denominated. Whether angel or man, being a fubject capable of intellectual and moral perfection, he would be supposed to poffefs fome peculiar excellency, entitling him to the divine name: and when it was found that this was conferred by God himself, it would be fcarcely poffible to withhold divine honour, or to believe that it could be difagreeable to him who had conferred it. But when it was ufed in compofition, in the names of places, inftead of having this tendency, it was folely meant to afcribe the glory to Jehovah, who had manifested himself there; nay, directly tended, in the conftant remembrance of his people, to appropriate it wholly to him, to the exclufion of every other.

The argument from Jerufalem being called Jehovah our righteousness, is of no weight. For the natural verfion of the words is, And this is he who shall call her, Jehovah our Righteousness, Jer. xxxiii. 16. The word call, in this place, does not refer either to the name of the Messiah, or of Jerusalem; but to his work of calling her to a parti cipation of New Covenant bleffings. But although this name were given to Jerufalem, nothing more could be urged from this circumftance, than from the use of those compound names already confidered.

Thus, when Dr P. fays, "That it must have been the “mere name, and not the nature of God, that the Jews suppo"fed their Meffiah to partake of;" he fuppofes them not on

to contradict themselves, but the word of God. The Doctor adds very juftly, concerning the name being given to several things; "This never led the Jews to fuppofe, that there

were two Jehovahs, a greater and a lefs." This is the very thing that has always pinched them in their disputes with the Christians. They know that this name cannot be properly given to another, without acknowledging him to be God. Finding that it is given to the Meffiah, while they oppose the doctrine of the Trinity, they know not what to make of it. VOL. I.

E

Our

66

Our author's subsequent reasoning, in reply to the texts quoted by Bishop Pearfon, and what has been advanced by Mr Taylor of Portfmouth, is both trifling and unfair. Nothing," he says, " can be more exprefsly declared "than that there is but one Jehovah; and in the paffages "quoted by Bishop Pearfon, there is no intimation of "there being two Jehovahs; fo that if the Meffiah be Je"hovah, there must have been no other being above him, "which Mr Taylor would not fuppofe." No Trinitarian can fuppofe that there is a 4 Being above" the Meffiah. For the Meffiah is not a distinct being from God. He is only one perfon in the divine nature, fuftaining a relation different from that which effentially belongs to him. The Father is above him, not in a perfonal, but only in a fœderal respect. His inferiority, being voluntary, cannot deprive him of his effential dignity. When the Meffiah, therefore, is called Jehovah, it is not as another being than God, but as another person than the Father; originally poffeffing this name in common with him, and invested with an office which neceffarily fuppofes this. For it is not a name peculiar to one perfon, but expreffive of the undivided nature.

We shall now confider what the Doctor advances con

cerning the angel Metatron. "The most," he says, "that I should be difpofed to infer from what the Jewish "Cabbalifts have faid on the fubject would be, that this "Metatron was fomething fimilar to what Philo reprefents "the Logos as being, namely an efflux of the divinity, "but no being or perfon, permanently diftinguished from

him." But we have already shown, that Philo entertained no fuch idea. This is the moft that Dr P. is " dif"pofed to infer;" not because he has any folid grounds for fuch an inference, but becaufe he is unwilling to make any other, as it would greatly injure his caufe. But as far as

we can obferve, he cannot produce a fingle proof, that any of the Cabbaliftic writers formed the idea of occafional perfonality. They had very abfurd ideas concerning angels: but they were of fuch a nature, as to exclude this fpecies of abfurdity. For fome of them apprehended that they were corporeal *. They reckoned angels of two kinds, corruptible and permanent. Those were called corruptible, which were supposed to be corporeal, as deriving their existence from generation. So far were they from supposing them to be emanations from the divine nature t. Bafnage, our author's great authority in Jewish matters, contradicts him here. For, according to his account, the Cabbalists affert, that from Metatron all the angels "derive their lives, and all other advantages and comforts."

