infer, too, that they are not to expect, from this performance, that fort of gratification which is peculiarly afforded by landfehape-writing; fuch as, in the most pleafing manner, ferved to enliven many parts of Mr. Smith's accounts of the three counties. Dr. Rutty's talk being confined to what strictly conftitutes the Science of natural hiftory, his details will feem drier to the generality of readers; but they will be equally acceptable to the philofophical inquirer, the medical investigator, the cultivator of husbandry, and, in brief, to all who wish to become acquainted with the natural productions, and the prefent ftate, of every part of the British empire.

Particularly in his delightful description of the Lake of Killarney fee Rev. vol. xvii. p. 508, &c.

ART. II. The Apology of Benjamin Ben Mordecai to his Friends for embracing Chrißianity; in feveral Letters to Elisha Levi, Merchant, : of Amsterdam.

: 1773.

WE

Letters II. III. and IV.

*

1

4to. 6s. Wilkie.

TE have formerly had an opportunity of paying our refpects to this acute and fenfible Writer: it is with pleasure we renew our acquaintance with him, on this occafion, and, without any farther ceremony, we fhall endeavour to lay before our Readers a summary account of the three letters contained in this volume.

G.

The defign of the first letter (which is the fecond in the order of publication) is to examine into the perfon and character of Christ, and to thew, whether he anfwers to the description of the Meffiah in the fcripture prophecies. In order to pave the way for this enquiry, our Author takes notice of the various appearances of Jehovah under the ancient difpenfations of religion, and endeavours to afcertain the rank and character of that BEING, to whom this title and office belonged. Thefe appearances, he obferves, are recorded as hiftorical facts; and, as the SUPREME GOD himself never appeared to men, either in perfon or by any vifible fymbol, it is a matter of great importance to determine, who the other Being is that is fo frequently honoured with the appellation Jehovah: this Being, he apprehends, is the fame that in other places, and on other occafions, is called the Angel of Jehovah: "And the reafon he is called by the fame name is thus well explained by R. Jofue E. Sehib, according to the common maxim not only in ufe among the Hebrews, but allowed of by the general cuftom of the world: Loquitur Legatus fermone mittentis eum."

• See Review for October 1772.

The

The propriety of this appellation is farther evinced by a relation of feveral of his appearances recorded in the books of Mofes; and by a particular account of the manner in which it was originally conferred, from Exodus xxxiii. From many. paffages that are here collected, our Author infers that the facred writings attribute to the angel, who acts in the name and authority and moral character of God, the name Jehovah: and there could be no mistake, in this particular, among our forefathers, as if this angel was the Supreme God; because we find by the history, that he never acted in his own name, or by his own authority, but merely as the angel of God.' He then shews the abfurdity and confufion that must attend the notion (which many Chriftian writers have adopted) of the appearance of the Supreme and Invifible Jehovah himself.

Having fettled thefe preliminaries, our Apologift proceeds to enquire, whether the Jewish and Chriftian revelations were carried on by the vifible Jehovah; i. e. the Logos, or Word of God, as he is ftiled both by Phil, and the apoftles of Chrift. And he apprehends, that under the character of a divine substitute of the Father, he gave the law of reason to Adam; the Jewish law to that people; and to all the world the Chriftian law, or -will of God. The arguments here alledged in proof of this -propofition are deduced from the nature and confiftency of the thing, from the words of scripture, and from the interpretations of fcripture given, us both by the Jews and Chriftians

The two first of thefe arguments are very ably discussed in the fequel of this letter. From the fcripture evidence on this head our Author draws these two conclufions: First, that Jefus and his difciples knew him to be the Angel-Jehovah; and revealed it fufficiently to all fuch as would examine, and honestly attend to what they faid upon the fubject; and to those who would not, the things which pertained to their peace were hidden from their eyes. Secondly, it appears, that Almighty God has from the beginning carried on the government of the world, by the miniftration of one and the fame perfon: who hath appeared under different appellations, according to the different difpenfations in which he was employed, and the different characters he bore. And this is the fame Perfon, who chose Judah for his inheritance; and hath from the days of Abraham been more particularly engaged, by Himfelf or his angels, in the care and protection of our nation; and even in the latter days will continue to be fo, till he hath performed the promise, that in Abraham's feed fhall all the families of the earth be bleffed: and the completion of this prophecy conftitutes the Chriftian -religion,'

He then clofes this fecond letter with five rules, which direct us when to apply the word God or Jehovah in the Old Teftament to the Jehovah- Angel, or Angel of the Covenant.

