were such circumstances; such, too, as satisfactorily account for the scriptural usage of all the phrases which we have mentioned. Let the reader, then, consider that all the Christians maintained, of course, that their time was the long expected time of the Messiah; whose kingdom or reign, they unanimously declared to be already begun in spirit, and about to come with power.' This fact was well understood, upon every hand, that they contended that this grand epoch, the most distinguished of all in the Jewish faith, had actually commenced that the Messiah had already appeared, and that his kingdom was, in a short time, to be fully established upon earth.

Now, let the following fact be considered, in connection with the foregoing. This interesting period, which had begun, but which the Jews in their blindness, still looked for, was commonly designated, in the current phraseology of that nation, by these very appellations, or by similar terms, viz. the last days, the latter days, the end of the age or dispensation, the time of the end, &c. So at least it seems from a multitude of facts, part of which we will soon lay before the reader. Should it appear that such was indeed the style in which that expected period was then generally spoken of in Judea, this circumstance will, of itself, explain the usage in question, and dispel all remaining darkness from the subject. For, in that case, our Saviour and his apostles but spoke in the common religious language of their day and country, employing, as was natural, such terms as custom had appropriated to the

topic of which they treated. If those terms strike us, at this remote time, as improper or as too vague, it is owing merely to the fact, that the circumstances and practice, which then fixed and sanctioned their application, have now passed away. To the Jews, and to those who lived among Jews, they were intelligible and familiar; while, perhaps, the terms which we should prefer, would either have been without meaning, or have appeared extremely awkward.

IV. Before we proceed to exhibit our evidence that such was the common usage, we would say a few words concerning the sources whence we must derive the principal part of our light, on all similar points, as well as on this in particular. Authentic testimony, relating directly to the religious manners, opinions and language of the Jews in Judea, during the ministry of Christ and of his apostles, is very scanty, if we except what is contained in the New Testament. That this is the case, may be judged from a list of those works on which we must chiefly depend for information.

1. The volumes of Josephus, a learned Jew of Palestine, were indeed written only a few years after the period referred to; but, then, they are almost exclusively historical; and his ambition to rank with the classic scholars of Greece and Rome, led him to avoid as much as possible, the peculiar idioms of the synagogue, which were justly stigmatized as barbarisms. 2. There are also the numerous writings of Philo Judæus, another

learned Jew, and a contemporary with our Saviour; but although mostly of a religious character, and belonging to the very time under consideration, they throw little light on the customs and forms of expression prevalent in Judea. Brought up and always residing at Alexandria, the author's notions and phraseology, are of that peculiar kind, which characterized his countrymen in Egypt; where Judaism has assumed a dress very different from that which it wore in other parts of the world.1 3. Next in order of

time, if they ought not to be placed before the preceding, are two Jewish translations, or more properly, paraphrases, of part of the Old Testament, called the Targum of Onkelos on the five books of Moses, and the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Prophets. Of these the dates are uncertain many critics judging them to have been composed during the early part of our Saviour's life; and some assigning that of Onkelos to the second century, and that of Jonathan to the third or fourth, after the Christian era.2 Wherever these translations run into the freedom of a paraphrase, which with the latter is frequently the case, they afford specimens, as pure perhaps as we can now obtain, of the religious language and opinions of the Jews, at, or near the time of the apostles. 4. There is another work,

1 Bruckeri Historia Crit. Philosophiæ, vol. ii, p. 690, &c. Hist. of Philosophy, Book iv. ch. 1, vol. ii. p. 152, 153. Bertholdt Christologia Judæorum, § 5, 6, 8. The difference between the Judaism of Egypt, and that of Palestine, is not sufficiently considered By most writers.

2 See Horne's Introduction to the Scriptures, vol. ii. pp. 159, 160.

called the Talmud, in twelve folio volumes: the collection of all the writings of the most eminent Rabbins, or doctors among the Jews, from the end of the second century, to the close of the sixth or seventh. It forms the entire body of the Jewish traditions and doctrine. From this huge and chaotic mass, Christian commentators and critics, have taken far the greater part of those examples of Jewish phraseology, which they adduce for the purpose of elucidating the language of the New Testament. The illustrations, however, drawn from this source, unless plainly countenanced by other circumstances, or by better authorities, are certainly but of a doubtful character; since most of the Talmud was written at a period so late, that we must not take it for certainty, that its phrases were derived without perversion, from the apostolic age. Indeed, it is evident, that on the complete ruin of their nation, the Jews, crushed to powder, and scattered like dust in the four winds of heaven, absolutely run mad with fable and all kinds of visionary extravagance.

Excepting the sacred writings, the original Jewish productions now described, though somewhat deficient as we have shown, still afford the best means which we posses, of discovering what were the peculiar usages in Palestine, during the ministry of our Saviour and of his apostles. It will seldom, indeed, be sufficient for such a purpose, to find barely an example or two, in only one of these works; but when we see traces of any singular usage, running through all or most of them, the circumstantial evidence becomes so full, as to leave little room for doubt. Thus, if we perceive

certain expressions often applied, in the Old Testament, to a particular subject, it may lead us to conjecture, that a similar phraseology existed among the Jews of our Saviour's day; since they formed much of their religious language on the style of their scriptures, which they read to the exclusion of almost every other book. This uncertain conjecture grows into strong probability, if we then find that their own approved interpreters, Onkelos and Jonathan, who lived near the time in view, did actually apply those expressions to the same subjects. And finally, descending to a later period, if we ascertain that the Talmud abounds with similar instances, we may rest satisfied with the accumulated proof; especially if, in addition to these circumstances, the phaseology of the New Testament seems to have been affected by such an usage. We thus have a chain of evidence, running, with sufficient clearness, from the time of the old prophets, down through that of Christ, to the sixth or seventh century.

This method, so little liable to mislead, we shall carefully follow, in attempting to show that when the New Testament was written, it was customary to denominate the expected era of the establishment of Messiah's kingdom, by such appellations as the last days, the end of the age,

&c.

We shall show that corresponding phrases are applied to that period, in the Old Testament; that they were so understood and employed, by the Jewish interpreters, Onkelos and Jonathan, not far from the apostolic age; that the Talmudic writers, at a later day, still retained the usage; and that we find in the New Testament several