and, by means of forced interpretations and absurd allegories, adapted it to the impious system they had espoused that the reveries of the Cabbala are altogether at variance with the dictates of revelation:-that the doctrine of the Zohar, for instance, respecting the superior Sephiroth, or three principal emanations from the Deity, bears no analogy to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; for that those three principles are neither coeval nor coequal with the infinite Deity, but, having originated from it, are consequently inferior to it; that they are not coequal with each other; and that they emanate into inferior beings, so that their essence is extended through all worlds, not excepting matter itself:-and that the books of the Cabbalists are written in a style so elliptical, abrupt, and often unintelligible, and abound with such foolish allegories and absurd symbols, that they deserve to be treated as the ravings of madmen, rather than as the disquisitions of pious theologians, or even sober philosophers.

It is not my design to decide or discuss this argument, both sides of which have been supported by some of the most learned and respectable writers that have appeared since the revival of learning. But I cannot help observing that there are numerous passages in the Cabbalistic writings, which - are far more intelligible on the supposition that their authors had some belief of a plurality in the divine being, and that plurality a trinity, than they are upon any other supposition. Let the following quotations from the Zohar serve as specimens. Jehovah, our God, Jehovah: these are three

་

degrees with respect to this sublime mystery, In 'the beginning God, or Elohim, created.' There

is an unity which is called Jehovah the first, our 'God, Jehovah: behold! they are all one, and 'therefore called one: lo! these three names are as 6 one; and although we call them one, and they are one; but by the revelation of the holy spirit it is made known, and they are by the sight of 'the eye to be known, that these three are one; ' and this is the mystery of the voice that is heard; the voice is one; and there are three things, fire ' and wind and water, and they are all one, in the mystery of the voice, and they are but one: so 'here, Jehovah, our God, Jehovah; these three modes, forms, or things, are one.' These and similar passages furnish an argumentum ad hominem against a Jewish opponent of the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity, which he will find it difficult, if not impossible to repel, without relinquishing what he professes to venerate.*

*This remark derives no small confirmation from the reluctance betrayed by intelligent Jews to discuss this point with Christians versed in rabbinical literature. A learned friend of mine, who has had some experience in this way, tells me that he has found the best informed Israelites ready to dispute on any other doctrine, but that whenever the controversy has touched on the Trinity, or on a plurality in the Godhead, they have uniformly evaded the subject, or abruptly terminated the discussion.-The author of several letters, published in the second volume of the Jewish Repository, under the signature of S. M. whom I apprehend to be a respectable member of the Portuguese Synagogue in London, while he strenuously argues against the Messiahship of Jesus, declares his determination not to enter into any dispute respecting the Trinity. The reasons he assigns for this determination, are-respect for the established religion of the country, and reluctance to a discussion that might any way affect the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. (p. 152. 296.) But if these

A similar use may be made of Gematria, Notaricon, and Temura, in controversies with Jews*

were the true reasons of his forbearance, would they not equally have prevented his writing against the Messiahship of Jesus? Is not that as fundamental a doctrine of the established religion, and of Christianity itself, as the Trinity? And was he not aware, that, if he ventured on this controversy, many writers, who are still revered as the most orthodox expositors of Jewish faith, would supply numerous testimonies in favour of his opponents?

* Among other arguments addressed to the Jew mentioned in the preceding Note, to shew that by the "righteousness" predicted in Daniel ix. 24. no other object could have been in contemplation than the reign of the Messias, a writer in the Jewish Repository (vol. iii. p. 461.) observes that the original phrase y Ty, which he translates righteousness of ages, is by gematria nim wp the anointed (or Messiah) of Jehovah; a proof' he adds, which I believe has hitherto escaped the notice of interpreters.' The following remarkable instance of exposition upon Cabbalistic principles was exhibited by an eminent rabbi of the seventeenth century. Salomon Meir Ben Moses was born at Casal in the duchy of Montserrat, in the year 1606. He was named Salomon in memory of his grandfather, and Meir which signifies illuminating; because the section of the law read in the synagogue on the day of his nativity was the account of the birth of Moses the prophet, whose entrance into the world rabbinical tradition declares to have been distinguished by a supernatural light, which illuminated all his father's house on that occasion. In the thirteenth year of his age Salomon began to compose discourses in the Hebrew language; and he prosecuted his studies in the Talmud and Cabbala for many years with such success, that he at length attained the reputation of one of the most learned Jews of that age. Wherever he travelled, his lectures in the synagogues were heard with admiration; and the Jews at Jerusalem honoured him with the title of rabbi, and frequently sent him to collect the eleemosynary contributions, which they are in the habit of receiving from their brethren in other countries of Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the fifty-ninth year of his age, he embraced the Christian religion, was baptized, and assumed the name of Prosper Rugere. Where this event happened, the writer from whom the present account is taken, has not stated; but it is probable that it was in Italy. His desertion of Judaism rendered him odious to his brethren; and his subsequent attempts to convince them of the truth of Christianity

respecting the various points at issue between them and us. But it may be questioned, whether

same.

