661 perfons, if it has any meaning, neceffarily supposes a plurality of gods. For God cannot reasonably be supposed to fpeak in this style to his inferiors. Nothing can be more evident, than that the Jewish writers themselves are confcious that their interpretations of this paffage, and of others of the fame kind, are far from being fatisfactory. They even acknowledge, that they draw a veil over their true meaning. Maimonides explains the plural language afcribed to God in fcripture, as referring to his boufe of judgment, that is, to angels. But even after he has given this view of it, he says; All things which are men"tioned in the hiftory of the creation, are not to be under"ftood according to the letter, as the vulgar imagine. "For otherwise our wife men would not have command"ed the concealment of these things, nor would they have "exercised fuch care in hiding and involving them in pa "rables. Nor would they have even fo ftudiously pro"hibited the mention of fuch things in the prefence of "the ignorant rabble. For the literal fenfes of thefe "things either beget wicked thoughts, imaginations and "opinions concerning the nature of God, or certainly fubvert the foundations of the law, and introduce "fome herefy.-Whoever has any skill in thefe fubjects, "ought to be on his guard that he do not divulge them; "as we have many times given warning in our commen"tary on the Mifchna. Hence, alfo our Rabbies plainly "fay, that it is for the glory of God to conceal these things "that are written from the beginning of the book to this place. But they have faid this after what is written con"cerning the works of the fixth day. Hence, the truth "of what we have obferved is evident. But because he "who has acquired any perfection is bound to communi"cate it to others,--it will unavoidably follow, that those "whe More Nevochim, Par. 2. cap. 6. "who have apprehended any of these fecrets, whether by their own diligence, or by the help of a mafter, will at * times utter a few of them. But this must not be done "openly and plainly, but under cover, and only by figns "and fymbols, fuch as are to be found scattered, and blend. "ed with other things, in the sayings of our more cele "brated and excellent Rabbies. Therefore I also, as you "may obferve, in these myfteries only mention one word " or expreffion, as the hinge of the whole. But I leave "the rest to others, to whom it is to be left *." What reafon can the learned Jews have for fpeaking of fecrets and myfteries; for commanding the concealment of thefe from the common people, the use of parables, of fingle words, or phrafes, blended with extraneous matter; and for * Non omnia fecundum literam intelligenda et accipienda effe, qua dicuntur in opere Bereschith seu creationis, ficut vulgus hominum existimat. Nam alias non præcepiffent fapientes illa occultari, neque tanta cura in eis abfcondendis et parabolis involvendis ufi fuiffent, neque etiam tam ftudiofe prohibuiffent, ne de iis fermo fieret coram imperita plebe. Senfus enim illorum litterales vel gignunt pravas cogitationes, imaginationes et opiniones de natura Dei Opt. Max., vel certè fundamenta legis evertunt, hærefimque aliquam introducunt.-Quicumque verò aliquam in illis fcientiam habet, cavere debet, ne illa divulget, ficuti fæpiùs mo. auimus in Commentario noftro in Mifchnam. Hinc claris verbis dicunt quoque Rabbini nostri; A principio libri ufque húc gloria Domini eft celare verbum: dixerunt autem hoc poft ea, quæ fcripta funt de operibus fexti diei, ex quo patet veritas illius quod nos diximus. Quia verò is, qui perfectionem aliquam nactus eft, tenetur et obligatur illam aliis quoque infundere et communicare,-ideo fieri non poteft, quin illi qui aliquid ex fecretis iftis, five proprio Marte et industria, five ope præceptoris alicujus, apprehenderunt, nonnunquam pauca quædam dicant. Verùm non aperté et clarè hoc faciendum eft, fed tecté, et non nifi per figna et indicia, qualia sparfim, et aliis rebus permixta in verbis celebriorum ac præftantiorum Rabbinorum noftrorum inveniuntur. Ideoque et ego, ut obfervabis, in iftis myfteriis fæpe unius alicujus verbi vel dicti folùm mentionem facio, quod cardo quafi eft totius rei; cætera vero illis relinquo, quibus relinquenda funt, Ibid. Par. 2. cap. 29. p. 273, 274. giving frequent warnings to this purpose; if they really believe the interpretations which they give openly? When this intelligent writer fays, that the literal sense of the fcriptural language concerning creation introduces berefy, he undoubtedly refers to the support that it gives to the Christian doctrine, which they distinguish by this name; and especially to that of the Trinity. For when the Rabbies, according to his acknowledgment, particularly apply the saying quoted from them to what is written concerning the works of the fixth day, they plainly intimate, that the great mystery, with respect to creation, lies in the language afcribed to