duction founded on an examination of every passage of Scrip ture 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 analogous to Monseigneur in the French; the final being no mark of the plural but the prouominal affix my. In this sense is expressed in the Greek and Latin translation of the Hebrew, by Kúgie ue, Domine mi, and in the English Version by my Lord*; and has accordingly opposed to it, in Hebrew nim or nbs mm, 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, wish. The final is retained in this place, not to mark reverence to Joseph, by the plural, but to limit, by the pronoun, the acknowledg ment of his authority to the person who spoke: the indefinite

taken in אורי הארץ and still more in the plural אדון הארץ form

the indefinite sense of "the Lord of the earth," conveying a 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, Kittangel, Meyer and Xeres, it is accordingly assigned this weight and importance. Nor is it possible long to consult the Bibliotheca of Bartolocci without acquiring

* Vid. Gen. xxiv. 14. 18. 27. 35. 36. 37. 39. 42. 44. 48. 49. 5. 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 converts 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 has 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 which the proof of that 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 have 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 Incarnation, 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.

In 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

two of the angelical personages, who gave Abraham promise of the expected sced*. If Mr. Heber 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.

be

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 identifies Michael and the Mediator of the Covenant, these personages are, we believe, taken as one, because, by a transposition of the letters, in one passage, comes in another; and Metatron is identified with God, because 314 forms the sum of the letters, numerically considered, in the words on and t. 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 object at present to Mr. Heber's interpretation of those names 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 confine ourselves to the first and last of the Prophets, were beings of a high and preternatural order.

The argument which identifies the angels Michael and Gabriel, with the Son 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. I Thes.

*Meyer, ubi supr. P. I. p. 45.

+ Morin. Exercitt. in Pent. Samar. II. cap. vii. § 6. p. 164. 23. præ. ed. Par. "Israelitico populo dicitur Exodi xxiii. vers. cedet ten angelu meus. Colliguut S. Michaelem populi custodem fuisse ex literarum permutatione, qua D Michael consurgit. Mosen Bar Nachman istius interpretationis autorem citat Reuchlinus. Verum exponit ille Angelum eum pop, eo quod dicitur in textu nomen Dei esse in eo.-Nomen autum Dei in illo dicitur, e quod non gematrice Saddai, nomini Dei æquivalet; ex utroque enim $14 conficiuntur, ut notat Elias Levita in Thisbi."

iv.

iv. 16 is, we believe, neutralised by Matt. xxv. $1: and Dan. si. 1. x. 20. by Matt. iv. 10. Luke xxii. 43. As to the last quotation which is adduced in support of our author's hypothesis, from Jude 9, we are clearly of opinion, of whatever value our opinion be deemed, that by this text, collated with 2 Pet. ii. 11. the whole theory is fundamentally overthrown. For the declaretion of both apostles, with respect to the angel Michael, is inconsistent with any notion we can form of the Supreme Being. And this part of the hypothesis failing, that on which the divinity of the angel Gabriel is supported seems to lapse to the ground. While Dan. viii. 13, is unfitted, by its obscurity, for proving any thing relative to the rank and person of the speaker: ibid. x. 13, really detracts more from the dignity of the same person, than it adds to it, by representing him as not merely opposed by the Prince of Persia, but as receiving help from the Archangel Michael, whose divinity is presupposed in the notion of his granting assistance, while it is a point which we have already seen, still remains to be proved. And so far do we conceive the hypothesis from deriving support from the account of the annunciation, that a distinction appears to be established in the words of the salutation, Luke 1, 26. $5, between "the angel Gabriel" and " the Holy Ghost," which we are unable to reconcile with the theory on which they are considered the same.

The judicious observations of our author on the necessity of understanding plain language in its literal sense, (p. 87) and on the imprudence of deciding too rashly upon the miraculous dispeusations of Providence, of which our knowledge must be necessar ly confined, (p. 509) render any reply to his further objections to the office and functions of the angelical hierarchy wholly superfluous. Though we do not pledge ourselves to support the Septuagint in its reading of Deut. xxxii. 8. we see nothing in the Scripture account of the economy of those ministering spirits, which we do not conceive ourselves fully adequate to defend. But the undertaking would lead us far beyond our limits which are already transgressed; we shall therefore, for the present, take our leave of the author with expressions of sorrow that he should have carried his scepticism on this subject so far as he has left us cause to regret. It will be sufficient, we are sensible, to remind him of the declaration of conformity to the Liturgy, which he has subscribed; in which there is a festival set apart to Saint Michael and all angels, with an appropriate service for the day. As he will doubtless follow the dictates of his own conscience in celebrating, or omitting, this service when the Rubic enjoins it to be performed; he will of course acquit us of useless or presumptuous zeal, in having so far discharged ours, as

to provide against the chance of his readers taking that unjust offence at this part of the public service, which the speciousness of his observations, and the influence 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. 1816.

THIS is a sound and an orthodox Discourse, and must undoubtedly have made a considerable impression upon its audience, The more Sermons of this nature that are both preached and printed, at the present time, the better. The author has clearly shewn 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 t. 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 ‡,' 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 iii. 8."

+"See Phil. iii. 13, 14. and Heb. vi. 1. By conversion, I do not mean that first impression on the mind, which leads a sinner to think seriously of his salvation; but I take the word in its most 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. Luke xiii, 24. John vi. 27. 1 Cor. ix. 24."

doctrine