CHAP. XVI.

That the ancient Jews did often use the notion of the Aóyos, or the Word, in speaking of the Messias

CHAP. XVII.

203

That the Jews did acknowledge that the Messias was to be the Son of God

CHAP. XVIII.

213

That the Messias was represented in the Old Testament as being Jehovah that should come, and that the ancient synagogue did believe him to be such

CHAP. XIX.

223

That the New Testament does exactly follow the notions which the ancient Jews had of the Trinity, and of the Divinity of the Messias

CHAP. XX.

235

That both the Apostles and the first Christians, speaking of the Messias, did exactly follow the notions of the ancient Jews, as the Jews themselves did acknowledge

CHAP. XXI.

251

That we find in the Jewish authors after the time of Jesus Christ, the same notions upon which Jesus Christ and his Apostles grounded their discourses to the Jews 262

CHAP. XXII.

An answer to some exceptions taken from certain expressions used in the Gospels

CHAP. XXIII.

That neither Philo, nor the Chaldee paraphrasts, nor the Christians, have borrowed from the Platonic philosophers their notions about the Trinity; but that Plato hath more probably borrowed his notions from the books of Moses and the Prophets, which he was acquainted with

An answer to some objections of the modern Jews, and of the Unitarians

CHAP. XXV.

An answer to an objection against the notions of the ancient Jews compared with those of the modern 305 CHAP. XXVI.

That the Jews have laid aside the old explications of their forefathers, the better to defend themselves in their disputes with the Christians

CHAP. XXVII.

- 314

That the Unitarians in opposing the doctrines of the Trinity, and our Lord's Divinity, do go much further than the modern Jews, and that they are not fit persons to convert the Jews

332

A Dissertation concerning the Angel who is called the Redeemer, Gen. xlviii.

349

THE

JUDGMENT

OF THE

ANCIENT JEWISH CHURCH

AGAINST THE

UNITARIANS, &c.

CHAP. I.

The design of this book, and what matters it treats of.

IF the doctrines of the ever blessed Trinity, and of the promised Messias being very God, had been altogether unknown to the Jews before Jesus Christ began to preach the Gospel, it would be a great prejudice against the Christian religion. But the contrary being once satisfactorily made out, will go a great way towards proving those doctrines among Christians. The Socinians are so sensible of this, that they give their cause for lost if this be admitted: and therefore they have used their utmost endeavours to weaken, or at least to bring under suspicion, the arguments by which this may be proved.

It is now about sixty years ago since one of that sect writ a Latin tract about the meaning of the word Ayos in the Chaldee paraphrases, in answer to Wechner, who had proved that St. John used

B

this word in the first chapter of his Gospel, in the same sense that the Chaldee paraphrases had used it before Christ's time; and consequently, that it is to be understood of a Person properly so called in the blessed Trinity: which way of interpreting that word, because it directly overthrew the Socinian doctrine, which was then, that St. John by the word Ayos understood no other than Christ as man, it is no wonder that this author used all his wit and learning to evade it.

The construction which Socinus put upon the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John, was then followed generally by his disciples: but some years since, they have set it aside here, as being absurd and impertinent. And they now freely own what that Socinian author strongly opposed, that the Word mentioned by St. John is the eternal and essential virtue of God, by which he made the world, and operated in the person of Christ. Only they deny that Word to be a person distinct from the Father, as we do affirm it to be. And whereas Socinus taught, that Christ was made God, and therefore is a proper object of religious worship; now the Unitarians, who believe him to be no other than a mere human creature, following the principles of Christianity better than Socinus, condemn the religious worship which is paid to him.

As they do believe that the Jews had the same notions of the Godhead and Person of the Messias which they have themselves, so they think they have done the Christian religion an extraordinary service in thus ridding it of this double difficulty, which hinders the conversion of the Jews. Mr. N. one of their ablest men, having read Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, in which Trypho says, that he did not believe that the Messias was to be other than man, makes use of this passage of Trypho to prove, that the doctrines of the Divinity of the Messias, and by consequence of the Trinity, were never

acknowledged by the Jews. This he does in a book, the title whereof is, The Judgment of the Fathers against Dr. Bull.

His design being to prove, that Justin Martyr, about 140 years after Christ, was the first that held the doctrine of Christ's Divinity, and by consequence that of the Trinity, without which the other cannot be defended; he found it necessary to assert,

1st. That since the Jews, by Trypho's testimony, did own the Messias to be nothing more than mere man, therefore the Jewish authors, quoted by Dr. Bull against the Socinian opinions, must have lived after the preaching of the Gospel.

2dly. That the books that are quoted against them were written by some Christians in masquerade, that lived since Justin Martyr's time; and this he applies in particular to the works of Philo the Jew, and to the Book of Wisdom.

3dly. That since the Jewish authors could not possibly mention any thing like the doctrines of the Trinity, and of the Messias's being God too, to which they were such perfect strangers; whatsoever occurs in any of the ancient Jewish books, that favours those doctrines, must needs have been foisted in by the Christians after Justin Martyr's time.

Lastly, he supposes, that if any thing, either in the Scripture or Jewish authors, sounds that way, it probably came from the Platonics, of whom both Jews and Christians borrowed many notions, and mixed them with Christian doctrines, to persuade the Heathens the more easily to embrace the Christian religion.

Now though it seems unnecessary to dispute any further against him, having already clearly shewn, in my discussion of Mr. N.'s Judgment of the Fathers, that Justin Martyr was not the broacher of those doctrines, as Mr. N. pretends; yet I am will