^^^s^i^mm 
 
 »v 
 
from  i^t  &i6rat)?  of 
 
 (profeBBor  ^amuef  (Qtiffer 
 
 in  (glemor^  of 
 
 3ubge  ^amuef  (gliffet  QBtecftinribge 
 
 (preeenfeb  61? 
 
 ^amuef  (glifPer  QSrecfeinribge  &ong 
 
 to  t^e  £i6rati?  of 
 
 (princefon  ^^eofogtcaf  ^eminatj 
 
DISCOURSES  AND  DISSERTATIONS 
 
 ON   THE 
 
 SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINES 
 
 OF 
 
 ATONEMENT  ^  SACRIFICE. 
 
DISCOURSES  AND  DISSERTATIONS 
 
 ON    THE 
 
 SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINES 
 
 ATONEMENT  Sf  SACRIFICE: 
 
 AND  y 
 
 ON   THE   PRINCIPAL  ARGUMENTS  ADVANCED,   AND   THE   MODE  OF 
 
 REASONING  EMPLOYED,  BY  THE  OPPONENTS  OF  THOSE  DOCTRINES 
 
 AS  HELD  BY  THE  ESTABLISHED  CHURCH: 
 
 "WITH 
 
 AN  APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 SOME  STRICTURES  ON  MR.  BELSHAM'S  ACCOUNT 
 
 OF  THE  UNITARIAN  SCHEME, 
 
 IN  HIS  REVIEW  OF  MR.  WILBERFORCE'S  TREATISE. 
 
 V'BY 
 
 WILLIAM  MAGEE,  D.  D. 
 
 SENIOR  FELLOW  OF  TRINITY  COLLEGE,  AND  PROFESSOR  OF  MATHEMATICS, 
 IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  DUBLIN. 
 
 THE  THIRD  EDITION^  WITH  ADDITIONS, 
 
 VOL.    II. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed  by  J.  St  E.Hodson,  Cross  Street,  Hatton  Gardes, 
 FOR  T.   CADELL  AND  W.  DAVIES5  IN  THE  fiJTRAND, 
 
 Ysfr 
 
.^^^^^vv..••^\tv4' 
 
IJLLUSTFvATIOHS 
 
 AND 
 
 EXPLANATORY  DISSERTATIONS- 
 
 NO.  XLVI. ON    THE    SUPPOSITION    THAT    SACRI- 
 FICE  ORIGINATED    IN    PRIESTCRAFT. 
 
 Page  43.  (>)— Some  of  those  objectors,  who 
 call  themselves  enlightened,  but  whose  opinions 
 w^ould  scarcely  deserve  notice  were  it  not  to 
 mark  their  absurdity,  have  sagaciously  conjec- 
 tured, that  sacrifice  was  the  invention  of  priest- 
 craft. Morgan,  (Moral  Phil  p.  236.)  and  Tin- 
 dal,  (CJmst.  as  old  as  the  Great,  p.  79-)  exult 
 in  this  discovery.  But,  in  the  elevation  of  their 
 triumph,  they  have  totally  forgotten  to  inform 
 us,  who  were  the  priests  in  the  days  of  Cain  and 
 Abel :  or,  if  we  consent  to  set  aside  the  history  of 
 that  first  sacrifice,  in  compliance  with  the  dis- 
 like which  such  gentlemen  entertain  for  the  book 
 in  which  it  is  contained,  we  have  still  to  learn 
 of  them,  in  what  manner  the  fathers  and  heads 
 of  families,    (by   whom,   even   Morgan   himself 
 
 VOL.    II.  B 
 
2  MOSAIC    SACRIFICES    NOT    DERIVED 
 
 confesses^  sacrifices   were  first  offered,)  contrived 
 to  convert  the  oblation  of  their  own  flocks  and 
 fruits  into  a  gainful  traffic.     And  indeed,  after 
 all;    the  priests,    or,  as   he   calls  them,    **"   holy 
 butchers,"  whom  Tindal  wittily  represents,  "  as 
 sharing  with  their  Gods,  and  reserving  the  best 
 bits  for  themselves,"  seem   to   have  possessed  a 
 very  extraordinary  taste :  the  skin  of  the  burnt- 
 oflTering  among  the  Jews,  (Lev.  vii.  8.)  and  the 
 skin  Siudfeet  among  the  heathens,  (Pott.  Antiq, 
 vol.  i.  book  ii.  ch.  3.)  being  the  best  bits,  which 
 the  priests  cunningly  reserved  for  their  own  use.* 
 Such  impotent  cavils,  contemptible  as  they  are, 
 may  yet  be  considered  of  value  in   this   light: 
 they  imply  an  admission,  that  the  invention  of 
 sacrifice  on  principles  of  natural  reason  is  utterly 
 inconceivable :     since,     if   any    such    principles 
 could  be  pointed  out,  these  writers,  whose  main 
 object  is   to  undermine  the  fiibric  of  revelation, 
 would  gladly  have  resorted  to  them,^  in  prefer- 
 ence to  suppositions  so  frivolous  and  absurd. 
 
 KG.    XLVII. ON    THE    SUPPOSITION     THAT     THE 
 
 MOSAIC    SACRIFICES    ORIGINATED    IN    HUMAN    IN- 
 VENTION. 
 
 Pace  43.  {J) — Amor.g  the  supporters  of  this 
 opinion,    there  are  undoubtedly  to  be  reckoned 
 
 *  Sec  Dclani/s  Revel.  Exam.  vol.  i.  pp.  8G,  87.  and  Ken.. 
 nicoVs  Two  Dinsert.  pp.  204,  %ny. 
 
FROM    HUMAN   INVENTION.  3 
 
 tiiany  distinguished  names;  Maimonides,  R.  Levi 
 Ben  Gerson,  and  Abarbanel,  amongst  the  Jews : 
 and  amongst  the  early  Christians,  Justin  Mar- 
 tyr, the  author  of  the  questions  and  answers  to 
 the  Orthodox  in  his  works,  Irenaeus,  Tertulhan, 
 Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and  Cyril  of  Alexan- 
 dria ;  who  all  concur,  in  pronouncing  the  divine 
 institution  of  the  Mosaic  sacrifices  to  have  been 
 an  accommodation  to  the  prejudices  of  the  Jewish 
 people,  vvho  had  been  trained  up  in  the  practice 
 of  sacrifice  among  the  Egyptians  ;  to  whom  Por- 
 phyry attributes  invention  of  sacrifice,  whilst 
 others  ascribe  its  origin  to  the  Phenicians. 
 To  the  above  names  are  to  be  added;  of  later 
 date,  those  of  Grotius,  Spencer,  and  War- 
 burton. 
 
 But  to  suppose,  that  these  most  solemn  rites 
 of  worship  should  have  been  ordained  by  a  God 
 of  infinite  wisdom  and  purity  ;  by  a  God,  who 
 presents  himself  to  the  Jews,  in  the  character  of 
 a  king  jealous  of  his  glory;  merely  in  compliance 
 with  the  absurdities  of  pagan  superstition,  seems 
 a  notion  little  worthy  of  the  names  that  have 
 been  mentioned.  To  imagine  also,  that  the 
 sacrifices  of  the  patriarchs  could  have  received 
 the  divine  approbation,  without  the  authority  of 
 divine  institution,  is  to  contradict  the  general 
 tenor  and  express  language  of  Scripture;  which 
 supplies  various  instances,  in  which  God  resented, 
 and  severely  punished,  every  species  ©f  ivill  wor- 
 
 B  2 
 
4  MOSAIC    SACRIFICES   NOT    DERIVED 
 
 ship,  (as  for  example,  in  the  case  of  Nadab  and 
 Abihii,  who  were  struck  dead  for  burning  in- 
 cense with  strange  fire,)  and  which  expressly 
 condemns,  in  Mat.  xv.  9.  and  Coloss.  ii.  22,  23, 
 that  £SsKo9^7}(rKct(x,  which  sprung  from  the  devices 
 and  inventions  of  men; 
 
 Spencer,  indeed,  who  has  most  laboriously 
 defended  this  notion  of  the  human  invention  of 
 sacrifices,  in  his  book  De  Leg,  Hehr,  has  en- 
 deavoured to  prove,  (lib.  iii.  diss.  ii.  cap,  4.  sect. 
 2.)  that  St.  Paul  speaks  of  ^will-worship  without 
 
 *  An  argument,  which  has  been  used  by  Spencer  in  support 
 of  this  opinion,  deserves  particularly  to  be  exposed.  In 
 speaking  of  the  notion,  of  the  sacrifice  of  Abel  having  b<?en 
 the  consequence  of  a  divine  institution  and  command,  he  thus 
 expresses  himself;  "  Sententia  hasc  erroris  inde  rhanifesta 
 est,  quod  hoc  ipso  in  commate,  (Heb.  xi.  4.)  illius  oblata, 
 non  debita,  scd  oa;^a,  ab  Apostolo  appellentur :  nam  inde 
 patet,  Abelis  oblationem  e  pio  voluntatis  propriae  motu, 
 potius  quam  legis  alicujus  praescripto  prodiisse."  Spe?7c,  De 
 Leg.  Ilebr.  ii.  769. — Here  it  is  directly  contended,  that  the 
 authority  of  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  gives  support  to  the 
 assertion  that  the  offering  of  Abel  was  purely  voluntary;  and 
 this  is  deduced  from  the  force  of  the  term  ^u^cc  employed  by 
 that  writer  in  the  passage  of  the  epistles  above  referred  to. 
 But  the  learned  author  is  altogether  inexcusable  in  drawing 
 such  a  conclusion:  inasmuch  as  it  can  hardly  be  supposed, 
 that  he  was  unaware  of  the  sense,  in  which  the  writer  to  the 
 Hebrews  has  applied  ilu-  (criu  ^u^x,  in  even/  other  passage, 
 ill  which  it  occurs  throughout  the  I'pistle  ;  namely  as  referring 
 to  oblations  under  the  Mosaic  law,  which  consequently  were 
 the  result  of  specific  institution,    and  in  which  no  one  part 
 
FROM    HUMAN   INVENTION.  5 
 
 disapprobation.  In  this,  however,  he  is  com- 
 pletely answered  by  ^^Witsius :  and  with  respect 
 to  the  circumstance  of  resemblance  between  the 
 Jewish  religion  and  those  of  the  ancient  heathen 
 nations,  on  which  the  reasoning  of  this  author 
 through  the  entire  of  his  voluminous  work  is 
 founded,  Shuckford  asserts,  that  so  far  is  it  from 
 justifying  the  inference  which  he  has  drawn, 
 namely,  that  God  had  instituted  the  one  in  imi- 
 tation of  the  other,  that  the  direct  contrary  is 
 the  legitimate  conclusion :  inasmuch  as  "  no  one 
 ceremony  can  be  produced,  common  to  the  reli- 
 gion of  Abraham  or  Moses,  and  to  that  of  the 
 heathen  nations,  but  that  it  may  be  proved,  that 
 it  was  used  by  Abraham  or  Moses,  or  by  some 
 of  the  true  worshippers  of  God,  earlier  than  by 
 
 even  of  the  ceremonial  of  the  oblation  was  left  to  the  free 
 choice  of  the  offerer.  Nor  can  it  easily  be  believed,  that  the 
 author  could  have  been  ignorant,  that  in  above  seventy  pas- 
 sages of  the  Old  Testament  the  word  ^u^a,  is  used  by  the 
 LXX  for  the  Hebrew  pip ;  in  every  one  of  which  passages 
 nearly,  the  obhition  under  the  prescription  of  the  Levitical 
 ritual  is  intended  to  be  conveyed ;  and  indeed  the  word  i-2'\i^  is 
 the  most  general  name  for  the  sacrifices  under  the  Mosaic  law. 
 See  what  is  said  on  this  word  in  Number  LXII. — The  true 
 and  obvious  reason,  why  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  uses  the 
 term  ^ui^cc,  is,  because  it  is  the  very  term  employed  by  the  Seven- 
 ty in  describing  the  offerings  of  both  Cain  and  Abel  in  Gen. 
 iv.  4,  5.  The  author  of  the  Epistle  treating  of  the  same  sub- 
 ject, naturally  uses  the  same  language. 
 
 *  Misc.  Sac.  lib.  ii.  diss.  ii.  §.  2 — 7.     See  also   Heideg, 
 Hist.  Patriarch.  Excrcit.  iii.  §.  52.  torn.  i. 
 
 B  3 
 
b  MOSAIC    SACRIFICES  NOT    DERIVED 
 
 any  of  the  heathen  nations."    (Cormecfion,  &c> 
 vol.  i.  p.  317.) 
 
 It  is  to  be  remarked,  that  to  those,  who  have 
 been  already  named,  as  supporting  the  hypo- 
 thesis of  the  human  invention  of  sacrifice^  are 
 to  be  added,  in  general,  the  writers  of  the  po- 
 pish church ;  who,  in  order  to  justify  their  will- 
 worship,  or  appointment  of  religious  rites  with^ 
 out  divine  institution,  allege  the  example  of  the 
 Patriarchs  in  the  case  of  sacrifices,  and  the  ap- 
 probation bestowed  by  God  upon  these  acts  of 
 worship,  though  destitute  of  the  sanctions  of  his 
 command. 
 
 One  writer  'of  that  church  (a  writer,  however, 
 whom  she  w^ill  not  be  very  ambitious  to  claim  ) 
 has  indeed  carried  this  point  yet  farther;  inas- 
 much as  he  contends  not  only  for  the  human 
 invention  of  sacrifice,  but  for  its  mere  human 
 adoption  into  the  Jewish  ritual  without  any 
 divine  sanction  or  authority  whatever.  The 
 words  of  this  writer,  which,  I  confess,  I  think 
 worth  quoting,  merely  for  the  same  reason  for 
 which  the  Spartan  father  exhibited  his  drunken 
 Helot,  are  these. — "  That  the  Supreme  Being 
 would  imperiously  require  of  mankind  bloody 
 victims,  and  even  point  out  the  particular  animals 
 that  were  to  be  immolated  upon  his  altar,  it  is, 
 to  me,  highly  incredible;  but  that  superstition, 
 the  child  of  ignorance  and  fear,  should  think  of 
 offering  such  sacrifices^  it  is  not  at  all  wonderful : 
 
FROM    HUMAN    INVENTION.  7 
 
 nor  need  we  think  it  strange,  that  Moses,  al- 
 though a  wise  legislator,  in  this  indulged  the 
 humour  of  so  gross  and  carnal  a  people  as  were 
 the  Israelites.  All  the  nations  around  them  of- 
 fered similar  victims,  from  the  banks  of  the  Eu- 
 phrates to  the  banks  of  the  Nile.  The  Egyptians 
 in  particular,  among  whom  they  had  so  long 
 sojourned,  not  only  sacrificed  animals  to  their 
 gods,  but  selected  the  best  of  their  kind.  In- 
 deed, I  have  ever  been  convinced,  since  I  was 
 capable  of  reflexion,  that  the  whole  sacrificial 
 and  ceremonial  laws  of  Moses  were  chiefly  bor- 
 rowed from  the  priests  of  Eoypt,  but  prudently 
 accommodated  by  the  Hebrew  legislator  to  the 
 relative  situation  of  his  own  people,  divested  of 
 prophane  licentiousness  and  barefaced  idolatry, 
 and  restrained  to  the  worship  of  one  supreme 
 God,  who  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth, 
 and  whom  he  was  pleased  to  call  Ieue,  Iao, 
 OR  Jehovah"!!!* 
 
 *  Gcddes^s  Critical  Remarks  on  the  Jlebrezo  Scripfures^ 
 p.  309.  The  observations  which  this  extraordinary  writer, 
 who  wishes  to  be  distinguished  by  the  title  of  a  Catholic 
 Christian,  subjoins  to  the  passage  above  referred  to,  will 
 serve  still  farther  to  shew  the  true  nature  of  his  claims  to 
 that  denomination. — "  This  name,  (he  says,  alluding  to  the 
 name  Jehovah)  I  think,  he  (Moses)  must  have  learnt  in  Mi- 
 dian:  that  he  could  not  learn  it  in  Egypt,  is  clear  from  this, 
 that  the  name  was  not  known  there  before  he  announced  it 
 as  the  name  of  the  God  of  the  Hebrews;  and  Jehovah  himself 
 is  made  to  say,  on  mount  Sinai,  that  be    had  nev«r  till  the 
 
 B  4 
 
S  MOSAIC    SACRIFICES    NOT    DERIVED 
 
 And  again  this  same  enlightened  expositor 
 of  holy  writ  unfolds,  much  to  the  credit  of  the 
 Jewish   legislator,    the  great  advantages  attend- 
 
 manrfested  himself  by  that  name:  but  that  the  name  before 
 that  was  known  in  Midian,  nay,  that  it  was  the  name  of  the 
 Deify  whom  Jethro  principally,  or  perhaps  exclusively, 
 worshipped,  to  me  appears  very  probable  from  several  cir- 
 cumstances." Having  enumerated  these  circumstances,  which 
 enable  him  to  pronounce  that  Moses  had  put  a  gross  false- 
 hood into  the  mouth  of  Jehovah  upon  this  subject,  he  con- 
 cludes thus ;  "  From  all  this  I  think  it  probable,  that  the 
 name  Jehovah  was  known  in  Midian,  .Moab,  and  Syria, 
 before  the  nfission  of  Moses :  and  that  Moses  may  have 
 borrowed  it  thence. — Those  zcho  literally  believe  ichat  is  re. 
 latcd  in  the  third  chapter  of  Exodus  ^wiW  sneer  at  <his  remark; 
 and  they  are  welcome  so  to  do :  I  will  never  be  angry  with 
 any  one  for  believing  either  too  much  or  too  little.''^ 
 
 Now  if  we  follow  this  writer  to  his  i?6'/7/ar/t*  upon  the  tliird 
 chapter  of  Exodus,  we  shall  learn  what  it  is  that  he  considers 
 as  believing  just  enough.  Moses,  in  that  chapter,  informs  us 
 of  "  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  appearing  to  him  in  a  flame  of  fire 
 out  of  the  midst  of  a  bush  :"^ — and  of  the  divine  mission  (hen 
 expressly  conveyed  to  him  by  God  himself  spcakinsj  out  of 
 the  burning  bush,  and  describing  himself  as  "  the  God  of 
 Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  tlie  God  of  Jacob." — 
 Now  what  says  Dr.  Geddes  on  this?  "  That  in  his  appre- 
 hension, there  might,  in  this  particular  apparition,  be  no 
 other  angel  or  messenger,  than  an  uncommon  luminous  ap- 
 j.'carance  in  a  bush  of  briars;  which  attracted  the  attention 
 of  Moses,  and  might  be  considered  by  him  as  a  divine  call 
 lo  return  to  Kgvpt  for  the  ])urpose  of  delivering  his  brethren 
 from  their  iron  bondage."  Then  having /rorc^/  the  propriety 
 of  calling  this  luminous  appearance  in  the  bush  of  briars^  the 
 angel  of  the  Lord  and  even  God  himselfj  from  the  passagu 
 
FROM    HUMAN    INVENTION.  9 
 
 ing  his  imposition  of  Egyptian  ceremonies  as 
 matter  of  divine  ordinance  upon  his  people. 
 «'  This   concession   must   have    been    extremely 
 
 in  the  Psalmist,  "  The  Lord  makoth  the  Minds  his  messen- 
 gers, and  flames  of  fire  his  ministers ;"  and  recollecting  the 
 necessity  of  explaining  how   this   luminous  appearance^    or 
 jlaining  angel ^  m  as  enabled  to  hold  in  the  name  of  the  Most 
 Hif^h  a  long  and  distinct  conversation  with  Moses,  he  boldly 
 faces  about  and  meets  the  difficulty  at  once.—"  But  can  it  be 
 believed,  that  the  whole  dialogue,  contained  in  this  and  the 
 following  chapters,  is  founded  upon  the  single  phenomenon 
 of  a  fiery  meteor  or  luminous  appearance  in  a  bush  of  briars  ? 
 What  may  appear  credible  or  incredible  to  others,  I  know 
 not:  but  I  know,  that  /  can  believe  this,  sooner  than  believe 
 that  God  and  Moses  verbally  conversed  together  in  the  man. 
 ner  here  related,  on  the  bare  authority  of  a  Jewish  historian, 
 uho  lived  no  one  can  well  tell  when  or  where ;    and  who 
 seems  to  have  been  as  fond  of  the  marvellous  as  any  Jew  of 
 any  <ige.     But  let  every  one  judge  for  himself,  as  he  has  an 
 undoubted  right  to  do;  and  believe  as  much,  or  as  little,  as 
 
 pleasethhim. My  belief  is  my  own.'' 
 
 Such  is  Dr.  Geddes's  enlightened  view  of  this  part  of  Scrip- 
 ture, on  w^hich  the  claim  of  the  Jewish  legislator  to  a  divine 
 mission  is  founded.     He  states  indeed,  with  a  modesty  truly 
 becoming,  that  his  belief  upon  the  subject  is  purely  his  own. 
 So  I  will  venture  to  add  for  him,  it  will  ever  remain.     For 
 although  some  may  be  found,  whose  reach  of  philosophical 
 reflexion  may  just  serve  to  enable  them  with  Dr.  Geddes  to 
 reject  the  narrative  of  Moses  as  a  fabrication,  and  his  pre- 
 tensions to  a  divine  mission  as  an  imposture;  yet,  that  nice 
 discriminating  taste  in  miracles  that  could  catch  the  flavour 
 of  a  nearer  approach  to  credibility  in  the  case  of  a  burning 
 bush  of  briars  carrying  on  a  long  conversation  in  the  name 
 of  the  Almighty,  than  in  the  case  of  that  great  Being  directly 
 
10  MOSAIC    SACRIFICES    NOT    DERIVED 
 
 agreeable  to  a  sensual,  groveling  people.  The 
 transition  from  the  habits  which  they  had  con- 
 tracted  in   Egypt  was  an  easy  one.     The  object 
 
 communicating  his  will  and  issuing  his  commands  to  one  of 
 his  intelligent  creatures  respecting  a  great  religious  dispen, 
 sation  to  be  introduced  into  the  world  by  human  agency, — 
 is  likely  to  secure  to  Dr.  G.  an  eminence  in  singularity  from 
 which  he  is  in  no  great  danger  of  experiencing  the  slightest 
 disturbance, 
 
 I  cannot  however  yet  dismiss  this  subject,  and  still  less  can 
 I  dismiss  one  so  serious  with  an  air  of  levity.     However  ludi, 
 crous  and  however  contemptible  the  wild  fancies  and  the  im, 
 potent  scoffs  of  this  traduccr  of  Scripture  truths  may  be,  yet 
 the  awful  importance  of  that  sacred  book  with  which  he  has 
 connected  himself  in  the  capacity  of  translator,  (a  treacherous 
 one  in  every  sense  of  the  word)  bestows  upon  his  labours  by 
 association  a  consequence,  which  (barely)  rescues  them  from 
 present  neglect,  though  it  cannot  operate  to  secure  them  from 
 future  oblivion.     In  the  declaration  of  his  creed,  (Prcf.  to 
 crit.  Rem.  p.  vi.)  and  in  the  vindication  of  himself  from  the 
 charge  of  infidelity,  he  affirms  "  the  gospel  of  Jesus  to  be  his 
 religious  code;  and  his  doctrines  to  be  his  dearest  delight"; 
 he  professes  himself  to  be  "  a  sincere  though  unworthy  disci, 
 pie  of  Christ."     "  Christian  (he  says)  is  my  name,  and  Catho^ 
 he  my  surname,     lliither  than  renounce  these  glorious  titles, 
 I  would  shed  my  blood"  :  &c.     Now  in  what  does  tliis  Ca. 
 iholic  Christianity  consist  ?  Not  merely  as  we  have  seen  in  de- 
 nying the  divine  mission  of  Moses,  and  in  charging  the  mes- 
 senger   of  that    dispensation   which    was   the    forerunner    of 
 Christianity,  with  the  fabrication  of  the  most  gross  and  infa- 
 mous falsehoods,  but  in  attributing  to  our  Lord  himself  a  par- 
 ticipation in  those  falsehoods  by  their  adoption  and  application 
 to  his  own  purposes  in  his  conferences  with  the  Jews.     For 
 the  establishment  of  this,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  appeal  to  our 
 
FROM    HUMAN    INVENTION.  11 
 
 of  their  worship  was  changed,  J3UT  little   of  its 
 
 mode:    for  it    is  not  now    a    aUESTION    AMONG 
 
 THE  LEARNED,   whether  a  great  part  of  their  ri- 
 
 Lord's  solemn  attestation  to  the  truth  of  Moses's  narrative  of 
 the  transaction  alluded  to.  "  And  as  touching  the  dead,  that 
 they  rise:  have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses,  how  iu 
 the  bush  God  spake  unto  him,  saying,  I  am  the  God  of 
 Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,   and  the    God   of  Jacob." 
 
 (Mark   xii.  2G.) What  the    Catholic  Christianity  of  Dr. 
 
 Geddes  amounts  to,  may  be  sufficiently  inferred  from  the  com^ 
 parison  of  this  single  passage  with  the  positions  which  he  main- 
 tains in  direct  opposition  to  the  authority  of  our  Lord  him- 
 self. 
 
 But  it  will  appear  still  more  satisfactory  from  a  short  sum- 
 mary of  his  sfervices  in  the  cause  of  holy  writ,  presented  to  us 
 by  the  pea  of  an  accurate  and  judicious  writer,  in  the  pages  of 
 a  well-known  periodical  publication. — ''  The  method  taken 
 hy  this  Catholic  Christian^  of  strengthening  the  foundation  of 
 the  faith  of  Christians,  seems  very  extraordinary.  For  it  con- 
 sists in  tearing  up  all  the  foundations,  which  the  learning  and 
 the  piety  of  the  divines  of  former  ages  had  been  employed  to 
 lay.  It  would  perhaps  be  doing  more  justice  to  his  great  en- 
 terprize,  to  say,  that  it  is  an  attempt  to  tear  up  the  founda- 
 tions which  the  Spirit  of  God  has  laid.  He  attacks  the  cre- 
 dit of  Moses,  in  every  part  of  his  character;  as  an  historian, 
 a  legislator,  and  a  moralist.  Whether  Moses  was  himself  the 
 writer  of  the  Pentateuch,  is,  with  Dr.  G.  a  matter  of  doubt. 
 But  the  writer,  whoever  he  might  be,  is  one,  he  tells  us,  who 
 upon  all  occasions  gives  into  the  marvellous,  adorns  his  narra- 
 tive with ^c/2on*  of  the  interference  of  the  Deity,  when  every 
 thing  happened  in  a  natural  way;  and  at  other  times  dresses 
 up  fable  in  the  garb  of  true  history.  The  hisiory  of  the  crea- 
 tion is,  according  to  him,  a  fabulous  cosmogony.  The  story 
 pf  the  Fall,  a  mere  Mythos^  in  which  nothing  but  the  imagina- 
 1 
 
12  MOSAIC    SACRIFICES    NOT    DERIVED 
 
 tual  were  not  derived  from  that  nation."  (Ged- 
 des's  Preface  to  Genesis,  p.  xiii.)  Thus  easily 
 is  the  whole  matter  settled  by  this  modest,  cau- 
 tious^ and  pious  commentator. 
 
 tion  of  commentators,  possessing  more  piety  than  judgment, 
 could  have  discovered  either  a  seducing  Devil,  or  the  promise 
 of  a  Saviour.  It  is  a  fable,  he  asserts,  intended  for  the  pur- 
 pose of  persuading  the  vulgar,  that  knowledge  is  the  root  of  all 
 evil,  and  the  desire  of  it  a  crime.  Moses  was,  it  seems,  a 
 man  of  great  talents,  as  Numa  and  Lycurgus  were.  But,  like 
 them,  he  was  a  false  pretender  to  personal  intercourse  with  the 
 Deity,  with  Avhom  he  had  no  immediate  communication.  He 
 had  the  art  to  take  advantage  of  rare  but  natural  occurrences, 
 to  persuade  the  Israelites  that  the  immediate  power  of  God 
 was  exerted  to  accomplish  his  projects.  When  a  violent 
 wind  happened  to  lay  dry  the  head  of  the  gulph  of  Suez,  he 
 persuaded  them  that  God  had  made  a  passage  for  them  through 
 the  sea;  and  the  narrative  of  their  march  is  embellished  with 
 circumstances  of  mere  fiction.  In  the  delivery  of  the  Deca- 
 logue he  took  advantage  of  a  thunder  storm,  to  persuade  the 
 people  that  Jehovah  had  descended  upon  mount  Sinai ;  and 
 lie  counterfeited  the  voice  of  God  by  a  person  in  the  height 
 of  the  storm,  speaking  through  a  trumpet.  He  presumes 
 even  that  Ciod  had  no  immediate  hand  in  delivering  the  Israel- 
 ites from  the  Egyptian  bondage.  The  story  of  Balaam  and 
 his  ass  has  had  a  parallel  in  certain  incidents  of  Dr.  Geddts's 
 own  life.  The  laws  of  Moses  are  full  of  pious  frauds.  His 
 animal  sacrifices  were  institutions  of  ignorance  and  super- 
 stition. The  conquest  of  Canaan  was  a  project  of  unjust  am- 
 bition, executed  with  cruelty ;  and  the  morality  of  the  Deca- 
 logue itself  is  not  without  its  imperfections. In  the  end  he 
 
 comes  to  this  very  ])lain  confession.  "  The  God  of  Moses, 
 Jehovah^  if  he  really  be  buch  as  he  is  described  in  the  Bentu- 
 
FROM    HUMAN     INVENTION.  iS 
 
 Now  what  says  Dr.  Priestley  upon  this  question 
 which  has  been  so  completeli/  set  at  rest  hij  the 
 learned  ?  "  They  who  suppose  that  Moses  him- 
 self was  the  author  of  the  institutions,  civil  or  re- 
 ligious, that  bear  his   name,  and  that  in  framing 
 
 teuch,  is  not  the  God  whom   I  adore,   nor  the   God  whom  I 
 could  love,  &c."  (Brit.  Critic^  vol.  xix.  pp.  3,  4.) 
 
 Such  are  the  views  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  entertained  bj 
 the  man  who  undertook  to  be  their  translator;  and  who  to 
 these  qualifications  for  the  task,  superadded  those  of  a  low 
 and  ludicrous  cast  of  mind,  a  vulgar  taste,  and  an  almost  to- 
 tal unacquaintance  with  the  idiom  of  the  English  language. 
 Whether  then  upon  the  whole  I  have  dealt  unjustly  by  this 
 writer,  in  exemplifying  his  profane  ravings  by  the  brutal  in- 
 toxication of  the  Spartan  slave,  and  in  conceiving  the  bare 
 exhibition  of  the  one  to  be  sufficient  like  that  of  the  other  to 
 inspire  horror  and  disgust;  I  leave  to  the  candid  reader  to 
 determine.  If  however  any  taste  can  be  so  far  vitiated,  or 
 any  judgment  so  weak,  as  to  admit  to  serious  and  respectful 
 consideration  that  perversion  of  the  sacred  volume  which  he 
 would  dignify  with  the  title  of  a  translation,  I  would  recom- 
 mend at  the  same  time  a  perusal  of  the  learned  and  judicious 
 strictures  upon  that  work  contained  in  the  XI  Vth  and  XlXth 
 volumes  of  the  journal  from  which  the  above  extract  has  been 
 made,  a  journal  to  which  every  friend  of  good  order  and  true 
 religion  in  the  community  must  feel  himself  deeply  indebted. 
 As  a  powerful  antidote  against  the  poison  of  the  work,  Dr. 
 Graves'' s  Lectures  on  the  four  last  books  of  the  Pentateuch^ 
 whilst  embracing  much  larger  and  more  important  objects, 
 may  be  most  usefully  applied.  In  this  valuable  performance 
 the  authenticity  and  truth  of  the  Mosaic  history  are  establish- 
 ed :  the  theological,  moral  and  political  principles  of  the  Jew- 
 ish Law  are  elucidated  ;  and  all  are,  with  ability  and  success, 
 Tindicated  against  the  objections  of  infidels  and  gainsayers. 
 1 
 
14  MOSAIC  SACRIFICES  NOT  DERIVED 
 
 them  he  borrowed  much  from  the  Egyptians,  of 
 other  antient  nations,  must  never  have  com- 
 pared THEM  TOGETHER.  Otherwise  they  could 
 not  but  have  perceived  many  circumstances  in 
 which  they  differ  most  essentially  from  them  all." 
 He  tlien  proceeds  through  a  dissertation  of  some 
 length  to  point  oat  the  most  striking  of  those 
 differences  :  and  among  these  he  notices  the  sa- 
 crificial discrepancies  as  not  the  least  impor- 
 tant. 
 
 *'  Sacrificing  (he  says)  was  a  mode  of  worship 
 more  antient  than  idolatry  or  the  institutions  of 
 Moses;  but  among  the  heathens  various  super- 
 stitious  customs   were  introduced   respecting   it^ 
 which  were  all  excluded  from  the  religion  of  the 
 Hebrews."     Having  evinced  this  by  a  great  va- 
 riety of  instances,  he  observes ;   '•  As  Moses  did 
 not    adopt   anv   of  the   heathen    customs,    it    is 
 equally  evident  that  they  borrowed  nothing  from 
 him  with  respect  to  sacrifices.     With  them  we 
 find  no  such  distinction  of  sacrifices  as  is  made  in 
 the   books  of  Moses,  such   as    hurnt  offerings^ 
 sin  offerings,  trespass  offerings,  and  peace  of- 
 ferings,   or  of  the  heaving   or   ivaving  of  the 
 sacrifices.     Those  particulars  therefore  he  could 
 not  have  had  from  them,  whether  we  can  dis- 
 cover any  reason  for  them  or  not.     They  either 
 had  their  origin  in  the  time  of  Moses,  or,  which 
 is  most  })robable,   were  prior  to  his  time,  and  to 
 the  existence    of  idolatry ."^ — "  Lastly,    (he    re- 
 
FROM    HUMAN    INVENTION.  15 
 
 marks)  among  all  the  heathens,  and  especially 
 in  the  time  of  Moses,  human  sacrifices  were 
 considered  as  the  most  acceptable  to  the  Gods : 
 but  in  the  laws  of  Moses,  nothing  is  mentioned 
 with  greater  abhorrence ;  and  it  is  expressly  de- 
 clared to  have  been  a  principal  cause  of  the  ex- 
 pulsion of  the  idolatrous  inhabitants  of  Canaan. 
 The  right  of  the  Divine  Being  to  claim  such 
 sacrifices  is  intimated  by  the  command  to  sacri- 
 fice Isaac,  but  it  was  declined,  and  a  ram  sub- 
 stituted in  his  place.  Also,  when  the  Divine 
 Being  claimed  the  first-born  of  all  the  Israelites, 
 in  the  place  of  those  of  the  Egyptians  which 
 were  destroyed,  none  of  them  were  sacrificed, 
 but  the  service  of  the  Levites  was  accepted  in- 
 stead of  them  :  and  whereas  there  were  not  Le- 
 vites enow  for  that  purpose,  the  rest  were 
 redeemed  by  the  sacrifice  of  brute  animals,  which 
 evinced  the  determination  of  the  Divine  Being, 
 in  no  case  to  accept  of  that  of  men." 
 
 He  finishes  the  entire  disquisition  by  saying, 
 "  It  may  now,  surely,  be  concluded  from  this 
 general  view  of  the  subject,  that  the  two  systems, 
 viz.  that  of  Moses,  and  that  of  the  heathens^ 
 were  not  derived  from  each  other :  and  the  supe- 
 riority of  that  of  Moses  is  so  great,  that  con- 
 siderino-  his  circumstances  and  those  of  his  nation 
 at  the  time,  we  cannot  err  in  pronouncing,  that 
 
 THEY    COULD    NOT    HAVE    HAD    ANY    HUMAN,    BUT 
 MUST    HAVE    HAD    A     DIVINE    ORIGIN.        Nor    CUfl 
 
l6  MOSAIC    SACRIFICES    NOT    DERIVED 
 
 any  thing  he  said  of  Mt\  Langles  and  others 
 who  assert  that  the  hooks  of  Moses  ivere  copied, 
 or  in  any  other  way  derived,  from  the  works  of 
 other  Eastern  natio-ns,  more  favourahle  than 
 tJiat  they  had  never  read  them^^ 
 
 Such  is  Dr.  Priestley's  opinion  upon  the  sub- 
 ject,  on  which  Dr.  Geddes  comforts  himself  with 
 having  the  unanimous  suffrage  of  the  learned 
 in  his  favour.  In  truth  the  absurdity  of  Dr. 
 Geddes 's  notions  on  this  subject,  exposed  as  they 
 have  so  frequently  been  when  advanced  by  other 
 infidel  writers,  (for  with  such  I  must  beg  leave 
 to  class  this  Catholic  translator  of  the  "  books 
 HELD  sacred/')  I  should  uot  have  deemed  en- 
 titled to  any  specific  refutation,  but  I  could  not 
 resist  the  opportunity  of  confronting  him  with 
 a  brother  critic,  equally  removed  from  the  tram- 
 mels of  received  opinions,  and  equally  intrepid 
 in  exercising  the  right  of  free  enquiry  in  the  face 
 
 *  A  Dissertation  in  nhick  are  demonstrated  the  Origina- 
 lity and  superior  Excellence  of  the  Mosaic  Institutions, 
 contained  in  Dr.  Priestloy's  Notes  on  all  the  Books  of  Scrip- 
 tiire,  vol.  i.  p.  373 — 400.  Spo  also  the  preface,  p.  xii.  in 
 which  Dr.  P.  uses  Uuse  words:  "  The  divine  mission  of 
 Moses  and  that  of  Jcsns  ar(>  inseparably  connected;  and  the 
 religion  of  the  Hebrews  and  tliat  of  the  Christians  are  parts 
 of  the  same  scheme ;  so  that  (he  separation  of  them  is  im. 
 possible.  That  Dr.  Ccddes.  and  some  others,  should 
 have  been  of  a  different  opinion,  appears  to  me  most  ex- 
 traordinary." 
 
FROM    HUMAN    INVENTION.  IJ 
 
 of  whatever  consequences  might  result. — If  lien 
 Greek  ineets  Greek — 
 
 There  is  another  writer  also,  for  the  purpose 
 of  confronting  whose  opinions  with  those  of 
 Dr.  Priestley  I  have  been  the  more  desirous  of 
 making  the  foregoing  extracts  from  this  author's 
 Dissertation:  and  that  is  no  other  than  Dr. 
 Priestlev  himself.  Whoever  will  be  at  the 
 trouble  of  perusing  his  positions  relative  to  sa- 
 crifices contained  in  Number  V.  of  this  work ; 
 and  also  his  observations  on  their  origin  alluded 
 to  in  the  Number  which  follows  this,  ^ill  have 
 no  small  reason  to  be  surprized  at  the  orthodox 
 complexion  of  the  arguments  which  have  just 
 been  cited.  For  the  striking  inconsistency  which 
 will  present  itself  upon  such  a  comparison,  it 
 may  not  perhaps  be  difficult  to  account.  I  am 
 willing  (and  with  much  satisfaction  in  the  re- 
 flexion) to  believe,  that,  as  Dr.  Priestley  ap- 
 proached the  close  of  life,  and  was  enabled  by 
 being  withdrawn  from  the  fermentation  of  con- 
 troversy and  party  to  view  these  awful  subjects 
 with  the  calmness,  deliberation  and  seriousness 
 which  they  demand,  his  religious  opinions  might 
 have  undergone  some  change,  and  made  some 
 approach  to  that  soberer  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
 ture which  at  an  earlier  period  he  had  with 
 almost  unaccountable  pertinacity  resisted.  I 
 think,  I  discover  strong  signs  of  this  in  the 
 comparative  moderation  of  his  last  work,  Notes 
 
 VOL.  II.  C 
 
18  SACRIFICES   VIEWED    AS   GIFTS 
 
 on  all  the  hooks  of  Scripture;  but  especially  \\\ 
 the  Dissertation  on  the  Orlginaliti/  and  supe- 
 rior Excellence  of  the  Mosaic  Institutions,  from 
 which  I  have  made  the  foregoing  quotations; 
 and  which,  (although  I  cannot  concur  in  the 
 entire  of  its  contents,)  I  would  strongly  recom- 
 mend, as  containing  a  judicious  summary  of  the 
 internal  evidence  of  the  divine  origin  of  the 
 Mosaic  institutions, 
 
 MO.  XLVIII. SACRIFICES    EXPLAINED    AS   GIFTS^ 
 
 BY   VARIOUS   WRITERS. 
 
 Page  43.  (*) Spencer  maintains  this  the- 
 ory of  sacrifice:  De  Leg.  Hehr.  lib.  iii.  diss.  ii. 
 cap,  3.  sect.  1,  2.  pp.  7^*2,  763.  Mr.  Coventry, 
 in  the  5th  discourse  of  his  Philem.  and  Hydasp, 
 PP-  91  >  92.  108,  109.  adopts  the  same  idea, 
 clothing  it,  in  his  manner,  with  circumstances 
 tending  to  disparage  and  vilify  the  entire  rite. 
 The  author  of  the  Scripture  Account  of  Sacri" 
 Jices  proposes,  what  he  deems  a  difTerent  theory; 
 but  which  is  distinguished  from  this,  by  a  line 
 so  faint,  as  scarcely  to  be  discerned.  Religious 
 gifts,  he  says,  should  be  kept  carefully  distinct 
 from  gifts  weakly  presented  to  God,  as  men 
 would  offer  gifts  to  one  another:  and  he  explains 
 sacrifices  to  be  "  sacred  gifts,  of  things  received 
 first  from  God,  and  presented  back  to  him  for 
 
 ] 
 
BY   VARIOUS   WRITERS.  IQ 
 
 an  external  expression  of  gratitude,  acknowledg- 
 ment, faith  and  every  pious  sentiment."  (p.  7S 
 — 82.  2iud  Postsc*  p.  21.)  This  notion,  however, 
 seems  to  have  no  just  connexion  with  any  species 
 of  sacrifice,  but  the  eucharistic.  And  however 
 the  sentiment  of  gratitude  might  have  led  to  an 
 offering  of  things  inanimate,  it  could  not  have 
 suggested  the  idea  of  the  slaying  of  an  animal, 
 as  was  done  by  Abel  at  the  beginning.  Besides, 
 this  notion  of  sacrifice  includes  the  idea  of  pro^ 
 peril/,  and  is  consequently  not  conceivable,  with- 
 out admitting  an  actual  experience  of  the  gra- 
 tifying effect  produced  by  gifts  upon  men:  and 
 thus  it  falls  under  the  objection  urged  in  Number 
 LI.  against  the  idea  of  gifts  in  general. 
 