In a Poftfcript our Author examines and anfwers the objec tions brought by the learned Grotius against the opinion, which is here maintained, and which ascribes the delivery of the law, to the Logos, or Word.

In the third letter, our Author applies his extenfive learning to the illustration and proof of this propofition; viz. that the Logos was the Angel of the Covenant, or visible Jehovah: And he has produced many paffages from the most approved commentators, both Jewish and Chriftian; from the Chriftian Fathers, and from modern expofitors and divines, in fupport of the fame opinion. He then proceeds to vindicate the worfhip of Chrift, under this character, from the charge of idolatry, by fhewing, that it is of the fame kind with the worship of the Jehovah-Angel, We,' fays he (perfonating a Jew) as well as the Mahometans, have been too hafty in accufing the Christian religion as idolatrous, and charging the Chriftians in general with idolatry, because they worship Chrift: as if the worship paid to the Angel of God, or the Angel of the Covenant, was the worship of another God. I allow, that, if they fuppofed the Angel of the Covenant to be the Supreme God and Governor of the univerfe, and equal to Jehovah, in whose name he acts, and whose minifter he is; and worshipped him ultimately, as God of the univerfe; this would be idolatry, in the ftrict and proper sense of the word: but this is only the opinion of the Pfeudo-Athanafians: and lofes ground daily among men of fenfe; being neither founded on feripture nor reason, nor one fingle authority from the Fathers of the three first centuries. Non duos Deos introduxit CHRISTUS ; quia non duos EQUALES, non PARES, æquatione in utroque oftenfa, pofuit. Id enim fi feciffet, merito duorum Deorum controverfiam fufcitaffet; fays Novatian, cap. xxxi. And it appears, that the worship of Chrift is of the fame nature, with that which was paid by the Patriarchs to the fame perfon; i. e. the vifible Angel who appeared to them. And Abraham, when he built an altar to Jehovah that appeared to him in the plains of Moreb (Gen. xii. 7.) and Jacob, when he was commanded to build an altar to Jehovah, that appeared to him when he fled from Efau (xxxv. 1.) could have no notion that he was the Supreme God; for they knew him to be the Angel and Minister of the Supreme God, as I have already fhewn: and, therefore, if thefe altars were built for worship, and not merely for memorials; the worship, paid the Angel of the Covenant at thefe, as well as at other times, was the fame with that of the Chriftians at prefent: that is, it was me

diate

diate and fubordinate, and ultimately directed to the glory of the Father."',

He farther obviates the objection of polytheifm and idolatry by many very appofite quotations from the writings of the pri mitive Chriftians: fuch as fuftin Martyr, Origen, Cyprian, Hippolitus, Eufebius, Tertullian, Lactantius, and Bafil. The apoftolic conftitutions (he observes) reprefent it as a branch of the Grafic herefy, to affirm, that Jefus is the Supreme God over all; making himself, confequently, to be his own Father.

