The Jews, on the contrary, as is hereafter more particularly observed, had renounced the Divine Mediator and the entire doctrine of mediation between G.o.d and man. They did not expect the promised Messiah in the character of Mediator, but, holding no distinction of persons in the G.o.dhead, they gloried in the doctrine of the _Unity_; believed the Mosaic Law and inst.i.tutions would be perpetual, and trusted to their observance of them for salvation. It were easy to multiply citations to show that they still entertain those views. A single instance may suffice. In the London Jewish Chronicle for May, 1852, the chief Rabbi of the great synagogue, in a sermon on the first day of the Feast of Weeks, is quoted as saying: "A man who has a royal patron, when in distress applies first to the Minister, to know if an audience will be granted; but with respect to G.o.d, if man is in trouble he wants no Mediator, or angels, but calls to G.o.d alone, and he shall be heard. And this cheering belief in the unity of G.o.d is quieting to the mind."

CHAPTER XIV.

Citations from the Chaldee Paraphrases.

The earliest Chaldee paraphrases which have been handed down are supposed to have been compiled or written about the time of the first advent, when the true worshippers may be supposed to have been anxious to revive and spread abroad the knowledge of them in such manner as to induce the Jews of that period to recognize the Messiah in the incarnate Word. The following testimonies from those writings of the sentiments of the Jewish Church concerning the Messiah as understood by them to be revealed in the ancient Scriptures, and his ident.i.ty with the Messenger Jehovah, are, for the sake of his comments, taken from Faber's _Horae Mosaicae_:

"When the text reads, _They heard the voice of the Lord G.o.d walking in the garden_, the Targums explain the pa.s.sage to mean: _They heard the_ WORD _of the Lord G.o.d walking;_ or, somewhat more fully, _they heard the voice of the_ WORD _of the Lord G.o.d walking_. In point of grammatical construction, even the modern Jews allow that the participle _walking_ agrees with the voice, and not with _the Lord G.o.d_. But walking is the attribute of a person. Therefore the Targums rightly gave the sense of the original when they introduced the WORD as the judge of our first parents."

The exclamation of Eve, I have gotten a man from the Lord, they render, "_I have obtained the man, the angel of Jehovah!_ Now, since _Jehovah_ is the word used in the original, it is difficult to account for this paraphrastic exposition, unless we conclude that, at the time when it was written, the Jews believed the angel of Jehovah to be himself Jehovah, and expected him to be born incarnate."

"To this opinion we shall the rather incline, if we attend to another paraphrastic interpretation. The sacred text reads: _In that day shall Jehovah of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty unto the residue of his people_. But the Targum of Jonathan reads: _In that day shall the Messiah of Jehovah of hosts be for a crown of glory_.

Jonathan, however, could never have thus explained the pa.s.sage, unless he had believed that the future Messiah would be Jehovah incarnate; nor would he have hazarded so extraordinary an interpretation, unless he had been fully conscious of speaking the general sentiments of his contemporaries. It is well known that the Jews so highly venerate the Targum of this writer, as to deem it something divine; yet we see that Jonathan identifies the Messiah with Jehovah himself. The doctrine in question still prevailed among the Jews at the time when Justin Martyr flourished, as is manifest from his direct appeal to Trypho. _If we produce to them,_ says he, _those scriptures formerly rehea.r.s.ed to you, which expressly show that the Messiah is both subject to suffering, and yet is the adorable G.o.d, they are under a necessity of acknowledging that these respect the Christ. So that while they a.s.sert that Jesus is not the Christ, they still confess that the Christ Himself shall come, and suffer, and reign, and be the adorable G.o.d: which conduct of theirs is truly most absurd and contradictory._ I need scarcely remark, that Justin could never have hazarded such language to a Hebrew antagonist, unless he knew that he had very good ground for what he said.

