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
some of the Jews that held the Transmigration of Souls and say particularly That the Soul of Adam went into David and the Soul of David was the same with that of the 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 Act. ii 30 31. And for John Baptist he came in the Spirit and Power of Elias Luk. 1.17 That is he was inspired with the same Spirit of Zeal and holy Courage that Elias was formerly acted with and employ'd 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 Criticks seem not to be satisfied with seeking for a first accomplishment in other persons than in the Messias The Jews meaning and applying those Prophecies to the Messias in a mystical or a spiritual sense is founded upon a Reason that offers it self to the Mind of those that study Scripture with attention Before Jacob's Prophecy there was no time fixed for the Coming of the Messias but after the giving of that Prophecy Gen. xlix 10. there was no possibility of being deceived in the sense of those Prophecies which God gave from time to time full of the Characters of the Messias It was necessary 1. That the Kingdom should be in Judah and not cease till the time about which they expected the Coming of the Messias 2. That the lesser Authority called here the Law-giver should be also established in Judah and destroyed before the Coming of the Messias which we knew came to pass by the Reign of Herod the Great and some years before the Death of our Saviour And indeed the Talmudist say that forty years before the Desolation of the House of the Sanctuary Judgments of Blood were taken away from Israel Talm. Jerus l. Sanhedr c. dine mammonoth Talm. Bab. C. Sanhedr c. Hajou Bodekim And Raymondus Martini who writ this Pugio at the end of the XIIIth Century quotes Part III. Dist 3. c. 16. § 46. One R. Rachmon who says that when this happened they put on sackcloth and pull'd off their hair and said Wo unto us the Scepter is departed 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 applicable to Zorobabel or any of his Successors In short there appeared not any one among the Jews before the Times of our Blessed Saviour that dared assume this Title of Messias although the Name of Anointed which the word Messias signifies had been given to several of their Kings as to David in particular But since Jesus Christ's coming many have pretended to it These things being so it is clear that the Prophecies which had not and could not have their accomplishment in those upon whose occasion they were first delivered were to receive their accomplishment in the Messias and consequently those Prophecies ought necessarily to be referred to him We ought by all means to be perswaded of this For we cannot think the Jews were so void of Judgment as to imagine that the Apostles or any one else in the World had a right to produce the simple words of the Old Testament and to urge them in any other sense than what was intended by the Writer directed by the Holy Ghost It must be his Sense as well as his Words that should be offered for proof to convince reasonable Men. But we see that the Jews did yield to such Proofs out of Scripture concerning the Messias in which some Criticks do not see the force of those Arguments that were convincing to the Jews They must then have believed that the true sense of such places was the literal sense in regard of the 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 distinguishable from all others or as to the several parts of his Ministry But this is a matter of so great importance as to deserve more pains to shew that Jesus Christ and his Apostles did build upon such Maxims as I have mentioned And therefore any that call themselves Christians should take heed how they deny the force and authority of that way of Traditional interpretation which has been anciently received in the Jewish Church CHAP. IV. That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of the Christian Doctrine by this common Traditional Exposition received among the Jews which they could not have done at least not so well had there been only such a Literal Sense of those Texts which they alledged as we can find without the help of such Exposition IF we make some reflections which do not require a great deal of Meditation it is clear that Jesus Christ was to prove to the Jews that he was the Messias which they did expect many Ages ago and whose Coming they look'd on as very near He could not have done so if they had not been acquainted with their Prophetical Books and with those several Oracles which were contained in them Perhaps there might have been some difference amongst them concerning some of those Oracles because there were in many of them some Ideas which seem contrary one to another And that was almost unavoidable because the Holy Ghost was to represent the Messias in a deep humiliation and great suffering and in a great height of Glory But after all the method of calling the Jews was quite different from the method of calling the Gentiles They had the distinct knowledge of the chief Articles of Religion which the Heathen had not They had all preparations necessary for the deciding this great question Whether Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias or not They had the Sacred Books of the Old Testament they were acquainted with the Oracles as well as with the Law They longed after the coming of the 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 the Prophets upon that subject as we see by the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus And indeed we see that Jesus
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 Conducter of the Animals of Glory who receive their Virtue from the Shekinah and live by his Glory fol. 65. col 2. fol. 66. col 4. According as we read in Ezek. i. 13. So R. Menachem following the Zohar fol. 5. col 3. fol. 8. col 1. They call the Shekinah the Adam of above after whose Image Adam was created And they give to him the Titles of Exalted and Blessed which they give only to the True God R. Men. fol. 14. col 3. They say That 't was he to whom Noah offered his Sacrifice Ibid. fol. 27. col 1. fol. 34. col 4. They pretend that the Shekinah is the Bridegroom of the Synagogue according to the Idea of God by Isaiah lxii 3. R. Men. fol. 15. col 1. And that God having committed to Angels the Care of other Nations the Shekinah alone was intrusted with the Care and Conduct of Israel fol. 28. col 3. fol. 153. col 2. They pretend that he hath been in Captivity with their Fathers R. Men. fol. 17. col 2. col 4. fol. 51. col 2. That he hath smote the Egyptians fol. 56. col 4. without the help of Angels although the Angels attended him as their King fol. 59. col 1. col 2. fol. 61. col 3. They pretend that the Temple was built to the Honour of the Shekinah fol. 63. col 1. fol. 70. col 2. And that it was to him and not to the Ark that the Levites said Arise O Lord into thy rest Thou and the Ark of thy strength Psal cxxxii 8. fol. 121. col 4. In a word they look upon the Shekinah as the Living God fol. 2. col 1. The God of Jacob R. Men. fol. 38. col 3. And they acknowledge him to be that very Angel whom Jacob looks upon as his Redeemer his Shepherd and whom the Prophets call the Angel of the Presence and the Angel of the Covenant Ibid. fol. 73. col 1. fol. 83. col 4. They are no less positive when they speak of the Third Sephira which they call Binah and which we take justly