It is very remarkablé (he fays) that the title of the only true God, which Chrift has appropriated to the Father (John xvii. 3.) is never given to Chrift, even by the Poft-Nicene Fathers: and the reafon feems to be, that their understanding revolted at so strong and unwarranted an expreffion; which recals to my mind, how our difpute ended with the Popish priests at Marfeilles, by the imprudent behaviour of our friend Khaled. For they no fooner mentioned Mary, the Mother of God; but he rose up in a great heat, fwearing by Mahomet, that God was neither born nor died, and had neither fon nor daughter: and that all fuch as pretended to make their God were more impudent conjurers than Jannes and Jambres, who oppofed Mofes. I mention this, for the fake of obferving, that, as the Fathers feared to call Chrift by the name of the only true God: fo the Proteftants, even those who call themselves Athanafians, are afraid to call the Mother of Jefus Chrift, the Mother of God: which planely proves, that all fuch as refuse these titles to St. Mary and to Chrift out of conscience, have two different fenfes to the word God, whatever they pretend to the contrary. One, when they speak of the invifible Jehovah; and another, when they fpeak of Chrift: otherwife they could not refufe to call Mary the Mother of God, and Chrift the only true God: for by all the logic in the world, if the be the Mother of Christ, and Cbrift be God, fhe is the Mother of God, in the fame fenfe, in which he is called God: and if he be the only true God, then fhe is the Mother of the only true God.'

Our Author very properly specifies, in feveral particulars, the difference between the terms El, Elohim, Adonai and Jehovah: and obferves that the latter is never given to any, but to the Self-existent and Supreme God or his Angel; and fhould therefore never be tranflated into any other language. Toward the close of this letter he refumes the charge of idolatry, and obviates it by enquiring what worship is paid to Chrift, and what is the precife meaning of idolatry: and he concludes, that the worship of Chrift is free from all thofe offenfive circumstances, which render idolatry difpleafing to God, and therefore ought not to be called by that name. After all, it is candidly acknowledged, that in the whole New Testament we have no direc

and

and pofitive command, to pray to Chrift; and that it is moft proper to direct our prayers to the Supreme God himself, through Jefus Chrift, as the mediator between God and man; this Selfexiftent and Eternal Being having an immutable claim to our worship, even beyond the age of the Meffiab, when his kingdom fhall be delivered up to the Father. Our Lord himself, moreover, hath thus directed us to pray.

In a Postscript to this letter our Author intimates, that Dr. Sherlock, Dr. South, and other writers, whom he calls "the Philofophical Chriflians," whilft they have afferted that Chrift is the Supreme Gad, or a meer man, have been under a néceffity of denying the most effential articles of Chriftianity; fuch as his descent from heaven; his humiliation; his fufferings and death: and concludes with an apology for entering fo far into this'argument, which he would not have done, had it not been (fays he) abfolutely neceffary to clear my fubject from the objections à priori, which arife from the Homöoufian doctrine, before I undertook to lay before you the evidence upon which. I embrace Chriftianity: for, if Chrift be the Supreme God, as fome divines fuppofe; it is impoffible to ftir a fingle step forward in proof of his defcent from heaven, his conception, his bumiliation, his fufferings and death: all these things are declared of him in the New Teftament; and foretold of him, in the Old: and all of them are abfolutely impoffible to have been undergone by a Being, that is infinite, unchangeable, and impaffable. And, therefore, inftead of attempting to explane the Chriftian fyftem by the philofophy of thefe divines, I fhall entirely neglect them and truft (as the Arian and Scripturarian heretics are accused of having done) to the fcriptures only: following the rule of Hillary entirely-Non creditur PHILOSOPHIŞ: crtditur PISCATORIBUS.'

The defign of the fourth and last letter in this collection is to prove that Jefus was the Meffiah; in which the Author has acquitted himself as a very learned and able apologist for Christianity.

After fome previous remarks on the predictions relating to the Meffiah, tending particularly to vindicate the authority of Daniel, and to elucidate the very remarkable prophecies contained in his writings; and on the general expectation which Jewish and Heathen writers feemed to entertain concerning his advent; accompanied with a critical enquiry into the fource of their intelligence ;-he proceeds to examine the correspondence between the hiftory of Chrift in the New Teftament, and the prophecies of the Meffiab in the Old Teflament, by four criteria; viz. his lineage; the place of his birth; the time of his advent ; and his actions..

To