Pentateuch (fol. 6, col. 3), who, to elude the force of this argu ment, maintains that the word Elohim is fingular." P.467.

That the word Elohim was, in fact, confidered in a myfterious light by the ancient Jews, Mr. Maurice adduces this ftrong evidence from the famous book of Zohar-" Veni, et vide myfterium verbi ELOHIM! Sunt TRES GRADUS, et quilibet gradus per fe diftinétus, veruntamen funt UNUS, etin unum conjuguntur, nec unus ab altero dividitur*. And he is of opinion, that the author of that book must have been convinced of this diftinction in the Divine Nature, fince he brings the Hebrew letter Schin as an exprefs fymbol of that diftinction; comparing the Godhead to the root, and the three branches of that letter to the three hypoftafes emaning from it. With refpect to the age and authenticity of the Zohar, and of another celebrated repofitory of the doctrines of the ancient Rabbi, called the Sephir Jetzirah, we have the following information; and the high antiquity of these books, written in the earliest ages of Chriftianity, before the disputes on this fubject arofe, which afterwards agitated the Chriftian Church, undoubtedly entitles them to a confiderable degree of credit.

"The myfteries of the CABBALA were, according to the Jews, originally taught by the Almighty himself to Adam in the garden of Paradife. In them, they aflert, are wrapt up the profoundest truths of religion, which, to be fully comprehended by finite beings, are obliged to be revealed through the medium of allegory and fimilitude; in the fame manner, as angels can only render themselves visible upon carth, and palpable to the fenfes of men, by affuming a fubtle body of refined matter. All the patriarchs of the ancient world had their feparate angels to inftruct them in thefe myfterious arcana; and Mofes himself was initiated into them by the illuftrious fpirit, Metatron. This cabbalistic knowledge, or knowledge traditionally received (for that is the import of the original word KABBAL), was, during a long revolution of ages, tranfmitted verbally down to all the great characters celebrated in Jewish antiquity; among whom, both David and Solomon were deeply converfant in its most hidden mysteries.— Nobody, however, had ventured to commit any thing of this kind to paper, before Simeon Jochaides, a famous rabbi and martyr, of the fecond century, by divine affiftance, as the Jews affirm, compofed the ZOHAR. I have not room to infert, from M. Bafnage, any more particular account of the contents of this famous book, than that it abounds with my ftical emblems, and a fpecies of profound fpeculative divinity, unfathomable, for the most part, by thofe who are unacquainted with the peculiar customs, manners, and cabbaliftical theo

* R. Simeon Ben. Jochai, in Zohar, ad 6 Levitici fectionem.

logy, of the Hebrews *. Amidft, however, a vast mass of matter, and a confufed jargon of ideas, to be expected from a compofition which combines the notions of fo many various people and of fuch different periods, much folid information may be gleaned; and, though both the age and credit of the book have been attempted to be fhaken by fome Chriftians of Unitarian principles; yet, as Dr. Allix obferves, its authenticity was never doubted by the Jews themfelves. It is a treasure of the most ancient rabbinical opinions in theology; and, of its fidelity in detailing those opinions, the fame author has advanced this remarkable proof, that the very fame notions which prevail in the Zohar are to be found in the beginning of the RABBOTH, which books the Jews affert to be more ancient than even the Talmud +. Thus were the Zohar annihilated, fufficient evidence would not be wanting to establish the facts for which we contend.

"The SEPHIR JETZIRAH, or Book of the Creation, is the compofition next in cabbaliftic fame to the Zohar; and though, without any foundation, afcribed to the patriarch Abraham, yet it undoubtedly contains ftrong internal evidence of very remote antiquity. Rabbi AKIBA, one of the moft renowned for learning among all the Jewish doctors, who flourished in the beginning of the fecond century, is fupposed to have been the real author. Abraham Poftellus first prefented this famous book to the Christian world, with a Latin translation and a commentary printed at Paris in 1552; Rittangeius, a converted Jew, published another Latin verfion of it at Amfterdam, 1642, with large explanatory notes, both by himself and other learned men of that period. The rage and hatred of AKIBA against the Chriftians were fo intenfe, that he is afferted by Father Pezion to have altered the Hebrew text to answer a particular objection urged by them againft the Jews. If, therefore, any arguments in favour of the Trinity fhould be discovered in the Sephir Jetzirah, they cannot fail of having additional effect upon the mind of the reader, when coming from fo hoftile a quarter. But there are fuch arguments in that book, and Rittangel has principally founded upon them a moft elaborate defence of the Trinity. The reader will not be furprized at this apparent inconfiftency in Akiba, when I inform him, that though this furious zealot could act thus treacheroufly and malignantly against the adherents of Jefus Chrift, yet there was a Meffiah who appeared in his own time, i. e. about the year 136 after Chrift, in whom he bedieved the ancient prophecies to be fulfilled. This was that famous impoftor, named BAR-COCHEBAS, whofe rapid fuccefs and fanguinary devaftations through all Paleftine and Syria, filled Rome itself with alarm and aftonifliment. In this barbarian, fo well calculated

