissertation concerning the Angel

sect, which is to come ; which ought to be referred par-
__J_ticularly to Christ himself, who is described, chap,
iv. 8. according to the description of the Aoyog in
Jonathans Targum on Deut. xxxii. 39. But then
some will say, Why is there any mention made of
the seven spirits, if we conceive that the grace
which is asked for the Church, in the first words,
is asked from Jesus Christ? The thing is so clear,
that Socinus has perceived it.

Now seven spirits are here mentioned, to denote
the Spirit of God, which was to reside with his se-
venfold gifts in the Messias, according to the pro-
phecy of Isaiah, chap. xi. 2, 3. and from thence it
comes, that in Rev. v. 6. the Lamb is described hav-
ing seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven
spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth. To
Christ there are attributed seven horns, which de-
note his empire, in opposition to the empire of
the little horn, which is spoken of, Dan. vii. 8.
So there are seven eyes, which are the seven spi-
rits of God, attributed to him ; likewise, to denote
the gracious providence of Jesus Christ by the
Holy Ghost, and that in opposition to the little
horn, in which there were eyes, like the eyes of
man, Dan. vii. 8.

Here then the grace asked is from the seven spi-
rits, that is, from the Holy Ghost, who is united in
one with the Messias Jesus Christ, and is sent by
him ; and so it is said to be asked from Jesus Christ
himself, who both has those spirits as his eyes, and
does cause the mission of them to his Church.

St. John therefore doth not place the Holy Spirit
before Christ, but mentions him with Christ, be-
cause he after Christ's ascension, and during the
time of Christ's continuance on God's right hand,
has a more particular hand in the immediate go-
vernment of the Church, and is especially watchful
to do her good. And for this reason I think it is,

who is called the Redeemer. 37 1

the Holy Spirit is placed as it were without the veil, S^T*

like a ministering angel. Many of the ancients ! —

knew this, as Victorinus Petavionensis, Ambrose,
Beda, Arethas, Autpertus, Walafridus Strabo, Hay-
mo, Rupertus, from whom Tho. Aquinas, and Caelius
of Pannonia, who rebukes those that understand it
otherwise, and other elder Divines of the Roman
Church learnt it, to say nothing of those of the
Reformed Church : but it is time to give over.

* a

TABLE OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE,

OCCASIONALLY EXPLAINED IN THIS TREATISE.

GENESIS.

Chap.

Ver.

Pag.

94, 96, 99, 114

114

26. 81, 95, 257, 259,

321, 333

iii.

297

is-

322

22.

33, 95, 257

iv.

vi.

114

xi.

95, 115, 259

XV.

*,5,9-

297

xviii.

i, 2, 3.

119

18.

xix.

322

xxi.

24.

260

XXVlll. 20, 21.

357

XXX.

24.

XXXV.

95, 96, 259

xlviii.

fS-

229

16.

87, 229

xlix.

15, 16.

349

10.

35, 235, 322

18.

223

EXODUS.

iii.

277

14.

244

EXODUS.

Chap. Ver. Pag.

iii. 15, 16. 43

iv. 13. 210
xii. 3. 85

40. 17

xix. 17. 264

xxiii. 23. 279

xxiv. 1. 260
xxxiii. 14. 279

LEVITICUS,

xxvi. 11, 12. 220

NUMBERS,
vi. 22, 24, 25, 26. 112,363

xi. 25,26. 114

xxi. 8. 48

xxiv. 17. 236

DEUTERONOMY,

iv. 7. 96

vi. 4. 142
xviii. 15, 16. 46, 255

18. 46, 323

19- 323

xxx. 11, 12, 13, 14. 50

xxxii. 2. 281

9- 85

43- 45

JOSHUA,

xxiv. 19. 96

B b 3

A Table of Texts of Scripture,

Chap,
xiii.

JUDGES.
Ver.
1 8.

xin.

i SAMUEL.

5-
10.

2 SAMUEL.

14.
16.

23-

1 CHRONICLES.
6.

NEHEMIAH.

PSALMS.

Pag.
88

3i
50

49
28
260
114
5°> "4

160

83, 257, 235, 323

6. 215

7. 113, 206

8. 215, 240
12. 232

10. 45

4- 5i
1. 315

29, 31, 73, 248
16. 324
1. 221, 244

6. 90, 114, 125, 131,
276
31

3- 35
31

219, 240, 248
225

225, 228, 238
228
228, 233
xlvii. 256

5- 324

11.

Till.

xvi.
xix.
xxi.
xxii.

xxiii.
xxxiii.

xliii.
xliv. lxix. lxxx.
xlv. 30,31

9, 10.

PSALMS.

Chap.

Ver.

Pag.

lxviii.

