Art. XVII. The Watchers and the Holy Ones. A Sermon preached at the Cathedral Church of St. Asaph, on the Day of Public Thanksgiving for the Victory obtained by Admiral Lord Nelson, &c. By the Bi shop of St. Asaph. 4to. p. 28. Price 2s. Hatchard, 1806, TEXT. Dan. iv. 17. "This matter is by decree of the WATCHERS, and the demand by the word of the HOLY ONES; to the intent that the living may know, that the MOST HIGH ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the baɛest of men." GREAT minds attach themselves by preference to the investigation of difficult subjects; and Reviewers may rejoice when only minds of this order take this direction, as they are sure to meet in the pro- ductions of such critics with skill and learning, if not with conviction. The writer before us is an instance in proof of our remark. His sermon may be considered as composed of two parts; one, political; in which Bonaparte is compared with Nebuchadnezzar: the other, critical, in which the Bishop gives to certain passages of scripture wherein angels are mentioned, a sense different from that most commonly received among the learned. で We attach most importance to the critical part of this discourse. The R. R. writer, affirms, without hesitation, that the watchers, and the holy ones, denote the persons in the Godhead; all the persons in the Trinity: and that, Michael, the Archangel, is our Lord himself. The Bishop has omitted to prove by what means the language and ideas of an idolatrous foreigner, are entitled to our confidence, as infallible truth: neither has he remarked that the whole was a visionary scene, a dream, and therefore should be vindicated into authority and certainty, before it can be adopted as the basis of an argument on a question of religion. Friends, as we are, to the doctrine of the Trinity, we cannot accept an argument in its behalf, which is liable to so much suspicion as one drawn from this rescript of Nebuchadnezzar, who was no prophet of Jehovah: we think that not only the narration in this chapter, but also the general tenor of the language employed in the book of Daniel, forbids our accepting these words, in that sense of them, which is proposed by the Bishop. It is worth observing, that throughout this book, the Babylonian speakers maintain their own phraseology, which is highly characteristic ;" the Gods (plural) whose dwelling is not with flesh-thy Gods my Gods the holy Gods-the spirit of the holy Gods-the spirit of the Gods," &c. whereas, when Daniel speaks, he-desires" mercies of the God of heaven-blesses the name of God (singular)—the God of his fathers," &c. the same sentiment pervades the language of the three worthies" our God whom we serve," &c. We readily acknowledge, that Nebuchadnezzar, so far adopts this propriety of expression, as to call the God of Shadrach, &c. 'the most high God;' and the God of Daniel," the God of Gods;" but he continued a Babylonian still; and in his public edict, though he announces Daniel by his Hebrew name, yet he takes special care to inform his subjects that Belteshazzar was his proper appellation, according to the name of my God (Bel); and he retains his Babylonian dialect, by addressing him immediately under this name --O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians.' If, then, Nebuchadnezzar was was so tenacious of these ideas, which were both personal and national to him, is there any wonder that he should retain a mode of speech perfectly analogous to them, and characteristic of himself, when narrating the history of his dream to Daniel? and yet, unless the Bishop can shew that Nebuchadnezzar, a Babylonian, in addressing Babylonians, adopts implicitly the Hebrew phraseology, and employs the words he uses in their Hebrew sense, correctly, the whole of his Lordship's critical structure sinks under him. Probability, to say nothing of criticism, would lead us to conclude, that the Emperor of China would use Chinese phrases in the Chinese sense of them, generally; and a fortiori, when addressing his empire at large; in a public document: but surely these could never be pleaded in support of a tenet exclusively Christian. We have further objections to this hypothesis: if watcher and holy one be a person of the Godhead,' then Nebuchadnezzar saw a person of the Godhead descend from heaven: moreover, the holy ones PETITION the watchers (who are the holy ones, themselves, on the Bishop's scheme) and the watchers issue the decree: is this no mark of a difference of station and office?. In short, Nebuchadnezzar was accustomed to a mode of proceeding not unlike that which he describes; any other mode of suggesting the same ideas to his mind, would have been unintelligible to him: for, by what means could he have received a communication couched in celestial terms, and referring wholly to celestial subjects? Against the idea of Michael, the archangel, being, a person of the Deity, or one in whom personally the Deity resided, the following arguments appear to be conclusive. I. It is true, that Michael is called one of the head princes; which the Bishop renders, one of the princes that are at the head of all." But we cannot admit that this necessarily implies Deity. Michael is also called the heroic prince, and simply prince; now when it is considered, that the prince of Persia, and the prince of Grecia, are mentioned in the same breath, very acute indeed must be the abilities of that critic, who can discern that the same title, in reference to one person, means God, but in reference to another immediately preceding, means the Devil, or one of his angels: which yet is necessary on the Bishop's scheme. "not one same II. It seems to