to be the Holy Ghost For they teach that it proceeds from the First by the Second and who can conceive that the Spirit of God is not God And 't 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. fol. 10. col 4. This Idea is grounded upon what is said Thou art our Father which they refer to the Shekinah fol. 22. col 2. col 3. And they call her upon that account the Mother of Israel and her Tutor R. Men. fol. 62. col 3. fol. 64. col 4. That Idea of the Holy Ghost as a Mother which R. Menachem hath fol. 114. col 2. is so ancient among the Jews that St. Jerom witnesses that it was the name which the Nazarenes gave to the Holy Ghost Hicronym in Ezek. xvi in Isa viii in Matth. xiii They speak of the Spirit as of a Person when they look upon a Man as a Prophet who is sent by God and by his Spirit Isa chap. xlviii R. Menach fol. 34. col 2. fol. 56. col 1. And by whom the Holy Ghost hath spoken fol. 122. col 2. And who for that reason is called the mouth of God fol. 127. col 4. Which is now turned by some other Jews as signifying only a Created Angel as you see in Bachaje at the end of the Parasha Breschith fol. 18. col 1. So they speak of the Holy Ghost as being the mouth of God fol. 127. col 4. And that the Angels have been created by the Mouth of God fol. 143. col 3. I acknowledg that sometimes some of them seem to take the Shekinah for the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost for the Shekinah although they commonly call one the Second Sephira and the other the Third viz. the Binah that is to be seen in R. Men. fol. 80. col 2. So some of them refer to the Binah the Title of King of Israel which occurs so often in Scripture See Men. fol. 132. col 3. Although it is the common Name of the Shekinah fol. 113. col 1. Some other refer to the Shekinah the Name of the Spirit of God which is mentioned Gen. i. 1. So says the Author of the Book Jetzira in R. Menachem fol. 3. col 2. But if some are mistaken in their Ideas I can say that they are very few and almost not worth taking notice of And indeed if we consider a little what is the general Sense of those Authors about the Emanations which are spoken of in Scripture as by which the Divine Nature is communicated to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Shekinah and to the Holy Ghost we shall know evidently that they had as distinct a Notion of a true Trinity as they have of the Plurality of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence And first the Author of the Zohar and the Author of the Book Habbahir pronounce that the Third Sephira proceeds from the First by the Second and R. Men. follows their Doctrine fol. 1. col 3. 2dly They attribute equally the Name of Jehovah to the Second and the Third Sepâ—â—â—a viz. the Wisdom and the Binah or Understanding So does the Zohar in R. Men. fol. 3. col 3. fol. 10. col 4. 3dly They propose the manner in which Eve was Taken from Adam as an Image of the manner of Emanation of the Wisdom from the En soph that is Infinite Ib. fol. 105. col 3. fol. 14. col 1. 4thly They propose the Image of the two Cherubims who were drawn from the Ark to give the Idea of the Two last Persons for the distinction of the Cherubims was evident although there was an Unity of them with the Ark. So R. Men. fol. 74. col 3. But we must add some of their Expressions upon this matter so much contradicted by the Socinians And first R. Menachem with the Jewish Authors suppose that not only the Three Persons which they call Sephiroth are spoken of in the History of the Creation but that they are also express'd in the first Command of the Law See him fol. 66. col 3. fol. 68. col 1. 2dly They acknowledge those Three Sephiroth and attribute to every one his Operations Ibid. fol. 139. col 4. 3dly The Author of Zohar is a Voucher of great Authority and he cites these words of R. Jose a famous Jew of the second Century where examining the Text Deut. iv 7. Who have their Gods so near to them What saith
Prince to conquer and to avenge them of their Enemies They removed from their thoughts the accounts of his Death as contrary to those Glorious descriptions which suited better with their minds They expected the Messias should come to restore presently the Kingdom unto Israel and in a word following their own Desires and Imaginations they confounded Christ's first coming with his second and then confirmed themselves in this mistake partly because the Prophets seemed to describe the Kingdom of the Messias very carnally partly because they knew not what to think of a Coelestial 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 Prophecies was the constant ancient Doctrine of their Nation 2. That those Jews that were converted to Christianity by the Ministry of Jesus Christ and his Apostles were converted upon these Maxims which were then the Maxims of the wisest and the Religiousest part of their Nation 3. That the Apostles in their Writings as well as Christ Jesus in his Discourses cited the Texts of the Old Testament according to the commonly received sense of the Synagogue And in truth the authority of these proofs in that received sense did not a little contribute to the Conversion of both Jews and Gentiles In order to make the Reader of my mind I intreat him to take in good part my entring a little further into the examination of what the most studious Jews in the Holy Scriptures do commonly propose under the name of Tradition Let them be lookt upon by some Men as dreaming Authors that busie themselves in Enquiries 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 phantastical because not understood by most of those which have been accustomed to the Greek Methods of Teaching ought not therefore to be despised and wholly rejected None but Fools will think this a sufficient reason why all Pythagoras his Doctrines ought to be contemned because that he having been a Scholar of Pherecydes the Syrian and other learned Men in Egypt and Chaldea did borrow thence his way of teaching Theology by Symbols which is attainable only by few and those of no common Capacity 2. I observe that most of the true Jewish Doctors that followed the Tradition of their Schools had this design principally in their eye to make Men fully understand the Secrets of God's Conduct for the Restoration of fallen Mankind To this in particular they bend their Thoughts and in this they endeavour'd to instruct their Readers explaining to them according to this sense some places of Scripture which at first sight seem not immediately to regard so important a Subject 3. I observe that oftentimes where they attribute these Interpretations of Scripture to a Tradition delivered down to them from their Fathers it is only in order to render their Reflections on the Scriptures so much the more venerable to their Hearers For it is plain enough in some places that an attentive Meditation on the Words might have discover'd the same things which they refer to Tradition For Example They remark that God said concerning Adam See Reuchlin Cabalae l. 1. p. 628. Gen. iii. 22. And now lest he stretch out his hand and eat of the tree of life and live for ever therefore God as it follows drove him out Paradise From hence they infer that God gave Adam hopes of becoming one day immortal by eating of the Tree of Life which they thought should be obtained for him by the Messias Now it appears that our Blessed Saviour did allude to this common Opinion of the Jews which was then esteemed as a