They pray, as we have seen, that through the influence of Phylacteries their imaginations may be have no concern with the reasons which may be drawn from the gospel in favour of the clamours against the Romanists, but as regards those said to be deduced from Scripture, the primitive and peculiar inheritance of Israelites, who are certainly its best expounders (doubtful), we feel ourselves compelled, with all due deference to the amiable editress of the Christian Lady's Magazine, to show how little these reasons are founded on the contents of the Bible. From the circumstance, that after the Israelites had worshipped the golden calf in the wilderness, three thousand of them fell by the command of God, we do not perceive how it follows, that those who, out of respect for a person, reverence his image, deserve the name of idolators. True, the Almighty prohibits the making of any image, but then He also declares to what images He alludes, viz., such as are destined to be worshipped; (if this restriction of the original prohibition were not admitted, how sinful would be the taste of the many pious Protestants who lavish immense sums on statues and paintings). That the Israelites regarded the golden calf, not as a symbol or mere image, but as a real God, and that they were therefore idolaters, is clear from the address to Aaron, ‘Up, make us gods, which shall go before us;' but we never remember to have read or heard that Catholics regard the images of their saints as gods, and worship them as such; besides which, we have their own especial disclaimer to the contrary. Let the Conversion Society decry its Catholic neighbours as much as it pleases, we cannot interfere; but, after what we have just stated, unprejudiced Protestants will deem it very natural that we plain Jews, who admit nothing but Scripture, and who receive no interpretation of it but that handed down to us by our ancestors, consider the appellations of idolaters, &c., bestowed so unsparingly upon Papists, as somewhat uncharitable and harsh, nay more, as highly intolerant." I will now consider, first, the claim of my Jewish brethren "to pronounce a decision on the merits of religions based on Scripture;" and their premature assumption of the title of "mother,"'—a title which Holy Scripture expressly declares they have forfeited. "Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away." Isa. 50. 1. Again, « Plead with your mother, plead for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband." Hos. 2.2. See also Jer. 3. Hence we clearly see that the mother's judgment is : without a thought of sin and wickedness. This has reference to an assertion made by one of their false teachers, altogether discarded; and so will it continue, until she shall return to seek the Lord her God, and David her king. Hos. 3. 5. Then, and not until then, is it that she shall be called Heph-zi-bah, and her land Beulah, Isa. 53. 4.; then it is that Jewish and Christian Churches shall say to each other, Ammi and Ruhamah, Hos. 2. 1. Yes, we hope and pray for that day's approach, but in Israel's present state it is arrant presumption to lay claim to such a position. He continues, "but after what we have just stated, unprejudiced Protestants will deem it very natural that we plain Jews, who admit nothing but Scripture, and who receive no interpretation of it but that handed down to us by our ancestors, consider the appellations of idolater, &c. bestowed so unsparingly upon Papists, as somewhat uncharitable and harsh, nay more, as highly intolerant." Certainly every impartial reader, who has only a small acquaintance with Jews and Judaism, will be ready to express his astonishment at such an assertion, for he will know that Jews in Holland, Spain, Poland, Russia, and indeed, wherever Popery prevails, are taught from their earliest infancy to look upon Christians as idolaters, because of the numberless crucifixes that are placed in every street, which Papists passing by, kneel before, and pray to. The Jewish child abroad, as soon as he is able to talk, is taught to repeat, whenever שקץ תשקצנו ותעב תתעבנו כי חרם הוא he passes a Popish mass house « Thou shalt utterly abhor it, and thou shalt utterly detest it; for it is a cursed thing," Deut. 7. 