historical and just interpretation of the New Testament."* These sentiments are repeated in other places of this preface, and are frequently appealed to throughout the work; but it will not be necessary to multiply examples: we shall, therefore, now proceed, in the first place, to examine the principles here laid down.

By Christologia or Christology, Mr. Bertholdt seems to understand, the opinions held by the Jews respecting the Messiah; and which, he holds, are to be found in their Targums, Commentaries, cabbalistical, and other works, as already remarked.

Now, without attempting to depreciate any means whereby a knowledge of the contents of the New Testament may be acquired (and a recurrence to the writings of the Jews has certainly been recommended as one), I must affirm, that the plan here laid down by Mr. Bertholdt, is the least of all likely to conduct us to a real acquaintance with the contents of this book. For this reason: The New Testament professes to teach doctrines diametrically opposed to those generally held, on the subject of the Messiah, during the times of our Lord and his Apostles,-doctrines which the Jews as a body, and particularly the learned part of them, rejected to the last. As to what they held on this subject two centuries prior to this time, neither Mr. Bertholdt, nor any other person can tell that part of his statement, therefore, must be set down as amounting to nothing. It may be asked, then, supposing we had the means of ascertaining the opinions of the Jews on these subjects, at the time specified, (which, however, does not appear to be the fact), is it likely that this knowledge would afford us a clue to the right understanding of the New Testament? Is it not probable, that those opinions would be more likely to lead us astray than the contrary? St. Paul declares, what indeed our Lord and the

• "Placuit de Christologia Judæorum Jesu Apostolorumque atate disserere ; et neminem puto fore, cui hujus consilii ratio non ex omni parte probata sit. Nam non vereor, ne eorum, qui rerum theologicarum vere gnari sunt, vel unus in eo dubius hæreat, quin a recta ac solida hujus rei, quæ inde a sæculo secundo ante Jesum natum totam pæne Judæorum doctrinam sanctam ni vel absorbuit tamen vero vallo quasi fossaque circumvenit, expositione et cognitione, historica ac vera Novi Testamenti interpretatio fere omnis proficiscatur."

prophets had declared before him, that their eyes were closed and their ear's heavy,-that there was a veil on their heart, just as it had been predicted,—and that blindness, in this respect at least, had happened to Israel. Under these circumstances, then, Mr. Bertholdt should, I think, have informed us, how this blindness, deafness, hardness of heart, &c. could be converted into the means of light, admonition, and life, with us; and how the truth be advanced by the mass of error which at these times confessedly prevailed. But Mr. Bertholdt explains: he says, that just as the progress of science, in the two centuries preceding the reformation, made way for that event, so did the wisdom of God attemper his Gospel to the prevailing notions, with the view of effecting a similar end; or, he prepared the Jews for its reception by thus influencing their opinions previous to its discovery. Nothing surely can be more unfortunate than this statement. Science, we are told, prepared the way for the reformation; and so the reformation took place. Providence, in like manner, prepared the Jews for the reception of the Gospel; but, alas! they never received it. The preparation failed the Jews persevered in error: and this very system of error is now conjured up, as the only means whereby we can arrive at the truth of the Gospel!

-

But Mr. Bertholdt contends, that passages are to be found in these writings of the Jews, agreeing with others found in the Gospels, and calculated to throw very considerable light upon them; and not only so, but also to point out the real sources from which those in the Gospels must have been derived. I answer: This can be proved only by an induction of particulars, and of such particulars, too, as are no where to be found. In general, no book now in the hands of the Jews, if we except the Old Testament, can be shewn to be so old as the times of the Gospels; and, if this be the case, how, it may be asked, can such proof be made

out?

There is still another consideration which should not be lost sight of. The passages alluded to, generally contain glosses upon one part or other of the Hebrew Bible; but

* Some have thought, that the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan are as old as these times but this is extremely doubtful.

L

no independent notions were entertained by the Jews, if we except those derived from heathenism. The Gospels, however, afford the most ancient and best possible commentary on the Old Testament; and, therefore, if passages are to be found agreeing with the Gospels, it is on this account alone that they can be deemed good; but not the contrary which would be the same thing as to argue, that because David Kimchi had, in the thirteenth century, happened to give a just interpretation of a prophecy relating to the Messiah, the Gospels which sometimes fall in with his notions, must be true, or vice versâ! Again; many sentiments in unison with those in the Gospels are actually found in the profane authors, and even a considerable number of facts which are common both to the Old and New Testament. Had we not, therefore, better go to these profane authors at once for the origin of both! There are rationalists, I know, who do not hesitate to do even this; and, if I am not mistaken, they are unanimous, with Spinoza, in ascribing both to the same source; namely, the fervour, zeal, piety, and what not, of well-meaning but uninspired men, as already remarked. Let us proceed, however, to Mr. Bertholdt's work.

ner.

