« PreviousContinue »
logy. The sufficiency of the scripture, and insufficiency of the Newtonian philosophy, are here demonstrated mathematically, with an easiness of diction, happiness of description, and clearness of reafoning, feldom to be met with. This is the philofophical meaning of the fiery cloud, or fire, furrounded with light, burning in a cloud, which Jehovah came down in, to men, in the likeness of menm A great cloud and 6 fire catching itself, and brightness round about it.' And if the reader has a clear, precise and explicit idea of this matter, be will be at no loss for the demonstration and conviction it gave, to all beholders, of the divine presence, glory and greatnefs; and we have reason to conclude, that when Jehovah is faid to come, to speak, to appear to any person, as Jehovah, as the God of glory, · e. fo as to be known to be such, that this glory, first or last, shewed itself for proof and conviction. It is not always expressly mentioned; but we find it always exhibited on the vision of God, when there was, or would have been any reasonable doubt.
Concerning this new philosophy the reader must doubtless, from this account, have what Mr. Bate calls a precise and explicit idea; the whole being certainly as clear as the water in Fleet-ditch, and as inconteftible as that two and two make feven.
Mr. Bate then proceeds to a consideration of the word Angel, which, it seems, hath hitherto been unfortunately misunderstood by all the world, who have imagined it to fignify created intelligent spirits, and supposed them to have been employed by the almighty as ministers or agents for him. The falfity of which notion is warmly aflerted by Mr. Bate, who affirms them to be one of what he calls the fimilitudes, and used for visible God. Jehovah, (says he) being in his own nature invisible to eyes of Aeth and blood, muft affume fome form or shape that he may be seen to be present, that visible form was an angel, agent, or mean of visibility, action, and speech from God to men,
Their form is not mentioned, but as they are generally represented as speaking, and no creature has an articulate speech but man, we may conclude that their appearance was Human. Mr. Bate then enumerates the sea veral appearances of angels to be met with in scripture, to Lot, Mofes, Jacob, Balaam, Joshua, Cornelius, Peter, &c. by all which it is manifest (according to Mr. Bate) that Jehoe vah appearing in glory is called an Angel, and that he, as such, is the guardian of men, and not the created intelligent spirits : the glory or light that attended these appearances, in a greater or less degree, being the glory of God, and the manifestation of his presence. The angel of the Lord or God, therefore, is an assumed appearance of God, and who calls himself by that name, and speaks and acts, as if he were the numerical person or perfons. And the phrase is used from the form affumed, and his own immediate agency, outwardly and fensibly to those, whom Jehovah is said to appear to.
The authors of the Cabala, were the blind guides who led the christian world into the notion of guardian angels, and all the idolatry built upon it. Their view was to confound the evidence for the christian doctrine of the trinity ; and mislead ús from a fight that gives ocular proof of there being three persons and one God.
Such and so fingular are Mr. Bate's opinions concerning angels; we shall not therefore be surprised to find him attacking cherubim and seraphim in the fame manner. The cherubim were (he informs us) not real angels, but figures representing the true guardian angels Jehovah Aleim and their Christ; who is taken into their eflence, fubftantially united to the eternal light. He then considers the first appearance of the Cherubs in the garden of Eden, who were not Angels set as centinels to keep Adam from the tree of life, as generally supposed, but the cloud glory or chariot which the representative great ones, were placed in. Eden exhibits the cherubs in fire; the ark, in the cloud or chariot. The vision of the chebar, in the fiery cloud. The New Testament in the glory. We have seen before at large, that the fire, the cloud, the fiery cloud, the chariot, and the glory, are all different words for the fame august and magnificent display of divine power and greatness. The inference is, that all these cherubs were of the same make or form and hieroglyphical meaning. The residence of God was in the cherubical figures. Mr. Bate then examines the form and Thape of them, and also of the lefjer cherubical figures as defcribed in scripture, together with the temple cherubs. He obferves, that there were several creatures single and compound
called by that name. Two stood on the ark, at each end of the mercy seat one; made out of one undivided sheet of gold with it ; of the same 337 cut or make, and size ; in every respect alike, with so many faces a piece, that the same faces might look inward and outward at the same time ; winged, standing upwright, with their wings extended, and overshadowing the ark; their eyes upon the mercy-seat; they were in the chariot of glory, the fiery cloud or glory of Jehovah. These were the cherubs we find so often mentioned, and which Jehovah appeared between, and dwelt in, if he dwelt in the glory. The description in Ezekiel therefore is explanatory of the Cherubs in the holy of holies, and the christian covenant written intelligibly there in the hieroglyphical way.