 Dr.  Priestley  has  adopted  a  similar  theory, 
 asserting  that  sacrifices  arose  from  anthrojK^mor- 
 phitical  notions  of  God,  and  are  to  be  considered 
 originally  as  gifts  of  gratitude.  Like  the  last 
 hamed  author,  he  endeavours  to  support  his  no- 
 tion, from  the  practice  of  gifts  of  homage  to 
 great  persons  in  early  times;  and  like  him,  he 
 considers  of  course  an  offering  for  sin,  as  differ- 
 ing in  770  respect  from  any  other  sort  of  oblation. 
 The  progress  of  the  rite  of  sacrifice,  as  growing 
 out  of  the  notion  of  gifts,  he  has  traced  in  a  cir- 
 cumstantial and  elaborate  detail,  (Th.  Rep,  vol. 
 i.  p.  195 — 201.)  which,  whoever  wishes  to  be  con- 
 riiiced  of  the  utter  improbability  of  the  theory 
 
 C  2 
 
20  SACRIFICES  VIEWED  AS  GIFTS   &C. 
 
 ill  its  most  plausible  colouring,   may  take  the 
 trouble  to  consult. 
 
 H.  Taylor,  (B,  Mord,  p.  799—804.)  in  like 
 manner,  deduces  sacrifices  from  the  notion  of 
 gifts;  pronouncing  them  to  have  been  nothing 
 but  free-will  offerings,  of  the  first  fruits  of  the 
 €arth,  or  fold:  and  he  expressly  defines  sacrifice 
 to  be  "■  a  sacred  gift,  set  apart  to  God,  whereby 
 the  sacrificer  shewed  his  readiness  to  part  with 
 his  property  tc^  religious  uses,  and  thereby  openly 
 and  publicly  manifested  his  worship  of  God." 
 He  thus  totally  excludes  the  received  notion  of 
 atonement:  and  agreeably  to  this,  he  subjoin"^ 
 that  "  atonement  and  propitiation  had  no  other 
 meaning  or  design,  than  to  purify,  or  sanctify, 
 or  set  apart,  any  j^erson  or  thing  to  the  service 
 of  God,  by  separating  them  from  common  use." 
 
 It  is  evident,  that  every  explication  here  given 
 of  the  theory  of  gifts,  carries  with  it  the  idea 
 of  a  bribe  to  God  to  procure  his  favour.  In 
 some,  it  is  disguised  under  the  appearance  of  an 
 expression  of  gratitude,  or  homage:  but  this  is 
 evidently  the  essential  ingredient,  especially  in 
 all  guch  sacrifices  as  were  of  a  deprecatory  na- 
 ture. But,  that  such  a  notion  was  neither  likely 
 to  obtain  in  the  days  of  the  first  recorded  sacri- 
 fice, nor  has  any  connexion  with  the  ideas 
 known  to  be  universally  attached  in  later  days  to 
 animal  piacular  sacrifice,  it  will  not  require 
 much  thought  to  discover. 
 
 1 
 
(     21     ) 
 
 VjO.    XLIX.- SACRIFICES     CONSIDERED     AS 
 
 FEDERAL   RITES, 
 
 Page  43.  (^)— Sykes,  in  his  Essay  on  Sac, 
 p.  59.  explains  sacrifices  as  "  federal  rites;"  and 
 represents  them,  as  "  implying,  the  entering  into 
 friendship  with  God,  or  the  renewal  of  that 
 friendship,  when  broken  by  the  violation  of 
 former  stipulations:"  and  in  p.  73.  he  says,  that 
 the  origin  of  sacrifices  may  be  accounted  for  on 
 the  supposition,  "  that  eating  and  drinking  to- 
 gether were  the  known  ordinary  symbols  of 
 friendship,  and  were  the  usual  rites  of  engaging 
 in  covenants  and  leagues ;"  this  mode  of  entering 
 into  friendship  and  forming  leagues  with  each 
 other,  being  transferred  by  the  antients  to  their 
 Gods:  and  in  confirmation  of  this,  he  adduces 
 instances  from  Homer,  Virgil,  Max.  Tyr.  and 
 others,  to  shew,  that  they  imagined  that  their 
 Gods  did  actually  eat  with  them,  as  they  ate 
 with  their  Gods.  Thus,  according  to  Sykes, 
 Cain  and  Abel  must  both  have  eaten  of  the 
 oflTerings  which  they  brought:  and  this  indeed 
 he  positively  asserts,  p.  179.  But  not  only  have 
 we  no  authority  from  Scripture  to  presume  this, 
 but  as  we  shall  see  in  Number  LII,  there  is  good 
 reason  to  suppose  directly  the  contrary. 
 
 It  should  follow  also  from  this  theory,  that  all 
 those  who  oflfered  sacrifices,    antecedent  to  the 
 
 c  3 
 
22  SACRIFICES    CONSIDERED    AS 
 
 Mosaic  institution,  must  in  completion  of  the 
 ceremony  liave  feasted  upon  the  oiTering,  Of 
 this,  however,  no  intimation  whatever  is  given 
 in  Scripture.  Jacob,  indeed,  is  said  to  have 
 called  his  brethren  to  eat  bread;  but  it  by  no 
 means  follows,  that  this  was  part  of  the  sacrificial 
 ceremony.  That  he  should  invite  his  friends 
 to  partake  in  the  solemnity  of  the  sacrifice, 
 and  afterwards  entertain  them,  is  perfectly  na- 
 tural, and  conveys  no  notion  whatever  of  feast- 
 ing with  God  at  his  table.  But,  besides,  the 
 holocaust,  or  burnt  oiTering,  was  such  as  rendered 
 it  impossible  that  the  sacrificer  could  feast  upon 
 it;  the  whole  of  the  animal  being  consumed  upon 
 the  altar:  and  that  animal  sacrifices,  both  before 
 and  a  long  time  after  the  flood,  were  of  this 
 kind,  is  generally  acknowledged.  (Scrip,  Ace,  of 
 Sac,  Postsc,  p.  32.)  This  difficulty,  indeed,  Sykes 
 endeavours  to  evade,  by  saying,  that  the  holo- 
 caust being  deprecatory  and  ofiered  on  account 
 of  sins,  it  was  to  be  entirely  consumed  by  the 
 oflTerer,  and  no  part  reserved  for  his  own  use,  in 
 confession  that  he  did  not  think  himself  worthy 
 to  be  admitted  to  eat  of  what  was  oflfered  to  God, 
 (Essay,  p.  232.)  But  now,  if  holocausts  were 
 the  first  sacrifices,  it  will  scarcely  be  admitted, 
 that  an  institution  vyhich  for  many  ages  after  its 
 commencement,  absolutely  precluded  the  possi- 
 bility of  feasting  upon  what  was  offered,  should 
 y?t  have  taken  its  rise  from  that  very  idea.    And 
 
FEDERAL    RITES.  S3 
 
 >)esides,  if  the  renewal  of  friendship,  to  be  ex- 
 pressed by  the  symbol  of  eating  with  God,  were 
 the  true  signification  of  the  sacrifice,  to  vyhat 
 species  of  sacrifice,  could  it  more  properly  apply, 
 than  to  that,  whose  precise  object  was  recon- 
 cilia t ion  ? 
 
 It  deserves  also  to  be  remarked,  that  almost  all 
 the  instances,  by  which  Sykes  supports  his  the- 
 ory,   are    drawn    from   early    heathen   practices. 
 Now,  it  is  notorious,  that  animals  unfit  for  food 
 were  sacrificed  in   several  parts  of  the  heathen 
 world.     Thus,  horses  were  sacrificed  to  the  Sun; 
 wolves  to  Mars;  asses  to  Priapus;    and  dogs  to 
 Hecate.     Besides,   it  is  not  easy  to  conceive,  had 
 eating  and  drinking  with  God  been  at  any  time 
 the  prevalent  idea  of  sacrifice,  how  a  custom  so 
 abhorrent  from  this  notion,  as  that  of  human  sa- 
 crifice, could  ever  have  had  birth.     Nor  will  it 
 suflfice  to  say,  that  this  was  a  gross  abuse  of  later 
 days,  when  the  original  idea  of  sacrifice  had  been 
 obscured  and  perverted.    (Essay,  p.  347.)    The 
 sacrifice  of  Isaac,   commanded  by  God  himself, 
 was  surely  not  of  this  description;   and   it  will 
 not  be  asserted,  that  this  was  a  sacrifice  intended 
 to  be  eaten ;  nor  does  it  appear,   that  Abraham 
 had  prepared  any  meat  or  drink  offering  to  ac- 
 company it— ^.  Mord  p.  814. 
 
 Upon  the  whole  of  Dr.  Sykes's  reasoning  in 
 support  of  this  theory  it  may  be  said,  that  he 
 has  transposed  cause  and  eflfect,  and  inverted  the 
 
 c  4 
 
24  SACRIFICES    CONSIDERED    AS 
 
 order  and  series  of  the  events.  For  whilst,  from 
 the  custom  of  contracting  leagues  and  friendships 
 by  eating  and  drinking  at  the  same  table,  he 
 deduces  the  practice  of  feasting  upon  the  sacri- 
 fice, and  thence  concludes  this  to  be  the  very 
 essence  and  origin  of  the  rite,  he  seems  to  have 
 taken  a  course  directly  opposite  to  the  true  one ; 
 inasmuch  as,  in  the  first  sacrifices,  no  part  being 
 reserved,  it  was  not  until  long  after  the  establish- 
 ment of  the  rite,  when  many  were  invited  to 
 partake  in  the  sacrifice,  that  feasting  became  con- 
 nected with  the  ceremony;  and  having  thus  ac- 
 quired a  sacred  import  by  association,  it  was 
 probably  transferred  to  compacts  and  covenants 
 amongst  men,  to  bestow  solemnity  upon  the  act. 
 See  Scrip.  Ace.  of  Sacr,  postsc.  p.  33. — Who- 
 ever wishes  to  see  a  full  and  perfect  refutation  of 
 this  theory  of  Dr  Sykes,  may  ponsult  the  2nd 
 appendix  of  Dr.  Richie's  Criticism  upon  modern 
 notions  of  Sacrifice, 
 
 It  must  indeed  be  confessed,  that  names  of 
 still  higher  authority  are  to  be  found  on,  the 
 side  of  the  opinion  which  Sykes  has  adopted. 
 jVIede  and  Cudvvorth,  in  the  course  of  their 
 respective  arguments  to  establish  the  Eucharist 
 as  2i  federal  rite,  had,  long  before  the  age  of  this 
 writer,  maintained  the  doctrine  which  he  con^- 
 tends  for;  and  in  this  they  were  followed,  and 
 their  reasonings  rejjeated  by  Dr.  Waterland,  in 
 \\i)i  Nature,    OhUmtion,    and   Efficacy  of  the 
 
FEDERAL    RITES,  25 
 
 Christian  Sacrament  considered.  The  main 
 strength  of  the  argument  is  marshalled  by  Mede 
 in  the  four  following  reasons,  which  the  reader 
 from  the  great  celebrity  of  that  writer  will  natu- 
 rally be  desirous  to  see. 
 
 *•  First,  Every  sacrl/ice,  saith  our  Saviour, 
 Mark  ix.  49.  is  salted  ivith  salt.  This  salt  is 
 called,  Levit.  ii.  13,  the  salt  of  the  covenant 
 of  God;  that  is,  a  symbol  of  the  perpetuity 
 thereof.  Now  if  the  salt,  which  seasoned  the 
 sacrifice,  were  sal  foederis  Dei,  the  salt  of  the 
 covenant  of  God,  what  was  the  sacrament  it- 
 self but  epiilnni  feeder  is,  the  feast  of  the  Cove- 
 nant?  Secondly,    Moses  calls  the   blood  of 
 
 the  burnt  offerings  and  peace  offerings,  where- 
 with he  sprinkled  the  children  of  Israel  when 
 they  received  the  Law,  The  blood  of  the  Cove- 
 nant  ivhich  the  Lord  had  made  ivith  them : 
 This  is,  saith  he,  the  hlood  of  the  Covenant 
 ivhich  the  Lord  hath  made  ivith  you,  Exod. 
 xxiv.  8. — Thirdly,  But  above  all,  this  may  most 
 evidently  be  evinced  oat  of  the  50th  psalm, 
 the  whole  argument  whereof  is  concerning  sa- 
 criiices:  there  God  saith,  verse  5.  Gather  my 
 saints  together  unto  me,  ivhich  mahe  covenant 
 with  me  by  sacrifice :  and  verse  1 6,  of  the  sa- 
 crifices of  the  wicked.  Unto  the  wiched  God 
 saith,  ivhat  hast  thou  to  do  to  declare  my  sta- 
 tutes, and  take  my  covenant  in  thy  mouth,  see- 
 ing thou  hatest  instruction,  &c. — Fourthly,    1 
 
36  SACRIFICES    CONSIDERED   AS 
 
 add  in  this  last  place,  for  a  further  confirmatiouy 
 that  when  God  was  to  make  a  covenant  with 
 Abram,  Gen.  xy.  he  commanded  him  to  offer  a 
 sacrifice,  verse  9,  Offer  unto  me  (so  it  should 
 be  turned)  a  heifer,  a  she  goat,  and  a  ram, 
 each  of  three  years  old,  a  turtle  dove,  and  a 
 young  pigeon.  All  which  he  offered  accord- 
 ingly, and  divided  them  in  the  midst,  laying 
 each  piece  or  moiety  one  against  the  other ;  and 
 when  the  sun  went  down,  God,  in  the  likeness 
 of  a  smoking  furnace  and  burning  lamp,  passed 
 hetiveen  the  pieces,  and  so  (as  the  text  says) 
 made  a  covenatit  ivith  Ahram,  saying,  IJnto  thy 
 seed  ivill  I  give  this  land,  &c.  By  which  rite 
 of  passing  hetiveen  the  parts,  God  condescended 
 to  the  manner  of  men."  The  author  then  pro- 
 ceeds to  shew,  that  this  custom  of  dividing  the 
 sacrifice  and  passing  between  the  parts  was  usual 
 with  the  Gentiles,  and  not  unknown  among  the 
 Jews:  and  upon  the  whole  concludes,  as  a 
 matter  decisively  established,  that  sacrifices  were 
 in  their  nature  and  essence  "  federal  feasts, 
 wherein  God  deigneth  to  entertain  man  to  eat 
 and  drink  with  or  before  him,  in  token  of  favour 
 and  reconcilement."  (fVorhs  of  Joseph  3Iede, 
 p.  170—172.) 
 
 The  o])inions  and  arguments  of  a  divine  so 
 Jearned,  and  a  reasoner  so  profound,  as  Joseph 
 Mede,  should  not  be  a})proached  but  with  re- 
 yerence:  yet  upon  close  examination  it  must  be 
 
FEDERAL   RITES,  2/ 
 
 evident  that  this  great  man  has  here  arrived  at  r 
 conclusion  not  warranted  by  his  premises.     For^, 
 as  to  his  first  argument,  it  manifestly  proves  no 
 more  than  this,  that  the  Jewish  sacrifices^  which 
 were  all  offered  under  and  in  reference  to   the 
 covenant  which   God  had   originally  made  with 
 the    Jews,    (Lev.   ii.    13.  and  Ex.    xxiv.)    were 
 always  accompanied  with  that  which  was  con- 
 sidered to  be  a  symbol  of  the  perpetuity  of  that 
 covenant.     In  this  there  was  evidently  nothing 
 federal,  nothing  which  marked  the  entering  into 
 a  present  covenant,  or  even  the  renewing  of  an 
 old  one,    but   simply   a  significant  and  forcible 
 assurance  of  the  faithfulness  of  that  great  Being 
 with  whom  the  national   covenant  of  the  Jews 
 J)ad  been  originally  entered  into. 
 
 If  this  reasoning  be  just,  and  I  apprehend  it 
 cannot  be   controverted,    the  whole  strength  of 
 the  cause  is  gone:  for  the  remaining  arguments, 
 although  they   undoubtedly  establish  this,    that 
 some    sacrifices   were   of  the   nature    of  federal 
 rites,  yet  they  establish   no  more:  so  that  the 
 general   nature   of  sacrifice   remains    altogether 
 unaffected.     In   those  cases  also,  where   the  sa- 
 erince  appears  to  have  had  a  federal  aspect,  the? 
 true  state   of  the  matter   is  probably  this,    that 
 where  there  was  a  covenant  there  was  a  sacrifice 
 also  to  give  solemnity  and  obligation  to  the  co- 
 venant,   sacrifice  being  the  most  solenm  act  of 
 devotion^    and  therefore   naturally   to   be  callecj 
 
28  BISHOP  warburton's  theory 
 
 in  for  the  enforcement  of  the  rehgious  obseiTance 
 of  any  compact  engaged  in.  Thus^  the  sacrifice 
 being  but  the  accompaniment  of  the  covenant,  does 
 not  necessarily  partake  of  its  nature.  In  other 
 words,  although  it  be  admitted,  that  where  there 
 was  a  covenant  there  was  also  a  sacrifice;  it 
 by  no  means  follows,  that  wherever  there  was  a 
 sacrifice  there  was  also  a  covenant.  That  some 
 sacrifices  therefore  had  a  federal  relation,  proves 
 nothing  as  to  the  nature  of  sacrifice  in  general: 
 and  the  conclusion,  which  we  had  before  arrived 
 at,  remains,  consequently,  unshaken  by  the  rea- 
 sons which  have  been  adduced  by  Mede. — 
 Bishop  Pearce's  Tico  Letters  to  Dr.  IFaterland 
 may  be  read  with  advantage  upon  this  subject, 
 although  they  contain  many  particulars  in  which 
 the  reflecting  reader  will  probably  not  concur. 
 
 NO.    L. —  BISHOP   W^ARBURTOn's    THEORY    OF   THE 
 ORIGIN    OF    SACRIFICE. 
 
 Page  44.  ('^) — Bishop  Warburton  (Div.  Leg, 
 B.  ix.  ch.  2.)  represents  the  whole  of  sacrifice 
 as  symbolical.  The  offerings  of  first  fruits  he 
 holds  to  be  an  action  expressive  of  gratitude 
 ?.nd  homage:  and  in  this  way  Vie  accounts  for 
 the  origin  of  such  sacrifices  as  were  eucharistic. 
 But,  aware  of  the  insulhciency  of  the  theory, 
 which  places  the  entire  system  of  sacrifice  on 
 the  ground  of  gifts^  he  proceeds  to  explain  the 
 
OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  SACRIFICE.  529 
 
 nature  of  expiatory  sacrifice  in  the  manner  de- 
 scribed in  the  page  to  which  this  Number 
 refers. 
 
 It  is  to  be  lamented,  that  an   ingenious  wri- 
 ter,  of  whom   I   have  had   occasion  in  another 
 place  to  speak  in  terms  of  commendation,  should, 
 in  his  view  of  the  Bishop's  opinions   upon  this 
 subject^  have  permitted  himself  to  give  support 
 to  that,  which  is  certainly  not  among  the  most 
 tenable  of  his   Lordship's  notions ;  namely,  the 
 idea  of  the  human  origin  of  sacrifice.    This  too 
 (though  probably  not  so  intended  by  the  author,) 
 has  been  done  in  a  way  which  has  a  powerful  ten- 
 dency to  mislead  the  unwary  reader:  the  professed 
 object  being  to  exhibit  an  impartial  enumeration 
 of  the  arguments  on  both  sides  of  the  question, 
 whilst  in  truth  a  preponderating  weight  has  been 
 studiously  cast  in  favour  of  one.     I  allude  to  Mr, 
 Pearsons  critical  Essay ;  in  the  ivth  section  of 
 which,  the  reasonings  of  Spencer  and  Warburton 
 in  defence  of  the  heathenish  origin  and  subsequent 
 divine  adoption  of  the  rite  of  sacrifice,  are  treated 
 with  a  complacency,  which  they  but  ill  deserve. 
 The  reasonings  themselves,  as  they  are  elsewhere 
 in  this  work  largely  considered,  I  shall  not  here 
 stop  to  consider. 
 
{     30     ) 
 
 ^0.  LI. — THE  SUPPOSITION  THAT  SACRIFICES  ORIGI- 
 NATED   IN  THE  IDEA  OF  GIFTS,    ERRONEOUS. 
 
 Page  44.  (^). — Dr.  Rutherforth,  in  a  com- 
 munication to  Dr.  Kennicot,  collects  from  Gen. 
 iv.  20.  that  the  introduction  of  'property^  or 
 exclusive  right,  amongst  mankind,  is  not  to  be 
 fixed  higher  than  the  time  of  Jabal,  the  eighth 
 from  Adam.  He  is  there  said  to  have  been  the 
 father,  or  first  inventor,  of  H^pD:  that  is,  says 
 Rutherforth,  not,  as  we  translate  it,  the  father 
 of  such  as  have  cattle,  (for  he  was  clearly  not 
 the  first  of  such,  Abel  having  been  a  keeper  of 
 sheep  long  before,)  but  of  private  property; 
 the  word  T^^U  signifying  strictly  possession  of 
 any  sort,  and  being  so  rendered  in  the  Syriac 
 version.  (Kennic.  Tico  Dissert.  App.  p.  252 — 
 254.)  In  addition  to  this  it  may  be  remarked, 
 that  the  word  r\:ipt:i  seems  to  have  been  applied 
 to  cattle,  merely  because  cattle  were,  in  the 
 earliest  ages,  the  only  kind  of  possession;  and 
 that  when  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  to  de- 
 termine the  word  to  that  application,  it  can  be 
 considered  only  in  its  original  and  proper  sense^, 
 namely  possession. 
 
 But  whether  this  idea  be  right  or  not,  it  is 
 obvious,  that  a  community  of  goods  must  have 
 for  some  time  prevailed  in  the  world ;   and  that 
 
NOT  THE  ORIGIN    OF    SACRIFICE.  31 
 
 consequently  the  very  notion  of  a  gift,  and  all 
 experience  of  its  effect  upon  men,  must  have 
 been  for  a  length  of  time  unloiovvn.  And  if  the 
 opinion  be  right,  that  sacrifice  existed  before 
 Abel,  and  was  coeval  with  the  fall;  it  becomes  yet 
 more  manifest,  that  observation  of  the  efficacy  of 
 gifts  could  not  have  given  birth  to  the  practice^ 
 there  being  no  subjects  in  the  world  upon  which 
 Adam  could  make  such  observation.  Besides,  as 
 Kennicot  remarks,  {Two  Diss,  p.  207.)  "  no 
 being  has  a  right  to  the  lives  of  other  beings,  but 
 the  Creator,  or  those  on  whom  he  confers  that 
 right" ;  if  then  God  had  not  given  Abel  such  a 
 right,  (and  that  he  did  not  confer  it  even  for  die 
 purposes  of  necessary  food,  will  appear  from  the 
 succeeding  Number,)  even  the  existence  of  the 
 notion  of  property,  and  the  familiar  use  and  ex- 
 perience of  gifts,  could  not  have  led  him  to  take 
 away  the  life  of  the  animal  as  a  gift  to  the  Al- 
 mighty ;  nor,  if  they  could  have  done  so,  can  we 
 conceive,  that  such  an  offering  would  have  been 
 graciously  accepted. 
 
 NO.  LU. — ON  THE    DATE    OP  THE    PERMISSION    OF 
 ANIMAL  FOOD  TO  MAN, 
 
 Page  44.  (^) — The  permission  of  animal  food 
 evidently  appears  from  Scripture  to  take  its  date 
 from  the  age  of  Noah  :  the  express  grant  cf  ani- 
 
5?  DATE    OF    THE    PERMISSION 
 
 mal  food  then  made,  clearly  evincing  that  it  was 
 not  in  use  before.  This  opinion  is  not  only 
 founded  in  the  obvious  sense  of  the  passage  Gen. 
 ix.  3.  but  has  the  support  of  commentators,  the 
 most  distinguished  for  their  learning  and  candid 
 investigation  of  the  sacred  text.*  But,  as  in- 
 genious refinements  have  been  employed  to  tor- 
 ture away  the  plain  and  du'ect  sense  of  Scrip- 
 ture upon  this  head,  it  becomes  necessary  to 
 take  a  brief  review  of  the  arguments  upon  the 
 question. 
 
 Two  grants  were  made  ;  one  to  Adam,  and  one 
 to  Noah.  To  Adam  it  was  said,  Gen.  i.  29,  30. 
 Behold,  I  have  given  t/ou  every  herb  hearing 
 seed,  ivhich  is  upofi  the  face  of  all  the  earth ; 
 and  eve?!/  tree,  in  the  ivhich  is  the  fruit  of  a 
 tree,  hearing  seed,  to  you  it  shall  he  for  meat  ; 
 and  to  every  beast  of  the  earth,  and  to  every 
 fowl  of  the  air,  and  to  every  thing  that  creepeth 
 upon  the  earth,  ivherein  there  is  life,  I  have 
 given  every  green  herb  for  meat.  Again,  to 
 Noah  it  is  said,  Gen.  ix.  3.  Every  moving 
 thing  that  liveth  shall  be  meat  for  you ;    even 
 
 AS  THE  GREEN  HERB  HAVE  I  GIVEN  YOU  ALL 
 
 THINGS.     Now,  whilst  the  obvious  inference  from 
 the  former  of  these  passages    is,  that  God's  ori- 
 
 *  See  Munst.  Vatah.  Clar.  Grot,  and  Le  Clerc.  on  Gen. 
 ix.  3.  also  Shuckf.  Connect,  vol.  i.  p.  SI.  and  Kennk.  7W 
 Diss.  p.  70. 
 
OF   ANIMAL    rOOD.  33 
 
 ginal  grant  of  the  use  of  bis  creatures  for  food, 
 was  confined  to  the  vegetable  creation ;  the  con- 
 clusion to  be  drawn  from  the  latter  is  found  to 
 be  precisely  similar,  inasmuch  as,  had  animal 
 food  been  before  permitted  for  the  use  of  man, 
 there  had  been  no  occasion  for  the  specific  grant 
 to  that  purpose  now  made  to  Noah.  And,  in 
 perfect  agreement  with  this  reasoning,  we  find 
 the  Scripture  history  of  the  period  antecedent  to 
 the  flood,  entirely  silent  concerning  the  use  of 
 animal  food. 
 
 Dr.  Sykes,  however,  can  see  nothing  in  the 
 first  grant  to  Adam,  "  but  a  general  declaration 
 of  a  suflicient  provision  for  all  creatures;"  nor  in 
 the  second  to  Noah,  "  but  a  command  to  slay  be- 
 fore they  ate  flesh :"  flesh  having  from  the  first 
 been  used  for  food.  (Essay ^  &c,  pp.  177,  178.) 
 In  support  of  these  extraordinary  positions,  he 
 employs  arguments  not  less  extraordinary. 
 
 1.  He  contends,  that  the  former  grant  is 
 necessarily  to  be  understood  with  certain  limi- 
 tations ;  for  that,  as  some  creatures  were  not 
 formed  for  living  on  herbs,  and  some  herbs 
 were  of  a  poisonous  quality,  the  grant  cannot 
 be  supposed  to  extend  to  every  green  herb;  and 
 hence  he  infers,  that  the  grant  cannot  be  inter- 
 preted as  enjoining  or  prohibiting  any  particular 
 species  of  food;  and  that  consequently  animal 
 food  may  be  included,  (p.  169 — 171.)  But  ir^ 
 *eems  rather  a  strange  inference,  even  admitting 
 
 VOL.   II.  D 
 
34  DATE    OF   THE    PERMISSION 
 
 the  existence  of  noxious  vegetables  at  the  time 
 of  the  grant,  that  because  it  must  in  propriety- 
 be  limited  to  a  certain  description  of  the  things 
 generally  permitted,  it  might  therefore  be  ex- 
 tended to  a  class  of  things  never  once  named; 
 or  that,  because  a  full  power  w^as  given  to 
 man  over  all  herbs,  to  take  of  them  as  he 
 pleased  for  food,  whilst  some  would  not  answer 
 for  that  purpose,  the  dominion  given  was  not 
 therefore  to  relate  to  herbs,  but  generally  to 
 all  thiJigs,  that  might  serve  for  human  sus- 
 tenance. 
 
 But  2.  he  maintains,  that,  at  all  events,  this 
 erant  of  herb  and  tree  for  the  food  of  man, 
 does  not  exclude  any  other  sort  of  food,  which 
 might  be  proper  for  him.  And  to  establish 
 this,  he  endeavours  to  shew  (p.  I?!"'!/!-) 
 that  the  declaration  to  Noah  did  not  contain 
 a  grant  to  eat  animal  food  in  general,  but  only 
 some  particular  sorts  of  it,  such  as  are  included 
 in  the  word  t:*D"),  by  which  he  understands  creep- 
 ing things,  or  such  animals  as  are  not  com- 
 prehended under  the  denominations  of  beast 
 and  fowl ;  so  that,  admitting  this  to  be  a  grant 
 of  something  new,  it  was  yet  by  no  means  in- 
 consistent with  the  supposition,  that  sheep, 
 oxen,  goats,  and  such  like  animals  had  been 
 eaten  from  the  first.  Now,  this  directly  con- 
 tradicts his  former  argument.  For  if,  as  that 
 maintains^  the  grant  to  Adam  was  but  a  general 
 
OF   ANIMAL   FOOD.  S5 
 
 declaration  of  abundant  ])rovision,  and  conse- 
 quently leaving  man  at  full  liberty  to  use  all 
 creatures  for  food,  why  introduce  a  permission 
 at  this  time  respecting  a  particular  species  of 
 creatures  ? 
 
 But  besides,  t:'D"i  does  not  imply  a  particu- 
 lar species  of  animals,  but  denotes  all,  of  what- 
 ever kind,  that  move.  That  this  is  the  true 
 acceptation  of  the  word  may  be  collected  from 
 Cocceius,  and  Schindler,  as  well  as  Nachma- 
 nides,  (who  is  quoted  by  Fagius,  Crit,  Sac,  on 
 Gen.  i.  29.)  and  the  several  authorities  in  Poles 
 Syn,  on  Gen.  xix.  3:  and  so  manifest  does  it 
 appear  from  the  original  in  various  instances, 
 that  it  requires  no  small  degree  of  charity,  not 
 to  believe^  that  Dr.  Sykes  has  wilfully  closed 
 iiis  eyes  against  its  true  meaning.  His  words 
 are  particularly  deserving  of  remark.  ''  Through^ 
 out  the  law  of  Moses,  it  is  certain,  that  it  (pryi) 
 never  takes  in,  or  includes,  beasts  of  the  earth, 
 or  birds  of  the  air,  but  a  third  species  of  animals 
 different  from  the  other  two;"  and  this  third 
 species  he  conjectures  to  be,  "  all  such,  either 
 iish  or  reptiles,  that  not  having  feet  glide  along." 
 (p.  173.)  Now  the  direct  contrary  of  all  this  is 
 certain:  and  had  Dr.  Syke^,  in  his  accurate 
 survey  of  the  entire  law  of  Moses,  but  allowed 
 his  eye  to  glance  on  the  words  contained  in 
 Gen.  vii.  21.  he  probably  would  not  have  been 
 quite   so   peremptory.      All   flesh    died,    that 
 
 D  2 
 
S6  DATE    OF    THE    PERMISSION 
 
 moveth  (puri)  upon  the  earth;  both  of  fowl , 
 and  of  cattle,  and  of  beast,  and  of  evert/  creep- 
 ing  t  hi  fig  (yiw)  that  creepeth  (\n::^n)  upon  the 
 earth.  Here  the  creeping  things  are  specially 
 named,  and  included,  together  with  all  other 
 creatures,  under  the  general  word  ^^1T\,  And  it 
 is  particularly  deserving  of  notice,  that  in  the 
 xith  ch.  of  Levit.  in  which  the  different  species 
 of  animals  are  accurately  pointed  out,  those 
 that  are  properly  called  creeping  things,  are 
 mentioned  no  less  than  eleven  times,  and  in 
 every  instance  expressed  by  the  word  \iv :  and 
 yet  from  this  very  chapter,  overlooking  these 
 numerous  and  decisive  instances.  Dr.  Sykes 
 quotes,  in  support  of  his  opinion,  the  use  of 
 the  word  ^m  in  the  two  following  verses:  Nei- 
 ther shall  you  defile  yourselves  tvith  any  rnan- 
 ner  of  creeping  thing  (ynt^;)  that  moveth  {^nri) 
 upon  the  earth,  verse  44.— And  again,  this  is 
 the  law  of  the  beasts,  and  of  the  fowls,  and 
 of  every  living  creature  that  moveth  {t^uxi)  in 
 the  iraters,  verse  46.  Here,  because  the  word 
 t'Dl,  which  is  a  description  of  all  moving  things, 
 (as  has  been  shewn  above  and  may  be  proved 
 from  various  other  instances, — see  Jenn.  Jew, 
 Antiq,  vol.  i.  p.  306.)  is  found  connected  with 
 reptiles  and  tishes,  it  is  at  once  pronounced  to 
 be  appropriate  to  them  notwithstanding  that 
 llirougli  the  entire  chapter,  whose  object  it  is 
 carefully  to  distinguish   the  different   kinds   of 
 
OF    ANIMAL    FOOD.  37 
 
 animals,  it  is  never  once  used  in  the  numerous 
 passages   referring   specially   to   the    reptile   and 
 fishy  tribes  as  their  proper  appellation,    and  is 
 translated  in  these  two  verses  by  the  LXX  in 
 its  true  generic  sense,  ycivufjiBvog,  that  moveth.    So 
 that  Dr.  Sykes  might  with  as  good  reason  have 
 inferred,  that,   because  creeping  things  are  occa- 
 sionally called  living  creatureSy  living  creatui-es 
 must  consequently  mean  creeping  things.  To  say 
 the  truth,    if  Dr.   Sykes  had   been   desirous    to 
 discover  a    part   of   Scripture,    completely    sub- 
 versive of  his  interpretation  of  the  word  ^D'tD^  he 
 could  not  have  made  a  happier  selection,  than  the 
 very  chapter  of  Leviticus,  to  which  he  has  referred. 
 But,  to  leave  no  doubt,  that  the  grant  made 
 to  Noah  was  a  permission  for  the  first  time  of 
 animal  food,  we  find   an  express  description  of 
 the  manner  in  which  Ihis  sort  of  food  was  to  be 
 used,    immediately    subjoined:    But  flesh    with 
 the  life    thereof^    which    is   the   blood   thereof, 
 shall  ye  not  eat.     Now,  if  animal  food  had  been 
 before  in  use,  this  injunction  seems  unaccount- 
 able, unless  on  the  supposition,  that  it  had  been 
 the  practice,    before  the   flood,    to  feed  on  the 
 flesh  of  animals  that  had  not  been  duly  killed 
 for    the    purpose;    and    Dr.    Sykes's    argument, 
 which   maintains,    that    this  prohibition   merely 
 tended   to  prevent  the  eating  such   animals   as 
 died    of  themselves,    or  the    eating  the  animal 
 without  having  duly  killed  it,  must  rest  entirely 
 
 D  3 
 
.38  DATE    OF   THE    PERMISSION 
 
 on  the  presumption,  that  such  had  been  the 
 practice  before.  But  on  what  ground  he  has 
 assumed  this,  he  has  not  thought  proper  to  in- 
 form us:  and  the  certainty,  that,  before  the  flood, 
 animals  were  hilled  for  sacrifice,  seems  not  con- 
 sistent with  the  supposition.  It  is  curious  to 
 observe,  that  this  aigument  adduced  by  Sykes, 
 falls  in  with  one  of  the  strange  conceits  of  the 
 Jewish  Rabbins:  it  being  a  tradition  of  theirs, 
 that  there  were  seven  precepts,  handed  down 
 by  the  sons  of  Noah  to  their  posterity,  six  of 
 which  had  been  given  to  Adam,  and  the  seventh 
 Vvas  this  to  Noah,  ''  about  not  eating  flesh, 
 which  was  cut  from  any  animal  alive.'*  See 
 Patrick" s  Preface  to  Job — also  Jennings's  Jeiv. 
 Antiq.  vol.  i.  p.  147. 
 
 It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  argu- 
 ments, of  a  nature  widely  diflferent  from  these 
 of  Sykes,  have  been  urged  in  opposition  to  the 
 interpretation  of  the  several  grants  to  Adam, 
 and  to  Noah,  contended  for  in  this  note.  Hei- 
 degger, in  his  Historia  Patriarch.  Exercit.  xv. 
 §.  9.  vol.  i.  maintains,  that  the  passage,  Gen.  i, 
 29,  30.  is  to  be  thus  translated :  Behold,  I  have 
 given  you  every  herb  hearing  seed,  &c.  (to  you 
 it  shall  he  for  meat)  ;  nay  also,  every  beast 
 of  the  earth,  and  every  Jowl  of  the  earth,  and 
 every  thing  that  creepeth  vpon  the  earth  where- 
 in there  is  life,  with  every  green  herb  for 
 meat  This  translation  he  defends,  on  the 
 ground  of  the  occasional  use  of  the  preposition 
 
OF    ANIMAL    FOOD.  39 
 
 h,  in  the  inclusive,  or  copulative,  sense ;  whence 
 he  holds  himself  justified  in  explaining  it  here, 
 as  the  mark  of  the  accusative,  not  of  the  dative 
 case.  In  support  of  this  acceptation,  he  also 
 produces  some  names  highly  distinguished  in  the 
 annals  of  sacred  criticism,  viz.  Capellus,  Coc- 
 ceius,  and  Bochart.  And  to  reconcile  this  in- 
 terpretation with  the  grant  to  Noah,  which  seems 
 inconsistent  with  the  idea,  that  the  right  to  ani- 
 mal food  had  been  conveyed  before  the  time  of 
 that  patriarch,  he  considers  this  second  grant 
 but  as  a  repetition  of  the  first  to  Adam,  and 
 that  the  words,  ei^en  as  the  green  herb  have  1 
 given  you  all  things,  are  not  to  be  understood^ 
 as  conveying  now,  for  the  first  time,  a  right  to 
 the  use  of  all  creatures,  similar  to  that  which 
 had  been  before  granted  with  respect  to  the 
 herbs  and  fruits,  but  merely  as  confirming  the 
 grant  formerly  made,  of  the  green  herb  and  of 
 all  living  creatures,  without  distinction. 
 
 Now,  although  the  particle  b,  is  used  in  some 
 few  parts  of  Scripture,  in  the  sense  here  as- 
 cribed to  it  by  Heidegger,  yet  if  we  examine 
 the  instances  in  which  it  is  so  applied,  (all  of 
 which  may  be  seen  at  one  view  in  Noldius 
 Concord,  Particul.  Ehr,  pp.  398.  401. )  we  shall 
 find,  that  it  stands  in  those  cases  comoined  and 
 related  in  such  manner  as  to  give  a  new  mo- 
 dification to  its  general  and  ordinary  meaning. 
 But  surely,  in  the  present  case,  no  such  modi- 
 
 D  4 
 
40      .  DATE    OF   THE    PERMISSION 
 
 fying  relation  exists.  On  the  contrary,  the  very- 
 frame  and  analogy  of  the  sentence,  seem  to  de- 
 termine the  word  to  its  usual  dative  signification. 
 Having  occurred  twice  in  the  29th  verse,  and 
 in  both  places  manifestly  in  this  sense,  (d::^  to 
 you,)  it  then  immediately  follows  in  direct  con- 
 nexion, and  this  connexion  marked  most  un- 
 equivocally by  the  copulative  particle  %  i^^ihS)  so 
 as  to  determine  unavoidably  the  continuance  of 
 its  application  in  the  same  sense.  The  word 
 mK,  likewise,  succeeds  to  the  clauses  enumerat- 
 ing the  animal  tribes  in  the  30th  verse,  precisely 
 in  the  same  manner,  in  which  it  followed  that 
 relating  to  the  human  kind,  in  the  preceding 
 verse:  and  as,  there,  it  is  admitted  to  be  the 
 mark  of  the  accusative,  specifying  the  things 
 allotted  to  the  sustenance  of  the  human  species; 
 so  here,  it  is  evidently  to  be  used  in  the  same 
 sense,  specifying  those  things  that  are  appointed 
 for  the  support  of  the  hrute  creation.  This 
 analogy,  however,  Heidegger  is  compelled  by 
 his  interpretation  to  overturn ;  and  whilst  he 
 allows  to  the  word  this  signification  through  the 
 whole  of  the  preceding  verse,  he  here  abruptly 
 and  arbitrarily  changes  its  application,  and  attri- 
 butes to  it  the  force  of  with,  which  is  necessary 
 to  make  sense  of  the  passage,  according  to  his 
 mode  of  translating  it. 
 
 How  then  does  the  matter  stand?  In  two  pas- 
 sages   exactly   corresponding,    and   immediately 
 
OF    ANIMAL    FOOD,  41 
 
 connected,   the  preposition  by    and  the  particle 
 T^^,   are  arbitrarily  appUed  in  different  senses, 
 to  make  out  the  translation  of  Heidegger:  whilst 
 •on   the    commonly    received  interpretation,    the 
 analogy  is  preserved  throughput,  and  the  same 
 uniform  meaning   is  attributed   to  each  particle 
 in   the   corresponding   clauses.     Indeed  the  ver- 
 sion  contended    for   by   Heidegger  is  upon   the 
 whole  so  violent  and  unnatural,  that  it  requires 
 but  to  read  the  passage  in  the  original,  to  be 
 convinced  that   it  is  inadmissible;  and  perhaps 
 nothing  but  the  respectability  of  the  names  that 
 appear  in  its  support,    could  justify   its  serious 
 investigation.      One    advantage    however    mani- 
 festly attends  the  notice  of  it  in  the  present  dis- 
 cussion.     It  proves    that  the    learned    writers, 
 who  defend  this  interpretation,  consider  the  com- 
 monly received  version  as  utterly  irreconcileable 
 with   the   notion,  that  the  first  grant  to  Adam 
 conveyed  the  permission  of  animal   food.     For 
 if  any  of  the  arguments  used  by  Dr.  Sykes,  and 
 others,  to  shew  that  it  could  be  so  understood, 
 were  deemed  by  these  writers  to  have  any  value, 
 they  surely  would  not  have  resorted  to  this  new 
 and  unwarrantable  translation  in  support  of  that 
 position. 
 