Tradition Rev. ii 7. To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the Tree that is in the Paradise of God And this Notion is repeated Rev. xxii 2 14. Again they remark that God said Behold Adam is become like one of us Gen. iii. 22. And they maintain that he speaks not this to the Angels who had no common likeness to the Unity or Essence of God but to him who was the Celestial Adam who is one with God As Jonathan has also observed in his Targum on these words of Genesis calling him the only-begotten in Heaven Now it is plain that St. Paul has described Jesus Christ as this Heavenly Adam 1 Cor. xv They assert that the first Prophecy Gen. iii. 15. was understood by Adam and Eve of the Saviour of the World and that Eve in prospect of this being delivered of her first Son Gen. iv 1. Reuchl Ibid. p. 629. she called him Cain saying I have got a man or this man from the Lord believing that he was the Promised Messias They tell us farther that Eve being deceived in this expectation as also in her hopes from Abel asked another Son of God who gave her Seth of whom it is said that Adam begot another Son after his own Image another with respect to Abel that was killed not to his Posterity by Cain for they bear the Image of the Devil rather than that of God They maintain the Name of Enos to have been given Seth's Son upon the same account Reuchl Ibid. p. 630 631. because they thought him that excellent man whom God had promised They make the like Remarks on Enoch Noa and Sem and Noah's Blessing of Sem they look'd on as an Earnest Wish that God in his Person would give them the Redeemer of Mankind They affirm that Abraham had not been so ready to offer up his Son Isaac a Sacrifice Reuchl Ibid. p. 632. but that he hoped God would save the World from Sin by that Means and that Isaac had not suffered himself to be bound had he not been of the same belief And they observe that it was said to Abraham and afterwards to Isaac on purpose to shew them the mistake of this Opinion In thy Seed shall all the nations of the Earth be blessed A plain Argument that the Jews anciently thought that these words did relate to the Messias as did also St. Paul Gal. iii. 16. They maintain Reuchl Ib. p. 633. that Jacob believed that God would fulfil to him the first Promise made to Adam till God undeceived him by inspiring him with a Prophecy concerning Judah Gen. xlix 10. and by signifying to him which also Jacob tells his Sons that the Messias should not come but in the last days v. 1. when the Scepter was departed from Judah and the Law-giver from between his Feet v. 10. Reuchl Ib. p. 633. They declare that ever since this Prophecy the Coming of the Messias for the Redemption of Mankind has been the Entertainment of all the Prophets to
In particular Though he doth not directly name these Two Powers yet it is clear that by the first he means the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he saith it is the Power by which all things are created or to which God spoke when he made Man Which two Characters are ascribed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Philo in many of his Tracts The other which we call the Holy Spirit is often acknowledged by Philo Lib. Quod Deus sit immut p. 229. B. 5. These things being considered he saith it appears how God is Three and yet he is but One He sheweth how this was represented in that Vision to Abraham Gen. xviii where it is said Verse 1. That Jehovah appeared to him And Verse 2. Abraham looked and behold Three men stood by him Yet he spoke but to One Vers 3. saying My Lord if now I have found favour in thy sight pass not away I pray thee from thy servant c. This Vision according to the Literal Sense he expounds of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Two Angels as I have quoted him elsewhere * V. Phil. All. 11. p. 77. E. But he saith here was also a Mystery that lay under this Literal Sense like to Sarah's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the LXX calleth the Cakes that were hid under the Embers According to this Mystical Sense he saith here was denoted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Great Jehovah with his Two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which one is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These are Philo's words De Sacrif Ab. Cain p. 108. B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God attended with his Two Supreme Powers Principality and Goodness being himself but One in the middle of these Two makes these Three Appearances to the seeing Soul which is represented by Abraham That these words did not drop from Philo by chance the Reader may see in another place where he speaks purposely of this matter De Abrahamo p. 287. E. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In the middle is the Father of all things on each side of him are the Two Powers the oldest and the nearest to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jehovah whereof one is the Creative Power the other is the Royal Power The Creative Power is called God the Royal Power is called Lord. He therefore in the middle being attended by these Powers on each side of him represents to the seeing Faculty the appearance of sometimes One and sometimes of Three Philo after all warns his Reader that this is a Mystery not to be communicated to every one but only to them that were capable to understand and to keep it to themselves By which he 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 without any addition they speak of the Word of the Lord or the Shekinah of the Lord and that so often that it will be endless to quote all the places some of them however must be cited to put the thing out of dispute 1. Where ever the words Jehovah and Elohim are read in the Hebrew There Onkelos commonly renders it in his Chaldee Paraphrase the Word of the Lord as Gen. xxviii 20 21. xxxi 49. Ex. ii 25. xvi 8. xix 17. xxxii 20. Lev xx 23. xxvi 49. Numb 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 Person under the Title of Shekinah which signifies the Divine Habitation The Origin of that expression is in the Hebrew word which we find in Gen. ix 27. and is repeated in many places of the Old Testament I acknowledg freely that in some few places of the Targums it seems to be employed to express the Holy Ghost so that Eliah in his Dictionary and some others who have followed him and transcribed his Book in their Lexicons takes the Shekinah and the Holy Ghost to be the same But after all I believe that Eliah hath been mistaken by not being fully acquainted with the Ideas of the most learned of his people And indeed we see that the most famous Writers of the Synagogue put quite another sense upon the Targums and decide that question against Eliah looking upon the Memra and the Shekinah as the same So doth R. Moses Maimonides R. Menachem de Rakanaty and Ramban and R. Bachaye It is very easie to be satisfied that these famous Authors are in the right For if you consider the places where Philo the Jew speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you shall see that they are in the Targum explained either by the Memra da Jehova or by the Shekinah And on the contrary if you except very few places you shall find that the Targums employ the term of Holy Ghost as the proper name which we have in the Original And even to this day the Jews do oftner call the Spirit as by his proper name Ruach hakkodesh the Holy Spirit That the