Mr. Bertholdt, then, in common with the most learned leaders of his school, believes that he can, by a little ratiocination, account for all the phenomena of Christianity, so as to leave no doubt whatever on the minds of any, that it is a mere system of natural religion-that it has had its periods of improvement and degradation, all of which can be fixed upon and accounted for in the most satisfactory man"This hope," says he (i. e. that the Jews should have a Messiah who should subdue the world to their authority and rule), "if we look to its origin, took its rise from the very splendid notion of seeing better times, which had engrossed the founders of the Hebrew nation; which, men of later times, calling to mind the splendour of David's reign, confined to some one who should arise out of his house, and be endued with regal honour. This being done, they then celebrated this future king as the most excellent in regard to temper, wisdom, justice, humanity, piety, and fortitude; and hoped that, under his auspices, their commonwealth, blessed with perfect safety-their sacred rites also greatly augmented

---

the nation which had been most dear to the Almighty, would for ever after enjoy the light of the golden age.'

Here we may see with what ease the most important truths of revealed religion are set aside, and the conjectures of a rationalist made to supply their place; which, we are told again and again, we must necessarily receive, because forsooth, times are altered, and the arts and sciences are now flourishing. We have, indeed, some works referred to here in the notes, in which it is to be presumed proofs of all these assertions may be had; but the truth is, no such proofs are there to be found; and, therefore, I have not thought it worth while to mention them.

Let us now examine the grounds upon which all this stands. In the first place, then, this hope of a Messiah did not commence with the originators of the Hebrew nation; but long before that nation had either an existence or a name. We find it first spoken of in the garden of Eden; and there so defined, as to leave it scarcely possible to be misunderstood. After this, sacrifice is had recourse to, which could have had no other meaning or intention, than that of shadowing out the great work of redemption to be completed by Him. Besides, during these times, we hear nothing whatever of national glory in connection with this doctrine. The truth seems to be, it was then purely spiritual, just as that of the covenant of grace is now. No theocracy had at that time been erected: national glories were therefore foreign to the question. When, however, the theocracy had commenced, spiritual and temporal blessings were so linked together, that the one could scarcely be mentioned without some allusion being made to the other; but even in this case, the superiority of the spiritual is too apparent to allow any one, except a Jew

* "Ortum autem habuit hæc spes, si a prima repetenda sit origine, ex splendidissima, qua jam conditores gentis Hebraicæ circumfusi erant, meliorum temporum imagine, quam serioris ætatis homines, revocato ad oculos regni Davidici splendore, in personæ cujusdam, ex prosapia Davidica oriundæ et honore regio induta limites coegerunt. Quo facto, hune regem futurum ingenio sapientiaque, justitia et humanitate, pietate atque fortitudine longe excellentissimum celebrarunt, atque sperarunt, fore, ut ipsius auspiciis, summa rei publicæ salute adlata, cultuque sacro maximis incrementis aucto, gens summo Numini carissima aureæ ætatis luce perpetua collustraretur.” (Proleg. § 2.)

or a rationalist, for a moment to doubt, what was the great scope of prophetical instruction. I know this will not satisfy Mr. Bertholdt; and that not a few among ourselves talk loudly of the obscurity of these ancient Scriptures, and think it quite sufficient to resolve all into a few probabilities, as if such an expedient could in any degree mend the matter! If, however, Holy Scripture is matter of divine revelation and of absolute authority (and this I shall contend it is. and has always been), such a mode of treating it cannot be but irreverent, and partaking largely of impiety and unbelief; and just as unworthy of a Christian, as it is removed from the decisions of right reason. I shall conclude, therefore, on this head, that facts oppose the statements of Mr. Bertholdt; and, that where this is the case, conjectures, such as his are, ought to be treated as mere phantoms.

The remainder of these positions may be dispensed with, by merely affirming, that they rest on a petitio principii, or, take for granted the thing to be proved. Besides, as their object is to derogate from the true character of the Scriptures, which has already been shewn to be authoritative, and, without proof, to reduce them to a level with the profane authors, in common with the notorious but exploded system of Spinoza, they need not be further considered.

The next step taken by our author is to shew, that, as every thing entirely depended upon the spirit of the times during which the revelation was made, or the Hebrew nation existed, alterations are manifestly visible in the very doctrines and spirit of this religion. "Factum-est," says he, "ut inde ab exilio Babylonico successu temporis per varia rerum discrimina vicissitudinesque in nonnullis iisque præcipuis partibus magnam subiret immutationem. Causas hujus rei indagaturo facile perspectum erit et exploratum, statum rerum publicarum Judæorum post istam xaraorgopny miseruin et vel per nonnulla lætiora intervalla mediocritate altius haud evectum, philosophiæ orientalis et Græco-Egyptiæ sententias abstrusas a Judæis dogmatibus suis sacris, quantum fieri potuit, adjectas et adcommodatas, linguæ genti olim vernaculæ inscitiam et veterum librorum sacrorum rite interpretandorum imperitiam, nec non ingenii, Judæis serioribus peromnes terras populosque dispersis informati, prorsus novi et ab ingenio majorum liberaliore longe alieni singularem indolem