"But to return to the Targums, where the text reads: _Let not G.o.d speak with us, lest we die_, the interpretation of Onkelos runs, _Let not the Word from before the Lord speak with us_. So likewise where the text reads, _She called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou G.o.d seest me_, the Targum of Jonathan runs, _She confessed before the Lord Jehovah, whose Word had spoken unto her_. And the Targum of Jerusalem, _She confessed and prayed to the Word of the Lord who had appeared to her_. Now the person who appeared to Hagar was the angel of Jehovah. The paraphrasts therefore identify _the Word and the Angel_. Hence it is plain that by the Word of G.o.d they do not mean a speech uttered by G.o.d, but that they use the term to express a real person. By this personal Word they understood the Messiah; as is evident from Jonathan's interpretation of the text, _Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand_. He explains its purport to be, _Jehovah said unto his Word_. But it is manifest from our Saviour's conversation with the Pharisees relative to the nature and parentage of the Messiah, that they acknowledge this text to relate to him; and it appears from the Midrash Tillim that such an application is fully recognized by the Jewish Rabbins. Hence the inference is inevitable, that the Hebrew doctors confess the Messiah to be the Word of G.o.d or the angel of Jehovah. And hence we shall at once perceive why St. John so pointedly bestows the t.i.tle upon his divine Master. He did but employ the usual phraseology of his countrymen respecting the promised Messiah; yet, by applying the name of Jesus of Nazareth, he at once declared him to be the Messiah, and that angel of Jehovah who was confessedly the G.o.d both of the Patriarchal and of the Levitical Church.

"Agreeably to this obvious conclusion, the Targums exhibit the Word with all the characteristics of the expected Messiah.

"They describe him as the Mediator between G.o.d and man.

"Thus, in paraphrasing a text from Deuteronomy iv. 7, Jonathan writes: _G.o.d is near in the name of the Word of Jehovah_; in paraphrasing a text of Hosea iv. 9, _G.o.d will receive the prayer of Israel by his Word, and have mercy upon them, and will make them by his Word like a beautiful fig tree_. And in paraphrasing a text of Jeremiah xxix. 14: _I will be sought by you in my Word, and I will be inquired of by you through my Word._ Thus likewise where Abraham is said by Moses to have _called on the name of Jehovah the everlasting G.o.d_, he is described by the Targum of Jerusalem as _praying in the name of the Word of Jehovah, the G.o.d of the world_.

"They speak of him as making atonement for sin.

"Thus, in paraphrasing a text of Deuteronomy, (x.x.xii. 43,) Jonathan writes: _G.o.d will atone by his Word for his land and for his people, even a people saved by the Word of Jehovah._

"They exhibit him as a Redeemer.

"Thus the text from Genesis xlix. 18, _I have waited for thy salvation, O Jehovah_, is paraphrased as follows in the Jerusalem Targum: _Our father Jacob said thus: My soul expects not the redemption of Gideon the son of Joash, which is a temporal salvation; nor the redemption of Samson, which is a transitory salvation; but the redemption which thou didst promise should come through thy Word to thy people. This salvation my soul waits for._ Thus the same text is paraphrased by Jonathan with a direct application to the Messiah; whence again we find it to be the established doctrine of the ancient Hebrew Church, that the Messiah and the Word were the same person. Our father Jacob said: _I do not expect the deliverance of Gideon the son of Joash, which is a temporal salvation; nor that of Samson the son of Manoah, which is a transient salvation; but I expect the redemption of Messiah the son of David, who shall come to gather to himself the children of Israel._

"The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan were written immediately before the time of Christ, and among the Jews they are in such high esteem, that they hold them to be of the same authority with the original text. Of this extravagant honor the ground is, that those two interpreters committed to writing the ancient oral traditions, which [they supposed]

had come down in regular descent from their first communication to Moses on the top of Mount Sinai.

"Such an opinion proves at least the high antiquity of the sentiments contained in those Targums; and, as the Targums themselves were composed before the Christian era, they must clearly be viewed as exhibiting the doctrine of the Levitical Church ere an inveterate hatred of the gospel led to a suppression or concealment of the ancient faith.