Targumists had the same Notions of these two that Philo had is I think plain if we compare what Philo saith of the two Powers of God De Plant. Noae p. 172. whereof as we 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 Ex. xv 17. The like expressions are to be found in other places too many to be here collected but we shall consider them afterwards The mean while we cannot but take notice how that Doctrine of the Trinity past current among the Jews of the ancient Synagogue though they were as zealous Asserters of the Unity of the Godhead as our Socinians can pretend to be at this day No doubt the ancient Jews could have found as many Contradictions in these two Doctrines of Trinity and Unity as the Socinians do if they had not been more disposed to study how to reconcile them together being satisfied that both these Doctrines were part of the Revelation which God had made to their Fathers We cannot say so altogether of the Modern Jews who are very much alienated from the Doctrine of the Trinity by seeing much clearer Revelations of it in the New Testament and especially since they are treated with disputes against the Christians that make Christ to be the Messias or second Person in the Trinity which they can by no means endure now to hear This has set them to hunt for ways to avoid the Evidence of these Texts that speak of a Plurality in the Divine Nature and in this pursuit they forsake their ancient Guides and strangely intangle themselves and contradict one another Some of them flatly deny that any of those Plural words do denote any Plurality in God but
and the property of God is to forgive sins as the Jews did object to Christ They answered This is our opinion therefore we did not receive him as Ambassador 4ly In time they took this prudent method in their divisions they forbad their people to dispute with Christians upon those Subjects unless they were well used to the Controverversie Let him dispute with Hereticks that can answer them as R. Idith But if a man can't answer them let him forbear disputing This was the Counsel or Law of Rab. Nachman one of the Authors cited in the Ghemara de Sanhedrin ch 4. § 11. In Beth Israel For R. Eliezer who lived under Trajan had observed that the reading of the Old Testament made the Jews turn Hereticks i. e. Christians Himself was suspected to be inclinable that way So that in after times they preferred much the study of the Mishna that is to say of their Traditions before that of the Law it self CHAP. XXI That we find in the Jewish Authors after the time of Jesus Christ the same Notions which Jesus Christ and his Apostles grounded their Discourses on to the Jews ALtho what I have said shews clearly that all the Notions which are in the New Testament are exactly agreeable to those that are in the Old Jewish Church yet I believe that I can add some light to it by some particular remarks upon some places of the New Testament which are mightily cleared if compared with the Ideas of the Jews since Jesus Christ his time And this I hope will serve to 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 Context of the Old Testament but that they quoted it according to its natural sense those very Ideas being common till this day among the Learned Jews and among those very Men who applying themselves fully to the Studies of the Holy Scripture are lookt upon as the Keepers and Depositaries of Tradition I will bring those remarks without an exact niceness or care as to their order choosing to follow only the order of the New Testament If any one would know why St. Matthew ch ii 18. has quoted the words of Jeremy ch xxxi 15. Rachel weeping for her children because they were not He may conceive the reason of such a quotation if he knows that the Jews do look upon the Messias as the servant which is spoken of by Isaiah ch 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. Menach of Reka fol. 41. col 2. fol 42. col 4. No body can read the 5th of St. Matthew but he must take notice with what authority Jesus Christ speaks upon the Mount in that famous Sermon in which he vindicates the Law from the corruption of the Pharisees But I say unto you But he will be more sensible of that if he reflects upon the common Notion of the Synagogue in which the proper name of the Shekinah is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I the Lord have spoken R. Menach fol. 33. col 4. fol. 40. col 4. and that 't was the Shekinah which gave the Law upon Mount Sinai R. Menach fol. 67. col 3. 68. col 1. They cannot but take notice of the Title of the Bridegroom which is given by John Baptist to Jesus Christ and which Jesus Christ assumes Mat. ix 15. It is evident that they make an allusion to Psal 45. and to the Song of Songs which is of the same argument But this will be clearer to those that know that the Jews maintain that 't is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Shekinah which gave the Law and then sought after Israel as his Bride that St. John Baptist speaks of himself as the Paranymph and as Moses who said that he came out to meet God Exod. xix 17. as it is noted in Pirke Eliezer ch 41. and that 't is the Shekinah that is spoken of in that Psal xlv under the name of the King that the name of the King exprest the Messias when absolutely used Zohar in Exod. fol. 225. and that they acknowledg in this an inexplicable mystery R. Menach fol. 7. col 3. fol. 143. col 4. Jesus Christ saith to the people who followed him Mat. xi 29. Take my yoke upon you for my yoke is easie If a Man ponders that expression he shall find that Jesus Christ speaks as God And indeed nothing is more common than to see the Prophets reproach the Jews that they have cast off the yoke of God Jer. ii 20. and ch v. 5. But who doth not see that he speaks as the very Son of God who is spoken of Psal 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 authority be never so great We see Mat. xxi 13. why Jesus Christ speaks of the Temple as the House of his Father and as his own House and the Jews perceived well enough that he made himself God But he did that according to the Notions of the Jews who maintain till this day that the Shekinah or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same and that the Temple was dedicated to God and to his Shekinah R. Men. fol. 63. col 1. fol. 70. col 2. fol. 73. col 3. 4. fol. 79. col 3. So in the same Chapter v. 42. Jesus Christ quotes these words from Psal cxviii 22. The stone which the 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. fol. 53. col 1. 3. He is the Stone and the Shepherd of Israel How often saith Jesus Christ Mat. xxiii 37. would I have gathered thy Children together even as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her wings What signifies that expression A Jew understands it very well that Jesus Christ had a mind to tell them that he was the Shekinah For 't is the common Notion of the Jews till this day That the people of Israel is under the Wings of the Shekinah R. Men. fol. 107. col 4. Jesus Christ speaks to his Disciples Matth. xxvi 53. He shall presently give me more than twelve Legions of Angels Those who read those words do not understand them well if they do not know that Jesus Christ speaks as the Shekinah in the Camp of Israel and that he hath the twelve Legions of Angels as the twelve Armies of the twelve Tribes at his Command and under his Authority this is the Doctrine of the