See Bafnage's Hiftory of the Jews, p. 185.

+ Allix's Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church, p. 177..

See the paffage extracted from this father in the article Akiba in the General Dictionary, which article confirms the particulars here mentioned relative to that famous rabbi. It was written by SALE, who published the KORAN.

by his cruelty, to be the Meffiah, according to the perverted concep tions of the Jews, Akiba declared that prophecy of Balaam-a flar fball rife out of Jacob, was accomplished. Hence the impoftor took his title of BAR-COCHEBAS, or Son of the Star; and Akiba not only publicly anointed him KING OF THE JEWS, and placed an imperial diadem upon his head, but followed him to the field at the head of four-and-twenty thousand of his difciples, and acted in the capacity of matter of his horfe. To crufh this dangerous infurrection, which happened in the reign of the Emperor Adrian, Julius Severus, Prefect of Britain, one of the greatest commanders of the age, was recalled and dispatched from Rome, who retook Jerufalem, burnt that metropolis to the ground, and fowed the ruins with falt. A deftiny more terrible than even that to which the mad enthusiasm of Akiba had been the occafion of dooming fo many thousand Chriftians, now awaited the patron of the pretended Meffiah; for Adrian ordered his flesh to be torn off with iron combs, and the remains of his lacerated body to be afterwards confumed by a flow fire. Bar-Cochebas himself perished in the attack upon Bether, a ftrong city not far from Jerufalem, whither he had retired with an innumerable multitude of his followers, and the Jewish Hiftory, fufficiently bloody as it is in every page, records no fact more horrible than the promiscuous and undiftinguished flaughter of those Jews." P. 548.

Among many other evident teftimonies of this doctrine to be found in the Zohar, our author produces one for which he confeffes himfelf obliged to the prior fcrutiny of the authors of the Univerfal Hiftory. He is difcuffing the merits of that conftant reply which the Jews make when interrogated upon this fubject, "that the daily prayer of the SHEMA, which every Jew offers at fun-rifing and fun-fet, commencing with the words, Heur, O Ifrael, the Lord our God is ONE Lord, annihilates every idea of a Trinity in the Divine Nature." The answer is certainly deferving of attention, and will be found at p. 555, and those that follow.

Our author next proceeds to prove the point, which with judicious zeal he labours to establish, by quotations from a higher fource, the Talmud, and contends, that the writers of the Talmud believed in a plurality, on account of the following anfwer given in that book to the queftion, why the throne of God, in Daniel's vifion, is in the plural number. I beheld the THRONES exalted on which the ancient of days did fit, whofe garment was white as fnow.-After feveral trifling anfwers, which are there given as the folution of various learned rab

*Confult, for what relates to the rabbinical accounts, Bafnage's Hift. of the Jews, p. 518, and the various authors cited by that hif torian; and, for what concerns the Romans, Taciti Annal. Lib. iv. p. 126. Edit. Variorum, 1673.

bies, one of whom contends that the plural implies the throne of God and David, the laft and concluding anfwer is to the following purpose: "That it is blafphemy to fet the crea ture on the throne of the Creator, bleffed for ever!" and the extract concludes with these notable words: "If any one can folve this difficulty, let him do it: if not, let him go his way, and not attempt it. *." But for full and final proof of his affertions, he appeals to the highest of all the Hebrew authorities extant, next to the bible itself, the two Targums, that of Onkelos, and that of Jonathan. The former written thirty years before the coming of Chrift, the latter not much later, and therefore likely to contain the genuine fentiments of the ancient Synagogue. In the Targums the Meffiah_is generally particularized under the term of MIMRA DA JEHOVAH, OF WORD OF JEHOVAH and the Holy Spirit by the name of RUACH HAKKODESH; and a progreffive view being now taken of all the texts in the Old Testament more immediately allufive to either, the words of the Targums are added at the bottom of the page from Walton's Polyglot, with the additional remarks of PHILO, and the older Jewish commentators. We select as a fpecimen of the manner in which Mr. M. has treated this intricate fubject, his animated account of the appearance of the Logos at three different pe riods; and furely the circumftances of pomp and authority which attended his defcent, are fuch as plainly mark the Saviour of the world. With this argument we conclude the subject for the prefent month.