"The later Targums were written subsequent to the time of our Lord; but so far as regards the present argument, their importance is not the less on that account. Those of Onkelos and Jonathan show the tenets of the Hebrew Church _before_ Christ; those which are later prove, by their accordance with their predecessors, that the same doctrine continued in full force during the first centuries _after_ the Christian era. Thus, notwithstanding Jesus of Nazareth was denied to be the Messiah, the Jews," [meaning of course the old school, orthodox party,] "it is plain from the written evidence of the later Targums, did not immediately depart from the sentiments of their forefathers relative to _the character_ of the Messiah."

After quoting testimonies from different Jewish Rabbins, he observes: "The reason why the Rabbins p.r.o.nounced the Messiah to be Jehovah, was this: Following the ancient Targums, which spoke the universally received doctrines of the _Hebrew_ Church, they perceived, like the authors of those Targums, that the Messiah was the same person as the anthropomorphic Word, or Angel of Jehovah. But they knew that the Angel of Jehovah was the G.o.d of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob. And they were a.s.sured that their pious forefathers did not idolatrously worship a creature, but that they venerated the self-existent G.o.d, Jehovah. Hence they rightly determined that _Jehovah_ was _the name of the Messiah_.

This will appear very distinctly, if we attend to their doctrine respecting the great angel whom they cabalistically denominated Metraton." (Vol. 2, sec. 1, chap. iii.)

The reader will observe that this author construes the formulas Melach Jehovah, Memra Jehovah, &c., in the same way as our translation, Angel _of_ the Lord, Word _of_ the Lord, &c.; and while correctly holding that the Angel or Messenger, and the Logos, Memra, or Word, are personally identical with Jehovah, still indicates a distinction, as though the former persons were sent by the latter. This is undoubtedly inconsistent and unauthorized. Had he in his construction left out the preposition _of_, as the original does, all would have been clear.

The following extracts are corrected from Dr. J. P. Smith's work, The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah.

Onkelos renders Jacob's prediction of Shiloh, Gen. xlix., "_The Messiah whose is the kingdom_." The Jerusalem Targum, "_The King Messiah whose is the kingdom_." Jonathan on Sam. xxiii. 1-7: "The G.o.d of Israel spoke with respect to me; the Rock of Israel, the Sovereign of the sons of men, the true Judge, hath spoken to appoint me King; for _He is the Messiah_ that shall be, who shall arise and rule in the fear of the Lord." The Chaldee and other Targums generally refer the 2d Psalm to the Messiah. Also the 45th Psalm, v. 2: "Thy beauty, O King Messiah, is preeminent above the sons of men." Jonathan renders Isaiah xxiii. 5: "Behold, the days are coming, saith the Lord, when I will raise up to David the Messiah of the Righteous, and he shall reign," &c. And x.x.xiii.

15: "In those days and in that time, I will raise up to David the Messiah of righteousness," &c. And Micah v. 1: "And thou, Bethlehem, out of thee shall proceed in my presence the Messiah to exercise sovereignty over Israel, whose name has been called from eternity, from the days of the everlasting period." Zech. iii. 8: "Behold, I bring forth my servant the Messiah, and he shall be revealed." And vi. 12: "Behold a man, Messiah is his name, ready that he may be revealed and may spring forth, and may build the temple of Jah."

The Jerusalem Targum, referring to Abraham when Jehovah appeared to him as a man, says: "The Word of Jehovah [Memra Jehovah] appeared to him in the Valley of Vision." Jonathan on Isaiah xlviii. 12: "Obey my Word;"

and 13: "Even by my Word I have founded the earth;" xlix. 16: "My Word will not reject thee." Jer. xxix. 23: "Before me it is unveiled, and my Word is witness;" x.x.xi. 4: "For my Word is to Israel as a Father;"

x.x.xii. 40: "My Word shall not turn away from following them to do them good, and my Word shall rejoice over them to do them good." Ezek. xx.