have to do with do very confidently affirm any thing that comes into their heads be it never so little probable so they may thereby give any plausible Solutions of the Difficulties in which they find themselves entangled and perplext and they are much given to vaunt of their unanswerable Arguments so they call them which are many times but weak Objections such as Men of Learning and Wit should be ashamed of For this reason I thought it necessary to prevent as far as it was possible all that they can object against my Position of the Opinions the Old Jews held concerning those Doctrines which were exactly followed and fully declared by the Apostles and first Christians And because I foresee some Objections may arise I will 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 Opinions in these Articles yet the Socinians can make no advantage thereof because the Jews have in reality much alter'd 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 out done them in changing and shifting their Opinions when they dispute with Christians I hope to manage this Controversy with the Socinians so plainly and fully as to satisfy the Reader That as on the one side they most falsly accuse the Church of having corrupted the New Testament to favour the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ's Godhead So they cannot on the other side get any ground upon the Jews in their Disputes with them though they fancy they got a great way towards their Conversion by rejecting those Doctrines In a word both the Ancient and Modern Jews do so far agree in those things which make on the Church's side against the Socinians that if they appeal to the Jews they are sure to lose their Cause which when they have better considered they will find it their best way for the maintaining of their Opinions to abandon the Jews altogether as Men that understood not their own Scriptures viz. the Old Testament and to reject both as they have gone a great way towards it in rejecting that traditional sense of the Old Testament for which it was quoted in the New and without which it would have signified little or nothing to those purposes for which it was quoted And so it will appear that for all their brags of the Aptness and even Necessity of their way for the Conversion of the Jews they have taken the direct way to harden them by giving up that sense of the Old Testament Scriptures which Christ and his Apostles made use of for the converting of their Forefathers But we have the less reason to complain of them for this when we see how apt they are to question the Authority of the Books of the New Testament as oft as they find them so clearly opposite to their Doctrines that they cannot obscure the Light of them by any tolerable Exposition To shew that I do not say this without cause I shall show some instances in the last Chapter of this Book CHAP. II. That in the times of Jesus Christ our Blessed Saviour the Jews had among them a common Explication of the Scriptures of the Old Testament grounded on the Tradition of their Fathers which was in many things approved by Christ and his Apostles THE Jews have to this day a certain kind of Tradition received from their Forefathers which contain many precepts of things to be done or avoided on the account of their Religion This they call their Oral Law by which name they distinguish it from the written Law which God gave them by Moses They make five Orders of such a Tradition which are explained by Moses de Trano in his Kiriat Sepher Printed at Venice Anno 1551. The first is of the things which they infer from Moses and the Prophets by a clear consequence and they are certainly of the same Authority as the rest of the Revelation although they call it a Tradition We are not such Enemies to Names as not to like such a sort of Tradition and we receive it with all imaginable reverence we like very well the 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 second Order is of the Ceremonies and Rites which they keep as coming from Mount Sinai but of which there is not a word in the Law The third Order is of the Judiciary Laws upon which the two Schools of Hillel and Shammai were divided The fourth is of some Constitutions of the Ancients which they look upon as an hedge to the Law The last is of their Customs which are various in several places of their dispersion Tho' in many things they cannot but see that those last four Orders of Tradition do not agree with the Law of Moses or are quite unknown in it yet they seem to like it never the worse Nay their Rabbins professedly ascribe a much greater Authority to this Oral Law than to the Law of Moses They say in the Talmud Avoda zara c. 1. fol. 17. Col. 2. that a Man who studies in the Law alone without these Traditions is a Man which is without God according to the Prophecy of Azariah 2 Chr. 15.3 Of this sort were all the Traditions which were condemned by our Lord Jesus Christ He plainly calls them the Commandments of Men Mat. XV. 9. and has purposely directed several of his Discourses against them because even where their observing these Traditions would not consist with their Obedience to God as particularly in the case of Corban Mat. XV. 3. yet they gave Tradition the preference and so as our Saviour there tells them Ver. 9. They made the Commandments of God of no effect by their Tradition The Author of these Traditions or new Laws as one may term them did almost all of them live since the time that the Jews were under the power of the Seleucidae and they were the Leaders of those several Sects that corrupted their Religion by adding to it a great number of Observations which were perfectly new We have therefore no reason to look upon this sort of Tradition as the fountain from whence the Jews in Christ's time took their measures of the sense and meaning of the Writings of the Old Testament But for the Interpreting of their Scriptures the Jews in Christ's time had some other kinds of Traditions much different from
the Characters of the Messias being every day more unfolded and opened 't was easy for them that studied the Prophecies to compare one with the other and from thence to draw Rules to find out the Ideas of the 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 Prophecies 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 Gross will be acknowledged by all the Jews in our Age. But to consider these Matters yet more particularly It is worthy to be observed that by comparing these Texts which speak of the low Estate and Sufferings of one that is there also described as being in the highest Glory and Dignity they have been convinced that both these Descriptions are of one and the same Person and therefore notwithstanding the Prophetical Descriptions of the Glory of their Promised Messias at his coming they have acknowledged those Prophecies to concern him also which speak of his Humiliation as that in Zech. ix 9. where he is represented Riding upon an Ass so you see in the Targum and in the Talmud and that in Isa liii where he is said to be loaded with Griefs and to be the most despised of Men as you see in the Targum in the Talmud and in Midrash Conen To which may be added that of David Psal xxii and that of Zech. xii 10. which treat of the same Matter and were referred to the Messias as I shall shew afterwards Thus we see wherever Salvation is spoke of they refer those Prophecies to the Messias as him who should be the Author of Salvation It is by this rule that Isa lii and liii and Hab. iii. are