Creature But his Disciples building upon this firm Maxim of Scripture that God alone is to be adored justly concluded against him that he was not to be adored since strictly speaking he was but a Creature and no God This Division was plainly occasioned by the strength of Scripture-proofs which on the one hand clearly 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 the business of the true Church which ever opposed to the Enemies of the Trinity and of the Godhead of Christ the Authority of the Holy Scripture which teaches that Christ ought to be adored and withal convinces the Arians of Idolatry who adored Christ without owning him to be the true God though they bestowed on him a kind of a Godhead inferior to that of the Father I cannot but admire that they who within these few years have in this Kingdom embraced Socinus his Opinions should consider no better how little success they have had elsewhere against the truth and that upon the score of their Divisions which will unavoidably follow till they can agree in unanimously rejecting the Authority of Scripture Neither doth it avail them any thing to use Quibbles and Evasions and weak Conjectures since they are often unanswerably confuted even by some of their Brethren who are more dextrous than they in expounding of Scriptures But being resolved by all means to defend their Tenents some Chief men amongst them have undertaken to set aside the Authority of Scriptures which is so troublesome to them And the Author of a late Book intitled Considerations maintains that the Gospels have been corrupted by the Orthodox Party and suspects that of St. John to be the work of Cerinthus It is no very easy Task to dispute against men whose Principles are so uncertain and who in a manner have no regard to the Authority of Scripture It was much less difficult to undertake Socinus himself because he owned however the Authority of Scripture and that it had not been corrupted But one knows not how to deal with his Disciples who in their Opinion seem to be so contrary to him and one another They do now affirm the adoration which is paid to Christ is Idolatrous thus renouncing Socinus his Principles who lookt upon it as an essential piece of Christianity So that they can no longer be called Socinians and themselves affect the name of Unitarians And as their chief business seems to be to accuse the sincerity of Scripture-writers so the main work of them who undertake to confute them must be the establishing both the Sincerity and Authority of it which is no very hard task For even Mahometans though they take some of the same Objections that the Socinians are so full of against the Divinity of Christ yet are so far from accusing Christians of having corrupted the Scripture that they furnish us with Weapons against the Unitarians of this Kingdom as the Reader will find at the end of this following Book And although there be but small hopes of bringing to right again Men of so strange Dispositions and Notions yet they ought by no means to be left to themselves They have been often confuted by them that argued from the bare Principles of Christianity that is the Authority of Scriptures of the Old and New Testament which are the very Word of God And it has been plainly 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 I say that their Opinions are not more agreeable than his to right Reason For when all is done to affirm That Christ received from God an Infinite Power to govern the World without being essentially God is to affirm a downright Contradiction viz. that without partaking of the Divine Essence he received one of the Attributes which are Essential to God It is true some Popish Divines allow the Soul of Christ to be all-knowing by reason of its immediate Vnion to the Divine Nature wherein they do much service to the Socinians in holding as they do that a Creature is capable of receiving such Attributes But Protestant Divines reject this Notion as altogether false as false as many of the Schoolmens Speculations even the absurdest of them that are exploded by the Socinians They have been also further refuted as to what they aver that Justin Martyr was the first that taught the Doctrines of the Trinity of Christ's Eternal Godhead and of his Incarnation And at last that Learned Divine Dr. Bull having observed that the Jewish Tradition was favourable to those Doctrines of which the Socinians make Justin to have been the first Broacher Howsoever M. N. treats him for this neither like a Scholar nor a Christian I shall venture his displeasure in making out this Observation without meddling at all with his Arguments drawn from the Fathers to shew clearly that the like Exceptions of M. N. against Philo as being a Platonick and against the Ancient Jews and their Tradition can help him no way in the Cause he has taken in hand The Doctrine of our Church being the same which was taught by Christ and his Apostles it will be an easy matter to prove it by the same places of Scripture by which Christ and his Apostles converted the Jews and the Gentiles over to the Christian Faith and by which the Hereticks were confuted who followed or renewed the Errors which the Jews have fallen into since Christianity begun But I will go farther and prove that the Ancient Jewish Church yield the same Principles which Jesus Christ and his Apostles builded upon and by this Method it will plainly appear That the Socinians or the Unitarians let them call themselves what they please must either absolutely renounce the Authority of Scripture and turn downright Deists or they must own those Doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ as being taught us by God himself in the Holy Scriptures and acknowledged by the Ancient Jewish Church THE TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS THE Preface Chap. I. The Design of this Book and what Matters it Treats of Page 1. Chap. II. That in the times of Jesus Christ Our Blessed Saviour the Jews had among them a common Explication of the Scriptures of the Old Testament grounded on the Tradition of their Fathers which was in many things approved by Christ and his Apostles Page 11. Chap. III. That the Jews had certain Traditional Maxims and Rules for the understanding of the Scripture Page 32. Chap. IV. That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of the Christian Doctrine by his common Traditional Exposition received among the Jews which they could not have done at least not so well had there been only such a Literal Sense of those Texts which they alledged as we can find without the help of such
THE JUDGMENT OF THE Ancient JEWISH Church Against the VNITARIANS IN The Controversy upon the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour With a Table of Matters and a Table of Texts of Scripture Occasionally Explain'd By a Divine of the Church of England LONDON Printed for Ri. Chiswell and are to be sold at the Rose and Crown and at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCXCIX THE PREFACE ALTHOVGH the Jews by mistaking the Prophecies 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 fâ—â— their Messias yet all things considered there is no essential difference between our Religion and theirs We own the very same God whom they formerly Worshipp'd the Maker of the World and their Lawgiver We receive that very Messias whom God promised them by his Prophets so many Ages before his coming We own no other Spirit of God to have Inspired the Apostles besides the Holy Ghost who spoke by the Prophets and by whose manifold Gifts the Messias was to be known as one in whom all Nations should be Blessed This plainly appears in the way and method which both Christ and his Apostles followed in preaching the Gospel They endeavoured to take off the prejudices the then Jews laboured under concerning the Nature of the Messias and the Characters by which he was to be known For they argued all along from the Books of Moses and the Prophets and never proposed any thing to their Disciples but what was declared in those Writings which the Jews acknowledged as the Standard of their Religion which may be seen in Christ's Discourse to the Jews John v. 46. and to his Disciples after his Resurrection Luke xxiv 47 and 44. in the words of St. Peter Acts x. 43. and of St. Paul Acts xxvi 22. The truth is in those Sacred Books although One only God be acknowledged under the Name of Jehovah which denotes his Essence and therefore is incommunicable to any other yet not only that very Name is given to the Messias but also all the Works Attributes and Characters peculiar to Jehovah the God of Israel and the only true God are frequently bestowed on him This the old Jewish Authors as Philo and the Targumists do readily acknowledge For in their Exposition of those places of the Old Testament which relate to the 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 undoubtedly were primarily intended of the God of Israel But because they sometimes only touch at places of the Old Testament without using them as formal Proofs of what they then handled Socinus and his Disciples have fancied that those Citations out of the Old Testament which are made use of by the Apostles though they represent the Messias as being the same with the God of Israel yet for all this are but bare Allusions and Accommodations made indeed by them to Subjects of a like nature but not at all by them intended as Arguments and Demonstrations Nothing can be more injurious to the Writings of the New Testament than such a Supposition And there can hardly be an Opinion more apt to overthrow the Authority of Christ and his Apostles and to expose the Christian Religion to the Scorn both of Jews and Heathens For the bare Accommodation