Lord, ought to be translated, of Abraham and Isaac." That Jehovah the Messenger." I shall the Divine Being is there addressed notice the latter assertion first, and is certain, but that he is ever adshew that such a translation of the dressed under the name of “angel” words is contrary both to reason and or "messenger," is impossible to be scripture. "The ideal meaning supposed, for to whom could the of Jehovah," he says, " is self- God of Abraham be a messenger existence." The natural meaning or servant? The word angel, of angel, or inessenger, is a ser- therefore, in this passage, must be vant; an angel says to John, "I supposed to be a corruption of the am thy fellow-servant, and of thy original reading; and that it is brethren that have the testimony so I shall shew by transcribing a of Jesus worship Godt." And note of the learned Jos. Hallett's the apostle, speaking of angels, upon the passage‡. Gen. xlviii. puts the following interrogation: 14, 15, 16, "Upon which text "Are they not ALL ministering let it be noted, by the way, that in spirits?" The translation, "Jeho- the present Hebrew copies, there vah the Messenger," is just as good is a plain mistake of the transsense then as the self-existent, in- cribers, who have wrote it, the dependent servant. The clergy- angel who redeemed me. The misman's translation, however boldly take indeed is very ancient, as aphe may assert it to be the true one, pears from its having run into the we are sure is not so, because it is Greek, Latin, and Arabic, as well contradicted by an inspired trans- as into the Chaldee, Syriac, and lation of those very words, Acts, Persic versions of this text. But the vii. 50, "There appeared to him," true original reading is preserved says Stephen," afyaλos Kupi8, an in that invaluable treasure, the angel of the Lord, in a flame of Samaritan Pentateuch; where fire in a bush." Those words both in the text and version, the cannot be rendered, The Lord the word is, king, not angel, which in Messenger. And that this angel Hebrew are as near alike as Malk was not God or Jehovah we learn, and Malak. This observation v. 35, "This Moses whom they makes that text very easy, which refused, saying, Who made else seems not a little surprising." thee a ruler and a judge? the But for this new rendering, “Jesame did God send to be a ruler hovah the Messenger," the clergyand a deliverer by the hand of the man relics principally upon angel, which appeared to him in Malachi iii. 1, where he says, the bush." But he adds, " Wher- "Malachi represents this very ever this divine personage (that messenger, the messenger of the is, Jehovah the Messenger) ap- covenant, as being Jehovah, and pears, he is uniformly repre- yet the coming of this messenger sented, as being God," and pro- Jehovah, to his temple is anuces as a remarkable instance of it, Gen. xlviii. 15, 16, where he says, "angel," or messenger is used as synonymous with the God * M. Repos. vol. 11, p. 411. + Rev. xix. 1c. nounced by Jehovah of hosts§." Notes and Discourses, Vol. II. p. 337- two of his great and leading points, viz. Deut. x. 17, Neh. ix. 32, Isa. first, that the infinite Jehovah is x. 21, and Jerem. xxxii. 18, in the messenger of some being, and one of which only does the comsecondly, that there are two pound name El Gibbor occur; in Jehovahs, one Jehovah the mes- the three others it is the great God, senger coming to his temple, and the mighty, &c. He says, El the other Jehovah of hosts an- Gibbor is 66 one of the exclusive nouncing his coming. But, alas! titles of Jehovaht;" yet in the one small variation of the prophet following page he says, 66 It never from the clergyman, overturns all was the proper name of Christ." this mighty system. The pro- From which the plain inference is, phet's word "Lord," when speak- that he is not that Jehovah whose ing of the messenger of the cove- exclusive title it is. He adds, "It nant, is not as he affirms, Jehovah is neither more nor less, than an but Adon. The clergyman has appellation descriptive of the chahere been guilty of a fault which racter of the child born." If it is students are too apt to fall into, descriptive of his character only, that of quoting from memory, for and not of his nature, it cannot I cannot suppose it to be the ef- prove him to be Jehovah. What fect of ignorance, and I will not then is it meant to describe? Is it impute to him an intentional not his power and dominion? This imposition. idea is admirably suited to the The next passage is Isa. ix. 6, 7. nature of the prophecy, which The whole controversy upon this says, "the government shall be passage turns upon the meaning of upon his shoulder,-of the increase the words El Gibbor, rendered the of his government and peace there mighty God, and whether they prove shall be no end, upon the throne the child, the subject of the pro- of David and upon his kingdom,” phecy, to be Jehovah. Upon the &c. And this is also agreeable