served, in most instances, only to exasperate their resentment. Nothing could exceed the ferocious malignity discovered by one whom he had hitherto numbered among his friends,—David Jouaillier, a dealer in jewels, well known and highly respected by the Italian princes, and generally denominated The Duke of the Hebrews. This man publicly declared that he wished to have Prosper's heart, that he might broil it upon the coals, and then throw it to be devoured by dogs. Accidentally meeting with David at the house of a Christian, Prosper inquired whether it was true that he had uttered this savage wish. David acknowledged he had, and declared his persuasion, that, if their circumstances had been reversed, Prosper would have said the Would you repeat this wish, said Prosper, if you were convinced of the truth of the Christian faith? By no means, said David, but how will you prove that faith to be true? P. I will open to you the mysteries of the Christian faith contained in the very first word of the law of Moses. D. If you will prove that, I will immediately profess myself a Christian. P. Consider what you are promising, David. D. I sincerely repeat my promise.-Prosper first remarked that the word (2) Bereshith, literally translated, signifies In the beginning of, leaving an ellipsis, which some have supplied by inserting all, and others by repeating the second word in the text; as, In the beginning of all things, or In the beginning of the creation, God created. This elliptical form of expression was used by God, not for want of other words, but from design, to indicate some hidden mystery. Divide the word into two, and you have (3) Bar ashith, I will appoint, set up, or place the Son. The word () Bar has a twofold meaning: it also signifies grain, or bread corn, in allusion to the bread of the eucharist, and to the words of our Lord himself, who says, "I am the living bread, which came down from heaven." There is great beauty in designating the Son by a term applicable also to bread corn, in preference to other words signifying only a Son; and there is likewise a striking propriety in the appellation here given to bread corn, which has been distinguished by three names adapted to the three different states in which men have been found. Before the fall, man was to subsist on the produce of the tree of paradise, made into bread, and called (17) Dagan, that is, from the garden: from the fall to the advent of the Messiah, bread made from grain was to be called (N) Chitta, that is, sin: since the coming of the Messiah, the bread of the faithful is properly denomi

the advantage derivable from such modes of argument be not rather in a way of confutation than of

nated (1) Bar, that is, the incarnate Son of God; according to the declaration of our Lord, "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever."-David having confessed himself delighted with this interpretation, Prosper proceeded to consider the letters of this word as the initials of six words, substituting for each letter successively a word beginning with that letter. He immediately produced six sets of words of this description. It may gratify the curiosity of some

DEA signifying, The Son, the Spirit, the Father, their Trinity,

1712

The Son, the Spirit, the Father, ye shall equally worship

their Trinity.

בן רוח אב שלושתם,,readers to specify them. The first was

בן רוח אב שלושתם יחד Perfect Unity. The second was

בכורי ראשוני אשר שמו ישוע The third was

When בבוא רבן אשר שמו ישוע תעבידו The fourth was

בתולה ראויך אבחר שתרד ישוע תאשרוה fifth was

בעונת רצפים אסתתר שגופי The sixth was

Ye shall worship my first born, my first, whose name is Jesus.

the Master shall come, whose name is Jesus, ye shall worship. The

I will choose a virgin worthy to bring forth Jesus, and ye shall call her blessed.

ɔn yw I will hide myself in cake baked with coals, for ye shall eat Jesus, my body. Here the Cabbalist evidently alluded to the doctrine of transubstantiation. The next mode of exposition which Prosper tried, was, for each letter of this word to substitute as many words as there are letters in the Hebrew name by which each character is distinguished. By this method he obtained eighteen words; the next step of the process increased them to a hundred and twenty ; and by another magical operation of the same art, this prolific word was multiplied to the number of seven hundred and twenty. Prosper next availed himself of the numerical power of the letters, and then of different modes of transposition; from all which he extracted numerous mysteries.--David was overcome by these arguments of his friend, and professed himself a Christian. Prosper promised to introduce him to further mysteries, and accordingly proceeded to delineate and explain various Cabbalistic figures, which he represented as illustrating the various doctrines of Christianity.-Bartoloc. Bibliotheca Rabbinica, tom. iv. p. 526–536.—I confess I should not entertain very favourable expectations from a conversion effected by such means. About three years ago, I conversed with a Jew who declared himself a Christian, and professed to discover some strong grounds for his belief in the first word of the first chapter of the