12: "I gave them my Sabbath days, to be for a sign between my Word and them, that they may know that I am Jah who sanctify them." The Targumists generally subst.i.tute the word Jah for Jehovah. Jonathan on Gen. v. 26: "That was the generation in whose days they began to apostatize, and made to themselves falsehoods, [or idols,] and named their falsehoods by the name of the Word of Jah." Jer. Tar. on Exodus vi. 2: "And Jah was revealed by his Word to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." Var. Tar. Isaiah xliii. 2: "In ancient time, when ye pa.s.sed through the Red Sea, my Word was for your help;" xlv. 17: "Israel shall be delivered by the Word of Jah, with an everlasting deliverance;" v.

25: "By the Word of Jah shall all the seed of Israel be declared righteous, and shall glory;" lxiii. 8: "My people are they, sons who will not deal falsely; and his Word was their Redeemer;" v. 13: "He led them through the deep: the Word of Jah led them." Jer. vi. 8: "Be admonished, O Jerusalem, lest my Word cast thee off." Hosea xiv. 9: "I by my Word will accept the prayer of Israel." Zach. vi. 7: "Not by force, nor by power, but by my Word, saith Jah of hosts. And he will reveal the Messiah whose name is spoken from eternity, and he shall reign over all kingdoms."

The author quotes the following from Dr. Ryland and the Prolegomena to Walton's Polyglot: "There are many pa.s.sages of the Chaldee Paraphrasts which could have been derived only from the remains of the expositions and doctrines delivered by the prophets. They have many things concerning the Word of G.o.d, by whom the universe was created, &c., and which admirably confirm the declarations of St. John upon the Logos, and prove that in so designating the Messiah or Son of G.o.d, the Evangelist employed a name already in familiar use among the Jews, as received from their ancestors, though not perfectly understood by all among them. To this Word the Jerusalem Targum on Gen. i. 27 attributes _creation_: 'The Word of the Lord created man.' And x.x.xii. 22: 'And the Word of the Lord said, Behold Adam whom I have created.' Jonathan on Deut. x.x.xii. 39, says: 'When will the Word of the Lord be manifested to redeem his people?' The same Targum on Gen. xix. 24, ascribes to the Word of the Lord the sending down of sulphur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah: 'Sulphur and fire were sent down upon it from the Word of the Lord out of heaven.' So likewise Onkelos: 'And the Word of the Lord returned.'

And on Gen. v. 24: 'Enoch was taken away by the Word before the Lord.'

So the Jerusalem, Deut. xviii. 19: 'My Word will take vengeance upon him.' So Onkelos and Jonathan. The pa.s.sages are innumerable in which actions and properties are attributed to the Word of G.o.d, as a distinct Person."

Again, quoting Owen as referred to by Ryland: "The Chaldee Paraphrast, observing that some especial presence of G.o.d is expressed in the words, Gen. iii. 8, renders them, 'And they heard the voice of the Word of the Lord G.o.d walking in the garden.' So all the Targums. And that of Jerusalem begins the next verse accordingly: 'And the Word of the Lord G.o.d called unto Adam.' And this expression they afterwards make use of in places innumerable; and that in such a way as plainly to denote a distinct Person in the Deity. That this was their intention in it, is hence manifest; because about the time of the writing of the first of those Targums which gave the rule of speaking unto them that followed, it was usual amongst them to express their conceptions of the Son of G.o.d by the name of the Logos, or Word of G.o.d." (_Owen on Epist. Heb. Vol.

1._)

"At this time, there was nothing more common among the Hebrews than to denote the second subsistence of the Deity by the name of the Word of G.o.d. They were now divided into two great parts: first the inhabitants of Canaan, with the regions adjoining, and many old remnants in the East, who used the Syro-Chaldean language, being but one dialect of the Hebrew; and secondly, the dispersions under the Greek empire, who are commonly called h.e.l.lenists, and also used the Greek tongue. And both these sorts did usually, in their several languages, describe the second Person in the Trinity by the name of the _Word of G.o.d_. For the former sort, or those who used the Syro-Chaldean dialect, we have an eminent proof of it in the translation of the Scripture which, at least some part of it, was made about this time amongst them, commonly called the Chaldee Paraphrase; in the whole whereof the second Person is mentioned under the name of Memra dejeja, or the Word of G.o.d. Hereunto are all personal properties and all divine works in that translation a.s.signed; with an ill.u.s.trious testimony to the faith of the old Church concerning the distinct subsistence of a plurality of Persons in the Divine nature.