"The diftinction between the words mimra and dabar has been already noticed, to which it may be added, that there are fo many ACTIVE PERSONAL properties, fuch as thofe of commanding, answering, giving laws, iffuing forth of decrees, receiving of prayers, &c. &c. affigned to the Mimra, that to conceive of the woKD alluded to in any other light than as a perfon, would be the height of abfurdity. The queftion is, whether THE WORD, that thus appears, is the Divine Being whom we affert him to be. One of the most early and remarkable of thefe divine appearances is that of the ANGEL OF THE LORD, as it is there called, in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush to Mofes, as he was tending the flocks of Jethro, his father-inlaw. An unknown voice thus addreffed the aftonished thepherd: am the God of thy fathers, the GOD of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the GOD of Jacob; and Mofes, we are told, hid his face, for HS WAS AFRAID TO LOOK UPON GOD t. This paffage, thus far cited, is furely as decifive on the fubject as language can make it; but what follows feems to be unanswerable. In confequence of the

* Talmud in tract, Sanhedrim. + Exod. iii. 6, et feq.

ground

ground being made holy by the awful prefence of Jehovah, Mofes is defired to put off his fhoes from off his feet, and not to approach too near the confuming SHECHINAH of flame in which fat enthroned the majefty of God. Through all the Eaft this cuftom has immemorially prevailed, of entering the temple of God divefted of their fandals, left any pollution adhering fhould defile the pure abode of Deity: and it is practifed by the Mohammedans at this very day. The fpot, therefore, was to Mofes as the temple of God, and thence derived a peculiar fanctity, which it could not have in confequence of the prefence of any created being whomfoever. The Deity now proceeds to reveal himfelf by the auguft appellative of EHIEH, or I AM, which is of the fame import with the incommunicable name of Jehovah. As we have before noticed the derivation of Jove from Jehovah, fo we may here remark, that the word E1, infcribed, according to Plutarch, on the front of the Delphic temple, and fignifying thou art, or poffibly only the contraction of EIMI, I AM, was moth probably derived from this Hebrew title of God. By this appellative, Mofes was commanded to announce, to the defponding Hebrew race, their eternal Deliverer from the bondage of Egypt; and when he himself feemed doubtful as to the real dignity of the person with whom he converfed, the Supreme Being manifefted his power by two awful miracles, the turning of his paftoral staff into a ferpent, and the fmiting of his withered hand with leprofy. That the divine appearance in this place is called the Angel of the Lord, is an objection of no validity, fince the Logos was frequently thus denominated by the Jews, efpecially upon the folemn occafion of their exodus from Egypt, when the Angel of the Lord went before their camp, attended during the day by a column of obfcuring clouds, and during the night, by a pillar of illuminating fire. The ancient Jews applied that term not to the perfon but to the office, which, according to the œconomy of the three perfons of the bleffed Trinity, he condefcended to affume; and that they thought he did condefcend, occafionally, to affume the form of an angel, is evident from a paffage in Philo de Somniis, where he exprefsly afferts, that the fupreme Exs, in, whom he had just before termed hoyos, fometimes put on the appearance of an angel to mankind, but that his divine nature remained ever unchangeable. Philo, in various other places, exprefsly calls the Aoyos, God, Os; and, it may be observed, in one inftance, ufes that remarkable expreffions, which he could never have written under other impreffions than thofe of the plurality contended for, derEgos Osos, the SECOND Godt. The Targum of Jonathan is exprefs, in affirming that it was the Logos who fpake to Mofes; and he adds, the very fame LOGOS WHO SPAKE AND THE

* Rev. xxii. 8, 9.

Philonis Judæi, apud Eufeb. p. 190. I forbear to crowd thefe pages by citing the original text at length, as I am already, I fear, tranfgreffing all bounds on this fubject, and my object is not to display erudition, but to enforce truth.

WORLD