Arrow Against the Separationists, Admonition · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
A Fift errour is, in that you alledge the words of the Rabbines contrary to their meaning; either not vnderſtanding what they meane, or els wilfully perverting that which they ſay, and this alſo in matters of greateſt weight: This may be ſeene in many inſtances.
Firſt, when as you ſpeak of Adam caſt out of Eden, & kept from the tree of life, you ſay; cAnnot. on Gen. 3.24.The ancient Iewes had an expectation of recovery of this loſse by Chriſte, though now they are ignorant of him: for they write of 7 things which the King Chriſt ſhall ſhew unto Iſrael, two of which are the garden of Eden and the tree of life. R. Elias ben Moſis, in ſepher reſhith chocmah, fol. 412. Alſo expounding that in Song 1.3. the King hath brought me into his Chambers: Our Doctours of bleſſed memorie, have ſayd, that theſe are the Chambers of the garden of Eden. And againe, there are alſo that ſay of the tree of life, that it was not created in vayne, but the men of the reſurrection (that are rayſed from the dead) ſhall eat thereof, and live for ever R. Menachem on Gen. 3. And by the garden of Eden (or paradiſe) it ſeemes they underſtood the Kingdome of heaven, for the chalde Paraphraſt on Song. 4.12. ſaith, as the garden of Eden into which no man hath power to enter; but the iuſt, whoſe ſoules are ſent thither, by the hands of Angels. I anſwer.
1. VVhy might you not as well have ſayd, that the later Iewes as well as the ancient Iewes, have ſtill an expectation of the recovery of this loſſe by Chriſte, namely of the garden of Eden, and of the tree of life, &c. do not the Iewes that now live receive and approve the writings of theſe Rabbines here alledged by you? how then do you ſhew any difference betwixt them in this poynt?
2. How can you ſay by way of oppoſition, in comparing the later Iewes with the ancient, that now they are ignorant of Chriſte, ſeing the ancient Iewes were alſo ignorant of him? The Chaldee paraphraſt being of cheefeſt authoritie among all that are here alledged by you, was moſt ignorant of Chriſte: he knew not that Chriſte vvas come, but %On Cant. 8.writes of him as of one that ſhould come hereafter, though by conſent of all he lived after the death of Chriſte. And further he vvrites of two Chriſtes that are to come: for, expounding thoſe vvords in Cant. 4.5, and 7.3. Thy two breaſts are as two young roes that are twinnes, &c. this paraphraſt ſayth, that theſe are two Meſſiaſſes that are to come, namely Meſsias the ſonne of David, and Meſsias the ſonne Ephraim. And many other things he vvrites moſt ignorantly touching Chriſte, being a blinde guide vntounto the later Iewes that yet are alive to confirme them in their ignorance.
3. Though the Rabbines ſpeaking of the garden of Eden and of the tree of life, do therewithall mention the men of the reſurrection and the ſending of them thither by the hands of Angels: yet is this no token that they vnderſtood hereby the Kingdome of heaven: becauſe theſe blinde Doctours hold and teach that there is a double reſurrection, one in which the bodies of men ſhall be rayſed vp to live on earth againe at the coming of Meſſias: and an other at the laſt judgement, when they ſhall be rayſed vp to live in the Kingdome of heaven. The Chaldee paraphraſt expounding thoſe words, dCant. 8.5who is this that commeth vp out of the wildernes, &c. and alluding to that place in eZach. 