26. When a Christian first begins to speak to a foreign Jew about Christianity, he turns a deaf ear, for the Jew connects the appellation of Christianity with the impious idolatry of Popery, which excites in his breast no other emotion than those of abhorrence and contempt. No sooner has the Protestant Christian obtained a hearing, than the Jew expresses his great disappointment. "I thought," says the Jew, "that every one called by the name of Christian was an image worshipper, but I find you are different from the Christians here, you consider them idolaters as well as I do." Such was the experience of the Missionaries of the "London Society for promoting Christianity amongst the Jews," when they first arrived in Warsaw, Cracow, Jerusalem, &c. Neither is this opinion concerning Popish Christianity prevalent only amongst a certain class of Jews. It is an established doctrine throughout the oral law, (for which the Popish vindicator claims Divine origin !) But we are told it is "intolerant." The renowned Maimonides, who lived in the darkest ages, A.D. 1170, did not think it intolerant to pro כל מי שיש לו תפילין בראשו ומזוזה בפתחו וציצית בבגדו מובטח לו שלא יחטא דכתיב והחוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק nounce Popish Christianity idolatry. The following is his injunction to יוודע לך שכל אומה נוצרית שיהיה להם בה בית תיפלה שהוא the Jew בית עבודה זרה בלי ספק אותה העיר אסור לעבור בה בכוונה וכל שכן לדור בה אבל אנחנו תחת ידיהם בעוונותינו ושוכני בארצם אנוסי ונתקיים בנו מה שנאמר ועבדתם שם אלהים מעשה ידי אדם עץ ואבן ואם העיר דינה כן ק"ו דין בית עבורה עצמו שהוא אסור לנו כמעט לראותו וכי' ש ליכנס בו זרה "Be it known unto you, that every city of a Nazarene nation, in which they have a place of folly, (the name given by Jews to a Christian place of worship) which is, doubtless, an idolatrous house, is strictly prohibited to pass through such a city intentionally, and more especially to dwell in it; but we who are in consequence of our sins, under their power, are obliged so to do, for it has been fulfilled in us, 'And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone,' Deut. 4. 28." And if such is the law relative to the city, how much more with the idolatrous place itself, which it is almost unlawful to look upon, much more so to enter." Surely the editor of the Voice of Jacob can know but little or nothing of the interpretation handed down to us by our ancestors, otherwise he would not have so grossly misrepresented it. Take now another authority, completely opposite to his perverse opinion. The famous Rabbi Isaac, in his work Chizook Emunah, or Strength of Truth, strongly endeavours to show that Christianity is a false religion, which the learned Wagenseil, justly entitles "Tela ignea Satanæ," or the fiery weapons of Satan, makes the following reasonable remark : ואפילו בבתי עבודתם עדיין לא פסקו עצכי כסף וזהב ופסילי עץ ואבן ובפרט פסילי הלחם שהם עובדים ומשתחוים להם כפי מה שהורגלו מקדמת דנא וכל זה עושים היפך הוראת ישו "And even in their places of worship, idols of Silver and gold, and graven images of stocks and stones, have not as yet ceased; especially the images of bread, which they serve and worship, as they were accustomed to do a long time ago, and they do all these things contrary to the doctrine of Jesus." Whence it will clearly appear to every attentive reader, that whilst our editor is talking so freely of pronouncing, deciding, expounding, interpreting, and teaching, he himself sadly lacks knowledge. The reader must regard his assertion as a single voice, and not estimate it as the unanimous “Voice of Jacob,” as he would fain represent it. Time and space would fail me to quote the numberless passages to be found in the Oral law, in direct opposition to our worthy's assertion. It is sufficient that I have proved him to have made an unwarrantable "Whosoever has Phylacteries on his head, M'zuzah on his door, and Fringes on his garments, is assured that assertion. I will now consider, as briefly as possible, his other arguments; in which he betrays a great want of Biblical and Rabbinical knowledge. He says, "True, the Almighty prohibits the making of any image, but then he also declares to what images He alludes, viz. such as were destined to be worshipped." I must take leave to inform him, that Papists really destine their images to be worshipped. In the eighth century, after the perfidious and profligate Empress Irene poisoned her husband, the Emperor, Leo IV. entered into an alliance with Adrian, bishop of Rome, A.D. 786, summoned a Council at Nice, in Bithynia, which is known by the title of the Second Nicean Council, in which the worship of images and the cross was established, and