gine that it was conferred by God, on a created angel. When, therefore, they call this angel the Word, it argues a conviction, that he was both diftinct from the Father, and equal to him. According to the text, he who addreffed Hagar was JEHOVAH, who could multiply her feed; and yet an Angel. According to the paraphrafes, this Angel was the Word, who was at the same time the object of prayer. Before Dr P. can fhew that a perfonal Word is not here meant, he must prove, firft, that God, effentially confidered, may be an Angel or one fent; and fecondly, that this was the opinion of the Chaldee Paraphrafts. As according to the doctrine afcribed to Philo, this was certainly one of thefe occafions on which the Logos was a perfon, the Doctor would also need to give his reader a fatisfying reafon why he must understand the Paraphrafts, writing on the fame fubject, and using the same mode of expreffion, in so very different a sense. They defcribe the Word as a Mediator. It is faid, Deut. iv. 7. For what nation is there fo great, who hath God fo nigh unto them as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for? Jonathan gives the following paraphrase of the paffage; "God is near in the name of the "Word of the Lord." Again, we find this paraphrase on Hof. iv. 9. "God will receive the prayer of Ifrael by his "Word, and have mercy upon them, and will make them "by his Word like a beautiful fig-tree." And on Jer. xxix. 14. “I will be fought by you in my Word, and I "will be enquired of through you by my Word *." According to the Jerufalem Targum on Gen. xxi. 33. Abraham, at Beersheba, "prayed in the name of the Word "of the Lord, the God of the world +." But it is inconceivable, that the Paraphrafts did not here mean to describe D 4 See Bedford's Serm. p. 252. 269. the the Word as a Mediator; especially as we know that the ancient Jews, when fupplicating God, intreated that he would look on the face of his Anointed;" and have also seen that Philo, nearly cotemporary with fome of the Paraphrafts, exprefsly declared his faith in the Word, as the Mediator between God and man. They speak of atonement as made by this Memra. On Deut. xxxii. 43. Jonathan obferves; "God will atone by "his Word for his land, and for his people, even a people "faved by the Word of the Lord." This exactly corresponds with what we have extracted from Philo, concerning the Word as an High-prieft. They describe the Memra as a Redeemer, and fometimes as the Melfiab. These words, Gen. xlix. 18. I bave waited for thy falvation, are thus paraphrafed in the Jerufalem Targum; "Our father Jacob faid thus; My foul expects "not the redemption of Gideon the fon of Joash, which is "a temporal falvation; nor the redemption of Samfon, "which is a tranfitory falvation; but the redemption which "thou didst promise fhould come through thy Memra to thy "people. This falvation my foul waits for." In the bleffing of Judah, v. 10.-12. particular mention is made of the King Meffiah. It is a ftriking proof that by the Memra they meant him who was to appear as the Meffiah, that in the Targum of Jonathan, v. 18. is thus rendered; "Our Fa"ther Jacob faid, I do not expect the deliverance of Gideon the fon of Joash, which is a temporal falvation; nor "that of Samfon the son of Manoah, which is a tranfient "falvation. But I expect the redemption of the Meliab "the Son of David, who fhall come to gather to himself "the children of Ifrael." It is evident that the one paraphraft has copied from the other: and as the one puts Meffiab for Memra, it cannot well be denied that they had confidered both terms as denoting the fame perfon. We have a remarkable promise, Lev. xxvi. 12. I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people. The paffage, viewed in its connection, feems evidently to refer to the great gift of the Melliah. God promises, ver. 8. I will establish my covenant with you. Even fome of the later Jews understand this of the new covenant, which God was to make with Ifrael and Judah, foretold by Jeremiah, chap. xxxi. 31. Rabbi Solomon, and the author of Pefikta, are mentioned as of this opinion. God alfo declares, ver. 11. I will fet my tabernacle amongst you. He had already done so, as to the letter. But this promife evidently has a farther reference. Thence, the striking coincidence between it and the words of the Evangelift, has been remarked by interpreters. John fays, The Word was made flesh, and ɛoHEY Y nu, tabernacled among us, chap. i. 14. This is the effence of the