14.4.Zechariah, where it is ſayd that the mounte ofolives ſhall cleave in the middes, ſhewes that at the coming of Meſſias (which he mentioned a litle fOn Cant. 8.1.before) the dead ſhall ariſe, the mount of oyntment ſhall be divided, the dead of Iſrael ſhall aſcend from vnderunder it, alſo the dead that dyed in the captivitie ſhall come //Orach Cubbaia.the thorny way from vnderunder the earth and ſhall aſcend from vnderunder the mount of oyntment or of olives. The meaning is that thoſe vvhichwhich dyed in Iſrael, in the holy land ſhall riſe againe with greater eaſe; and thoſe Iewes which now living in diſperſion ſhall dy in other countries muſt not riſe againe in the lands where they dyed, but muſt have their bodies royled and tumbled vnderunder the ground through divers holes and clefts in the earth vntill they come vnderunder the mount of olives, and then that being divided in the middes, they muſt ariſe in that place. Aben Ezra ſhewes “Commēt. on Dan. 12 2.further that thoſe vvhichwhich riſe at the comming of Meſſias ſhall live long time on earth, that their dayes ſhall be as the dayes of a tree, and then dye the ſecond time & riſe againe with an other reſurrection afterward. Yea, this kinde of reſurrection of the body is beleeved and receyved as an artickle of the Iewes faith, and recorded in their creede, as is ſhewed at large firſt by Sebaſt. Munſter in “Emunath Iehud. p. 46. 47. 53.that their creed vvhichwhich he publiſhed togather vvith the Hebrew edition of the goſpell according to Mathew: and afterwards by %Synag. Iudaic. pag. 29, &c.Buxtorf; at which reſurrection the Iewes think that they ſhal live on earth ſo many hundred yeares as the Patriarkes did in the old vvorld before the flood, before that they dye the ſecond time: and with all they vvrite of ſo many miracles to be vvrought for them at that time, as it is no marvel that they do vvithall dreame of their cariage into an earthly paradiſe by the hands of Angells at the ſame time.
4. Though the Chaldee paraphrast ſpeak of the juſt entring into the garden of Eden, &c. yet doth it not appeare that he meant the Kingdome of heaven, but the garden vvhere Adam was placed at firſt, even the earthly Eden: ſeing in the ſame booke he ſpeakes of the vſe thereof in divers things▪ having ſpoken of the beauty of the firſt temple, he ſaith, gon Cant. 1.16.but the houſe of the ſanctuary to come, which is to be built in the dayes of Meſsias the King, ſhall be much more beautifull in that the walles thereof ſhalbe of the cedars of the garden of Eden. That is the third materiall temple vvhichwhich they expect: and accordingly they expect that the matter thereof ſhalbe not from heaven, but from the earthly Eden. Againe, ſpeaking of the comming of their Meſſias and of the feaſt that is to be made at the ſame time vpō the earth, he ſaith, hon Cant. 8.2.and there we ſhall keep the feaſt with the Leviathan, and we ſhall drink the old red wine, which hath bene layd vp in the grapes from the day that the world was created, and of the pomegranate fruits which are prepared for the iuſt in the garden of Eden. And after this he ſpeakes of divers things to be done on earth, ſo that it is every way plaine that he intended not an heavenly, but an earthly Paradiſe in theſe places.
5. As for the teſtimony of R. Menachem, if vve go no further then the vvords here cited by yourſelf, even by them it is apparant, that he had not a ſpirituall meaning, but ſpoke of that tree from vvhichwhich Adam vvas de…rred, and of that tree created in the beginning, vvhichwhich he ſaith was not created in vaine: meaning that the men of the reſurrection, of that firſt ſuppoſed and pretended reſurrection ſhould eate thereof.