of a place of Scripture cannot suppose that the Holy Ghost had any design in it to intimate any thing sounding that way and consequently the Sense of that Scripture so accommodated is of no Authority Whereas it is a most certain truth that Christ and his Apostles did design by many of those Quotations to prove that which was in dispute between them and the Jews To what purpose should Christ exhort the Jews to search the Scriptures of the Old Testament because they testified of him John v. 39. if those Scriptures could only give a false Notion of him by intimating that the 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that of Proba Falconia who did the same in Verses and Words taken out of Virgil. It follows at least from such a Position That in the Gospel God gave a Revelation so very new that it has no manner of Affinity to the Old although he caused this old Revelation to be carefully written by the Prophets and as carefully preserved by the Jews to be the Standard of their Faith and the Ground of their Hopes till he should fulfil his Promises contained in it and although Christ and his Apostles bid the Jews have recourse to it to know what they were to expect of God's promises The Christian Church ever rejected this pernicious Opinion And although her first Champions against the Ancient Hereticks did acknowledge that the new Revelation brought in by Christ and his Apostles had made the Doctrines much clearer then 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 Testament that they could not be opposed by them who acknowledge those Books to come from God especially since the Jews are therein told that the Messias 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 Hereticks thought they followed the Opinion of the old Jews Therefore they that confuted them undertook to satisfy them that the Christian Church had received nothing from Christ and his Apostles about those two Articles but what God had formerly taught the Jews and what necessarily followed from the Writings of Moses and the Prophets so that those Doctrines could not be rejected without accusing the Divine Spirit the Author of those Books of shortness of Thought in not foreseeing what naturally follows from those Principles so often laid down and repeated by him These old Writers solidly proved to those Hereticks That God did teach the Jews the Vnity of his Essence yet so as to establish at the same time a Distinction in his Nature which according to the Notion which himself gives of it we call Trinity of Persons And that when he promised that the Messias to come was to be Man at the very same time he
the first that held the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity and by consequence that of the Trinity without which the other cannot be defended he found it necessary to assert 1st That since the Jews by Trypho's Testimony did own the Messias to be nothing more than meer Man therefore the Jewish Authors quoted by Dr. Bull against the Socinian Opinions must have lived after the Preaching of the Gospel 2dly That the Books that are quoted against them were written by Christians in Masquerade that lived since Justin Martyr's time And this he applies in particular to the Works of Philo the Jew and to the Book of Wisdom 3dy That since the Jewish Authors could not possibly mention any thing like the Doctrines of the Trinity and of the Messias his being God too to which they were such perfect Strangers whatsoever occurrs in any of the ancient Jewish Books that favours those Doctrines must needs have been foisted in by Christians after Justin Martyr's time Lastly he supposes That if any thing either in the Scripture or Jewish Authors sounds that way it probably came from the Platonics of whom both Jews and Christians borrowed many Notions and mixed them with Christian Doctrines to perswade the Heathens the more easily to embrace the Christian Religion Now though it seems unnecessary to dispute any further against him having already clearly shewn in my Discussion of Mr. N's Judgment of the Fathers that Justin Martyr was not the Broacher of those Doctrines as Mr. N. pretends yet I am willing to give a more full satisfaction to the World about it by examining what either Mr. N. or any others have said or can say on this Subject and shewing that the bold Answers to Dr. Bull 's Proofs concerning the Opinion of the Jews before Christ about those Doctrines are no better than Mr. N's supposition that Justin Martyr was the first that maintained those Doctrines I was particularly induced to undertake this task in hopes that by examining this matter to the bottom I might set these Controversies in their true Light shewing how little credit some Divines do deserve who playing the Criticks have favoured the new Jews and the Socinians with all their Might and abuse those who upon such ungrounded Authority too rashly believe that these Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity came from the School of Plato when on the contrary it is certain that Plato himself by conversing with the Jews in Egypt borrowed of them his best Notions of God To do this in the best method I can I will first of all consider in general what the Jewish Tradition was before Christ Let the Reader give me leave to use that word as the Fathers commonly use it not for a Doctrine unknown in Scripture but for a Doctrine drawn from Scripture and acknowledged for the Common Faith of the Church and I shall shew That both before Christ and in his time the Jews had a current way of expounding the Old Testament which they had received from their Fathers and that Christ and his Apostles used and approved this way of expounding their Scriptures in many particulars 2dly I will examine the Grounds the Jews went upon to come to the understanding of the Old Testament particularly of that part which contains the Promises of the Messias as they had it in Christ's time and still have it to this day 3dly I will shew by some Examples That Christ and his Apostles did prove many Articles of the Christian Doctrine by this Exposition commonly received among the Jews which they would hardly have done had they had nothing else of their side but only the Letter of those places which they quoted This being premised in general as a necessary Foundation I shall particularly examine the Authority of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament and of the Books of Philo the Jew that are extant and of the Targum or the Caldaick Paraphrases on the Books of the Old Testament these being the chief Helps by which we may find out the traditional sense of the Old Testament as it was received in the Synagogue before Christ's time This is absolutely necessary to be done for without proving the Authority of those Apocryphal Books of Philo and of those Paraphrases we cannot with any force and weight use their Testimony in this Controversy as I intend to do This being dispatcht I shall prove clearly That the Jews before Christ's time according to the received Expositions of the Old Testament derived from their Fathers had a Notion of a Plurality of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence And that this Plurality was a Trinity And further That contrary to what Mr. N. has imagined the most learned amongst them have constantly retained those Notions though perhaps they were divided in their Opinions about the Messias his Godhead and the Doctrine of the Trinity as we do apprehend it And because if it be granted that the Word was a Person that goes a great way toward proving the Doctrine of the Trinity And the Socinians affirm that it was not the uncreated Word but a created Angel that appeared to Men under the Old Testament-dispensation and was adored as being God's Representative I shall enquire what was the Opinion of the Old Jews concerning these Matters and shew that they owned the Word to be a Divine Person and that it was that Word that appeared in the Old Testament and consequently that nothing is more false than what some Socinians teach after Grotius upon the Book of Wisdom ch 18.15 grounding it upon his Opinion of an Angel's appearing and being adored That therefore it was lawful for the Jews under the Old Testament to worship Angels but it was first forbidden to Christians under the New as namely by St. Paul Colos 11.18 And that the Socinians may have nothing left them to reply against this I shall descend to particulars and shew at large That according to the Doctrine of the Old Synagogue the Jews apprehended the Word as a true and proper Person and held that that Word was the Son of God That he was the true God That he was to be in the Messias and that the Messias was promised under the Old Testament as Jehovah and accordingly the Old Synagogue expected that he should be Jehovah indeed It is of great moment to satisfy the World of these Truths and to make the Socinians sensible that they can't truly profess the Christian Religion without owning those Doctrines to which yet they seem to be so averse Therefore I will go farther and distinctly shew that the whole Gospel is grounded on those very Notions which the Jews before Christ entertained That the first Christians after the Apostles exactly followed them And that the Jews themselves following generally those very Notions upon the chief Texts of the Old Testament which Christians quote in those Controversies bear witness that they were the undoubted Doctrines both of them and of the Christians before Justin Martyr's time The Men that we