And for the h.e.l.lenists who wrote and expressed themselves in the Greek tongue, they used the name _Logos, the Word_ of G.o.d, to the same purpose: as I have elsewhere manifested out of the writings of Philo, who lived about this time, between the death of our Saviour and the destruction of Jerusalem." (_Owen, Vol. 2._)

It will be observed that in all the translations of the Targums, and in the comments of Ryland and Owen, the same usage is exhibited as in our translation, of making the _Jehovah_ the genitive of the official appellative which precedes it. Hence the mystery and confusion which have so generally been thought to attend the official designations of the Old Testament. But if it be considered that in the use of the terms Logos, Dabar, and Memra, where a personal reference is intended, the abstract is put for the concrete, as _Word_ for _Revealer_, so that where these words are coupled with _Jehovah_ the reading should be _The Revealer_, or _The Revealing Jehovah_,--as in the case of _Melach Jehovah_, the reading should be, _The Messenger_, or _The Sent_ or _delegated Jehovah_, or the Messenger _who is_ Jehovah,--the use of those terms as personal designations will suggest no difficulty.

CHAPTER XV.

Reasons of the Failure of the modern versions of the Scriptures to exhibit clearly the Hebrew designations of the Messiah--The Masoretic Punctuation--Reference to the term Melach and the formula Melach Jehovah.

But if, in the ancient dispensations, the Messenger Jehovah, the delegated official Person, Messiah, was, in all relations, the actor, administrator, and revealer; if Moses and the prophets wrote intelligibly of Him; if they recognized and acknowledged him under all the Divine designations, why, it may naturally be asked, did not the authors of the English and other modern versions so understand, and in their translations construe and represent them? An answer to this question, in all its bearings, probably no one now would be inclined to undertake. But in certain, and perhaps the most important respects, it admits of a satisfactory answer. The translators, from the prescribed or customary and popular course of theological study and opinion, which aimed to avoid, with the arrogant a.s.sumptions and pretensions of Romanism, the gentile heresies of the whole Papal history, were led to entertain an overweening and ill-founded confidence in the modern Jews as interpreters of their own Scriptures; that is, of the Jewish authors who flourished, and whose works were published, after the establishment of Papal domination and intolerance, and of Mohammedan ravage and proscription. That school of Jewish authors was not only more modern, but widely different in respect to their theological doctrines from the Chaldee paraphrasts, especially in regard to the Messiah; and may be comprehensively described as including the Talmudists, the Masoretic doctors, and their rabbinical disciples and followers of various names.

The productions of these Jewish authors were numerous and readily accessible at the period of the revival of learning in Europe, and in the sixteenth century were brought into notice and favor especially by the elder Buxtorf, in connection with his edition of the Hebrew Bible, and his lexicons, grammar, and various works relating to Masoretic and rabbinical literature. He seems to have entered with enthusiasm into the study of this school of Jewish writers; and, with respect at least to the later and best known portion of them, as the clue to their sentiments was furnished by their use of the Masoretic points, he embraced their system in that respect, and inculcated and defended the application of it to the text of the Hebrew Scriptures with earnestness, perseverance, and success. His example was followed. The use of the points facilitated the study of the language; and for that reason, as well as because they were supposed to be safe guides in respect to the reference and meaning of words, they became popular with the learned and with students. Instead of being regarded as having the effect of a translation and commentary, and thereby fastening on the text the constructions and opinions of their authors, whether erroneous or otherwise, they were regarded primarily in a grammatical point of view, and as indicating the vowels supposed to be proper to Hebrew words, in addition to the letters originally composing them.

