Imatges de pÓgina

(that is, the interpretation of the six days of creation as six indefinite periods,)" with great vehemence, as wholly incompatible with the institution of the Sabbath, which is manifestly set forth as the seventh day, and therefore they contend that the other six must necessarily be regarded as days in the same sense and of the same kind. Instead of presuming to decide peremptorily in this matter, our object will rather be to caution the friends of religion against a rash and possibly a mischievous mode of vindicating their opinions. We beseech them to bear in mind that similar alarm has been taken and similar zeal manifested for the cause of religion in several instances which have all terminated in establishing the points so much dreaded. And yet Christianity so far from receiving a shock has only emerged from the controversy with increased vigour and lustre."

way instrumental in producing such glorious results! How ought this persuasion to nerve our strength and stimulate our exertions!

K. K. K.

And again, p. 163. "We would call to their recollection also the opinions formerly maintained as to plenary and even literal inspiration of the Scriptures, &c. Well indeed is it for us that the cause of revelation does not depend upon questions such as these, for it is remarkable that in every instance the controversy has ended in a gradual surrender of those very points which were at one time represented as involving the vital inLerests of religion."

I am aware that this is but the opinion of the Quarterly Review, and that nine out of every ten good orthodox religionists would startle at such infidelity. But it is really delightful to see that all the efforts which have been making for the diffusion of liberal opinions are not thrown away, and that the most respectable opponents begin to avow their conviction. We cannot expect that the great mass of uneducated enthusiasts should be open to any argument. The present race will live and die in their present opinions. After a certain age, as Dr. Priestley well observes, there is little chance of change; but the next and succeeding generations will gradually perceive the truth. How pleasant it is to look forward to this happy period! What consolation under all our rebuffs and rebukes to think that we shall have been in any

Religious Intrepidity exemplified in Dr. Kennicott, and in the Rev. George Walker, of Nottingham. Nov. 3, 1823.


incident in the

THERE appears to have been an life of Dr. Benjamin Kennicott, which reflects particular honour on his character, and which has a close parallel in an occurrence, that befel the late Rev. George Walker, of Nottingham. Between these two highly valuable persons a wide diversity existed, in respect of their situation in the world, of their political and theological opinions, of their pursuits and tastes, their attachments and connexions: both of them were governed, however, by that religious principle, without which it is comparatively of little moment to what church a man belongs, what sentiments he professes and defends, or in what studies he engages; and, while, in some things, to which, it may be, an undue importance is attached, I dissent from both the individuals whom I have mentioned, I must equally admire in each that manly integrity, that Christian fortitude, of which each was the example and the advocate.

In the very concise and general account of Dr. Kennicott, which Nichols' Literary Anecdotes, &c. supply, it is said that he “distinguished himself by the publication of several occasional sermons, which were well received." Among his discourses of this class, is one, preached before the University of Oxford, Jan. 25, 1757, on Christian Fortitude, and afterwards printed, for the author, at the Theatre; though, for reasons which are not assigned, the ViceChancellor's IMPRIMATUR was fused to it. I shall be greatly obliged


I designate him thus fully, in order that he may not be confounded with a celebrated Irish divine, of similar habits of mind, The Rev. George Walker, who was slain at the battle of the Boyne. + Vol. II. 408.

Then the University press.

to any of your correspondents, who, being acquainted with the circumstances in which this discourse was composed, delivered and published, will have the goodness to communicate some history of it, in your pages. It is a very animated and pious sermon, from Rom. viii. 35, 37: in the progress of it, the preacher avows his cordial attachment to the cause of Protestantism, and to "THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION," adverts to the war then raging on the continent of Europe, and to the state and dangers of the country, and takes occasion to recommend a more numerous attend church of the University. From the preface and the notes it clearly appears, that some things which he said were subjects of animadversion, and even of severe censure: what these were, however, is not stated; though we may justly conclude, that the discourse was not quite so "well received" as the rest of his single sermons. With the author of his text, Dr. Kennicott could, no doubt, ask, "Do I seek to please men?" and, with him, could add, "If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."*

The late Rev. George Walker, having undertaken to supply the pulpit at Salters' Hall, on March 24, 1793, delivered a discourse from Heb. xii. 3, on Christian Fortitude: the sermon "appeared to have given offence to a few of the hearers;" and "this offence they were pleased to signify in a singular manner, by a very abrupt departure in the midst of the service, and without waiting to judge of the design of the preacher." Mr. Walker, like Dr. Kennicott, published the discourse, in justice to himself;t nor does it contain any thing, which a Christian, a Protestant, and a Protestant Nonconformist can reasonably arraign. Some allusions, however, there are to the awful contest then exhibited on the theatre of Europe, and some very seasonable admonitions to the exercise of that religious courage, of which many professors of the gospel neither understand the nature nor feel the obligation.