3°> 324

10.

324

19.

337

lxxii.

26, 256, 324

17-

216

10, 11.

236

lxxx.

I& i7-

217

lxxxii.

227

lxxxix.

i5-

25, 26.

217

28.

206

xcv.

11.

*9> 37

xcvii.

237

xcix.

C1I.

15, 16, 17, 22. 30

25-

cvii.

20.

294

ex.

30, 44, 83, 226

242, 324

PROVERBS.

iii.

*39> 325

viii.

325

i5> 16.

123

.22.

89* 113

23, 24.

XXX.

113, 214, 344

ECCLESIASTES.

xii.

96, 130

ISAIAH.

iv.

319

I, 2, 3,

4, 5, 6. 209

vi.

112

333

vii.

14.

viii.

13, 14-

236» 338

ix.

6. 35

, 88, 220, 325

220

xi.

2, 3.

n5> 238,

3*5» 37°

A Table of Texts of Scripture,

ISAIAH.

Chap.

Ver.

Pag.

xi.

12.

JI5» 325

XXV.

326

xxviii.

226

xxxiii.

22.

112

xxxv.

4> 5, 6,

242, 338

xl.

237

116

14.

141

xli.

338

xlii.

236

xliii.

10.

238

xlv.

23-

338

xlviii.

16.

326

xlix.

23-

233

lii.

liii.

26, 29, 38, 263

liv.

13-

211

lx.

236, 253

19, 20.

253

lxi.

38, 115

lxii.

134

Ixiii.

229

JEREMIAH.

ii.

20.

264

xxiii.

327

xxxi.

i5-

263

xxxii.

33-

243

40.

249

xxxm. 15, 1 6.

327

EZEKIEL.

227

xxii.

219

DANIEL.

iii. 25. 88

vii. 13. 222,227,248,256

9. 260

14. 227, 248

Chap,
ix.

xii.

ix.

vii.

11.
iii.

DANIEL.
Ver. Pag.
8,9,13,14,18. 123,
124

2. 242

HOSEA.

19, 20.
I.

228, 240

AMOS.
II, 15, 16, 17. 30

MICAH.

14.
19.
18.

HABAKKUK.
3-

i3-
18.

HAGGA1.

221, 327
224

211
224
253

225

29
288
225, 288
236, 288

4>5-
9-

ZECHARIAH.

287
321

11.

10,

II. 29

iii.

456

vi.

12.

30, 207, 220,

253> 328

ix.

29, 328

xii.

10.

29, 228

xiv.

269

MALACHI.

II.

iii.

86, 205, 229, 238,

243> 279

iv.

52, 206, 225, 253

B b 4

A Table of Texts of Scripture.

i ESDRAS.

MATTHEW.

Chap.

Ver.

Pag.

Chap.

Ver.

Pag.

ii.

5» 7-

ii.

18.

263

iv.

58.

263

viii.

17-

2 ESDRAS.

ix.

28, 47, 57.

I5-

264

xi.

TOBIT.

xxi.

16.

$l, 232

viii.

13.

264

42.

265

JUDITH.

xxii.

ix.

32-

xvi.

14.

xxiii.

37-

265

xxvi.

53-

247, 265

WISDOM.

63.

222, 247

4, 5> 6> 7-

64.

222, 247

iii.

xxvii.

39, 40,41, 42,

43. 248

vii.

22, 23, 24, 25.

46.

248

ix.

xxviii.

249

T ft to

i7-

82, 91

IQ.

237

xvi.

12.

20.

266

xviii.

MARK"

15, 16, 17.

84, 85

xiv.

39-

240

ECCLESIASTICUS.

LUKE.

xvii.

*7-

276

xxiv.

17.

18.

69.

5°

xlvi.

5, 6.

79.

236, 237

xlviii.

3, 4, 5-

ii.

236

li.

10.

II.

249

49.

239

1 MACCABEES.

iv.

18.

68, 115

xiv.

41.

323

20, 21, 24.

240

23.

266

2 MACCABEES.

vii.

16.

323

ii.

xi.

20.

266

xi.

xvii.

20.

xii.

22, 23.

xxii.

/<->.

222

xxiii.

sc. 36, 37, 38

248

MATTHEW.

xxiv.

27, 44.

Pr. p. iv.

20.

237

46—49.

249

23-

5i, 52.

250

ii.

222

15-

JOHN.

i7-

339

208, 253, 255

A Table of Texts of Scripture.

JOHN.

Ver.
14.

15.
18.
29.
30.

34» 5i-
4-

16, 19, 21.

13-
14.

17.

29.

3i> 35-
21.

21, 230
27, 28, V

33. 39- J

Pag.