Doctrine it was natural to conclude that the Messias being the same with the Word was to be the High Priest of the New Testament as St. Paul explains it at large in his Epistle to the Hebrews Philo says that the Word is Mediator between God and Man Lib. Quis divin rer haer pag. 398. A. That he makes Attonement with God Lib. de Somniis p. 447. E.F. From this it was easie to see that the Messias was to be indued with a Noble Priesthood especially David having mentioned it Psal cx representing the Messias whom the Chaldaick Paraphrase often calls the Word of God as being a Priest after the order of Melchisedec And this St. Paul affirms likewise in his Epistle to the Hebrews Philo says that God having appeared by the Word to the Patriarchs and to Moses spoke by the same Word to the Israelites and that he was the Prince of Angels Lib. Quis rer divin haer pag. 397. F. G. And the Light and the Doctor of his people Lib. de Somn. pag. 448. calling the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dei de Nom. Mutat pag. 810. E. It was therefore but agreeably to these Notions that the Apostles applied to the Messias those places of the Old Testament where God promised to speak to his new people by the Messias as Deut. xviii 15 16. which St. Peter Act. iii. 22. and St. Stephen Act. vii 37. apply to our Saviour and that St. John calls him the Light of the World Joh. i. It is necessary to take notice of these Principles of the Old Jews First that we may well understand the reason for which Jesus Christ and his Apostles quoted several places as relating to the Messias which are meant of Jehovah in the Old Testament Secondly That we may see for what reason they supposed as a thing owned by the Jews for whom they writ that those places related to the Messias though the Jews applied them to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Thirdly That we may understand how naturally they applied to the Messias those places of the Old Testament which by the confession of the Old Jews related to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And certainly the meanest capacity may apprehend that if under the Old Testament God acted by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though that Dispensation was much below that of the New much more he was to act under the New by that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his own Son as St. Paul concludes Heb. i. What I said of the Apostles and the other Writers of the New Testament that they exactly followed the Doctrines of the Old Jews which followed the Divine Revelation in the Old Testament may justly be said of Justin Martyr and of those who both before and after him writ in defense of our Saviour's Divinity I need not quote many of them to shew that they went upon the same Grounds with the Jews before Christ It will be enough to examine Justin's Writings for he disputed with a Jew who received no other Scripture besides the Old Testament and therefore he could not convince him but by the Authority of those Books And if his method be well examined it will be found that he argues all along as the Apostles did viz. from the sense received by the Jews supposing that such and such places of Scripture from which he draws consequences were applied to the Messias by them Justin having proved that nothing certain can be learned from Philosophy by Plato's example who entertained gross Errors about the Nature of God and of the Soul And declared that he came to the knowledg of the Truth only by the help of Divine Revelation He affirms in general that the Christian Religion which he had imbraced is all grounded upon the Doctrine of Moses and the Prophets He does particularly instance in that of our Saviour's Person and Office though the Jews lookt upon it as impious that Christians as they reckoned trusted in a Man Crucified He lays for foundation that the Scripture speaks of two Comings of Christ the one indeed Glorious mentioned Dan. vii and Psal cx and Psal lxxii But to be preceded by another altogether mean and despicable as David had also foretold Psal cx at the end He maintains that the Messias is clearly described as God Psal xlvii where he is called the Lord our King and the King of all the Earth Psal xxiv where he is called the Lord strong and mighty and the King of Glory Psal xcix where it is said that he spoke to the Israelites in the cloudy Pillar And Psal xlv where he is named God's anointed the Lord God and proposed as the object of our Adoration He affirms that Christ was to be God and though the same in nature yet a different person from him who made Heaven and Earth He proves by the several Apparitions where a true God is mentioned appearing to Abraham in the Plains of Mamre Gen. xviii 1. To Jacob in a Dream Gen. xxxi with whom he wrestled in the figure of a Man Gen. xxxii and assisted him in his Journey to Padan Aram. And to Moses he appeared in the Burning-bush Exod. iii. He maintains that he was to be God because he executed the Counsel of God Hence he is named by Joshua the Prince of the Army and an Angel which is the Lord. And because the Scripture describes him as begotten of God and called the Son the Wisdom of God and the Word Prov. viii He affirms that God spoke to the Word when he said Let us make Man in our image Gen. i. 26. And Behold the Man is become as one of us Gen. iii. 22. which also clearly argues a Plurality He proves from Psal ii This day have I begotten thee that his Generation is from all Eternity And from Psal xv that the Church ought to adore Christ because it is said He is thy Lord worship thou him He repeats the same things towards the end of his Dialogue where he proves that the Messias appeared to Moses Exod. vi 2. To Jacob Gen. xxxii 30. To Abraham Gen. xviii 16 17. To Moses Numb xi 3. and Deut. iii. 18. and to all the Patriarchs and Prophets He prevents an Objection that this was not a Person but a Vertue from the Father which is called sometimes an Angel sometimes his Glory sometimes a Man sometimes the Word By shewing that the Scripture makes out first a real distinction between the Son and the Father as between Jehovah and Jehovah Gen. xix 24. 2ly a true Plurality as Gen. iii. 22. the Man is become as one of Us. 3ly a true Filiation as Prov. viii whence he concludes that he that is begotten is different from him who begot him He answers Mr. N.'s Objection borrowed from the Jews who quote those words of Isaiah where God says He will not give his Glory to another By saying that the Son is the Glory of the Father and that in this respect he is not another Being
expresly 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 Hereticks could not avoid them but by setting up Opinions directly opposite to the Scriptures On the other side the Hereticks were so gravelled that they broke into Opinions quite contrary one to another which greatly contributed to confirm the Faith of them whom they opposed in those Articles so that it still subsisted whereas the opposite Heresies perish'd in a manner as soon as broacht The meanness of Christ and his shameful Death moved the Ebionites in the very first Age after him to look upon him as a meer Man though exalted by God's Grace to the Dignity of a Prophet But the Cerinthians another sort of Hereticks maintained that the Word did operate in him though at the same time they denied the personal and inseparable Vnion of that Word with this human Nature In the beginning of the Third Century some had much ado to receive the Doctrine of the Trinity by reason that they could not reconcile it with that of the Vnity of God But Praxeas Noetus and Sabellius who opposed that Doctrine were soon obliged to recant And then from one Extremity they shortly fell into another For being satisfied that the Scripture does attribute to the Father to the Son and to the Holy Ghost the divine Nature which is constantly in the Old Testament expressed by the Name Jehovah they undertook contrary to the plain Notions of Scripture to maintain that there was but One Person in God which had appeared the same under three differing Names Whereas some others did so plainly see the distinction which the Scripture makes between the Persons that they chose rather to own Three distinct Essences than to deny that there are Three Persons in God as the Scripture does invincibly prove Two sorts of Hereticks did formerly oppose the Divinity of Christ Some did acknowledge that as to his divine Nature he was before the World and that by it he had made the World though Himself as to that nature was created before the World and these afterwards 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 Hereticks were happily destroyed one by the other for the Arians on the one side did confound Artemas his Disciples by proving from places of Scripture that Christ was before the Virgin nay before the World And on the other side Absurdity and Idolatry were proved upon the Arians both because they acknowledged more than one divine Nature and because they worshipped a Creature whereas by the Christian Religion God alone ought to be worshipped Artemas his Disciples were so few and so severely condemned even whilst the Church laboured under Persecutions that their Name is hardly remembred 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 Arius's Heresy was destroyed by Proofs from Scripture for the Eternal Divinity of our Saviour though it was a long time countenanced by the Roman Emperours by the Vandal Kings in Africk and by the Kings of the Goths both in Spain and in Italy lest any should fancy it was extinguished only by Imperial Laws and Temporal Punishments Besides that the first Inventors of that Heresy had spread it before such time as Constantine by vanquishing Licinius became Master of the World Whoever shall consider that the Christian Religion had before Arius already suffered ten Persecutions without shrinking under them will easily see that all the Power of Constantine