 In  addition  to  what  has  been  said,  it  may  be 
 proper  to  remark,  that  this  new  version  of  Gen. 
 i.  29,  30.  is  so  far  from  receiving  any  coun- 
 tenance from  the  Jewish  writers;  that  they  are 
 
43  DATE    OF   THE    PERMISSION 
 
 nearly  unanimous  in  the  opinion,  that  the  right 
 of  eating  flesh  was  not  granted,  until  the  time 
 of  Noah.  See  particularly  Aboiezra,  and  SoL 
 Jarchi,  in  their  annotations  on  this  part  of 
 Scripture.  Heidegger  also  confesses,  that  the 
 Christian  Fathers,  nearly  without  exception, 
 concur  in  the  same  opinion.  Hist.  Patriarch, 
 Exercit.  xv.  §.  3. 
 
 Objections  however,  are  drawn  from  the  his- 
 tory of  Abel's  sacrifice ;  and  from  the  distinction 
 of  animals  into  clean  and  unclean,  antecedent  to 
 the  flood.  It  is  said,  that  Abel's  sacrifice  hav- 
 ing been  of  the  firstlings  of  his  flock,  and  it 
 never  having  been  customary  to  offer  any  thing 
 to  God,  but  w  hat  was  useful  to  man,  it  may  fairly 
 be  concluded,  that  animals  were  used  for  food  even 
 in  the  time  of  Abel.  Heideg,  Hist,  Patr.  Exer, 
 XV.  §.  25. — To  this  the  reply  is  obvious:  that 
 the  principle  here  laid  down  is  accommodated 
 to  particular  theories  of  sacrifice:  to  such  as 
 place  their  origin  and  virtue  in  the  notion  of 
 a  gift  to  the  Deity,  or  of  a  self  denial  on  the 
 part  of  the  oflferer;  and  therefore  the  argument 
 presupposes  the  very  thing  in  question,  namely 
 the  origin  and  nature  of  sacrifice.  But,  besides, 
 the  conclusion  will  not  follow,  even  admitting 
 the  principle;  since  Abel's  flock  might  be  kept 
 for  the  advantages  of  the  milk  and  wool,  and 
 thus  what  he  offered  was  useful  to  himself.  Nor 
 to  this  can  it  reasonably  be  objected,    that  by 
 
OF   ANIMAL    FOOD,  4^ 
 
 the  practice  of  the  law,  the  male  firstlings  were 
 offered,  and  that  therefore  Abel's  offering  could 
 have  deprived  him  only  of  the  wool,  the  use  of 
 which  might  not  yet  have  been  learned :  for  it 
 cannot  with  propriety  be  contended,  that  the 
 first  and  more  simple  form  of  sacrifice  should  be 
 explained  by  the  usages  of  succeeding  and  far 
 distant  times,  and  by  the  complicated  system  of 
 the  law  of  Moses. 
 
 But  again  it  is  urged,  that  the  distinction  of 
 creatures  into  clean  and  unclean  (Gen.  vii.  2.) 
 proves  animal  food  to  have  been  in  use  before 
 the  deluge,  inasmuch  as  such  distinction  can  be 
 conceived  only  in  reference  to  food.  To  this 
 it  has  been  answered  by  Grotius,^^  that  the  dis- 
 tinction was  made  proleptically,  as  being  ad^ 
 dressed  by  Moses  to  those,  who  were  familiar 
 with  this  distinction  afterwards  made  by  the  law : 
 and  again^  by  Jennings,  (Jew.  Antiq.  vol.  i.  p, 
 151.)  that  such  a  distinction  would  naturally  be 
 made,  from  the  difference  observed  to  exist  be- 
 tween the  animals,  without  any  reference  to 
 food;  or  that,  though  the  tise  of  them  for  food 
 were  held  in  view,  the  distinction  might  have 
 been  first  made,  at  the  time  of  entering  the  ark, 
 when  we  find  it  lirst  mentioned,  and  a  greater 
 number  of  those  that  were  most  fit  for  food  then 
 
 '    *  Be  Vcr.  Chr.  Rel.  lib.  v.  §.  9.— see  also  Spencer  Dc 
 Leg,  Uebr.  lib.  i.  cap.  v.  §.  1. 
 
44  DATE    OF   THE   PERiMlSSION 
 
 preserved;,  merely  because  God  intended  to  per- 
 mit the  use  of  them  in  a  very  short  time.     But 
 reasonable  as  these   answers   may  appear,    may 
 it  not  be  thought  more  satisfactory,  to  consider 
 this  distinction  as  relating  originally,  not  to  food, 
 but   to    sacrifice:    those   creatures,    which   were 
 sanctified    to    the   service   and  worship   of  God, 
 being  considered  pure;    whilst  those,  that  were 
 rejected  from  the  sacrificial  service,  were  deemed 
 unfit  for  sacred  uses,  or  unclean ;  and  agreeably 
 to  this  idea,  the  word  denoting  unclean  through- 
 out the  law,  NDD,  is  put  in  opposition  not  only 
 to  n»TL:,  clean,  but  to  wip,  holt/*     The  distinc- 
 tion then  of  clean  and  unclean  animals  before 
 the  flood,    is  admissible  upon    the  principle  of 
 the   divine  institution,    or   even  of  the  existing 
 practice    of    sacrifice,     without    supposing    the 
 permission  of  animal  food   before  the   time   of 
 Noah. 
 
 In  conformity  with  the  above  reasonings  we 
 find  the  first  use  to  which  this  distinction  is  ap- 
 plied in  Scripture,  is  that  of  sacrifice;  Noah 
 having  taken  of  everij  clean  least,  and  of  every 
 clean  fowl,  and  offered  lurnt  offerings,^  (Gen, 
 viii.  20.)  Besides  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that 
 the  distinction  into   clean  and  unclean  with  re- 
 
 *  See  Cocceius  and  Piirkliurst  on  the  word  t^aiD. 
 +  See  Pol.  Si/nop.  on  Gen.  vii.  2.  compare  also  Gen.  xv. 
 9.  with  Jameson's  note  thereon. 
 
OF   ANIMAL   FOOD.  45 
 
 spect  to  food,  was  entirely  a  different  institution 
 from  the  distinction  into  clean  and  unclean  witli 
 respect  to  sacrifice.  (See  Patrick  and  Ainsw, 
 on  Gen.  vii.  2.)  Dr.  Kennicot's  remark  on  this 
 subject  is  deserving  of  notice.  "  Although  the 
 distinction  of  beasts  into  clean  and  unclean  was 
 not  registered  until  we  come  down  to  Deutero- 
 nomy, (xiv.  3.)  yet,"  he  says,  '^  this  is  no  reason, 
 why  we  should  not  suppose  it  introduced  by 
 God,  at  the  same  time  that  he  instituted  sacri- 
 fice: for  whoever  considers  carefully  will  find, 
 that  the  law  is  in  part  a  republication  of  ante* 
 cedent  revelations  and  commands,  long  before 
 given  to  mankind."  (Two  Dissert,  pp.  21 7, 
 218. — comp.  Aimiv,  on  Gen.  vii.  2.)  Witsius 
 considers  the  distinction  of  beasts  into  clean  and 
 unclean  so  manifestly  to  relate  to  sacrifice  in  the 
 time  of  Noah,  and  to  have  originated  from  di- 
 vine institution,  that  he  even  employs  it  as  an 
 argument^  in  support  of  the  divine  appointment 
 of  sacrifice  before  the  flood.  (Miscell.  Sacr.  lib. 
 ii.  diss.  ii.  ^.  14.)  Heidegger  also,  though  he 
 contends  for  the  use  of  animal  food  in  the  an- 
 tediluvian world,  yet  admits  the  distinction  of 
 animals  into  clean  and  unclean,  to  have  been 
 instituted  by  divine  authority,  in  reference  to 
 sacrifices,  before  the  flood.  Hist,  Patr.  Exerdt, 
 iii.  §.  52.  torn.  i. 
 
(       46       ) 
 
 ^O.    LIII. ON     THE    DIVINE    ORIGIN    OF 
 
 LANGUAGE. 
 
 Page  44.  (J) — - — "  The  first  use  of  words 
 appears  from  Scripture  to  have  heen  to  com- 
 municate the  thoughts  of  God.  But  how  could 
 this  be  done,  but  in  the  words  of  God?  and 
 how  could  man  understand  the  words  of  (lod, 
 before  he  was  taught  them  ?"  The  Apostle  has 
 told  US5  thdX  faith  comet h  hy  hearings  and  hear- 
 ing hy  the  ivord  of'  God:  thus  clearly  pro- 
 nouncing all  knowledge  of  divine  things,  and 
 consequently  all  language  relating  to  them,  to 
 have  had  its  origin  in  revelation.  But  it  is  not 
 only  with  respect  to  things  divine,  that  revela- 
 tion appears  to  have  supplied  the  first  intimations 
 of  lansua^e.  In  terms  relatingr  to  mere  human 
 concerns,  it  seems  to  have  been  no  less  the  in^ 
 structress  of  man.  For  in  what  sense  can  we  un- 
 derstand the  naming  of  every  beast  of  the  field, 
 and  every  f Old  (f  the  air,  brought  before  Adam 
 for  this  purpose  hy  God;  but  in  that  of  his  instruct- 
 ing Adam  in  the  mcinner,  whereby  they  were  in  fu- 
 ture to  be  distinguished?  To  suppose  it  otherwise, 
 and  to  imagine  that  Adam  at  the  first  was  able  to 
 impose  names  on  the  several  tribes  of  animals,  is 
 either  to  suppose,  that  he  must  from  the  first 
 have  been  able  to  distinguish  them  by  their  cha- 
 racteristic marks  and  leading  properties,  and  to 
 1 
 
LANGUAGE    DERIVED    &C.  4/ 
 
 have  distinct  notions'*  of  them  annexed  to  their 
 several  appellations;  or,  that  he  applied  sounds 
 at  random,  as  names  of  the  animals,  without  the 
 intervention  of  such  notions.     But  the  latter  is  to 
 
 *  In  speaking  of  the  necessity  of  a  distinct  notion  being 
 associated  to  each  term  indicating  a  class  or  species  it  is  not 
 meant  to  imply,  that,  to  render  generic  terms  signilicant, 
 appropriate  abstract  notions  must  be  annexed.  That  such 
 notions  cannot  be  entertained  by  the  mind;  or,  rather,  that 
 they  involve  a  contradiction  subversive  of  their  existence, 
 the  very  arguments  and  illustrations,  employed  by  Mr. 
 Locke  in  their  support  and  explanation,  are  sufficient  to 
 demonstrate.  See  particularly  Locke''s  Essaj/^  B.  iv.  ch.  vii, 
 §.  9.  It  has  been  fully  and  conclusively  established  by  that 
 most  accurate  of  metaphysical  reasoners,  Berkeley,  that  what 
 is  called  a  general  idea,  is  nothing  but  the  idea  of  an  indi. 
 vidual  object,  annexed  to  a  certain  term,  which  attaches  to  it 
 a  more  extensive  signilication,  by  recalling  to  the  mind  tho 
 ideas  of  other  individuals,  which  are  similar  to  this  one  in 
 certain  characters  or  properties.  This  explanation  of  the 
 nature  of  Uiiiversals^  which  has  been  commonly  ascribed  to 
 Bishop  Berkeley,  who  has  undoubtedly  unfolded  and  enforced 
 it  in  the  most  intelligible  and  convincing  manner,  is  however 
 of  much  earlier  origin.  The  distinction  of  Nominalist  and 
 Realist  is  known  to  have  been  clearly  marked  in  the  eleventh 
 and  twelfth  centuries,  under  the  teaching  of  Roscelin,  and 
 his  pupil  Abelard.  The  Cynics  and  Stoics  also  of  early 
 times,  maintained  opinions,  which  entitle  them  to  be  ranked 
 pf  the  former  class:  and,  contrary  to  the  assertion  of  Mr, 
 Dugald  Stewart,  who  follows  the  authority  of  Brucker  in 
 placing  Aristotle  among  the  Realists,  there  certainly  are  to 
 be  found,  in  the  writings  of  that  philosopher,  the  elements  of 
 those  just  notions  concerning  Universals,  which  have  been 
 adopted  by  the  Nominalists, 
 
48  Language  derived 
 
 suppose  a  jargon,  not  a  language:  and  the  former 
 implies  a  miraculous  operation  on  the  mind  of 
 Adam,  which  differs  nothing  in  substance  from 
 the  divine  instruction  here  contended  for. 
 
 Of  Roscelin,  we  are  told  by  Bruckerj  (Hist.  Phil.  toI.  iii, 
 p.  906.)  that  he  maintained  the  position,  "  Universalia,  nee 
 ante  rem,  nee  iu  re  existere,  nee  uUam  habere  realem  exis* 
 tentiam,  sed  esse  nuda  nomina  et  voces,  quibus  rerum  sin- 
 gularium  genera  denotentur.'*  This  opinion  of  Roscelin, 
 that  Universals  were  merely  icords  or  names^  was  strenu- 
 ously supported,  with  some  small  alteration  not  very  dis- 
 tinctly intelligible,  by  his  follower  Abelard :  and  was  no  less 
 strenuously  opposed  by  the  Realists,  who  contended,  that 
 Universals  have  an  actual  existence  in  rerum  natura,  and  that 
 their  boundaries  are  accurately  determined  by  appropriate 
 essences,  according  to  which  nature  has  classed  the  individuals 
 of  the  respective  species.  That  the  authority  of  Aristotle 
 was  erroneously  claimed  by  the  latter;  and  that,  on  tlie  con. 
 Irary,  the  views  of  the  Stagirite  were  favourable  to  the  No- 
 minalists, Dr.  Gillies  has  taken  laudable  pains  to  demonstrate. 
 In  his  valuable  Analysis  of  a  part  of  the  writings  of  that 
 philosopher,  he  has  satisfactorily  proved,  that  by  general 
 tenns^  Aristotle  meant  only  to  express,  th©  result  of  the 
 comparison  of  difibrent  individuals  agreeing  in  the  same  n^oq 
 or  appearance,  without  the  supposition  of  any  correspondent 
 general  ideas  existing  in  the  mind :  or,  in  other  words,  that 
 a  general  term  was  conceived  by  him,  to  stand  as  a  sign  for 
 a  number  of  individuals,  considered  under  the  same  aspect, 
 nnd  from  certain  resemblances  assigned  to  the  same  class. 
 See  Dr.  Gillies' s  Jristuile,  vol.  i.  p.  66™ 7^2. 
 
 How  perfectly  this  corresponds  with  the  clearest  views  of 
 
 modem  metaphysics,  is  manifest  at  a  glance:  and  it  cannot 
 
 but  afford  peculiar  satisfaction,  to  all  who  feel  a  reverence 
 
 for    exalted  genius,  to  find,  that  after  the  unworthy  dispa. 
 
 1 
 
FROM    DIVINE    INSTRUCTION.  4^ 
 
 Indeed,  even  abstracting  from  the  information 
 thus  given  in  Scripture,  those  who  have  well 
 examined  this  subject,  have  been  utterly  at  a  loss, 
 
 Vagement,  which  for  a  length  of  time  has  been  so  laboriously 
 cast  upon  the  great  name  of  Aristotle,  the  honourable  ho- 
 mage of  a  rational  coincidence  in  his  opinions,  not  merely  on 
 this,  but  on  an  almost  endless  variety  of  important  subjects^ 
 has  been  the  result  of  the  most  enlightened  enquiries  of  later 
 days.  It  has  been  singularly  the  fate  of  the  Greek  philo* 
 sopher,  to  be  at  one  time  superstitiously  venerated,  and  at 
 another  contemptuously  ridiculed ;  without  suiTicient  pains 
 taken,  either  by  his  adversaries,  or  his  admirers,  to  under- 
 stand his  meaning.  It  has  been  too  frequently  his  misfor- 
 tune, to  be  judged  from  the  opinions  of  his  followers,  rather 
 than  from  his  own.  Even  the  celebrated  Locke  is  not  to  be 
 acquitted  of  this  unfair  treatment  of  his  illustrious  prede- 
 cessor in  the  paths  of  Metaphysics:  whilst  perhaps  it  is  not 
 too  much  to  say  of  his  well  known  Essaj/,  that  there  is 
 scarcely  to  be  found  in  it,  one  valuable  and  important  truth 
 concerning  the  operations  of  the  understanding,  which  may 
 not  be  traced  in  those  writings,  against  which  he  has  directed 
 so  much  misapplied  raillery  ;  whilst,  at  the  same  time,  they 
 exhibit  many  rich  results  of  deep  thinking,  which  have  en- 
 tirely escaped  his  perspicacity.  Indeed,  it  may  be  generally 
 pronounced  of  those,  who  have,  within  the  two  last  centuries, 
 been  occupied  in  the  investigation  of  the  intellectual  powers 
 of  man,  that  had  they  studied  Aristotle  more,  and  (what 
 would  have  followed  as  a  necessary  consequence)  reviled  hinx 
 less,  they  would  have  been  more  successful  in  their  endea. 
 Tours  to  extend  the  sphere  of  human  knowledge. 
 
 To  return  to  the  subject  of  this  note, — it  must  be  observed, 
 that  to  the  two  dilFerent  and  opposite  opinioiis  on  tlie  nature 
 Of  Universals  already  alluded  to,  namely  that  of  the  Nomi- 
 nalists^ and  that  of  the  Realists^  there  is  to  be  added  a  third 
 
 VOL.  n.  E 
 
50  LANGUAGE    DERIVED 
 
 to  conceive  any  other  origin  of  language,  than  di- 
 vine institution.  Whitby  considers  this  so  com- 
 pletely evident,  that  he  thinks  it  forms  in  itself 
 
 and  intermediate  one,  that  of  the  Concepiualisis^  so  called 
 from  their  distinguishing  tenet,  that  the  mind  has  the  power 
 of  forming  general  co2iceptions  by  abstraction :  This  sect  is 
 represented  by   13rucker,    as  a  modiiication  of  that  of  the 
 Nominalists.     "  Nominales,   deserta   paiilo   Abelardi  hypo, 
 thesi,  universalia  in  notionibus,  atque  conceptibus  mentis,  ex 
 rebus  singularibus  abstractione  formatis,  consistere  statuebant ; 
 iinde   Conceptuales  dicti  sunt."  Hint.  Phil.  vol.  iii.  p.  908. — 
 With  this  sect  Mr.  Locke  is  ranked  by  Dr.  Reid,  (Essaijs 
 on  the  Intcll.  Pozcers,  vol.  ii.  p.  146.)  and  in  the  justness  of 
 this  allotment,  Mr.  Dugald  Stewart  acquiesces:  at  the  same 
 time  he  observes,  that,  from   the  inaccuracy  and  inconsis- 
 tency of  Mr.  Locke's   language,  there   is  no  small  diiliculty 
 in  assigning  to  him  his  true  place ;  or  rather,  indeed,  in  de- 
 termining,   whether  he   had   any    decided    opinion    on    the 
 question  in   dispute.    (Elenicnts    of  the   Philosophij    of  the 
 Human  Mind ^  pp.  191,  192.)  It,  certainly,  cannot  be  con- 
 tended, that  Locke  has  conveyed  his  meaning  upon  this  sub- 
 ject,   With    clearness,    or   consistency ;    yet    no    doubt  can 
 possibly  exi&t,    as  to   the  class,    to  which  he  properly   be- 
 longs.    His  placing  the  essences  of  the  species  altogether  in 
 the  abstract  ideas  formed  by  the  mind,  indisputably  deter- 
 mines him   to  the   standard  of  the  Conceptualist :  notwith- 
 standing   that  the    incompatibility   of   the   elements   of    his 
 abstract  idea,  (Esaaij^  B.  ii.  eh.  xi.  §.  9.  and  B.  iv.  eh.  vii* 
 §.  9.)  and  the  admitted  necessity  of  the  name,  to  bestow  upon 
 the  idea  its  unitj/,  that  is,  in  other  words,  its  existence  as  an 
 idea,  ( Essay ^  B.  iii.  ch.  v.  §.  10.)  mark  the  indistinctness  of 
 his  views  upon  this  subject;  and  ought,  if  he  had  examined 
 bis  own  notions  consequentially,  to  have  led  him  to  adopt  tUft 
 party  of  the  Nominalist. 
 
FROM    DIVINE    INSTRUCTION.  5^1 
 
 a  clear  clerrtonstration,  that  the  original  of  man- 
 kind was  as  Moses  delivered  it,  from  the  impos- 
 sibility of  giving  any  other  tolerable  account  of 
 
 From  what  has  been  said,  it  appears,  upon  the  wholo^ 
 that  the  Nominalist  and  tlie  Conccplualist,  whilst  they  concur 
 in  rejecting  the  notion  of  the  Realist,  '''  that  Universals  be- 
 long to  things,  and  that  general  terms  denote  certain  genera 
 and  species  established  in  nature  by  appropriate  essences,"— 
 at  the  same  time  diifer  from  each  other,  essentially,  in  this; 
 that  whilst  the  one  attributes  universality  s^^lely  to  terms,  and 
 the  other  to  certain  abstract  ideas  expressed  by  these  terms, 
 the  latter  admits  the  possibility  of  reasoning  on  general  sub- 
 jects without  the  mediation  of  language,  and  the  former 
 maintains  the  indispensable  necessity  of  language,  as  the  iUm 
 strument  of  thought  in  all  general  speculations. 
 
 If,  with  Bishop  Berkeley,  we  are  obliged  to  deny  the  pos- 
 sible existence  of  an  abstract  idea,  there  can  be  no  difficulty 
 in  determining,  to  which  of  these  two  opinions  we  must  yield 
 our  assent.  In  the  sign  alone,  and  in  its  potential  applica- 
 tion to  a  class  of  individual  objects,  is  universality  to  be 
 found;  and  consequently  by  language  only,  (meaning  by  this^ 
 the  use  of  signs  at  large,)  can  we  conduct  our  reasonings  one 
 single  step  beyond  the  individual  object.  There  is,  upon 
 this  subject,  an  excellent  remark  made  by  an  elegant  and 
 perspicuous  writer,  which  I  cannot  forbear  transcribing. 
 ''  Whether  it  might  not  have  been  possible  for  the  Deity  to 
 have  so  formed  us,  that  we  might  have  been  capable  of  rea- 
 soning concerning  classes  of  objects,  without  the  use  of  signs, 
 I  shall  not  take  upon  me  to  determine.  But  this  we  may- 
 venture  to  affirm  with  confidence,   that  man  is  not  such  a 
 
 being." "  It  would  be  vain  for  us,  in  enquiries  of  this 
 
 liature,  to  indulge  ourselvds  in  speculating  about  possibilities. 
 It  is  of  more  consequence  to  remark  the  advantages,  whicli 
 We  derive  from  our  actual  constitution ;  and  which,  in  the 
 
 E  2 
 
32  LANGUAGE    DER1VEI> 
 
 the  origin  of  language.  (Sermons  on  the  Attrih, 
 vol.  ii.  p.  29.)  Bishop  Williams,  in  his  2d  Ser- 
 mon^  (Boijle  Led,  vol.  i.  p.  167.)  affirms,  that 
 though  Adam  had  a  capacity  and  organs  ad- 
 mirably contrived  for  speech,  yet  in  his  case 
 there  was  a  necessity  of  his  being  immediately 
 instructed  by  God,  because  it  was  impossible  he 
 should  have  invented  speech,  and  words  to  be 
 spoken  so  soon  as  his  necessities  required.  Dr. 
 Beattie  endeavours  to  prove  the  human  invention 
 of  language  to  be  Impossible.  (Theory  of  Lang, 
 8vo.  p.  101  )  And  Doctor  Johnson  is  so  de- 
 cidedly of  this  opinion,  that  he  holds  inspiration 
 to  be  necessary  to  inform  man  that  he  has  the 
 faculty  of  speech,  ^*  vv'hich  I  think,  says  he,  he 
 could  no  m-ore  find  out  without  inspiration,  than 
 cows  or  hogs  would  think  of  such  a  faculty." 
 Mr.  Wollaston  contends,  (Relig,  of  Nat,  pp. 
 122,  123.)  that  language  is  the  indispensable  in- 
 strument^ of  thought :    and   even  Herder,    who 
 
 present  instano?,  appear  to  me  to  be  important  and  admi- 
 rable: inasmuch  as  it  fits  mankind  for  an  easy  intercliange 
 of  their  intellectual  acquisilions;  by  imposing  on  them  tha 
 necessity  of  employing,  in  their  solitary  speculations,  the 
 same  instrument  of  thought,  which  forms  the  established  me- 
 dium of  their  communications  with  each  other." — See  p.  190, 
 of  Elements  of  the  Pliilosophjj  of  the  Human  Mhid,  by. 
 Dug  aid  Stco^art. 
 
 *  In  the  preceding  note,  the  necessity  of  language,  as  the 
 ingtrument  of  thought  and  reasoning,  was  particularly  adverted 
 t#.    In  the  judgment  of  many  profound  thinkers  that  neces. 
 
FROM    DIVINE   INSTRUCTION.  53 
 
 lias  laboured  to  prove  language  not  to  have  been 
 of  divine  appointment,  admits  that  without  it  rea- 
 son cannot  be  used  by  man. 
 
 sity  is  recognized.  Lavoisier,  in  the  preface  to  his  Elements 
 of  Ckemisfri/^  expresses  his  coincidence  in  the  maxim  of 
 Coi^dillac,  that  "  we  think  only  through  the  medium  of 
 words:"  and  that  "  the  art  of  reasoning  is  nothing  more  than 
 a  language  well  arranged."  (Kerr's  translation^  p.  xiv.) 
 Plato  describes  thinking  as  conducted  by  mental  speech,  ro 
 
 S'iavon(7^ai  Xoyovy  ov  ccvrt)  'Tr^o<;  eavrvii/  *)  -^v^^v  d'tele^^HTO-t :    and  in 
 
 the  philosophy  of  the  Greeks,  reason  and  words  are  denomi- 
 nated by  one  and  the  same  term  Xoyoq.  —Now,  if  this  be  just ; 
 if  language  be,  in  truth,  the  indispensable  instrument  cf 
 reasoning ;  is  it  too  much  to  affirm,  that  language  could  not 
 have  been  discovered  bi/  reasoning ;  or,  in  other  words,  that 
 the  operations  of  reasoning  could  not  have  effected  that,  by 
 which  alone  its  operations  are  conducted  ? 
 
 According  to  the  Conceptualist  indeed,  who  holds  that  the 
 mind  can  contemplate  its  own  ideas  independently  of  words, 
 the  invention  of  language  by  the  exertion  of  thought,  is  by  no 
 means  inconceivable;  since,  on  this  hypothesis,  reasoning  may 
 j)recede  language,  and  therefore  may  minister  to  its  discovery. 
 And  yet,  when  considered  somewhat  closely,  it  may  not  per- 
 haps appear  a  very  easy  matter  to  imagine  the  practicability 
 of  such  a  process. 
 
 Reasoning,  it  is  manifest,  can  be  conducted  only  by  propo- 
 sitions, or  ailirmations,  either  verbal  or  mental.  A  proposi- 
 tion, affirmi'ig  of  any  individual  thing,  that  it  is  itself,  or  that 
 k  is  not  another,  is,  (could  we  even  suppose  the  mind  in  its 
 first  stage  of  thinking  capable  of  forming  such  a  proposition,) 
 Bot  to  be  raiiked  amongst  the  class  of  affirmations  which 
 belong  to  reasoning.  The  power  of  distinguishing  individual 
 objects  pertains  to  the  faculty  of  perception,  and  is  necessary 
 to  reasoning,  but  can  form  no  part  of  it.     Nothing  individual, 
 
 e3- 
 
54  LANGUAGE    DERllED 
 
 Now,  if  language  be  necessary  to  the  exercise 
 of  reason,  it  clearly  cannot  have  been  the  result 
 of  human  excogitation :  or,  as  it  is  put  by  Dr. 
 
 then,  being  an  attribute,  every  affirmation,  which  can  malte  a 
 part  of  reasoning,  demands  the  existence  of  a  general  sign. 
 The  formation  of  general  signs  must  therefore  precede  all 
 affirmation,  and  consequently  every  exercise  of  the  reasoning 
 faculty.  The  Conceptualist,  who  asserts,  that  general  signs 
 are  supplied  by  the  general  ideas  with  which  abstraction 
 furnishes  the  mind,  must  of  course  contend,  that  the  exercise 
 of  the  power  of  abstraction  must  be  antecedent  to  every  act 
 of  reasoning.  Now,  in  the  first  place,  it  cannot  but  be 
 deemed  extraordinary,  that  the  very  faculty,  which  is  pro- 
 nounced to  be  the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  the  rational 
 species,  should  be  called  into  action  previous  to  the  exercise 
 of  reason.  If  such  a  fticulty  can  be  exerted  before  the  use  of 
 reason,  Avhy  not  exerted  ziithout  it?  And,  in  that  case,  why 
 should  not  the  tribes  of  irrational  animals,  whose  perceptions 
 of  individual  objects  may  be  as  distinct  as  those  in  the  minds 
 of  men,  pass  from  those  individual  perceptions  to  universal 
 ideas,  if  such  transition  can  be  made  without  the  exercise  of 
 reason?— But  again,  not  to  dwell  upon  this  consideration, 
 (since  it  may  be  pretended  that  it  is  abstraction  itself  which 
 in  its  consequence  produces  rationality,)  if  we  enquire,  what 
 it  is,  that  can  put  an  unreasoning  mind  upon  this  process  of 
 abstraction;  a  process,  allowed  by  all  to  be  dilhcult,  and 
 represented  by  some  in  such  a  light  as  makes  it  appear  to 
 embrace  contradictions ;  it  will  not  be  very  easy  to  give  an 
 answer.  In  contemplating  things  by  classes,  it  is  true,  we 
 both  expedite  the  acquisition  of  knowledge,  and  facilitate  its 
 communication.  But  can  these  ends  act  upon  a  mind,  which 
 has  not  yet  begun  to  reason?  Can  the  anticipations  of  know, 
 ledge  become  a  motive,  where  it  has  not  yet  been  learned, 
 •nhat  kuowk'dj^e  U:  or    can  the  desire  of  comraunicatioa 
 
 1 
 
FROM    DIVINE    INSTRUCTION,  55 
 
 Fiilis  ill  his  Enijuiry,  &c.  language  cannot  be 
 ^contrived  without  thought  and  knowledge;  but 
 the  mind  cannot  have  thought  and  knowledge, 
 
 constitute  an  incitement,  where  the  very  notion  of  the  subject 
 matter  to  be  communicated  has  never  yet  been  conceived  ? 
 l^^or  it  must  be  remembered,  that  as  w^c  are  now  speaking  of 
 language  as  subsequent  to  reasoning,  and  of  reasoning  as  subm 
 sequent  to  abstraction,  we  must  conceive  abstraction  to  be 
 exerted,  without  any  notion  actually  acquired  either  of  reason- 
 ing or  language,  or  any  direction  or  forecast  suggested  by  a 
 reference  to  either.  Abstraction,  in  short,  in  this  view  of  the 
 case,  is  a  random  and  unintelligible  movement,  which  is 
 excited  by  no  design,  proposes  no  object,  and  admits  no  regu- 
 lation. So  irrational  a  foundation  for  a  rational  superstruc- 
 ture, cannot  be  deliberately  maintained. 
 
 Dr.  Price,  whose  system  imposed  on  him  the  necessity  of 
 upholding  the  existence  of  abstract  ideas,  as  "  essential  to  all 
 the  operations  of  the  understanding,  and  as  being  implied  in 
 every  act  of  our  judgment,"  felt  himself  at  the  same  time 
 obliged,  from  the  foregoing  considerations,  to  deny  that  such 
 ideas  can  be  acquired  by  any  mental  process,   such  as  that  of 
 abstraction.      Were  abstract  ideas   (he   observes)   formed  by 
 the  mind  in  any  such  manner,  "  it  seems  unavoidable  to  con- 
 ceive, that  it  has  thera,  at  the  very  time,  that  it  is  supposed  to 
 be  employed  in  forming  them.     Thus,  from  any  particular 
 idea  of  a  triangle,   it  is  said  we  can  form  the  general  one : 
 but  does  not  the  very  reflection   said  to  be  necessary  to  this 
 on  a  greater  or  lesser  triangle,  imply,  that  the  general  idea  is 
 <dreadij  in  the  mind  ?"   (Revieic  of  the  principal  dijjiculties 
 in  morals,  p.  37.)     The  learned  Cudworth,  in  like  manner 
 gpeaking  of  the    understanding,   as  an    artificer    that   is    io 
 fabricate  abstract  notions  out  of  sensible  ideas,  demands,  whe- 
 ther, •'  when  this  artificer  goes  about  his  work,  he  knows 
 what  he  is  to  make  of  them  beforehand^  and  unto  what  shape 
 
 E  4 
 
56  tANGlTAGE   DERrV^ED 
 
 till  it  has  language ;  therefore  language  must  be 
 previously  taught,  before  man  could  become  a 
 rational  creature ;  and  none  could  teach  him  but 
 
 to  bring  tlicm.  If  he  do  not,  he  must  needs  be  a  bungling 
 workman  :  but  if  he  do,  he  is  prevented  in  his  design,  his  work 
 being  already  done  to  his  hand :  for  he  must  needs  have  the 
 intelligible  idea  of  that  which  he  knows  or  understands, 
 already  Avithin  himself."  (Treatise  concerning  Eternal  and 
 Immutable  Morality^  pp.  220,  221.)  Mr.  Harris,  also,  is 
 led,  as  he  says,  by  the  common  account  of  the  mode,  in  which 
 our  ideas  are  generated  in  the  mind,  "  to  view  the  human 
 soul  in  the  light  of  a  crucible,  where  truths  are  produced  by 
 a  kind  of  logical  chemistry."  Ilermes,  pp.  404,  405.  These 
 ■writers  are  accordingly  forced  into  the  gratuitous  supposition, 
 of  a  distinct  faculty,  for  the  origin  of  abstract  ideas  in  the  human 
 mind.  This  Dr.  Price  pronounces  to  be  the  '^  faculty,  whose 
 natural  object  is  truth."  (Ren,  p.  37.)  And  Cudworth, 
 from  whom  he  has  largely  drawn,  and  whose  mysterious 
 solution  of  this  difficulty  he  docs  not  altogether  reject,  ascribes 
 the  origin  of  our  abstract  ideas  to  a  certain  '>  perceptive 
 power  of  the  Nocticul  part  of  the  soul,  which  acting  by  itself, 
 exerts  from  within  the  intelligible  ideas  of  things  virtually 
 contained  in  its  own  cognoscitive  power,  that  are  universal 
 and  abstract  notions,  from  wliich,  as  it  were,  looking  dozen, 
 wards^  it  comprehends  individual  things."  Trealise^  pp.  217, 
 t218.  Mr.  Harris,  again,  accounts  for  the  existence  of  abstract 
 ideas,  by  a  "  connective  act  of  the  soul,  by  means  of  which, 
 by  an  energy  as  spontaneous  and  familiar  to  its  nature  as  the 
 seeing  of  colours  is  to  the  eye,  it  discern^  at  once,  what  ia 
 onan^  is  one  ;  what,  in  things  dissimilar  and  dijfercnt^  is  sinii. 
 lar^  and  the  same :''''  and  this  "  connecting  or  uni.fijing  power" 
 of  the  mind,  he  makes  to  be  the  same  with  that  which  discerns 
 truth  :  and  hy  means  of  this  alone  it  is,  that  lie  considers,  tliat 
 iudiyiduuh  themselves  can  become  the  objects  of  knowledge^ 
 
FROM    DIVINE    INSTRUCTION.  hf 
 
 God.  (Scholar  Arincd.XiA.'i.'^.  140.)  Locke's 
 principles  concerning  the  nature  of  language, 
 although  he  did  not  see  his  way  with  suffici^ 
 ent  clearness  to  lead  him  to  the  right  conclu- 
 sion, the  last  named  writer  proves  to  be  per- 
 fectly correspondent  to  the  above  reasoning. 
 (Ibid.  pp.  138,  139.)  And  in  an  able  work 
 published  at  Berlin  by  Susmllchms  in  1766,  the 
 same  principles  are  successfully  applied  to  esta- 
 blish the  same  conclusion ;  namely,   that  the  ori- 
 
 in  v.hich  he  seems  to  coincide  with  the  mystical  notions  of 
 Cudworth.     See  Hermes^  p.  360  —  372. 
 
 Into  such  extraordinary  straits,  and  unjustifiable  assump- 
 tions, have  these  learned  and  able  Avriters  been  drawn,  whilst 
 they  maintained  the  existence  of  universal  ideas,  and  at  the 
 same  time  found  it  impossible  to  accede  to  the  notion  of  their 
 production  by  the  process  of  abstraction.  They  would  have 
 reasoned  more  justly,  if  from  the  impossibility  of  acquiring 
 universal  ideas  by  such  a  process,  they  had  inferred  that  no 
 such  ideas  do  actually  exist  in  the  mind  :  and  that  the  general, 
 abstract  notion,  M'hich  is  at  the  same  time  to  include  all  and 
 none  of  the  circumstances  of  individual  existence,  is  a  fiction 
 which  never  can  be  realized.  They  would  have  arrived  at  a 
 conclusion  still  more  comprehensive  and  important,  if  they 
 iiad  drawn  this  farther  consequence;  that  there  is  not  \n  nature 
 any  Universal  really  existing;  and  that  since  no  idea  can  be 
 Other  tlian  the  idea  of  an  individual^  to  terms  alone  can  a 
 universal  or  general  nature  be  ascribed. — From  all  which  it 
 must  follow  as  a  necessary  result;  that  without  language 
 neither  can  knowledge  be  acquired,  nor  rt^asoning  exerted,  by 
 the  human  intellect :  and  that  since  language  must  precede 
 fliese,  it  cannot  liave  been  discovered  by  them,  and  therefore 
 j^fiuaotbc  deemed  the  ofi^sprlng  of  human  invention. 
 
98  LANGUAGE    DERIVED 
 
 gin  of  language  must  have  been  divine.  Even 
 Hobbes  admits^  that  "  the  first  author  of  speech 
 was  God  himself,  that  instructed  Adam  how  to 
 name  such  creatures  as  he  presented  to  his  sight." 
 (Leviath.  ch.  iv,  p.  12.) 
 
 From  the  impossibility  of  conceiving  how  lan- 
 guage could  have  been  invented,  some  have 
 been  led,  in  opposition  to  all  just  reasoning,  to 
 pronounce  it  innate."^  Many  even  of  the  anci- 
 ents, totally  unaided  by  revelation,  were  obliged 
 to  confess,  that  the  discovery  of  this  art  ex- 
 ceeded all  human  powers.  Thus  Socrates,  in 
 the  Cratylus  of  Plato^,  is  represented  as  saying, 
 ^^  the  first  names  were  framed  by  the  Cods :"  and 
 in  the  same  work  we  are  told,  that  '-  the  im- 
 position of  names  on  things,  belonged  to  a  na- 
 ture superior  to  that  of  man,"  and  that  it  could 
 "  pertain  only  to  him,  who  hath  a  full  discern- 
 ment  of  their   several  natures." — Pol,   Si/n,  on 
 
 Gen.  ii.  19. Stilling.  Orig,  Sac.  B.  i.  ch.  i. 
 
 §.  3. — and  Euseh.  Prcep.  Evang.  lib.  xi.  cap.  6. 
 
 It  must  be  remarked,  that  they  who  hold  the 
 opinion,  that  language  is  of  mere  human  in- 
 vention, are  for  the  most  part  obliged  to  proceed 
 on  suppositions    of   the    original    state    of  man, 
 
 *  See  Shuckf.  Connect,  vol.  i.  p.  100.  and  also  an  essay 
 ©f  Count  de  Fraula,  ( Mi'7n.  de  VAcad.  Imper.  6f  Roj/. 
 Brussels,  vol.  14.)  in  vvliich  language  is  represented  as  an 
 iiislinctive  quality  of  man,  constituting  a  part  of  his  very 
 creation. 
 
FROM   DIVINE   INSTRUCTION.  59 
 
 totally  inconsistent  with  the  Mosaic  history, 
 ThuSj  amongst  the  ancients,  Diodorus  Siculus, 
 (Bihlioth,  lib.  i.)  Vitruvius,  (De  Archtt.  lib.  ii, 
 cap.  1,  2.)  Lucretius,  &c.  ground  their  reason- 
 ings upon  an  idea,  (derived  from  the  atomic  cos- 
 mogony of  Moschus,  Democritus,  and  Epicurus, 
 which  represented  human  beings^  as  springing 
 from  the  earth,  like  vegetables,)  that  men  first 
 lived  in  woods  and  caves  like  brute  beasts,  utter- 
 ing only  cries  and  indistinct  noises,  until  gradual 
 association  for  mutual  defence,  brought  with  it 
 at  length  conventional  signs  for  communication. 
 And  the  respectable  and  learned^  though  strangely 
 fanciful,  author  of  the  Origin  and  Progress  of 
 Language,  who  is  among  the  latest  that  have 
 written  in  defence  of  this  opinion^  is  com- 
 pelled to  admit,  that  the  invention  of  language 
 is  too  difficult  for  the  savage  state  of  man ;  and 
 accordingly  he  holds,  that  men  having  been 
 placed  originally  in  a  solitary  and  savage  state, 
 must  have  been  associated  for  ages,  and  have 
 carried  on  some  common  work,  and  even  framed 
 some  civil  polity,  and  must  have  continued  for 
 a  considerable  length  of  time  in  that  state,  so 
 as  ultimately  to  acquire  such  powers  of  abstrac- 
 tion as  to  be  able  to  form  general  ideas,  be- 
 fore language  could  possibly  be  formed.  Now 
 whether  such  theories,  in  supposing  a  mute 
 emergence  from  savage  barbarism  to  reflecting 
 
60  LANGUAGE    DERIVED 
 
 civilization,  and  a  continued  association^^  with- 
 out an  associating  tie,  prove  any  thing  else 
 than  their  own  extravagance ;  and  by  the  pro- 
 digious difficuky  and  delay  which  even  they 
 attach  to  the  invention  of  speech,  whether  they 
 do  not  give  strong  confirmation  to  the  Mosaic 
 account,  which  describes  man  as  destined  for 
 the  wuncdiate  enjoyment  of  society,  and  con- 
 sequently instructed  in  the.  art  of  speech ;  it  is 
 for  the  reader  to  judge. 
 