6. As for the teſtimony of Elias ben Moſes in Reſhith chocmah, it is ſo vaine & ſuperſtitious a thing that I marvell you vvould alledge the ſame, 1. vvhereas he vvrites of 7. things vvhichwhich the King Chriſt ſhall ſhew vntounto Iſrael, you onelyonly mention two of them, viz. the garden of Eden: and the tree of life; had you but mentioned the other five: the reader might eaſily have diſcerned how vainely you have alledged this teſtimonie: The other 5 things which he ſaith Meſſias ſhall ſhew vntounto Iſrael are theſe, to wit; the throne of glory: the lifting vp of Korah and his company: Hell; the godly and the iuſt: all the living and the dead: He ſpeakes here of the garden of Eden, and the tree of life, as he ſpeakes of Hell: to be ſhewed, he ſpeakes not of enioying: therfore this teſtimony doth not ſo much as prove that they expected a recovery of the former loſſe: as you would have it: Muchleſs doth it ſhew that by the garden of Eden or Paradiſe, they vnderſtood the Kingdome of heaven, as it ſeemes vntounto you: That ſeemes rather to be vnderſtood by the throne of glory, which is here diſtinguiſhed from Paradiſe: Leaſt of all doth it ſhew that the ancient Iewes were leſſe ignorant, then the Iewes of our time: for what can be more ignorant then this dreame of theſe 7. ſpectacles to be ſhewed at the Meſſias his coming, whē as not one of them was ſhewed vntounto Iſrael according to the meaning of this Rabbine? 2. They that do but conſider what other vaine and ſenſeleſs things he writes in his numbers in the ſame place, may diſcerne what a carnal Rabbine this Elias was; as namely, that 7. ſorts of men are accurſed, which vvant phylacteries on their head and armes, fringes on their coates, poſt-papers on their gates, ſhooes on their feet; which have no wife: nor Child: which teach not their Children; which go not to their meeting houſe: which run not after the commandements: which eate with vnwaſhen hands▪ That there vvere 7. men over whom jetſer haragh or evill concupiſcence had no power, viz. Abraham, Iſaak, Iaakob, Henoch, Moſes, Iſhai, David: what reaſon is there to ſay thus of theſe, rather then of Ioſeph, Ioſhua, Samuel, Elias, Eſaias, &c.
But you proceed, and ſay further; //Annot. ibid on Gen. 3.And that the Iewes vnderſtood not theſe things carnally, appeareth by theſe words of theirs. In the world to come there is no eating or drinking, nor any other of the things, which the bodies of the Sonnes of Adam, have need of in this world: as ſitting and ſtanding and ſleep, and death & ſorow and mirth and the like: ſo our ancient wiſemen have ſayd, In the world to come, there is no eating nor drinking nor vſe of mariage but the iuſt do ſit with their crownes vponupon their heads, and have the fruition of the glory of the Maieſty of God. Maimony in miſn. treat. of Repentance, Chap. 8. Sect. 2. Herevnto I anſwer.
1. The world to come whereof the Rabbines often ſpeak, is diverſly taken in their writings: Elias Levita “In Tiſhbi in Athad.ſhewes that it is taken 3. wayes, for the dayes of the Meſſias: for the time that immediately followes death: and for the day of judgement: The ſame is “Citante Druſio; praeterit. on Mat. 12.32noted by others alſo out of Don Iſaak Abarbinel. Now Maimony in this place alledged by you, ſpeaking of the world to come either in the ſecond or third acception, doth not at all deny, exclude or remoove a carnall vnderſtanding of the other Iewiſh Rabbines touching the garden of Eden and the tree of life in the ſuppoſed time of their Meſſias his coming and living vponupon earth: though they thought there was no eating, drinking, or marying after the day of judgement, this proves not that they thought ſo touching the time of their Meſsias his converſing with them on earth. R. Abraham Aben Ezra alſo doth very plainely and diſtinctly %Comment. on Dan. 12.2.ſhew the opinion of the Rabbines herein, namely that when thoſe that dyed in the captivitie are rayſed vp at the coming of their redeemer, then they ſhall be delighted or feaſted with Leviathan, with Ziz, and with Behemoth, and ſhall dye againe the ſecond time, and ſhall live againe at there ſurrection of the dead in the world to come, where they do not eate or drinke, but onelyonly enioy the brightnes of Schecinah, or the divine preſence. And thus diſtinguiſhing the two worlds to come, he declares that in the firſt they did expect a carnall & earthly feaſting and banquetting of the bodies that roſe againe, though after the day of judgement they beleeved it ſhould be otherwiſe.