Now, it is difficult to conceive that be should be the fource of being to perfons conftantly exifting, and support them in it, who is himself only an occafional perfon. But indeed, these writers expressly declare that "he is exalted above “them all, continually beholding the face of God, and "diftributing to them every day bread convenient for " them ‡.”

The Doctor juftly obferves, that there" is little de"pendence on the whimfical and uncertain notions of thefe Jewish Cabbalifts §." But their fingular afcriptions to the angel Metatron, although they should not prove that they confidered him as the foul of the Meffiah, clearly enough demonftrate that, to their conviction, the Scripture contained various afcriptions to an angel, which they could not with propriety interpret of a mere creature. Therefore,

E 2

Bafnage Hift. b. iv, c. 9.

† Maimonid. More Nevoch. Par. ii. c. 6.

Bafnage, b. iv. c. 8.

Vol. iii. p. 45.

fore, they faid that the name of God was in this angel. Dr P., indeed, quotes Bafnage, as fhewing that this means nothing more than that the letters of the word "Metatron, and thofe of Shadai, confidered as numerals, "exprefs the fame number, viz. 314." It was natural for the Cabbalifts, according to their usual manner, to advert to this circumftance. But we must attend to their defign. This was to fupport their doctrine of the mystery of the perfon. For when they found a mystery in a name, they understood it as expreffive of a further, and a more important, mystery. The learned are greatly divided as to the origin of this name; fome deriving it from the Hebrew, others from the Greek, and others fuppofing it to be a corruption of the Latin word Metator, or of Mediator. It seems most probable, that they adopted the name as correfponding, in numerals, with Shadai; and that this correspondence was the reafon of their adopting it, that thus they might exprefs the character of that angel of whom it is faid, My name is in him; Shadai being one of the names of God. They do not feem to have inferred the doctrine from the name, but to have chofen the name to fuit the doctrine. The former might be fupposed, if that of God's name being in this angel, were the only peculiar afcription. But this is far from being the case. Even according to Bafnage, it was he who, by the Jewish accounts, wrestled with Jacob. Now, thefe writers must have known that this angel is exprefsly called God.

In the Gemara of Babylon, thefe words are explained; Whom Shall be teach knowledge, and whom shall be make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned, &c. Ifa. xxviii. 9. This work is firft afcribed to God. Then it is faid; "But who taught them from the beginning?" that is, as the paffage is understood, before the destruction of the temple. The answer is; "If you pleafe, you may fay, Me

"tatron;

"tatron; but if you prefer it, he hath done both the one " and the other;" that is, God hath taught infants both before and fince that event. They alfo defcribe Metatron as "the Angel of God's face or prefence ;" and as performing the functions of a Mediator. For they fay, that by him alone we can have access to God. They pretend, that "when the tabernacle was erected in the wil"derness, another tabernacle was erected, viz. that of the "child Metatron, whose name is the fame with the name "of his God." In this tabernacle, he is said to "offer the "fouls of the juft, that he may make expiation for Ifrael during the time of his captivity +.” When Bafnage is quoted, as "fhewing that he is the fame with the angel “Michael," Dr P. might also have mentioned that, according to the acknowledgment of the fame author, they make a God of him ‡. The fame is afferted by other writers §. The Talmudifts fay that this Angel" hath "power to blot out the fins of Ifrael," whence they make him "the Chancellor of heaven ||."

66

From a connected view of these circumftances, it must appear, that the later Jewish writers found themselves. under a neceffity of afcribing perfections to one angel, which properly belong to God only. We may also observe, that their elevation of this angel above all others, is a proof that they did not believe that the names of Deity were common even to angels. Their fyftem concerning Metatron is evidently the beft they could make of those E 3 paffages

Avoda Sara, p. 13. 14.

† Talmud, Chagigah, c. 2. ap. Lampe in Joh. i. 14. Vitringa Obf.

Sac. 1. 1. c. 9.

Hift. b. iv. c. 9.

Vid. Wolfi Cur. Phil. in Phil. ii. 9.

Owen on Heb. vol. i. Ex. x. p. 121.