267
240
267
267
240

238

239
239
239
48

239
240

240

267
276
241

241, 242,
268

16, 17, 18.
19, 21, 23
26

29. 33

39. Pref. p. v.

46. Pref. p. iv.

46. 267

51. 242

H. 323

38- J3

42. 222

28, 38. 244

57, 58,59./ 244

35. 38- 244
xi, 18. 244
24, 25, 37- 245, 366

4, 25, 27. 245, 246

6. 268

16, 17, 26. 246

12, 13, 14, 15. 246

16. 269

26. 269

27, 28, 29, 30. 246
1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 246

21. 269
37- 248

36. 339

22, 28. 249, 250
31. 250

ACTS.

Unap.

Ver.

Pag.

276

ii.

3°. 31-

iii.

22. 27, 46, 255

25-

vii.

3°« ,

277

37.

43. Pref.

p. iv.

Xlll.

34-

XX.

28.

270

XXVI.

2 2 . Pref.

r> iv
p. IV.

ROMANS.

14.

5°

l8.

XV.

II.

i CORINTHIANS.

I. 2, 3.

270

252

I I.

XV.

270

27-

47-

2 CORINTHIANS.

viii.

15.

339

GALATIANS.

iii.

16. 35, 46

19. 280, 282

iv.

22.

24.

29.

EPHESIANS.

2 I.

14- T3

, 270

1 TIMOTHY.

291

vi.

20, 21.

291

A Table of Texts of Scripture.

HEBREWS.

2 PETER.

Chap.

Ver.

Pag.

Chap.

Ver.

Pag.

3°

21.

280

ii.

16.

186

2. 252,

277, 280

iii.

277

t JOHN

6- 45>

237> 334

ii.

35i

172

280

6, 7, 8.

iv.

4> 9-
12.

86, 276

REVELATIONS.

vi.

37, 270

271

308

367

vii.

37, 270

ii.

iii.

369

"VII
All*

271

XIX.

188

25, 26.

252, 281

271

29.

270

xxii.

2. 34.
14.

271
34

1 PETER,

188

iii.

21.

THE

TABLE OF MATTERS.

ALLEGORICAL expositions in use before Christ's time

p. 19, 36, 46.

Angel of the face, or presence of God, called the Re-
deemer, vide Dissert. - 349.

Apocryphal books among the Jews, cited and followed in
the New Testament - 12, 13, 14, 15.

Apocryphal books in our Bibles, their antiquity 54, 55.
Their freedom from corruption - - 58.

Appearances ------ 161, &c.

Caballistical Divinity received by the Jews 144, 145, 306.
Embased about Christ's time - - - 291.

Chaldee Paraphrases, their original - 21, 22, 67, 68.
And antiquity - - - - 78.

Progress - - - - 22, 69, &c.

Antiquity of those we have - - 68, 69, 70, 71.
Their interpretations - 7 6, 77? &c.

Christ. See Messias.

Divine Essence, its kind of unity - 98, 215.

Plurality of Persons in it - 93, 94, 95, 96.

Distinguished by the name Sephiroth - 131.

Prosopa - 129, 132, 135, 138.

Panim or faces, and Havioth or substance - 138.

And Madregoth, or degrees - - - 131.

Wisdom coming from the Infinite - - 136.

And Understanding from the Infinite by Wisdom 136.

Yet they are all one - - - - 137, 140.

Elias a kind of second Moses - 196.
God, his name Eloah in the singular, used in Scripture 94.

His name Elohim in the plural joined with a singular 94.

He speaks in the plural, and why - 94, 95, 96.

God understood by the Jews where only King is ex-
pressed ------ 96.

Why called God of Gods - - 98.

The Table of Matters.

His name Elohim signifies plurally - - 101, 129.
Greek learning discouraged among the Jews - 24.
Jews' early provision against the Christian objections

259, 260.

Law, by whom given - - - 280,281.

Messias to be like Moses - - 18.

Spoken of by all the Prophets - - 25, 214.

By Isaiah, chap. liii. - 26.

In Canticles - - - - 20,26, 215.

Rules for interpreting prophecies concerning him 27, 28.
Messias expected, according to the Jews, ever since

Adam's time - - - - 33, 34.

To be united with the second number or Wisdom at
his coming - 138,

The same with the Word - 204, &c.

With the Shekinah - 267, 268, &c.

To be a Prophet ' 211.

Messias is the Son of God - 214, &c.

And Bridegroom of the Church - 219, 228, 240.

The true Jehovah - 223, &c.

His great dignity ----- 230.

Messias is God according to the Gospels 241, 242, &c.

He is to be worshipped - 232.

Messias a Shepherd - 244, 253, 254.

Why Christ did not expressly assume the title of God

272.