 Other  writers  again,  Condillac,  (in  his  Es- 
 say on  the  Or'rgm  of  Human  Knowledge)  Bat- 
 tfeanx,    (in  his    Principles  of  Literature)   and 
 
 *  Dr.  BUir,  In  his  Lectures  on  Rhetoric^  (toI.  i.  p.  71.) 
 makes  the  following  just  arid  opposite  observations. — "  One 
 would  think,  that  in  order  to  any  language  fixing  and  ex- 
 tending itself,  men  must  have  been  previously  gathered  toge- 
 ther in  considerable  numbers:  society  must  have  been  already 
 far  advanced :  and  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  there  seems  to 
 liave  been  an  absolute  necessity  for'  speech^  previous  to  the 
 formation  of  society.  For,  by  what  bond  could  any  mul- 
 titude of  men  be  kept  together,  or  be  made  to  join  in  the 
 prosecution  of  any  common  interest,  until  once,  by  the  in- 
 tervention of  speech,  they  could  communicate  their  wants 
 and  intentions  io  each  otiier?  So  that,  cither  how  society 
 could  form  itself,  previously  to  language,  or  ho.v  words 
 could  rise  into  a  language,  previously  to  society  formed, 
 seem  to  be  points  attended  with  equal  diJricuUy.  And  when 
 w'c  consider,  &c.  difiiculties  encrease  so  muc'i  upon  us  on 
 all  hands,  that  there  seems  to  be  no  small  reason  for  refer- 
 ring the  first  origiQ  of  all  language  to  divine  teaching  pr  in, 
 gpiration.'* 
 
FROM    DIVINE    INSTRUCTION.  6l 
 
 Gebelin,    (in  his    Monde   Primltlf,)    maintain, 
 that  man  is  not   by  nature  the  mutiim  pecus  he 
 is   represented   by  the   Scotch   philosopher;  but 
 that  sounds,  either  excited  by  passions,  or  pro- 
 duced by  imitation,  would  necessarily  be  form- 
 ed, so  as  to  constitute  an  inarticulate  language; 
 which   would  ultimately   suggest  the   idea,    and 
 supply    the    elements   of    more    perfect    speech. 
 The  transition  however  from   the  simple  sound 
 to   the  diversified    articulation,    is   still    a   wide 
 chasm   in   each  of  these  solutions.     And  whilst 
 the  range  of  the  passions  seems  on  the  one  hand 
 to   present  a    limit,    which  the  powers  of  com- 
 munication, derived  from  that  source,  cannot  be 
 conceived  to  transcend  :   the  various  sounds  and 
 motions   in   nature  must,   on  the  other,   be  ad- 
 mitted to  exliaust  the  models,  which  alone  could 
 draw  forth  the  imitative  powers  of  the   human 
 voice.    So  that  according  to  these  theories,  single 
 tones,  or  cries,   either  excited   by  some  passion 
 or  formed  in  imitation  of  some  natural  sound, 
 »must  in  all  just  reasoning  fill   up  the  measure 
 of  human  language.     It  is  not  easy  then  to  dis- 
 cover any  advantage  possessed  by  these  theories, 
 over  that  of  Lord   Monboddo,    and  the  antient 
 Epicurean  Philosophers.     The  latter  but  repre- 
 sent the  human   kind  originally  placed   in  the 
 condition  of  Brutes ;    the  formei;  seem   careful 
 to  provide  that  it  should  never   rise  above  that 
 condition.  1 
 
6H  LANGUAGfe   DERIVED 
 
 As  it  may  be  matter  of  curiosity,  to  kttoW  irf 
 what  manner  these  writers  endeavour  to  explairi 
 the  transition  from  mere  vocal  sounds  to  articulate 
 speech,  it  may  be  proper  to  subjoin  here  a  speci- 
 men taken  from  one  of  them,  by  no  means  the 
 least   distinguished    in    the   literary    world,    the 
 Abbe  De  Condillac.     He  admits  the  of)eratiotl 
 to  be  extremely  tedious,  for  that  ''  the  organ  of 
 speech  (in  grown  persons)   for  want  of  early  use 
 would  be  so  inflexible  that  it  could  not  articulate 
 any  other  than  a  few  simple  sounds:   and  the 
 obstacles  which  prevented  them  Jrojn  pronounc- 
 ing others,  ivould  prevent  them  from  suspecting 
 that  the  voice  ivas  susceptible  of  any  further 
 variation.'*     Now   it  may  be  fairly  asked,  would 
 not  these  obstacles  for  ever  prevent  any  articula- 
 tions,  or  even  sounds,   beyond  those  which  the 
 passions  might  excite,  or  other  sounds  suggest? 
 How  is   this    difficulty,  which   has   been   fairly* 
 admitted  by  the  author,  to  be  removed  ?  He  shall 
 answer  for  himself.     The  child,  from  the  pliancy 
 of  its  vocal  organs,  being  freed  from  the  obstruc- 
 tions which  incapacitated  the  parent,  will  acci- 
 dentally fiill  upon  new  articulations  in  the  endea- 
 voui"  to  communicate  its  desire  for  a  particular 
 object;  the  parent  will  endeavour  to  imitate  this 
 sound,  and  aifix  it  as  a  name  to  the  object,  for  the 
 purpose  of  communicating  with  the  child:  and 
 thus  by  rej^xiated  eulai*gemeuts  of  articulation  in 
 
FROM   DIVINE   INSTRUCTION.  6^ 
 
 successive  generations,  language  would  at  length 
 be  produced.  =^ 
 
 Such  is  the  solution  of  the  origin  of  language 
 which  human  philosophy  presents ;  sending  us  to 
 
 ^  It  should  be  remarked,  that  were  even  all  that  is  here 
 contended  for  admitted  to  be  practicable,  language  in  the  true 
 sense  of  the  word  is  not  yet  attained.  The  power  of  designa- 
 ting an  individual  object  by  an  appropriate  articulation,  is  a 
 necessary  step  in  the  formation  of  language,  but  very  far 
 removed  indeed  from  its  consummation.  Without  the  use  of" 
 ganeral  sigiis,  the  speech  of  man  would  differ  little  from  that 
 of  brutes :  and  the  transition  to  the  general  term  from  the 
 name  of  the  individual  is  a  difficulty  which  remains  still  to  Ix? 
 surmounted.  Condillac,  indeed,  proposes  to  shew,  how  this 
 transition  may  be  made,  in  the  natural  course  of  things. 
 ^'  Un  enfant  appelle  du  ncm  d'Arhre  le  premier  arbre  que 
 nous  lui  montrons.  Un  second  arbre  qu'il  voit  ensuite  lui 
 rappelle  la  n  eine  idee;  il  lui  donne  le  meme  nom ;  de  meme 
 a  un  troisieme,  a  un  quatrieme,  et  voiU  le  mot  d^ Arbre 
 donnc  d'abord  a,  un  individu,  qui  devient  pour  lui  un  nom  df? 
 classe  ou  de  genre,  une  idee  abstraite  qui  comprend  tons  les 
 arbres  en  get-eral."  In  like  manner  Adam  Smith,  in  his 
 Dissertation  on  the  Origin  of  Languages^  and  Mr.  Dugald 
 Stewart,  in  his  Elements  of  the  Phitosophi/  of  the  Humai? 
 Mind^  endeavour  to  explain  this  process,  representing:  those 
 words  which  were  originally  used  as  the  proper  names  of 
 individuals,  to  be  successively  transferred  to  other  individuals, 
 until  at  length  each  of  them  became  insensibly  the  common 
 name  of  a  multitude.  This  however  is  more  ingenious  thaiv 
 solid.  The  name  given  to  an  individual,  being  intended 
 exclusively  io  designate  that  individual,  it  is  a  direct  subver, 
 sion  of  its  very  nature  and  design,  to  apply  it  to  any  other' 
 individual,  known  to  be  dliTerent  from  the  former.  The 
 (ihild,  it  is  truej  may  give  the  name  of  father  to  an  individual 
 
64  LANGUAGE    DERIVED 
 
 the  accidental  babble  of  infancy,  for  the  origina-^ 
 tion  of  that  which  it  confesses  must  exceed  the 
 power  of  the  imagination  to  invent,  and  of  the 
 organs  of  the  man  to  accompHsh:  inverting  the 
 
 like  to  the  person  it  has  been  taught  to  call  by  that  name : 
 but  this  is  from  mistake,  not  from  design  ;  from  a  confusion 
 of  the  two  as  the  samfe  persoti,  and  not  from  a  perception  of 
 resemblance  between  them  whilst  known  to  be  different.     In 
 truth,  they  whose  thoughts  are  occupied  solely  about  indivi- 
 dual objects  must  be  the  most  careful  to  distinguish  them  from 
 each  other;  and,  accordingly,  the  child  will  most  peremptorily 
 retract  the  appellation  of  father^  so  soon  as  the  distinctness 
 is  observed.     The   object  with  those,  whose  terms  or  signs 
 refer  only  to  individuals,  must  naturally  be  to  take  care,  that 
 €Tery  such  term  or  sign   shall  be  applied  to  its  appropriate 
 individual,  and  to  none  else.     Resemblance  can  produce  no- 
 other  effect,  than  to  enforce  a  greater  caution  in  the  application 
 of  the  individual  names,  and  therefore  has  no  natural  tendency 
 to  lead  the  mind  to  the  use  of  general  terms.     It  may  be 
 thought,  indeed,  that  the  idea  of  number,  attaching  to  indivi- 
 duals of  a  similar  appearance,  might  naturally  lead  to  some 
 general  designation,  whereby  tlie  aggregate  of  those  individuals 
 might  be  marked  out.     But  it  should  be  recollected,  that  the 
 very  notion  of  number,  which  seems  one  of  the  commonest  and 
 most  familiar  to  the  mind,  does  ilself  presuppose  a  class,  since 
 objects  cannot  be  enumerated  unless  previously  referred  to 
 some  one  gfnus  or  class,   or,  which  Is  the  same  thing,  unless 
 they  are  previously  cxpr<\ssed  by  some  romincn  sign.     Since, 
 then,   mere  resemblance  will   not  lead  to   tlie  use  of  general 
 terms;  and  since  the  notion  of  number  actually  presupposes 
 the  existence  of  general  terms;   it  follows,  that  the  transition 
 from  proper  names  to  general  terms  cannot  be  accounted  for 
 in   the  way,   iu   whicli   these  writers   have   endeavoured  io 
 «Kjplaiu  it. 
 
J"ROM    DIVINE    INSTRUCTION.  6^ 
 
 brdev  of  nature  by  supposing  the  adult  to  learn 
 the  art  of  speech  by  imitation  of  the  nursling; 
 and  in  addition  to  all,  building  upon  the  gratui- 
 tous assumption,  that  the  child  could  utter  arti- 
 culations undirected  by  any  pre-existing  model. 
 — On  such  reasoning  it  cannot  be  necessary  to 
 enlarge. 
 
 Besides,  to  all  those  theories  which  maintain 
 the  human  invention  of  language,  the  test  of 
 experience  may  fairly  be  applied.  We  may 
 safely  challenge  their  authors  to  produce  in  their 
 support  a  single  fact ;  a  single  instance  in  the 
 whole  range  of  history,  of  any  human  creature's 
 ever  using  articulate  sounds  as  the  signs  of  ideas, 
 unless  taught,  either  immediately  and  at  once  by 
 God,  or  gradually  by  those  who  had  been  them^ 
 selves  instructed.  That  there  have  been  instances 
 of  persons^  who  possessing  all  the  natural  powers 
 of  mind  and  body,  yet  remained  destitute  of 
 speech  from  the  want  of  an  instructor,  there  can 
 be  no  question.  Diodorus  Siculus  (lib.  iii.  ^.  19. 
 p.  I87.  torn.  1.  IVessel.)  informs  us  of  an  entire 
 nation,  wanting  the  use  of  speech,  and  communi- 
 cating only  by  signs  and  gestures.  But  not  to 
 urge  so  extraordinary  a  fact.  Lord  Monboddo 
 himself,  in  his  first  volume,  furnishes  several  well 
 attested  instances ;  and  relates  particularly  the 
 case  of  a  savage,  who  was  caught  in  the  woods  of 
 Hanover,  and  who  though  by  no  means  deficient 
 either  in  his  mental  powers  or  bodily  organs,  was 
 
 VOL.    IL  F 
 
6G  LANGUAGE    DERIVED 
 
 yet  utterly  incapable  of  speech.  Had  man  then 
 been  left  solely  to  the  operation  of  his  own  natural 
 powers,  it  is  incumbent  upon  these  writers  to 
 shew,  that  his  condition  would  have  differed  as  to 
 speech  from  that  of  the  Hanoverian  savage. 
 
 As  for  those  writers  who  admit  the  Mosaic 
 account,  and  yet  attribute  to  Adam  the  formation 
 of  language  unassisted  by  divine  instruction,  they 
 seem  to  entertain  a  notion  more  incomprehensible 
 than  the  former ;  inasmuch  as  the  first  exercise  of 
 language  by  the  father  of  mankind,  is  stated  to 
 have  preceded  the  production  of  Eve,  and  cannot 
 consistently  with  the  Scripture  account^  be  sup- 
 posed to  have  been  long  subsequent  to  his  own 
 creation.  So  that  according  to  these  theorists,  he 
 must  have  devised  a  medium  of  communication, 
 before  any  human  being  existed  with  whom  to 
 communicate :  he  must  have  been  able  to  apply 
 an  organ  unexercised  and  inflexible,  to  the  arduous 
 and  delicate  work  of  articulation:  and  he  must 
 at  once  have  attained  the  use  of  words,  without 
 those  multiplied  preparatory  experiments  and  con* 
 curring  aids,  which  seem  on  all  hands  admitted 
 to  be  indispensable  to  the  discovery  and  produc- 
 tion of  speech. 
 
 To  remedy  some  of  these  difficulties  it  ha^ 
 been  said  tliat  the  faculty  of  speech  was  made 
 natural  to  man  as  his  reason,  and  that  the  use  of 
 language  was  the  necessary  result  of  his  constitu- 
 tion*    If  by  this  were  meant,  that  man  spoke  as 
 
t^ROM    DIVINE   INSTRUCTION.  6? 
 
 het^essarily  as  he  breathed,  the  notion  of  an  innate 
 language  must  be  allowed,  and  then  the  experi- 
 ment of  the  Egyptian  king  to  discover  the  primi- 
 tive language  of  man  must  be  confessed  to  have 
 had  its  foundation  in  nature  t  but  if  it  be  merely 
 meant,  that  man  was  by  nature  invested  with  the 
 powers  of  speech,  and  by  his  condition,  his  rela- 
 tions, and  his  wants,  impelled  to  the  exercise  of 
 these  powers,  the  difficulty  returns,  and  all  the 
 obstacles  already  enumerated  oppose  themselves 
 to  the  discovery  of  those  powers,  and  to  the 
 means  by  which  he  was  enabled  to  bring  them 
 into  actual  exertion.  It  may  perhaps  add  strength 
 to  the  observations  already  made  upon  this  sub- 
 ject,  to  remark,  that  the  author,  who  has  main- 
 tained this  last  mentioned  theory,  and  whose 
 w^ork,  as  containing  the  ablest  and  most  laborious 
 examination  of  the  question,  has  been  crowned 
 with  a  prize  by  the  Academy  of  Berlin,  and  hast 
 been  honoured  with  the  general  applause  of  the 
 continental  literati,  has  utterly  failed,  and  is 
 admitted  to  have  failed,  in  that  which  is  the  jjrand 
 difficulty  of  the  question.  For  whilst  he  enlarges 
 on  the  intelligent  and  social  qualities  of  man,  all 
 fitting  him  for  the  use  of  language ;  the  transition 
 from  that  state  which  thus  prepares  man  for 
 language,  to  the  actual  exercise  of  the  organs  of 
 speech,  he  is  obliged  to  leave  totally  unexplained. 
 (See  the  account  given  of  the  Essay  of  Herder  on 
 the  origin  of  language,  in  Nouveaux  Memoirs  de 
 T  2 
 
68  LANGUAGE    DERIVED 
 
 VAcad.  Roy.  &c.  de  Berlin,  177^ — and  again  an 
 Analysis  of  that  work  by  M.  Merian,  in  the  vol. 
 of  the  same  Memoirs  for  the  year  1 7  8 1 .)  Enough, 
 perhaps  more  than  enough,  has  been  said,  in 
 answer  to  those  theories  and  objections,  which 
 have  been  raised  in  opposition  to  that,  which 
 Scripture*  so  obviously  and  unequivocally  asserts, 
 namely  the  divine  institution  of  language, 
 
 *  In  addition  to  the  proof  which  has  been  already  derived 
 from  this  source,  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  laws  given 
 by  God  to  the  first  pair,  respecting  food  for  their  preservation, 
 (Gen.  i<  29.  ii.  9.)  and  marriage  for  the  propagation  of  their 
 species,  (Gen.  ii.  22,  23.)  together  with  the  other  discoveries 
 of  his  will  recorded  in  the  beginning  of  Genesis,  (i.  2S.  ii. 
 16—19.  iii.  8—12,  14 — 22.)  were  communicated  through  the 
 medium  of  language :  and  that  the  man  and  the  woman  are 
 there  expressly  stated  to  have  conversed  with  God,  and  with 
 each  other.  Besides,  in  what  sense  could  it  be  said  that  a 
 meet  companion  for  the  man  was  formed,  if  there  were  not 
 given  to  both  the  power  of  communicating  their  thoughts  by 
 appropriate  speech  ?  If  God  pronounced  it  not  good  for  man 
 to  be  alone  ;  if  with  multitudes  of  creatures  surrounding  him, 
 he  was  still  deemed  to  be  alone^  because  there  was  none  of 
 these  with  which  he  could  commune  in  rational  correspon- 
 dence ;  if  a  companion  was  assigned  to  him  w  hose  society  was 
 to  rescue  him  from  this  solitude;  what  can  be  inferred,  but 
 that  the  indispensable  requisite  for  such  society,  the  powers 
 and  exercise  of  speech,  must  have  been  at  the  same  time  vouch- 
 safed ? 
 
 It  should  be  recollected  too,  that  this  is  hot  the  only  in- 
 stance recorded  in  Scripture  of  the  instantaneous  communica- 
 tion of  language.  The  diversity  of  tongues  occasioning  the 
 confusion  of  Babel,  and  the  miraculous  gift  of  speech  to  the 
 
 1 
 
FROM    DIVINE    INSTRUCTION.  69 
 
 It  is  not  necessary  to  the  purpose  of  this  Num- 
 ber, nor  does   Scripture  require  us,  to  suppose 
 with  StilHngfleet,  (Orig.  Sac.  B.  i.  cap.  i.  §.  3.) 
 and  with  Bochart,   (Hieroz,  P.  i.  L.  i.  cap.  9.) 
 that  Adam  was  endued  with   a  full  and  perfect 
 knowledge  of  the  several  creatures,  so  as  to  impose 
 names  truly   expressive  of  their  natures.     It  is 
 sufficient,   if  we  suppose  the  use  of  language 
 taught  him  with  respect  to  such  things  as  were 
 necessary,   and  that    he   was  then    left    to    the 
 exercise  of  his  own  faculties  for  farther  improve- 
 ment upon  this  foundation.     But  that  the  terms 
 of  worship  and  adoration  were  among  those  which 
 were  first  communicated,  we  can  entertain  little 
 doubt.     On  the  subject  discussed  in  this  Number, 
 the    reader    may    consult  Morinus  JExercit,  de 
 Ling,  cap.  vi.     Buxtorfil  Dissertat,  p.  1 — 20. 
 Walton,   Pi^oL  1.   §.4.      Warhurt,   Div,   Leg. 
 B.  iv.  S.  iv.  vol.  ii.  pp.  81,  82.      Delan,   Rev, 
 
 apostles  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  may  render  a  similar  exer- 
 cise of  divine  power  in  the  case  of  our  first  parents  more 
 readily  admissible:  for  it  surely  will  not  be  contended,  that 
 such  supernatural  interference  was  less  called  for  from  the 
 nature  of  the  occasion,  in  the  last  named  instance,  than  in 
 either  of  the  two  former. 
 
 The  writer  of  Ecclesiasticus  pronounces  decisively  on  the 
 subject  of  this  Number.  When  the  Lord  created  man^  h© 
 affirms  that,  having  bestowed  upon  him  the  five  operations  of 
 the  Lord,  in  the  sixth  place  he  imparted  to  hivi  understands 
 ing:  and  in  the  seventh^  speech,  an  interpretation  oftheco^i-* 
 lotions  thereof.    Ecclus.  xni.  5, 
 
 f5 
 
70  mATVR^L   VN REASONABLENESS 
 
 Exam.  Diss.  4.  Winders  Hist,  of  Knoivledge, 
 chap.  i.  §.  2.  Barringtons  Misc.  Sacr.  vol.  iii. 
 pp.  8.  45.  Dr,  Beat  tie,  and  JVollaston,  as  re- 
 ferred to ;  and  above  all,  Dr.  Ellis's  Enquiry* 
 whence  cometh  ivisdom,  8^c,  which  together  with 
 his  work  entitled,  Knowledge  oj  divine  things 
 J'rom  Revelation,  are  too  little  known,  and  cannot 
 be  too  strongly  recommended.  The  former  of 
 these  tracts  of  Dr.  Ellis,  I  have  never  met  with, 
 but  as  bound  up  in  the  Collection  of  Tracts, 
 entitled  The  I^cholar  armed. 
 
 KO.  LIV. — ON  THE  NATURAL  UNREASONABLENESS 
 OF   THE    SACRIFICIAL   RITE. 
 
 Page  44.  (s)  Outram  states,  (De  Sac,  lib.  i. 
 cap.  1.  ^.  3.)  that  the  force  of  this  consideration 
 was  in  itself  so  great,  as  to  compel  Grotius,  who 
 defended  the  notion  of  the  human  institution  of 
 sacrifices,  to  maintain,  in  defiance  of  all  just  criti- 
 cism, that  Abel  did  not  slay  the  firstlings  of  his 
 flock  ;  and  that  no  more  is  meant,  than  that  he 
 brought  the  choicest  j)roduce  of  his  flock,  milk 
 and  wool,  and  offered  them,  as  Cain  offered  the 
 choicest  of  his  fruits. 
 
 Indeed  the  natural  unfitness  of  the  sacrificial 
 rite  to  obtain  the  divine  favour ;  the  total  incon- 
 gruity between  the  killing  of  God's  creatures,  and 
 the  receiving  a  pardon  for  the  violation  of  God's 
 laws ;  are  topics,  which  have  afforded  the  oppo' 
 
OF   THE    SACRIFICIAL  RITE.  71 
 
 fients  of  the  divine  institution  of  sacrifice  toa 
 much  occasion  for  triumph,  to  be  controverted  on 
 their  side  of  the  question.  See  Philemon  to 
 Hydaspes,  part  5.  p.  10—15.  The  words  of 
 Spencer  on  this  subject  are  too  remarkable  to  be 
 omitted  :  "  Sacrificiorum  materia  (pecudum  caro, 
 sanguis  efFusus,  &c.)  tam  vilis  est,  et  a  summa 
 Dei  majestate  tam  longe  dissita,  quod  nemo  (nisi 
 plane  simplex  et  rerum  rudis)  quin  sacrificia 
 plane  superflua,  deoque  prorsus  indigna  facile 
 judicaret.  Sane  tantum  aberat,  ut  ethnici  paulo 
 humaniores  sacrificia  deorum  suorum  naturae  con- 
 sentanea    crederent,   quod   iis    non    raro    mirari 
 
 Subiit,  UNDE  RITUS  TAM  TRISTIS,  ET  A  NATURA 
 DEORUM  ALIENUS,  IN  HOMINUM  CORDA  VENIRET, 
 SE  TAM  LONGE  PROPAGARET,  ET  EORUM  MORIBUS 
 TAM    TENACITER    ADH^RERET."       De    Leg.    Heh, 
 
 lib.  iii.  diss.  ii.  cap.  4.  sect;  2.  p.  772. — Revelation 
 would  have  removed  the  wonder. 
 
 NO.    LV.  —  ON     THE     UNIVERSALITY    OF 
 SACRIFICE. 
 
 Page  45.  (^^)  What  Dr.  Kennicot  has  re- 
 marked upon  another  subject,  may  well  be  apph'ed 
 to  this.  "  Whatever  custom  has  prevailed  over 
 the  world,  among  nations  the  most  opposite  in 
 polity  and  customs  in  general ;  nations  not  united 
 by  commerce  or  communication  (when  thatcustoni 
 has  nothing  in  nature,  or  the  reason  of  things,  tji 
 
 F  4 
 
yf  UXIVEHSALllY 
 
 r^ive  it  birth,  and  establish  to  itself  such  a  cur- 
 rency,)  must  be  derived  from  some  revelation: 
 which  revelation  may  in  certain  places  have  been 
 forgotten,  though  the  custom  introduced  by  and 
 founded  on  such  revelation  still  continued.  And 
 farther,  this  revelation  must  have  been  made 
 antecedent  to  the  dispersion  at  Babel,  when  al} 
 mankind,  being  but  one  nation,  and  living  toge- 
 ther in  the  form  of  one  large  family,  were  of  one 
 languao-e,  and  governed  by  the  same  laws  and 
 customs."  (Two  DisserL -p.  l6l.)  For,  as  Sir 
 Isaac  Newton  observes,  all  mankind  lived  toge- 
 ther in  Chaldsea  under  the  government  of  Noah 
 and  his  sons,  until  the  days  of  Peleg.  So  long 
 they  were  of  one  language,  one  society,  and  one 
 religion.  And  then  they  divided  the  earth,  being 
 forced  to  leave  off  building  the  tower  of  Babel. 
 And  from  thence  they  spread  themselves  into  the 
 several  countries  which  fell  to  their  shares,  carry- 
 ing along  with  them  the  laws,  customs,  and  reli- 
 gion, under  which  they  had  till  those  days  been 
 educated  and  governed.     (Chronol.  p.  186.) 
 
 And  again,  as  Kennicot  observes  from  Delaney, 
 whatever  practice  has  obtained  universally  in  the 
 world,  must  have  obtained  from  some  dictate  of 
 reason,  or  some  demand  oi  nature,  or  some  prin- 
 ciple of  interest y  or  else  from  some  powerful 
 influence  or  injunction  of  some  Being  of  universal 
 authority.  Now,  the  practice  of  animal  sacrifice 
 llid  not  obtain  from   reason ;  for  ng  reasonably 
 
OF   SACRIFICE.  73 
 
 notions  of  God  could  teach  men,  that  he  could 
 delight  in  blood,  or  in  the   fat  of  slain   beasts. 
 Nor  will  any  man  say,  that  we  have  any  natural 
 instinct  to  gratify,  in   spilling  the  blood  of  an 
 innocent   creature.       Nor    could    there   be    any 
 temptation  from  appetite  to  do  this  in  those  ages, 
 when  the  whole  sacrifice  was  consumed  by  fire ; 
 or  when,  if  it  was  not,  yet  men  wholly  abstained 
 from  flesh  ;   and  consequently  this  practice  did 
 not  owe   its  origin   to  any  principle  of  interest. 
 Nay,   so   far   from   any  thing  of  this,  that  the 
 destruction   of  innocent  and  useful   creatures   is 
 evidently  against  nature,  against  reason,  and 
 against  interest :  and  therefore  must  be  founded 
 in  an  authority,  whose  influence  was  as  powerful, 
 as  the  practice  was  universal :  and  that  could  be 
 none,  but  the  authority  of  God  the  sovereign  of 
 the  world  ;  or  of  Adam  the  founder  of  the  human 
 race.     If  it  be  said  of  Adam,   the  question  still 
 remains,   what   motive  determined    him  to   the 
 practice?  It  could  not  be  nature,  reason,  or  inte- 
 rest, as  has  been  already  shewn  ;  it  must  therefore 
 have  been  the  authority  of  his  sovereign :  and  had 
 Adam  enjoined  it  to  his  posterity,  it  is  not  to  be 
 imagined,  that  they  would  have  obeyed  him  in 
 so  extraordinary  and  expensive  a  rite,  from  any 
 other  motive  than   the  command  of  God.     If  it 
 be  urged,  that  superstitions  prevail  unaccountably 
 in  the  w^orld ;  it  may  be  answered,  that  all  super- 
 jstition  has  its  origin  in  true  religion  :  all  supersti^ 
 
74  EXPIATORY   VIRTUE    OF    SACRIFICE 
 
 tion  is  an  abuse  :  and  all  abuse  supposes  a  right 
 and  proper  use.  And  if  this  be  the  case  in 
 superstitious  practices  that  are  of  lesser  moment 
 and  extent,  what  shall  be  said  of  a  practice  exist- 
 ing through  all  ages,  and  pervading  every  nation? 
 See  Kennic,  Two  Diss.  pp.  210,  211,  and  Rev\ 
 Exam.  Diss.  8.  p,  85 — 89. 
 
 It  is  to  no  purpose,  that  theorists  endeavour  to 
 explain  the  practice  as  of  gradual  growth ;  the 
 first  offerings  being  merely  of  fruits,  and  a  tran- 
 sition afterwards  made  from  this  to  animal  sacri- 
 fice. Not  to  urge  the  sacrifice  of  Abel,  and  all 
 the  early  sacrifices  recorded  in  Scripture,  the 
 transition  is  itself  inconceivable.  The  two  things 
 are  toto  coelo  different :  the  one  being  an  act  of 
 innocence;  the  other  a  cruel  and  unnatural  rite. 
 Dr.  Richie's  remarks  on  the  subject  of  this 
 Number  are  particularly  worthy  of  attention. 
 Essay  on  the  rectitude  of  divine  moral  go* 
 vernment  under  the  Patriarchal  dispensation, 
 
 KO.  LVI. ON  THE  UNIVERSALITY   OF    THE    NOTION 
 
 OF  THE  EXPIATORY  riRTUE  OF  SACRIFICE. 
 
 Page  45.  (')  It  is  notorious,  as  we  have 
 already  seen  in  Numbers  V,  and  XXXIII.  that 
 all  nations,  Jews  and  Heathens,  before  the  time 
 of  Christ,  entertained  the  notion,  that  the  displea- 
 sure of  the  offended  Deity  was  to  be  averted  by 
 
AN   UNIVERSAL  NOTION,  75 
 
 the  sacrifice  of  an  animal ;  and  that,  to  the  shed- 
 ding of  its  blood,  they  imputed  their  pardon''^  and 
 reconcihation.  In  the  explication  of  so  strange  a 
 notion,  and  of  the  universality  of  its  extent, 
 unassisted  reason  must  confess  itself  totally  con- 
 founded. And  accordingly  we  find  Pythagoras, 
 Plato,  Porphyry,  and  other  reflecting  heathens, 
 express  their  wonder,  how'\'  an  institution  so 
 dismal,  and  big  with  absurdity,  could  have  spread 
 through  the  world. 
 
 So  powerful  is  the  inference,  which  this  fact 
 consequently  supplies,  against  the  human  inven- 
 tion of  sacrifice,  that  Dr.  Priestley,  labouring  to 
 support  that  doctrine,  and  at  the  same  time, 
 pressed  by  the  force  of  the  argument,  has  been 
 obliged  boldly  to  face  about^  and  resolutely  deny 
 the  fact;  contending,  in  defiance,  as  we  have 
 already  shewn,  of  all  historical  evidence,  that  the 
 notion  of  expiating  guilt  by  the  death  of  the 
 victim,  was  not  the  design  of  sacrifice,  among 
 either  the  nations  of  antiquity,  or  among  such  ag 
 have  practised  sacrifice  in  later  times.  This  ide^ 
 Dr.  Priestley  considers  too  absurd  for  heathens. 
 Christians  alone,  excepting  that  description  who 
 have  proved  themselves  on  this  head  as  enlight^ 
 
 *   See  on    this  also  Stanhope,  Serm.  xiii.     Boijle  Lect^ 
 vol.  i.  pp.  790.  794. 
 
 +  See  Kennic,  Two  Dissert  p,  20f2,  and  Number  LI  V,  of 
 this  work* 
 
j6  VIVINE   INSTITUTIOK    OF    SACRIFICE 
 
 ened  as  heathen?,  could  have  swallowed  such 
 monstrous  absurdities.  If,  however,  the  Jacf 
 appears  to  be  against  Dr.  Priestley,  what  follows 
 from  his  reasoning  ?  A  cruel,  expensive,  and  un- 
 natural practice  has  been  adopted,  and  uniformly 
 pursued,  by  the  unaided  reason  of  mankind  for 
 above  4000  years.  It  remains  then  for  him,  and 
 the  other  advocates  for  the  strength  and  suffi- 
 ciency  of  human  reason,  to  consider  whether  it 
 be  that  sort  of  guide,  on  which  imphcit  reliance 
 is  to  be  placed ;  and  whether  it  be  wise  to  entrust 
 to  its  sole  direction  our  everlasting  concerns. 
 
 KO.  LVri. — ON  THE  OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE  SUP- 
 POSITION OF  THE  DIVINE  INSTITUTION  OF 
 SACraFICE. 
 
 Page  47.  0  The  principal  objections  to  this 
 opinion  are  derived  from  the  two  following  con- 
 siderations: 1,  The  silence  of  the  sacred  historian 
 on  this  head;  which,  in  a  matter  of  so  great 
 importance,  it  is  said,  is  irreconcileable  with  the 
 supposition  of  a  divine  command :  2.  Those  pas- 
 sages in  the  Old  Testament,  in  which  God  seems 
 openly  to  disown  the  institution  of  sacrifice. 
 
 I.  The  former  is  thus  urged  by  Bishop  War- 
 burton.  "  The  two  capital  observances,  in  the 
 Jewish  ritual,  were  the  sabbath,  and  sacrifices. 
 To  impress  the  highest  reverence  and  veneratbu 
 
OBJECTED   TO    ERRONEOUSLY.  J^ 
 
 On  the  sabbath,  the  sacred  historian  is  careful  to 
 record  its  divine  original:  and  can  we  suppose 
 that,  had  sacrifices  had  the  same  original,  he 
 would  have  neglected  to  establish  this  truths  at 
 the  time  that  he  recorded  the  other,  since  it  is  of 
 equal  use,  and  of  equal  importance;  I  should 
 have  said,  indeed,  of  much  greater  ?"  (Div,  Leg, 
 B.  ix.  ch.  ii.  vol.  4.  pp.  66l,  662.  ed.  Hurd.) 
 
 To  this  it  may  be  answered,  that  though  the 
 distinction  of  weeks  was  well  known  over  all  the 
 eastern   world,  it  is   highly  probable,    that  the 
 Hebrews,  during  their  residence  in  Egypt,  were 
 negligent  in  their  observance  of  the  sabbath  :  and 
 that  to  enforce  a  religious  observance  of  it,  it  had 
 become  necessary,  to  give  them   particular    in- 
 formation of  the  time  and   occasion  of  its  first 
 institution  :  but  that,  in  a  country  like  Egypt,  the 
 people  being  in  little  danger  of  losing  their  vene- 
 ration for  sacrifices^  the  same  necessity  for  direct- 
 ing their  attention  explicitly  to  their  institution 
 did  not  exist.     The  observation  of  Dr.  Delaney 
 also  deserves  to  be  noticed :  namely,   that  as  the 
 rite  of  sacrifice  was  loaded  with  many  additional 
 ceremonies,  at  its  second  institution,  under  Moses; 
 in  order  to  guard  the  Jews  from  the  infections 
 of  the  heathen,  it  might  have  been  wisely  designed 
 by  their  law-giver,   not  to  recall  their  attention 
 to    its   original    simplicity,  lest   they  should   be 
 tempted  to  murmur  and  rebel  against  their  own 
 
7S  DIVINE  INSTITUTION  OF   SACRIFICE 
 
 jnultifarious  ritual.      Rev.  Exam.  Diss.  viii.  vol* 
 i.  p.  94. 
 
 But,  perhaps,  an  answer  yet  more  satisfactory 
 ftiay  be  derived  from  considering  the  manner,  in 
 which  the  history  of  the  first  ages  of  the  world 
 has  been  sketched  by  the  sacred  penman.  The 
 rapid  view  he  takes  of  the  antediluvian  world, 
 (having  devoted  but  a  few  chapters  to  the  im- 
 portant and  interesting  concerns  of  the  creation^ 
 the  fall,  and  ilie  transactions  of  all  those  years 
 that  preceded  the  flood,)  necessarily  precluded  a 
 circumstantial  detail.  Accordingly,  we  find  se- 
 veral matters  of  no  small  moment  connected  with 
 that  early  period  and  also  with  the  ages  imme- 
 diately succeeding,  entirely  omitted,  which  are 
 related  bv  other  sacred  writers.  Thus  Peter  and 
 Jude  inform  us  of  the  angels,  that  fell  from  their 
 first  estate,  and  are  reserved  in  everlasting  chains; 
 also  of  a  prophecy  delivered  by  Enoch,  to  those 
 6f  his  days  j  of  the  preaching  of  righteousness  by 
 Noah ;  and  of  the  vexation  which  the  righteous 
 soul  of  Lot  daily  experienced,  from  the  unlawful 
 deeds  of  those  with  whom  he  lived.  (2  Pet.  ii. 
 4,  5.  7,  8.  and  Jade  6.  14,  15. )  None  of  these 
 things  are  mentioned  by  Moses :  and  even  such 
 matters  as  he  has  deemed  of  sufficient  conse- 
 quence to  notice,  he  introduces  only  as  they  may 
 be  connected  with  the  direct  historic  line  which 
 he  holds  in  view ;  and  whilst  hastening  on  to 
 1 
 
Ol&JECTED   TO   ERRONEOUSLY.  79 
 
 those  nearer  events,  on  which  it  was  necessary  for 
 him  to  enlarge,  he  touches  on  other  affairs,  how- 
 ever important,  but  as  they  incidentally  arise. 
 In  this  way,  the  first  mention  of  sacrifice  is  evi- 
 dently introduced ;  not  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
 a  formal  history  of  the  rite,  of  explaining  how  or 
 when  it  was  instituted,  in  which  case  a  formal  ac- 
 count of  its  origin  might  have  been  expected ;  but 
 merely  as  an  occasional  relation,  in  the  history  of 
 the  transfer  of  the  seniority,  or  right  of  primogeni-^ 
 ture,  and  so  the  parentage  of  the  Messiah,  from 
 Cain  into  a  younger  line,  which,  according  to 
 Kennicot,  was  a  thing  absolutely  necessary  to  be 
 known ;  and  also  probably,  of  the  ruinous  effects 
 of  the  fall^  in  the  effervescence  of  that  wicked  and 
 malicious  spirit,  which  made  its  first  baleful  dis- 
 play in  the  murder  of  Abel.  The  silence,  then,  of 
 the  historian,  as  to  the  divine  institution  of  sacri- 
 fice, furnishes  no  argument  against  it.  See  Kenn. 
 Two  Diss.  p.  2 1 1 .  fFits.  Misc,  Sac.  Lib.  ii.  Diss, 
 ii.  §.  2.  also  Richie  s  PecuL  Doct.vol,  i.  p.  136. 
 
 But  then,  according  to  the  Bishop's  reasoning, 
 the  relation  given  by  Moses,  of  the  institution  of 
 the  sabbath, ']\xsi\fies  the  expectation  that,  had  sa^ 
 crifice  arisen  from  the  divine  command,  its  origin 
 would  likewise  have  been  recorded.  But  in  what 
 way  is  the  divine  appointment  of  the  sabbath 
 recorded?  Is  it  any  where  asserted  by  Moses,  that 
 God  had  ordered  Adam  and  his  posterity  to  dedi- 
 cattj  every  seventh  day  to  holy  uses,  and  to  the 
 
to  DIFJNE   jySTITUTION    OF    SACRIFICE 
 
 worship  of  his  name;  or  that  they  ever  did  so,  in 
 observance  of  any  such  command?  No  such  thing. 
 It  is  merely  said^  that  having  rested  from  the  work 
 of  creation,  God  blessed  the  seventh  day,  and 
 sanctified  it.  Now,  so  far  is  this  passage  from 
 being  universally  admitted  to  imply  a  command 
 for  the  sacred  observance  of  the  sabbath,  that  some 
 have  altogether  denied  the  sabbath  to  have  been 
 instituted  by  divine  appointment :  and  the  fathers 
 in  general,  and  especially  Justin  Martyr,  have 
 been  considered  as  totally  rejecting  the  notion  of 
 a  patriarchal  sabbath.  But  although,  especially 
 after  the  very  able  and  learned  investigation  of  this 
 «ubject  by  Dr.  Kennicot  in  the  second  of  his  Two 
 Dissertations  J  no  doubt  can  reasonably  be  enter- 
 tained of  the  import  of  this  passage,  as  relating  the 
 divine  institution  of  the  sabbath,  yet  still  the 
 rapidity  of  the  historian  has  left  this  rather  as 
 matter  of  inference:  and  it  is  certain,  that  he  has 
 no  where  made  express  mention  of  the  observance 
 of  a  sabbath  until  the  time  of  Moses. 
 