and of his Orthodox Successors who punished the Arian Professors had never been great enough to suppress their Opinion if it had not been a Gospel-doctrine not to say that these Laws and their Authority extended no further than the Roman Empire What had happen'd in those ancient Times soon after the Christian Church was establisht happened likewise again in the last Century at the Reformation of the Western Church As in those early days there arose many Heresies entirely opposite one to the other so in these latter times the very same was seen among us For when God raised up many Great Men to reform the Church in this and our neighbouring Kingdoms there appeared soon after some Men who being weary of the Popish Tyranny both in Doctrine and Worship did fancy that they might make a more perfect Reformation if they could remove out of the Christian Religion those things which human Reason was apt to stumble at And the Roman Church having obtruded upon her Votaries such Mysteries as were directly repugnant to Reason they imagined that the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ's Divinity were of that number and thus used all their Endeavours to prove that they were absurd and contradictory Had not these Doctrines been grounded on the Authority of the Books of the Old and the New Testament they might easily enough have confuted them But being forced to own the Authority of those Books which they durst not attack for fear of being detested by all Christians they fell into the same opposite Extremes into which those Hereticks of old had fallen when they opposed these fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and thus were as divided in Opinions about those matters as the ancient Hereticks had been before them For whilst some of them as Laelius Socinus and his Nephew Faustus denied the Divinity of Christ and thus revived the Opinion of Artemas and his Disciples others seeing how absurd the Answers were that Socinus and his Followers gave to those places of Scripture which assert the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ run so far to the contrary of this Socinian Heresy that they acknowledged three Gods And not only the Adversaries of Socinus but even some of his Disciples did oppose his Opinion moved thereto by the Authority of Scripture For he held it a fundamental Article of the Christian Faith that Christ is to be adored in which he was a downright Idolater in adoring Christ as true God when he believed Christ to be a meer
those which Christ so severely condemned And these I shall explain more particularly giving some examples of their use and also of their Authority 1. They had by Tradition the knowledge of some Matters of fact which are not recorded in their Scriptures and of other things they had more perfect and minute accounts than are recorded in the Writings of Moses and the Prophets Particularly Philo the Jew writing of the Life of Moses declares that what he had to say of him was taken partly out of Scripture and partly received by Tradition from their Forefathers * De vita Mosis pag. 468. Edit Genev. Ib. p 470. F. Of this latter sort was the long account he there gives of Moses being brought up in all the Learning of the Egyptians for there is nothing of this in the Old Testament Therefore when St. Stephen says the same thing Act. VII 22. we know that he also had it not from Scripture but from Tradition Hence also it is that St. Paul has gathered the names of Jannes and Jambres Magicians that resisted Moses and the Truth 2 Tim. iv 8. for their names are no where in Scripture but they are in Jonathan's Targum on Exod. i. 15. vii 11. from whence also they are taken into Talmud Sanhedrin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 9. Hence also St. Paul knew that the Pot wherein Moses laid up the Manna was made of Gold Heb. ix 4. which also the Seventy and Philo the Jew de congr quaer er gr pag. 375. Ed. Gen. do assure us of Mechil fol. 20. Col. 1. Tanchumah fol. 29. Col. 4. And tho' the Modern Jews deny this and say the Pot was of Earth yet it is acknowledg'd by the Samaritans that is was Golden This must have been from Tradition because there is no such thing said in Scripture It was from hence that the Apostle had that saying of Moses when he saw the dreadful appearance of God upon Mount Sinai Heb. xii 21. So terrible was the sight that Moses said I exceedingly fear and quake And another that writ soon after Paul's death namely Clemens Bishop of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians cap. 17. has other like words that Moses said I am the Steam upon the Pot. Both these sayings being no where in Scripture they could not have known them otherwise than from the Jewish Tradition From hence also St. Jude ver 9. had that passage of the dispute that Michael the Arch-Angel had with the Devil about the Body of Moses Which Body as Josephus probably says Ant. iv 8. if any Relick of it had been kept would have drawn the people into Idolatry That passage we are told by some of the Fathers was taken out of an Apocryphal Book call'd the Analepsis of Moses Clem. Alex. in Jud. Origen peri Archon iii. 2. Grotius tells us the Jews have the like things in their Midrash on Deut. in the Aboth of R. Nathan and in other of their Books It was from hence that St. Paul understood that some of the Prophets were sawn asunder Origen Respons ad African Heb. xi 37. though he spoke in the Plural he meant it only of one saith Origen namely of the Prophet Esay who was Sawed asunder by the Command of Manasses according to the Jewish Tradition Which also is mentioned by Justin Martyr as a thing out of dispute between him and Tryphon the Jew and it is taken notice of in the Gemara tr Jevamot Ch. iv It was from hence that Christ took what he said of the Martyrdom of Zechary the Son of Berachiah who was killed between the Temple and the Altar Orig. Ib. p. 232 c. Mat. xxiii 35. which Origen there also mentions as a Jewish Tradition tho' he says they supprest it as being not for the Honour of their Nation I do not deny but that there might be some ancient Authors besides the Canonical Writers to keep up the memory of these names of Persons and other matters of fact As for example Joseph Ans. l. 10. c. â—â— that there were eighteen High Priests who Officiated in the first Temple although they are not all mention'd in Scripture But if there were any such Authors it is very probable that they were lost in the Captivity or in the bloody Persecutions of the Jewish Church long before the time of our Blessed Saviour and his Holy Apostles Josephus who lived in that Age and writ the History of the Jews makes no mention of them and gives a very lame account of the things which passed under several Kings of Persia 2. Besides the Canonical Books they had Writings of a less Authority wherein were inserted by the great Men of their Nation several Doctrines that came from the Prophets which were in very high esteem and veneration though not regarded as of equal Authority with the Writings of the Prophets It is not improbable that St. Matthew had respect to some Book of this nature when he quoted that which is not found in express words in any of the Writings of the Prophets That the Messias should be called a Nazarene Mat. ii 23. if he doth not allude to the Idea of the Jews who referred to the Messias the Netzer or Branch spoken of by Isa xi 1. So Christ himself may seem to have alluded to a passage in one of these Books Joh. vii 38. where he saith He that believeth on me as saith the Scripture out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water for there is nothing perfectly like this in any of the Canonical Books that are come to our hands St. Paul the Apostle as Jerom in Ephes v. 14. observes has cited divers such Apocryphal Books accommodating himself no doubt to the Jews who gave much deference to their Authority Thus he did Rom. ix 21. and perhaps in some other places of his Epistles from the Book of Wisdom which is still extant in our Bibles Elsewhere he has Quotations out of Books that are lost as 1 Cor. ii 9. out of an Apocryphal Book that went under the name of the Prophet Elias and Ephes v. 14. out of an Apocryphal piece of the Prophet Jeremy as we are told by Georgius Syncellus in his Chron. p. 27. A. But the most express Quotation of this kind is that which is alledged by St. James iv 5 6. For these words The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to Envy are not in any Books of the Old Testament nor are the following words God resisteth the proud but giveth grace to the humble And yet both these sayings are quoted as Scripture by the Holy Apostle Of the first he saith plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture saith Then he goes on to the other and of that he saith also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any Nominative Case but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before mentioned which implies that the Scripture saith this also Now what Scripture could he mean for it is certain that neither of these
