I AM THAT I AM: And he faid, thus fhalt thou fay unto the children of Ifrael, I AM hath sent me unto you. Who was it that spoke to Mofes ? or what notion are we to form of that Being, who pronounced thefe words, I AM THAT I AM? It is certain that it was the Angel of the Lord, that appeared to Mofes in the bufh, and from thence pronounced thofe words. It was the Angel who faid I am the God of thy father; I AM THAT I AM. But the Angel of the Lord God is not the Lord God, whofe Angel he is. The solution of the difficulty hence arifing, is, as he fays, very obvious and clear. For the folid and inconteftible foundation of the folution is laid by our Lord himself, in John v. 37. And the father himself, who hath fent me, hath born witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor feen his fhape'-that is, the Lord God never fpake or appeared in perfon, but always by a proxy, nuncius, or meffenger, who represented him, and therefore fpake in his name and authority, faying, I am God all fufficient, I am the God of Abraham, I AM THAT I AM. Which words were pronounced by an Angel, but are true not of the Angel, but of God, whom he represented, and upon whofe errand he came. a Herald reads a proclamation in the King's name and words, as if the King himself were speaking.

So

It hath been commonly fuppofed, that Jefus Chrift, before his incarnation, was the Angel or Meffenger that appeared in the Shechinah, and fpake to the Patriarchs, to Mofes, and the Prophets, and is called the Angel of his prefence, Ifai. Ixiii. 9. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the Angel of his prefence faved them.-To this, Dr. Taylor obferves, it may be objected, that our Lord in this cafe will be fuppofed to publifh the law, and to prefide over the Jewish Difpenfation, as well as over the Gofpel; which feems to be quite inconfiftent with John i. 17. The law was given by Mofes, but grace and truth came by Jefus Chrift; and Heb. i. 1, 2, ii. 2. But to obviate thefe objections, he inquires- May we not diftinguish between the Logos, as a Proxy of Deity, or as perfonating the glorious Majefty of GoD in the Shechinah, and in that capacity by the holy Spirit, inspiring the Prophets, and prefiding over the Angels, at the giving of the law, and the fame Logos acting and fpeaking to us, in his incarnate ftate, in the capacity of a Prophet? In the former capacity, he may be confidered in relation to God, as perfonating God, or as in the form of God, whofe Agent

he was under every difpenfation which God erected; and therefore as doing nothing in his own perfon. For thus his perfon would coincide with that of the fupreme God, and is not to be confidered as different from him, but as acting in his name and authority. In the latter capacity he may be confidered in relation to U3, and to our falvation by the gofpel; for the accomplishment of which, he stooped so far as to take upon him our nature, and not as perfonating God, but in quality of a Prophet fent from God, to publifh among us, in his own perfon and name, the promise of eternal Fife."

We cannot conclude without hinting, that the Author's Key to the apoftolic writings, publifhed fome years fince, may afford much additional light and improvement to fuch Enquirers as defire a thorough acquaintance with this excellent fcheme of Scripture Divinity.

Of this learned Writer's other works we have made frequent mention in our Review; particularly of his valuable Hebrew Concordance: for which fee Review, vol. XV. p. 22. and vol. XVI. p. 235

Emilius and Sophia: Or,, a new Syftem of Education. By Mr. Rouffeau. Tranflated for Becket, &c. Continued

from Page 217.

Ο

UR ingenious Author, having divided his work into five parts, agrecable to the feveral periods by which he diftinguishes the progrefs of his Pupil's Education, confinest himself, in his first book, chiefly to what relates to the management of children till they are able to talk and run about. Before a child arrives at this term, he is little better, fays Mr. Rouffeau, than he was in the womb of his mother, without fentiments or ideas, and almoft without fenfations.

Vivit, et eft vita nefcius ipfe fuæ.

The obfervations contained in this part of the work, are, of course, moftly phyfical: indeed, our Tutor thinks it not enough to take charge of his Pupil at the ufual time when children are difmifled from the Nursery; as the manner of treating them, even in their earliest infancy, appears to him of the highest importance to their future welfare. Agreeableto this notion, he fets out with remarking the mistaken methods of Education in general, and the neceffity of improve

ment..

ment. He then proceeds to the means of fuch improvement, by earnestly recommending to parents a strict discharge of that indifpenfible duty of nurfing and educating their own chil

dren.

"A father, fays he, in begetting and providing fuftenance for his offspring, hath in that difcharged but a third part of his obligations. He owes a Being to his fpecies, focial Beings to Society, and Citizens to the State. Every man, who is capable of paying this triple debt, and refuses, is, in that refpect, criminal, and, perhaps, is more fo when he pays it by halves. He who is incapable of performing the duties of a father, has no right to be one. Neither poverty nor bufinefs, nor perfonal importance, can difpenfe with parents nurfing and educating their children. Readers, you may believe me, continues he, when I take upon me to affure every parent who is endued with fenfibility, and neglects thefe facred obligations, that he will long live to repent it in the bitterness of his forrow, and never be comforted."

Our Author is, perhaps, too fevere on the fair fex, in the article of fuckling their children; and has fuffered his zeal for the human fpecies in general, to carry him ftrange (and we hope unwarrantable) lengths againft the most amiable part of it. He may be thought, however, to make them fome amends, by the great influence which, he conceives, a change in their behaviour will have over the prefent depravity of manners.

