Neuchâtel in 1744. These the Report says were collated in forming the new edition. But it is admitted that the text has been changed and the translation of Martin foisted into Ostervald, in 2 Cor. v. 19, "in order to express more decisively the Divinity of Jesus Christ!" ("Le texte même n'a subi aucun changement quelconque, à l'exception d'un seul passage. Au verset 19, chapitre v. de la 2, aux Corinthiens, la traduction de Martin, conservée sur ce point dans l'édition d'Osterwald de 1724, l'a été également dans la nôtre, comme plus fidèle et exprimant plûs formellement la divinité de Jésus-Christ.") After this we cannot wonder at seeing

in the Report a profession of unity

with Roman Catholics on the subject of the Trinity (p. 121), or at finding one of the orators describing Christ as the "Saviour-God, who perished on the Cross;" but we confess ourselves a little surprised at some semipapistical language with regard to the Virgin Mary (p. 131). This comes from the Lutherans, and the Reform ed suffer it no doubt as tending to conciliate their Roman Catholic neighbours.

66

With the Report we have received Bulletins 15 and 16 of the Society, subsequently published. The former of these gives an account, which is truly French, of the distribution of Bibles in a country-school, as Wisdom-prizes." On this occasion, the President addressed the successful candidates, and one sentence of his speech is a curious specimen of Bible - Protestantism: "On this subject (of the Bible) flee all discussion; your piety would be destroyed by it and toleration would be injured." The words must surely be stolen from some Romish Priest's charge to his flock against the use of the Bible. In these Bulletins and in the Report itself much is said of M. Stapfer's visit to the last Annual Meeting of the Bible Society in London. His Speech on this occasion is translated, and all the compliments to him and praises of him are carefully preserved. He makes a special report of his mission, the accuracy of which may be judged of from his describing the friends of the Bible Society under the general term of "Worshipers of

Christ," and from his representing it as common for the English Dissenters to express their wish of seeing the National Church maintain its authority untouched. These publications are full of eulogiums on the late Mr. Owen, one of the Secretaries of the Bible Society. The Report contains an Eloge" upon him of thirty pages. His merits were doubtless great in relation to the Bible Society; but it is a real injury to his memory to speak of his learning, talents and virtues as if they were never equalled and the loss of them can never be supplied.

SIR,

Nov. 1823. attention of your readers to ILL you allow me to call the what appears to me a striking proof of the progress of those liberal opinions which it is the main object of your Repository to advocate and diffuse? In the Quarterly Review for last September is an article intitled "Buckland's Reliquiæ Diluvianæ,” in which I found, not without surprise and I may say delight, some observations so congenial to the opinions which I have always been taught to entertain, that I could not help giving way to a sort of triumphant feeling. It is true I am about as much entitled to triumph as the private who wears a Waterloo medal for having during the battle been somewhere within sound of the cannonading; but one cannot help sympathizing in the triumph of one's party or principles, and we by-standers are apt to forget that we have no right to appropriate to ourselves any part of the glory.

You, Sir, have always advocated the principle that a liberal interpretation of the Scriptures was most conducive to the interests of religion. Point after point has been contended, and though the opponents have struggled desperately and refused to own their defeat, we have seen them gradually abandoning the object of contention, and cautiously avoiding to excite fresh discussion; but I am not aware that so bold an avowal of this fact has ever been made as is contained in the following extracts from the Quarterly Review.

P. 162. "Others object to it,"

(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 thein 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."

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 interests 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

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

Religious Intrepidity exemplified in Dr. Kennicott, and in the Rev. George Walker, of Nottingham. Nov. 3, 1823. incident in the public life of Dr. THERE appears to have been an

SIR,

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

re

* 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.

* Gal. i. 10.

HAVING Jately booked 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 various 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.

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.

Midrasch Tehillim on Ps. cvii. 1,

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. 1, 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 saine passage quoted above. See above at Isaiah Ix. 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 man of war. But this is said 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

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 Measiah 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 Messial; 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 Shechinah. What the