 Indeed  it  may  be  a  question,  whether  consider- 
 ing accurately  the  passage  which  describes  the 
 sacrifices  of  Cain  and  Abel,  and  the  circumstances 
 attending  them,  it  does  not  in  itself  furnish  suffi- 
 ciently strong  ground  to  infer  the  divine  appoint- 
 ment of  sacrifice.  The  familiar  manner  in  which 
 the  mention  of  this  sacrifice  is  introduced,  joined 
 to  the  peculiar  force  of  the  words  D*'D^  \pO,  (which 
 Kennicot,  supported  by  Fagius,  shews  ought  not 
 
bfeJECTED  TO  ERRONEOUSLY.       HI 
 
 Vo  be  translated  generally,  in  process  of  time,  but 
 at  the  close  of  the   appointed  season,)  seems  to 
 indicate  a  prior  and  stated  observance  of  this 
 rite;  and  the  manifest  acceptance  of  Abel's  sacri- 
 fice by  God,  evinces  an  approbation  of  that  pre- 
 existing practice,   which   can   leave  little  doubt 
 respecting  the  source  of  its  institution.     And  this 
 advantage  the  case  of  sacrifice  clearly  possesses 
 over  that  of  the  sabbath ;    namely,   that  in  the 
 patriarchal  history  we  have  repeated  and  explicit 
 accounts  of  the  continuance  of  the  former,  whilst 
 the  notices  of  the  sabbatical  observance  antecedent 
 to  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  are  obscure  and  infre- 
 quent.    Now,  v/ere  we  to  argue  rigidly  against 
 the  continued  observance  of  the  sabbath,  from  its 
 not  having  been  expressly  recorded,   we  might 
 contend,  as  has  been  already  hinted,  for  the  neces- 
 sity  of  a   more -explicit  statement  of  its  divine 
 origin  in  the  time  of  Moses  ;  whilst  the  unbroken 
 tradition  and  uninterrupted  practice  of  sacriiice,^ 
 (a  thing  controverted  by  none  that  I  know  oi\ 
 except  Lord  Barrington  in  his  Miscellanea  Sacral 
 vol.  iii.  Diss.  ii.  cor.  3.  and  by  him  upon  grounds 
 rather  fanciful  and  refined,)  might  render  it  less 
 necessary    for   Moses   to   be    particular  on  this 
 head. 
 
 But,  in  truth,  the  silence  of  the  historian 
 respecting  either  the  sabbatical  or  sacrificial  ob- 
 servance is  but  of  little  weight,  when  there  are 
 circumstances    in   the  iiistory,   from   which  the 
 
 TOL.  ir.  G 
 
82  DIFINE   INSTITUTION   OF    SACRIFICE 
 
 practice  may  be  collected.  The  very  notoriety  of 
 a  custom  may  be  a  reason^  why  the  historian  may 
 omit  the  mention  of  its  continuance.  Of  this  Dr. 
 Kennicot  states  a  striking  circumstance  in  the 
 case  of  circumcision,  which,  though  constantly 
 observed  by  the  Israelites,  is  yet  never  once  men- 
 tioned in  the  sacred  history,  as  having  been  prac^ 
 tised  in  a  single  instance,  from  the  settling  of  the 
 Israelites  in  Canaan,  down  to  the  circumcision  of 
 our  blessed  Saviour  ;  that  is,  for  a  space  of  one 
 thousand  four  hundred  and  fifty  years.  And 
 even  of  the  observance  of  the  sabbath  itself,  we 
 find  not  one  instance  recorded,  in  any  of  the  six 
 books  that  follow  the  Mosaic  code.  What  is 
 thus  applied  to  the  continuance,  will  equally  hold 
 for  the  origin  of  a  custom. 
 
 II.  The  second  objection,  derived  from  pas- 
 sages in  the  Old  Testament,  in  which  God  seems 
 to  disown  the  institution  of  sacrifice,  is  to  be 
 replied  to  by  an  examination  of  those  passages. 
 In  the  1th  Ps.  God  is  described  as  saying,  /  luill 
 not  reprove  thee  for  thy  sacrifices,  or  thy  burnt- 
 offerings —  I  will  take  no  hulloch,  &c. — Will 
 I  cat  the  jiesh  of  hulls,  or  drink  the  blood  of 
 fToats'^ — And  again  in  Ps.  li.  Thou  desirest  not 
 sacrifice — thou  delightest  not  in  burnt 'Ojferings. 
 *-And  again  in  Ps.  xl.  Bitrnt -offerings  and  sin- 
 offerings  hast  thou  not  required.  Sacrifices 
 here,  it  is  said,  are  spoken  of  as  not  pleasing  to 
 i}\j(\.     But  it  is  manifest,  on  inspection  of  the 
 
OBJECTED    TO    ERRONEOUSLY.  S3 
 
 context,  that  this  is  only  intended  in  a  compa-- 
 tative  sense,  and  as  abstracting  from  those  con- 
 comitants, without  which  sacrifice  never  could 
 have  been  acceptable  to  a  holy  and  righteous 
 God.  This  is  farther  confirmed  by  the  manner 
 in  which  similar  declarations  are  introduced,  in 
 Isai.  i.  11^  12.  Ixvi.  3.  Prov.  xv.  8.  and  Amos 
 V.  21^  22,  If  the  argument  be  carried  farther^, 
 it  will  prove  too  much ;  it  will  prove,  in  direct 
 contradiction  to  the  testimony  of  Moses,  that 
 the  Jewish  sacrifices  had  not  been  ordained  by 
 God.  These  passages  then  from  the  Psalmsi^ 
 must  go  for  nothing  in  the  present  argument. 
 
 But  then  it  is  said,   that  the  prophet  Jere* 
 iniah    (vii.   22.)    furnishes    a   decisive  proof   in 
 these  words,   For  I  spake   not  unto  your  fa- 
 thers, neither  commanded  them^  in  the  day  that 
 I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  con- 
 cerning  hurnt-ojferings  or  sacrifices.  This,  it  is 
 urged,  as  referring  expressly  to  a  time  prior  to 
 the  giving  of  the  law  of  Mount  Sinai,  clearly 
 proves,  that  God  did  not  institute  sacrifices  be- 
 fore the  promulgation  of  the  law  by  Moses.    But 
 this,  like  the  former  passages,   is  manifestly  to 
 be  understood  in   a  comparative  sense  only,  as 
 may  easily  be  collected  from  what  immediately 
 follows:    But  this    thing    I  commanded  them, 
 sayi?2g,  ohey  my  voice,  and  I  ivill  he  your  Godj 
 and  ye  shall  be  my  people ;  that  is,  the  mere 
 sacriSce  was  not  that  which   I  cominanded,  ^o 
 
 c  9 
 
84         DiriKE   INSTITUTION   OF   SACRIFICE 
 
 much  as  that  which  was  to  give  the  sacrifice  its 
 true  virtue  and  efficacy,  a  sincere  and  pious  sub- 
 mission to  my  will ;  to  obey  he'mg  better  than 
 sacrifice,  and  to  hearTien  than  the  fat  of  rams  ; 
 (1  Sam.  XV.  22.)  In  like  manner, — I  will  have 
 mercy ^  and  not  sacrifice,  (Hos.  vi.  6.)  Rend 
 your  hearts,  and  not  your  garments,  (Joel  ii. 
 13.)  Tour  murmurings  are  not  against  uSy 
 hut  against  the  Lord,  (Ex.  xvi.  8.)  Labour 
 NOT  for  the  meat  that  perisheth,  but  for  the 
 meat  tvhich  endureth  to  everlasting  life,  (Joh. 
 vi.  27.)  The  Scripture  abounds  with  similar  in- 
 stances, in  which  the  negative  form  supplies  the 
 want  of  the  comparative  degree  in  the  He- 
 brew idiom :  not  excluding  the  thing  denied, 
 but  only  implying  a  preference  of  the  thing  set 
 in  opposition  to  it.* 
 
 Dr.  Blayney,  indeed,  thinks  it  not  necessary 
 to  consider  the  words  of  Jeremiah  in  a  com- 
 parative sense.  The  word  Sy,  he  says,  admit- 
 ting the  sense  of  propter,  the  passage  should 
 be  read,  /  spake  not  with  your  fathers,  nor 
 commanded  them,  for  the  sake  of  burnt  of- 
 ferings, &c.  that  is,  God  did  not  command  these 
 purely  on  their  own  account,  but  as  a  means 
 to  some  other  valuable  end.     The  sense  is  sub- 
 
 -*  See  yVait.  Polyglot.  Pioleg.  Idiotism.  6.  Lozcth  oa 
 Hos.  vi.  6.  Mede,  p.  352.  Ken.  Tzvo  Diss,  pp.  208,  209. 
 tml  Jenn.  Jew,  Ant,  toI,  i.  p,  313. 
 
OBJECTED   TO    ERRONEOUSLY  S5 
 
 ytantidWy  the  same.  Now,  if  the  passage  be 
 not  taken  in  this  sense,  but  be  supposed  to  im- 
 ply, that  God  had  not  instituted  sacrifices  at 
 the  time  of  the  departure  of  the  Hebrews  frona 
 Egypt,  then  a  direct  contradiction  is  given  to 
 the  Mosaic  history,  which  expressly  declares, 
 that  God  himself  had  ordained  the  slaying  of 
 the  paschal  lamb,  not  only  before  the  giving 
 of  the  law  at  Sinai,  but  before  the  migration  of 
 the  Israelites  from  Egypt.  And  that  this  was 
 really  a  sacrifice,  and  is  repeatedly  called  by 
 Moses  by  the  very  same  term  r\2'i,  which  is 
 here  applied  to  denote  sacrifice  by  the  prophet, 
 has  been  already  fully  shewn  ia  Number  XXXV. 
 of  this  work. 
 
 Or  again,  if  we  concur  in  the  interpretation 
 of  this  passage,  as  given  by  the  Jewish  doc- 
 tors Jarchi  and  Maimonides,  and  adopted  by 
 Dr.  Kennicot,  we  may  consider  it  as  a  decla- 
 ration on  the  part  of  God,  that  he  had  not  first 
 commanded  the  Israelites  concerning  the  sacri- 
 ficial rites,  after  he  had  led  them  out  of  Egypt. 
 The  passage  in  Jeremiah,  say  they,  refers  to 
 the  transaction  at  Marah.  (See  particularly  Kenn, 
 Two  Diss.  pp.  153.  209.)  The  Jews,  when 
 they  had  arrived  here,  three  days  after  they 
 had  left  the  Red  Sea,  murmured  at  the  bitter- 
 ness of  the  waters ;  a  miracle  was  wrought  to 
 sweeten  them,  and  then  God  made  a  statute 
 and  ordinance  for  them,  and  proposed  to  them 
 
 G  3 
 
S6         DIVINE   INSTITUTION    OP    SACRIFICE 
 
 in  exact  agreement  with  what  is  here  said  ir* 
 Jeremiah^  to  obey  him,  to  give  ear  to  his  com- 
 mandments^ and  keep  his  statutes,  and  that  he 
 would  in  turn  be  their  protector.   (Ex.  xv.  25, 
 SG. )    Now,  this  having  been  some  time  before 
 the  formal  institution   of  the   sacrificial  rite  at 
 Mount  Sinai,  and  the  Jews  having  always  dated 
 the  beginning  of  the  law  from  this  declaration 
 at  Marah,  the  Jewish  doctors  maintain  it  to  be 
 true  in  fact,  that  God  did  not  first  enjoin  theiv 
 code  of  sacrificial  observances,  but  commanded 
 them  concerning  moral  obedience ;  and  thus  un- 
 derstand the  form  of  expression  in  Jeremiah,  as 
 we  do  that  of  St.   Paul,    Adam   was  not  de- 
 ceived,   hut  the  woman  being  deceived  ivas  in 
 the    transgression;    (1    Tim,  ii.    l6.)    that   is, 
 Adam  was  not  first  deceived,  and  was  not  first 
 in  the  transgression,    but  Eve.     The  meaning 
 of  the  passage  in  Jeremiah  would  then  be^  that 
 as  God  had  not,   in  the  first  instance,  enjoined 
 to  the  Jews  their  sacrificial  ritual,  after  he  had 
 led  them  out  of  Egypt;    so  they  were   not  to 
 attach  to  the  observance  of  all  its  minutia?,  a 
 superiority  over  moral  obedience,   but  the  con- 
 trary, the  latter  having  been  first  commanded."^ 
 This  explanation  agrees  in  substance  v/ith  the 
 
 *  See  Maim.  March,  Nev,  pars.  iii.  cap.  32*  ap;  fin. — • 
 KennkoVa  Tuo  Diss,  pp.153.  209o— -and  Jenn,  Jen}.  4nU 
 Tpl.  i.  p.  31^, 
 
OBJECTED    TO    ERRONEOUSLY.  S^ 
 
 former:  and  from  both  it  manifestly  appears, 
 that  this  passage  has  no  relation  to  the  original 
 institution  of  animal  sacrifice. 
 
 The  whole  of  this  subject  is  fully  and  ably 
 treated  by  Mede,  who  sums  up  his  entire  ar- 
 gument in  these  words.  "According  to  one  of 
 these  three  senses,  are  all  passages  in  the  Old 
 Testament  disparaging  and  rejecting  sacrifices 
 literally  to  be  understood:  namely,  when  men 
 preferred  them  before  the  greater  things  of  the 
 Law;  valued  them  out  of  their  degree,  as  an 
 antecedent  duty;  or  placed  their  efficacy  in 
 the  naked  rite,  as  if  ought  accrued  to  God  there- 
 by; God  would  no  longer  own  them  for  any 
 ordinance  of  his ;  nor  indeed  in  that  disguise 
 put  upon  them  were  they."  Mede's  fVorhs,  pp. 
 352,  353. 
 
 NO.     LVIII. ON     THE     SACRIFICE     OF    ABEL,     AS 
 
 EVINCING     THE    DIVINE     INSTITUTION    OF    SA- 
 CRIFICE. 
 
 Page  47.  ("^)  Hallet  considers  this  single  fact 
 as-  supplying  so  strong  an  argument  on  the  pre- 
 sent question,  that  he  does  not  hesitate  to  pro- 
 nounce it,  a  demonstration  of  a  divine  institu- 
 tion. For,  he  says,  Abel's  sacrifice  could  not 
 have  been  acceptable,  if  it  had  not  been  of  di- 
 vine appointment,  according  to  that  obvious 
 maxim  of  all  true  religion,    In  vain  do  they 
 
 G  4 
 
S8  ABEL*S    SACRIFICE    EVINCES 
 
 tcorship  God,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  cont^ 
 mandnients  of  men.  (Mark  vii.  7.)  Thus  says 
 he,  Abel  must  have  worshipped  God  in  vain, 
 had  his  sacrificing  been  merely  a  commandment 
 of  his  father  Adam,  or  an  invention  of  his 
 own.  And  to  m.ake  this  matter  more  evident^ 
 he  asks^  why  we  do  not  now  offer  up  a  bullock, 
 a  sheep,  or  a  pigeon,  as  a  thank-offering  after 
 any  remarkable  deliverance,  or  as  an  evidence 
 of  our  apprehensions  of  the  demerit  of  sin.  The 
 true  reason  is,  because  we  cannot  know  that 
 God  will  accept  such  icill-worship,  and  so  con-r 
 elude  that  we  should  herein  worship  God  in 
 vain.  As  Abel  then  did  not  sacrifice  in  vain,  it 
 was  not  wiil-ivorship,  but  a  divine  appoint- 
 ment. To  this,  he  adds,  the  want  of  a  right  to 
 slay  animals  before  the  flood,  unless  conferred 
 by  God  for  this  very  purpose  of  sacrifice,  gives 
 yet  farther  confirmation.  Hallet  on  Hehr, 
 xi.  4. 
 
 Dr.  Richie  remarks,  that  the  divine  accep- 
 tance is  not  confined  to  the  sacrifice  of  Abel, 
 but  that  we  find  it  extended  also  to  others  of- 
 fered under  the  patriarchal  dispensation.  Thus, 
 God  is  said  to  have  amelled  a  siveet  savour ^ 
 (a  strong  expression  of  his  acceptance,)  when 
 Noah  offered  his  burnt-ofiering.  Job's  care, 
 likewise,  to  offer  burnt-offerings  for  his  chil- 
 dren, is  mentioned  as  an  eminent  effect  of  piety, 
 and  with  particular  marks  of  approbation.    (Job;^ 
 
A    DIVINE    INSTITUTION.  8.9 
 
 ch.  i.)  And  the  honourable  mention,  which  is 
 made  of  the  sacrifices  offered  by  other  pious 
 men  in  this  period  of  the  world,  leaves  no  room 
 to  doubt  of  their  liaving  been  likewise  graci- 
 ously accepted  by  God.  It  is,  moreover,  to  be 
 observed,  that  the  oblation  of  some  of  those 
 early  sacrifices,  was  expressly  ordered  by  God 
 himself:  as  the  burnt-ofiering  of  Abraham,  (Gen. 
 xxii.)  and  those  which  were  offered  by  the  three 
 friends  of  Job.  (Job.  xlii.)  Now  that  it  is  more 
 natural  to  thinks  that  God  would  order  and  ac- 
 cept ofi  the  performance  of  a  mode  of  worship^ 
 which  had  been  instituted  by  himself,  than  that 
 he  would  thus  countenance  one,  which  had  been 
 the  product  of  mere  human  invention,  is  a  thing 
 which  will  not  bear  much  dispute.  See  Dr. 
 Richie  s  Pec,  Doct.  vol.  i.  pp.  149,  150.  In- 
 deed, whoever  wishes  to  see  the  subject  of  the 
 divine  institution  of  sacrifices  satisfactorily  treat- 
 ed^ may  consult  the  last  named  work,  p.  136 — 
 151.  to  great  advantage.  See  also  Barringtons 
 Misc.  Sac.  vol.  iii.  p.  6*7 — 71.  and  Heideg.  Hist, 
 Pair.  ExerciL  iii.  §  52,  53.  torn.  i. 
 
 This  last  writer  considers  the  efZTTVOiC-f^o^,  or 
 the  burning  of  the  sacrifice  by  fire  from  hea* 
 \en,  a  decisive  proof  of  a  divine  institution  : 
 and  that  the  patriarchs  were  favoured  with  this 
 infallible  sign  of  the  divine  acceptance  of  their 
 sacrifices,  the  language  of  Scripture,  he  thinks, 
 leaves   us   no   room  to  doubt.     That  it  was  by 
 
go  ABEL'S    SACRIFICE    EVINCES 
 
 this  sign  that  it  was  known  that  the  sacrifice  of 
 Abel  was  accepted,  is  the  almost  unanimous 
 opinion  of  the  Fathers.  And  in  this  the  Jewish 
 Doctors  concur ;  as  see  Aben  Ezra  and  Jarchi 
 on  Gen.  iv.  4.  Theodotion  translates  the  verb 
 in  this  verse,  sveTTV^iosv :  a  translation,  with  which 
 even  Julian  was  satisfied. 
 
 It  is  certain,  that  this  manifestation  of  the 
 divine  power  was  vouchsafed  in  later  times.  The 
 sacrifice  of  Abraham,  Gen.  xv.  17.  supphes  a 
 striking  instance  of  it.  And  if  Shuckford's  read- 
 ing of  n^;!  to  (kindle),  instead  of  "iiy  (to  pass), 
 be  admitted,  this  passage  becomes  in  itself  de- 
 cisive of  the  point,  (Connection,  &c.  vol.  i.  p. 
 298.)  But  if  we  look  to  the  period  under  the 
 law,  we  shall  find  this  the  usual  method=^  of 
 signifying  the  divine  acceptance  of  the  sacrifice. 
 Hence,  to  accept  a  burnt  sacrifice,  is  called  in 
 the  Hebrew,  Ps.  xx.  3.  to  iurn  it  into  ashes. 
 The  reliques  of  this  are  to  be  found  even  in  the 
 heathen  traditions.  Thus  Servius  on  JTln,  xii. 
 200.  says,  "  Amongst  the  antients  fire  was  not 
 lighted  upon  the  altar,  but  by  prayer  they  called 
 down  fire  from  heaven  which  consumed  the 
 oflfering."  From  these,  and  other  arguments 
 not  less  forcible,  every  Commentator  of  note 
 had   been  led    to    pronounce   in   favour    of   the 
 
 *  See  Lev.  Jx.  24.     Jiulg.  -vi.  21.      1   Kings  XYili.  38. 
 \  Chr.  xxi,  20.     2  Chr,  vii.  1,  kc. 
 
A    DIVINE    INSTITLTTION.  9 1 
 
 idea,  that  the  acceptance  of  the  sacrifice  was 
 testified,  from  the  beginning,  in  the  miraculous 
 manner  here  described. =^  That  the  fire  which 
 consumed  the  sacrifice,  was  a  flame  which  issued 
 from  the  Sheckhmk,  or  glorious  visible  pre- 
 sence of  God,  is  the  opinion  of  Lord  Barring- 
 ton  ;  see  Mlscell.  Sacr.  vol.  iii.  Dissert,  ii :  '^  On 
 God*s  visible  presence,"  But  be  this  as  it  may, 
 the  fact  of  this  divine  fire  consuming  the  sacri- 
 fice^ seems  to  be  established:  and  the  inference 
 from  this  fact  in  favour  of  the  divine  institution 
 of  sacrifice  cannot  easily  be  overturned. 
 
 NO.  LJX.- ON  THE  HISTORY  AND  THE  BOOK 
 
 OF  JOB. 
 
 Page  48.  (») — There  is  no  one  part  of  the 
 sacred  volume,  which  has  more  exercised  the 
 ingenuity  of  the  learned,  than  the  book  of  Job. 
 Whether  it  contain  a  true  history  or  a  fabulous 
 relation?  If  true,  at  what  time  and  place  Job 
 lived?  And  what  the  date  and  author  to  be 
 assigned  to  the  work?  —  These  are  questions, 
 which  have  given  birth  to  opinions  so  various, 
 and  to  controversies  so  involved,  that  to  enu- 
 merate all,  and  to  weigh  their  several  merits, 
 would   far  exceed   the  compass  of  the  present 
 
 *  See  Fagius,  Grotius^  Le  Clerc,  Jmszi\  Patrick,  Jame^ 
 son,  Dathe^  RosenmuUer,  &c.  on  Gen.  iv.  4, 
 
92  TH£    HISTORY 
 
 work.  But  to  take  a  brief  review  of  the  opi- 
 nions  of  the  most  distinguished  critics,  and  to 
 ehcit  from  contending  arguments  the  probable 
 result,  whilst  necessary  to  the  subject  of  our 
 present  enquiry,  cannot  fail  to  furnish  matter  of 
 interesting  investigation. 
 
 I.  On  the  first  of  the  questions  above  stated, 
 there  have  been  three  opinions :  one,  pronounc- 
 ing the  poem  to  be  a  real  narrative :  a  second, 
 holding  it  to  be  a  mere  fictitious  relation,  in- 
 tended to  instruct  through  the  medium  of  pa- 
 rable: and  the  third,  adopting  an  intermediate 
 idea,  and  maintaining  the  work  itself  to  be  dra- 
 matic and  allegorical,  but  founded  upon  the 
 history  of  real  characters  and  events. 
 
 Among  the  many  distinguished  names  which 
 support  the  first  opinion,  are  to  be  reckoned,  in 
 later  times,  those  of  Spanheim,  Sherlock,  Schul- 
 tens.  Bishop  Lowth,  Peters,  and  Kennicot:  to 
 these  perhaps  may  be  added  that  of  Grotius, 
 who,  though  he  contends  that  the  work  is  a 
 poetic  representation,  yet  admits  the  subject  to 
 be  matter  of  true  history.  In  defence  of  this 
 opinion,  the  work  is  considered  as  supplying 
 strong  intrinsic  evidence :  the  general  style  and 
 manner  of  the  writer  betraying  nothing  allego- 
 rical, but  every  where  bespeaking  a  literal  rela- 
 tion of  actual  events  ;  entering  into  circumstan- 
 tial details  of  habitation,  kindred,  and  names ; 
 and  adhering  with  und^viating  exactness  to  those 
 
AND    BOOK   OF    JOB.  95 
 
 manners  and  usages,  which  belong  to  the  age 
 and  country,  of  which  it  seems  to  treat.  The 
 reahty  of  the  person  of  Job  is  also  attested  by 
 the  prophet  Ezechiel,  who  ranks  him  with  two 
 other  real  and  illustrious  characters;  and  by  the 
 apostle  James,  who  proposes  him  as  a  character 
 particularly  deserving  of  imitation.  Concurrent 
 traces  of  profane  history  too,  supply  additional 
 confirmation,  as  may  be  seen  in  Mr.  Gray's  ac- 
 count of  the  book  of  Job;  so  that,  as  this  judi- 
 cious writer  properly  observes,  "  it  has  every 
 external  sanction  of  authority,  and  is  stamped 
 with  every  intrinsic  mark,  tliat  can  characterise 
 a  genuine  relation.'* 
 
 In  direct  opposition  to  this,  is  the  system  of 
 Maimonides;  which,  representing  the  whole  as 
 a  parabolical  and  fictitious  relation,  has  been 
 adopted  successively  by  Le  Clerc,  and  Michae- 
 lis.  The  arguments  of  the  first  of  these  wri- 
 ters, have  been  fully  replied  to  by  Codurcus; 
 those  of  the  second,  by  Peters ;  and  those  of 
 the  last  have  received  some  judicious  animad- 
 versions from  the  pens  of  Mr.  Gray  and  Dr. 
 Gregory.  The  arguments  commonly  urged  in 
 support  of  this  hypothesis,  are  derived  from  cer- 
 tain circumstances  of  intrinsic  improbability : 
 such  as,  the  miraculous  rapidity  with  which 
 the  calamities  of  Job  succeeded ;  the  escape  of 
 precisely  one  servant  to  bear  the  news  of  each 
 disaster;  the  destruction  of  /OOO  sheep  at  once 
 
 1 
 
94  THE    HISTORY 
 
 struck  dead  by  lightning;  the  seven  days  silence 
 of  the  friends  of  Job  ;  the  higlily  figurative  and 
 poetic  style  of  dialogue,  which  never  could  have 
 taken  place  in  actual  conversation.  These  are 
 what  Peters  calls  the  little  exceptions  of  Le  Clerc 
 to  the  truth  of  the  histor)^ ;  and  might,  some  of 
 tliem,  deserve  attention,  w^ere  we  neither  to 
 admit  a  supernatural  agency  in  the  transac- 
 tions, nor  a  poetic  rapidity  in  the  narrative  re- 
 jecting the  consideration  of  unimportant  par- 
 ticulars. 
 
 An  objection,  however,  of  greater  moment,  ig 
 derived  from  the  conversation  of  Satan  with  the 
 Almighty:  and  to  this  Michaelis  adds  others 
 which  he  claims  as  his  peculiar  invention,  de-^ 
 duced  from  the  name  of  Job;  from  the  artificial 
 regularity  of  the  numbers ;  and  from  internal 
 inconsistencies  and  contradictions.  Of  these  last 
 named,  perhaps  the  two  former,  might  well  be 
 ranked  among  the  little  exceptions  :  the  deriva- 
 tion of  the  name  of  Job,  from  a  word  which 
 signifies  repentajice,  being  at  best  but  conjec- 
 tural ;  and  even  were  it  certain,  making  nothing 
 against  the  reality  of  the  person,  names  having 
 been  frequently  given  in  ancient  times,  from 
 circumstances  which  occurred  at  an  advanced  pe- 
 riod of  life,  of  which  numerous  instances  appear 
 in  holy  writt  and  as  to  the  regularity  of  the 
 numbers;  the  years  of  Job's  life,  his  children, 
 his  sheep,  his  camels,   his  oxen,  and  his   asses. 
 
ANP    BOOK   OF    JOB*  95 
 
 being  all  told  in  round  numbers,  and  all  exactly- 
 doubled  in  the  years  of  bis  prosperity ;  it  is 
 obvious  to  remark,  that  it  would  ill  suit  the  fulness 
 and  elegance  of  poetic^  narration  to  descend  to 
 the  minutiae  of  exact  numeration;  and  that,  as  to 
 the  precise  duplication,  it  is  but  a  periphrasis 
 growing  out  of  the  former  enumeration,  intended 
 merely  to  express,  that  the  Lord  gave  to  Job 
 twice  as  much  as  he  had  before. 
 
 The  two  remaining  objections  require  more 
 particular  consideration.  And  firsts  as  to  the 
 incredibility  of  the  conversation,  which  is  related 
 to  have  taken  place  between  the  Almighty  and 
 Satan,  it  may  be  observed,  that  this,  and  the 
 assemblage  of  the  celestial  intelligences  before  the 
 throne  of  God,  should  be  considered  as  poetic,  or, 
 as  Peters  with  more  propriety  expresses  it,  pro- 
 phetical personifications,  in  accommodation  to 
 our  limited  faculties,  which  are  abundantly  autho- 
 rized by  God  himself  in  holy  Scripture,  and  are 
 perfectly  agreeable  to  the  style,  wherein  his  pro- 
 phets have  been  frequently  commanded  to  deliver 
 the  most  solemn  and  important  truths.  Thus 
 the  prophetic  visions  of  Isaiah,  (ch.  vi.)  of  Ezech. 
 (ch.  i.)  of  St.  Paul,  (2  Cor.  xii.  2.  4.)  and  of  St. 
 John,  (Rev.  iv.  1,  2.)  represent  the  proceedings  of 
 
 ^'  The  poem,  perhaps,  stridli)  speaking^  may  be  said  not 
 to  begin  until  the  third  chapter;  that  which  precedes  being, 
 narration.  But  the  narration,  agreeably  to  the  lofty  style  of 
 the  East,  is  itself  of  poetical  elevation. 
 
96  THE    HISTORY 
 
 Providence,  in  like  reference  to  our  powers  and 
 modes  of  conception :  and  the  vision  of  Micaiah, 
 (1  Kings  xxii.  19 — 23.)  and  that  of  Zechariah, 
 (ii.  13.  iii.  1.)  supply  cases  precisely  parallel  in 
 every  respect.  Farmer  justly  remarks  on  this 
 subject,  that  such  "  visions  or  parabolical  repre- 
 sentations, convey  instruction  as  truly  and  pro- 
 perly, as  if  they  were  exact  copies  of  outward 
 objects/'*  And  indeed,  if  the  introduction  of 
 Satan  be  admitted  as  an  argument  against  the 
 truth  of  the  history,  it  should  lead  us  equally  to 
 reject  the  narrative  of  our  Lord's  temptation,  as 
 an  unfounded  fiction.  If,  however,  the  opinion 
 of  Dathe  (which  has  also  the  support  of  Herder, 
 Eichhorn,  and  Doederlein,)  be  well  founded,  all 
 difficulty  arising  even  from  this  circumstance  is 
 removed;  inasmuch  as  the  evil  spirit  is  not, 
 according  to  his  interpretation,  intended  ;  but  one 
 of  the  angelic  ministers,  whose  peculiar  office  it 
 was  to  explore  and  try  the  real  characters  of  men, 
 and  to  distinguish  the  hypocrite  from  the  sincerely, 
 pious. 
 
 The  objection,  derived  from  the  internal  incon- 
 sistencies and  contradictions  of  the  work,  is  thus 
 stated  by  Michaelis.  Job,  who  could  not  have 
 been  advanced    in   years    himself,   upbraids   his 
 
 *  Enquiry  into  the  Temptation^  p.  164 — attend  to  this 
 writer's  observations, — also  to  Cliappet.  Cojumcnt.praf.  p.  xiv. 
 and  particularly  to  Peters' s  Grit.  Diss.  p.  113 — 122.  and 
 Trnjlor's  Sdicme  of  Scr.  Div.  ch.  xxi. 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  97 
 
 friends  with  their  youth  (xxx.  !.)•  yet  these  very 
 men  exact  reverence  from  Job  as  their  junior, 
 speaking  of  themselves  as  aged  7nen,  much  older 
 than  his  father,  (xv.  10.)  and  ar«  expressly  de- 
 scribed by  Elihu,  (xxxii.  6*,  7.)  as  men  to  be 
 respected  for  their  hoary  age.  (Nofa^  et  Epi- 
 metra,])'^.  178^  '^79)  This  argument  Michaelis 
 admits  to  be  the  grand  strength  of  his  cause,  and 
 to  this  Dr.  Gregory's  reply  is  satisfactory,  so  far 
 as  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  xxx.  1.  is  con- 
 cerned ;  in  which  there  certainly  appears  no  rela- 
 tion to  the  friends  of  Job,  but  merely  a  general 
 complaint,  bewailing  the  degraded  state  to  which 
 himself  had  fallen;  and  contrasting  with  that  high 
 respect  which  he  had  in  former  days  experienced, 
 — when  even  the  aged  arose  and  stood  up,  when 
 princes  refrained  talking,  and  the  nobles  held 
 their  peace, — his  present  abject  condition,  when 
 even  those  that  were  younger  than  him,  and  who 
 were  of  such  mean  descent,  that  he  ivould  have 
 disdained  to  have  set  their  fathers  ivith  the  dogs 
 of  hisjioch,  (by  which  he  could  not  possibly  have 
 intended  his  three  friends,)  now  held  him  in  deri- 
 sion. But,  I  apprehend,  Dr.  Gregory's  criticism 
 on  ch.  XV.  10. — namely,  that  by  the  words,  ivith 
 us  (l3l),  is  meant,  with  us  in  opinion — is  not  at 
 all  supported  by  the  genius  of  the  Hebrew,  nor 
 by  parallel  usage.  I  think  it  is  evident  both  from 
 this  and  the  passage,  xxxii.  6,  7-  that  the  friends 
 of  Job,  or  some  of  them,  were  aged.     But  in  the 
 
 VOL.  II.  li 
 
9S  THE   HISTORY 
 
 true  meaning  of  the  word  w^w^,  which  seems  to 
 have  been  hit  off  by  Chappelow  alone  of  all  the 
 commentators,  we  shall  find  a  complete  solution 
 of  the   difficulty.      This    w^ord,  as    Chappelow 
 remarks,  on   Job  xii.  12.  and   xxxii.  6.  does  not 
 merely  imjoly  age,  but  the  wisdom  which  should 
 accompany  age.     It  may  perhaps  not  improperly 
 be  expressed  in  our  language,  by  the  single  term 
 sage.     Taking  the  word  in  this  sense,  no  incon* 
 «istency   whatever   appears :  for  then   the  thing 
 denied  by  Job  to  his  friends,  in  xii.  12.  claimed 
 by  themselves  in  xv.  10.  and  ascribed  to  them  by 
 Elihu,  in  xxxii.  6,  7.  will  be,  not  length  of  years, 
 but  those  fruits  of  wisdom,  which  years  should 
 have  produced.     It  should  also  be  noted  that  in 
 XV.  10.  the  words  are  in  the  singular  number;  so 
 that,  in   strictness,   no   more   than  one  amongst 
 them  is  here  spoken  of,  as  advanced  in  age  beyond 
 the  years  of  Job.     Indeed  an  inconsistency  so 
 gross  and  obvious,  as  this  which  is  charged  against 
 the  book  of  Job  by  the  German  Professor^  cannot 
 be  other  than  seeming,  and  founded  in  some  mis- 
 apprehension   of    the   meaning   of  the  original. 
 Admitting  even  the  poem  to  be  fabulous,  he  must 
 have  been  a  clumsy  contriver,  who  could  in  one 
 place  describe  his  characters    as  young,  and  in 
 another  as  extremely  aged,  when  urged  to  it  by 
 fto  necessity  whatever,  and  at  full  liberty  to  frame 
 his   narrative  as  he  pleased.     And  this  want  of 
 comprehension    should  least,   of  all    have    been 
 1 
 
AND   BOOK   OF   JOB.  99 
 
 t)bjected  by  those  critics,  who,  in  supposing  the 
 work  to  have  been  composed  in  an  age  and  coun- 
 try different  from  those  whose  nianners  it  pro- 
 fesses to  describe,  are  compelled,  upon  their  own 
 hypothesis,  to  ascribe  to  the  writer,  an  uncommon 
 portion  of  address  and  refinement. 
 
 But  supposing  the  narrative  to  have  a  founda- 
 tion in  truth,  the  third  hypothesis,  which  repre- 
 sents this  as  wrought  up  into  an  allegorical 
 drama;  remains  to  be  considered.  This  strange 
 €onceit  was  the  invention  of  Warburton.  He 
 considers  Job,  his  wife,  and  his  three  friends,  as 
 designed  to  personate,  the  Jewish  people  on  their 
 return  from  the  captivity,  their  idolatrous  wives, 
 and  the  three  great  enemies  of  the  Jews  at  that 
 period,  Sanballat,  Tobiah,  and  Geshem.  This 
 allegorical  scheme  has  been  followed  by  Garnet, 
 with  some  variations,  whereby  the  history  of  Job 
 is  ingeniously  strained  to  a  description  of  the 
 Jewish  sufferings,  during  the  captivity.  The 
 whole  of  Warburton's  system,  ^*'  the  improbabili- 
 ties of  which,"  as  Peters  observes,  "  are  by  no 
 means  glossed  over  by  the  elaborate  reasoning  and 
 extravagant  assertions  of  the  learned  writer,"  is 
 fully  examined  and  refuted  by  that  ingenious 
 author,  in  the  first  eight  sections  of  his  Critical 
 Dissertation. 
 
 The  arguments,  by  which  this  extraordinary 
 hypothesis  has  been  supported,  are  drawn  from 
 the  highly  poetic  and  figurative  style  of  the  work. 
 
 H   d 
 
100  THE    HISTORY 
 
 whence  it  is  inferred  to  be  dramatic :  and  from 
 the  unsuitableness  of  particular  actions  and  expres- 
 sions to  the  real  characters,  which  at  the  same 
 time  correspond  to  the  persons  whom  these  cha- 
 racters are  supposed  to  represent,  whence  it  is 
 inferred  to  be  allegoricaL  But,  from  the  first 
 nothing  more  can  fairly  be  deduced,  than  that 
 the  writer  has  not  given  the  precise  words  of 
 the  spea^<:ers,  but  has  dressed  out  the  dialogue 
 with  the  ornaments  of  poetry,  in  a  manner  which, 
 Dathe  truly  tells  us,  is  agreeable  to  the  customs  of 
 the  country,  in  which  the  scene  is  laid:  it  being 
 visual  to  represent  the  conferences  of  their  wise 
 men  on  philosophic  questions,  in  the  most  ele- 
 vated strain  of  poetic  diction.  (vSee  Dath.  on 
 Job,  c.  iii.)  And  as  to  the  second,  it  cannot 
 appear  to  a  sober  reader,  in  any  other  light,  than 
 that  of  a  wild  and  arbitrary  fancy.  Bishop  Lowth 
 declares,  that  he  has  not  been  able  to  discover  a 
 single  vestige  of  an  allegorical  meaning,  through- 
 out the  entire  poem.  It  requires  but  a  sound 
 understanding  to  be  satisfied,  that  it  has  no  such 
 aspect.  And  at  all  events,  this  strange  hypothesis 
 rests  altogether  upon  another ;  namely,  that  the 
 book  was  written  in  the  age  of  those,  to  whom  it 
 is  supposed  to  bear  this  allegorical  application. 
 If  then,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  there  be  no  just, 
 ground  for  assigning  to  the  work  so  late  a  date,  the 
 whole  of  this  airy  fabrick  vanishes  at  once. 
 
AND    BOOK    OF   JOB.  lOl 
 
 •     II.  The  history  of  Job  appearing  now,  on  the 
 whole,  to  be  a  true  relation,  the  second  question 
 
 €omes   to  be  considered, In   what  age,  and 
 
 country,  did  he  hve?  As  to  the  place  of  Job's 
 residence  there  seems  to  be  little  difficulty. 
 Commentators  are  mostly  agreed  in  fixing  on 
 Idumeea,  a  part  of  Arabia  Petreea.  Kennicot 
 (Remarks  on  Select  Passages,  p.  152.)  considers 
 Bishop  Lowth  as  having  completely  proved  this 
 point.  Codurcus  had  long  before  maintained  the 
 same  opinion  :  (Prcef.  ad  Job.)  and  Dathe  and 
 the  modern  German  commentators  give  it  their 
 support.  The  position  of  the  land  of  Uz,  (see 
 Lam.  iv.  21.)  the  residence  of  Job;  and  of  the 
 several  places,  named  as  the  habitations  of  his 
 friends^,  seems  to  ascertain  the  point  with  suffi- 
 cient precision.  Children  of  the  East,  also  ap- 
 pears to  be  a  denomination  applicable  to  the 
 inhabitants  of  that  region,  (see  Lowth.  Prcelect, 
 xxxii.)  and  is  even  pronounced  by  Dathe  to  have 
 been  ap}wopriate. 
 
 The  only  objection  deserving  notice,  that  can 
 be  raised  against  this  supposition,  is  drawn  from 
 the  great  distance  of  Idumaea  from  the  country  of 
 the  Chaldeans,  who,  living  on  the  borders  of  the 
 Euphrates,  could  not  easily  have  made  depreda- 
 tions on  the  camels  of  Job.  And  this  has  been 
 thought  by  some  a  sufficient  cause,  for  assigning 
 to  Job  a  situation  in  Arabia  Deserta,  and  not  far 
 from  the  Euphrates.  But,  as  Lowth  replies,  what 
 h3 
 
lOS  THE    HISTORY 
 
 should   prevent  the   Chaldeans^  as  well  as  the 
 Sabeans,  a  people  addicted  to  rapine,  and  roving 
 about  at  immense  distances  for  the  sake  of  plun- 
 der,   from  wandering  through  those  defenceless 
 regions,  and  pervading  from  Euphrates  even  to 
 Egypt  ?  And  on  the  other  hand,  what  probability 
 is  there,  that  all  the  friends  of  Job,  residing  in 
 and  near  Idumaea,  should  be  instantly  informed 
 of  all  that  had  happened  to  Job  in  the  desert  of 
 Arabia,   and  on    the   confines   of   Chaldea,    and 
 repair  thither  immediately  after  the  transaction  ? 
 Shuckford*s    arguments    concur    with    these  of 
 Lowth  ;  and  are   fully  satisfactory  on  this  head. 
 See   Connect,   B.  vii.  vol.  ii.  p.  138.      See  also 
 Gray  on  the  book  of  Job,  note  r.*     The  LXX 
 likewise  describe  the  land  of  Uz  as   situated  in 
 Idumsea:  and  Job  himself  they  consider  an  Idu- 
 maean,  and  a  descendant  of  Esau.     (See  Append, 
 of  the  LXX.)     The  Mohammedan  writers  like- 
 wise inform  us  that  he  was  of  the  race  of  Esau. 
 See  Sales  Koran,  ch.  21.  vol.  ii.  p.  I62. 
 
 With  respect  to  the  age  of  Job,  one  thing 
 seems  generally  admitted;  namely,  its  remote 
 antiquity.  Even  they  who  contend  for  the  late 
 production  of  the  hook  oF  Job,  are  compelled  to 
 acquiesce  in  this.  Grotius  thinks  the  events  of 
 the  history  are  such,  as  cannot  be  placed  later 
 than  the  sojourning  of  the  Israelites  in  the  wilder- 
 ness, Frcjef.  adJob.  Warburton,  in  like  manner, 
 admits  them  to  bear  the  murks  of  Ijigh  antiquity: 
 
AND   BOOK   OF   JOB.  I  OS 
 
 and  Michaelis  confesses  the  manners  represented 
 to  be  perfectly  Abrahamic,  such  as  were  common 
 to  all  the  seed  of  Abraham,  Israelites^  Ishmaelites, 
 and  Idumasans.     (Not.  et  Epim.  p.  181.) 
 