2. Though they thought there was no vſe of mariage and materiall food after the generall judgement, yet they expected a moſt carnall vſe of mariage for their Meſſias on earth, and as is recorded in the artickles of their faith, they beleeved, that //Emunàth Iehud p. 54. 55.every King of the gentiles ſhould count it their honour to give their daughters vntounto him: and though Kings daughters were his wives, yet the Queene an Iſraeliteſſe ſhould ſit at his right hand in a crowne of the gold of Ophir, &c. That his other wives ſhould come vntounto him at certaine times when they were called to enter in vntounto the King, but that the Queene his cheefe wife ſhould evermore be in his bed chamber, &c. that after he had lived many yeares he ſhould dye with honour & his Sonne ſhould reigne after him and his ſonnes Sonne, &c. And ſundry teſtimonies of ſcripture are in the ſame place perverted by them for the proofe of this their carnall opiniō. And beſides that which is before noted touching their feaſting with the wine of Paradiſe, the carnall boldnes of the ancient Rabbines in deſcribing the banquets of that expected time of their Meſſias, is yet greater: in that they preſume to determine the largenes of the cups that ſhall then be vſed, ſaying that “Thalmud in Ioma, c. 8. Fol. 110.the cup whereof David ſhal drink in the world to come conteyneth two hundred, one and twentie meaſures or logs: as it is ſayd, my cup is full: revaiah according to the Gematria is ſo: The ground of this myſterie is taken from the words of pſ. 23.5. Coſirevaiah, my cup is full; where the numerall letters of the word revaiah according to the Cabaliſts obſervation do expreſſe this Number; to vvit, R in Hebrew account ſtanding for 200, v for 6, … for 10, & h for …. and theſe added tog…ther make 221, the meaſure of that royall cup.
3. You alledge the teſtimony of Maimony by the halfes, and thereby hide the abſurdity of that Infidel which is meet to be knowne, that the reader be not deceyved by you. Maimony ſayth indeed that in the world to come, there is neither eating nor drinking, &c. But he ſaith vvithall in the ſame Chapter and Section alledged by you, that aMiſneh, in Teſhubah cap. 8. Sec. 2.in the world to come there is neither body nor bodily ſubſtance (of any perſon,) but the ſoules of the righteous alone without bodies, as the miniſtring Angels without bodie. This he would prove from the ſaying of their vviſe men that ſay, in the vvorld to come there is neither eating nor drinking, &c. Behold (ſaith he) it is made plaine vntounto thee that there is no body there becauſe there is no eating & drinking there, &c And bSec. 3.afterwards againe he vvould ſhew this from the c1 Sam. 25words of Abigail vntounto David, that there is no body there, but a bundle of life, &c. And againe he ſaith, all the good things that the prophets prophecyed of for Iſrael, they were nothing els but things for the body, which Iſrael ſhall enioy in the dayes of the King Meſsias, in the time that he ſhall turne the Kingdome to Iſrael, &c. Thus doth the place alledged ſhew what a carnall opinion Maimony had concerning the Meſsias, and how carnally the Rabbines did vnderſtandthe ſpirituall promiſes and prophecies concerning Chriſt, quite contrary to that which you would make your readers to beleeve. Though they imagined a reſurrection of the body to live vponupon earth againe with their Meſsias, yet they denyed the reſurrection of the body to live in heaven therewith after the laſt judgement. Thus you deale with the teſtimonies of the Rabbines, as huckſters with their deceitfull merchandiſe: you paint and colour them, and ſet a deceitfull gloſſe vponupon them, that ſo you might the better vent theſe Rabbinicall vvares.
4. How can you alledge this teſtimony of Maimony to ſhew a difference betwixt the ancient Rabbines and the Iewes that now live, touching their opinion of Eden and the tree of life to be enioyed by them, ſeing Maimony is of ſo great credit with them now at this preſent? where is there a Rabbine or Iew that now differs from him herein and will not acknowledge as much as is conteyned in this your allegation? This being ſo, the oppoſition which you make betwixt the ancient and later Iewes in this matter touching their expectation of recovery of their loſſe by Chriſte is very vaine.
ANother inſtance of your perverting the meaning of the Rabbines, as though they tooke Michael to be Chriſte, is to be obſerved in you, in that you ſay, concerning the man that Iaakob wreſtled withall: “Annot. on Gen. 32 24.The Ancient Iewiſh Rabbines acknowledged this Angel to be Chriſte: Our doctours of bleſſed memorie (R.D. Kimchi, on Hoſ. 12.4.) have ſayd this Angel was Michael: and of him he ſaith (Gen. 48.16.) the Angel that redeemed me frō all evil. Then you adde; Micael is Chriſte the Arch-Angel, Dan. 10.21. Iude 9. Rev. 12,7. Later Rabbines do feigne, that this was Eſaus Angel, who ſought to hinder Iacob, &c. The like obſervation you have %Annot. on Gen. 31 11. & on Exod. 14.19.els where alſo, as though they tooke Michael to be Chriſte: Herevnto I anſwer.