ideal meaning of the word El, to the clergyman's idea of the given by Parkhurst, and the other meaning of the words El Gibbor, word Gibbor, which in a variety of the first of which, he supposes, passages is translated man, (see the means "strength," and the other text referred to in my letter, M. "might." But he asks, “Is it Repos, vol. 11. p. 179.) I sug- credible, that one of the exclugested whether El Gibbor might sive names of Jehovah should here not be rendered the interposing be bestowed upon a mere man? man, which, as the clergyman ac- Can we believe, that the Almighty knowledges, was a mere sugges would lay snares to delude his tion on which I did not rely, yet creatures into idolatry, and then on this he occupies nearly three punish them for being guilty of it?" pages. He says, "wherever the Elohim is the most frequent of singular compound appellation El the names of the Divine Being; Gibbor occurs, it is (unless I greatly and yet this name is given by Jemistake) invariably applied to the hovah himself to mere men, to Supreme Being." In support of magistrates. Now there can be which, he refers to four passages, no snare in this, because every * M. Repos, vol. 11. p. 411. + Idem p. 10. 66 one knows that magistrates are version is of great authority, being not Jehovah. The title doors sanctioned by our Lord and his is said exclusively to belong to apostles, who appealed to it, and God, Jude 4. yet the New Tes- made their citations from it. Of tament gives this title to mere this, on which I laid considerable men, to masters, but no, servant stress, the clergyman did not think would be led by it to suppose that proper to take any notice. his master was Jehovah. So when We come now to the last text, the name El Gibbor is given to a Zech. ii. 6—13. "In his" (J. M.'s) child, we know a child cannot be "remarks," says the clergyman, Jehovah, and therefore are in no on this text, we have a fresh danger of being deluded into idol. instance of his begging the ques atry. The clergyman says, " Ba- tion. He argues, that if the rachel does not signify the blessed sender and the sent are equally God, but God hath blessed; nei- called Jehovah, then the unity of ther does Elijah signify God the the Godhead is subverted." This Lord, but Jah, is my God. Nor is said merely to get rid of a prodoes Aladah signify God eternal, position as self-evident as that one but either the congregation of God, and one are two. Why did he God is a witness, or possibly God not attempt to demonstrate that hath preserved." For all this we one and one are no more than have his mere ipse dixit. In order one? Then he might have contended to see how far we may rely upon with a better grace, that a belief his word in this matter, I will in two Jehovahs is consistent with examine his interpretation of Eli. a belief in the unity of God. Till jah. "It means," he says "Jah, he has done this, I am persuaded is my God." Now that is cer- that no person of common sense tainly not a just translation of Eli; will believe his interpretation of the word occurs and is repeated this prophecy. "This (that it Psa. xxii. 1. Eli, Eli, my God, subverts the unity of God) he my God. Our Lord makes use of adds, "is the very point, which those Hebrew words on the cross, we, who worship the unity in trithe Evangelist translates them into nity, deny." May we not very Greek, and they are rendered in aptly apply to them the words of English agreeably both to the He- our Lord, "Ye worship ye know brew and Greek, my God, my not what:" for he adds just below, God; nor can they possibly be "The unity of God is of a nature rendered is my God, is my God. peculiar to itself, a nature which Elijah is not therefore Jah is my we pretend not to understand." God, but my God Jah. This And Calvin himself says, "trinity may serve as a specimen of the is a barbarous word, unknown to rest, which are all of them of the prophets and apostles." "J.M." same nature. That the LXX. did he says, attempts to get quit of not understand the words El Gib- this text by saying, that the words bor to mean the mighty God is are the words of the prophet," and evident, from their rendering the asks, "what then is the meaning sentence, "the wonderful coun- of saith the Lord-thus saith sellor, the mighty God," the an. Jehovah of hosts, &c." I answer, gel of the great counsel; and their just what every prophet. means 66 when he makes use of those words, ments on this prophecy, he atthat is, that he has a divine mis- tempts to prove the person sent to sion, that the message he brings is be Jehovah, by a false citation of not his own, and that he is not Malachi iii. 1, (which I have bethat being from whom he brings fore noticed) changing the proit. The clergyman then further phet's word "Adon" into Jehovah, asks, what is it that Jehovah and then affirming, contrary to the does say, if he do not say, Jeho- letter of the text, that Malachi cah of hosts hath sent me?" a