promise; and the very expreffion is remarkably confonant to that of the Septuagint, in the passage under confideration, Θησω την σκηνήν με εν υμιν. There is every reason to think, that the ancient Jews difcerned the Meffiah here. Jonathan gives the following paraphrase of ver. 12. "I will be your God, and my Word "shall be unto you God the Redeemer." That expreffion, ver. 9. I will have respect unto you, is rendered by Onkelos; "I will look upon you in my Word:" and that in ver. 11. My foul shall not abhor you, he thus gloffes; "My "Word fhall not abhor you." The Memra is introduced here, without any verbal reference to it in the original, no lefs than thrice in the course of four verfes. This certainly argues a strong conviction in the mind of the Paraphraft, that the paffage referred to the promised Deliverer. Socinians themselves will grant, in words at least, that it is only in Jefus Chrift that God looks on finful men with compla cency. Kidder's Demonstr. par. 3. P. 107. cency. The Word of God gave the most astonishing proof that he did not abhor his people, when he tabernacled among them. They describe this Memra as only-begotten, and in this character as the Creator. That remarkable verse, Gen. iii. 22. The Lord God faid, Behold the man is become as one of us, is paraphrafed in a very fingular manner: "The Word "of the Lord faid, Behold, Adam whom I have created, is "the only-begotten in the world, as I am the only-begotten "in the highest heavens." The language here afcribed to the Memra, with what reference to the text avails not in the present inquiry, is applicable to a person only; and it will not be pretended by our opponents that it can apply to the Father. The perfon intended was believed to be "the "only-begotten Word." How nearly does this language approach to that of inspiration! In the beginning was the Word. All things were made by bim.-We bebeld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, John i. 1. 3. 14.-The word above rendered, I have created, is underftood in the fecond perfon by Glaffius +. For he reads it, creafti. But it makes no material difference. For in which way foever the expreffion be rendered, it clearly proves the Paraphraft's belief of the distinction of the Word from the Father. It is not denied that Philo often applies this character of only-begotten to the Logos. If, therefore, the Paraphrafts defcribe the Memra as one fent, as a Mediator, as one by whom atonement is made, as a Redeemer and the Meffiah, and as only-begotten; it is undeniable that they do not mean God the Father. If, notwithstanding, they ascribe personal and divine characters to the Word, which Dr P. cannot deny, they must mean a distinct perfon in the divine effence. Targ. Hierofol. ap. Pfeifferi Theol. Judaic. p. 886. † Philol. Sacr. lib. i. p. 24. Many Many other paffages, to the fame purpose, might have been quoted from the Targums. But thefe, we apprehend, are sufficient to satisfy any who are not determined to shut their eyes against evidence. Mahomet, to whom the Socinians have pleaded kindred*, may surely be fustained as an impartial witness. It was not his object to exalt Jesus Christ. Yet he was fo fully convinced, from the writings of the Old Testament, and from the general doctrine of the ancient Jews, that this character belonged to him, that he calls him the Word of God t. Before leaving this part of our subject, we may attend to what Dr P. has objected to the evidence, that the Paraphrafts reckoned the Memra and the Meffiah the fame perfon. He founds his objection on the words of Jonathan, who fays, that "the Meffiah and Moses will appear at the "end of the world, the one in the defart, and the other at “Rome, and that the Word, or Logos, will march between "them." Francis Taylor, the first who seems to have objected this as a proof that they did not intend one perfon by thefe two names, gives an answer to his own objection. For he adds; "It is probable, that, as the Jews acknowledge a "twofold Meffiah, they might intend to point out the "humble and afflicted one by the name Meffiah, and the o"ther, whom they expect as a triumphant conqueror, by "that of Memra ||." But these words might be meant merely to fignify that, as the difpenfation of the Law was under the adminiftration of the Memra, that of the latter day See their Epiftle to Ameth ben Ameth, prefixed to Lefslie's Socin. Controverfy. Glaffii Phil. 1. 1. t. 4. f. 3. p. 340. Vol. iii. p. 46. Apud Pfeifferi Crit. Sacr. cap. 8. qu. 18, |