Page images
PDF
EPUB

day should be fo alfo; or, that he should be the centre of union between the Law and the Gofpel. Thus, it may be viewed as fimilar to that of Philo concerning the fame illuftrious perfon. When he fays that he is "the middle be"tween two extremes," God and man, he does not mean to deny his Deity, but to affert his mediatory character. He represents him as uniting both. I cannot think that the Memra is here meant as a diftinct perfon. For although Mofes is fuppofed to ride on one cloud, and the Meffiah on another, this is not afferted of the Memra. According to Bafnage, to whom Dr P. refers, the Memra is faid to walk or march. But Bafnage himself refers to Pfeiffer, who quotes the Targumist as simply saying, " And the Memra "between both *."

But as this feems to be the only paffage of the kind that can be produced, in what way foever it be explained, it is not of fufficient weight in opposition to a multitude to the contrary. Inftead of arguing from a fingle paffage in which the writer feems to discover fome confufion, on a fubject which he could not understand, while a ftranger to the accomplishment of the great promife; we may rather wonder that, in other places, he expreffes himself fo clearly. For we have seen that this very writer accounted the redemption of the Meffiah the fame with that of the Memra.

With refpect to the objection, I shall only add, that although we were certain that the Paraphraft meant that the Memra and Meffiah were different perfons, it would be unfair to judge, by this circumftance, of the meaning of all the other Chaldee interpreters. For it feems evident that the Paraphrafe on the five books of Mofes, afcribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, was not written for feveral centuries af

ter

* In fine mundi Mofes e medio deserti exibit, et rex Meffias e medio Romae, alter in nubis unius, alter in alterius culmine equitabit, et verbum Domini inter utrumque. Ibid.

ter his time. For it mentions Conftantinople and Lombardy. Now, it is well known that the later Jews in general, in their notions concerning the Meffiah, have deviated much farther from the faith of Chriftians, than their predeceffors. It has been already feen, that the Paraphrafts interpret what is faid of the Angel of the Lord who addreffed Hagar, of the Word. But this is not a folitary instance. For they give the fame account of the Angel who deftroyed Sodom, of the Angel who went before the Ifraelites in the cloudy pillar, ard of him who destroyed the Affyrians +. While Philo describes the Word as an Angel, they declare the Angel of the Lord to be the Word. Thus, it undoubtedly appears that both Philo and the Paraphrafts mean the fame person.

It is well known that many read the words of Eve, on occafion of the birth of Cain, I have obtained the man the Lord, Gen. iv. 1. apprehending that fhe confidered this event as the accomplishment of the promise concerning the feed of the woman. But whatever was the meaning of our common parent, it deferves our particular attention, that the Paraphraft renders the whole verfe in the following manner : "And Adam knew his wife Eve, who defired "the Angel; and the conceived and bare Cain, and faid I " have obtained a man," or, "the man, the Angel of the "Lord." As Jehovah is the word used in the original, we cannot conceive that the interpreter fhould have given this paraphrase, had he not known that it was believed by his countrymen, that he who was revealed in scripture as the Angel of the Lord was Jehovah, or the true God, and also that he was to be incarnate as the Angel of the covenant, or Meffiah.

That by the Word the Paraphrafts understood the Meffiah, is evident-from their interpretation of these words, Pfal.

Prideaux's Connect. Part 2. b. 8. P. 418.

↑ Bedford's Sermons, p. 225. 228, 230.

Pfal. cx. I. The Lord faid unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right band, &c. Jonathan renders them, "The Lord faid * unto his Word." Nothing can be more clear, than that the Jews in general, during our Saviour's ministry, underftood this paffage of the Meffiah. Not one of the Pharifees, however much puzzled, as our author expreffes it, objected to this as the true meaning, Math. xxii. 41.-46. It is therefore contrary to all the rules of interpretation, to suppofe that Jonathan understood the language in a different fenfe. It may indeed fuit a Socinian intellect, to confider it as the meaning of the Paraphrast, that Jehovah spoke to himself; that he defired himself to fit at his own right hand; that he engaged to himself, to make his enemies his footftool; that he fware to himself, that he should be a priest for ever, &c. For it is natural for thofe, who are themfelves under the empire of folly, to endeavour as far as poffible to affimilate every other to themselves. All this abfurdity muft follow; if, according to the Socinian hypothefis, by the Word the Paraphrafts fimply mean God himself, that is, the Father, as the only person in Deity.

