acquainted with the writings of the ancient Jews, to be ad- fubject to fuffering and the adorable God, they are under Dial. p. 355. The † Ας δε αν λεγωμεν αυτοίς γραφας, αι διαρρήδην τον Χρισον και παθητον και προσκύνητον και Θεον αποδεικνυσιν, ως 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 fays, that the literal fense 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 faying 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 truft can any man of fense repofe in fuch 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 hath created, &c. On this fubject Dr P. alfo calls in the affiftance of the Christian fathers t. They may, indeed, be fuftained as giving a just 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 scriptus 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 erroneously believed in a fuffering Meffiah, or that the Old Testament exhibits two perfons under this character, the one as a sufferer, and the other as a conqueror. Justin Martyr not only fhews that the ancient believers of the Jewish church confidered the Word as a diftinct and divine Person *; but fpeaks 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 scriptures 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 these 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 +." *Dial. p. 355. The † Ας δε αν λεγωμεν αυτοίς γραφας, αι διαρρήδην τον Χρισον και παθητον και προσκύνητον και Θιον αποδεικνυσιν, ας και προανισόρησα ύμιν, ταυ τας The doctrine of the ancient Jews with refpect to the Godhead, and the Meffiah, if not referred to the testimony of the prophets, may be known from the writings of Philo, and from their Paraphrafes. Some of the latter are fuppofed to have been written before the birth of Chrift. Philo flourished, according to our author's own chronology, forty years after this era. We fhall confider his testimony firft, not only as this is the order obferved by Dr P. in his fecond work; but as his conceffions, with refpect to Philo, may tend to illuftrate the weakness of his reasoning against the doctrine of the Paraphrafts. Our author, in the History of Corruptions, acknowledges, that Philo "went before the Chriftians in the per"fonification of the Logos, vol. i. p. 30." But he does not fay whether this was a real, or only an allegorical perfonification. He indeed feems to admit that it was real, as it is added; "For he calls this divine Word a fecond "God." Perhaps, this proof might be preferred, as apparently infinuating that Philo had no idea of unity of ef fence. Dr P's words in their connexion, discover an inclination to deprive the friends of the doctrine of the Trinity, of any advantage from the teftimony of Philo: "For he calls "this divine Word a fecond God, and fometimes attributes "the creation of the world to this fecond God, thinking "it below the majefty of the great God himself. He also "fays, that he is neither unbegotten, like God, nor be"gotten as we are, but the middle between the two "extremes." But fuppofing all this to be as our author fays, what can it avail him? In the words quoted, the preexistence τας εις Χρισον μεν ειρησθαι αναγκαζόμενοι συντίθενται, τώτον δε μη είναι του Χρισού, τολμωσι λέγαν ελεύσεσθαι δε και παθών, και βασίλευσαι, και προσκύνητον γενέσθαι Θεον ομολογούσιν οπερ γελοίον και ανοήτον αν ομοίως αποδειξω. Dial. p. 294. exiftence of the Logos is evidently affumed as a first principle; whereas Dr P. hath to prove that all the ancient Jews expected that their Meffiah fhould be "no other than a "man like themselves." But from the writings of Socinians, we have had occafion to obferve that, in order to a void a confeffion of the supreme deity of Chrift, they will fubmit to any opinion concerning him, however abfurd and contrary to their own fyftem. They will rather join their forces with the Arians, however bitter their con tentions at times, than fall under him, by confeffing that bis throne is for ever and ever. Like the harlot, the false mother, they will prefer a divifion of the child to an ac knowledgment of the true parent. But it is at least questionable, if Philo meant as the Doctor interprets. According to him," he attributes the "creation of the world to this fecond God, thinking it be"low the majefty of the great God himself." Here we have an inftance of the great freedom which the Doctor ufes with the words of others. Hath Philo himself faid, that he thought it." below the majesty of the great God "to create this world?" If fo, how does he express himfelf? In a paffage preserved by Eufebius +, he calls the Logos a fecond God. But, as it appears that the ancient Jews understood the word Elobim as fometimes denoting perfons, for which reafon, it is thought, they have rendered the plural noun by the fingular Oeos, in the Septuagint; it has been inferred that Philo, when he called the Logos a fecond God, only meant the fecond perfon . It cannot be refused, indeed, that in a variety of paffages he speaks of the Logos as inferior to Him who is. But when this kind of language Hift. Cor. vol. i. p. 36. † Praepar. Evangel. lib. 7. c. 13. Bedford's Serm. p. 71. occurs, |