side? And how might Belsham and his Unitarian coadjutors exult, could they prove that their expositions, or rather perversions, of Scripture had been generally received by the primitive doctors of the church? But such a triumph awaits not the abettors of Unitarian principles; the early fathers were believers in the Trinity; and, in vindicating the Divinity of the Son, they, with few, if any, exceptions, maintain, that he is designated by the title " Wisdom" in the eighth chapter of Proverbs. The supposition, then, is surely not unreasonable, that so unanimous and universal a concurrence in this interpretation was not effected without the sanction of apostolical authority.

Let us now turn our attention to the opinion of the ancient Jews. We cannot expect to discover in their writings the same clear and definite ideas respecting a Trinity in Unity as prevail among those who have enjoyed the light of Christianity; their notions are much more dark and confused; yet they were persuaded of a plurality in the Divine Essence; and Dr. Allix (Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church) has very satisfactorily proved, that the ancient Jewish church had not only a notion of a plurality in the Divine Nature, but that this plurality was a Trinity. To discuss this subject, however, is foreign from my present purpose. The simple question to be examined is, whether the ancient Jews actually applied this delineation of Wisdom to one of the Persons of the Godhead. If this question be decided in the affirmative, it will, indeed, afford a strong confirmation of their belief of a plurality in the Divine Nature; but care is to be taken not to diverge from the point at issue, namely, whether the Jewish doctors understood the eighth chapter of a divine hypostatic Being. I shall produce some convincing evidence to show, that the ancient Jews understood the Wisdom described in Proverbs in a personal sense, and considered it as relating

to the eternal Word, the second Person in the Divine Essence.*

The apocryphal books are, with great reason, rejected by Protestants in deciding controversies of faith; but, though they cannot be regarded as divinely inspired writings, nor, consequently, adduced in proof of any doctrine, (Church Article 6,) yet they serve to show the prevailing sentiments of the Jews at the time in which they were written, and, in some instances, how they interpreted the canonical Scriptures.

The apocryphal book entitled "The Wisdom of Solomon,” though much doubt exists respecting its author and the period of its composition, (see Gray's Key,) bears a striking testimony to the personality and divinity of Primæval Wisdom. "For Wisdom," says the author, "which is the worker of all things, taught me; for in her is an understanding spirit, holy, one only, manifold, subtil, lively, clear, undefiled, plain, not subject to hurt, loving the thing that is good, quick, which cannot be letted, ready to do good, kind to man, stedfast, sure, free from care, having all power, overseeing all things, and going through all understanding, pure, and most subtil, spirits. For Wisdom is more moving than any motion; she passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness. For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty; therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the

* It will not follow from this, that the Jews expected their Messiah to be a divine Being, as is maintained by Allix, Pearson, Pococke, Kidder, Whitaker, &c. They may only have looked for a human Messiah, according to the opinion of Basnage and Wilson; or the more learned and sagacious of the Hebrew doctors may have believed, that their Messiah would be both God and man, while the more ignorant expected him to be a mere man.-Bull, Judicium Ecclesiæ Catholicæ, cap. 1, § 13.

power of God, and the image of his goodness."-(Ch. vii, 22-26. Compare Heb. i. 3.) Again, "For she is privy to the mysteries of the knowledge of God, and a lover of his works. If riches be a possession to be desired in this life; what is richer than wisdom, that worketh all things? And if prudence work; who of all that are is a more cunning workman than she?"-(Ch, viii, 4-6.) Again, "Give me wisdom, that sitteth by thy throne: and reject me not from among thy children.—(Ch. ix. 4. Compare Proverbs, viii. 30.) Again, "And wisdom was with thee: which knoweth thy works, and was present when thou madest the world, and knew what was acceptable in thy sight, and right in thy commandments." (Ch. ix. 9. Compare Proverbs, viii. 27-30.) The identity of wisdom described in these extracts with Primæval Wisdom in Proverbs is very apparent; and proves that the author of this apocryphal book understood the Wisdom of the Parœmiast in a personal sense, and as indicative of a divine Person. Should any doubt remain, it will be completely removed by reading chapter x. et seq. in which Wisdom is said to perform several actions, which, in the Old Testament, are expressly attributed to Jehovah. This is so evident, that it becomes unnecessary to adduce any instances. Besides, the Being who is called "Wisdom" in the first ten chapters, is afterwards denominated the " Word," and, subsequently, the "Lord" or "God;" which demonstrates that the author of the book used the term Wisdom as an appellation of the Logos.