And 47. And he did evil also in the sight of the Lord and cared not for the words that were spoken unto him by the Prophet Jeremy from the mouth of the Lord. 3ly They speak of the Bina or Understanding by which is to be understood the Holy Spirit from Prov. iii. and viii So in Eccles c. i. 4. Wisdom hath been created before all things and the understanding of prudence from everlasting So the Book of Wisdom chap. i. 4 5 6 7. For into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit and remove from thoughts that are without understanding and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in For Wisdom is a loving spirit and will not acquit a blasphemer of his words for God is witness of his reins and a true beholder of his heart and a hearer of his tongue For the Spirit of the Lord filleth the world and that which containeth all things hath knowledge of the voice 4ly They acknowledg him as the Counsellor of God which knew all his Counsels So you read in the Book of Wisdom ch ix 17. And thy counsel who hath known except thou give wisdom and send thy Holy Spirit from above 5ly They speak of him as of he that discovers the secrets of God so Ecclus ch 39.8 He shall shew forth that which he hath learned and shall glory in the law of the covenant of the Lord. And ch 48.24 25. He saith of Isaiah He saw by an excellent spirit what should come to pass at the last and he comforted them that mourned in Sion He shewed what should come to pass for ever and secret things or ever they came 6ly They acknowledg him to be sent from God Wisdom ch ix 17. And thy counsel who hath known except thou give wisdom and send thy Holy Spirit from above After all if we consider what Notions they had of the Messias which was promised to them we shall find that they had much nobler Ideas than those which are now entertained by the last Jews and more like to them which we find among the Prophets 1. It is clear that they lookt upon him as the Person which was to sit upon the Throne of God the Title of my Lord which is given by the Author of Ecclus ch li. 10. shews that beyond exception by so clear an allusion to the Psal cx and ii which both speak of the Messias 2ly They did not look upon it as an absurd thing to suppose that God is to appear in the earth as you see in Baruch ch iii. 37. Afterward did he shew himself upon earth and conversed with men For they refer that either to his appearance upon Sinai or to the Incarnation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3ly They suppose another coming of the Messias and then the Saints are to judge the Nations and have dominion over the people and their Lord shall reign for ever Wisd ch iii. 8. which words have been borrowed by St. Paul 1 Cor. vi 2. 4ly They acknowledg such Appearances of God as we have an example in 2 Macc. ch xi 6. and ch xxi 22 23. Now when they that were with Maccabeus heard that he besieged the holds they and all the people with lamentation and tears besought the Lord that he would send a good Angel to deliver Israel 5ly They speak of the Appearances of God as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very word used by St. Paul for the first and second Appearance of Jesus Christ So the 2. of Macc. ch xv 27. and 34. So every man praised toward the even that glorious Lord saying Blessed be he that hath kept his own place undefiled So that fighting with their hands and praying unto God with their hearts they slew no less than thirty and five thousand men for through the appearance of God they were greatly cheared 6ly They expected at the second coming of the Messias such a manifestation of his Glory as in the Consecration of the Temple So 2 Macc. ch ii 8. Then shall the Lord shew them these things and the glory of the Lord shall appear and the cloud also as it was shewed under Moses and as when Solomon desired that the place might be honourably sanctified I believe these Proofs are sufficient to demonstrate 1. That there was before Jesus Christ's time a Notion of Plurality in the Godhead 2ly That they believed that such a Plurality was a Trinity 3ly That they look'd upon the Son or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Holy Ghost as not created Beings but as Beings of the same Divine Nature with the Father by an Eternal Emanation from him as having the same Power and the same Majesty But these Ideas of the Apocryphal Books will appear more clear when we take them in conjunction with the explication of the like Notions among other Hebrew Writers which I shall now consider more particularly And withal those places of Scripture on which they ground their Explications CHAP. IX That the Jews had good Grounds to acknowledg some kind of Plurality in the Divine Nature AFter what I have quoted from the Authors of the Apocryphal Books which are in the hand of all people to prove 1. That the Jews before Jesus Christ had a Notion of a Plurality in God following herein certain Traces of this Doctrine that are to be found in the Books of Moses and the Prophets And 2ly that the same Jews did acknowledg a Trinity in the Divine Nature I will proceed to consider in particular the Grounds which they build upon to admit such Notions I begin with the first of those two Articles which is That the Stile of God in the Jewish Scriptures gave them a Notion of a Plurality in God To establish this Proposition I do not intend to gather all the Texts of the Old Testament which might be brought to prove a Plurality in the Divine Nature nor will I answer the several Solutions which the Unitarians have invented to darken this truth which they oppose It shall suffice me to do two things 1. To shew that the Stile of God in Scripture and of the Sacred Authors leads one naturally to the Notion of a Plurality of Persons in the Divine Essence 2. That this Stile made the like Impression on the Jews before Jesus Christ as was made by it anciently and is still made on it by the generality of Christians So that the Jews generally have acknowledged that the Divine Nature which is otherwise perfectly one is distinguishable into certain Properties which we call Persons For the proof of the first Point to wit that the Scriptures of the Old Testament suppose a Plurality in God I make these following Reflections 1. Moses the chief End of whose Writings was to root out of the minds of Men the conceit of Polytheism does yet describe the Creation of the World in words that insinuate a Plurality
Eminent Divines of the old Jewish Church and consequently as subject to several weaknesses and oversights which are common to the greatest as well as to the meanest men Even the most Learned Men in all Ages though they agree in the truth of certain Doctrines are yet often divided in their ways of expressing them and also in their grounding them on this or that place of Scripture For the Jews since Christ's time we are less concern'd what they say because when they had once rejected their Messias the Lord Jesus Christ they soon found that if they stood to their Traditional Expositions of Scripture it could not be denied but he whom they had rejected was the Word the Son of God whom their Fathers expected to come in our Flesh but rather than yield to that they would alter their Creed and either wholly throw out the Word the Son of God or bring him down to the state of a created Angel as we see some of them do now in their ordinary Comments on Scripture And so they deal with the Shekinah likewise confounding the Master with the Servant as we see that some few perhaps one or two Cabalists have done in their Books In consequence of this alteration they are forc'd to acknowledg the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob worshipped a created Angel and have left themselves no way to excuse them from Idolatry therein but by corrupting their Doctrine concerning Religious Worship and teaching that it is lawful to pray to these Ministring Spirits which is effectually the setting up of other Gods plainly contrary to the first Commandment of their Law Some of themselves are so sensible of this that they cannot deny it to be Idolatry Which is certainly the more inexcusable in the Jews because on other occasions they constantly affirm that when God charged the Angels with the care of other Nations he reserved to himself the sole Government of his people Israel Deut. xxxii 8 9. And therefore it must be a grievous sin in them to worship Angels howsoever they should imagin it might be permitted to other Nations After all this they have not been able so totally to suppress the ancient Tradition but that in their Writers since Christ's time there appear some footsteps of it still And that it is so I am next to shew that notwithstanding their aversness to the Christian Doctrine they yet have a Notion distinct enough both of a Plurality and Trinity in the Divine Nature which will be the whole business of my next Chapter CHAP. XI That this Notion of a Trinity in the Divine Nature has continued among the Jews since the time of our Lord Jesus Christ TO begin with the Jewish Authors who have writ Medrashim that is a sort of Allegorical Commentaries upon Scripture and the Cabalistical Jews whom their people look upon as the wisest Men of their Nation viz. those that know the truth more than all others among them this truth passes for undoubted I know very well that the method of those Cabalistical Men who seek for Mysteries almost in every Letter of the words of Scripture hath made them justly ridiculous And indeed one cannot imagin an occupation more vain or useless than the prodigious labour which they undergo in their way of Gematria Notarikon and Tsirouph But besides that Vice is not so general among the Jews I am fully resolved to lay aside in this Controversie all such remarks my design being only to shew that the ancient Tradition hath been kept among those Authors who have their Name from their firm adherence to the Tradition of their Forefathers So I am not willing to deny that some of the Books of those Cabalistical Authors which the Jews who are not great Criticks look upon as very ancient are not as to all their parts of such an antiquity as the Jews suppose them to be But I take notice that those who attack the antiquity of those Books are not aware that notwithstanding some additions which are in those Books as for example in the Zohar and in the Rabboth the very Doctrine of