[ocr errors]

CHAP. VI.

The Doctrine of the Jews concerning the name JEHOVAH, the Angel METATRON, and the TRINITY.

TH

HE Jewish Cabbalifts," our author obferves, "might easily admit that the Meffiah might be called Fe"bovab, without fuppofing that he was any thing more than "a man, who had no existence before his birth. That it "must have been the mere name and not the nature of God; "that the Jews fuppofed their Meffiah to partake of, is all

I

"that

"that can be admitted in the cafe. Several things in the "Scriptures are called by the name of Jehovah; as Jerufalem,—is called Jehovah our righteousness; but this ne

[ocr errors]

66

ver led the Jews to suppose that there were two Jeho"vahs, a greater and a less *." It is fo far good that the Doctor admits, that the Jews afcribed the name of God to the Meffiah. We should not have had fuch a conceffion, had he not found that there was no evafion. He afterwards mentions a Jewish writer," who laughs at the pretenfions "of Chriftians to bring proofs of the Trinity from the cab"bala +.” But even the less ancient Jews would have laughed at the Doctor's pretending that they would give the name Jehovah to a mere man. Maimonides speaks the sentiments of the whole nation when he fays; "The Name of "four letters has no known etymology; nor is it communi"cated to another. And there is no doubt that the glori16 ous name, which, as you know, it is not lawful to utter, "unless in the fanctuary, and by the holy priests alone in "their benediction, as alfo by the high priests on the day of " atonement; that, I fay, it refpects fomething in which "there is no communication between God and man ‡.” Kimchi, explaining these words, Ifa. xlii. 8. Jehovah, that is my name, paraphrases them in this manner; "That name "is proper to me." Thence the Jews are wont to call it

the

Vol. iii. p. 44.

+ Ibid, p. 47.

# Sed illum Nomen, cujus literæ funt, Iod He Vau He, non habet etymologiam notam, neque communicatur alteri. Ac nullum eft dubium, quin gloriofum iftud Nomen, quod, ut nofti, non proferre licet, nifi in Sanctuario, et a facerdotibus Dei fanctis folum in benedictione facerdotum, ut et a facerdote magno in die jejunii, quin, inquam, doceat de re aliqua, in qua inter Deum et alia, nulla prorfus eft commumicatio, &c. More Nevochim, Pars i. cap. 61.

the proper name of God. The fame writer, on Hof. xii. 5. Jehovah bis memorial, obferves; "In the name El, and E"lohim, he communicates with others; but in this name he "does not communicate with any one." Aben Ezra, on Ex. iii. 14. is at great pains to shew that this name is proper to God *.

But whatever were the opinion of the Jews, did it oppofe the teftimony of God, it could be of no more weight in the argument, than their rejection of him whom the Father hath fent. God exprefsly teftifies, in many places, that this name is his peculiar: and fhall we refufe to believe him? He made himself known to his people by the name Jehovah, to exprefs his nature, and to dftiinguish him from all whom he called gods, or who were fo called by others. When, therefore, this name was, in compofition, imposed on a place, there could be no danger of its being mistaken by them for God, or being fuppofed to poffefs divine nature; and thus, no danger of the original defign of this dif tinctive name being defeated. But as the idolatry of the world in general confifted in deifying intelligent creatures, had he permitted this name to be given to any fuch, he would have defeated his own defign in the use of it, and would himself have fignally contributed to idolatry +. When God claims this name to himself, it is directly in oppofition to every other nature, to which the folly of mankind might afcribe divinity. My glory will I not give to another, Ifa. xlii. 8. This name could not be conferred on a person of an inferior nature, without robbing God of his glory, or transferring some share of it to the creature thus denominated.

Vid. Hoornbeck Socin. Confut. tom. ii. p. 97.

Guffetii Veritas Salutifera, P. 1. c. 42. P. 312.

« PreviousContinue »