 Some  of  the  principal  circumstances,  from 
 which /the  age  of  Job  may  be  collected,  are  these 
 which  follow.  1.  The  general  air  of  antiquity 
 which  is  spread  over  the  manners  recorded  in  the 
 poem,  of  which  Michaelis  as  above  referred  to,  has 
 given  striking  instances.  2.  The  length  of  Job's 
 life,  which  seems  to  place  him  in  the  patriarchal 
 times.  3.  The  allusions  made  by  Job  to  that 
 species  of  idolatry  alone,  which  by  general  con- 
 fession was  the  most  antient,  and  which,  as  Lowth 
 observes  (Lectures  on  Sacred  Poetry  *  Greg.  ed. 
 vol.  ii.  p.  355.)  is  a  decisive  mark  of  the  pa- 
 triarchal age.  4.  The  nature  of  the  sacrifice 
 offered  by  him  in  conformity  to  the  divine  com- 
 mand ;  namely,  seven  oxen  and  seven  rams,  simi- 
 lar to  that  of  Balaam,  and  suitable  to  the  respect 
 entertained  for  the  number  seven  in  the  earliest 
 ages.^  This,  though,  as  Mr.  Henley  observes, 
 the  ancient  practice  might  have  been  continued 
 in  Idumaea  after  the  promulgation  of  the-}-  Mosaic 
 law,  is  far  from  being,  as  he  asserts,  destitute  of 
 
 *  See  JahlonsJdPanih.  JEgypt.  Vroleg,  p.  53"-59.  Univ. 
 Hist.  B.  iii.  ch.  xxxvii.  sect.  3.  also  Aim.  on  Lev.  iv.  6.  and 
 Numb,  xxxiii.  1. 
 
 +  See  Mr.  Henley's  note  in  Dr.  Gregory^s  tramlation  of 
 Lovsth's  Lectures^  vol.  ii.  p.  356. 
 h4 
 
104  THE    HISTORY 
 
 weiglit ;  inasmuch  as  the  sacrifice  was  offered  h^ 
 the  command  of  God ;  who,  aUhoiigh  he  might 
 be  supposed  graciously  to  accommodate  himself 
 to  the  prevaihng  customs,  before  the  promulga- 
 tion of  the  Law,  yet  cannot  be  imagined  after  he 
 had  prescribed  a  certain  mode  of  sacrifice  to  the 
 Israehtes,  to  sanction  by  his  express  authority,  in 
 a  country  immediately  adjoining,  a  mode  entirely 
 dififerent,  and  one  which  the  Mosaic  code  was 
 intended  to  supersede.  5.  The  language  of  Job 
 and  his  friends,  who  being  all  Idumeeans,  or  at 
 least  Arabians  of  the  adjacent  country,  yet  con- 
 verse in  Hebrew.  This  carries  us  up  to  an  age 
 so  early,  as  that  in  which  all  the  posterity  of 
 Abraham,  Israelites,  Idumaeans,  and  Arabians, 
 yet  continued  to  speak  one  common  language, 
 and  had  not  branched  into  different  dialects.* 
 6.  Certain  customs  of  the  most  remote  antiquity 
 are  alluded  to  by  Job.  He  speaks  of  the  most 
 antient  kind  of  writing,  by  sculpture.  His  riches 
 also  are  reckoned  by  his  cattle.  And  as  to  the 
 word  HD'^it^p,  which  is  translated  a  j)^Gce  of  money, 
 there  seems  good  reason  to  understand  it  as  signi- 
 fying a  lamb. 
 
 This  word  occurs  but  in  two  other  parts  of 
 Scripture,  Gen.  xxxiii.  19.  and  Josh.  xxiv.  32. 
 and  in  both  of  these  it  is  applied  to  the  purchase 
 of  a  piece  of  ground  by  Jacob,  who   is  on  that 
 
 *  See  Lozcth,  De  Sacr.  Foes*  Pi  eel,  xxxii,  p.  311.  als© 
 Gra^  on  Job.  uote  a'. 
 
AND    BOOK    OF   JOB.  105 
 
 particular  occasion  represented  as  rich  in  flocks, 
 and  as  driving  with  him  large  quantities  of  cattle: 
 and  accordingly,  the  Targum  of  Onkelos,  the 
 LXX,  Jerome,  Pagninus,  and  the  learned  Jew 
 Aben  Ezra,  have  all  of  them  rendered  the  word 
 lanih,  or  sheep.  In  order  to  force  the  word  to  the 
 signification  of  a  piece  of  money,  it  has  been  pre- 
 tended, that  the  coin  bore  the  impress  of  a  lamb. 
 Upon  this  conjecture,  and  a  passage  in  Acts  vii. 
 15,  16,  which  can  give  it  no  support,  is  the  entire 
 interpretation  built.^^^  Now  the  notion  of  a 
 stamped  coin,  as  Dathe  remarks,  (on  Job.  xlii. 
 11.)  is  inadmissible  in  an  age  so  early  as  that  of 
 Jacob.  The  way  of  payment  in  silver  in  the  time 
 of  Abraham,  we  know  to  have  been  by  weight,  or 
 shekels  uncoined :  and  what  authority  have  we  to 
 pronounce,  that  stamped  money  was  in  use  in  the 
 time  of  Jacob?  The  money  which  was  put  into 
 the  sacks  of  Joseph's  brethren,  seems  to  have 
 been  the  same  as  in  the  time  of  Abraham,  being 
 called  SDD  nnn^,  strictly  bundles  of  silver,  (Gen. 
 xlii.  35.)  an  expression  not  likely  to  be  applied  to 
 coined  pieces  of  money.  And  indeed  no  expres- 
 sion, indicating  such  pieces  of  money,  seems  to 
 occur  in  any  of  the  early  books  of  the  Bible. 
 Junius  and  TremeUius  on  Gen.xxxiii.  l^.-f-  speak 
 
 *  See  Cocc.  Lex. — Galas.  Concord. — Drusius,  and  Gro. 
 (ius,  and  Hodge's  Elihu,  on  Job  xlii.  II.  also  Ilamm,  and 
 Whitby^  on  Acts  vii.  15,  16. 
 
 •\  Geddes  in  his  Critical  Remarks  truly  observes,  on  the 
 
106  THE    HISTORY 
 
 of  sheep,  as  the  antient  medium  of  traffic ;  an^ 
 pronounce  the  word  Hi^^'^ip  to  be  pecuHar  to  the 
 Arabians  and  antient  Canaanites.  This^  and  the 
 remark  of  Codureus,  "  that  as  pecunia  was  first 
 called  from  pecus,  so  Kesckita,  which  first  sig- 
 nified pecus,  was  afterwards  transferred  to  signify 
 pecunia,''  tend  to  confirm  our  reasoning.  For  if 
 a  sheep  was  the  most  antient  medium  of  traflic, 
 and  was  in  the  earhest  times  expressed  by  the 
 word  Keschifa,  whilst  its  subsequent  transfer  to 
 denote  pecunia  is  but  conjectural,  there  can  be 
 but  little  difficulty  as  to  the  conclusion.  See  also 
 an  elaborate  dissertation  on  the  word  by  Costard: 
 in  which  he  shews,  that  the  first  stamping  of 
 money  with  any  effigies,  was  of  ?  date  several 
 centuries  later  than  the  time  of  Jacob,  not  having 
 been  known  before  the  time  of  Cyrus.  (Enquiri/ 
 into  the  meaning  of  the  ivord  Kesitah,  p.  12,  &c.) 
 If  this  opinion  be  right,  the  point  is  decided.  At 
 all  events  it  should  be  remembered,  that  if  Ae^- 
 chita  must  signify  a  piece  of  money,  the  only  age, 
 beside  that  of  Job,  in  which  we  find  the  word 
 applied  in  Scripture,  is  the  age  of  Jacob.  That 
 no  such   coin  was  known  of  under  the  Mosaic 
 
 word  J-^ls^irp  in  this  passage,  that  "  most  interpreters,  after 
 Sept.  have  understood  it  of  la,:ibs^  more  particularly  CoLV- 
 lambs.  So  equivalently  (he  adds)  all  the  antient  versions. 
 Some  have  imagined  (he  says)  that  it  v^as  a  piece  of  money 
 with  the  figure  of  a  lamb  on  it :  which  is  highly  improbable^ 
 as  coined  money  is  of  a  much  later  date," 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  10/ 
 
 dispensation,  is  shewn  by  Hodges,  in  his  Elihii, 
 p.  242.     I  have  dwelt  thus  long  upon  the  investi- 
 gation of  the  true  meaning  of  this  word,  as  well 
 because  the  interpretation  of  it,  as  a  stamped  jo/ece 
 of  money  y  seems  to  have  been  too  easily  acquiesced 
 in  by  commentators   in   general ;    as   because    I 
 would  not  presume  to  differ  from  the  received 
 translation  without  the  most  careful  examination. 
 From  the  above  considerations,  the  great  anti- 
 quity of  Job  seems  to  be  an  unavoidable  conse- 
 quence.    To  specify  the  exact  time  at  which  he 
 lived,  is  a  matter  of  greater  difficulty,  but  of  infe- 
 rior   importance.     Eusebius    places   him    before 
 Moses  two  whole  ages  :  and  in  this  concurs  with 
 the  opinion  of  many  of  the  Hebrew  writers,  who 
 (as  Selden  observes)  describe  him  as  living  in  the 
 days  of  Isaac  and  Jacob.     That  the  judgment  of 
 the   Eastern  nations   does  not  differ  much  from 
 this,    may    be    seen    in    Hotti/igers    Smegma 
 Orientale,p.  381.     (See  PatricJis  pref,  to  Joh.) 
 Shuckford  is  of  opinion  that  he  was  cotemporary 
 with  Isaac.     (Connect.   B.  vii.  vol.   ii.  p.  I27.) 
 Spanheim  (Hist,  Joh,  cap.  ix.  p.  285.)  places  him 
 betw^een  the  death  of  Joseph  and  the  departure 
 from   Egypt.      But   whoever  wishes  to  see  the 
 most  probable,    and   satisfactory    account,    may 
 consult  the   table  of  descent  given  by  Kennicot, 
 (Remarks,  &c.  p.  152.)   in  which  Job  is  repre- 
 sented as  cotemporary  with  Amram  the  father  of 
 Moses ;  Eliphaz  the  Temanite^  who  ^vas  the  fifth 
 
108  THE    HISTORY 
 
 from  Abraham,  being  cotemporary  with  both, 
 Mr.  Heath  agrees  with  this  account,  in  placing 
 the  death  of  Job  about  fourteen  years  before  the 
 Exodus. 
 
 III.  The  third  and  last  question  now  comes 
 to  be  considered :  namely,  what  date,  and  author, 
 are  to  be  assigned  to  the  hooh  of  Job,  That  the 
 poem  is  as  antient  as  its  subject,  and  that  Job  was 
 not  only  the  hero  but  the  author  of  the  work,  is 
 the  opinion  of  many  distinguished  commentators. 
 The  objections  brought  against  this  opinion  are 
 derived  from  marks  of  later  times,  which  it  is  said 
 are  to  be  discerned  in  the  work,  and  which  are 
 copiously  summed  up  and  largely  insisted  on  by 
 Mr.  Heath. 
 
 1.  It  is  urged,  that  there  is  frequent  allusion  to 
 the  laws  of  Moses. — On  the  directly  opposite 
 presumption  it  had  been  pronounced,  that  the 
 book  could  not  have  been  written  at  a  late  period^ 
 for  the  benefit  of  the  Jews ;  inasmuch  as  there  is 
 not  to  be  found  in  it,  "  one  single  word  of  the 
 law  of  Moses  nor  so  much  as  one  distant  allusion 
 to  any  rite  or  ceremony  of  the  law.''  *  The 
 instances  adduced  by  Heath,  in  support  of  his 
 position,  are  taken  from  Job  iii.  I9.  and  xli.  1^, 
 and  xxxi.  28.  the  two  first  of  which,  in  speaking 
 of  manumission,  and  eternal  servitude,  allude,  as 
 he  says,  to  the  law  in  Exod.  xxi.  2 — 6'.  concern- 
 
 *  See  Sherlock's  use  of  Proph,  Diss.  ii.  p.  207.  sec  also 
 Lozcth.  Praicct.  xxxii.  p.  312. 
 
AND    BOOK   OF    JOB.  IO9 
 
 ing  the  release  of  the  Hebrew  servant  in  the 
 seventh  year,  and  the  ceremony  of  piercing  the 
 ear  where  an  eternal  servitude  was  consented  to : 
 and  the  third,  in  describing  idolatry  as  a  crime  to 
 be  punished  hy  the  judge,  must,  as  he  thinks, 
 relate  to  the  Mosaic  dispensation ;  *'  the  laws  of 
 the  Mosaic  polity,  being  the  only  ones  in  the 
 world,  which  punished  idolatry."  (Essay  to- 
 ivards  a  new  Version,  p.  1 29.)  As  to  the  two 
 first  instances,  the  resemblance  is  so  imaginary, 
 or  rather,  so  truly  chimerical  an  idea,  as  not  to 
 deserve  an  answer ;  if  the  reader,  however,  wish 
 to  see  one,  he  will  find  it  in  Mich,  Not,  et  Epini. 
 p.  I89.  To  the  third,  which  has  also  the  autho- 
 rity of  Warburton  and  Mr.  Locke,  it  may  be 
 replied,  that  Scripture  decides  the  point;  as  it 
 informs  us,  that  Abraham  was  called  from  Chal- 
 dea  on  account  of  the  encrease  of  idolatry,  to 
 raise  a  people  for  the  preservation  of  the  worship 
 of  the  true  God :  so  that  the  allusion  to  the  exer- 
 tion of  judicial  authority  against  idolatry^  was 
 most  naturally  to  be  expected  from  a  descendant 
 of  this  patriarch,  and  it  may  be  added,  from  one 
 not  far  removed.  See  LowtKs  Lectures,  S^c, 
 Greg.  ed.  vol.  ii.pp.  354,  355.  also  Michael.  Not, 
 et  Epim,  p.  190.  and  especially  Peters,  Grit, 
 Diss,  pref,  p.  iii — xii,  where  this  point  receives 
 the  most  ample  examination. 
 
 2.  It  is  contended,  that  there  are  allusions  not 
 
 only  to  the  laws,  but  to  the  history,  of  the  Jewish 
 
 i 
 
110  THE    HISTORY 
 
 people.  But  these  allusions,  as  staled  by  Heath, 
 are  so  extremely  fanciful,  as  in  the  opinion  of 
 Michaelis  to  require  no  farther  refutation  than  the 
 bare  reading  of  the  passages  referred  to.  (Not, 
 €t  Eplm.  pp.  191,  192. )  Some  of  the  same  kind 
 had  been  urged  by  Warburton,  (Div.  Leg,  B.  vi. 
 <§>.  ii.  vol.  iii.  p.  494 — 499.)  and  proved  to  be  futile 
 and  visionary  by  Peters.  (Crit.  Diss.  p.  28 — 36.) 
 Indeed  these  points  have  been  so  completely  can- 
 X^assedj  that  v/e  may  now  with  confidence  pro^ 
 nounce,  as  Sherlock  had  done  before,  (Use  of 
 Proph.  p.  297.)  that  there  is  no  one  allusion, 
 direct  or  indirect,  either  to  the  law,  or  to  the 
 history,  of  the  Jews,  that  can  be  fairly  pointed 
 out  in  the  book  of  Job. 
 
 But  3.  it  is  maintained,  both  by  Heath,  and 
 Warburton,  that  the  use  of  the  word  Jehovah 
 determines  the  date  of  the  book  to  be  later  than 
 the  aee  of  Moses:  God  not  havin^x  been  known 
 by  that  name,  until  he  appeared  to  Moses,  as  he 
 himself  declares,  in  Exod.  vi.  3-  This,  however, 
 is  evidently  a  misapprehension  of  the  meaning  of 
 the  passage  in  Exodus:  ^t  being  certain,  that 
 God  teas  known  to  the  patriarchs,  Abraham  and 
 Jacob,  by  the  name  of  Jehovah ;  that  he  calls 
 himself  by  lliat  name  in  speaking  to  them;  and 
 is  so  called  by  them  again  expressly.  *  The 
 sense  of  the  passage  then  must  be,  not  that   the 
 
 ♦  See  Gen.  xiv.  22.  xv.  %  8.  7.  xxiv.  3.  xxviii.  13.  16, 
 «D(1  xxxii.  9. 
 
AND   BOOK   OF  JOB.  Ill 
 
 name  was  unknown  to  all  before  Moses,  but  its 
 true  signification ;  that  is^  the  nature  and  pro- 
 perties of  the  self-existent  being,  expressed  hj 
 that  comprehensive  name  Jehovah,  which  in  the 
 original  signifies,  according  to  Le  Clerc,  and 
 almost  all  the  commentators^  jaitlifal  and  sted- 
 fast^  making  things  to  be^  that  is,  fulfilling  all  his 
 promises,  which  he  began  to  accomplish  in  the 
 time  of  Moses.  By  this  name  then,  in  its  true 
 sense,  God  certainly  was  not  hiown,  or,  as  Peters 
 renders  it,  was  not  distinguished,  before  the  time 
 of  Moses.*  This  objection  may  consequently  be 
 set  aside. 
 
 *  See  Fatablus,  Bath,  and  Rosenm,  In  locum — also  Pefers^g 
 pref,  to  Crit,  Diss.  p.  xii — xvi.  and  Bishop  Kidder's  Comm. 
 en  the  Five  Books  of  Moses,  vol.  i.  p.  297.  The  last  named 
 learned  expositor,  agreeably  to  the  idea  suggested  abore,  ex- 
 plains the  passage  in  Exodus  thus.  '^  Jehovah  denotes  not 
 only  God's  eternal  beings  but  his  giving  of  being  to  other 
 things,  and  especially  the  performing  his  promise.  Now 
 Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  had  received  promises,  but  en- 
 joyed not  the  tiling  promised.  The  time  was  now  come  in 
 which  God  would  bring  to  pass  what  he  had  promised  ;  and 
 now  they  should  know  that  he  is  the  Lord.  Isai.  xllx.  23. 
 lii.  6.  Ix.  16.  The  knowing  him  by  his  name  Jehovah,  im- 
 plies the  receiving  from  him  what  he  had  promised  before,  &c. 
 This  view  of  the  matter  ought  to  have  saved  Dr.  Geddes  from 
 the  very  laborious  discussion  of  the  point  into  which  he  has 
 entered  in  his  Critical  Remarks^  and  finally  from  the  necessity 
 of  pronouncing,  that  we  must  either  suppose  the  writer  of 
 Exodus  in  contradiction  with  the  writer  of  Genesis,  or  allow 
 that  th€  name  Jehovah  has  been  put  in  the  mouths  of  the 
 
113  THE   HISTORY 
 
 Nor  will  the  4th  objection,  derived  from  the 
 mention  of  Satan,  be  found  to  have  greater 
 weight.  The  Evil  Being,  it  is  contended  both 
 by  Heath  and  Warburton,  was  not  known  to  the 
 Jews  in  early  days;  and  the  word  Satan  never 
 occurs  until  a  late  period  of  their  history,  as  a 
 proper  name ;  in  which  light  it  is  said  to  be  here 
 necessarily  used,  as  being  preceded  by  the  empha- 
 tic article  n,  pDH,  i.  e.  the  adversary.  But, 
 that  the  doctrine  of  an  evil  spirit  was  not  un- 
 known to  the  Jews  at  an  early  day,  is  evident  from 
 the  history  of  Ahab,  in  which  mention  is  made  of 
 it  as  a  thing  familiar,  and  in  a  manner  precisely 
 similar  to  the  present  case.  Indeed  the  history 
 of  the  fall  could  scarcely  be  made  intelligible  to 
 them  without  that  doctrine ;  and  Warburton  him- 
 self admits,  (B.  vi.  §.  2.  vol.  ii.  p.  533.)  that  the 
 notion  of  an  evil  principle,  had  probably  arisen 
 *^  from  the  history  of  Satan  misunderstood,  or 
 imperfectly  told,  in  the  first  ages  of  mankind." 
 In  the  next  place  the  word^  Satan,*  was  clearly 
 not  unknown  to  the  early  Jews,  as  appears  from 
 the  use  of  it  in  Numb.  xxii.  22.  in  the  story  of 
 
 patriarchs  prior  to  MoseSy  and  in  the  mouth  of  God  himself  j 
 by  some  posterior  copier ^  corrupting  the  original  passages  by 
 substituting  for  tD^"iV«,  the  word  r-o.T,  which  had  in  later 
 times  become  the  peculiar  name  of  God  among  the  Hebrews. 
 See  other  ec^wdWy  profound ^ndi  pious  observations  of  this  wri- 
 ter upon  this  subject,  quoted  in  p.  7  of  this  volume. 
 
 *  Sec  on  this  word  Taj/ior's  iScheme  of  Scrip.  Div,  ch.  xi,, 
 
AND    BOOK    OF   JOB.  1 13 
 
 Balaam.  We  find  it  also  in  2  Sam.  xix.  22. 
 1  Kings  V.  4.  xi.  14.  23.  25.  Psal.  Ixxi.  13.  cix. 
 20.  29.  But  if  it  be  asserted,  that  it  is  used 
 in  those  several  places,  but  as  a  common  appel- 
 lative^  yet  still,  neither  will  it  follow,  that  the 
 name  might  not  have  been  used,  as  the  Being 
 was  certainly  known,  amongst  the  early  Jews; 
 nor  does  it  even  appear,  that  the  word  is  here 
 used  as  a  proper  name,  as  the  article  may  be 
 employed  only  to  mark  out  that  adversary,  or 
 accusing  spirit  amongst  the  angelic  tribe,  who 
 had  undertaken  the  office  of  putting  the  virtue 
 of  Job  to  trial ;  so  that  no  part  of  the  objection 
 is  valid.  See  3Itch.  Not,  ei  Ep'im.  pp.  193. 
 199*  ^^^  Dath.  as  referred  to  p.  324 :  and  on 
 this  entire  objection  consult  IVarh.  Div,  Leg, 
 vol.  ii,  p.  530 — 535.  and  Pet  era's  Crit,  Diss, 
 p.  88—92. 
 
 But  5.  it  is  argued,  and  upon  this  point 
 Heath  and  most  other  objectors  principally  rely, 
 that  the  book  of  Job  abounds  with  Chaldaisms, 
 Syriasms,  and  Arabisms,  which  clearly  prove 
 the  lateness  of  its  production.  Now,  in  opposi- 
 tion to  this,  we  have  the  authority  of  the  most 
 distinguished  scholars  and  critics,  Schultens,  and 
 Michaelis^  in  pronouncing  that  the  charge  of 
 Chaldaisms  is  totally  erroneous.  Those  Chal- 
 daisms,  on  which  Le  Clerc  so  confidently  relies, 
 by  which  the  plural  termination  in  is  put  for 
 im,  Schultens  asserts  to  be  "  Hebraicse  et  Ara^ 
 
 VOL.  II.  i 
 
114  THE    HISTORY 
 
 bicae  ditionis,  atque  vetustissimce  monetae  :  (Dr. 
 Greifs  Job,  praef.  p.  xii.)  and  Michaelis  affirms, 
 that  of  such  Chaldaisms  as  by  their  present  use 
 might  evince  the  lateness  of  a  Hebrew  work, 
 not  one  is  to  be  discovered  in  this  book.  (Not,  et 
 Epim.  p.  193.)  The  prefix  of  ^,  in  ch.  xv.  30. 
 supposed  to  be  a  Chaldaism  from  ^'^^,  he  proves 
 is  not  so.  And,  even  were  it  so  used^,  this  is 
 shewn  by  Kennicot,  (Remarks,  &c.  p.  153.)  to 
 supply  no  argument  against  the  antiquity  of  the 
 book,  that  will  not  equally  affect  the  book  of 
 Genesis.  That  expressions  of  Syriac  and  Arabic 
 affinity  frequently  occur,  there  can  indeed  be  no 
 question.  This  stands  upon  the  authority  of  the 
 most  distinguished  scholars,  Bochart,  Pocock, 
 Hottinger  and  Walton.  (See  Wits.  3Iisc,  Sac. 
 Lib.  i.  cap.  xvi.  ^.  28.)  Nor  is  this  denied  by 
 Schultens,  Kennicot,  and  Michaelis.  But  from 
 this  they  infer  the  remote  antiquity  of  the  work ; 
 since,  says  Michaelis,  the  Hebrew,  Syriac,  and 
 Arabic,  are  not  to  be  considered  so  much  dif- 
 ferent languages,  as  dialects  of  one  radical  lan- 
 guage, originally  common  to  the  descendants  of 
 Abraham  ;  and  the  higher  we  ascend,  the  more 
 resemblance  we  shall  consequently  find.  But 
 besides,  Michaelis  adds  that  one  principal 
 reason  for  our  attributing  to  the  book  of  Job, 
 Chaldaic,  Syriac,  and  Arabic  expressions,  may 
 be  its  very  great  antiquity,  and  uncommon  sub- 
 limity of  elevation,  occasioning  a  greater  num- 
 I 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  115 
 
 ber  of  ocTTcx.^  Xeyof>i,evcc,  and  expressions  difficult  to 
 be  understood:  which  commentators  are  con- 
 sequently led  to  explain  from  those  several  lan- 
 guages; not  because  the  words  strictly  belong  to 
 them,  but  because  there  are  more  books,  and 
 better  understood  in  those  languages,  than  in 
 the  Hebrew ;  and  hence  it  is  supposed,  that 
 the  expressions  actually  belong  to  those  lan- 
 guages.^ 
 
 On  this  topic  perhaps  so  much  need  not 
 have  been  said,  had  not  the  high  authority  of 
 Bishop  Law  given  to  the  objection  more  con- 
 sequence than  truly  belongs  to  it,  by  the  hint 
 conveyed  in  his  excellent  work  on  the  Theory 
 of  Religion,  (p.  74.)  that  the  subject  of  it  had 
 been  "  too  slightly  passed  over."  Since  the  time 
 of  the  Bishop  it  has  received  more  ample  dis- 
 cussion :  and  from  that  discussion  there  seems 
 to  arise  the  strongest  argument  in  favour  of  the 
 antiquity  of  the  book  of  Job.  So  that  we  may 
 see  the  justness  of  Bishop  Lowth's  remark,  that 
 "  from  the  language,  and  even  from  the  oh" 
 scurity  of  the  work,"  no  less  than  from  its  sub- 
 ject, it  may  fairly  be  inferred,  '^  to  be  the  most 
 antient  of  all  the  sacred  books.^  Prcel.  Hehr, 
 xxxii. But  not  only  do  tiiese  criticisms  bear 
 
 *  Mich.  Not  €t  Epim.  pp.  194,  195.  See  Peters' s  Crii. 
 Diss.  p.  133 — 137.  and  141 — 143.  see  also  Codurc.  prccf.  ad 
 J  oh.  where  the  necessity  of  consulting  Targums,  &c.  is  urged 
 in  a  way  which  fully  justifies  this  solution  of  Michaelis. 
 
 I  2 
 
116  THE    HISTORY 
 
 Upon  the  age  of  the  poem,  but  on  the  country 
 of  its  author.  For  does  not  the  mixture  of 
 foreign  expressions  rather  prove  that  the  author 
 was  not  a  Jew ;  and  does  not  that  of  the  Arabic 
 particularly,  with  which  it  is  considered  most 
 to  abound,  indicate  its  Arabic  extraction,  which 
 perfectly  agrees  with  the  supposition  of  Job  hav- 
 ing been  its  author  ?  And  it  deserves  to  be  no- 
 ticed, that  even  Codurcus,  who  supposes  it  to  be 
 the  woik  of  one  of  the  later  prophets,  yet  con- 
 jectures from  the  stile,  that  the  prophet  might 
 have  been  originally  from  Idumaea, — the  very 
 country  of  Job.  (Prcef,  ad  Job,) 
 
 6.  It  is  objected  by  Codurcus,  Grotius,  and 
 Le  Clerc,  that  there  are  passages  in  the  Book  of 
 Job,  which  so  strongly  resemble  some  in  the 
 Psalms  and  Proverbs,  that  we  may  fairly  sup- 
 pose them  to  have  been  taken  from  those  writ-* 
 ings.  But  to  this  Warburton  has  well  replied, 
 that  "  if  the  sacred  writers  must  needs  have  bor- 
 rowed trite  moral  sentences  from  one  another, 
 it  may  be  as  fairly  said,  that  the  authors  of  the 
 Psalms  borrowed  from  the  book  of  Job,  as  that 
 the  author  of  Job  borrowed  from  the  book  of 
 Psalms:"  D'lv,  Leg.  vol.  ii.  p.  499.  See  also 
 Peters" s  Crit,  Diss,  p.  139—141.  And  had 
 the  learned  Bishop  been  disposed  to  exercise  as 
 unbiassed  a  criticism  upon  himself,  as  he  Has 
 done  upon  Grotius  and  Le  Clerc,  he  vvould  have 
 felt  the  ?iame  argument  bearing  with  equal  tbrce 
 
AND    BOOK    OF   JOB.  117 
 
 against  the  objection  which  he  has  attempted 
 to  deduce  from  the  supposed  adoption  of  certain 
 phrases,  which  are  found  in  other  books  of  the 
 Old  Testament.  That,  however,  which  the 
 Bishop  has  not  done  for  himself,  Peters  has  done 
 for  him;  by  shewing  that  those  few  phrases, 
 which  he  has  instanced,  have  no  pecuUar  stamp 
 of  age  or  country,  and  bear  no  marks  whatever 
 of  being  borrowed  from  other  parts  of  Scripture. 
 (Crit.  Diss,  p.  26 — 29.)  It  should  also  be  ob- 
 served, that,  in  opposition  to  the  above-men- 
 tioned objection  of  Grotius,  Le  Clerc,  &c.  Bishop 
 Hare  has  endeavoured  to  shew,  that  there  is  in- 
 ternal evidence,  that  the  Psalmist  has  borrowed 
 from  Job,  not  Job  from  the  Psalmist.  And 
 Chappelow  (Comment,  on  Joh,  v.  16.  viii.  10, 
 and  pref.  p.  10.)  represents  the  passages,  which 
 are  common  to  Job  with  the  writers  of  the 
 Psahiis,  Proverbs,  &c.  as  proverbial  forms  of 
 speech,  sentences  of  instruction,  or  Q'^^D,  millim, 
 as  they  are  pecuharly  called  in  Job,  transmitted 
 from  one  age  to  another.  It  therefore  is  not 
 necessary  to  suppose  that  either  borrowed  from 
 the  other. 
 
 I  have  now  enumerated  all  the  arguments 
 deserving  any  notice,  which  have  been  urged 
 against  the  antiquity  of  the  book  of  Job.  How 
 conjectural,  unfounded,  and  futile  most  of  them 
 are,  and  how  inconclusive  others,  it  is  not  dif- 
 ficult to  discover.      This    indeed  they   tend  to 
 
 I  3 
 
118  THE    HISTORY 
 
 shew,  that  the  more  the  objections  against  the 
 antiquity  of  this  book  are  examined,  the  stronger 
 will  the  arguments  be  found  in  favour  of  it.  In 
 addition^  however,  to  what  has  appeared,  there 
 are  some  positive  proofs  which  have  been  ad- 
 vanced, and  which  are  not  a  httle  worthy  of 
 consideration.  Bishop  Patrick  has  observed,  in 
 his  preface  to  Job,  that  though  there  is  plain 
 mention  of  the  dehjge,  and  the  burning  of  So- 
 dom, there  is  no  allusion  to  the  drowning  of 
 Pharaoh,  and  the  other  miraculous  works  attend- 
 ing the  deliverance  of  the  Israelites  from  Egypt : 
 and  that  Elihu,  when  expressly  reckoning  up 
 the  different  modes  of  revelation,  takes  no  no- 
 tice of  the  revelation  made  to  Moses.  These 
 omissions,  however,  as  well  as  the  want  of  re- 
 ference to  any  of  the  Mosaic  rites,  though  they 
 furnish  a  decisive  proof  against  the  late  age  of 
 the  book,  on  the  supposition  of  the  author  being 
 a  Jeiv,  yet  do  so,  it  must  be  confessed,  onli/ 
 upon  that  supposition.  But  it  will  not  be  easy, 
 to  account  for  the  circumstance,  of  the  book's 
 containing  no  allusion  to  "  any  one  piece  of 
 history  later  than  Moses/'  (Slier I.  Use  of 
 Proph.  p.  207.)  upon  any  hypothesis,  that 
 places  its  date  lower  than  the  age  of  the  Jewish 
 law- giver. 
 
 Now   if  to   these  considerations  be  added  the 
 characters  of  antiquity,  attached  to  the  subject. 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  119 
 
 the  conduct,  and  the  language  of  the  work ; 
 some  of  which  have  already  appeared  in  the 
 discussion  of  the  foregoing  objections,  and  which 
 are  in  general  so  strikingly  obvious,  as  to  con- 
 strain even  those,  who  contend  for  the  late  pro- 
 duction of  the  work,  to  represent  it  as  written 
 in  imitation  of  early  manners:  —  if  we  admit 
 with  Peters,  (Crit.  Diss.  p.  143.)  that  there 
 are  expressions  in  this  book,  of  a  stamp  so  an- 
 tient,  that  they  are  not  to  be  met  with  in  the 
 Chaldee,  Syriac,  or  any  other  language  at  pre- 
 sent known :  and  that  many,  which  rarely  occur 
 elsewhere,  and  are  difficult  to  be  explained,  are 
 here  to  be  found  in  their  primitive  and  most 
 simple  forms: — if,  in  short,  there  be  on  the 
 whole,  that  genuine  air  of  the  antique,  which 
 those  distinguished  scholars,  Schultens,  Lowth, 
 and  Michaelis,  affirm^  in  every  respect  to  per- 
 vade the  work,  we  can  scarcely  hesitate  to  'pro- 
 nounce with  Lowth  and  Sherlock,  that  the  book 
 of  Job  is  the  oldest  in  the  world  now  extant. 
 (PrceL  Ilehr.  and  Use  of  Proph.  Diss.  ii.  p. 
 206.)  Taylor  draws  the  same  conclusion  from  a 
 very  satisfactory  though  brief  view  of  the  merits 
 of  the  entire  argument,  in  the  xxiid  ch.  of  his 
 Scheme  of  Scrip.  Div.  which  I  would  particu- 
 larly recommend  to  the  perusal  of  the  reader. 
 
 *  See  Grey's  Schult.  Job,  praef.  p.  TLiu^Prael,  Hebr,  p. ' 
 310.  and  Mich,  NoU  et  Epim,  p.  195. 
 
 I   4 
 
120  THE    HISTORV 
 
 It  deserves  also  to  be  noticed^  that  a  writer*  in 
 the  TheoL  Rep.  vol.  i.  p.  73.  who  is  by  no 
 means  a  friend  to  the  idea  of  the  antiquity  of 
 the  book  of  Job,  is  compelled  by  the  decided 
 marks  of  the  remote  and  primitive  state  of  the 
 Hebrew,  every  where  discoverable  in  the  work, 
 to  pronounce  tiie  author  to  have  been  a  person 
 of  great  "ability  and  address;  who  was  master 
 of  the  old  language,  and  had  given  a  venerable 
 antique  air  to  his  poem,  by  making  the  persons 
 of  his  dialogue,  supposed  to  have  lived  in  verij 
 early  times,  speak  the  language  which  was  spoken 
 in  their  days."  Whether  there  was  any  person 
 o(  such  ahUity  and  address,  it  is  for  this  writer 
 to  decide.     With  his  admission  I  am  content. 
 
 After  what  has  been  said,  we  can  have  but 
 little  difficulty  with  the  systems  of  Grotius,  War- 
 burton,  Heath,  and  others,  who  suppose  the 
 work  written  at  a  late  period  of  the  Jewish  his- 
 tory, for  the  consolation  either  of  the  Edo- 
 mites,  when  carried  away  by  the  Babylonians  ; 
 (which  was  the  notion  of  Grotius,)  or  of  the 
 Jews  in  circumstances  of  similar  distress  after, 
 or  under  the  captivity :  the  former  of  which 
 was  Warbur ton's ;  and  the  latter,  Garnet's  idea. 
 What  has  been  said  of  the  style,  and  other  pecu- 
 
 *  This  writer  appears  to  be  Mr.  Scott,  the  author  of  the 
 translation  of  Job  into  English  Terse:  the  paper  in  the 
 Theol.  Rep.  being  printed  as  his  in  an  appendix  to  that 
 translation. 
 
AND    BOOK    OF   JOB.  121 
 
 liaiities  of  the  book  of  Job,  necessarily  subverts 
 all  such  theories.  And  to  bring  down  this  sub- 
 hme  poem  to  the  age  of  the  Babylonish  cap- 
 tivity, especially  to  the  period  succeeding  it, 
 would  be,  as  Lowth  observes,  little  different 
 from  the  error  of  Hardouin,  who  ascribed  the 
 golden  verses  of  Virgil,  Horace,  &c.  to  the 
 iron  age  of  monkish  pedantry  and  ignorance* 
 (Led,  &c.  ed.  Greg.  vol.  ii.  p.  355.)  Besides, 
 all  these  theories  are  utterly  inconsistent  with 
 the  existence  of  the  book  of  Job  before  the  time 
 of  Ezekiel ;  a  fact,  which  Grotius  inferred,  and 
 which,  notwithstanding  Warburton's  denial  of 
 the  consequence,  Peters  has  shewn  must  be  in- 
 ferred from  the  mention  of  Job  by  that  pro- 
 phet. =^  The  supposition^  then,  that  Ezra,  Eze- 
 kiel, or  indeed,  any  person  subsequent  to  the 
 age  of  Moses,  was  the  writer  of  this  book,  must, 
 for  the  reasons  that  have  been  assigned,  be  en- 
 tirely rejected.  It  remains  of  course,  but  to 
 enquire,  whether  it  is  to  be  ascribed  to  Moses, 
 or  was  written  before  his  time.  In  either  sup- 
 position, the  antiquity,  both  of  the  history,  and 
 of  the  book,  is  sufficiently  established,  for  the 
 purpose  of  my  argument  concerning  sacrifice; 
 but,  on  a  subject  so  interesting,  we  are  naturally 
 impelled  to  look  on  to  the  end. 
 
 *  See  Biv,  Leg.  B.  vi.  §.  2.  toI.  ii.  p.  490.  and  Crit,  Diss. 
 p.  145—150. 
 
122  THS    HISTORY 
 
 That  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  book  has 
 been  the  opinion  of  many,  both  Jews  and  Chris- 
 tians. But  the  arguments,  which  have  been 
 used  to  prove,  that  the  writer  could  not  be  later 
 than  the  giving  of  the  law,  or  the  departure  of 
 the  Israelites  from  Egypt,  will  equally  prove, 
 that  if  the  book  was  the  production  of  Moses, 
 he  must  have  written  it  before  the  Exodus. 
 Accordingly,  Huet,  Michaelis,  and  Kennicot, 
 who  attribute  the  work  to  him,  have  placed  it 
 at  that  early  period,  and  thereby  in  a  good 
 measure  escape  the  force  of  Bishop  Lowth's  ob- 
 jection, derived  from  the  want  of  that  allusion 
 to  the  customs,  ceremonies,  or  history  of  the 
 Israelites,  which  he  thinks  must  have  appeared, 
 had  Moses  written  the  book  with  a  view  to  the 
 consolation  of  his  people  at  any  time  after  the 
 promulgation  of  the  law.  Michaelis  says,  that 
 it  was  probably  written  by  him,  to  console  the 
 Israelites  under  their  Egyptian  slavery.  (Not, 
 et  Epim.  pp.  181,  182.)  And  Kennicot  thinks, 
 that  Moses  having  lived  a  long  time  in  Midian, 
 and  on  the  borders  of  Idumaea,  may  well  be 
 supposed  the  author,  having  there  learned  the 
 story  of  Job's  fortunes,  which  was  probably  then 
 recent,  and  that  thus  also  may  the  Arabic  forms 
 of  expression,  which  occur  in  the  work,  be  easily 
 accounted  for:  Remarks,  &c.  p.  152. 
 
 These  writers  have  followed  the  notion  of 
 Huet,  and  of  several  of  the  most  antient  Jewish 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  123 
 
 and  Christian  authors,  whom  he  enumerates. 
 (See  Dem,  Evang,  p.  226.)  To  this  opinion, 
 however,  it  has  been  objected  by  Dupin,  that 
 *'  the  style  of  Job  is  figuratively  poetical,  and 
 obscure,  entirely  different  from  that  of  the  Pen- 
 tateuch:" and  Bishop  Lowth,  whose  judgment 
 with  respect  to  style  will  scarcely  be  questioned, 
 does  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  the  style  of  Job 
 to  be  materially  different  from  that  of  Moses, 
 even  in  his  poetic  productions ;  and  describes  it 
 to  be  of  that  compact  and  sententious  kind, 
 which  is  to  be  observed  in  the  prophecies  of  Ba- 
 laam the  Mesopotamian.  (Prcel.  Hehr.  xxxii.) 
 Michaelis  also  admits  the  force  of  this  criticism, 
 by  seeking  to  account  for  the  dissimilitude,  from 
 the  supposition  that  the  book  of  Job  was  written 
 by  Moses  at  a  very  early  period  of  life.  (Not, 
 et  Epim.  p.  186.)  But  although  a  youthful 
 imagination  might  sufficiently  account  for  a 
 higher  degree  of  poetic  imagery  and  embellish- 
 ment, yet  it  seems  a  strange  reason  to  assign 
 for  a  more  "  compact,  condensed  style,  and  a 
 greater  accuracy  in  the  poetical  conformation  of 
 the  sentences/'  which  is  the  character  attributed 
 to  it  by  Lowth,  as  distinguishing  it  from  the 
 Pentateuch. 
 