the Synagogue is to be found there and the same as it is represented to us by the Apocryphal Authors by Philo or those who had occasion to mention the Doctrine of the Jews After all let us suppose that almost all those Books have been written since the Talmud and that the Talmud was written since the beginning of the seventh Century that could not be a prejudice against the Doctrine which the Jews propose as the ancient Doctrine of the Synagogue But to the contrary it would be a strong proof of the constancy of those Authors in keeping the Tradition of their Ancestors in so strange a dispersion and among so many Nations chiefly since in the Articles upon which I shall quote their Authorities they so exactly follow the steps of the Authors of the Apocryphal Books of Philo the Jew and of their ancient Paraphrast who had more penetrated into the sense of Scripture I say then that both the Authors of the Midrashim and the Cabalistical Authors agree exactly in this that they acknowledg a Plurality in the Divine Essence and that they reduce such a Plurality to three Persons as we do To prove such an assertion I take notice first That the Jews do judg as we do that the word Elohim which is Plural expresses a Plurality Their ordinary remark upon that word is this that Elohim is as if one did read El hem that is They are God Bachajè a famous Commentator of the Pentateuch who brings in his work all the senses of the four sorts of Interpreters among the Jews speaks to this purpose upon the Parascha Breschit fol. 2. col 3. 2ly It is certain that they make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express those Persons as they use to express the two first human Persons viz. Adam and Eve Thus speaks of them the same Bachaje Ibid. fol. 13. col 2. 3ly They fix the number of three Persons in the Divine Essence distinguishing their Personal Characters and Actions which serve to make them known 4ly They speak of the emanation of the two last from the first and that the last proceeds by the second 5ly They declare that this Doctrine contains a Mystery that is incomprehensible and above human reason and that in such an unsearchable secret we must acquiesce with the Authority of the Divine Revelation 6ly They ground this Doctrine upon the very same Texts of Scripture which we alledg to prove the several Positions of ours which deserves a great deal of consideration And indeed those things being so we must necessarily conclude either that they mock their Readers or that they do not understand what they say or one must acknowledg that the consequences and conclusions which Christians draw from the Scriptures to this subject of Trinity are not so easie to be avoided as the Socinians believe Let the Reader reflect upon each of those Articles while I
the same who spake and the World was made and who was God of Abraham Exod. iii. 14 15. vi 4. So then if he who was the God of Abraham was only an Angel that Personated God then he who created the World was a created Angel which as I have shewed is absurd 5. It is impossible to explain otherwise what the Jews so unanimously affirm that God revealed himself face to face to Moses which is more than he granted any Prophet besides unless the Word that appeared to Moses was true God and not a meer Angel See Onk. on Deut. xxxiv 10 11. and the other Targums But what say they may not an Angel bear the Name of God when he sustains the Person of God was not the Ark called Jehovah because it was a Symbol of his Person Does not Jonathan on Numb xi 35 36. say to the Ark Revelare Sermo Domini redi This is indeed a Notion which the Socinians have borrowed of Abenezra on Exod. iii. and Joseph Albo de fund c. 8. And so they pretend that the Pillar of Cloud is called the Lord Exod. xiii 21. xiv 19. that the Ark is called the Lord Numb x. 35. that the Angel is called the Lord Judg. vi 15. The Name being given to the Symbol viz. the Ark and to the second Cause namely the Angel because of their representing God But to the great displeasure of our Modern Jews and Socinians that borrow their Weapons we have still enough of the ancient Jewish Pieces left to shew their quite contrary Sentiments in these matters For 1. they as has been already observed believed that the Angel spoken of in Judg. vi 15. was the Word and that this Word created the World as has been largely proved 2. Just the reverse of what our Moderns say did the Ancients hold as we gather from Philo. For instead of an Angel's taking the place of God he saith the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 took the place of an Angel De Somn. p. 466. As to the Ark it is folly to imagin that because God promised to dwell and to hear Prayers there and enjoyned Worship toward it therefore the Ark was called Jehovah The ancient Jews spoke not to the Ark but to God who resided between the Cherubims This is plainly expressed in those words of Jonathan Numb xi 35 36. Revelare Sermo Domini c. where the words are not addressed to the Ark it self but to him that promised to give them some Tokens of his Presence namely to the Word who created the World who redeemed Israel from Egypt who heard their Prayers over the Ark and who had shut up therein the Tables of the Law which he had given them on Mount Sinai And thus the Targum on 1 Chron. xiii 6. David and all Israel went up to remove the Ark of the Lord that dwelleth between the Cherubims whose Name is called on it or as 2 Sam. vi 2. Whose Name is called by the Name of the Lord of Hosts that dwelleth between the Cherubims In short the Scripture never gives to any Place or Creature the Name Jehovah in the Nominative Case either singly or joined with any other Noun in apposition But either in an Oblique Case as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or with a Verb Substantive understood as Jehovah Nissi Jehovah Shamma What the Socinians have to say more against this the Reader may see fully answered by Buxt Hist of the Ark c. 1. And the Reader shall have a full Satisfaction upon it out of the following Chapters It remains therefore certain That the Word mentioned in Philo and the Paraphrases is not an Angel but a Divine Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Philo calls him many times and if the Expression be allowable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he speaks in Euseb Praep. vii 13. p. 322 323. But we must now go on to that which will remove all difficulties from this Subject and convince the Reader if any thing can do it That the Jews looked upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Divine Person I speak of the Appearances of an Angel who is called God and worshipped as God under the Old Testament And I thought fit for this very reason to enlarge more upon this Subject to prevent at once all the Objections of the New Jews and of the Unitarians CHAP. XIII That all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of the Lord which are spoken of in the Books of Moses have been referred to the Word by the Jews before Christ's Incarnation SOME of the late Jewish Commentators that have had Disputes with the Christians particularly those whose Comments are collected in the Hebrew Bible printed by Bomberg at Venice do oppose this Proposition with all their Might They have laid it down for a Rule That whereever God is said to be present there all the Celestial Family is with him i. e. the Angels by whose Ministry as they say God has ordinarily acted in his Appearances to men So saith Rabbi Solom Jarchi on Gen. xix 24. Whereas those Old Jews who followed the Tradition of their Forefathers being not biassed by the Spirit of Dispute understood it of the Cochma and Bina viz. of the Wisdom and of the Holy Ghost as we were admonished by R. Joseph de Karnitol in his Saare Tsedec fol. 25. col 4. fol. 26. col 2. This Collection of Commentators being of great use for the interpreting the Scriptures several Divines that have applied themselves to the Study of the Rabbins Comments have been led by them unwarily into this Opinion The renowned Grotius fell into this Snare and has had but too many Followers We have no cause to wonder that Papists do the same being concern'd as they are to find Examples in the Old Testament of Religious Worship paid to Angels the better to cover their Idolatry But in truth the Modern Jews do in this quite abandon the Ancient Sentiments of their Fathers And they who follow the Modern Jews herein do weaken I hope without thinking of it the Proofs of the Godhead of Jesus Christ by yielding up to the Modern Jews as an agreed Point between them and the Christians that which is quite contrary to what the Apostles and Primitive Christians supposed in their Disputes with the Jews of their Times and which our later Jews themselves would never have submitted to if they had known any other way to avoid the Arguments that were brought against them out of their own Scriptures It behoves us therefore to give their just Force to those Arguments that were used by the Apostles and Fathers and to recover to Truth all her Advantages by shewing how bad Guides our Modern Jews are in the matters now before us and how they have deviated from the constant Doctrine of their Ancestors to find out ways to defend themselves against the Christians I affirm then for certain That the Appearances of God or of any Angel that is called Jehovah or the God of
