Page images
PDF
EPUB

logy. The fufficiency of the fcripture, and infufficiency of the Newtonian philofophy, are here demonftrated 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 men- A great cloud and fire catching itself, and brightness round about it.' And if the reader has a clear, precife and explicit idea of this matter, he will be at no lofs for the demonstration and conviction it gave, to all beholders, of the divine prefence, glory and greatnefs; and we have reafon to conclude, that when Jehovah is faid to come, to speak, to appear to any perfon, as Jehovah, as the God of glory, i. e. fo as to be known to be fuch, that this glory, firft or laft, fhewed itself for proof and conviction. It is not always expressly mentioned; but we find it always exhibited on the vifion of God, when there was, or would have been any reasonable doubt.

Concerning this new philofophy the reader muft 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 seven.

Mr. Bate then proceeds to a confideration of the word Angel, which, it feems, hath hitherto been unfortunately mifunderstood by all the world, who have imagined it to fignify created intelligent fpirits, and fuppofed them to have been employed by the almighty as minifters or agents for him. The falfity of which notion is warmly afferted by Mr. Bate, who affirms them to be one of what he calls the fimilitudes, and ufed for visible God. Jehovah, (Jays he) being in his own nature invifible to eyes of flesh and blood, muft affume some form or shape that he may be seen to be prefent, 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 reprefented as speaking, and no creature has an articulate speech but man, we may conclude that their Mr. Bate then enumerates the feappearance was Human. veral appearances of angels to be met with in fcripture, to Lot, Mofes, Jacob, Balaam, Joshua, Cornelius, Peter, &c.

S 3

by

by all which it is manifest (according to Mr. Bate) that Jeho 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 lefs degree, being the glory of God, and the manifeftation of his prefence. The angel of the Lord or God, therefore, is an affumed appearance of God, and who calls himself by that name, and speaks and acts, as if he were the numerical perfon or perfons. And the phrafe is ufed from the form affumed, and his own immediate agency, outwardly and fenfibly to thofe, whom Jehovah is faid to appear to.

The authors of the Cabala, were the blind guides who led the chriftian world into the notion of guardian angels, and all the idolatry built upon it. Their view was to confound the evidence for the chriftian doctrine of the trinity; and mislead us from a fight that gives ocular proof of there being three perfons and one God.

Such and fo fingular are Mr. Bate's opinions concerning angels; we fhall not therefore be furprised to find him attacking cherubim and feraphim in the fame manner. The cherubim were (he informs us) not real angels, but figures representing the true guardian angels Jehovah Aleim and their Chrift; who is taken into their effence, fubftantially united to the eternal light. He then confiders the first appearance of the Cherubs in the garden of Eden, who were not Angels fet as centinels to keep Adam from the tree of life, as generally fuppofed, but the cloud glory or chariot which the reprefentative great ones were placed in. Eden exhibits the cherubs in fire; the ark, in the cloud or chariot. The vifion of the chebar, in the fiery cloud. The New Teftament in the glory. We have feen before at large, that the fire, the cloud, the fiery cloud, the chariot, and the glory, are all different words for the fame auguft and magnificent difplay of divine power and greatness. The inference is, that all these cherubs were of the fame make or form and hieroglyphical meaning. The refidence of God was in the cherubical figures. Mr. Bate then examines the form and fhape of them, and alfo of the leffer cherubical figures as defcribed in fcripture, together with the temple cherubs. He obferves, that there were feveral creatures fingle and compound

called

called by that name.

Two ftood on the ark, at each end of

the mercy feat one; made out of one undivided sheet of gold with it; of the fame p cut or make, and fize; in every refpect alike, with fo many faces a piece, that the fame faces might look inward and outward at the same time; winged, ftanding upwright, with their wings extended, and overshadowing the ark; their eyes upon the mercy-feat; they were in the chariot of glory, the fiery cloud or glory of Jehovah. These were the cherubs we find fo often mentioned, and which Jehovah appeared between, and dwelt in, if he dwelt in the glory. The defcription in Ezekiel therefore is explanatory of the Cherubs in the holy of holies, and the chriftian covenant written intelligibly there in the hieroglyphical way.