Thus far therefore we perceive a remarkable coincidence in the situa tion, the views, the feelings and the conduct of Dr. Kennicott and of Mr. Walker. To point it out, has been a pleasing, and, I trust, a salutary, employment. The Christian spirit, wherever, and in whomsoever, it exists, is "the spirit not of fear, but of power, of love, and of a sound mind." N.


Liverpool, Nov. 12, 1823. HAVING Jately ork of Schgettlooked a good genius, referred to by Mr. Gurney, as related by your correspondent E. (p. 590,) I beg leave to state that as far as I have been able to observe, that learned writer does not quote any one passage from the book Sohar or from any other book, such as Mr. Gurney (if your correspondent did not mistake his meaning) pretends to have derived from him. It is true that Schoettgenius has endeavoured to prove that all the names enumerated by Mr. G., as well as several others, were ascribed by the Jews to their expected Messiah, for which purpose he has produced passages from vari ous Jewish writers, and especially from the book Sohar, but I cannot think very highly of the success of his endeavours. That your readers may be able to judge of his manner, and of the general value of his reasoning, I will quote what he says of the name Jehovah, the first on Mr. Gurney's list, and offer a few observations on it.

[ocr errors]

Book I. Chap. i. p. 4. This essential name of God is attributed to the Messiah, Jerem. xxiii. 6, on which place see what is said Book II. Sohar on Deuteron. fol. 119, col. 473: "Elsewhere the doctors of traditions have taught that the temple and name of the Messiah are expressed by the nomen tetragrammaton," i. e. Jehovah. Sohar on Exod. fol. 21, col. 83, on the words Exod. xiii. 21, "And the Lord went before them." The words are explained of the Matron and the Angel of the Covenant, which names we shall shew hereafter to belong to the Messiah.

* Gal. i. 10.

Midrasch Tehillim on Ps. evii. 1,

+ Sermons, by G. Walker. IV. p. 281. fol. 40, col. 1, remarking on Isaiah

cause in his times the justice of God will be firm and established amongst us, which will never depart.

These two passages contain the whole of what Schoettgenius has produced to prove that the Jews expected their Messiah under the name Jehovah. The real question is whether they expected him as DEITY or possessed of a divine nature. The authority of the rabbinical writers in general, as interpreters of Scripture, is less than nothing, as they were completely devoted to the allegorical method, and have applied to the Messiah innumerable passages which have manifestly no relation to him; besides that many of them have written the most extravagant nonsense, of which Schoettgenius's extracts afford abundant specimens. The simple question is, what they thought of the nature of their expected Messiah, and we must recollect in applying to him certain high epithets, (not as expressing his nature but his offices and works,) they might have been influenced by rivalship of the Christians.

Now on the first testimony from Sohar on Deuteronomy, it is obvious to remark that the temple, as well as the name of the Messiah, is said to be expressed by the name Jehovah. The meaning, therefore, could not be to ascribe a divine nature to the Messiah any more than to the temple. We are next referred to Sohar on Exodus, for an explanation of the words Exod. xiii. 21, "And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, and by night in a pillar of fire," of the matron and the angel of the covenant, names, says our author, of the Messiah; but it is the express testimony of the book Sohar on Gen. fol. 68, col. 268, that wherever the expression ANGEL OF THE COVENANT occurs, the discourse is concerning the holy and blessed God. As to the matron, it is made out to be a name of the Messiah, chiefly by its being shewn to be synonymous with Shechinah: but our author's own extracts prove, that though the Jews might call their Messiah the Shechinah or sign of God dwelling among them, in reference to the blessings of his reign, they did not exclusively or even frequently intend him by the use of the word Shechinal. What the

xxxv. 10, "And the ransomed of the Lord shall return." "He does not say, the ransomed of Elias, nor the ransomed of the Messiah, but the ransomed of the Lord." Here it is clear that the ransomed of the Messiah and the ransomed of Jehovah are taken as synonymous. Midrasch Mischle, cxix. 21, fol. 57, col. I, Rabbi Huna said: The Messiah is called by eight names, which are, Jinnon, Jehovah, Our Righteousness, Zemach, Menachem, David, Schiloh and Elias. These are then severally proved by passages of Scripture which I shall elsewhere produce. But as the words Jehovah, Our Righteousness, are here enumerated as two names, though really but one, perhaps the modern Jews have expunged one, (viz. one of R. Huna's eight names,) which might be rendered plain by the comparison of copies.