1. Your oppoſition here alſo betwixt the ancient and the later Rabbines is vaine. For it doth not appeare that the doctours of bleſſed memorie whom Kimchi ſpeakes of, were more ancient, then thoſe Rabbines that feigne this perſon that vvreſtled with Iaakob, to be Eſaws Angel. R. D. Kimchi in his commentarie even vponupon the ſame verſe alledged here by you doth twiſe give vntounto his owne Father Ioſeph Kimchi that title of bleſſed memorie, yet was he not more ancient then R. Solomon Iarchi who //Comment. on Hoſ. 12.4.expoundes that wreſtler to be Eſaws Angel. David Kimchi is recorded to have lived anno 1190, and Rab. Solomon to have dyed anno 1105. The title of bleſſed memorie doth not carie any ſuch antiquity with it, as you would here make vsus beleeve.
2. How know you that the later Rabbines feigned this expoſition, and that they did not receive it from their ancients, as vvell as many other the like fond interpretations? yea R. Solomon when he expoundes that vvreſtler to be the Angel of Eſaw, he ſaith it is “Commēt on Gen. 32 24.peruſh rabbothenu the expoſition of their Rabbines: which ſpeech beares as much ſhevv of antiquiry in it as that of R. Kimchies doth.
3. That the Rabbines of old did not take Michael to be their Meſsias or Chriſte, it is evident over all by their vvritings. The Chaldee paraphraſt %on Cāt. 8.4. &c.framing that laſt chapter of Solomons ſong into a dialogue, brings in many perſons ſpeaking one after an other: verſ. 4. the King Meſſias is brought in giving a charge: v. 5. Solomon ſpeakes as a Prophet verſ. 6. the Church or Children of Iſrael ſpeake: verſ. 6. The Lord of the vvorld, God himſelf is ſayd to ſpeak: verſ. 7. the Angells of heaven are brought in ſpeaking: and verſ. 8. Michael the Prince of the nation of Iſrael, and as a cheefe Angel hath his ſpeech alſo and ſo hath a diſtinct perſon attributed vntounto him divers from the Meſsias. Againe in the deſcription of thoſe ten miracles which the Iewes do //Abkath rochel citante Buxtorf Synag. c. 36.faigne to be wrought before the coming of the Meſsias, Michael the arch-Angel is evidently noted as a diſtinct perſon going before and making way for the Meſsias the ſonne of David, and blowing three times the great horne or trumpet and working wonders therewith: ſo that by their opinion he muſt needs be a diſtinct perſon from the Meſsias. The Chaldee paraphraſt in an “on pſ. 137other place as hath bene ſhevved before aſcribesthe like workes to Michael and Gabriel, as being follow Angels of the like condition. And other Cabaliſts do likewiſe ſhew this; they “Bereſhith Rabba. Fol. 1.write that Michael was created in the beginning togather with other Angels: they give the like office to him with the reſt, and divide workes betwixt them in like ſort: In the adminiſtration of the world they %Ioann. Reuchlin. de arte cabaliſtica. lib. 3.give vntounto Michael the rule and governement of the eaſt winde; to Raphael the governement of the weſt winde: to Gabriel the governement of the North winde, and to Noriel the rule of the South winde. And Michael is reckoned among the 72. Angels by which they aſcend vntounto God in their prayers. Theſe 4. Angels are alſo //R. Abraham in Zeror Hammor, on Numb. citante Io. Buxtor. de Abbrev. hebr. p. 35.ſayd to cary the Chariot of the divine maieſtie, and to have waited on God when he came downe on mount Sinai, like vntounto 4 ſtanderd bearers, even as the Iſraelites marched vnderunder 4. enſignes: Michael having the right hand, Gabriel the left hand: Noriel going before, & Raphael following. In the like maner alſo when they aſſigne vntounto 7. Angels the governement of the 7. dayes, they aſcribe vntounto him his lot and his portion of one day as they do vntounto the reſt, “Iunius annot. on Tobit. 12.15.giving Sunday to Raphael, Munday to Gabriel, Tueſday to Sammael, vvedneſday to Michael, Thurſday to Tzidkiel, Fryday to Anael, and Satterday to Kephariel: So that by all theſe teſtimonies and many more the like it is apparant, that they did not take Michael to be Chriſte.