The arguments which our author makes use of to prove these strange assertions are much too tedious to be inserted; and as they would afford our readers very little entertainment, and, we imagine, still less instruction, they will glady excuse our omission of them. To the book itself we must refer the curious, to whom we would particularly recommend Mr. Bate's account of the man, the lion, &c. in Ezekiel, where he observes, that if the wit of men or angels were to pretend to contrive a picturesque defcription of the christian covenant, the parties concerned in the performance, and of that performance, it seems impoffible to exhibit a more striking image, and one less liable to deceive, or lead men into misapprehenfions of the divine nature, the figure answering, ini point of fymbolic exactness, to all the great truths of the christian covenant; just the same number of faces to it as of persons in the original; and what no man would believe, without the strongest evidence, and some, unhappily, not with it, a real man is taken into the divine glory, by a personal union with the lion, the known, and naturaliits say natural and proper, emblem of light; the name the original goes so often by in fcripture.
• But the reader (says he) will judge for himself, how far it appears from other evidence, that the cherubic trinity in Funity was a figure of the true; as also how far the proper s sense of the phrase we have been enquiring into the ineaning of, confirms that doctrine. He who confiders how often S4
• the prophets saw the vision or appearance of God, and that
the usual emblems of his presence were the cloud and glory, and that the cherubs were in them, can have but little doubt of Mr. H's interpretation of visions of God.'
Subsequent to this interpretation of cherubim, we meet with some learned disputes between Dr. Sharp and our author concerning the derivation of Cherub and of Seraphim. A large quantity of ink is spilt on this subject, and perhaps to very little purpose ; the nature of the Hebrew language being, after all, so sceptical, as to leave most things in doubt and uncertainty. Mr. Bate concludes his elaborate treatise of the fimilitudes in the following words : Leave wrangling (says he) search honestly; examine candidly—In short, pluck the old man out of the heart, with the natural pride of our nature; and be not led away with the giddiness of nominal dignity; and no fear, but the old scripture will be found explicit enough, and not to stand in need of any further assistance from the new than we find there, with regard to the subjects it has been thought proper to treat of in it.
Subjoined to Mr. Bate's enquiry into the similitudes, is a dircourse to prove that, contrary to the received opinion, there was No confusion of tongues at Babel. He sets out with alserting, in opposition to Dr. Sharp and others, that the biblical Hebrew was the language in paradise, and that this language must come uncorrupted to Shem, and so to his family through Arphaxad to Terah and Abraham, because there was not time for any material alterations to creep in; besides that many other causes did also contribute to its preservation. His busi, ness however, he observes, is only to bring the first language as far as the affair of Babel, in such a degree of purity as to be ftiled the same: he then proceeds to what is generally called the confusion of tongues, and by Dr. Sharp very often the division of tongues; though (Mr. Bate affirms) neither tongue nor division of tongues is once mention’d in the whole account.
< 'Tis strange, 'tis passing strange ! That so many poor misled readers of the bible shou'd be in the dark for so many centuries concerning this remarkable tranfaction. What pity it is Mr. H and his followers bad
שפרה os שוף tongue
, exprefles its ute , fo does the verb לשון
not enlightened former ages, and what a happiness it is for * Chat they are here now to instruct us, and teach us to underftand those fcriptures which Ms. Bate informs us Adam learn'd chriftianity from.
But let us hear what Mr. Bate lays in proof of his new af fertion : he examines into the meaning of the two words roots and now the organs or organal parts of the body they fand for (says he) are, out of dispute, the tongue and lips. But let us know the derivation ; is the root to the fult noun, which fignifies to temper, mix, or knead, and as the root of
, , or this use of the lips in speech. The verb signifies to crush, to break to pieces by crushing and squeezing. Calaf. 1752 Contufio, & contritio. 918 contusit, contrivit.
The tongue therefore considered metonymically must mean what it forms, language ; and lip, what is delivered out, viz. our sentiment, or what is expressed by the words, design, opinion, counsel, confeffion, or, what we profess to think and believe. To fupport this fignification of the word lip, Mr. Bate cites the following passages :
Job. xi. 2. Shall a man of lips be justified ?' It cannot mean a man who can talk two languages, or is master of two manners of pronunciation ; for what has the difference of dialects to do with justification ? It means a man who is unAtable, wavering in his faith, will not be justified.
Cap. xii. 20. “He removeth away the lip of the faithful, • and taketh away the understanding of the aged.' It does not mean, we may presume, that God taketh away the language or the manner of their pronunciation from the faithful or trusty, i. e of those who think themselves so, or pretend to be such; but that he confounds their devices.
Pf. xi. 5. Our lips are our own; who is Lord over us ?. Not, we will fpeak in what tongue we please, and pronounce our words as this or that nation does, according to our own pleasure ; who shall control us? But we will profess what sentiments we please ; who is Lord over us !_With several other parts of fcriptures equally pertinent to his purpose.
Mr. Bate then quotes his great oracle Mr. H-1, who affirms that lip. when used for voice, the indication of the