Again, Book II. p. 200, on Jerem. xxiii. 6, the place referred to at the beginning of the last extract, we meet with the following remarks: v. 6, "And this is his name, whereby they shall call him, Jehovah our righteousness." Echa Rabbathi, fol. 59, col. 2, on Lamentations i. 16: What is the name of the King Messiah? R. Abba ben Cahana said: Jehovah is his name, q. d. "This is his name." Midrasch Mischle, fol. 57, col. 1, R. Huna said, &c., the same passage quoted above. See above at Isaiah 1x. 6, (where there is a reference to this passage of Jeremiah taken from Breschith Rabba). Midrasch Tehillim on Ps. xxi. 1, God calls the king Messiah by his own name. But what is his name? Answer. Exod. xv. 3, Jehovah is a mun of war. But this is suid concerning the king Messiah.

Bava Bathra, fol. 75, col. 2: There are three things which come in the name of the Holy and blessed God, namely, the Just, the Messiah and Jerusalem. The Scripture thus speaks concerning the Messiah. "This is his name." R. Joseph Albo in Sepher Ikkarim, as cited by Eisenmenger 1. p. 216. The Scripture calls the name of the Messiah JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, because he is the Mediator of God, by whom we obtain justification from God. Kimchi. The Israelites shall call the Messiah by this name, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESs, be

Jews meant by the allegorical name matron, it is not easy to understand, and our author's attempt to explain it of the marriage between the human and divine natures in the Messiah, and of the Messiah's participation of his Father's dwelling and glory, as a queen shares those of the king her husband, will only excite a smile. Our author's reasoning on this passage is as follows: "Jehovah is said to have gone before his people in the cloud and pillar of fire, (plainly meaning that the visible sign of his presence went before them,) Sohar explains Jehovah here as meaning the Matron, (a fanciful and figurative expression by which some of the Jewish writers seem to have denominated the visible sign of God's presence,) but the Matron is elsewhere explained of the Shechinah, (by which expression the visible sign of God's presence with his people is certainly meant). Now Jewish writers have sometimes spoken of their expected Messiah as the Shechinah, therefore the writer of the book Sohar understood the Messiah by Jehovah, Exod. xiii. 21, and believed him to be truly God." By such reasoning any doctrine might be established.

The third extract from Midrasch Tehillim only shews, that in the writer's estimation it was correct and proper to describe what was done by the Messiah as done by God, since the Messiah could only perform his will and act by his power. Schoettgenius's own observation on R. Huna's eight names is sufficient, namely, that "Jehovah our righteousness" is evidently one name, and there has probably been another name lost which would make up the number. Now "Jehovah our righteousness" is a name of the kind which occurs so frequently in Scripture as Immanuel, Maher-shalal-hashbaz, &c., not intended to express the nature of the individual, but some circumstance to happen in his time or through his instrumentality. That it was thus the Jewish writers understood this name is manifest, from the comments of R. Joseph Albo and Kimchi, as quoted by our author above. In Echa Rabbathi, fol. 59, col. 2. What is the name of the King Messiah? R. Albo ben Cahana said: Jehovah is his name.

There is a direct and acknowledged reference to Jer. xxiii. 6, which explains the meaning, he is Jehovah our righteousness, for as Kimchi has it, In his days, the justice of God shall be established amongst us. In Midrasch Tehillim on Ps. xxi. 1. (God calls the King Messiah by his own name. But what is his name? Answer. Exod. xv. 3, Jehovah is a man of war, but this is said concerning the King Messiah.) The meaning is, that where God represents himself as a warrior, he does so in allusion to the victories which he would give to the Messiah, whom the Jews expected as a conqueror; but what can be clearer than that God, who calls the Messiah by his name to do him honour, and express his purpose of giving him success, is his superior in nature? We have but one passage more, that from Bava Bathra, and surely I need do no more than remark, that the Just and Jerusalem are in precisely the same state with the Messiah. The reference to Jer. xxiii. 6, shews the way in which the writer understood the Messiah to come under the name of God.