Christ, or Messias, crucified for affirming himself to be
the Son of God - - - - - 312.
Moses's education in Egyptian learning - 11.
Platonic philosophy out of credit in Philo's time 2S6, 289.

Occasioned the heresies in the Christian Church 290.
Plato's morality and not his divinity followed by the first

Christians 289, 290.

If Plato borrowed the notion of a Trinity from the Jews

291.

Powers of God, what - - 98, 118, 119, 121.

They made ttje world - - - - ib. 105.
Philo's notions of them, but not so clear - 125.

They are said to be the same as Wisdom and Under-
standing by the Cabalists - 130,131.

Simon called himself the Power of God - 108.

Those Powers called Prosopa - 129.
Psalms, their titles by whom affixed - 15.

Rules for interpreting them - 16.
Pythagoras had many notions from the Hebrews 284.

The Table of Matters.

Scripture reading discouraged by the Jews after Christ's
time 262.

Misinterpreted by way of accommodation - 444.

By the modern Jews - 315, and Talm.

By the Socinians - 333, 334, &c.

Shekinah, the same with the Word - - 120, 218.

And sometimes used for the Spirit ib. 135.

The several appearances of it to the patriarchs, and un-
der the legal dispensation - - 133, 134, 230.

Called Father 134.

And Jehovah, to whom prayers of the Jews were di-
rected - 224.

Its coming into the tabernacle - - 181.

And temple - - - - - - 195.

Leaving the temple - 198.

Its return 199.

Its expected appearance in a visible manner in the age of
the Messias 212,221.

Shekinah to be a priest 226.

To be the same with the Messias - 230, 267, &c.

Shekinah called Rachel - - 263.

A stone - 265.

The finger of God - - - - - 266.
Simonians, some of their opinions - - 109, 110.
Spirit made all things - 82, 90, &c.

Is a Person in Gen. i. 2. - - - - 114.

An uncreated Being - - - - 131.

And not air or wind - 125.

Called sometimes the Shekinah - - 120.

But more commonly Bina or Understanding 134.

Called by the Cabalists, Mother - - 134.

And the Mouth of God, and the Spirit of Holiness, and
the Sanctifier - 140.

Seven spirits, the Spirit of God - - 368, 370.
Traditions, how many sorts - 9, 10.

Time of the authors of them - - - 10.

One kind useful to clear the text - - 16, 17-

To understand the prophecies of the Messias 17-

Used by the Apostles in the sense of texts quoted by
them 254, 255.

And Justin Martyr - 256, 257, 258.

Types, their ground 36.

Oft used by the Apostles - 37-

Unity of Divine Essence according to the Jews 97, 216.
Wisdom, made all things - - 82, 83, 130, 139.

The Table of Matters.

Begot by God - - - - 98.

To be united with the Messias . - - 138.

Word, or Aoyoc, whence so called - - 102.

The use of it among the Jews - - 293.

Made all things - - - 82, 83, 102, 104.

Man especially - - - - - 106*.

After his image - 104, 105, 106.

Is an emanation from God - - - 82.

The same with an uncreated Angel 84, 85, 87, 156, 157,

163, 166, 172, 173.

That acted in all the Divine appearances in the Old Tes-
tament ------ 147.

Objections against this answered - 277? 278, 279.

The Son of God ----- 98, 147.

A Person - 156, 298.

A true cause or agent - 101, 102.

A Divine Person - 158, 159, 294, 300.

Used by the Chaldee paraphrasts for Jehovah and Elo-
him 299,301.

In the text - 120.

And by the Targums, a word, a man - - 209.

The same with the Shekinah - 120,218.

And with Wisdom - - 130, 131, 132, 218.

And Messias - - - - 204, &c.

A Mediator ------ 148.

A Teacher - - - - - 148.

A Shepherd - - - - - ibid, and 22 1 .

The Sun of Righteousness - - - 206.

God swears by his Word - 168.

The Word prayed to - - - - 169, 170.

The Word gave the Law - J 76*, &c.

And spoke from off the mercy-seat - 181,197,198.
Zohar, its author probably - - - - 143.

ERRATA.

Page 26. 1. 32. read the lxxiid Psalm.
91. h ult. read 2 Mace. xii. 22, 23.
86. 1. l.read Heb. iv. 12.
270. 1. 7. from the bottom, read Heb. x\\. 29.
357. 1. 13. read Gen. xxviii. 20, 21.

I/O t /

Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process.
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide
Treatment Date: May 2006

PreservationTechnologies

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION

111 Thomson Park Drive
Cranberry Township, PA 16066
(724) 779-2111

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The judgment of the ancient Jewish church against the Unitarians"

See other formats