from him These words have another sense in the Targum but which seems an addition For they are thus rendered I will not give my Glory to another Nation That is my Shekinah shall not go from the Jews to another people I shall not mention here that which relates to our Saviour's Office especially his estate of Humiliation which Justin proves by Texts taken out of the Old Testament I shall only observe 1st That he quotes all the places of Scripture which he uses as relating to the Messias by the confession of the Jews and thus he shews by the circumstances of those places which had obliged the Jews to apply them to the promised Messias 2ly That he confutes the false Explications which the Jews gave to many places of Scripture for instance that which understands Isa ix of King Hezekiah for this mistake was older than Justin some Jews in his days had revived it and the Author of it was not Rabbi Hillel who lived after Justin but he made himself famous by propagating it That Rabbi by the destruction of Jerusalem having lost all hopes of the Messias whom God had promised them made this a Maxim There is to be no Messias in Israel because they had him in the days of Hezekiah King of Judah Gemara ad Sanhedr cap. Chelek It may be Mr. N. will be something disposed from the method which Justin used to believe that he advanced nothing new against Trypho the Jew who probably was that famous R. Tarphon so often mentioned in the Mishnah but whose Name the latter Jews have corrupted But I will if possible go further to convince him and prevent all his Objections To that end I will make it appear that most places of Scripture which Justin used were objected to the Jews by the Christians before Justin's Birth I prove it thus Justin was born at soonest 105. years after Christ But it appears by the Testimony of the Jews that long before their Doctors were divided amongst themselves about the manner in which those Objections were to be answered which the Christians made to them drawn from the Old Testament R. Eliezer who lived under Trajan had this Maxim Study the Law with diligence that thou mayst be able to answer the Epicureans Beth Israel fol. 105. col 3. R. Jochanan explains that Maxim of R. Eliezer as regarding not only Heathens but chiefly the Jews who had renounced their Religion And who could these Apostate Jews be It is easie to guess by the Objections which they made to the Jews and by the Maxim which R. Jochanan proposes to prevent the Jews from being overseen in their disputes with these Jews In a word they were Christians who proved that there was a Plurality and a Trinity in the Divine Nature Alledging to this effect against the Jews those places out of the Law and of the Prophets where mention is made of God in the Plural Number As Gen. i. 26. Let us make Man in our Image Gen. xi 7. Let us go down and confound their Language Gen. xxxv 7. where Elohim that is the Gods appeared to Jacob. Deut. iv 7. What Nation has the Gods so near unto them 2 Sam. vii 23. What Nation is like Israel whom the Gods went to redeem Dan. vii 9. Till the Thrones or Seats were set and the Ancient of days did sit Exod. xxiv 1. where God bids Moses come up to the Lord. Exod. xxiii 21. where God having promised to send his Angel bids them beware of him because he would not pardon their transgressions for Gods name was in him And Gen. xix 24. The Lord rained upon Sodom fire from the Lord. These nine Arguments the Christians made use of to prove a Plurality in the Godhead And we find that they were grounded upon the exact quotation of the Hebrew Text not the Greek Version For the Greek leaves room only to few of these remarks which shews that Justin who was born a Heathen had them from Men bred among the Jews who had read the Bible in Hebrew and had made their Observations upon the Original Text of Moses and other Sacred Writers Beth Isra Ibid. If a Man should ask how ancient were those Objections about a Plurality in God I answer that they were as old as the Preaching of the Gospel amongst the Jews For R. Meir R. Akiba's Master had endeavoured to answer in his Sermons the Objection taken out of Gen. xix 24. now R. Meir was born under Nero and Akiba died in Hadrian's days about 120. years after Christ Neither were the Jews agreed in the manner of answering those Objections about a Plurality in the Divine Nature 1st They thought they might answer most of them by this general Maxim That God never did any thing without consulting with his Family above that is the Angels And this they pretended to prove by these words Dan. iv 17. This matter is by the decree of the watchers and the demand by the word of the Holy Ones Which answer was destroyed by what others said that God spoke of himself in the Plural Number that Moses did also speak of God they having regard to his Sovereign dignity Though at the same time they observed that in those places Moses joined a Verb in the Singular with that Noun in the Plural to assert the Unity of God and for fear the Reader should think there were many Gods Thus when Men dispute against the Truth what one of them builds up is presently pulled down by another 2ly They were also divided about the Thrones set Dan. vii 9. For to what purpose many Thrones if there were but one Person Beth. Isr ibid. R. Akiba maintained that there was one for God and another for David He seems by David to have understood the Messias But R. Jose lookt upon this as impious and affirmed that one of these Thrones was set for God's Justice the other for his Mercy R. Akiba was at last convinced and received this explication which R. Eliezer Son of Azaria hearing was so far from approving of that he sent away Akiba with indignation and told him Why dost thou meddle with expounding the Scripture Go to the army and fight this he said because Akiba had followed Barcosba As for R. Eliezer himself he said that these two Thrones signified only that there was one for God and a footstool to it 3ly They were hard put to it by the Objections drawn from Exod. xxiii 21. about that Angel whom God had promised to guide Israel in whom God's Name was to be and who is called by the Jews Metatron For said the Christians If the name of Jehovah was in him he was to be adored This the Jews evaded by altering the Text and reading with the LXX Thou shalt not rebell against him or Thou shalt not change me with him that is to say for him When the Christians objected that this Angel must needs be God because God said of him he shall not pardon thy transgressions
than he usually rendered which yet he did for great reasons One great Objection of the Socinian Author which he much insists upon is that the Christians never quoted the Authority of the Targum against the Jews before Galatinus who lived at the beginning of the 16th Century But that since him Heinsius Vechnerus and some others followed him in that fancy Supposing this to be true I cannot see what advantage it would be to him Put case the Ancients were not capable Scholars enough to peruse the Jewish Books can this ever prejudice truth And ought not they to be received how late soever they come by whose care soever they be vindicated and asserted But it is absolutely false that Christians before Galatinus have nothing of the Jewish Opinions about this matter I shewed in the vii Chap. of this Book that Ribera and others which would have these Paraphrases to be written after St. Jerome are much mistaken And consequently this Socinian Author who followed them and Vorstius in his Notes on Tsemach David was also mistaken about the Antiquity of the Targums But our Socinian says if they are so ancient how comes it to pass that they have not been quoted by the Christians that disputed against the Jews in ancienter Times They were very few of ancient Christians that writ upon these matters And of them yet fewer understood the Chaldee or even the Hebrew Tongue most of them rested upon the Authority of Philo of the Book of Wisdom and of other Authors who were famous among the Jews before Christ and who had writ full enough upon this Subject as may be seen by what Eusebius quotes out of them And no doubt those places of Philo and those other Jewish Writers were well known to Clemens of Alexandria and to Origen whose Work Eusebius much followed as appears by reading his Books and as he himself does acknowledge The Socinian Author affirms too positively that Galatinus is the first that used that Authority of the Targums He must not suppose a thing which is absolutely false Origin lib. 4. in Celsum speaks of a Dispute between Jason and Papiscus in which saith Origin Christianus ex Judaicis Scriptoribus cum Judaeo describitur disputans plane demonstrans quae de Christo extant vaticinia Jesu ipsi congruere c. What were those Writings of the Jews but the Targums who had translated Becocma for Breschith according to the Jewish Notion which I have explained so many times and for which St. Jerome reflects upon Jason who hath quoted the Targums as if he hath read them in Hebrew Besides it appears by Justin the Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho That in his time some Jews had already endeavoured to invalidate the Proofs taken out of Scripture in their so frequent Stile about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we see them in the Targums For Justin undertakes to prove that the Word is not barely an Attribute in God nor an Angel but a Person and a true Principle of Action And this he proves by his Apparitions and by other Characters and Signs of a real Person such as are his executing his Father's Counsels his being his Off-spring and his Son properly so called Here I must add one thing which is that St. Jerome hath express'd the Sense of the Targum in many places especially upon the Prophets which Sense he had no doubt from the learned Jews whom he had consulted and they from the Targums I confess that Jerome never made his business to write against the Jews nor did any other Christian that was ever able to make use of the Targums Some indeed of the Fathers took the pains to learn Hebrew