ed apprehenfions of his character, not eafily reconcileable with the idea of his being a mere man.

According to Dr P., "Our Saviour could not poffibly have puzzled the Jewish Doctors as he did, by asking "them how David could call the Meffiah his Lord, when "he was his Son, or defcendant, on any other principle. "For if they had themselves been fully perfuaded that "the Meffiah, though defcended from David, was the Ma"ker and God of David, a fatisfactory answer to his que"ftion was very obvious." But how could that be a fatiffactory anfwer in the mouth of a Jew, which is foolishness when uttered by a Chriftian? For once, it would seem, the diftinction of natures in the perfon of the Meffiah may be admitted, as a fatisfactory folution of the difficulty arifing from the apparent oppofition of the characters afcribed to him. But, kind reader, you must not prefume to plead this as a precedent. It is only meant to serve a prefent purpose. However, as the Jewish Doctors did not give this fatisfactory answer, it is fair to conclude that they were greatly at a lofs for one that was fo. But they could not possibly have been puzzled, had they not been confcious that the words of David implied an acknowledgment of dignity, and therefore of descent, more than human. Or, shall we rather suppose that these Jewish Doctors were not fo well acquainted with Hebrew idioms and ideas as those of our time? A fatisfactory anfwer would have been very obvious to the mereft novice in Socinianifm. Without any hefitation he would have told Jefus, that it was no wife repugnant to their traditionary and established, nay, to their fcriptural ideas of Jehovah, to believe that a mere man fhould fit on his right hand, as fharing in his power and glory. But, furely, a good caufe never had more wretched advocates. For no man was able to answer him a word. Mere daftards must they all have been. For neither durft A 2

any

any man from that day forth ask him any more questions, Matth xxii. 46.

But if Jefus had no fonship superior to that by his descent from David, it will be difficult to vindicate his conduct on this occafion. For if Chrift was only to be the fon of David, the Pharifees declared the whole truth in answer to our Saviour's queftion, What think ye of Chrift, whose son is be? The question was restricted to his Son/bip. They could not, with propriety, take greater latitude in their anfwer. They fay unto him, The Son of David. It is allowed that this to a Jew, was a character of the fame meaning with that of Meffiah. Now, as they answered difcreetly, if they told the whole truth concerning the Sonship, what good end could it ferve for our Saviour to puzzle them? Did it become the great Prophet, when men had just and distinct ideas of truth, to excite doubts in their minds, and to expose them to the danger of Scepticifm? Undoubtedly, if there was any propriety in the objection made by Jefus, he wished them to believe, that the character given him by the fpirit of prophecy neceffarily implied a fuperior filiation. He might justly leave them in their perplexity, because they ought to have known his character from their own scriptures; and because he knew that they wilfully and obftinately refifted the light which thefe afforded.

According to our author, "Facundus very properly "fays, that Martha and Mary would never have said to "Chrift, If thou hadst been here, had they thought him "to be God omniprefent." But if Jefus be not God. omniprefent, he could never have properly faid to Martha, I am the refurrection, and the life, John xi. 21. 25. It seems abundantly evident, that even the difciples had very confufed

#Ibid. p. 35.

confused notions with respect to the character of Jefus, before the effufion of the Holy Ghoft, who was to teach them all things. But it is unfair to judge of the fixed principles of the disciples, from the occafional workings of unbelief; especially when their minds were in great perturbation, or under peculiar temptation. It is clear, that our Lord had reproved Martha as indulging this fin; " Said I not unto "thee that if thou wouldeft believe," &c. ver. 40. Whence proceeded his tears and groanings in fpirit, but from the grief of his holy human foul on account of the power of this iniquity, as difplayed in the conduct, not of the other Jews only, but of Martha and Mary? But even while their unbelief appears in their virtually ascribing the death of Lazarus to the absence of Jefus, they in the very fame words difcover a conviction of his being poffeffed of power more than human. They declare their perfuafion of his fovereign authority over death. But the fentiments of the Jews concerning the Meffiah, especially as illuftrated by the gospel-history, fhall be more particularly confidered afterwards.

Our author also argues from the interpretations given by their later writers of those paffages of the Old Teftament, which have been fuppofed by Chriftians to contain the doctrine of a Trinity, or of a plurality in the divine effence. When mentioning that paffage, Gen. i. 26. Let us make man, he acknowleges that it has received a variety of interpretations. It has been understood as fignifying that God spoke to all fecond caufes, or to "intelligences "only, or to the elements, or to fouls ;" or that he used the ftyle of a king; or that he excited or commanded himself. This variety of ridiculous interpretations fhews how much the Jews are at a lofs. The moft general opinion, that he spoke to angels, though defigned to exclude a plurality of pefons,

A 3

Vol. iii. p. 26. 27.

perfons, if it has any meaning, neceffarily supposes a plurality of gods. For God cannot reasonably be supposed to fpeak in this ftyle 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"food according to the letter, as the vulgar imagine. "For otherwife our wife men would not have command"ed the concealment of these things, nor would they have "exercifed 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 these "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 these subjects, "ought to be on his guard that he do not divulge them; as we have many times given warning in our commen

66

66

tary on the Mischna. 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 said this after what is written con"cerning the works of the fixth day. Hence, the truth But because he

"of what we have obferved is evident.

"who has acquired any perfection is bound to communi"cate it to others, --it will unavoidably follow, that those

“ who

• More Nevochim, Par. 2. cap. 6.

"who have apprehended any of these fecrets, whether by

their own diligence, or by the help of a master, 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, such as are to be found scattered, and blend"ed with other things, in the fayings of our more cele "brated and excellent Rabbies. Therefore I alfo, 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 phrases, blended with extraneous matter; and for

A 4

. giving

Non omnia fecundum literam intelligenda et accipienda effe, que dicuntur in opere Berefchith feu creationis, ficut vulgus hominum existi mat. 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 moauimus in Commentario noftro in Mischnam. Hinc claris verbis dicunt quoque Rabbini nostri; A principio libri ufque hûc gloria Domini eft celare verbum: dixerunt autem hoc post 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 apertè et clarè hoc faciendum est, sed tecté, et non nifi per signa et indicia, qualia fparfim, 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.