represents the messenger of the question, so absurd upon the very covenant as being Jehovah. face of it, that no animadversion 66 can make it appear more so. But instead of replying to my argu I am, Your's, &c. J. M. LETTERS TO MR. (NOW BISHOP) BURGESS, ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE JEWS TO THE PERSON OF CHRIST. LETTER I. [In the year 1790, Mr. (now Bishop) Burgess published a sermon, preached before the University of Oxford, under the following title, "The Divinity of Christ proved from his own Declarations, attested and interpreted by his living Witnesses the Jews." The discourse attracted the notice of a gentleman known to the world as the champion of Unitarianism, who wrote a series of Letters to the preacher, which however from some cause or other he did not publish. They have been lately put into hands of the Editor of the Monthly Repository, with the consent of the learned writer; and, though the occasion of their being written has passed by, the argument which they maintain in a masterly manner, is not, nor ever will be out of date; they will therefore be given successively to the readers of the Monthly Repository, and the Editor doubts not that they will be read with as much interest is if they had been written, not in the year 1790, but in the year 1808.] SIR, July 13, 1790. agree with you entirely, that The moment I saw your name Christ's declarations of himself prefixed to an advertisement of a ought to be referred to as the sermon on the divinity of Christ, fundamental proof of any opinion my curiosity was in the highest we entertain concerning him. It degree excited to learn the senti- these declarations assert his diviments of a person, so distinguished nity, or equality with Jehovah, in the literary world, on a subject the supreme God, every Christian which occupies the attention at is bound to believe it; if, on the present of every friend to Christi- contrary, the declarations of anity. The title of your discourse Christ should constantly assert his pleased me exceedingly, for I inferiority to Jehovah, his Father, *Monthly Repos. vol. II. p. 181. every Christian is bound to reject his apostles, but shew the consis the modern notion of his equality with the Supreme Being. To Christ's words you have made the appeal, and by them I am equally willing with yourself to be tried. And I agree further with you, that this appeal has many advantages over the common mode of carrying on the contro versy on the nature of Christ. For whilst the advocates of either opinion are referring at one time to prophecies, liable to be misunderstood; to inferences from the writings of the apostles, not always properly made; to opinions of early ages, in which the learned certainly do not agree, the attention of Christians is carried away from the main point, and in the conflict of such a variety of sentiments they are led to conceive that the subject is involved in infinite obscurity and perplexity. tency of their words with those of their master. In short, by an appeal to Christ, we place the sun in the centre of the system, from whence every apparent irregularity may be solved; by references to any other testimony, we are liable as the philosophers of old to introduce cycle upon cycle and inextricable confusion. The title of your discourse would have been complete, in my opi nion, if it had been simply, "The divinity of Christ, proved from his own declarations," but as you "attested have chosen to add, and interpreted by his living wit I am by no nesses the Jews, means unwilling to consider their attestation and interpretation. At the same time, I must beg leave to insist again on what has already been advanced; namely, that the words of Christ are the funda By confining ourselves to the mental points of our faith; and words of Christ, we have the ad- when we understand them thovantage of the highest authority roughly, it is of no consequence to which recourse may be made. whether they were or were not And this, if any thing could be misinterpreted by the Jews. In added to such an advantage, would the following letters I shall conappear still greater, by considering sider these two points, and I rethat the opinion deduced from quest of you to examine them with Christ himself, will be a clue to an attention suitable to the imunravel every difficulty occurring portance of the subject." Wher in the apostolical writings. We ever the truth lies, let us embrace are sure that the apostles would it; and be assured that, whether not contradict their master; and you are mistaken on this point or if in any place there is an appa- not, I have the greatest respect rent contradiction, it must be for your abilities, and shall be owing to our own imperfections, happy in an opportunity of tesnot to theirs; and we are not to tifying it. attempt the correction of it, by perverting the words of Christ to the sense we have given those of f. 125 I remain, Sir, &a |