because the Old Testament was writ in that Language but those were very few and none of them ever troubled himself with the Chaldee St. Jerome himself how skilful soever in the Hebrew understood not the Chaldee as appears by his Writings The first that set himself to beat the Jews with their own Weapons was Raimundus Martini a convert Jew who lived about the Year of Christ 1260. He writ a Book against them call'd Pugio Fidei which shews he had well studied their Rabbins and he makes use of their Targums to very good purpose Out of this Book there was another compos'd and call'd Victoria adversus Judaeos by Porchetus Salvaticus that is said to have lived in the next Century Neither of their Books was much considered in those ignorant times wherein they lived So that when Learning came more in request one might venture to make use of their labours and set them forth as his own with little danger of being discover'd This very thing was done by Galatinus who lived about the end of the Fifteenth Century He did with great Impudence almost transcribe his Notions and the Arguments against the Jews out of that Work of Porchetus without so much as mentioning his Name That Socinian mentions the Pugio in the close of that Book against Vechner by which it may be supposed he read that Book of Raimundus above mentioned Which if he did and consider'd it with Galatinus he could not but see that this Work of Galatinus was as to the main of it a Stream from that Fountain of Raimund's Pugio And if he saw it he did very disingenuously in making Galatinus the first among Christians that made use of the Jewish Notions The last Objection of the Unitarians against what I have proved about the Word's being a Person from the consent of the Chaldee Paraphrases when they speak of the Memra of the Lord and his Actions is made by the same Socinian Author who affirms that in the Targums the Memra implies no more than that God works by himself because the word Memra is used of Men as well as of God I will not deny but that here and there in the Targums the word Memra has that Sense as Hacspan well observes in his Notes on Psalm cx and produces many Instances of it to which many more might be added But when all is done this Objection much the same with that of Moses Maimonides can't absolutely take away that force of those Texts where the Memra is used of God and to be satisfied of this it is but making the following Reflexions First That Philo one of the most famous Jews of Egypt very well apprehended and clearly declared That by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answers to the Hebrew Memra the old Jews understood a real Principle of Action such as we call a Person Secondly That the Jewish Authors more ancient than Philo had the very same Notion of it as may be seen in the Book of Baruch and in that of Wisdom the Notions of which Philo has clearly followed in his Book de Agric. apud Euseb de Proepar Evang. pag. 323. And Lastly That even since Christ the Cabalistical Authors followed and to this day do follow the same Notion making use of those places where the Memra and the Cochma that is
him or which may not from the circumstances of the Text be well explained otherwise This is his Position in examination of Gen. xlix 10. where he doth his utmost to evade the Text v. 10. The Scepter shall not depart from Judah c. 3. He looks on the Article of the Messias's Coming to be a matter of that small importance to the Jews that he leaves it doubtful whether the Messias be come since the time of Onkelos their famous Paraphrast who expresses his expectation of this Promise in many places of the Books of Moses and if he be not already come whether he shall come in the Glory of the Clouds of Heaven or whether he shall come poor and riding on an Ass and because of Men's sins not distributing those great Blessings promised at his Coming nor Men on the other hand regarding him as the Messias Certainly R. Lipman in his Nitzachon where he examines the above mentioned Text Gen. xlix 10. advances a Rule which quite overthrows all Proofs from the Holy Scripture This Rabin seeing the Jews give such opposite Interpretations of Jacob's Prophecy concerning the Scepter 's continuance in Judah as were impossible to be reconciled some understanding Empire by the Scepter and some Slavery and oppression he lays this down for a Maxim That the Law was capable of divers Explications and all of them though never so incompatible and contradictory were nevertheless the words of the Living God This is very near the Sentiment of R. Menasseh Ben Israel in his Questions on Genesis where he collects the several Jewish Expositions of this Text. But granting this once for a Principle it is in vain to consult the Scriptures or to think of ever discovering the meaning of them The sense of them must absolutely depend on the Authority of the Rabins and what they teach must be all equally received as the Word of God though they teach things contradictory to one another Such Positions put one to a loss whether their blindness or their spite is therein most to be pitied CHAP. XXVII That the Unitarians in opposing the Doctrines of the Trinity and our Lord's Divinity do go much further than the Modern Jews and that they are not fit persons to convert the Jews WHAT I have observed of the alteration made by the Modern Jews in their Belief is enough to shew that they were forced to adopt new Notions because of the evident Proofs drawn from the Opinions of their Ancestors which the Christians used against them The very same prevarication may be charged on the Socinians in their Explications of those places of Scripture that prove the Blessed Trinity and the Divinity of our Saviour And 1st They have borrowed many of the Jews answers to the Christians and often carried them much further than the Jews themselves did intend them 2dly They have invented the way of accommodation for the evading of those Quotations in the New Testament that are taken out of the Old Testament as finding this the most effectual means to escape those difficulties which they can no other way resolve 3dly The Unitarians especially those of England to make short work do not stick to assert that the Christians have foisted those Texts into the Gospel which speak of the Trinity and the Divinity of our Lord. It is fit I should give particular Instances of each of these in proof of what I say Smalcius * De Divin Chr. c. 10. maintains in the general That the Books of the Old Testament are of little use for the Conversion of the Jews He gives this reason for it That almost all that which is said to be spoken of the Messias in the Old Testament must be interpreted mystically before it can appear to be spoken of him and by consequence very remotely from what the words do naturally signify Then in particular When we would prove a Plurality of Persons in the Deity against the Jews from those Expressions of Scripture that speak of God in the Plural Number although the Jews as you may see in their Comments on Gen. i. 26. xi 7. and especially on Isa vi 8. are forced to own that a Plurality is imported in those Expressions and therefore pretend that the Number is Plural because God speaks of himself and the Angels his Counsellors yet the Socinians as Enjedinus witnesses for them do deny that these Plural Expressions do denote any Plurality in the Deity no more than Expressions in the Singular Number do As for Socinus he solves it by a Figure by which as he saith a single Person speaks plurally when he excites himself to do any thing A Figure of which we have no Example in the Writings of the Old Testament Socinus has followed the Jews Evasion on the words Gen. iii. 22. Behold the Man is as one of Us in maintaining that God does herein speak of himself and of the Angels And Smalcius has followed him in this Solution The very same Eplication they give of the words Gen. xi 7. Let us go down and confound their Language borrowing entirely the Subterfuge of the Jews who at this day teach that God spoke it to the Angels Crellius on Gal. iii. 8. espouses the Jewish Sense of the Text Gen. xii 3. In thee shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed by which he overthrows the force of St. Paul's Citation and makes it nothing to the purpose He supposes that St. Paul did herein allude only to the Passage in Genesis but on the contrary it appears that he followed the Literal Sense as we have it Gen. xii 3. xviii 18. xxii 18. xxvi 4. xxviii 14. and as the Ancient Cabalists do acknowledge at large in Reuchlin L. 1. Smalcius ch 2. Ib. asserts That the Promise of the Seed of the Woman Gen. iii. 5. can very hardly be understood of the Messias And yet the Ancient Jews acknowledged it in their Targum of Jerusalem and by the Cabalists Tikunzoh 21. fol. 52. col 2. Bachaie fol. 13. col 3. in Gen. Schlichtingius affirms that Psal xlv does literally relate to Solomon and that this is its first and principal sense Altho the Ancient Jews do all agree that it treats of the Messias and cannot be understood of Solomon Socinus persuading himself that St. Paul cites Heb. i. 6. from Psal xcvii 8. And let all the Angels of God worship him does maintain that he cites it in the mystical Sense because Jesus Christ could not be adored by the Angels before he was advanced to be their Head And yet the Jews of old did refer it to the Messias adding these words in the end of Moses's Song Deut. xxxii as we see there in the LXX Version from whence it was indeed that St. Paul took the words in Heb. i. 6. Again Socinus to rid himself of Psal xxiv where according to the Ancient Jews Opinion the Messias is spoken of does pretend that the Messias is not meant here in this Psalm or at least he is