its publication, by those most competent to judge of its truth. The learned Manasseh ben Israel, in his "Defence of the Jews," published in 1656, (the very next year to that in which Brett's narrative appearedy and reprinted in the second volume of that evil-intentioned compilation The Phoenix, observes (Ph. vol. 2. p. 401. §. 17) "And many other things have been reported of us, that never entered into the thoughts of our Nation; as I have seen a fabulous Narrative of the Proceedings of a great Council of the Jews, assembled in the Plain of Ageda, in Hungary, to determine whether the Messiah were come or no.

With respect to the Red Sea, p. 9, it may be observed that, in the Hebrew, not a word as to its redness appears. The original, which we translated by Red Sea, is ' or" the sea of weeds," which name it probably acquired from the immense quantities of coral at its bottom. Vide Bruce's Travels, vol. 1. p. 237. Now, though I am willing to believe that " Ferdinand Mendez Pinto was but a type of " Mr. Samuel Brett, yet I should be as credulous as Mr. Granville Sharp, if this historian of fictitious councils related nothing more improbable than his account of the Red Sea : for though he is contradicted by Bruce, he is supported by Browne.

"As to what fanciful people have said of any redness in the sea itself, or colour in the bottom, the reader may assure himself all this is fiction, the Red Sea being in colour nothing different from the Indian, or any other ocean." Bruce, ut supra. "At Suez I observed in the shallow parts of the adjacent sea, a species of weed, which in the sunshine appeared to be red coral, being of a hue between scarlet and crimson, and of a spongy feel and quality. I know not if any use be made of it, nor am I acquainted with its Arabic name; but it strikes me, that, if found in great quantities at any former period, it may have given the recent name to this sea; for this was the Arabian gulph of the ancients, whose Mare Erythraum, or Red Sea, was the Indian Ocean. This weed may perhaps be the D of the Hebrews; "their name for this sea." Browne's Travels in Africa, Egypt, and Syria, p. 177.

ים סוף whence

Your sincere well-wisher,

I am, Sir,

London, August 16, 1806.

PHILO.

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S

GENTLEMEN,

MAX

MAGAZINE.

AY I be permitted, with great deference to his better judgment, to make an observation on a note by the very learned BP. BURGESS, in one of his excellent Easter Catechisms; p. 155 ?---His lordship says, that 66 ὁ ων εν τω ερανω,” 9 John S John 13, should be translated, not, as it stands in our version, "which is," but, "which was in Heaven."---I have always looked upon this expression as designating the DEITY of CHRIST; who was in Heaven by virtue of his divine nature, at the same point of time in which he conversed here on earth with the ruler of the Jews, in his human capacity. The bishop says also, that" o Te Targos," 1 John 18, rendered in our version, "which is in the bosom of the Father," should be translated" which was." But CHRIST was invested with two natures, the divine and the human. His Godhead was not laid aside whilst he appeared in our flesh; the manhood was taken into Gop; ard Gop and man formed one CHRIST; and therefore I conclude that there is nothing improper in supposing his spirit to fill the heavens, and to repose in the bosom. of the Father, even during the time that the human body, in which he veiled the glories of his native divinity, continued here on earth.

is the participle present; but on some occasions, CHRIST'S CO-existence with the Father is spoken of in the past time. Thus in 1 John 1, it is written "the word was with God," nygos Toy OEO" now why should the past time be here used, except for the purpose of marking what had been the condition of the Ayos in the beginning? But as the present time is expressed by wv, why should this article and participle be rendered in the past time, in 3 John 13, or in 1 John 18? May we safely confound these distinctions? If so, what shall we do with St. John's language in the Revelation, where he speaks of CHRIST as ην, και ερχόμενος ?" We may not blend the past and the future with the present time here; then why should we do so in the other specified texts?

ων,

Very humbly submitted by

August 4, 1806.

A LONDON CURATE.

EXTRAORDINARY VISITATION SERMON.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S

A

SIR,

MAGAZINE.

