"cannot be advanced without the authors "of them deceiving themfelves. The

66

Jews will never," he fays, "be con"vinced by endeavouring to persuade them "that they believe what they do not believe, "and that they do not oppofe the doctrine "of the trinity, which is the principal object of their blafphemies."

He mentions a Jewish writer, Jacob, the fon of Amram, who laughs at the pretenfions of chriftians to bring proofs of the trinity from the cabbala. The cabbalifts," fays he, "under feveral of the letters conceal

66

myfteries which the vulgar cannot dif" cover, they only meant to teach the unity "of God, and to explain his attributes, and

66

they were very ignorant who looked into "their writings for the trinity*."

* Mais peut-on avancer, cela fans, vouloir se tromper, puis que l'unité d'un dieu le dogme capital de Juifs, et que la pluralité des perfonnes fait le plus grand obftacle à leur converfion.On ne convaincra jamais les Juifs, lors qu'on s'entêtera de leur perfuader qu'ls ont cru ce qu'ils ne croient pas, et qu'ils ne s'oppofent point au dogme de la trinité, qui eft le principal object de leurs blafphemes.

-Jacob, fils d'Amram, dans un ouvrage manufcrit qu'il intitule la porte de la verité, fe mocque des chretiens qui tirent de la cabbale des preuves pour la trinitaté. Car,

dit

How far Manaffeh Ben Ifrael was from fuppofing that there was any trinity in the divine nature, appears from the very fection that Dr. Allix has quoted, which contains his interpretation of Gen. i. 26. And God faid, Let us make man. After reciting a variety of interpretations, he concludes as follows, "Or fhall we fay that, what seems "to be of greater confequence, we generally undertake with more ftudy and de

66

liberation, and therefore that the fcripture, in defcribing the creation of man, "makes ufe of the plural number, Let us "make, which is the language of a person "commanding and exciting himself to un"dertake and do any thing; fo that God "would fhew that all other creatures were "made for the ufe of man. But whether "God be supposed to speak to all fecond "causes, or to intelligencies only, or to the "elements, or to fouls, or to use the ftile "of a king, or laftly, whether he be fupdit il, les cabbaliftes enferment fous l'ecorce de la lettre des myfteres que le vulgaire ne decouvre pas. Les theologiens n'ont deffein que d' enfeigner, l'unité de dieu, et d'expliquer les attributes; et il faut être ignorant pour chercher chez eux la trinité. L.7. c.31. vol. 4. p.2159. &c. 'pofed

pofed to excite or command himself, all ground of controverfy is removed.

For

"it does not follow, that there is any multiplication of the firft caufe, which is "moft fimple, and one, because the phrafe, "let us make, is ufed. For Mofes might very fafely make ufe of this language, fince he every where moft clearly teaches, that there is but one God; and, therefore, he only will defend his error by "these words, who knowingly and wilingly errs *."

66

* Aut dicemus, plerumque id, quod majoris momenti videtur, majori quoque ftudio et deliberatione nos aggredi: ideoque fcripturam in creatione hominis peculiari modo loqui in plurali, faciamus: quod verbum videtur imperantis fibi ipfi, et ad fufcipiendum ac faciendum aliquid incitantis: eaque re oftendere dominus vult, omnes reliquas creaturas fuo beneficio creatas. Sed five cum omnibus fecundis caufis loquatur deus, five cum intelligentiis tantum, five cum elementis, five cum animis, five regio more hæc dicat, feu denique incitet femetipfum, fibique imperet, conciliatione ejufmodi tota tollitur controverfia. Etenim non quia faciamus dicitur, inde fequitur multiplicatio aliqua primæ caufæ, quæ fimpliffima eft et unica. Mofes vero caufam cur ita fcriberet, juftam habuit, quia clariffime paffim docet unicum numen effe; eoque folus is, qui fciens volens errat, his verbis errorem fuam defenfurus eft. Conciliator, p. 12. VOL. III.

E

CHAP.

CHAPTER II.

General Confiderations relating to the fuppofed Conduct of Chrift and the Apostles, with Respect to the Doctrines of his Pre-existence and Divinity.

THE whole nation of the Jews having been fo well grounded in the great doctrine of the divine unity, ever fince their return from the Babylonifh captivity, and their attachment to it having ftrengthened continually, as the whole of their history fhews, especially in confequence of their perfecution by Antiochus Epiphanes, and during their subjection to the Romans (in which their utter abhorrence of every thing that had the appearance of idolatry, is feen upon all occafians) and this being wellknown to, and allowed by all the chriftian Fathers; it could not but, even in their idea, require the greatest caution and addrefs to teach them any doctrine that could be conftrued into an infringement of it.

That

That the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift had this appearance, thofe Fathers acknowledged; when they fuppofed that Mofes and the prophets could not teach it, left it fhould have given the Jews a pretence for relapfing into the worship of many Gods.

They could not imagine that this difficulty would be at all removed by the chriftian doctrine of Jefus being the Meffiah. Because it was well known to them that the Jews expected nothing more than a man for their Meffiah; and even a man born in the ufual way, a proper defcendant of David. Their highest expectation concerning the Meffiah was, that he would be a great prince, a conqueror, and a legislator, and perhaps that he would not die. The probability is, that they imagined that the race of their kings defcended from David would be revived in him, and continue to the end of time. But all this is far fhort of the deification of the Meffiah, or the idea of his being a great pre-exiftent fpirit, the maker of the world under God, and who, in the name of God, had intercourse with the patriarchs. Such notions as these do not ap