 Kennicot,  however,  it  must  be  confessed,  dif- 
 fers from  the  Bishop  so  far  as  to  affirm,  that 
 there  is  a  striking  resemblance  in  the  construc- 
 tion of  the  poetry  of  Job^  to  the  song  of  Moses 
 
124  THE    HISTORY 
 
 in  Deut.  xxxi.  (Remarks^  &c.  p.  153.)  But 
 even  admitting  his  discernment  of  the  graces 
 and  characters  of  style  to  be  equal  to  that  of 
 the  elegant  composer  of  the  Lectures  on  the 
 Hebrew  poetry,  and  the  sublime  translator  of 
 Isaiah,  yet  still  it  remains  to  be  enquired, 
 whence  those  expressions  of  Syriac  and  Arabic 
 origin,  which  are  not  to  be  discovered  in  the 
 Pentateuch,  If  it  be  said,  as  Father  Simon  has 
 expressly  alleged,  (Crit,  Des,  Proleg.  de  Dup, 
 lib.  V.  p.  514.)  and  as  is  hinted  also  by  Keu- 
 nicot,  that  Moses  might  have  learned  these 
 dialects  whilst  in  the  land  of  Midian,  it  then 
 remains  to  be  explained,  how  he  came  to  un- 
 learn them  again,  before  he  wrote  the  Pen- 
 tateuch. As  to  one  particular  sameness  of  ex- 
 pression, which  Kennicot  thinks  he  discovers 
 in  the  Pentateuch  and  Job,  namely,  the  frequent 
 use  of  the  future  for  the  preterite  ;  if  this  were 
 indeed  a  peculiarity  confined  to  these=^  two  parts 
 of  the  sacred  volume,  might  it  not  be  account- 
 
 *  The  learned  critic  has  been  obliged  to  confess  on  sub- 
 sequent consideration,  that  the  conversion  of  i\\Q  future  into 
 the  preterite  hy  the  i  prefixed,  is  not  strictly  confined  to  the 
 Pentateuch  and  (he  book  of  Job;  and  he  himself  adduces 
 instances  of  a  similar  usage  from  Judges  and  Isaiah:  and 
 thus  in  truth  does  away  the  force  of  his  own  observation. 
 He  adds,  however,  in  support  of  his  first  position,  that 
 "  this  idiom,  being  seldom  found  elsewhere,  and  being  found 
 so  oflcn,  and  within  so  few  verses,  both  in  the  Pentateuch 
 ViU^Juby   must  certainly  add   some  weight  to  the  opinion 
 
AND    BOOK   OF    JOB.  125 
 
 ed  for,  by  supposing  it  to  have  been  the  usage 
 of  the  language  in  its  earhest  period,  and  which, 
 though  it  did  not  descend  later  than  the  writ- 
 ings of  Moses,  yet  might  have  been  common  to 
 that  and  the  preceding  ages. 
 
 But  admitting  even  a  similarity  of  style,  one 
 great  difficulty  still  hangs  upon  the  hypothesis, 
 
 that  these  books  came  from  the  same  writer,''^  (Remarks^ 
 &c.  pp.  153,  151.) 
 
 Ill  the  criticism  here  advancec'.,  this  distinguished  scholar 
 has  not  exercised  his  usual  caution  and  research.  The  fact 
 differs  most  widely  from  his  assertion.  For  it  is  certain,  as 
 we  have  been  most  truly  told  in  a  late  ingenious  publication, 
 that  throughout  the  whole  Hebrew  scriptures,  the  perfect 
 tense  is  most  generally  expressed  by  the  converted  future ; 
 so  that  it  is  clearly  the  proper  idiom  of  the  language.  And 
 it  is  with  justice  added,  that  this  is  a  peculiarity  of  a  nature 
 so  extraordinary  as  to  be  highly  deserving  of  attention ;  be- 
 cause the  regularity  of  its  changes  will  bear  the  strictest 
 examination,  whereby  may  be  demonstrated  the  great  gram- 
 matical accuracy  and  propriety  of  expression  that  has  been 
 observed  by  cdl  the  zcr iters  of  the  Hebrew  Scripturet 
 for  so  many  years,  from  Moses  to  Malachi.  This  position 
 is  substantiated  by  a  wide  range  of  examples  in  the  Letter  on 
 eertain  particularities  of  the  Hebrew  Sj/ntax,  written  by  Mr, 
 Granville  Sharp^  whose  acute  and  valuable  philological  en,, 
 quiries  as  well  in  that  and  his  ether  Letters  on  the  sam^ 
 subject,  as  in  his  investigations  of  the  Greek  text,  cannot 
 be  too  highly  commended.  The  labours  of  this  learned  lay., 
 man  reflect  honour  upon  himself,  and,  what  he  appears  to 
 have  much  more  at  heart,  light  and  intelligence  upon  the 
 sacred  text,— Lowth  in  his  Lectuf^es,  vol.  i.  p.  336-*-34^. 
 has  treated  of  the  above  peculiarify  of  the  Hebrew  tenses. 
 
 1 
 
126  TH£    HISTORY 
 
 that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  book :  namely, 
 that  as  he  must  have  intended  it  for  the  Israel- 
 ites, it  is  scarcely  possible  to  conceive,  that,  al- 
 though relating  an  Idumaean  history,  he  should 
 not  have  introduced  something  referring  to  the 
 peculiar  state  and  circumstances  of  the  people, 
 for  whose  use  it  was  destined ;  of  which  no 
 trace  whatever  appears  in  the  work.  The  com- 
 mon subjects  touched  upon  in  both,  too,  we 
 should  expect  to  find  similarly  handled;  and 
 yet,  if  Peters's  remark  be  just,  the  manner  in 
 which  the  creation,  the  fall,  the  deluge,  and 
 other  points  of  antient  history,  are  treated  in 
 the  book  of  Job,  is  widely  different  from  that, 
 in  which  they  are  spoken  of  in  the  books  of 
 Moses.     See  Grit,  Diss.  p.  126. 
 
 There  seems,  then,  upon  the  whole,  sufficient 
 ground  for  the  conclusion,  that  this  book  was 
 not  the  production  of  Moses,  but  of  some  ear- 
 lier age:  and  there  appears  no  good  reason  to 
 suppose,  that  it  was  not  written  by  Job  him.- 
 self.  Lowth  favours  this  idea,  and  Peters  urges 
 some  arguments,  of  no  inconsiderable  weight, 
 in  its  support.  (Crlt,  Diss,  p.  123—125.)  The 
 objections  against  it,  from  Arabia  being  called 
 THE  East,  (which,  according  to  Grotius  and  Le 
 Clerc,  marks  the  writer  to  be  a  Hebrew,)  and 
 from  the  account  given  of  the  death  of  Job  in 
 the  conclusion,  create  no  difficult3\  Peters  has 
 shewn,  that  not  onlv^  did  other  nations,  beside 
 
A^D   BOOK   OF   JOB.  127 
 
 the  Hebrews,  call  Arabia  the  East;  but  that 
 it  was  customary  even  with  the  Arabians  them- 
 selves :  and  that  the  writer  was  an  Arabian,  he 
 infers  with  much  ingenuity,  from  the  manner  in 
 which  he  speaks  of  the  North  wind.  As  for  the 
 addition  of  a  few  lines  at  the  conclusion,  made 
 by  some  other  hand,  for  the  purpose  of  com- 
 pleting the  history ;  this  should  no  more  inva- 
 lidate Job's  title  to  the  work,  than  a  similar 
 addition  at  the  conclusion  of  Deuteronomy, 
 should  invalidate  that  of  Moses  to  the  Pen- 
 tateuch. (See  Crit.  D/^^.  pp.  127,  128.  and  pref. 
 p.  xvi.) 
 
 But,  whether  we  suppose  Job  the  author  of 
 the  book,  or  not ;  its  great  antiquity,  and  even 
 its  priority  to  the  age  of  Moses,  seems  to  stand 
 on  strong  grounds.  And  upon  the  whole,  per- 
 haps we  may  not  unreasonably  conjecture  the 
 history  of  the  book  to  be  this. — The  poem,  be- 
 ing originally  written  either  by  Job,  or  some 
 cotemporary  of  his,  and  existing  in  the  time  of 
 Bloses,  might  fall  into  his  hands,  whilst  residing 
 in  the  land  of  Midian,  or  afterwards  when  in  the 
 neighbourhood  of  Idumaea;  and  might  naturally 
 be  made  use  of  by  him,  to  represent  to  the  He- 
 brews, either  whilst  repining  under  their  Egyp- 
 tian bondage,  or  murmuring  at  their  long  wan- 
 derings in  the  wilderness,  the  great  duty  of 
 submission  to  the  will  of  God,  The  encou- 
 ragement which  this  book  holds  out,  that  every 
 
128  THE    HISTORY 
 
 good  man  suffering  patiently  will  finally  be  re- 
 warded, rendered  it  a  work  peculiarly  calculated 
 to  minister  mingled  comfort  and  rebuke^  to  the 
 distressed  and  discontented  Israelites,  and  might 
 therefore  well  have  been  employed  by  Moses  for 
 this  purpose.  We  may  also  suppose,  that  Moses, 
 in  transcribing,  might  have  made  some  small  and 
 unimportant  alterations,  which  will  sufficiently 
 account  for  occasional  and  partial  resemblances 
 of  expression  between  it  and  the  Pentateuch,  if 
 any  such  there  be. 
 
 This  hypothesis  both  furnishes  a  reasonable 
 compromise  between  the  opinions  of  the  great 
 critics,  who  are  divided  upon  the  point  of/  Moses 
 being  the  author ;  and  supplies  an  answer  to  a 
 question  of  no  small  difficulty,  which  liangs  upon 
 almost  every  other  solution :  namely,  when,  and 
 wherefore,  a  book  treating  manifestly  of  the  con* 
 cerns  oFa  stranger,  and  in  no  way  connected  v/ith 
 their  affairs,  was  received  by  the  Jews  into  their 
 sacred  canon?  For  Moses  having  thus  applied  the 
 book  to  their  use,  and  sanctioned  it  by  his  autho- 
 rity, it  would  naturally  have  been  enrolled  among 
 their  sacred  writings :  and  from  the  antiquity  of 
 that  enrolment,  no  record  would  consequently 
 appear  of  its  introduction.  This  hypothesis  satis* 
 fies  the  3d  query  in  the  Tlieol,  Repos.  vol.  i  p.  72, 
 I  have  the  satisfaction  also  to  find,  that  this  notion 
 is  not  without  support  from  many  respectable 
 authorities.     The  antient  commentator  on  Job, 
 
AND   BOOK    OF    JOB.  -129 
 
 Milder  the  title  of  Origen,  has  handed  down  a  piece 
 of  traditional  history,  which  perfectly  accords 
 with  it.  See  Patrick's  Preface  to  Job,  Many 
 of  the  most  respectable  early  writers  seem  to  have 
 adopted  the  same  idea,  as  may  be  seen  in  Huet, 
 (Dem.  Evang.  p.  226.)  and,  with  some  slight 
 variation,  it  has  been  followed  by  that  learned 
 author.  Patrick  also  and  Peters,  speak  of  it  as  a 
 reasonable  hypothesis.  (Crit,  Diss,  pref.  pp. 
 XXX iv.  XXXV.)  And  certainly  it  possesses  this 
 decided  advantage,  that  it  solves  all  the  pheno- 
 viena. 
 
 One  observation  more  remains  to  be  offered  : 
 and  that  is,  that  there  is  good  reason  to  pronounce 
 the  book  of  Job  an  inspired  work.  Its  reception 
 into  the  Jewish  canon ;  the  recognition  of  the 
 history,  and,  as  Peters  has  abundantly  proved, 
 (Crit  Diss,  pp.  21.  145 — 148.)  consequently  of 
 the  book  itself,  by  the  prophet  Ezechiel ;  a  simi- 
 lar admission  of  it,  by  another  inspired  writer, 
 St.  James ;  and  the  express  reference  made  to  it 
 by  St.  Paul,  ( 1  Cor.  iii.  19.)  who  prefaces  his  quo- 
 tation from  it  by  the  words,  it  is  tvritten,  agree- 
 ably to  the  common  form  of  quoting  from  other 
 parts  of  inspired  Scripture: — all  these  fully  jus- 
 tify the  primitive  fathers,  and  early  councils,  in 
 their  reception  of  it  as  a  canonical  and  insj^ired 
 book.     (See  Gregor,  prej.  in  Job.) 
 
 The  intrinsic  matter  of  the  work  also  strength- 
 ens this  idea.     Job  appears,  from  xxxviii.  1,  and 
 
 VOL.  IX.  K 
 
130  THE    HISTORY 
 
 xlii.  5.  to  have  enjoyed  the  divine  vision.  la 
 what  manner,  whether,  as  the  Seventy  seem  to 
 think,  by  some  appearance  of  a  glorious  cloud,  or 
 otherwise,  it  avails  not.  That,  in  somew^ay,  he 
 was  honoured  with  one  of  those  extraordinary 
 manifestations  of  the  Deity,  by  which  the  pro- 
 phets and  inspired  persons  were  distinguished^ 
 and  that  he  was  admitted  to  immediate  commu- 
 nication with  the  Almighty,  is  positively  asserted. 
 Now,  if  this  did  really  happen, — and  the  whole 
 book  becomes  a  lying  fable,  and  a  lying  fable 
 recognized  by  inspired  writers  as  a  truth,  if  it  did 
 not, — it  necessarily  follovv^s,  that  Job  was  a  pro- 
 phet :  and  as  a  natural  consequence  it  must  be 
 admitted,  that  Job  himself  was  the  author  of  the 
 work :  since  it  cannot  be  supposed,  that  God 
 would  convey  supernatural  communications  ta 
 one  person,  and  appoint  another  to  relate  them. 
 That  Job  was  not  an  Israelite,  cannot  be  urged 
 as  an  argument  against  such  an  hypothesis,  since 
 we  find  that  Balaam  is  expressly  said  to  have  been 
 similarly  favoured.  Other  instances  also  are 
 given  by  Bishojj  Law  in  his  Considerations,  &c. 
 p.  72 — 7Q,  See  also  PatricJcs  Append,  to  the 
 Paraph,  on  Job — and  Peters's  Crit,  Diss.  p. 
 123-125. 
 
 Now,  from  admitting  the  prophetic  character 
 of  Job,  we  derive  two  considerable   advantages.. 
 First,  it  removes  the  difficulty,  which  otherwise 
 must  hang  upon  the  supposition,  that  the  words 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  131 
 
 of  tliat  much  celebrated  passage  in  his  writings 
 refer  to  the  doctrines  of  a  redeemer  and  a  future* 
 state :  and  2.  it  supplies  an  additional  confirma- 
 tion of  the  divine  origin  of  those  great  truths 
 concerning  the  Creation,  the  Fall,  and  the  De- 
 luge, as  they  stand  recorded  in  the  books  of 
 Aloses. 
 
 If  I  have  dwelt  rather  long  upon  this  point,  I 
 trust  that  the  interesting  nature  of  the  subject,  as 
 well  as  the  importance  of  the  reality  and  anti- 
 quity of  Job,  in  an  examination  of  the  history  of 
 sacrifice,  will  supply  a  sufficient  excuse.     I  have 
 little  fear,   that  the  discussion  will  appear  unne- 
 cessarily prolix,  to  those  who  are  acquainted  with 
 the  vast  variety  of  opinions,  and  multiplicity  of 
 arguments,  to  which  this  question  has  given  birth. 
 My  principal  object  in  this,  as  in  most  other  of 
 the  dissertations  in  this  work,  has  been  to  com- 
 bine with   such  illustration  as  the   general  argu- 
 ment may  require,  useful  directions  to  the  young 
 student  in  divinity,  as  to  those  leading  topics  and 
 references,  that  may  serve  to  assist  his  course  of 
 reading.     This   I  have  done  on  the  present  occa- 
 sion with  all  possible  brevity.     A  greater  degree. 
 
 ■^  In  addition  to  the  numerous  writers,  who  are  coramonljr 
 known  to  have  maintained  the  application  of  the  19th  chapter 
 of  Job  to  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state,  I  think  it  right  io 
 mention  the  name  of  Velthusen^  who,  in  his  Excrcitationes 
 CriticcB  in  J  obi  cap.  xix.  23 — 29.  has  with  much  ability  and 
 irltical  acumen  defended  this  idea. 
 
 K  2 
 
132  THE   HISTORY 
 
 6i  compression  must  have  led  to  dryness  and 
 obscurity.  It  is  well,  if,  even  in  its  present  form, 
 this  review  of  the  question  be  not  found  charge- 
 able with  these  defects. 
 
 After  the  full  detail,  which  has  just  been 
 given,  of  the  various  opinions  respecting  the  age 
 and  country  of  Job,  as  well  as  respecting  the  date 
 of  the  poem  which  bears  that  name;  I  might 
 perhaps  deem  myself  excused  from  making  any 
 additional  remarks  upon  this  subject,  even  in  the 
 face  of  a  translation  of  that  poem,  which  has  lately 
 come  before  the  public,  accompanied  with  obser- 
 vations repugnant  to  the  resulting  probabilities  as 
 they  have  been  there  deduced,  but  not  less  repug- 
 nant (as  I  conceive)  to  the  truth  of  Scripture 
 history  and  the  principles  of  fair  interpretation. 
 These  observations,  however,  coming  from  a 
 prelate  of  the  established  Churcl^,  acquire  from 
 that  circumstance  a  weight,  which  will  not  per- 
 mit them  to  be  overlooked ;  and  compel  a  discus* 
 sion,  in  which  I  feel  myself  bound  (however 
 reluctantly)  to  engage,  in  defence  of  what  I  have 
 already  submitted,  and  of  what  appears  to  me  to  be 
 equally  sustained  by  argument,  and  sanctioned  by 
 Scripture.  That  I  may  not  do  the  Right  Reverend 
 author  injustice,  I  quote.the  very  words,  in  which 
 
AND    BOOK   OF   JOB.  133 
 
 he  has  SO  summarily  beaten  down  the  notions 
 hitherto  so  generally  entertained,  concerning  the 
 antiquity  both  of  the  book  and  of  the  age  of  Job. 
 "  The  sacred  A^riters,  in  general,  have  been  apt 
 to  ascribe  to  the  Book  of  Job,  an  origin,  that 
 loses  itself  in  the  shades  of  the  remotest  antiquity. 
 The  opinion,  I  believe,  rested  at  first  on  the  very 
 sandy  foundation  of  what  is  stated  in  the  two 
 concluding  verses  of  the  work,  which  ascribe  to 
 its  hero  a  longevity  that  belonged  only  to  the 
 generations  not  far  distant  from  the  flood.  Of 
 the  authenticity  of  those  verses,  I  thinks  I  have 
 shewn  in  my  note  on  them,  that  we  have  every 
 reason  to  be  suspicious.  But,  if  it  were  ever  so 
 difficult  to  ascertain  the  portion  of  time  when  the 
 Patriarch  lived,  it  may  not  be  impossible,  from 
 the  internal  marks  in  the  poem  itself,  to  conjec- 
 ture with  tolerable  certainty  the  era  of  its  author. 
 This  is  what  I  have  attempted  to  execute.  The 
 subject  is  curious,  and  on  a  close  inspection  of  the 
 work  before  us,  certain  notes  of  time  have  pre- 
 sented themselves  to  my  observation,  which  ap- 
 pear to  have  escaped  the  diligence  of  all  preceding 
 critics.  The  reader  will  allow  me  to  oflfer  them 
 to  him  here  in  a  summary  manner,  referring  him 
 for  further  satisfaction  on  the  point  to  what  I  have 
 ,said  in  the  notes. — Allusions  to  events  recorded 
 in  the  five  books  of  Moses  are  to  be  found  in  this 
 poem,  ch.  XX.  20.  compared  with  Num.  xi.  33, 
 34;  ch.  xxvi.  5,  compared  with  Gen.  vi,  4,  7,  1 1 ; 
 K  3 
 
134  THE    HISTORY 
 
 ch.  xxxiv.  20,  compared  with  Exod  xii.  I9;  cli. 
 xxxi.  33,  compared  with  Gen.  iii.  8,  12:  and  I 
 shall  hardly  be  expected  to  prove,  that  the  author 
 of  the  poem  derived  his  knowledge  of  those  events 
 from  a  history  of  so  much    notoriety  as  that  of 
 Moses,  rather  than  from  oral  or  any  other  tradi- 
 tion.    Facts  are  not  usually  referred  to,   before 
 the  history  recording  them  has  had  time  to  obtain 
 currency.     Tiie  inference  is  clear :  the  writer  of 
 Job    was   junior    to   the  Jewish   legislator,  and 
 junior,  it  is  likely  by  some  time. — A  similar  mode 
 of  reasoning,  upon  comparison  of  ch.  xxxiii.  23^ 
 with  2  Sam.  xxiv.  \6,  1  Chron.  xxi.  15  ;  will,  if 
 I  mistake  not  greatly,  bring  down  the  da^e  of  our 
 poem  below  the  time  of  King  David. — Lastly, 
 ch.  xii.  17,   to  the  end,  seems  to  point  to  the 
 circumstances  preceding  and  attending  the  Ba- 
 bylonish captivity;  and  chap,  xxxvi.  8 — J 2,  has 
 an  appearance  of  alluding  to  the  various  fortunes 
 of  Jehoiachin,   king  of  Judah^,  2  Kings,  xxiv. 
 12;  xxv.  27 — Notes  of  time  these,  which,  though 
 not  so  manifest  as  the  fore-mentioned,   may  de- 
 serve attention ;   since  they  add  strength  to  the 
 sentiment  of  those  learned  men,  who  have  been 
 inclined  to  give    the  honour  of  this  celebrated 
 composition  to  Ezra." — The  Book  of' Job  newhj 
 translated  hy  the  Right  Reverend  Joseph  Stock, 
 Bishop  of  Klllalla,  pref.  pp.  v.  vi. 
 
 Sucii  is  the  rapid  decision   of  the  Right  Rev. 
 translator,  upon  a  question,  which  has  occupied 
 
A>^D    BOOK   OF   JOB.  135 
 
 the  attention,  and  divided  the  judgments,  of  the 
 most  learned  and  able  theologians ;  and  such  are 
 the  new  lights,  whereby  this  new  expositor  of  the 
 book  of  Job  is  enabled  to  discern  the  erroneous- 
 iiess  of  the  opinion  in  favour  of  its  high  antiquity^ 
 which  has  at  all  times  most  generally  prevailed. 
 It  must  be  remarked,  indeed,  that  his  Lordship, 
 in  the  history  of  his  work,  has  stated,  that  the 
 whole  was  executed  in  a  period  of  six  weeks,  and 
 that  too  a  period  of  great  agitation  and  distraction 
 of  mind  ;  and  also,  that  he  declined  the  aid  of  the 
 many  learned  commentators^  who  had  gone  before 
 him  in  the  translation  of  this  most  difficult  book, 
 confining  his  attention  to  three  English  writers. 
 Heath,  Scott,  and  Parkhurst ;  writers,  who,  how- 
 ever respectably  they  may  rank  as  compilers, 
 cannot  be  named  with  those  great  and  distin- 
 guished Hebrew   scholars^  ^    whose    labours   his 
 
 *  It  was  particularly  unfortunate,  that  Iiis  Lordship  felt 
 indisposed  to  the  trouble  of  consulting  the  commentary  of 
 SchuUens :  a  work,  which,  although  its  author  is  rather  slight- 
 ingly described  by  his  Lordship  as  the  "  Dutch  expositor," 
 has  been  considered  by  all  the  later  interpreters  of  Job,  his 
 Lordship  excepted,  as  a  mine  of  the  most  valuable  learning, 
 and  particularly  indispensable  to  such  as  were  not  acquainted 
 with  the  Arabic,  and  what  may  be  called  the  dialects  of  the 
 Hebrew,  in  which,  it  is  acknowledged  by  every  commentator, 
 that  the  book  of  Job  abounds,  and  from  which  indeed  the 
 peculiar  difficulty  of  that  book  is  admitted  to  arise.  Dr.  G^rey, 
 in  his  preface,  speaking  of  this  work,  terras  it  '^  egregium 
 opus:''  And  of  the  benefit  he  derived  from  it  in  his  transla- 
 tion of  Jobj  he  thus  expresses  himself.    ''  Quantum  mihi 
 
 ii  4 
 
136  THE   HISTORY 
 
 Lordship  found  it  convenient  to  reject.  These 
 circumstances  will  abundantly  account  for  the 
 cursory  manner  in  which  his  Lordship  has  treated 
 
 gaudium  attulerit,  quantaque  cui4  &  molestia  liberarit  clabo- 
 ratissimum  hocce  summi  viri  eruditionisatque  diligentiEe  monu.. 
 meutum,  facile  dijudicare  est.  Parata,  ut  ait  Piinir.s,  inqui- 
 sitio,  nee  oiierosa  collatio.  Nempe  omni  isto  apparatu  iilico 
 jam  instructus  eram,  quern  alioquin  mihi  multo  cum  sudore 
 tindecunque  conquirendum  esse  progvideram :  unoque  sub 
 conspectu  habui  uou  tantum  quicquid  uspiam  a  doctissimis 
 riris  in  hoc  argumeiito  concinnatum,  sed  &  ordine  itaaccurato 
 Jispositum,  eo  judicio  atque  diligentiaperpensum,  ut  nil  aiiud 
 mihi  negotiijam  relictum  Tideretur,  quamexscriptoris  muneie 
 perfungi." — Liber  J  obi — Ricard.  Grey,  praef.  p.  iii. 
 
 Heath  also,  in  his  pref.  p.  xiii.  speaks  of  the  work  of 
 Schultens  in  language  equally  strong.  '*  The  use  of  the 
 dialects  in  the  inyestigation  of  the  true  meaning  of  the  several 
 roots  in  this"  (the  Hebrew)  "  language,  was  never  carried  to 
 the  height  it  is  at  present :  till  the  late  very  learned  Albert 
 ScHULTENs,  in  the  beginning  of  this"  (the  last)  "  century, 
 bent  his  studies  this  way  ;  and  with  so  great  success,  that  I 
 think  it  may  be  truly  said  in  his  praise,  that  his  endeavours 
 have  contributed  more  towards  the  true  knowledge  of  the 
 Hebrew  language,  than  the  united  labours  of  all  that  went 
 before  him." 
 
 Was  this  the  commentator,  from  whose  '^  two  ponderous 
 \olumes,"  (which,  after  all,  are  but  two  thin  quartos)  a  tran- 
 slator of  the  book  of  Job,  who  does  not  profess  either  to  have 
 any  acquaintance  with  the  Arabic,  should  turn  away  with 
 weariness  and  disgust? — JJcath  pursues  a  dilferent  course  in 
 his  version. — "  1  have  drawn  (says  he)  from  the  dialects 
 all  the  light  my  knowledge  in  tliem  would  supply  me  with  : 
 and  in  this  part  I  acknowledge  myself  much  indebted  to  the 
 Y^lupible  works  of  the  late  yery  learned  Albert  SchuUens.!'*\ 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  KS/ 
 
 the  subject  of  the  antiquity  of  the  book  of  Job ; 
 for  the  errors  into  which  he  has  fallen  upon  that 
 important  point;  and  also  for  the  general  air  and 
 character  of  the  translation  itself. 
 
 And,  in  the  first  instance,  it  is  painful  to  re- 
 mark, that  in  the  very  first  paragraph  oF  the 
 work,  his  Lordship  has  confounded  two  questioftn^, 
 which  are  altogether  distinct ;  and,  from  this  con- 
 fusioUj  has  been  led,  (with  a  licence,  which  might 
 better  befit  such  expositors  as  Dr.  Ceddes,  or  the 
 Unitarian  Society,  than  a  Bishop  of  the  Esta- 
 blished Church,)  to  reject  the  two  last  verses  of 
 Job,  as  a  spurious  addition  to  the  work. 
 
 The  two  questions  relate^  one  to  the  time  at 
 which  Job  actually  lived^  and  the  other  to  the 
 time  at  which  the  hook  of  Job  was  written. 
 These,  it  is  obvious,  have  no  necessary  connexion  ; 
 as  the  history  of  a  person,  who  lived  in  the 
 patriarchal  age,  might  be  composed  even  at  the 
 present  day  :  and^  therefore,  these  respective  dates 
 have,  at  all  times,  been  made  the  subjects  of 
 separate  enquiry.  Yet  the  Bishop  begins  by 
 telling  us,  that  the  reason,  which  first  induced  the 
 
 Pref.  pag.  xv. — Bishop  Stock,  on  the  olher  hand,  tells  us, 
 that  he  had  "  received  from  Scott,  as  much  information  with 
 respect  to  the  discoveries  of  Sciiultens,  the  Dutch  expositor, 
 as  he  wished  to  possess,'^  Pref.  p.  vii. — Tliis  surely  is  in 
 every  way  an  odd  declaration.  If  one  were  oi'Iy  to  ask,  how 
 the  qua7itum  sufficit  cou\d  be  ascertained,  without  the  know, 
 ledge  of  what  Schultens's  book  actually  contains,  i^  would  be 
 rather  difficult  to  frame  an  answer. 
 
138  THE    HISTORY 
 
 sacred  critics  to  assign  the  hooh  of  Job  to  an  era 
 of  remote  antiquity,  is  to  be  found  in  the  two  last 
 verses,  which  ascribe  to  Job  /ii/Tz^e//"  a  patriarchal 
 longevity;  that  is^  that  the  critics  have  pronounced 
 the  Book  of  Job  to  be  extremely  ancient,  because 
 that  book  describes  its  subject  as  having  lived  at  a 
 very  early  period.     Now,  no  critics  have  reasoned 
 in  this  manner ;  nor  in  truth  could  any  have  so 
 reasoned,  who  deserved  the  name.     Some  indeed 
 have  pronounced  the  book  to  be  as  ancient  as  its 
 subject,  inasmuch  as  they  conceived  it  to  have 
 been  the  production  of  Job  himself.     But  they 
 who  do  not  contend  for  this,  and  even  those,  (such 
 as  Warburton  and  Heath,=^)  who  have  been  desi- 
 rous to  reduce  the  date  of  the  book  to  a  very  late 
 
 *  Heath  indeed  specially  remarts  upon  the  gross  error  of 
 not  making  a  due  distinction  between  the  times  of  Jo/;,  and 
 those  of  the  author  of  the  poem  :  and  on  the  whole  pronounces 
 it  as  his  own  opinion,  that  the  author  in  many  parts  of  his 
 work  alludes  to  facts  which,  though  undoubtedly  posterior  to 
 the  age  of  Job,  on  account  of  its  great  remoteness,  were  yet 
 anterior  to  his  own  ;  and  consequently  he  holds,  that  no  argu- 
 ment can  be  drawn  from  such  circumstances,  against  the 
 antiquity  of  the  times  of  Job  on  the  one  hand,  nor  against 
 interpretations  suited  to  the  manners  and  history  of  the  proba- 
 ble age  oi'  the  author  on  the  other.  And  therefore,  although 
 he  reduces  the  date  of  tlie  author  of  the  Poem  as  low  as  the 
 Bishop  of  Killalhi  can  desire,  he  yet  conjectures  the  time  of 
 Job  to  have  been  earlier  tlian  the  Exodus,  and  considers  the 
 length  of  life  ascribed  to  him  by  tiie  two  verses  w  ith  which  the 
 Bishop  has  quarrelled,  as  one  of  tlie  proofs  of  the  fact.  See 
 Heath's  English  Version  of  Job^  pp.  xix.  xx.  xxlv. 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  139 
 
 period  of  the  Jewish  state,  in  consequence  of  allu- 
 sions to  certain  parts  of  the  Jewish  history  which 
 it  appeared  to  them  to  contain^  have,  notwith- 
 standing^ found  no  difficuUy  in  placing  the  exis- 
 tence of  Job  in  that  remote  age  to  which  the 
 history  assigns  it.  They  have,  in  short,  argued 
 thus :  Job  lived  at  an  early  period,  but  we  have 
 reason  to  conchule,  that  the  history,  which  treats 
 of  him,  was  composed  at  a  period  considerably 
 later.  Whereas  the  present  translator  argues^  as 
 if  Job  could  not  have  lived  early,  because  the 
 history  was  written  late.  Or  rather,  to  repeat 
 the  charge  already  made,  two  ideas  totally  distinct, 
 the  time  of  Job,  and  the  date  of  the  history,  are 
 manifestly  confounded.  And  this  confusion, 
 which  so  inauspiciously  prefaces  his  Lordship's 
 work,  unhappily  conducts  it  to  its  close :  for  ia 
 the  concluding  note  we  find  the  following  obser- 
 vations.— "  These  two  last  verses  have  every 
 appearance  ^'  of  being  a  spurious  addition  to  the 
 
 *  What  the  circumstances  are,  that  give  to  these  two 
 lerses  "  eren/  appearance  of  being  a  spurious  addition  to  the 
 work,"  his  Lordship  has  not  thought  proper  to  mention. 
 "What  do  these  verses  contain  ?  Simply  the  following  words — 
 '^  After  this  lived  Job  an  hundred  and  forty  years,  and  saw 
 his  sons,  and  his  sons'  sons,  even  four  generations.  So  Job 
 died,  being  old  and  full  of  days," — Now,  if  all  that  is  meant 
 be  this,  that  the  verses  could  not  have  been  written  by  Job 
 himself,  this  undoubtedly  no  person  will  be  found  disposed  to 
 dispute,  as  it  is  not  pretended  that  he  rose  from  the  grave  to 
 finish  the  book.     But  this  surely  cannot  be  the  proof  of  their 
 
Ho  THE    HISTORY 
 
 work,  fabricated  by  such  another  dealer  in  the 
 marvellous,  as  he  that  has  fastened  his  long  string 
 of  fables  to  the  close   of  the  translation   by  the 
 
 want  of  authenticity,  which,  in  the  beginning  of  his  preface,  his 
 liordship  boasts  of  having  discovered,  and  promises  to  i)roduce 
 in  his  note  upon  the  verses :  and  in  point  of  fact  he  does  not 
 here  adduce  it  as  a  proof;  but  simply  asserts^  as  we  have  seen, 
 that  the  "  verses  have  everij  appearance  of  being  a  spurious, 
 addition  to  the  work."  He  goes  on  jndeed  to  state  of  this 
 addition,  that  it  has  been  "  fabricated  by  such  another  dealer 
 in  the  marvellous,  as  he  that  has  fastened  his  long  string  of 
 fables  to  the  close  of  the  translation  by  the  LXX  interpreters." 
 — Now  with  great  deference  to  his  Lordship,  there  is  not  only 
 no  appearance  of  these  verses  being  such  a  fabrication  as  that 
 vrhich  winds  up  the  conclusion  of  the  Septuagint  translation, 
 (and his  Lordship  might  have  added,  of  the  Syriac  and  Arabic 
 also,)  but  there  is  as  direct  and  proper  evidence  of  the  contrary 
 as  the  nature  of  the  case  will  admit.  The  difference  between 
 (he  two  is  precisely  this,  that  the  one  is  found  in  every  MS.  of 
 the  original  Hebrew,  and  the  other  has  nothing  corresponding 
 to  it  in  any:  that  the  one  has,  in  all  ages,  been  received  with- 
 out question  as  part  of  the  canon  of  scripture,  and  the  other 
 never  :  that  the  one  in  short  is  found  in  the  record,  and  the 
 other  is  not.  Such  is  the  similarity  of  appearance  between 
 the  two,  from  which  his  Lordship  infers  them  on  the  view  to 
 be  equally  fabrications.  Surely  never  was  there  a  more  arbi- 
 trary and  barefaced  attack  upon  the  integrity  of  the  sacred 
 text.  The  verses  have  never  been  questioned;  they  appear  in 
 every  MS.  of  the  Hebrew ;  and  they  stand  precisely  on  the 
 same  ground,  as  to  every  circumstance  of  genuineness,  with 
 any  other  verses  in  the  entire  book  of  Job,  It  must  be 
 observed,  that  what  is  said  here  is  perfectly  admissible,  even 
 on  the  supposition,  that  Job  himself  Avas  the  author  of  the 
 poem  :  the  argument  not  requiring,  that  the  two  concluding 
 verses  should  have  been  written  by  the  same  hand  that  com. 
 
AND    BOOK   OF    JOB.  141 
 
 LXX  interpreters.  Thefallacij  must  he  obvious, 
 ivhen  ive  call  to  mind  the  allusions  in  the  poem 
 to  facts  that  happened  in  and  after  the  time  of 
 
 posed  the  remainder  of  the  work ;  but  that  they  were,  equally 
 with  any  other  verses,  genuine  parts  of  the  book  as  it  was 
 originally  received  into  the  Hebrew  canon,  and  not  the 
 unauthorized  and  spurious  addition  of  an  unknown  fabricator. 
 That  the  verses  in  question  were  written  by  Moses,  at  the  time 
 when  the  entire  work  was  adapted  by  him  and  accommodated 
 to  the  uses  of  his  followers,  may  appear  not  improbable  from; 
 what  has  been  said  at  page  127  of  this  volume. 
 
 But  perhaps,  after  all,  no  other  proof  of  the  spuriousness 
 of  these  two  verses  has  been  intended  by  the  Right  Reverend 
 author,  than  what  arises  from  those  allusions  to  facts  later  than 
 the  time  of  Moses,  and  even  of  David,  to  which  his  Lordship 
 immediately  after  adverts.  If  this  be  the  case,  then  in  addi, 
 tion  io  the  confounding  together  the  times  of  Job  and  of  the 
 author  of  the  Book,  which  has  been  remarked  upon  above, 
 his  Lordship  has  conducted  the  entire  of  his  reasoning  in  a 
 circle :  having  promised,  in  his  preface,  to  overturn  the  notion 
 of  the  high  antiquity  of  the  Book  of  Job,  by  establishing  the 
 spuriousness  of  these  two  verse«,  on  which  he  states  that, 
 notion  to  have  been  fotuided ;  and  having  here  established  the 
 spuriousness  of  the  verses,  by  denying  the  antiquity  of  the 
 Book.  Whatever  may  be  the  errors  in  the  argument,  his 
 Lordship  however  seems  to  think,  that  all  will  be  set  to  rights, 
 by  rejecting  from  the  sacred  text,  whatever  does  not  corres- 
 pond with  the  theory  which  he  has  adopted. 
 
 As  the  discussion  of  this  subject  has  led  to  the  mention  of 
 the  addition  made  by  the  LXX,  at  the  conclusion  of  their 
 version  of  the  book  of  Job,  it  may  gratify  the  curiosity  of  the 
 reader  who  is  not  conversant  in  these  matters,  to  know  what 
 that  addition  is.  Having,  agreeably  to  the  Hebrew  original, 
 stated,  that  Job  died  full  of  days,  the  Greek  proceeds,  ''  But 
 it  is  written  that  he  will  rise  »gaia  with  those  whom  the  Lord 
 
142  THE    HISTORY 
 
 Moses,  ivho  lived  hut  one  hundred  and  twenty 
 years,  and  even  of  David,  when  the  age  of  man  was 
 reduced  to  its  present  standard  of  seventy  years.'* 
 
 raises  up. — This  is  interpreted  from  a  Syriac  book.     ^  He 
 dwelt  in  the  land  of  Ausitis'  (of  Aus  or  Uz)  '  in  the  borders 
 of  Idumaea  and  Arabia;  but  his  name  was  first  called  Jobab  : 
 and,  marrying  an  Arabian  wife,  he  begot  a  son,  whose  name 
 was  Ennon  ;  and  he  was  himself  the  son  of  Zare,  a  grandson 
 of  Esau,  of  a  mother  Bosorra,  so  that  he  was  the  fifth  froia 
 Abraham.     And  these  are  the  kings  which  reigned  in  Edom^ 
 over  which  country  he  ruled ;  first,   Balak  son  of  Beor,  and 
 the  name  of  his   city  was  Denhaba ;  but  after   Balak  Jobab, 
 called    Job ;  but   after  him   Asom,  prince  of  the  land   of 
 Theman ;  and  after  hira  Adad,  son  of  Barad,  who  smote  Midian 
 in  the  plain  of  Moab,  and  the  name  of  his  city  was  Gethaim. 
 And  the  friends  who  came  to  him,  were  Eliphaz  of  the  sons 
 of  Esau,  King  of  the  Themanites ;  Baldad,  sovereign  (rv^xi>vo<;} 
 of  the  Sauchu^ans ;  and  Zophar,  king  of  the  Mrnaeans.' " — 
 With  this  the  Syriac  and  Arabic,  as  given  in  the  Polyglott, 
 nearly  correspond.     And  a  fragment  of  Aristseas,  as  taken 
 from  Eusebius,  (Prcep.  Evang,  lib.  ix.   cap.  xxv.  tom.  i.  p, 
 430.)  contains  most  of  these  particulars,  referring  to  Polijhistor 
 as  his  authority.     On  the  passage  in  the  Greek  it  is  to  be 
 remarked,  that  it  contains  internal  evidence,  that  the  book  of 
 Job  has  not  had  the  same  Greek  interpreters,  that  have  ren- 
 dered the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament;  since  it  expressly 
 states,  that  the  version  was  derived  from  a  Syriac  book.     And, 
 indeed,  it  is  clear  upon  inspection,  that  the  Greek  interpre- 
 ters of  Job  have  taken  uncommon  liberties  in  their  transla- 
 tion; having,  besides  variations  from  the  obvious  sense  of  the 
 Hebrew  as  it  now  stands,  made  large  additions,  not  only  here 
 but  in   several  other  places,  particularly  at  ch.  ii.  9,  to  the 
 speech  made  by  Job's  wife.     See  also  ch.  xix.  4.  xxxvi.  28. 
 sxxix.  34.— It  is  to  be  noted  also,  that  the  concluding  addi- 
 tion to  Job  in  the  Greek  is  given  diffeieDtly  by  the  Vatican 
 1 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  143 
 
 Thus  then  it  appears,  that  because  the  transla- 
 tor thinks  proper  to  bring  the  date  of  the  book  of 
 Job  lower  than  the  time  of  David,  the  length  of 
 the  life  of  Job  could  not  exceed  what  was  usual 
 in  that  age  of  the  world,  and  therefore  the  two 
 verses,  which  ascribe  to  him  a  longer  period  can- 
 not be  genuine,  and  must  be  discarded  from  the 
 sacred  text.  That  is,  in  other  words,  no  history 
 can  ever  be  written  of  any  individual  who  lived  at 
 a  preceding  period.  This  is  certainly  an  unhappy 
 specimen  of  antiquarian  research ;  and  a  still 
 more  unhappy  specimen  of  biblical  criticism.  On 
 the  same  ground,  on  which  he  has  rejected  the 
 two  concluding  verses,  the  Right  Reverend  critic 
 might  reject  a  very  large  portion  of  the  book  of 
 Job,  as  a  spurious  addition  to  the  genuine  work  : 
 sinc^  every  where  throughout  are  plentifully  scat- 
 tered those  indications*  of  patriarchal  antiquity 
 
 and  the  Alexandrian :  that  it  is  found  in  Tlieodotlon,  but  not 
 in  Aquila  or  Symmachus :  and  that  in  the  Complutensian  edi- 
 tion of  the  LXX  it  is  wanting.  It  is  said  also  to  have  beea 
 in  the  old  Italic.  At  what  time  it  was  introduced  cannot  be 
 conjectured;  but  the  Greek  version  of  Job  appears  to  have 
 been  earlier  than  Philo  Judaeus,  from  his  quoting  it  in  his  book 
 De  nominum  mutaiione.  See  Wesley  Dissert,  LIII.  p.  409 
 — 413.  and  p.  599. — Hod»  de  Vers.  Grccc,  p.  196.  also 
 Drusius  and  Codurcus  on  the  last  verse  of  Job.  For  the 
 sources,  whence  this  piece  of  addititious  history  was  probably 
 derived,  the  reader  may  turn  to  Gen.  xxxvi.  and  1  Chron.  i. 
 