4. VVhereas you alledge ſome ſcriptures to prove that Michael is Chriſte; that is nothing to the queſtion; nothing vntounto the honour of the ancient Rabbines vnleſs you could prove that they held the ſame thing with the ſcriptures: but the contrary therevnto is already manifeſted.
AGaine you ſeeme to erre from the Rabbines meaning in this, that you aſcribe vntounto them the knowledge of Chriſte from their ſpeeches of Schecinah. You ſay, “Annot. on Exo. 34 9.By the maiestie or divine preſence of the Lord, which the Hebrewes call Schecinah: we may well vnderſtand Chriſte: for the Hebrewes vſually diſtinguiſh this from God the Father: and ſay; there is no comming before the bleſſed and moſt high King, without ſchecinah. R. Menachem on Levit. 10. Our ſaviour more plainely ſaith, No man commeth vntounto the Father but by me, Ioh. 14.6. Of him the ancient Iewes ſeeme to ſpeak, vnderunder this name Schecinah: though at this day they deſpiſe their ſalvation. See before on Exod. 33.14.15. & 34.6, & 14.19. Anſwer.
1. VVhereas you do here oppoſe the anciēt Iewes acknowledging Schecinah againſt the later in regard of their diſpiſing their ſalvation, this is vaine: for both the ancient Iewes you ſpeak of, and this magical Menachem with the reſt have deſpiſed their ſalvation in refuſing Chriſte, as well as the latter Iewes: and the Iewes at this day againe do acknowledge Schecinah, according to the teſtimonies and ſpeeches of the ancient Iewes. How vniuſt then is this oppoſition?
2. If the ancient Iewes ſpoke of Chriſte vnderunder the name of Schecinah, then did they deſpiſe their ſalvation, in that they held Schecinah to be %See before P. 336one of thoſe 5. things that were wanting in the ſecond temple, whiles our Lord Ieſus did live on earth. So they muſt needes be blaſphemers of him and denyers of the Lord of life, looking for an other Schecinah.
3. This word Schecinah properly ſignifies habitation or dwelling, and ſo may be vnderſtood and applyed to any ſpeciall revelation of the grace and glory of God reſting or dwelling vponupon any place or perſon ordinarily or extraordinarily according to the divers degrees in which it pleaſeth him to manifeſt the ſame. According to this ſignification may all the teſtimonies alledged by you be vnderſtood of the Iewes, and yet they ſtill remaine ignorant of the perſon of Chriſte. VVhereas you alledge out of Menachem, that there is no comming before God without Schecinah, this may be vnderſtood of ſome certaine meaſure of the ſpirit, required in thoſe that ſhould draw neerer vntounto God then the ordinary ſort of men: according to the like teſtimony vvhichwhich you //Annot. on Exo. 28 30.alledge out of Maimony giving a reaſon vvhy the Prieſts in the ſecond temple did not enquire of God by vrim and Thummim. Every Prieſt that ſpeaketh not by the holy Ghoſt, and on whom the divine maieſtie reſteth not: they enquire not by him. And ſo the ſaying of Menachem hath no affinity withthe ſaying of Chriſt Ioh. 14.6. For any Prieſt or godly perſon might come vntounto the Father by Chriſte, according to the meaning of Chriſte, though they wanted that extraordinary Schecinah. And further how doth this his teſtimony ſhew vntounto vsus their diſtinction of God the Father? &c. As for the other notes you refer vsus vntounto in Exo. 33. and 34. by that which is already ſayd it may appeare that there is no neceſſitie of vnderſtanding them of Chriſtes perſon, conſidering withall, that the Rabbines vſe to attribute the titles of Chriſte vntounto the Angels; and that ſometimes alſo the name of God is given vntounto the ſignes and tokens of his preſence.