understood of the 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 Scadias 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 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 Ps cii 25 c. and Rom. xv 11. out of Ps cxvii 1. And to be short all those Psalms which represent God as reigning over the whole Earth do relate to the Messias according to the sense of the ancient Jews as may be seen in the many places of their Paraphrases and of their Interpreters as Rashi Kimchi and R. Joel Aben Soeb upon the Psalm 99. and 100. Thus again when the Scripture foretells the calling of the Gentiles to the knowledge of the true God they fail not to understand those predictions of the times of the Messias who should spread true Religion throughout the World Hence it is that Isa ii is so understood by them Lib de profug p. 364. lib. de Somn. p. 872. and R. Menach de Rekarati in Pentat fol. 18. col 1. fol. 31. col 1. Edit Venet. Targum Talmud in Megillah Abarb. in 1 Sam. 2. Sanhed fol. 99. col 2. Cited in the Acts. In this manner did they reflect on the Prophecies that spake of the Messias's Priesthood after that David had enlightned them in Psal cx as may be seen from the Notions of Philo the Jew touching the Priesthood of the Word by an allusion to the History of Melchisedeck So likewise did they own that the Promises of God to reestablish the House of David were to be accomplished by the Messias and by this rule they affirm'd that the Song of Anna did concern the time of the Messias for the words of that Song do not agree neither to Saul nor to David but to the time of the Messias As also they understood in like manner the Prophecy of Amos ix 11 15 16 17. according to the sense of the Synagogue and the Prophecy of Zechary vi 12 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 Psal cx and Psal xlv and Psal lxviii and Psal xcvii and what is said Deut. xxxii being all so many Texts insisted by the Writers of the New Testament as passages which in the Judgment of the Jews did concern the Messias We ought especially to observe that they never failed to make those reflections upon those particular Psalms whereof the Composers as they understood them spoke in the name of the Synagogue with respect to future times and who mention there a Posterity that should partake of the deliverance there promised And from this allowed Maxim also does St. Paul Heb. i. refer Psal cii to the Messias For this Character is found expresly in v. 22. of this Psalm as well as the calling of the Gentiles and the Subjection of Kings to God is foretold ver 15 16 17. We must take notice of another thing which is a consequence of what they observed in some eminent Prophesies viz. they understood them very rationally by the help of those Ideas which they met with in other Prophesies which otherwise seem not so clearly to concern the same Messias which is spoken of in clearer Prophesies 'T 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. l. compareth it with the words of Isaiah ch liv Rejoice thou barren that bearest not c. 'T was according to that method that they being convinced that the Psal xxii was to be referred to the Messias did refer also to him the Psal xli as it is referred by St. Paul Heb. x. the same Ideas of suffering being found in both Psalms R. Menach de Rekam fol. 19. col 2. in Pentat It was according to the same method that they referred to the Sekinah or Messias all the Psalms which have the Title all Shosannin viz. Psal 45.69.80 as we see in the same R. Menachem fol. 106. col 2. in Pent. The Song of Songs as I have observed was the Key which made them understand the subject of those Psalms as the Song of Isaiah ch 5. made them to understand the Song of Songs I am not ignorant that the greater part of the Jewish Nation being oppressed with the Roman Yoak 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 Messias Fancying that he should come as a victorious
their Disciples and the Object of David's and all other Prophet's Longings and Desires Reuchl Ib. p. 634. They maintain that David did not think himself to be the Messias because he prays for his Coming Psal 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 Psal lxxxix 15. They did think Isaiah spake of him ch ix 6. So R. Jose Galilaeus praefat in Eccha Rabbati as it is to be seen in Devarim Rabba Paras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the end of it and in Jalk in Is § 284. And indeed what he there saith could not be meant of Hezekiah who was born 10 years before nor was his Kingdom so extensive nor so lasting as is there foretold the Messias's should be but was confined to a small part of Palestine and ended in Sedecias his Successor not many Generations afterwards And it is the general and constant Opinion of the Jews that Malachi the last of the Prophets spake of him ch 4. under the Name of the Son of Righteousness for this see Kimchi 4. It ought to be well considered that we owe the Knowledge of the Principles on which the Holy Ghost has founded the Doctrine of Types to the Jews who are so devoted to the Traditions of their Ancestors which Types however they who read the Scripture cursorily do ordinarily pass by as things light and insignificant yet it is true what St. Paul hath said 1 Cor. x. 11. That all things happened to the Fathers in Types and were written for their instruction upon whom the ends of the World are come or who live in the last Times as the Oeconomy of the Gospel is called and the last days by Jacob Gen. xlix 1. That is acknowledged by the Wisemen of the Nation in Shemoth 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 a mystical or spiritual Sense which St. Paul lays down for a Maxim 1 Cor. x. 1 2 3 c. Where he applies to things of the New Testament all these following Types namely the Coming of Israel out of Egypt their passage through the Red Sea the History of the Manna and of the Rock that followed them by its Water We see in Philo the figurative sense which the Jews gave to a great part of the ancient History He remarks exactly and often with too much subtilty 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 Wee see that they reduced to an Anagogical sense all the Temporal Promises of Canaan of Jerusalem of the Temple in which St. Paul also followed them Heb. iv 4 9. quoting these words If they shall enter into my rest from Ps xcv 11. which words he makes the Psalmist speak of the Jerusalem that is above and this also is acknowledged by Maimonides de poen c. 8. This Remark ought to be made particularly on the mystical Signification which Philo the Jew gives of several Parts of the Temple of which the Apostle St. Paul makes so great use in his Epistle to the Hebrews Josephus in those few words which he has concerning the Signification of the Tabernacle Antiq. iii. 9. gives us reason enough to believe that if he had lived to finish his design of explaining the Law according to the Jewish Midrashim he would have abundantly justified this way of Explication followed by St. Paul with respect to the Tabernacle of the Covenant It is hard to conceive how the Apostles could speak of things which came to pass in Old time as Types of what should be accomplished in the Person of the 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 Melchisedeck as a Type of the Messias in respect to his Sacerdotal 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 look'd on as the Persons in whom God would fulfil his first Promise but that not being completely fulfilled in them it was necessary for them that would understand it aright to carry their View much farther to a Time and Person without comparison more august in whom the Promise should be perfectly completed It may be demanded why the Prophecies seem sometime so applied to Persons then living that one would think he should not need to look any farther to see the fulfilling of them as namely the prophetical Prayer as in behalf of Solomon which is in Psalm lxxii as the Birth of a Son promised to Isaiah ch vii and ch ix 6. and where Isaiah seems to speak of himself when he saith Isa lxi 1. