SECT. VI.

GENERAL

CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS INQUIRY INTO THE

STATE OF OPINION AMONG THE JEWS AT THE PERIOD REFERRED TO.

4

We may now put together the notices which we have been able to collect, on the state of general opinion among the Jews at and near the era of the origin of Christianity, on the question, Of what kind would be the person and character of their expected Messiah?

The particulars, as they have been collected at the close of each of the preceding heads of inquiry, need not to be repeated. The review seems to show that those articles of current, or of extensive, belief, were sublime, imperfectly understood, and in some respects inconsistent.

I. They were sublime. This is manifest from the attribution which we have found of pre-existence, dignity above all the objects of creation, and properties peculiar to the Deity.

This

II. They were imperfectly understood. could not but be the case from the nature of the

subject, from the reference of the expectation to a future and unknown time, and from the necessary obscurity belonging to unfulfilled prophecy, the great source from which these sentiments were drawn.

III. They were, in various respects, inconsistent. Not only did one theory oppose another, but each appears to have laboured under difficulties and contradictions within itself. Of such inconsistency we have an example in the case of Philo and it is readily accounted for, from the mixture of traditionary opinions and diversified hypotheses with the stream of knowledge derived from the Old Testament prophecies. The subject was in itself obscure, and, under all the circumstances, it was not to be expected that the serious and inquisitive Jews of this period could avoid running into conjectures and incoherent notions.

It is probable that this imperfection and inconsistency were still further promoted by a notion which had acquired a very general acceptance among the Jews at the time of which we are speaking. As piety decayed, and as the conquests of the Macedonians and the Romans spread before the eyes of the Jewish people the glare of military glory and the pomp of dominion, they became more and more sécular in their views and expectations. Their hopes of a Messiah became closely united with their national pride and their wishes for an universal ascendancy. The figu

rative representations of the Messiah's reign, given by the holy prophets, were eagerly taken in a literal signification, and were associated with still grosser ideas of ambition and voluptuousness. Thus the bulk of the nation rapidly lost sight of the spiritual and holy objects with which the language of prophecy surrounds its descriptions of the Messiah; and sunk into the habit of regarding him as a politician and a hero. Such an opinion must have strongly disposed them to take up exclusive views of their Great Deliverer as a man merely, and as a man of the world, earthly and carnal in his purposes and his character. At the same time, the vestiges of purer sentiments still lingered in the hearts of many, whose devotional and religious habits of mind would represent the best" consolation of Israel" to consist in a holy salvation and a spiritual Redeemer. To such persons the ancient faith would present stronger attractions than they could feel from the worldly expectations with which popular partialities had entangled their minds; and, though unable to free themselves entirely from the fond delusion, they would still be looking for nobler blessings when "the Lord whom they sought should suddenly come to his temple," and "as the light of the morning should arise JEHOVAH, a Sun without clouds for brightness."*

* A sentiment similar to this was advanced by Dr. Semler, the celebrated leader of the theologians termed liberal, in Germany. Bishop Marsh calls him "the immortal Semler;" and adds, "The original genius of this great critic and divine permitted

The reader will now be able to judge with what degree of argumentative suitableness and justice this topic is treated in the Calm Inquiry. It forms the subject of a Section, under the title, "The arguments which are alleged to prove that the Jews, in the time of Christ, believed in the pre

him in no case to be a blind follower of the opinion of others. He ascended constantly to the source himself, examined with his own eyes, and made more discoveries in sacred criticism and ecclesiastical history, than the envy of his contemporaries has been willing to admit." Marsh's Michaelis. vol. ii. p. 639.

"Hunc in ordinem haud dubiè pertinent multi ex doctoribus illis et prophetis qui, præter Levitarum ministeria кooμuka, meliorem cognitionem Dei, regni Dei in omnes homines moralis, adepti fuerunt, et longè augustiora exercitia subinde docuerunt, in psalmis et aliis libellis, quæ Xarpɛíav λoyiǹy commendabant. Iidem sic spirituali vitâ aucti, abstinuerunt ab omni abusu corporearum rerum, spiritualium beneficiorum ipsi participes. Itaque et longè aliam ideam reipublicæ divinæ, regis sperati Messia, et instaurati regni in omnes gentes, bonis mentibus ræiverunt; licet plerique homines, ψυχικοι et σαρκικοί, ista π 'εvμatika nec intellexerint satis, nec appetierint." "To this cass doubtless belonged many of the Jewish teachers and rophets who, rising above the Levitical ceremonies, obtained a superior knowledge of God and of his moral government over mankind, and uttered far more noble strains in their psalms and other compositions, which enjoined a "reasonable service." (Rom. xii. 1.) Endowed with spiritual life and partaking of spiritual blessings, they made a right use of those outward observances. They also showed to the minds of the pious a very different representation of the divine dispensations, of the expected King the Messiah, and of his universal reign: while the majority being " sensual and carnal" (1 Cor. ii. 14.) had no just knowledge of those spiritual things, nor any desires after them.” Jo. Sal. Semleri Inst. ad Doctr. Christ. liberaliter discendam. Halæ Magd. 1774. p. 314.

existence of their expected Messiah." The whole of this Section is transcribed below.*-Could then, the author think that the matter was sufficiently dispatched in this cavalier and superficial manner? Could he satisfy himself with leaving the impression on his readers, that this was an equitable statement of the argument which he is professing to answer? Is it "notorious that the ancient Jews, and indeed the Jewish nation in general, in all ages, entertained no such expectation?" Is the whole series of argument from the

"That the Jews expected a pre-existent Messiah.-One text only is alleged with any plausibility in favour of this supposition. John vii. 27. We know this man whence he is; but when the Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.' Grotius and Doddridge explain this passage as alluding to the miraculous conception of Jesus. Dr. Whitby more justly understands it as referring to a tradition among the Jews, that the Messiah was to be conveyed from Bethlehem soon after his nativity, and to be concealed from the world till Elias came to anoint him. It is said that some of the modern Cabalists maintain that the angel Metatron, who led the Israelites in the wilderness, will be the soul of the Messiah. But it is notorious that the ancient Jews, and indeed the Jewish nation in general, in all ages entertained no such expectation. Trypho the Jew, in his Dialogue with Justin Martyr, early in the second century, represents the notion of the pre-existence and incarnation of Jesus, as not only wonderful, but silly and he reproaches the Christians for their belief in the miraculous conception of Christ, which he ridicules as a fiction equally absurd with that of Jupiter and Danaë. He says, that all his nation expect the Messiah to be a man born like other men. Justin Martyr Opp. Edit. Thirlby, p. 233-6. Dr. Priestley's Hist. of Early Opinions, vol. iii. p. 40-49. Ben Mordecai's (H. Taylor's) Lett. vol. i. p. 359-61."-Calm Inquiry, p. 10, 11.