I think I have shewn that Schoettgenius has not proved from their writings that the Jews expected their Messiah as Jehovah, or ascribed this name to him as expressive of his Deity or Divine nature; and he has certainly nothing stronger to produce respecting any of the other names which can at all be considered as implying superiority of nature. I may, if I can find time hereafter, send you a few observations on the rabbinical sense of the phrase Son of God, as well as on the phrase Word of God, in the Targums, and on the Spirit of God being the Spirit of the Messiah. In the mean time I must venture to contradict Mr. Gurney's assertion respecting the doctrine of the Targums, and I conclude by reminding your readers that Justin Martyr, the earliest defender (and that not in the sense of modern Orthodoxy) of the divinity of Christ, complains much of the Jews as misunderstanding and perverting the Scripture, and represents Trypho as asserting that "all his nation expected the Messiah as a man born like other men,”—a testimony as to the opinions of the Jews,

clear, disinterested, because strongly opposed to the writer's wishes, and antecedent in time to all the Jewish writers above quoted; of course strongly confirming the view of their meaning which I have given.



I HAVE read with


your current Number, (p. 585,) Mr. Johnston's remarks "On some recent Hypotheses of the Origin of Evil." Many of them are conclusive; but essentially differing in opinion with him upon a particular point of practical import, I propose suggesting a few hints for his future consideration. Does he not, with many others, assume too much, and only sanction a popular prejudice, when he says," to reconcile the free agency of man with the strict and unlimited omniscience of the Deity, appears to our finite minds an impossibility, a contradiction in terms"? Every individual introduced into existence is placed in circumstances over which, in the first instance, he has no controul. Thence, however, to infer, he must always continue so, is a mere gratis dictum. Whether to be born or not is no object of choice; but is this a reason WHY introduced into being the subsequent development of our powers, when duly improved by ourselves, and matured, should not enable us to make elections? The infant, at birth, hungry and requiring food, would of itself presently perish; the faculties nevertheless as yet in embryo, when subsequently developed enable the child not merely to eat, but also to choose food the most suitable and agreeable to the palate and constitution.

tion. Thus, whatever ensues, neither unknown nor unprovided for, it opposes no obstacle to the exercise of the attribute of foreknowledge.

The Deity knows precisely what is, that a capacity is given of doing either right or wrong; but to contend upon account of the Divine foreknowledge of the ultimate result, that we must

Upon the supposition (apprehended to be correct) of the Creator having placed us in circumstances in which a real choice of action is given, not at birth, but subsequently attainable by our own exertions, it will be no impediment to the Divine foreknowledge, that either the one or the other of two given results takes place, however opposite in their nature and quality, as of right and wrong: for instance, the Creator having provided for the alternative-a fact fully confirmed to us by the Christian revela

4 0



chosen the other leaves no alternative, and is in effect to deny we can do either; thereby rendering the Divine prescience a nullity, it having no cognizance of nonentities. Compelled to act in one way rather than another, our privilege of choice ceases, and at the same time accountableness. With your valued and ingenious correspondent I perfectly agree, "That to reconcile the Necessarian hypothesis with moral accountability is equally impossible and absurd;" but differ from him in toto, when he considers it "a contradiction in terms to reconcile the free agency of man with the strict and unlimited omniscience of the Deity;" believing that to do so is neither absurd nor impossible. Convinced of the practical importance of a meet elucidation of the point at issue, you will, I trust, pardon this intrusion. The above considerations are submitted to the candid inquirer, who possibly upon reflection may, with me, be of opinion, that the commonly-alleged inference of the incompatibility of the free agency of man with the Divine foreknowledge, is an assumed dogma of highly injurious tendency, as, if proved to be true, it must sap the very foundation of morals, by being utterly subversive of the moral relation, or at least of such a view of it as is consistent and compatible with the Christian doctrine of a future state of retribution.




Clapton, SIR, November 5, 1823. Na catalogue of French books, sold by "Louis de Wainne, à Bruxelles," which is annexed to Actions Héroiques et Plaisantes de L'Empereur Charles V.," the Approbation to which is dated 1674, I find the following articles:

"Apologie du Sistême des Saints

« AnteriorContinua »