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me and the like But it is not hard to give a reason for this with which the ancient Jews were not unacquainted And it is this That though all these Predictions had been directed to those persons yet they had by no means their accomplishment in them nor these persons were in any degree intended and meant in the Prophecy To be particular Solomon was in Wars during the latter part of his Life and so he could not be that King of Peace spoken of in the Prophecy and his Kingdom was 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 everlasting Isai vii 14. The Son born to Isaiah neither had the Name of Emanuel nor could he be the Person intended by it as neither was his Mother a Virgin as the word in that Prophecy signifies And for the Prophet himself though the Spirit of the Lord was upon him and spoke by him as did it by all the other Prophets 2 Pet. 1.21 Yet that the Unction here spoken of Saadia Gaon Emunoth c. 18 D. Kimchi in rad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isaiah lxi 1. did not belong to him but to the Messias is acknowledged by the Jewish Writers and seems to have been so understood by those that heard our Saviour apply this Prophecy to himself Luk. iv 22. So that nothing was more judiciously done and more agreeable to the known Principles of the Synagogue than the Question proposed to Philip by the Eunuch who reading the liii of Isaiah asked from him Of whom did he speak of himself or of another Again It may be asked Why the Prophets called the Messias David and John Baptist Elias Not to trouble the Reader with any more than a mention of that fancy of
thus 1. we find in many places the connexion of one History with another which is very often the imagination of a Rabbin who fancied what he pleased and fathered it upon Moses 2. We find Explications in these later Targums different from the former ones yet added to the former with an impudence not to be endured and this in several places 3. We there find long Narrations which have no other foundation than their method of explaining Scripture by the way of Notarikon as they call it as where we read of the five Sins of Esau which he committed on the same day in which he sold his birthright to Jacob and in pursuance of their manner of explaining Scripture by Gematria of which Rittangel on Jetzira has given some examples p. 31 32 33. But all this makes nothing against the authority of those places in the Paraphrase where they do little more than render the Text out of Hebrew into Chaldee In them there was no occasion to 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 common road and gave themselves the pleasure to see their own fictions come into such credit that they were received as the Oracles of God But beyond that we must take notice that as on one hand those Targums have been enlarged by so many Additions so on the other hand they have been altered in many places and new Ideas substituted to the old To shew the alteration which was made in those Targums by Modern Jews we can remark a thing which hath been often taken notice of by Buxtorf in his Lexicon Talmud viz. that there are many places cited from those Targums 500 years ago by the Author of Aroule that are not to be found in them as they are now in Print So we can prove clearly that new Ideas have been put in instead of the old chiefly upon the points controverted between Jews and Christians For in many places where St. Jerome in his Comments upon the Prophets brings the common explication of the Jews as agreeing with the explication of Christians we find the Targum brings an explication quite different from what it was to be according to St. Jerome's account It appears by this the Jews have done in their Books the same thing which Papists have done in the Books of the Fathers They have added many things to help their Cause and they have cut out many places which might have done great service to Truth As for the Additions then 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 easie for an attentive Reader to distinguish these Corruptions from the ancient Text which it seems Arias Montanus had a design to do in a particular Treatise as it is for one that looks on an old Pot or Kettle to tell where the Tinker has been at work and to distinguish his Clouts from the Original metal The ancient pieces have a sort of simplicity that makes them to be valued and which easily shews their antiquity The Additions are the rambling fancies of bold Commentators which they devised in later times as occasion required and thrust them upon the ancient Paraphrasts who lived in those times when there was no such occasion nor could they foresee that there would be any such in after-times As for example we do not find that the Jews before Christ's time ever spoke of two Messias the one the Son of David who was to reign gloriously the other a suffering Messias the Son of Joseph of the Tribe of Ephraim The reason is plain for they had no occasion for that fancy of a suffering Messias That arose upon their Disputes with the Christians who proved that the Sufferings of Christ were no other than what the Messias was to suffer according to the Prophecies of Scripture At first the Jews tried other ways to avoid the force of these Prophecies but when no other would do they came to this to devise another Messias the Son of Joseph and to give him the Sufferings which the Scripture attributes to the Messias the Son of David In a word all these Conceits of which the greatest part of these Additions do consist do so evidently demonstrate their Novelty that when one is acquainted with a little of the History of the World as well as that of the Jews it is scarce possible that he should take them for the Text of Jonathan or of the ancient Paraphrasts Besides all this in the Modern Paraphrases themselves we find very often these words Another Targum and sometimes yet Another Targum which shews that the following words are not the ancient Targum but are the Additions of some Modern Authors whom the Copyers of the Paraphrasts have joyned as a new light to the ancient Whether the Jews's inserting such things into their Paraphrases has been out of fondness of these Discoveries which appeared to them new or whether they have found it turn to account to insert these Additions in the Body of their ancient Paraphrases thereby to enhance the value of them or whether they thought by publishing them under the Names of those ancient Commentators whose Authority is so venerable to wrest from the Christians all the advantages they might draw from any thing in their Paraphrases the things that they added being oftentimes contrary to what the Ancients did teach is a secret among the Jews but a secret little worth since the Providence of God has preserved the Apocryphal Books and the Books of Philo which can give us so much light into the knowledg 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 call'd Rabboth Mechista and in their old Midrashim almost all composed before the 7th Century and in the Talmud of Babylon the same Ideas and the same Doctrine which we meet in the Apocryphal Books and in Philo's Writings And those Ideas have been constantly followed by the most considerable part of the Jews those very Men who have their name from their constant sticking to the old Tradition of their Forefathers CHAP. VIII That the Authors of the Apocryphal Books did acknowledg a Plurality and a Trinity in the Divine Nature HAving finished our General Reflexions on the Traditional Sense of the Scriptures which was receiv'd among the Jews before the time of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Books wherein we can find such a Tradition it is time we should come to the chief matter we designed to treat of The Question is Whether the Jews before Christ's time had any notion of a Trinity For the Socinians would make us believe that Justin