4. Seing Schecinah habitation, or dwelling in the Church & in the members thereof is “Iohn 14.17.23. Eph. 2.22. 1. Ioh. 4.15.16.common to ech perſon in the trinitie, to the Father and to the holy Ghoſt as wel as the Sonne; and ſeing withall that this name of Schecinah is by the Chaldee paraphraſts and other writers often attributed to God abſolutely conſidred, what reaſon have you to reſtreyne their meaning to the ſecond perſon in the trinitie?
5. R. Moſes Bar Maimon writing of Schecinah or habitation, ſaith; “Morch Nebuchim, Chelek. 1. perck. 25.where ſo ever this word is ſpoken of God, it ſignifieth the firmnes of his glory, that is, of his glory created in that place, or the firmnes of his care abiding vponupon any thing: And ſo he brings example, that ſo the glory of God dwelt vponupon mount Sinai. According to this his interpretatiō may that place of the Prophet be vnderſtood: %Eſa. 4.5.And the Lord ſhall create vponupon every place of mount Sion and the aſſemblies thereof a cloude and ſmoke by day, &c. Now while the Rabbines do thus expound the word of the outward ſenſible tokens of Gods glorious protection and care, and of the graces created or infuſed vponupon his Church, we can not juſtly from this their phraſe conclude, that they ſpoke of the increated Sonne of God vnderunder this name.
6. It is recorded, that //Thalmud in Baba bathra Fol. 134. and in Succa Fol. 28.Hillel the old man had 80. diſciples: 30, of them were worthy that the Schecinah ſhould reſt vponupon them, as vponupon Moſes: other 30. of them were worthy that the Sun ſhould ſtand ſtill vntounto them, as vntounto Ioſhua the ſon of Nun: 20 of them, were of a middle ſort, &c. Hēce it appeares that theſe Rabbines did vnderſtand by Schecinah the more high degree of knowledge and grace of the ſpirit: for were they ſo ſenſeleſs to think that the firſt 30 onelyonly were partakers of Chriſte, and that the other 50. were without the Meſſias, or that their graces vvere not from him, whom they ſhould acknowledge ſo boūtifull vntounto others? If ſo, then ſurely you have no reaſon to think the later Rabbines more ignorant then thoſe ancient dotards that were ſo far from the knowledge of the way to ſalvation and life.
7. If Michael, Gabriel, Nuriel and Raphael do cary the Chariot of Schecinah, as was noted before according to the opinion of the Rabbines: then is it probable that either they thought Michael was not Chriſte, contrary to your imaginatiō; or els that they thought not Schecinah to be Chriſte, as it yet ſeemes vntounto you: for ſhould the Meſsias be both horſe and rider at once in their account?
8. VVhereas the Thargam or Chaldee paraphraſt ſaith on Pf. 110.1. The Lord ſayd in his word, &c. If by word he meant the Meſsias, according to “Preface to Annot. on Gen.your opinion, then doth he alſo vponupon the ſame pſalme plainely diſtinguiſh Schecinah from the Meſſias: for there he faith further verſ. 5. The Shecinta or Schecinah of the Lord is at thy right hand: So by your owne expoſition if they make Schecinah a helper to Chriſte at his right hand it will follow that the ancient Iewes ſhould not thinke Chriſte to be Schecinah. And many other places might eaſily be alledged out of the ſame paraphraſt, to ſhew that the Iewes held the Meſsias and Schecinah to be two ſeverall things: but this may ſuffice for the preſent.
