doctrine?, Indeed, in has been ftrenuously afferted, that it was totally unknown to them. This, however, cannot be believed by any impartial inquirer. But although it were true, must we thence infer, that God never revealed this doctrine to their forefathers, or that they never believed it? It must first be proved that, because the great body of that people expected only a temporal deliverance, Jefus was never foretold as a Saviour from fin, and that he had no claim to this character. The adversaries of the deity of Christ ought also to deny, that Jefus fhould have been a fuffering Meffiah. For if we are to regulate our faith, concerning his character, by that of the Jews, in one inftance; why not in every other? Such abfolute ftrangers were those of that age to the doctrine of the Meffiah's humiliation, that, although they all knew that he was called the Son of man, when Jefus spoke of his being lifted up, they cried out, Who is this Son of man? as if they had never before heard of the defignation, John xii. 34. All fuch reasoning from the ideas of this people, at or after the time of our Saviour's appearance, must be of little weight with those who know that the mysteries of the kingdom were hid from them; that they were given up to the lufts of their own hearts; that the awful message of Isaiah was fulfilled in them, Hear 'ye indeed, but understand not; see ye indeed, but perceive not, &c. (Ifa. vi. 9. 10. Mat. xiii. 14. 15.) and that they knew not the voices of the prophets which were read every fabbath day, Acts xiii. 27.

Even the difciples were greatly under the influence of this fpiritual ftupor. Till the moment of our Lord's ascenfion, their minds were ftill warped with the idea of a temporal falvation. When he foretold his paffion, they reckoned it totally incompatible with his character, and an event abfolutely incredible. That very difciple, who gave the most noble confeffions of the Meffiah, was fo fhocked

at

at the idea, that under the impulse of the moment he entirely forgot his ftation, and began to rebuke his Lord, Mat. xvi. 21. 22.

It ought to be observed, however, that, confidering the great privileges of the difciples, we cannot otherwise account for the aftonishing darkness of their understandings, than by turning our thoughts to the fovereign difpenfation of the all-wife God. It is his pleasure, under the Gospel, to confer peculir honour on the ministration of the Spirit. As the purchase of our redemption belonged to the Son, the whole efficacy of his work œconomically depends on the operation of the third Perfon. Thus, the Personal ministry of Jefus had little effect, in the mean time, on the difciples themselves. For the Holy Ghoft was not yet given, because that Jefus was not yet glorified, John vii. 39.

As the opinions of the Jews, at the time of our Saviour's appearance, are not the rule of our faith, as little is it to be regulated by those of their fucceffors. It cannot be supposed that a people, who rejected the true Meffiah, and who were therefore rejected of God, would become more fpiritual in their apprehenfions. On the contrary, we may naturally imagine that they would wax worfe and worse. Accordingly, we find the later Jews endeavouring to defend their incredulity, by refufing the application of many scriptures to the Meffiah, which were thus applied by the unanimous teftimony of their ancestors. There is, however, no reafon to doubt that, in many inftances, they have acted contrary to their own convictions, and have denied doctrines which they unquestionably believed.

The conduct of Maimonides has been already confidered. Many other proofs of their diffimulation might be produced. But at prefent, I fhall mention only one. It has been seen, that many of the Jewish writers acknowledge the miraculous conception of the Meffiah. Others, however, attempt to VOL. I. explain

G

explain away the meaning of their traditionary language, by pretending that he is to come from Moab, and that in this sense he is the feed that shall come from another place*. Rather than seem to favour the Christian doctrine, they will transfer the honour of giving the Meffiah to a people excluded from the congregation of the Lord even to their tenth generation. The oppofition made by fome to the more scriptural views of the Meffiah given by others, is no fufficient test of the ancient faith of the nation. For although these are not found in all their writings on this fubject, their being found in any of them is a clear enough indication of the sentiments of their ancestors. For not one of their writers would have borrowed fuch doctrines from the Christians.

Our author founds the greatest part of his reafoning concerning the deity of our Saviour on the opinions of the Jews, at the time of his appearance, or in fucceeding ages. But he ought to remember, that the observation which he makes with respect to the miraculous conception, is fully as applicable with respect to the former. "I own, however,” he says, "that the expectations of the Jews (any further than "they have a real foundation in the prophecies) ought not

by any means to determine our judgment in the case, so "as to weigh against any proper argument that "leged on the other fide +."

may

be al

* Voifin Obf. in Martini Pug. p. 288.

Ear. Op. vol. iv. p. 12. 13.

СНАР.

CHAP. VIII.

Of the Faith of the ancient Jews, concerning that Perfon who is called the Angel of the Lord.

T

HE doctrine of Philo, of the Paraphrafts, and of fome later writers, concerning the divine nature, and the character of Meffiah, has been particularly confidered. But the most proper and convincing evidence of the faith of the ancient Hebrews, is contained in the scriptures of truth. How little regard foever fome may pay to the affertions of uninfpired Jewish writers, because of the confufion of their ideas, and their apparent inconfiftency; if it appear from the Old Teftament, that one Angel is revealed as a divine Person, and was acknowledged in this character by the Church, long before the coming of Christ; it must be granted, either that her members were polytheists, or that their scriptures revealed, and that they believed, a plurality of persons in an unity of effence. We have already confidered the afcriptions of the later Jews to the Angel Metatron: and it will not appear surprising that they afcribed so much to him, when we attend to what the Holy Ghost reveals concerning him who is called the Angel of the Lord, or, as fome render the expreffion, the Angel-Jehovah.

Dr P. skips over this ground as lightly as poffible. "Frequent mention," he fays, " is made in the fcriptures of an"gels, who sometimes speak in the name of God, but then "they are always reprefented as the creatures and the fervants "of God." Does the Doctor mean to affert that angels in general are permitted to affume the name of God, or to speak G 2

in

Val. i. p. 5.

in the first perfon? It is denied, that this honour is conferred on any angel but one. It is indeed moft probable, that in all places of the Old Teftament where we read of the Angel of the Lord, the uncreated Angel is meant. Unqueftionable proofs of this occur in most of these places. When our author fays of angels, that "they are always re"presented as the creatures of God," he certainly means to extend this affertion to every Angel mentioned in fcrip

But the falfity of this will appear. For either there are certain criteria by which God may be distinctly known from his creatures, or there are not. The latter cannot be afferted, without impeaching the wisdom of God, and without fuppofing that he hath left mankind a prey to idolatry. There can be no criteria more diftinctive of God, than those names, attributes, works and worship, which are peculiar to him. If, therefore, an Angel is revealed, to whom all these belong; we must neceffarily conclude that he is a divine Perfon, and yet diftinct from him whofe Angel he is said to be. That this is the cafe with respect to the Angel of the Lord, appears from many paffages in the Old Teftament.

We are informed, Gen. xvi. 9. that he who appeared to Hagar was the Angel of the Lord. She called him God, and we are affured that he was Jehovah, ver. 13. "She called "the Name of the Lord that Spake unto her, God"-Indeed, this expreffion, the Name of the Lord, may be confidered as a perfonal character, fignifying, not merely that the name of Jehovah was given him, but that it was in him, (Ex. xxiii. 21.) as poffeffing the fame nature with the Father. For we are certain from the teftimony of Philo, that the ancient Hebrews knew this Angel, whom they also called the Word, by the defignation of the Name of the Lord*. Hagar did not call him God who fpake by the Angel. But the called

Leg. Allegor, lib. ii. p. 76. De Confuf. Linguarum, p. 267.

the