be inconsistent with decorum, that Gabriel, an inferior personage, should assume a station and relation superior to that of Michael; which he evidently does, when he says, strengtheneth himself WITH ME in this concern, but (rather, to the extent as) Michael your prince." To say, that Michael is coadjutor with Gabriel, can never be the language which an angel would adopt, when speaking of the Deity: to whose orders, undoubtedly, Gabriel would pay the readiest obedience. The Bishop also has been misled by the division of the chapters: for the close of chap. x. read together with chap. xi. stands thus: "there is none who strengthens himself with me in this, but Michael your prince: as I, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up, to confirm and to strengthen him." It is evident, that the same speaker continues the same speech, which the division of our copies has disjoined; that the first year of Darius is a note of time; and that Michael is the prince whom Gabriel strengthened: Michael, therefore, could be no person of the Deity, since Deity could not need the strengthenings of Gabriel. Whoever Whoever knows any thing of the writer before us, knows that he possesses a vigorous and adventurous mind, replete with learning and criticism. We agree with him, that it is high time, that the fooleries adopted by Christian interpreters, from those prodigies of ignorance, and folly, (as he politely describes them) the Rabbis of the Jews, who lived since the dispersion of the nation,' should be exploded: and every one who succeeds in the attempt, will be entitled to honour. Many such 'fooleries' well deserve the castigating hand of his Lordship, heavy as it is; and he could not please us better, than by directing his attention to those which less heroic writers are afraid to encounter. BRITISH FINE ARTS. Art. XVIII. An Inquiry into the requisite Cultivation and present State of the Arts of Design in England. By Prince Hoare, Svo. pp. 292. Price 7s. Boards. Phillips, London, 1806. Art. XIX. An Account of the British Institution, for promoting, the Fine Arts in the United Kingdom, containing a Copy of the Bye-Laws, a List of the Subscribers, together with Extracts from the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee, and General Meetings. 8vo. pp. 32. Price 1s. Hatchard, London, 1805. Art. XX. The Remonstrancer remonstrated with; or, some Observa tions, suggested by the Perusal of a Couplet, and the Note attached to it, in Mr. Shee's Rhymes on Art; or the Remonstrance of a Painter. By W. H. Watts. 8vo. pp. 40. Price 1s. 6d. Miller, London, 1806. WE unite these articles in one critique, because they relate to the same subject; and because they may assist in illustrating each other: The first is an elaborate essay in praise of the Arts of Design; in this Mr. Hoare, who is Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the Royal Academy, takes occasion to say the handsomest things in their favour; and what he supposes may influence that class, of readers to which his performance is more immediately addressed. He has accomplished his undertaking in a very respectable manner, notwithstanding a few trifling blemishes; and though we are compelled to differ from him in some respects, yet we think his remarks and reasonings are entitled to attention. They display his knowledge as a connoisseur, and his manners as a gentleman. It is generally agreed, that the state of the Arts in Britain, is not, at the present moment, flourishing; but the causes which have contributed to this depression, continue to be the subject of different opinions, and are viewed in contradictory aspects, by those who interest themselves in their prosperity. Professors, not forbearing to charge the public with insensibility to merit, demand reward and patronage the public desires to be satisfied that merit, not pretension, is the claimant of its munificence; and, being deeply engaged with events, which even artists must allow are uncommonly important, reluctantly foregoes them, to examine what, to be properly appreciated, requires time, knowledge, and taste. Artists Artists are inclined, by the secluded nature of their studies, not seldom to form estimates of their art, of their own productions, and of the public consequence of both, which circumstances in the world around us do not justify. The worthy Secretary commences his work, by asserting" the importance of the fine arts to the fame of a nation," from thence inferring that they ought to be patronized by a nation desirous of fame. Now let us reduce this argument to a practicable possibility. We possess the most sublime efforts of sculpture and painting, but the statues are fixed in niches, and the pictures adorn the walls of our palaces; by what means, then, while these productions are confined to their stations, can the fame of the nation' be extended to remote countries? Strangers must believe the reports of British travellers, who may justly be suspected of partiality to their native land; or they must send visitors to inspect these wonders, at no small risk of disappointment, and at what supposeable benefit to themselves? So much for national fame, which can only be supported by exportation, and exportation implies the " degrading" idea of traffic. The second chapter of Mr. H.'s work, examines at some length the influence of the arts on the morals of a people. We admit, that the pleasure naturally arising from the contemplation of works of art, is felt by the people in common life, as well as by their superiors, and will find its vent in society, in some channel or other :' and none regret more sincerely than ourselves, that this natural feeling