« PreviousContinue »
duction founded on an examination of every passage of Scriptuire in which the word is found. It will be sufficient at present to lay the result of a painful investigation before the reader. The word 78, in nine places out of ten in which it occurs, is perfectly avalogous to Monseigneur in the French; the final being no mark of the plural but the pronominal affix my. In this sense *378 is expressed in the Greek and Latiu translation of the Hebrew, by Kugié pe, Domine mi, and in the Englisli Version by my Lord * , and has accordingly opposed to it, in Hebrew ninu or me 711', as it has in English, the Lord, or the LORD Godt. This distinction will enable us to perceive the full force of the expression before us, IK 8 Winn. The final is retained in this place, not to mark revereyce to Joseph, by the plural; but to limit, by the pronoun, the acknowledgment of his authority to the person who spoke: the indefinite form , , the indefinite sense of " the Lord of the earth," conveying * blasphemous sense, if possible, more abhorrent from Jewish ears than our own. Whether therefore we consider the general principle derived from the regal idiom on which the objection is founded; or the particular instance deduced from Genesis, in which it is illustrated; we must claim the liberty of stating, that there is yet need of proof more conclusive, before we can acknowledge ourselves convinced.
To any other objection which affects the argument, we are not much concerned in offering an answer; for on collating our author with himself (pp. 262. 271.) his objections deduced from the invisibility of the Deity (p. 276) will need no reply, We cannot be easily deterred from advancing this argument by any fear of the contempt or levity which it may provoke; as what species of argument is sacred from this mode of retort? But, in truth, the tender apprehension which is expressed for its fate, scems to be prematurely indulged; as we have learned from that best instructor, experience, that there is no argument which has equal weight on the Jews; in prevailing on whom it discharges its natural office, and against whom it is only likely to be employed. The prominent place which it takes in the ablest works, written by converts from Judaism, in defence of our faith, will abundantly speak their sense of its value. In the works of Galatin, Rittaugel, Meyer and Xeres, it is accord. ingly assigned this weight and importance. Nor is it possible long lo consult the Bibliotheca of Bartolocci without acquiring
* Vid. Gen. xxiv. 14. 18. 27. 35. 36. 37. 39. 42. 44. 48. 49. 54. 55. 63. + Vid. Gen. ibid. 12. 35. 42. 48.
just just grounds for concluding, that there is no other species of argument to which Christianity is more indebted for eonverts from Judaism, than that which we are now taught to think, it would be wisdom to abandon.
The connexion of the first and eighteenth Chapters of Genesis, with the mystery of the Trinity, is sufficiently acknowledged by our Church in the provision which she bas made, that these Chapters, from whence the doctrine of the Trinity is deduced, shall form the first Lessons on that Sunday, which is called after that sacred name. The valuable work of Dr. Allix, in wbich the proof of tbat doctrine is adduced at length, has now attained, by generally suffrage, the authority of a standard book; and if the opinion of the great body of divines may be taken from the sentence of an individual, it is entitled to the rauk in which the experience of more than a century has placed it, by the unqualified approbation of Bishop Bull. The professed object of this work, which speaks thus adequately the sentence of the Established Church, is to prove, that the mystery which it illustrates by that species of proof which we are engaged in defending was the standing doctrine of the Jewish Church. Having pursued our induction thus far, we shall now leave it with Mr. Heber to determine whether to use his own offensive language, it would not have been "wiser and better” to have left this proof where he found it; than to bave undertaken its subversion on a very superficial investigation, to speak of his animadversions in the softest language.
While the proofs of the Trinity, deduced from the Elohem and Spirit who presided at the Creation, and the three glorious persons who announced to Abraham that birth which prefigured the Icarnation, are abandoned; we are presented with a proof, of the interposition of two of the Triune Persons, under the old dispensation, founded on the vision of Daniel; in which the angel Michael is identified with the eternal Logos, and the angel Gabriel with the Holy Ghost. This hypothesis, which the author expressly refers to Coccejus, is supported by him on the following grounds; (1) the clearest evidence of Rabbinical tradition ; (2) a collation of Scripture with Scripture; and (3) the appropriate names, which are ascribed to those beings in the inspired word.
İn venturing to offer our opinion on this argument, which the author merely proposes as a speculation in theology, we canuot but remark that the proof which he advances is shaken, if not subverted, by the renunciation of that which we have just laboured to defend. The same authority of Rabbinical tradition, which discovers, in Michael and Gabriel, the Jewish Mediator and Holy Ghost, likewise identifies those ministering spirits, with
two of the angelical personages, who gave Abraham promise of the expected seed *. If Mr. Heher denies that they personify the Trinity in the one place, he cannot in justice withhold his consent, that we should deny, they are meant in the other. But we meet his argument on different grounds.