God in the creation of man. When Maimonides fpeaks of a few fecrets being unavoidably uttered at times, is it not implied that many more are intentionally concealed? What trust can any man of sense repose in such interpreters, as to their faithfully declaring the hereditary doctrine of their nation? In a word, is it not evident that the difference between Jews and Socinians is confiderably wider than the latter pretend? For the very ufe of the term myftery, in relation to these words, Let us make man, must be exceedingly ungrateful to a Socinian ear. R. Huna is introduced in a Jewish work, as saying, that if this kind of language had not been written, it would not have been lawful to fay, The Elohim bath created, &c. On this fubject Dr P. alfo calls in the affiftance of the Christian fathers +. They may, indeed, be fuftained as giving a juft enough account of what they knew. Their teftimony is also of weight as to the ftate of the Jewish creed in their own times. But they were not fufficiently acquainted * Dixit R. Huna in nomine Bar Cappara, nifi hujufmodi fermo fcriptus effet, non fuiffet licitum dicere, Dii creavit cœlum, &c. Martini Pugio Fidei, p. 388. Ear. Op. vol. iii. p. 8. acquainted with the writings of the ancient Jews, to be admitted as witneffes. It would appear, however, that in fome inftances when they only spoke of the Jews in our Saviour's time, or in their own, our author has understood them as expreffing the faith of that people in every age. But I fhall not lofe time on this point, as the affertions of the fathers cannot bring conviction in oppofition to other evidence. Some of them might infer from what they knew of the Jews in their own times, that their ancestors held the fame fentiments. This feems, indeed, to be our author's plan of reafoning. But it is inconclufive. For with equal propriety may we infer from their later interpretations of prophecy, either that Chriftians have erroneoufly believed in a suffering Meffiah, or that the Old Teftament exhibits two perfons under this character, the one as a fufferer, and the other as a conqueror. Juftin Martyr not only fhews that the ancient believers of the Jewish church confidered the Word as a distinct and divine Perfon *; but speaks in fuch a manner to Trypho, of fome of the Rabbies in his own age, that we cannot understand his words in any other sense than as expreffing their perfuafion, that the Meffiah was to be divine. "But if we produce to them," he fays, "these fcriptures that I have formerly rehearsed "to you, which exprefsly fhew that the Meffiah is both fubject to fuffering and the adorable God, they are under "a neceffity of acknowledging that thefe refpect Chrift; "but they dare to affert, that this (Jefus) is not the Christ. "But that he shall come, and fuffer, and reign, and be the "adorable God, they confefs; which is truly ridiculous " and foolish, as I fhall in like manner fhew t.” Dial. p. 355. The † Ας δε αν λεγωμεν αυτοις γραφας, αι διαρρήδην τον Χρισον και παθητον και προσκύνητον και Θεον αποδεικνυσιν, ας και προανισόρησα ύμιν, ταυ τας giving frequent warnings to this purpose; if they really believe the interpretations which they give openly? When this intelligent writer says, that the literal sense of the fcriptural language concerning creation introduces berefy, he undoubtedly refers to the fupport that it gives to the Christian doctrine, which they diftinguish by this name; and especially to that of the Trinity. For when the Rabbies, according to his acknowledgment, particularly apply the saying quoted from them to what is written concerning the works of the fixth day, they plainly intimate, that the great mystery, with respect to creation, lies in the language afcribed to God in the creation of man. When Maimonides fpeaks of a few fecrets being unavoidably uttered at times, is it not implied that many more are intentionally concealed? What trust can any man of sense repose in such interpreters, as to their faithfully declaring the hereditary doctrine of their nation? In a word, is it not evident that the difference between Jews and Socinians is confiderably wider than the latter pretend? For the very use of the term myftery, in relation to these words, Let us make man, must be exceedingly ungrateful to a Socinian ear. R. Huna is introduced in a Jewish work, as saying, that if this kind of language had not been written, it would not have been lawful to fay, The Elohim bath created, &c. On this fubject Dr P. alfo calls in the affiftance of the Christian fathers †. They may, indeed, be sustained as giving a juft enough account of what they knew. Their teftimony is also of weight as to the ftate of the Jewish creed in their own times. But they were not fufficiently acquainted * Dixit R. Huna in nomine Bar Cappara, nisi hujufmodi fermo fcriptus effet, non fuiffet licitum dicere, Dii creavit cœlum, &c. Martini Pugio Fidei, p. 388. Ear. Op. vol. iii. p. 8. |