is liable, either idly to dissipate scf in trifles and insipid vanity, or to suffer perversion and depravation from the allurements of vice, producing the wildest phantoms of indecent and tumultuous riot.' This is the failing and disgrace of the arts, and Mr. H. would have served them essentially, had he thundered out his reproofs in so commanding a manner, that artists should have dreaded incurring this reproach. Whatever is contrary to good manners, deserves reprobation; and never can it be so effectually denounced, as from the chair of the professor. If but a few artists might be deterred from " perversion" and "depravation," by public censure and official discrimination, this were no inconsiderable service to the arts. Whatever discourses Mr. West has delivered, as President of the Royal Academy, (only one we believe, is published,) he has uniformly insisted that personal virtue is extremely beneficial to art, and vice is extremely injurious. Observation and experience confirm the principle. Mr. H. proceeds to consider "the arts as subservient to religion," and he press to censure the late Bishop Lowth, who declined the admission of series of pictures into St. Paul's Cathedral, considering the charm of painting as too seductive for his congregation." Our author, on the contrary, thinks that works of art do not distract the attention of the pious worshipper; and he quotes instances, which, in his opinion, might promote devotion. But, if we appeal to fact, what devotion is produced by works of art in the churches of Italy, where they most abound? is it guine, is it permanent Did this gentleman ever feel his own devotion exceed his curiosity, at the sight of a capital altar-piece or did he ever hear of true virtue being kindled in the heart, by the most pompous exhibitions of graphic piety? But, even if the devotion of Italy, which is confessedly conversant with objects of sense, might be excited, yet that rational mental principle, that feeling which deserves the name of devotion, in the judgment of a British Protestant, is far, very far, froin accepting such assistance. VOL. II. Nor Nor can we, on this occasion, pass unnoticed the ignorance of artists. which is too often displayed beyond endurance, in their treatment of religious subjects. In this country, though professedly Protestant, they retain the errors of Rome. If commissioned to treat the History of the Magi, they must needs make them kings, and one of them a negro, forsooth! because this is the opinion of the Romish Church, though not that of the Evangelist. With equal obstinacy are they attached to the ox, the ass, and the broken pillar, in a scene of the Nativity :-on what authority? shall we never dismiss the Popish mysteries? If they treat the Resurrection, the body of Jesus must be springing twenty feet into the air, contrary to the history in the Gospels; if the Conversion of St. Paul, he must wear the military habit of a Roman Centurion; he, who was a Jewish Rabbi! and though the Romans wore military dresses on military occasions only! In short, the fact is, that a church is a place for religious worship, where nothing should be presented either to the ear, or the eye, but truth: whereas art has hitherto mingled, in subjects cha racterized as religious, at least an equal portion of falsehood. Now which is in duty bound to give way in this instance, Religion, or Art? How many errors of conception, how many misunderstandings of Scripture, have originated in narrations addressed to the eye! Again, if we examine the performances which art has actually erected in our sacred structures, what do they present? In Westminster Abbey, it has introduced more than one Hercules, and more than one Minerva :-heathen Deities, in a Christian temple! What have we in St. Paul's? Already, several Neptunes (the Sea-Divinities of Heathenism,) stretch their huge figures in this edifice, this national edifice, the resort af foreigners, as well as of natives! the glory of our metropolis! As artists we might complain of more than one libel on our national taste: but, as Christians, we shall confine our reprehensions to the naked figure of Capt. Burgess, in a most conspicuous situation, exposed at full length. Is this the costume of our Navy? Did Capt. B. in this state tread the quarter-deck, during the engagement in which he fell ? Had this been the fact, when his statue was to be placed in a Christian Rotunda, that liberty would have been laudable which had deviated from custom in favour of decency: but, in truth, as the figure now stands, it sins at once against naval order, correct taste, national decorum, and Christian morality. While artists will thus offend, who can recommend the admission of their compositions into places of worship? The public voice should distinctly inform both sculptors and painters, that not till art can submit to the controul of religion, will religion admit works of art into her mansions. We pass on to consider the proposal of a NATIONAL GALLERY, adorned by productions of native genius: and here we freely admit articles which our sense of propriety excludes from a church. Whoever enters this repository, cannot be taken unawares, and seduced into diversion, when intending devotion. The visitor is previously informed of the character of the place. We are no fanatics; we can tolerate a little heathenism, here; provided that art is confessedly exhausted, and reduced to this resource as indispensable. Or, if we advert with Mr. H. to "the SHAKESPEARE, and other Galleries, which held out a momentary employment to the artists of the day; while they themselves subsisted on the genius they rewarded;" we shalt censure |