SI consider it to be a principal object of your useful and judicious Magazine, to maintain and defend the doctrine and discipline of the established church, and to guard the same against the bold encroachments of heterodoxy, I think it incumbent on me, as a well-wisher to the same cause, to give you some account of a most audacious attack which I lately heard made upon the most essential articles of her doctrine, in a sermon preached at a visitation in the county of Essex. The preacher, a clergyman holding a benefice in that county, took his text from the first chap. of St. John's Gospel, and the 45th verse: "We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." From these words, and from some other pas sages in the gospels, in which Jesus is spoken of as the carpenter's son, and the son of Joseph, he boldly affirmed that he was the son of Joseph and Mary by natural generation; and that every passage in Moses and the prophets in which there is any allusion to the Messiah, confirms the truth of that fact. You will probably suppose that the first and second chapters of the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the prophecies to which the apostle alludes in them, would have stood in his way; but no such thing, he maintained that these two chapters were gross aud palpable forgeries, and that the prophecies quoted in them did not bear the least reference to the Messiah; and especially that the remarkable prophecy in the 14th verse of the 7th chapter of Isaiah, Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, &c. wholly referred to the temporal circumstances of the Jewish nation, and was literally accomplished within a few years. The other prophecies quoted in those two chapters from Jeremiah and Hosea, the murder of the Innocents by Herod, and the dreams and flight of Joseph into Egypt, he treated with absolute de rision and contempt: and for a full confirmation and illustration of the truth of all he had asserted, he referred

his hearers to a book published some years ago by a Mr. John Jones, of which I forget the title. Having in this manner got rid of what he called that monstrous figment the miraculous conception, he then dispatched the doctrine of the Trinity, the divine Logos, and the impious conceits, as I think he called them, of Athanasius and the Platonic school of Alexandria, with very little ceremony; and then proceeded (horresco referens) to dispose of the whole doctrine of the Atonement, as a wicked and blasphemous imagination; concluding with an earnest exhortation to his reverend brethren to free their minds and their doctrine from all these absurd and groundless conceits, as a preparation absolutely necessary to make the faith of the Gospel admissible by all Jews, Turks, and rational unbelievers of every description.

This is a brief account of a discourse which occupied more than an hour and a half in the delivery. And now, Sir, is the church of England, and I may say Christianity itself, to be treated in this manner, and by those too who are eating the bread of the church, and is no notice to be taken of such railing accusations? I trust not; and I hope that some more distinct notice than this brief sketch of this extraordinary sermon, has already reached you, and that it will call forth, not only the animadversions of some of your learned correspondents, but likewise the animadversion of those who are more eminently commissioned to watch over and defend the faith once committed to the saints*. In this hope I remain,

July 18th, 1806.

Sir, your obedient servant,

ESSEXIENSIS.

P. S. As a proof of the mischievous tendency of the above discourse, especially upon uneducated minds, a churchwarden who was present, (and of whom there were probably forty) told his rector on coming out of church, that he would have given a hundred pounds not to have heard it, on account of the doubts and uneasiness which it had excited in his mind.

The discourse above referred to has just issued from the press, in order that its poison may be diffused as widely as possible. In our next number we shall endeavour to do it ample justice.-ED. Vol. XI. Churchm. Mag. August 1806.

Q

SHE

SHEKALIM, OR THE SHEKELS.

(Continued from p. 16.)

CHAP. 6.

*

HERE were thirteen coffers, thirteen tables, and thirteen places of prostration in the sanctuary. According to the tradition of the house of Rabban Gamaliel, and of the house of R. Chanania, the vicar of the priests, the places of prostration were fourteen. And where was the other? Opposite to the wood-chamber : since there was a tradition handed down by their fathers, that there the ark was hidden.

2. There is a story of a certain priest who, being engaged in his ministry, saw part of the pavement which was different from what was near it. He went and told his companion, but was not able to complete his relation before his life went from him. And they knew very plainly that there the ark was hidden..

3. And how did they prostrate themselves when they worshipped? Four towards the north, and four towards the south three towards the east, and two towards the west, to correspond with the thirteen gates. The south gates inclining towards the west were, the upper gate; the gate Hiddelek; the gate of the first-born; and the water-gate. And why was it called by the name of the water-gate? Because through it they brought the vessel of water to be poured out on the feast of tabernacles. R. Eliezer, the son of Jacob, says, because the water is changed when it is about to go under the gate of the temple. Opposite to these, on the north side, and inclining towards the west, were the gate of Jeconiah; the gate of oblation; the gate of the women; and the gate of the singers. And why was it called by the name of the gate of Jeconiah? Because through it Jeconiah departed into captivity. On the east was the gate of Nicanor; and this had two little doors, one on its right hand and the other on its left. And the two gates to the west had no name.

4. There were thirteen tables in the sanctuary: eight of marble in the slaughter-house, upon which they cleans

Trumpets. The coffers were so called, as being wide at Bottom and narrow at top, in order to prevent the embezzlement of the

money.

ed