The Son of Sirach certainly refers to Prov. viii. 22, when he makes Wisdom observe, "He created me from the beginning, before the world, and I shall never fail."-(Ecclus. xxiv. 9.) In the Greek it is EKTE μe, the very expression used in the LXX version of Prov. viii. 22, and, consequently, to be understood in the same way, namely, for production in any manner. (See the note to Prov. viii. 22.) Wisdom like

wise is said to be made or created, Ecclus. i. 4, xxiv. 8, and some other places, not only in the Greek, but in the Vulgate and Syriac; but, as this cannot be said of an attribute, we must understand it of the production of Wisdom, or the Word, by generation. I am aware that Dr. Randolph, (Vind. of the Doct. of the Trinity, p. 42,) Grotius, and other commentators interpret this passage of the quality or attribute of wisdom, displayed by the Almighty in the creation of the world and delivery of the Law; but the magnificent terms throughout the 24th chapter evince, that hypostatic Wisdom is there delineated, and, consequently, that the Son of Sirach considered the Wisdom in Proverbs to be the eternal Word. It must be acknowledged, that in our authorized version it is said, "I therefore, being eternal, am given to all my children which are named of him," (ver. 18,) which, it may be thought, properly refers to abstract wisdom. In the New Testament, however, the Son of God is said to be given. -(John, iii. 16; Acts, iv. 12; Gal. i. 4, ii. 20; Ephes. v. 2; 1 Tim. ii. 6; Tit. ii. 14.) But, not to rest the answer upon this alone, it may be remarked, that the phrase objected to is not in the Vulgate, nor Syriac, nor LXX, either in the Polyglott, Grabe's, or Field's edition; and in the Complutensian, which our translators probably followed, it is dicwu, I give, not didoμai, I am given: the received translation is, therefore, most likely erroneous. See the various readings in the 6th vol. of the London Polyglott, and the notes of Flam. Nobilius.

Other sources remain to be consulted, which, upon investigation, yield the same result. Justin Martyr, in arguing with the Jew Trypho, it is reasonable to suppose, cited the canonical books of the Old Testament according to the sense in which they were generally understood by the ancient Jewish church. Now to prove that αρχην προ πάντων των κτισμάτων ο Θεος γεγεννηκε δυναμιν τινα εξ εαυτου λογικήν, ητις και δοξα Κυριου υπο του πνεύματος του αγιου καλείται, ποτε δε Υιος,

ποτε δε Σοφία, ποτε δε Άγγελος, ποτε δε Θεός, ποτε δε Κύριος και Aoyoç, "in the beginning, before all creatures, God generated a rational Power from himself, which is called by the Holy Spirit the Glory of the Lord, sometimes the Son, sometimes Wisdom, sometimes the Angel, sometimes God, sometimes the Lord, and the Word," (Dial. cum Tryph. p. 284, A. Colon. 1686,) Justin appeals to this very passage of Proverbs; it is therefore probable, that it was referred to the divine Logos by the ancient Rabbins.*

Some fragments of Aristobulus, a Jew who lived at Alexandria about one hundred and fifty years before Christ, are preserved by Eusebius; who, after producing an extract from Philo concerning the "Second Cause," adduces the following one, on the same subject, from Aristobulus: Μεταφέροιτο δ' αν το αυτό και επι της Σοφίας' το γαρ παν φως εστιν εξ αυτης. δια και τινες αρηκασι των εκ της αιρεσεως οντες εκ του Περιπάτου, λαμπτηρος αυτην εχειν τάξιν. ακολουθούντες γαρ αυτην συνεχως, ατάραχοι καταστήσονται δι ολου του βίου.

• It has been argued, in like manner, that the interpretations of the Old Testament by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews must have been generally received by the Jewish doctors of the age; for if he had offered any novel expositions they would have had no weight either with the believing or unbelieving part of the nation.-(Macknight's Pref. to Hebrews, § 3. See also Allix's Judgment of the Jewish Church, cap. ii. et seq.) But this may certainly admit of dispute, as well as the inference from the passage of Justin cited above; and, in fairness, it must be acknowledged, that Justin says the proofs of his position adduced by him will be strange to Trypho, (Eɛvat, Dialog. p. 274, D.) On the other hand, Trypho is not represented as objecting to the application of Prov. viii. 22, to the Logos; but seems to acquiesce in it; (p. 286, B. and 359, B.;) and in one place expressly owns, that all the Scriptures appealed to by the learned father are referable to Christ : ευ ίσθι οτι και παν το γενος ημων τον Χριστον εκδέχεται, και οτι πασαι αι γραφαι, ας εφης, εις αυτόν αρηνται, oμoλoyovμev. (p. 316, E.) The inference, then, is not unwarrantable, that Justin cited the Scriptures according to the ancient Jewish interpretation of them.