The arguments which our author makes use of to prove thefe ftrange affertions are much too tedious to be inferted; and as they would afford our readers very little entertainment, and, we imagine, ftill lefs inftruction, they will glady excuse our omiffion 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 obferves, that if the wit of men or angels were to pretend to contrive a picturesque description of the christian covenant, the parties concerned in the performance, and of that performance, it feems impoffible to exhibit a more striking image, and one lefs liable to deceive, or lead men into misapprehenfions of the divine nature, the figure anfwering, in point of fymbolic exactnefs, to all the great truths of the chriftian covenant; juft the fame number of faces to it as of perfons in the original; and what no man would believe, without the strongest evidence, and fome, unhappily, not with it, a real man is taken into the divine glory, by a perfonal union with the lion, the known, and naturalifts fay natural and proper, emblem of light; the name the original goes fo often by in fcripture.

• But the reader (fays he) will judge for himself, how far it appears from other evidence, that the cherubic trinity in unity was a figure of the true; as alfo how far the proper sense of the phrase we have been enquiring into the meaning Fof, confirms that doctrine. He who confiders how often S 4 • the

[ocr errors]

the prophets faw the vifion 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 vifions of God.'

Subfequent to this interpretation of cherubim, we meet with fome learned difputes between Dr. Sharp and our author concerning the derivation of Cherub and of Seraphim. A large quantity of ink is spilt on this fubject, and perhaps to very little purpofe; the nature of the Hebrew language being, after all, fo fceptical, 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 fhort, pluck the old man out of the heart, with the natural pride of our nature; and be not led away with the giddinefs of nominal dignity; and no fear, but the old scripture will be found explicit enough, and not to stand in need of any further affiftance from the new than we find there, with regard to the fubjects it has been thought proper to treat of in it.

Subjoined to Mr. Bate's enquiry into the fimilitudes, is a difcourfe to prove that, contrary to the received opinion, there was No confufion of tongues at Babel. He fets out with afferting, in oppofition to Dr. Sharp and others, that the biblical Hebrew was the language in paradife, and that this language must come uncorrupted to Shem, and fo to his family through Arphaxad to Terah and Abraham, because there was not time for any material alterations to creep in; befides that many other caufes did alfo contribute to its prefervation. His bufi ness however, he observes, is only to bring the first language as far as the affair of Babel, in fuch a degree of purity as to be ftiled the fame: he then proceeds to what is generally called the confufion of tongues, and by Dr. Sharp very often the divifion of tongues; though (Mr. Bate affirms) neither tongue nor divifion of tongues is once mention'd in the whole account.

'Tis ftrange, 'tis paffing strange !'

That so many poor misled readers of the bible fhou'd be in the dark for fo many centuries concerning this remarkable tranfaction. What pity it is Mr. Hand his followers had

not

not enlightened former ages, and what a happiness it is for us that they are here now to inftruct us, and teach us to underftand thofe fcriptures which Mr. Bate informs us Adam learn'd chriftianity from.

[ocr errors]

But let us hear what Mr. Bate fays in proof of his new affertion: he examines into the meaning of the two words and the organs or organal parts of the body they stand for (fays he) are, out of difpute, the tongue and lips. But let us know the derivation; is the root to the first noun, which fignifies to temper, mix, or knead, and as the root of

שפה or שוף tongue, expreffes its ufe, fo does the verb לשון

this use of the lips in fpeech. The verb fignifies to crush, to break to pieces by crushing and fqueezing. Calaf. DW Contufio, & contritio. contudit, contrivit.

The tongue therefore confidered metonymically must mean what it forms, language; and lip, what is delivered out, viz. our sentiment, or what is expreffed by the words, defign, opinion, counfel, confeffion, or, what we profefs to think and believe. To fupport this fignification of the word lip, Mr. Bate cites the following paffages:

Job. xi. 2. Shall a man of lips be juftified?' It cannot mean a man who can talk two languages, or is mafter of two manners of pronunciation; for what has the difference of dialects to do with justification? It means a man who is unstable, 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 prefume, that God taketh away the language or the manner of their pronunciation from the faithful or trufty, i. e of those who think themselves fo, or pretend to be fuch; but that he confounds their devices.

[ocr errors]

Pf. xii. 5. Our lips are our own; who is Lord over us? Not, we will speak 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 fentiments we pleafe; who is Lord over us?-With feveral other parts of fcriptures equally pertinent to his purpose.

Mr. Bate then quotes his great oracle Mr. Hn, who affirms that lip when ufed for voice, the indication of the

« PreviousContinue »