"Should mothers, fays he, again condefcend to nurse their children, manners would form themfelves, the fentiments of nature would revive in our hearts; the State would be repeopled; this principal point, this alone would re-unite every thing. A tafte for the charms of a domeftic life, is the beft antidote agaiuft corruption of manners. The noise and bustle of children, which is generally thought troublesome, become hence agreeable; it is these that render parents more neceffary, more dear, to each other, and ftrengthen the ties of conjugal affection. When a family is all lively and animated, domeftic concerns afford the moft delightful occupation to a woman, and the most agreeable amufement to a man. Hence, from the correction of this one abufe, will presently refult a general reformation; nature will foon re-assume all its rights. Let wives but once again become mothers, and the men will presently again become fathers and husbands.”

With regard to the cloathing, dict, exercife, and medical treatment of infants, many judicious rules are here laid down, and methods prefcribed, for the ufe of mothers and nurses, on thefe heads. As to the firft, our Author decries fwaddling clothes, with tight ligaments and bandages of all kinds; recommending a thin, loofe drefs, in all feafons. With refpect to diet, he advifes chiefly milk-meats, and those prepared with the greateft fimplicity. Under the article of Exercife, we may rank the many pertinent obfervations, and fenfible inftructions, occafionally interfperfed throughout this book, and tending to fortify the conftitution, and perfect the organs of children. But we have the lefs need to particularize thefe, as many of them are better calculated for a milder climate, and as others are well known, and already pretty generally adopted in this ifland. As to Medicines, Mr. Rouffeau would have few, or none, adminiftered in almoft any cafe. "The fagacious Mr. Locke, fays he, who had fpent most of his life. in the ftudy of medicine, earneftly advifes us never to give children phyfic by way of precaution, or for flight indispositions. I will go farther, and declare, as I never call in the Phyfician for myfelf, fo I will never trouble him on account of Emilius; unlefs, indeed, his life be in imminent danger: and then the Doctor cannot do more than kill him. I know very well the Phyfician will not fail to take advantage of that delay. If the child dies, he was called in too late; had he been fent for fooner- if he recovers, it is then the Physician that faved him. Be it fo. I am content the Doctor fhould triumph, on condition he is never fent for till the patient be at the last extremity."

Nor is our Author lefs fevere on the art itfelf than on its Profeffors. He affirms Phyfic to be more deftructive to mankind than all the evils it pretends to cure. "I know not,

continues he, for my part, of what malady we are cured by the Phyficians; but I know many fatal ones which they inflict upon us; fuch are cowardice, pufillanimity, credulity, and the fear of death: if they cure the body of pain, they deprive the foul of fortitude. What end doth it anfwer to fociety, that they keep a parcel of rotten carcafes on their legs? It is men the community wants, and those we never fee come out of their hands.

"It is, however, the prefent mode to take phyfic; and it fhould be fo. It is a pretty amufement for idle people that have nothing to do, and not knowing how to beflow their time otherwife, throw it away in self-prefervation. Had they

been

been fo unfortunate as to have been born immortal, they would have been the moft miferable of Beings. A life, which they would not be under the continual apprehenfions of lofing, would be to them of no value. Physicians pay their court to fuch perfons, by frightening them, and affording them daily the only pleafure they are fufceptible of; that of hearing they are in danger, and yet not quite dead.

"I have no defign to enlarge here on the futility of phy-. fic; my prefent purpofe being only to confider it in a moral light. I cannot, however, forbear obferving, that mankind. ufe the fame fophiftry, in regard to the ufe of medicine, as they do with refpect to their fearch after truth. They fuppofe always, that when a Phyfician treats a Patient who recovers, he has cured him; and that when they have gone through a difquifition concerning the truth, they have found it. They do not fee that we ought to put in the balance against one cure effected by phyfic, the deaths of an hundred Patients it has killed; or that we fhould oppofe to the utility of one boasted truth, the mischief of a thousand errors fallen into by making the difcovery. The fcience which enlightens, and the phyfic that cures, are doubtlefs very useful: but the pretended fcience that milleads, and the phyfic that kills, are as certainly deftructive. Teach us therefore to distinguish between them. This is precifely the point in queftion. Could we teach our vain curiofity not to thirst after information, we should never be the dupes of falfhood; could we be fatisfied to bear the maladies to which nature denies a cure, we should never die by the hands of the Phyfician. Self-denial in these two inftances is prudent; men would be evidently gainers by fuch abftinence and fubmiffion. I do not pretend to deny that phyfic may be ufeful to fome few particular perfons, but I affirm it to be deftructive to the human race in general."

The tender parent, anxious for the welfare of a beloved child, will, no doubt, be curious to know what step our Author would advife to be taken, inftead of calling in the Phyfician. We thall, therefore, infert the method he propoles, tho' we imagine there are few fond mothers who will fo far aflent to its expediency, as to put it in practice.

"For want of knowing the way to get cured, a child fhould learn to know how to be fick; this art will fupply the want of the other, and often fucceed a great deal better: this is one of the arts of nature. When a brute animal is fick,

R 4