WIth this kind of errour we may reckon your miſinterpretation of ſome of the divers readings recorded by the Maſorites: for example, the word jadau, you expound it thus, aAnnot. on Exod. 32.19.his hands) or, his hand: that is, ech of his hands: the Hebrew hath both readings: the first by the vowels and margine: the other by the letters in the line. And againe, the like: vvhen after the ſame maner, you interpret the word berichan, to ſignify bAnnot. on Exo. 35 11. & on Exo. 39.33.barrs or, barr: &c. But herein you erre, ſeing both the readings whether in the margine or in the line, are to be tranſlated his hands, his barres: and neither of them his hand, his barr: and the ſame is to be held for the other diuers readings wherevnto you refer vsus in Levit. 9.22. Deut. 2.33. and the like. If the word read in the line had had Cholem annexed with van, then ſhould it have bene ſo as you ſay: but ſeing it hath there a kamets coming before van; that cR. D. Kimchi in Miclol. Fol. 197.kinde of affix is ſtill a note of pluralitie in the ſignification of words. Though ſometimes jod be wanting in the laſt ſyllable of ſuch words by a grammatical figure, yet do they not therfore ceaſſe to reteyne a plural ſignification; as is dIoa. Buxt. Theſaur. gramm. lib. 2. c. 8.ſhewed in divers words, in ghnammudan, pillars: Exod. 27.12. Tabbeghnothan, rings, Exo. 28.28. vvhichwhich are of the ſame forme with the words jadau & berichan as they are written within the line in the places above mentioned. Could you ſhew that the words in the line, had other maner of vowels belonging vntounto them, then vntounto thoſe in the margine; then ſhould you have ſome reaſon for that you vvrite here in your annotations: But ſeing it is obſerved concerning thoſe 848 divers readings, that the readings in the line and the margine differ onelyonly in letters, and that eElias Levita Maſor, hammaſor. praefat. 3.there is no difference in the vowelles in any of them: and ſeing the copies of the holy ſcripture do alſo witneſſe the ſame thing vntounto vsus: therfore had you no warrant to vvrite ſo as you have done. Theſe things may ſeeme ſmall: but ſeing they concerne the purity of the holy ſcriptures, therfore are they not to be deſpiſed, eſpecially of you, which would have the divers readings to be both written by the ſpirit of God.
HItherto alſo may be referred your vnfound obſervation vponupon the word Zebojim: when you note, that fAnnot. on Gen. 14 2.it is written by the letters in the line Zebiim, of Zebi which ſignifieth glorie, pleaſantnes, & a Roe: by which name the pleaſant and glorious Land of Iſrael is called, in Ezek. 20.6. But by the vowels and in the margine noted to be read Zebojim, as being vnworthy the pleaſant name. Here you erre many wayes, 1. There is no warrant duplicate page duplicate page to ſay it is written by the letters in the line Zebiim; for the letters in the line without vowels, do yeeld no word at all: if you deviſe vowels for it, as you do, then you deſtroy the tradition of the Maſorites, who (as I ſhewed before from Elias Levita) do admit no difference of vowels in any of their divers readings: And where as they make two divers readings: if your obſervation were admitted, we ſhould then have three, viz the firſt, Zebiim: the ſecond Zebojim, without vau as it is now in the text: the third Zebojim with vau as it is in the margine: the firſt deviſed by yourſelf: the two latter already receyved by the Maſorites. 2, if difference of vowels vvere to be admitted in theſe divers readings, yet not in ſuch maner as you feigne for you erre in deriving Zebiim of Zebi; by putting Chirck for Kamets; Zebiim for Zebaim: This your errour is plainely reprooved by the gKimchi in Miclol, Fol. 239.cheefeſt of the Rabbines that ſhew the forming of this vvord. 3, ſuppoſe Zeboim was put for Zebiim, yet have you no reaſon hence to gather that it vvas vnworthy the pleaſant name: for vvhy may not Zeboim come of Zebi alſo, and ſo cary in it a ſignification of glory and pleaſantnes as vvel as your imagined Zebiim? And if Zeboim do not come of Zebi then ſhevv from vvhence it comes and vvhat ſignification it hath wherein no glory and pleaſantnes is implyed. 4, by this kind of collection where you thus exclude and remoove the ſignification of one of the divers readings from the ſubiect ſpoken of, you do alſo overthrow your interpretation of theſe divers readings in other places, where you labour to reteyne, to eſtabliſh and to apply the ſignificatiō of them both vntounto the ſubiect matter that is mentioned with them. VVith ſuch inconveniences are you juſtly entangled, vvhiles you maintaine theſe divers readings for grounds of doctrine and inſtruction: whiles the Maſorites traditions are choſen of you as your text, vvhichwhich thus you preach on. Hereby you run into abſurdities vvhichwhich even the Rabbines themſelves are free from.