But this system of punctuation has unavoidably the effect of a version or comment. Its office is essentially that of an exponent of the constructions and opinions of its authors, and as such it can be no further correct and reliable than their theological, exegetical, and religious doctrines, theories and sentiments were in accordance with the real meaning of the original text. It may often, and perhaps generally where no doctrine or doubtful construction is concerned, have the effect to express that real meaning, and to that extent it might be harmless, and, if not wholly useless, might be of equal value with a paraphrase to the same effect. But if the student adopts this system as a guide, he naturally relies on it as equally applicable to every portion of the sacred oracles, and, with as much confidence in one case as in another, adopts the construction which it indicates.

An attempt to reform the reigning fashion of Hebrew study in relation to this subject would probably be as hopeful a task as an attempt to disabuse the minds of theologians and religious teachers of the empirical, fanciful, and puerile system of figurative exposition which was rendered popular by Origen, and has reigned triumphant from his to the present time; being propagated from age to age by education, and by the example and influence of the learned. But, regarded in a merely historical point of view, there appears to be no room for doubt but that the Hebrew vowel points--closely and even bigotedly adhered to, as they are understood to have been, by the translators of the Scriptures into our own and other modern languages--had, extensively, a very ill effect upon the versions which they furnished. And to whatever extent this was true, it would naturally prevail, especially in relation to those pa.s.sages concerning which the authors held erroneous opinions, and as to which, under the more than hereditary Jewish prejudices occasioned by the persecutions and proscriptions to which they were subjected, they aimed to counteract the tendency of the Chaldee versions, as well as "to root out," in the language of McCaul, the Christian interpretations of the Hebrew text. "The violent persecutions of the Crusaders," says that writer, "the jealousy excited by the Christian attempt upon the Holy Land, and the influence of the doctrine of the Mahometans, amongst whom they lived, produced a sensible change in Jewish opinions and interpretations, which is plainly marked in Kimchi and other writers of the day, and without a knowledge of which the phenomena of modern Judaism cannot be fully understood. Rashi, Aben-Ezra, and Kimchi endeavored to get rid of the Christian interpretations, and Maimonides to root out the Christian doctrines _which had descended from the ancient Jewish Church_." (_Introduction to Kimchi._) Yet this laborious student of those authors and of the Talmud adhered as pertinaciously as they to the Masoretic points, and apparently without over suspecting that their highest office and their necessary and princ.i.p.al effect was that of being the vehicle of a comment. Such is the force of education, literary discipline, example, and habit in generating fixed opinions.

But let one deemed competent to judge and to speak upon this subject be referred to:

"The Masoretic punctuation," says Bishop Lowth, "by which the p.r.o.nunciation of the language is given, the forms of the several parts of speech, the construction of the words, the distribution and limits of the sentences, and the connection of the several members, _are fixed_, is in effect _an interpretation_ of the Hebrew text made by the Jews _of late ages_, probably not earlier than the eighth century, and may be considered as their translation of the Old Testament. Where the words, _unpointed_, are capable of various meanings, accordingly as they are variously p.r.o.nounced and constructed, the Jews, _by their pointing_, have determined them to one _meaning and construction_, and the sense which they thus give is _their sense_ of the pa.s.sage, just as the rendering of a translator into another language is _his sense_; that is, the sense in which in his opinion the original words are to be taken; and it has no other authority than what arises from its being agreeable to the rules of just interpretation. But because in the languages of Europe the vowels are essential parts of written words, a notion was too hastily taken up by the learned at the revival of letters, when the original Scriptures began to be more carefully examined, that the vowel points were necessary appendages of the Hebrew letters, and therefore _coeval with them;_ at least that they became absolutely necessary when the Hebrew was become a dead language, and must have been added by Ezra, who collected and formed the canon of the Old Testament, in regard to all the books of it in his time extant. On this supposition the points have been considered as part of the Hebrew text, and as giving the meaning of it on no less than Divine authority. Accordingly, our public translations in the modern tongues for the use of the Church among Protestants, and so likewise the modern Latin translations, are for the most part close copies of the Hebrew pointed text, and are in reality only versions at second-hand, translations of the Jews' interpretation of the Old Testament."