severe punishment denounced against such as maintained that “ God was the only object of religious adoration.” The same decree was corroborated under Photius, at a Council held in Constantinople, A.D. 879, and the Greeks, in commemoration thereof, institutod an anniversary festival, called "the feast of Orthodoxy," (see Ceremoniale Bizantinum, published by Reisk, page 92). In the eleventh century, Leo, bishop of Chalcedon, published a treatise, in which he affirmed," that in the images of Jesus Christ, and of the saints, there resided a certain kind of inherent sanctity, that it was a proper object of religious worship; and that therefore, the adoration of Christians ought not to be confined to the persons represented by these images, but should extend also to the images, themselves." Though he was opposed at first, the common practice soon proved that they coincided with him. In fact, daily experience proves that the Papists make the image a substitute for God. Alas! there is something more than reverencing the image of a person, it is giving God's praise to graven images, Isa. 42. 8. Luther, who was better acquainted with Popery than our learned editor, justly remarks, " One may take up the language of Elijah, and mock them, saying,—' cry aloud, for they are gods, they are talking, or busy, or gone abroad, or peradventure they are sleeping and must be awaked."" In the Nitzachon, or Victory, (written by Rabbi Lipman against Christianity,) we find the following passage :- DIN MD נצחון הפסילים אשר בבתי תורפותם לפי שהם אלוהתם לפיכך יייי הוא הם מכבדין אותם כאלהי הלא הוא אומר אני שמי וכבודי לאחר לא אתן ותהלתי לפסילים: "What they say, that the graven images which are in their shameful houses, (i. e. the churches,) because they are the representatives of their gods, he will not sin, for it is written, And a threefold cord is not easily broken,'" (Eccl. 4. 12.) for this reason they honour them as such, did He not say, 'I am the Lord; that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images,"" Isa. 42. 8. We are next informed that the "Israelites regarded the golden calf, not as a symbol or mere image, but as a real God; and that they were, therefore, idolaters, is clear from their address to Aaron, 'Up, make us gods, which shall go before us!'" It is greatly to be regretted that he did not proceed to the end of the verse, when it would have appeared that he was anything but "clear" on the subject. In the latrer part of the verse the children of Israel give a reason for their request, "for as for this Moses, the man that brought us np out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him." They wanted a God, therefore in Moses' stead. If we compare scripture with scripture, we shall find that Moses is called Elhôim, or God, "And the Lord said unto Moses, see, I made thee a god unto Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet," Exodus 7. 1. The people wanted a governor, which they might regard as ” Elôhim. (see Exod. 4. 16. 18. 19. 22. 23. Ps. 82. 6.) instead of the Moses. In No. 18. of the Voice of Jacob, there is a review of the Conciliator, written by R. Manasseh ben Israel. It opens thus, "This book will be consulted with interest by every class of Biblical students." It is to be regretted that he himself found no interest in consulting it; for on that very passage R. M. offers a sound and consistent commentary. I will quote his words :-" They (i.e. the Israelites) did not deny the First Cause (i.e. God) by this act, nor is it to be believed that they supposed the calf to be the creator of heaven and earth; but they wanted a medium of communication with God, like Moses. That this assumption is true, is confirmed by scripture; for when they asked for a governor “ Előhim it says, they gave a reason; For this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we know not what has become of him.' If, then, they wanted one in the place of Moses, and Moses was not considered as a God, ergo, the calf was not so held; which is proved by the facility with which they permitted Moses to burn it. They would not have permitted such sacrilege had they esteemed it as a God. We consequently see, that after the calf was made, Aaron proclaimed, 'To-morrow is a feast to the Lord; he does not say, 'a feast to the calf,' but 'to the Lord' knowing the people were not so weak-minded as to attribute divinity to a calf, the work of his hands. But although such only was their intention, they |