If the Rubbinical authority, on which it is obvious his proof depends, and by which, it is apparent, it was first suggested, rest on any other grounds than that cabbala, by which two persons may be considered the same, it their names are convertible by an anagram, or consist of letters having the same numerical force, we should feel obliged by seeing it pointed out. For as far as we are at present initiated in that occult science, this is literally the case in the strongest of the two instances which he adduces in support of his hypothesis. In that part of his exemplification, which identities Michael and the Mediator of the Covenant, these personages are, we believe, taken as one, because, by a transposition of the letters, Sagip in one passage, becomes 'ssbo in another; and Metatron is identified with God, because 314 forms the sum of the letters, numerically considered, in the words oop and '70t. And if the first argument now fails, as fail it must, in resting on so insecure a foundation, we conceive, it must involve in its fall, that which is in the last place deduced from the signification of the names Michael and Gabriel. Not to vbject at present to Mr. Heber's interpretation of those nanies in which we are far from acquiescing, we cannot believe he will place much dependence on an argument which establishes nothing, or equally proves, that Isaiah and Malachi, to contine ourselves to the tirst and last of the Prophets, were beings of a bigh and preternatural order.
The argument which identifies the angels Michael and Gabriel, with the Sou and Holy Ghost, if it now stand must stand on the Scripture authority. But from the collation of Dan. xii. 1. with Rev. xii. 7. we profess ourselves unable to deduce any conclusion in favour of the divinity of " Michael the Archangel," unless by an assumption of the point in dispute. 1 Thes.
* Meyer, ubi supr. P. I. p. 45.
+ Morin. Exercitt. in Pent. Samar. II. cap. vii. $ 6. p. 164. ed. Par. “ Israelitico populo dicitur Exodi xxiii. vers. 29. præ. cedet te vgbo angelu meus. Colliguut S. Michaelem populi custodem fuisse ex literarum permutatione, qua baid Michael consurgit. Mosen Bar Nachman istius interpretationis autorem citat Reuch. linus. Verum exponit ille Angelum eum moun, eo quod dicitur in textu nomen Dei esse in eo.-Nomen autum Dei in illo dicitur, eo quod 717020n gematrice '7w Saddai, nomini Dei æquivalet; ex utroque enim $14 conficiuntur, ut notat Elias Levita in Thisbi.”
to provide against the chance of his seaders taking that just offence at this part of the public service, which the speciousness of his observations, and the intluence of his name, are. but too Well calculated to excite.
Art. X. A Sermon, preached at St. Mary's, Reading, on
Thursday, May 9, 1816, at the Archdeacon's Visitation, By the Rev. John Bushnell
, M.A. of Pembroke College, Oxford, &c. 8vo. pp. 24. Reading. 1810. THIS is a sound and an orthodox Discourse, and must undoubtedly have made a considerable impression upon its audience, The nioie Sermons of this nature that are both preached and printed, at the present time, the better. The author has clearly shewo that the middle course, which the Church of England has steered, avoiding on the one side, the foaming whirlpool of fanaticism, and on the other, the bleak rocks of socinianism, is the course which Scripture in the plainest manner both dictates and enforces. Let the following be a specimen of Mr. Bushnell's style and manner.
• The conversation between our Saviour and Nicodemus * on the New Birth, furnishes us with a positive proof, that the emotions of the Holy Spirit are imperceptible, and not to be distinguished from the workings of our own minds. The general tenor of Scripture, instead of teaching us to expect a sudden transition from a carnal to a spiritual state, leads us to believe that a sinner's conversion is at all times gradual and progressive +. Again, if Divine Grace were irresistible, many of the precepts of the Gospel would be chargeable with inconsistency. The terms to fight, strive, : labour,' and ' run f,' occurring perpetually in the exhortations of the Sacred Writers, would be utterly inapplicable to the Christian character; and the signification of these terms being thus cancelled by depriving man of the power either to resist, or comply with the operations of the Holy Spirit, would reduce the exhortations themselves to a mere assemblage of words, devoid of all meaning. I would likewise just notice another unfortunate perversion of the
* “ John ïi. 8.”
+ " See Phil. iij. 13, 14. and Heb. vi. 1. By conversion, I do not mean that first impression on the mind, which leads a sipner to think seriously of bis salvation ; but I take the word in its inost enlarged sense, as including sanctification, and implying a real and decided change from a life of sin to a life of holiness." “ 1 Tim. vi. 12. Lyke xiü, 24. John vi. 27. 1 Cor. ix. 24."