After conceding to this interpretation what he supposes it may justly claim, he adds that the modern translators "would have made a much better use of it, and a greater progress in the explication of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, had they consulted it without absolutely submitting to its authority; had they considered it as an a.s.sistant, not as an infallible guide." Finally he compares the effect of this course to that of the Act of the Council of Trent in p.r.o.nouncing the Vulgate to be of equal authority with the original Scriptures.

(_Dissertation preliminary to his Version of Isaiah._)

Now to apply these observations to the case in hand. Our translators having been educated in the Jewish sense of the Hebrew Scriptures, and having studied the original with the points under the received and general impression that they were of equal authority with the text, of course proceeded with their translations under the influence of whatever erroneous constructions and opinions the Ma.s.sorites and their disciples entertained. Those errors, therefore, which were predominant in the Jewish mind when the points were added to the text, and when the causes of prejudice and hostility against the Christian doctrines were universally and most violently in operation, were perpetuated, both among Jews and Christians, by the use of those ingenious and plausible appendages; and from that day to this, translators and expositors have fallen back upon them, and upon the awful petrifactions of Talmudical and rabbinical jargon, as guides to the meaning of the words of Inspiration.

The Jewish people, after their total defection to idolatry, their exile in Babylon, and the cessation of prophetic gifts, having renounced idols and incurred the hatred and contempt of idolaters, were, from their restless state of mind, their internal divisions, feuds, and rivalships, and the exposures and vicissitudes of their external condition peculiarly exposed to cardinal and sectarian errors. They had forsaken Jehovah, and no longer received any tokens of his presence and favor.

Both priests and people, a faithful remnant always excepted, had rejected him as their mediatorial prophet, priest, and king, and renounced their allegiance to him as their lawgiver and providential ruler and protector; and holding no longer the belief of a Divine mediator or of any mediation, they relapsed into that notion of the Unity which they still adhere to, and looked only for a temporal political Messiah. The fitful efforts at reformation which, under the influence of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the latest prophets, appeared after the rebuilding of their temple, gave place to extremes of formalism, hypocrisy, and impiety. Their notions of the person, offices, prerogatives, incarnation and sacerdotal work of the Anointed One, were as unscriptural and baseless as those of more modern times.

Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, (Brown's version,) about the middle of the second century, thus refers to the Rabbins of that day, (sect. 68.) Trypho, in common, no doubt, with the Jews generally, held that there was no distinction of Persons in the G.o.dhead, and that, there was no Divine Being, or Person, but the Father only; and quoted, not the original Hebrew of Scripture texts, but the glosses and false constructions of the Rabbins, in support of his opinions. Justin replies: "If, therefore, I shall prove that this prophecy of Esaias was spoken of our Christ, and not of Hezekias, as you say, shall not I prevail upon you in this also to disbelieve your Rabbies, who a.s.sert that the translation which your seventy Elders made when they were with Ptolemy, King of Egypt, is in some places not true? for those places in the Scriptures which expressly contradict any foolish notion which they are fond of, they say are not so in the original; and those places which they can twist and twine about so as to make them suit any human affairs, they say were not spoken of this Christ of ours, but of him whom they endeavor to wrest them to speak of. So they have taught you to wrest the pa.s.sage now in dispute, saying that it was spoken of Hezekias; upon which pa.s.sage I will prove that they have fixed a wrong interpretation. But when we propose those Scriptures to them which I have already recited, and do expressly prove that Christ was to be exposed to sufferings, to be worshipped, and is G.o.d, they do indeed, being necessarily obliged thereto, own that they relate to Christ; but they take upon them to a.s.sert that he was not THE Christ, and say that there is one still to come, who is both to suffer, and to reign, and to be worshipped, and to be G.o.d." In sect. 71 he observes that the Rabbies "have erased out several whole periods from the Septuagint translation, in which it is expressly foretold that he who was crucified was to be G.o.d and man, and to be crucified and to die;" which erased pa.s.sages he afterwards quotes.

In the course of his argument he alleges and quotes from the Old Testament to show that _the_ Christ is called G.o.d, Lord, Lord of Hosts, a King, the King of Israel, the King of Glory, Angel or Messenger, Man, Captain of the Host, &c.