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
me to Thee Oh Zion Here are plainly two Persons called by the name of Jehovah namely one that sends and another that is sent So that this second Person is God and yet he is also the Messenger of God So likewise in the next Chapter v. 1. the Angel that used to talk with the Prophet shewed him Joshua the High Priest standing before the Angel of the Lord and Satan standing over against Joshua as his Adversary And v. 2. the Prophet hears the Lord say unto Satan twice over The Lord rebuke thee for being so maliciously bent against Joshua that was come out of the Captivity as a brand pluckt out of the fire He that was called the Angel v. 1. is here called the Lord v. 2. and this Lord intercedes with the Lord for his Protection of Joshua against Satan That which gave the Devil advantage against Joshua was his Sins which as the Targum saith were the Marriages of his Sons to strange Wives His Sins whatsoever they were are here called filthy Garments and Joshua standing in these before the Angel v. 3 4. The Angel commands them that stood about him saying take away the filthy garments from him Here again by commanding the Angels he sheweth himself their Superior Afterward when the filthy Cloaths were taken off this Angel saith to Joshua Behold I have caused thy Iniquity to pass from thee words that if one Man had said to another the Jews would have accounted Blasphemy Mat. ix 2 3. For who say they can forgive Sins but God only But here was one that exercised that Authority over the High Priest himself This could be no other than he that was called of God a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek Psal cx 4. of whom the Jewish High Priest even Joshua himself was but a figure But he goes farther adding I will cloth thee with change of raiment that is according to the Targum I will cloth thee with righteousness ver 5. And he * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he said Jon. Targ. said again commanding the Angels Let them set a fair Miter on his head and they did so and clothed him with Garments and the Angel of the Lord stood by Here again he is called an Angel at last as he was at first ii 3. It is an Angel's Office to be the Messenger of God and so he often owned himself to be in saying The Lord sent me And yet this Messenger of God commands the Angels ii 4. iii. 4 5. and himself stands by to see them do his commands v. 5. This Angel calleth Israel his People and saith he will dwell among them ii 10 11. He takes upon him to protect his People v. 5. and to avenge them on their enemies v. 10. He intercedes with God iii. 2. He forgives sin and confers Righteousness 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 Nonsense and there is no way to reconcile them with sense but by putting some kind of force upon the Text whether by changing the words Socin in Wiek 1. ii p. 565. or by putting in other words as Socinus honestly confesseth he has done in his Interpretation And he saith they must do it that will make sense of the words It is certain they must do so that will interpret the words as he would have it But he and his followers bring this necessity upon themselves They that will set up new Opinions must defend them with new Scriptures For our parts we change nothing in the words and in our way of understanding them we follow the Judgment of the ancient Jewish Church that makes all these things perfectly agree to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This we see in Philo who often calleth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * De Somn. p. 466. B. Eus praep vii 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo L. 1. Quaest Sol. as Philo calls the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De migr Abr. p. 416. B. 418. C. Quis rer Divin haeres B. p. 397. G. De Somn. p. 457. B. Quod Deus sit immut p. 249. B. Quis rer Divin haer p. 397. G. God and yet as often calleth him an †De Somn. p. 463. F. De Prof. p. 364. B. Angel the Messenger of God and ‖ our High-Priest and * De profug 466. B. De Somniis p. 594. E. Quis rer Divin p. 397. G. Vit. Mos iii. p. 521. B. our Mediator with God The same hath been shewed of the Word elswhere out of the Targums And here in this Targum though no doubt it hath been carefully purged yet by some oversight it is said ii 5. That the Word shall be a wall of fire about Jerusalem And if the Modern Jews had not changed the third Person into the first it would have followed that his Shekinah should be in the midst of her as himself saith afterward v. 10 11. He would dwell in the midst of her meaning in the Temple where the Word of God had his dwelling-place always before its destruction as has been abundantly shewn in this Chapter and as we shewed from Ezekiel it was promised he should dwell there again after its Restauration CHAP. XVI That the Ancient Jews did often use the Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word in speaking of the 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 Testament who made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could not rationally give to that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any other Idea than that which was commonly received in the Jewish Nation Nothing more can be required from me than to refute fully the Unitarians who pretend that the Word signifies no more than an Attribute or the eternal vertue of God and who to confirm this assertion of theirs observe that in the Targums the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never employed when they speak of the Messias The Socinian Author who wrote against Wecknerus insists very much upon this observation Let us therefore examine how true that is which he affirms and supposing it true how rational the consequence is which he draws from thence in opposition to it I lay down these three Propositions which I shall consider in as many Chapters The first is that in several places of the Ancient Jewish Authors the Memra or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for the Messias And so that it is certain that St. John hath followed the Language of the Jews before Jesus Christ in taking the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Divine Person that in the fulness of time as it was foretold
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