 *  See  pp.  103,  104,  119,  120,  of  this  vol.  for  the  proof 
 and  general  admission  of  this  point. 
 
144  THE    HISTORY 
 
 for  the  direct  exposition  of  which  the^e  two  last 
 verses  are  pronounced  to  be  surreptitious. 
 
 But  not  to  dwell  any  longer  on  this  unfortunate 
 mistake,  and  the  rash  attempt  at  mutilating  the 
 sacred  text  which  it  has  occasioned,  let  us  proceed 
 to  consider  those  notes  of  time^  attaching  to  the 
 poem  itself,  which  "  have  escaped  the  diligence 
 of  all  preceding  critics;*'  and,  by  the  discovery  of 
 which^  his  Lordship  thinks  himself  enabled  to  pro- 
 nounce upon  the  lateness  of  its  production. 
 
 The  first  of  these  is  said  to  be  found  in  ch.  xx. 
 20.  in  which  we  are  told  that  the  true  rendering 
 is,  "  Because  he  acknowledged  not  the  quail  in 
 his  stomach:"  and  the  following  remark  is  sub- 
 joined.—" Here  I  apprehend  is  a  fresh  example 
 of  the  known  usage  of  the  Hebrew  poets,  in  adorn- 
 ing their  compositions  by  allusions  to  facts  in  the 
 history  of  their  own  people.  It  has  escaped  all 
 the  interpreters  :  and  it  is  the  more  important, 
 because  it  fixes  the  date  of  this  poem  so  far  as  to 
 2)rove  its  having  been  comjjosed  subsequently  to 
 the  transgression  of  Israel  at  Kibroth-hataavah,  re- 
 corded in  Numb.  ii.  33,  34. — Because  the  wicked 
 acknowledged  not  the  quail,  that  is,  the  meat  with 
 which  (jod  had  filled  his  stomach,  but  like  the  un- 
 grateful Israelites,  crammed  and  blasphemed  his 
 feeder^  (as  Milton  finely  expresseth  it.)  he  shall 
 experience  the  same  punishment  wdth  them,  and 
 be  cut  oflfiTi^Dni,  in  the  midst  of  his  enjoyment,  as 
 Moses  tells  us  the  people  were,  D^is^norT;  who  lusted,'' 
 1 
 
anU  book  of  Job.  145 
 
 The  Bishop  has  rightly  said,  that  the  trans- 
 lation, which  he  has  here  given,  '^  has  escaped 
 all  the  interpreters :"  at  the  same  time,  as  he 
 has  him.self  informed  us  that  his  acquaintance 
 with  the  interpreters  of  this  book  has  been  stu- 
 diously contracted  to  a  very  narrow  range,  it 
 remains  to  be  explained  how  his  Lordship  came 
 to  ascertain  this  fact.  True  however  it  is,  that 
 none  of  the  commentators  on  Job,  either  ancient 
 or  modern,  had  ever  proposed  such  a  version  of 
 the  passage.  Yet  possibly,  from  this  circum- 
 stance, an  inference,  differing  widely  from  that 
 which  the  translator  would  approve,  might  suggest 
 itself  to  the  reader. 
 
 But,  what  are  the  grounds,  on  which  this  un- 
 exampled signification  of  the  passage  has  been 
 adopted  by  the  R.  R.  translator  ?  There  is  but 
 one  pretended  ;  namely,  that  the  word  JT^y,  which 
 occurs  in  this  place,  has  been  rendered  quail 
 in  the  book  of  Numbers.  When  this  has  been 
 stated,  the  only  reason  that  can  be  assigned  for 
 this  translation  has  been  given.  The  phrase  it- 
 self, as  it  is  here  proposed,  receives  no  justifi- 
 cation from  any  parallel  passage  or  similarity  of 
 expression,  throughout  the  entire  body  of  the 
 scriptures.  No  proverbial  form  such  as,  "  not^ 
 acknowledging  the  qiiuil,'^  has  ever  been  heard 
 of  as  in  use  amongst  the  Jews  :  and,  even  though 
 there  had  been  such  a  phrase  derived  from  the 
 translation  recorded  in  the  book  of  Numbers,  it 
 
 ^  OL.   TI.  L 
 
146  THE   HISTORY 
 
 would   have  been   peculiarly   inapplicable  here, 
 where  the  food^  with  which  the  wicked  oppressor 
 is  said  to  gorge  himself,  is  not  the  gift  of  God, 
 like  the  quails  showered  down  for  the  Israelites, 
 but  on  the  contrary  the  fruit  of  his  own   fraud 
 and   violence.     Besides,    the  phrase  itself  is   as 
 inconsistent  with  the  history  in  Numbers,  as  it 
 is  inapplicable  to  the  reasoning  in  Job.     For  we 
 do  not  find,  that  the  Israelites  were  cut  off,  be- 
 cause of  their  not  aclmowledging  the  quail,  (by 
 which,   if  it  has  any  meaning,  must  be  under- 
 stood, their  not  receiving  that  food  as  a  gift  sent 
 from   God,  —  and    in    this   sense    it    is    that   the 
 Bishop    has   actually    applied    it,)    but   because, 
 as  both  Moses   and   the   Psalmist  (Ps.  Ixxxvii.) 
 inform  ns,  they  had,  antecedently  to  the  grant 
 of  the  quails,   wantonly  lusted*  for  food  differ- 
 ent  from  that  which    God   had  already  allotted 
 to  them ;  and  were  desirous,  from  their  want  of 
 confidence  in  God's  power  to  give  iXiemJiesh  for 
 food,  to  return  to  the  flesh-pots  of  Egypt.     For 
 these  reasons  it  was,  that  punishment  was  inflicted : 
 and  inflicted  too,  (so  far  from  having  been  caused 
 by  their  not  acknoiiledpng  the  quail,)  before  the 
 food  was   actually  swallowed;   whilst,  as  we  are 
 
 *  The  very  name  of  KibrothJiataava  -was  given  to  the 
 place,  to  mark  the  nature  of  the  crime:  the  signification  of 
 these  words  being  scpulchra  concupiscentuv,  "  because  there 
 they  buried  the  people  that  lusted.'*  Numb.  xi.  31.  See  on 
 this  particularly  Bocharty  vol,  iii.  pp.  92.  108,  109. 
 
AND   BOOK    OF   JOB.  147 
 
 told,  ''  it  was  yet  between  the  teeth  and  not  yet 
 chewed."     See  Numb.  xi.  33. 
 
 To  the  new  version,  then,  here  recommended^ 
 there  He  these  three  objections:  1,  That  we  find 
 no  instance  of  the  phrase  which  it  introduces, 
 throughout  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  or  amongst 
 the  traditions  of  the  Jews;  2,  That  such  a  phrase 
 could  not  have  grown  out  of  the  transaction  to 
 which  it  is  traced:  and  3,  that  if  it  could,  it 
 would  be  totally  inapplicable  to  the  passage  in 
 question.  With  how  little  reason,  upon  the 
 whole,  the  Bishop  has  departed  from  the  com- 
 monly received  sense  of  the  text,  which  requires 
 the  word  to  be  rendered  in  the  sense  of  quiet- 
 ness,^  there  needs  but  a  slight  inspection  of  the 
 
 *  The  word  ^Vu;,  which  Bishop  Stock  here  renders  quail, 
 is,  as  has  been  noticed  above,  so  employed  in  speaking  of 
 the  food  miraculously  afforded  to  the  Israelites  at  Kibroth. 
 hataavahy  and  occurs  in  that  sense  in  four  places,  namely 
 in  Exod.  xvi.  13.  Numb.  xi.  31,  32.  and  Ps.  cv.  40.  la 
 the  various  other  parts  of  Scripture,  in  M'hich  the  word  is  to 
 be  found,  it  is  used  in  the  sense  of  quiet  and  tranquil  enjoy, 
 ment:  and  from  this,  as  its  radical  meaning,  even  its  appli- 
 cation to  the  bird  above  named  is  commonly  explained  r 
 inasmuch  as  quails  are  conceived  to  be  a  species  of  birds, 
 that  seek  quiet  and  undisturbed  enjoyment  in  the  fields  of 
 corn,  where  they  conceal  themselves  in  large  flocks,  and 
 if  allowed  to  enjoy  rest,  faiten  prodigiously.  See  Kirchcr^s 
 Concordance  and  Parkkurst  on  the  word.  Abbe  Pluche 
 tells  us,  in  his  Histoire  dii  del,  torn.  i.  p.  247,  that  th« 
 (juail  was,  amongst  the  ancient  Egyptians,  the  emblem  of 
 peace  and  security:  and  llasselqaist  and  Bochart  both  in- 
 
148  THE   HISTORY 
 
 original  to  discover.  And  with  how  much  less 
 reason  he  has  pretended  to  find  in  the  version 
 which    he   has  substituted,    a  proof  (as    he    is 
 
 form  us,  that  they  come  into  Egypt  in  great  multitudes,  in 
 Uie  spring,  at  the  ripening  of  the  wheat.  Bochart,  the 
 whole  of  whose  observations  upon  the  nature  and  history  of 
 Ihis  bird  are  extremely  curious,  derives  the  name  from  .""nVu^, 
 pacate  vivere^  and  thence  abundare.  They,  however,  who 
 may  wish  to  see  the  various  meanings  of  the  word  iVtr  accu- 
 rately detailed,  and  carefully  deduced  from  the  primary 
 sense  of  the  root  ."~n Vir,  will  be  rewarded  by  an  examination 
 o[  Schultens'^s  discussion  of  the  signification  of  the  term,  in  his 
 Origines  IlebrcecPy  torn.  ii.  p.  52 — 76.  The  true  meaning 
 of  this  root  is  the  more  important,  as  from  it  is  supposed  by 
 some  to  be  derived  the  Hebrew  w  ord  for  Shilo,  denoting  the 
 Messiah,  in  the  well  known  prophecy  of  Jacob. 
 
 Of  the  various  translations  which  have  been  given  of 
 this  verse  in  Job,  perhaps  that  of  Dathe  conveys  the  best 
 sense. 
 
 "  Quia  venter  ejus  expleri  non  poterat 
 Nee  quidquam  cupiditatibus  suis  evasit." 
 
 Schnurrer,  also,  has  in  a  like  sense  rendered  this  verse, 
 (and, — with  the  one  M'hich  immediately  precedes,  and  the 
 one  which  immediately  follows  it,  all  of  which  have  occa- 
 sioned much  perplexity  amongst  the  commentators,  —  ex- 
 tremely well,) 
 
 "  Quoniam  baud  scnsit  quietcm  in  ventre  suo, 
 Et  nihil  eorum,  quae  appetiit,  passus  estevadere." 
 See  Schnurrcj'^s  Dissertationes  Philologko  Criticcey  p.  256. 
 The  same  sense  has  been  given  by  the  Vulgate. 
 
 The  rendering  of  the  Greek  is  a  striking  instance  of  the 
 liberty,    which  that  version  has   so    frequently  taken   with 
 this  book,     Ovx  ifir  avra  crwrtj^ta  roi?  virot^^Hahv^  is  the  trans- 
 lation of  the  first  clause.    I  know  not  well  how  to  account 
 ) 
 
AND    BOOK    OF   JOB.  14^ 
 
 pleased  to  call  it,)  that  the  book  of  Job  was 
 composed  subsequently  to  the  transaction  at 
 Kihroth-hataavah,  will  probably,  after  what  has 
 been  said,  appear  no  less  clear. 
 
 The  next  passage  to  which  the  Bishop  refers 
 us  for  a  mark  of  time,  is  ch.  xxvi.  5.  which  he 
 thus  translates. 
 
 for  this  rendering,  unless  by  supposing  that  the  Greek  in. 
 terpreters,  instead  of  iJ\i>n3,  road  in  their  MS.  )inon :  for  it 
 is  remarkable,  that  the  word  p^i,  which  they  here  render 
 Tflt  t;7ra^;)^oi'T«,  they  have  in  the  1 5th  verse  rendered  otxta : 
 now,  Tcc  vrrot^^ovrce.  and  oa-a.  virac^^n  they  have  occasionally 
 used,  as  well  as  oiv.o?,  for  n^3,  as  see  Gen.  xlv.  18.  Esth. 
 viii.  1.  7;  and  in  Esther  vii.  8.  they  translate  fnu  by  oixo^i 
 therefore  it  seems  not  unreasonable  to  suppose,  that  they 
 have  read  the  word  fMU  here ;  that  is,  th  for  t,  and  a  ^  in- 
 serted. 
 
 It  is  to  be  remarked,  however,  that  amongst  the  various 
 meanings  ascribed  to  the  passage  by  commentators,  there  is 
 not  one  that  gives  the  smallest  countenance  to  the  rendering 
 of  the  word  iVu;  proposed  by  the  Bishop,  and  on  which  the 
 whole  force  of  his  argument  concerning  the  date  of  the 
 book  depends ;  (even  the  pointing  of  the  Masora  opposes 
 him) :  nor  is  there  one  that  gives  to  that  word  any  other 
 sense  than  that  of  quietness,  safety^  abundance^  enjoyjiienty 
 all  of  which  spring  from  the  same  primary  idea ;  the  Syriac 
 only  (with  its  copy  the  Arabic)  excepted;  which  renders 
 the  wed  by  c7ll»»  signifying,  his  judgment^  his  condemna. 
 tiun.,  or  his  punish  menty  see  Schaufs  Lex.  Syr.  And  how  io 
 recoi'.cile  any  of  these  senses  to  the  original  ^Vu^,  I  confess 
 myself  totally  at  a  loss, 
 
 l3 
 
150  THE    HISTORY 
 
 "  The  mighty  dead  are  pierced  through; 
 
 The  waters  from  beneath,  and  their  inhabitants.*'* 
 
 And  on  this,  the  only  remark  he  thinks  neces- 
 sary to  make,  is,  that  he  "  agrees  with  Scott, 
 that  DN'^S'n  are  the  giants,  and  wicked  inha- 
 bitants of  the  old  world,  who  perished  in  the 
 flood,  produced  by  breaking  up  the  waters  from 
 beneath,  or  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  as 
 Moses  calls  them.  Gen.  vii.  Jl. 
 
 Now,  admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
 that  the  antediluvian  giants,  who  with  the 
 wicked  inhabitants  of  the  old  world  were  over- 
 whelmed by  the  flood,  have  been  here  intended 
 
 *  Mky  it  be  permittGd,  in  transitu,  to  ask,  what  possible 
 meaning  can  be  assigned  to  these  two  lines  ?  Is  it,  that  the 
 waters  are  pierced  through,  as  well  as  the  mighty  dead?  And 
 do  their  inhabitants  mean  tlie  fishes?  And  is  it  meant,  that 
 ihcy  are  also  pierced  through?  And  what  is  intended  by 
 the  xcaters  from  beneath?  from  beneath  zchat ? — It  should  be 
 remarked,  that  although  in  the  reference  to  Scott,  which  is 
 mentioned  above,  it  seems  as  if  the  l^isliop  had  adopted 
 these  strange  phrases  in  common  with  that  writer,  yet  the 
 case  is  not  so;  they  have  nothing  in  common  but  the  mean- 
 ing of  the  word  Ct^Dl.  The  Bisliop  is  original,  almost 
 throughout  the  Mhole  verse,  especially  in  the  expression  of 
 *'  the  zzaters  from  beneath;''  the  Hebrew  necessarily  requir, 
 ing,  (as  will  appear  immediately  upon  inspection,)  that  the 
 word  beneath,  whether  it  be  construed  in  connexion  with 
 the  zcaters  or  not,  must  precede;  that  is,  if  the  two  words 
 are  to  be  combined,  it  must  be  "  beneath  the  waiersy'"'  just 
 the  opposite  of  his  Lordslrip's  collocation. 
 
AND    KOOK    OF    JOB.  151 
 
 by  the  epithet   ow^ii"),    Rephahn;    there   arises 
 from   this  very  circumstance   a  proof,    that  the 
 inference    which   the    Bishop   would   hence    de- 
 duce,   respecting  the   priority   of  Moses   to  the 
 author  of  this  poem,  is  a  false  one.     For  those 
 giants  of  the    old   world   are   called   hy   Moses 
 C^Ei^:,    NephiUm ;    and,  in  no   one  instance,  by 
 the  name   of  llephaim,    which   is  here  applied. 
 So  that  if  we  really  have,  in  this  place,  an  allu- 
 sion to  those  giants  who  lived  before  the  flood, 
 we   must  suppose  the   knowledge  of  the  writer 
 to  have  been  derived  from  some  source  different 
 from  the  writings  of  Moses :    a  conclusion,  di- 
 rectly the  opposite  of  that,   which  it  has   been 
 the  Bishop's  object  to  establish.     His  Lordship 
 indeed  tells  us,  that  he  expects,  not  to  be  called 
 upon  "  to  prove,  that  the  author  of  the  poem 
 derived  his  knowledge  of  events,  from  a  history 
 of  so  much  notoriety  as  that  of  Moses,  rather 
 than   from   oral    or  any   other   tradition." — But 
 surely^  in  facts  so  notorious  as  those  of  the  de- 
 luge, and  of  the  existence   of  those  giants   and 
 wicked    men    who    preceded    it,    it    cannot    be 
 thought  too  much  to  demand,  that  some  marked 
 similitude   between  the  accounts  given  of  them 
 by  Moses  and  by  any  other  early  writer  should 
 be  adduced,  in  proof  that  either  borrowed  from 
 the  other.     At  all  events,  it  is  clearly  too  much 
 on  the  other  hand  to  expect,    that  this  should 
 be   conceded,    in    defiance    of  a  marked    dissi- 
 
 L    4 
 
152  THE    HISTORY 
 
 militude,  such  as  has  been  shewn  in  the  pre- 
 sent  case  to  exist.  And  after  all,  even  were  a 
 resemblance  disco verable,  the  question,  which 
 was  the  earliest  writer,  would  still  remain  ex- 
 actly as  before. 
 
 The  Bishop,  in  truth,  on  the  word  Rephaim, 
 is  altogether  at  variance  ^ith  himself.  The 
 phrase  "  mighty  dead,"  wnich  he  here  uses  for 
 Rephaim,  is  the  same  which  (after  Bishop 
 Lowth)  he  has  employed  in  Isaiah  xiv.  9.  for 
 the  same  Hebrew  word.  But  the  explanation 
 of  the  term  which  he  has  there  given,  he  states 
 to  have  originated  with  Rosenmuller,  (or  rather 
 he  should  have  said  with  Vitringa,  for  from  him 
 Hosenmuller  has  taken  it^)  and  is  ahogether  dif- 
 ferent from  that  which  he  has  here  borrov^d 
 from  Scott.  His  words  there  are: — '^  Rephaim, 
 the  gigantic  spectres.  Ghosts  are  commonly 
 magnified  by  vulgar  terror  to  a  stature  superior 
 to  the  human.  Rosenm." — Stoclis  Isaiah,  p.  40. 
 — Thus  then,  we  find,  that  Ghosts j  as  such,  are 
 magnified  by  vulgar  terror,  and  may  be  called 
 Rephaim,  And  so,  the  appellation^  "  mightij 
 dead,''  or  Rephaim,  becomes  applicable  to  all 
 the  inhabitants  of  the  invisible  world.  But  how 
 then  can  that,  which  is  represented  as  a  quality 
 of  the  shades  of  all  dead  men,  namely  gigantic 
 size  or  Rephaism,  be  considered  in  this  place  as 
 dc'signating  the  spirits  o?dj/  of  a  particular  class 
 of  human  beings,  who,  being  of  actually  gigan-^ 
 
A^B    BOOK    OF    JOB.  153 
 
 tic  stature^  had  lived  before  the  flood  ?  The  two 
 expositions  meet,  with  such  adverse  fronts^  that 
 I  despair  of  being  able  to  reconcile  thenj. — Non 
 nostrum  tantas  componere  lites. 
 
 It  should  not  be  suffered  to  pass  unnoticed, 
 that  in  the  passage  of  Job,  with  which  we  are 
 at  present  concerned,  there  occurs,  besides  the 
 word  DW'Sn  Ilepliaim,  another  term  of  consider- 
 able moment ;  to  the  true  nature  and  meaning 
 of  which  the  Right  Rev.  translator  has  by  no 
 means  paid  that  attention,  which  the  office  as- 
 sumed by  him  demandi^d.  The  term  I  allude 
 to  is  ^  b)i^V,  Sheol :  a  term  in  whose  signification 
 
 *  It  had  been  well,  if  the  Bishop  had  attended  somewhat 
 more  to  those  learned  investigations  of  the  import  of  this  and 
 other  difficult  terms,  which  are  to  be  found  in  Mercer, 
 Schultens,  Peters,  and  the  other  laborious  Commentators, 
 whose  cautious  researches  have  only  excited  his  disgust.  We 
 should  then  not  find  that  uncertainty  of  meaning,  which  at 
 present  attaches  to  his  Lordship's  translations  of  the  passages 
 in  which  such  terms  occur.  The  word  in  particular,  which 
 is  here  referred  to,  has  been  rendered  by  him,  in  diiferent 
 places,  with  such  variety  and  such  vagueness,  as  to  leave 
 the  reader  altogether  ignorant  of  the  sense,  which  the  trans- 
 lator conceives  rapst  properly  to  belong  to  it.  Of  eight 
 places  iu  which  it  occurs  in  the  book  of  Job,  and  of  ten 
 places  in  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  there  is  no  one,  in  which 
 the  Bishop  has  taken  occasion  to  give  a  precise  idea  of  its 
 true  signilication.  Sometimes  he  calls  it  "  the  lower  region," 
 (Job  vii.  9.  xiv.  13.  xxiv.  19.)  at  others,  "  hell,"  (Job  xi.  8. 
 Isai.  xiv.  9.)  again,  "  the  grave,"  (Job  xvii.  13.  IG.  xxi.  13. 
 Isai.  v.  14.  xiv.  11.  15.  xxviii.  15.  18.  xxxviii,  10.  18.)  again. 
 
154  THE    HISTORY 
 
 is  involved  a  question,  no  less  important  than 
 that  of  the  early  belief  entertained  by  the  people 
 of  the  East,  concerning  the« existence  of  the  soul 
 
 in  the  present  passage,  "  the  lower  world  ;"  and  again,  Isai. 
 Ivii.  9.  ''  the  lowest  pit."  Amidst  all  this  variety  of  appli- 
 cation, not  a  single  glance,  that  I  can  discover,  has  been 
 taken  at  the  radical  meaning  of  the  word,  except  in  one  pass- 
 ing remark,  in  a  criticism,  which  is  of  so  extraordinary  a 
 nature,  that  I  cannot  avoid  quoting  tlio  whole  of  it,  as  it  stands. 
 — It  is  a  note  on  Job,  xx.  9. — '"  JVhich  beamed  on  ^?m.] 
 inDtlP.  The  reader,  who  shall  take  the  pains  to  examine  the 
 several  Hebrew  roots  commencing  with  the  letter  i^,  will  be 
 apt  to  think  with  me,  that  the  original  sense  of  by  far  the 
 greatest  part  of  them,  may  best  be  discovered,  by  divesting 
 them  of  this  same  initial  letter,  which  stood  in  the  place  of 
 an  article  or  preposition,  merely.  Thus  irou?,  the  sun^  I 
 conceive  to  the  the  feeler^  who  feeleth  after  and  investigateth 
 all  things :  D^DU;,  the  heavens^  the  place  of  waters^  D'-a-ii^j 
 from  which  rain,  or  waters,  come  ;  Vir^ll>,  the  place  of  the  iru 
 sensible,  Sheol  or  Hades.  And  thus  may  the  verb  before  us, 
 t]W,  be  traced  to  t*D^,  of  zchich  zee  Kant  an  example,  but  it 
 probably  signified  to  shine,  as  from  ?7"  (that  is,  from  a 
 non.existing  word,  observe,)  is  derived  r-y^l,  pitch." I!!— 
 These  notes  of  admiration  convey  but  little  of  my  own  asto- 
 nishment. Surely,  such  another  perfect  specimen  of  adven- 
 turous criticism,  the  entire  regions  of  conjecture  can, scarcely 
 supply.  In  truth,  this  is  such  an  exercise  of  the  critical 
 faculty,  as,  were  it  indulged  in,  must  render  the  Hebrew 
 scriptures  a  perfect  nullity,  by  fastening  on  them  any  sense 
 that  any  guesser  might  think  proper  to  aPnx. 
 
 That  the  prefix  IT,  as  an  abbreviation  for  the  relative  *>U,>i*, 
 is  not  unprecedented,  is  well  known  to  Hebrew  scholars: 
 but,  at  the  same  time,  this  is  acknowledged  to  be  a  ChaU 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  155 
 
 after  death.  With  respect  to  these  two  impor- 
 tant terms,  it  fortunately  happens,  that  they 
 stand  so  combined  in  one  part  of  Scripture  as  to 
 
 daism;  -which,  although  it  is  found  in  the  later  books  of  the 
 O.  T.  composed  about  and  after  the  time  of  the  captivity,   is 
 denied  to  have  any  place  in  those  of  earlier  production.     (See 
 p.  114.  of  this  vol.)    AVhat  then  is  to  become  cfall  those  words 
 beginning  with  the  letter  ur,  in   the  several  books  preceding 
 the  captivity,  which  constitute  by  much   the  greater  part  of 
 the  Hebrew  Scripture  ?     Are  all  those  words,  to  be  inter- 
 preted  by  divesting  them   of  the  initial  IL',  in  opposition  to 
 the  hitherto  received  opinion,  that  not  more  than  tzco  or^  three 
 such  words  at  the  most  are  to  be  fouRcl  through  the  entire 
 range  of  those  early  writings  ?  Then  indeed  it  is  time  to  set 
 about  a   new  translation  of  the  whole  body  of  the  Old  Tes- 
 tament, since  so  numerous  a   class   of  words  have  hitherto 
 been  altogether  misunderstood  by  every  interpreter  of  Scrip- 
 ture,— What  in  truth  is  to  become  of  the  Hebrew  language  ? 
 The  lexicons  at  present  exhibit,  as  primitives,  not  fewer  than. 
 200  words   commencing   with  the  letter  \D.     Now  to   pro« 
 Bounce  that  "  hy  far  the  greatest  parV  of  these  are  com- 
 pounded, and  must  be   divested  of  that  letter   in  order  to 
 discover  their  true  meaning ;  leaving  it  also  to  the  conjecture 
 of  the  indivi4ual,  to  determine  what  words  have  the  prefix 
 and  what  not;  is  surely  neither  more  nor  less  than  to  con- 
 vert the  language  into   mere  babble.     One  would  think  it 
 scarcely  possible  to  add  to  the  extravagance  of  this  proceed- 
 ing* and  yet  has  this  not  been  done  in  the  criticism  referred 
 to,  when  in  one  of  tlie  compounds  thus  fancifully  made  up, 
 it  is  admitted  that  one  of  its  components  has  no  place  in  the 
 language  ?    as   in   the  case  of  .""nD?,    to  shi'nCy  of  which  the 
 Bishop  Fays,  "•' tee  want  an  example j-^^  and  truly   says  so, 
 there  being  no  such  word,  in  that  sense,  or  in  any  sense  ap, 
 preaching  to  it^  either  in  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 
156  THE    HISTORY 
 
 throw  light  upon  each  other,  and  to  leave  little 
 douht  remaining  upon  this  most  interesting  ar- 
 ticle of  oriental  theology.     If  we  look  to  Isaiah 
 
 or  in  any  of  the  kindred  languages,  Chaldee,  Syriac,  or 
 Arabic.  But  his  Lordship  adds,  that  though  there  zs  nof, 
 yet  there  ought  to  be,  such  a  word,  because  there  is  such  a 
 word  as  ."— \D>,  Pitch.  If  tlie  reader  finds  it  difficult  to  give 
 credit  to  this  represenlation,  I  refer  him  to  the  work  itself. 
 -^Or  again,  is  not  the  extravagance  also  heightened,  though  in 
 an  inferior  degree,  when  we  find  in  the  same  criticism,  a 
 sense  given  to  one  6f  the  components,  which  does  not  belong 
 to  it  ?  as  in  the  word.  V"i>^U?,  which,  we  are  told,  properly 
 means  the  place  of  the  insensible,  being  compounded  of  u^  and 
 V'ft*  ;  the  latter  word  of  course  signifying  insensible.  Now 
 it  is  notorious,  that  the  word  /)t^  bears  throughout  the  entire 
 scripture,  no  other  sense  than  that  of  foolish ;  which  indeed 
 in  the  scripture  use  also  implies  wicked:  a  meaning,  surely, 
 sufficiently  removed  from  that  of  insensible ;  and  the  more 
 markedly  so,  as  in  the  primary  sense  of  the  word,  it  sig- 
 nifies not  simply /o%,  but  an  activity  in  folly. 
 
 There  is  indeed,  it  should  be  noticed,  a  source  for  certain 
 Hebrew  words  commencing  with  ^,  very  different  from  that 
 wild  and  arbitrary  one  devised  by  the  Bishop.  The  Si/riac 
 has  a  special  conjugation,  to  which  Schultens  and  Michaelis 
 have  given  the  name  of  Sckaphel^  from  the  prefixed  ;:;  being 
 its  characteristic,  as  tlu-  n  and  nn  are  the  characteristics  of 
 the  conjugations  JJij/hil  and  Hithpahcl  in  the  Hebrew,  This 
 is  seldom  used  by  the  Hebrew  in  its  verbs,  but  not  unfre- 
 quently  in  nouns  derived  from  that  conjugation.  Here  is  a 
 legitimate  source,  and  one  which  in  its  nature  supplies  a  rule 
 and  a  limitation. — See  on  t'is  Syriac  form,  Michaelis,  Not. 
 el  Epim.  p.  195 — also  Mich.  Gramm.Syr.  p.  91. — It  should 
 be  noted  that  the  Schaphd  of  the  Germans  sliould  be  called 
 
AND    BOOK    OF   JOB.  157 
 
 xiv.  9-  we  shall  there  find,  what  were  the  Jewish 
 opinions  upon  this  subject  in  the  days  of  that 
 prophet.  I  here  subjoin  the  whole  passage,  as  it 
 is  rendered  by  Bishop  Lowth, 
 
 Shaphel  with  us,  the  word  being  derived  from  tlie  letter  u? 
 which  they  write  sch  and  wc  sh. 
 
 There  is  another  instance,  of  the  application  of  the  new 
 discovery  made  by  the  Bishop,  respecting  words  beginning 
 with  m,  of  a  nature  so  extraordinary,  and  of  which  his  Lord- 
 sliip  has  made  so  extraordinary  an  use,  that  I  cannot  for- 
 bear annexing  it  to  this  note.     On  the  verb  pDD  in  ch.  xxxiv. 
 26,  he  remarks  in  the  note :  ''  pDD  or  pDU;^  from  mifrequent 
 occurrence^  is  not  well  understood-  but  if,  according  to  my 
 rule^  we  cast  off'  U?,  we  shall  come  to  a  letter  knozcn  verb, 
 p^^^  to  stagger^  or  to  tumble." — Now,  in  the  first  place  (to 
 make  no  remark  on   the  exercise  of  fane?/  with  respect  to 
 the  u;,    as   that  is  his  Lordship's  rule,)  the  word,  which  is 
 described  as  being  from  unfrequent  occurrence  not  well  un- 
 derstood, is  found  above  a  dozen  times  in  the  Hebrew  bible, 
 and  in  such  connexion  as  to  have  caused  to  the  commentators 
 no  doubt  about  its  meaning;  for  which  it  also  derives  addi- 
 tional confirmation  from  the  kindred  languages.     And  on  the 
 other  hand,  the  word  pD,  (or  as  he  should  have  written  it, 
 p)3,)  which  his  Lordship  pronounces  to  be   so  much  better 
 known,  occurs  only  in  three  places,  with  the  possibility  of 
 that  sense  of  stagger,    in  which  we  are  told  it  is  so  fami- 
 liarly understood ;  and  even  in  those  places,  the  Greek  and 
 Latin  translators  do  not  concur  in  giving  it  that  sense:  so 
 that,  in  truth,   this  word,   in  the  application  of  it,  may  be 
 considered  as  involved  in  some  uncertainty,   whilst  the  one 
 which  it  is  conjured  up  to  supplant  is  involved  in  none. — 
 But  we  have   not  done  with  this  discovery  yet»     The  true 
 sense  of  pDD  or  pDir  is  made  out,  by  his  Lordship^s  rule,  to 
 signify  stagger  or  tumble :  and  accordingly,  it  is  so  rendered 
 
158  THE    HISTORY 
 
 "  Hades  (Sheol)  from  beneath  is  moved  because 
 of  thee  to  meet  thee  at  thy  coming : 
 
 He  rouseth  for  thee  the  mighty  dead,  (Rcphaim,) 
 all  the  great  chiefs  of  the  Earth  ; 
 
 He  maketh  to  rise  up  from  their  thrones  all  the 
 kings  of  the  nations. 
 
 All  of  them  shall  accost  thee,  and  shall  say  unto 
 thee : 
 
 Art  thou,  even  thou  too,  become  weak  as  we?  Art 
 thou  made  like  unto  us  ? 
 
 Is  then  thy  pride  brought  down  to  the  grave  ;  the 
 sound  of  thy  sprightly  instruments  ? 
 
 Is  the  vermin  become  thy  couch,  and  the  earth- 
 worm thy  covering  ? 
 
 How  art  thou  fallen  from  heaven,  O  Lucifer,  son 
 of  the  morning? 
 
 Art  cut  down  to  the  earth,  thou  that  didst  subdue 
 the  nations  ?" 
 Thus  then,   in  like  manner  as  Homer,  in  his 
 Odi/ssei/,  sends  the  souls  of  the  slaughtered  wooers 
 
 to  Hades,  where  they  meet  with    the  manes  of 
 
 by  him,  in  the  passage  to  which  tliis  note  hi'js  been  attached. 
 But  then  the  same  word  occurs  in  four  other  places  in  the 
 book  of  Job,  XX.  22.  xvii.  23.  xxxiv.  37.  xxxvi.  IS:  and  in 
 the  three  first  of  these,  the  idea  of  clapping  the  hands,  which 
 is  the  true  one,  and  which  the  Bishop  has  rejected  in  the 
 above  criticism,  is  adopted  by  him  ;  and  in  the  fourth,  the 
 Tague  sense  of  exposure  is  introduced :  whilst  the  idea  of 
 stagger,  which  his  Lordsliip  has  laboured  so  much  and  so 
 unjustifiably  to  establish  as  the  true  and  proper  sense,  Is 
 completely  forgotten.  Surely  this  is  too  rambling. 
 1 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  lb() 
 
 Achilles^  Agamemnon^  and  other  Heroes:  so  the 
 Hebrew  poet,  in  this  passage  of  inimitable  gran- 
 deur, describes  the  king  of  Babylon^  when  slain 
 and  brought  to  the  grave,  as  entering  Sheol,  and 
 there  meeting  the  Repliahn,  or  manes  of  the  dead, 
 who  had  descended  thither  before  him,  and  who 
 are  poetically  represented  as  rising  from  their  seats 
 at  his  approach.  And  as,  on  the  one  hand;,  the 
 passage  in  the  Grecian  bard  has  been  always  held, 
 without  any  question,  to  be  demonstrative  of  the 
 existence  of  a  popular  belief  amongst  the  Greeks, 
 that  there  was  a  place  called  Hades,  which  was 
 the  receptacle  for  departed  souls :  so  this  poetic 
 image  of  Isaiah  must  be  allowed,  upon  the  other, 
 to  indicate  in  like  manner,  amongst  the  Jews,  the 
 existence  of  a  popular  belief  that  there  was  a 
 region  for  departed  souls  called  Sheol,  m  which. 
 the  Rephahn  or  Manes  took  up  their  abode.  *^ 
 
 *  As  the  above  is  a  point  of  considerable  moment,  and 
 vitally  connected  with  a  subject  which  has  excited  much 
 controversy  and  great  interest;  I  must  add  a  few  more 
 observations,  upon  the  meaning  of  the  two  remarkable 
 words,  with  which  we  arc  here  concerned.  And,  in  the  iirsit 
 instance,  the  reader  may  not  be  displeased  with  a  compressed 
 statement  of  w  hat  the  yery  learned  Vitringa  has  given  at 
 length  upon  this  head. — After  admitting,  in  his  remarks  oa 
 the  passage  of  Isaiah  just  cited,  that  the  word  Sheol  may  be, 
 (though  it  very  rarely  is,)  applied  in  the  sense  of  grave  or 
 sepulchre^  he  proceeds  to  argue,  that  in  this  sense  it  cannot 
 have  been  employed  in  the  passage  under  discussion ;  for 
 that  it  would  be  a  monstrous  abuse  of  language,  to  say,  that 
 
l60  THE    HISTORY 
 
 The   next  passage  to   which  the   Bishop   has 
 referred  us,  (see  p.   133.)  is  found  in  ch.  xxxiv. 
 
 the  grave  stirred  up  those  >vho  were  actually  dead  :  and 
 therefore  he  contends,  that  the  whole  passage  must  be  ex- 
 plained, as  a  poetic  fiction,  accommodated  to  the  existing 
 opinions  of  the  day,  Avhich  he  holds  to  have  been  these.— 
 That  the  souls  of  men,  when  released  from  the  body  by 
 death,  pass  into  a  vast  subterraneous  region,  as  a  common 
 receptacle,  but  Avith  different  mansions,  adapted  to  the  dif- 
 ferent qualities  of  its  inhabitants  ;  and  that  here,  preserving 
 the  shades  and  resemblances  of  the  living,  they  fill  the  same 
 characters  they  did  in  life. — That  this  entire  region  was 
 called  by  the  Jews  Sheol,  by  the  Greeks  Hades,  and  by  the 
 Latins  Inferi. — That  these  were  the  notions  that  commonly 
 prevailed  amongst  the  Jews,  he  conceives  to  be  fully  esta- 
 blished by  various  parts  of  Scripture  :  and  to  this,  he  thinks, 
 the  history  of  the  witch  of  Endor  yields  confirmation,  inas- 
 much as,  let  the  illusion  in  that  transaction  be  what  it  might, 
 it  goes  to  establish  the  fact  of  the  opinion  which  was  thert 
 vulgarly  received. — Agreeably  to  this  hypothesis,  he  con- 
 tends that  various  expressions  of  the  patriarchs  and  prophets 
 are  to  be  explained  ;  and  to  this  purpose  he  instances  Gen. 
 xxxvii.  35.  Ps.  xvi.  10.  xxx.  4.  xciv.  17  ;  in  all  of  which,  a 
 place  where  souls,  when  freed  from  the  body,  were  assem- 
 bled, still  preserving  all  their  faculties, — is,  as  he  thinks, 
 plainly  supposed. — From  the  Hebrews,  he  conceives  that 
 this  opinion  passed  to  other  people,  and  became  disfigured 
 by  various  fictions  of  their  respective  invention.  Thus  the 
 doctrine  of  the  Egyptians  respecting  Hades,  is  given  in  the 
 second  book  of  Herodotus;  where  we  have  the  history  of 
 Rhampsinitus,  who  according  to  the  traditions  of  the  Egyp- 
 tians had  visited  the  infernal  regions  and  returned  safe  to 
 life.  The  notion,  he  says,  was  variously  embellished  by  the 
 Greek  poets ;   and  aftcr>\ aids,  being  stripped  by  Plato  of 
 
AND    BOOK    or   JOB*  161 
 
 $0,  which  in  our  common  version  stands  thus : 
 "  In  a   moment  shall  they  die,   and  the  people 
 
 much  of  its  poetic  ornaments,  was  embodied  by  him  in  his 
 philosophical  system.  Hence  again  the  Latins  and  the 
 nations  at  large,  derived  their  phraseology  in  speaking  of 
 the  state  of  the  dead,  for  instances  of  which  phraseology  he 
 refers  to  Velleius^  Livi/^  Floras  and  others. 
 
 The  learned  writer  then  proceeds  to  the  Rephaim,  who 
 are  here  described  by  Isaiah,  as  raised  from  their  seats  by 
 Shcol,  on  the  approach  of  the  King  of  Babylon  ;  and  who 
 must  consequently  be  the  shades,  or  manes,  by  which  Sheol 
 is  inhabited. — But  wherefore  denominated,  Rephaim  ?  By 
 this  word,  he  says,  it  appears  indisputably  from  Isai.  xxvi. 
 14.  compared  with  this  passage,  must  be  meant  the  souls  of 
 the  deceased.  But  at  the  same  titile,  he  observes,  it  appears 
 no  less  indisputably  from  Gen.  xiv.  5.andDeut.  iii.  11,  that 
 the  same  word  is  employed  to  designate  a  people  o^  gigantic 
 stature  amongst  the  Canaanites  ;  and  it  is  accordingly  almost 
 every  where  rendered  ''  giants^''  by  the  LXX  and  Vulgate. 
 How  to  reconcile  these  two  senses,  which  appear  so  very 
 different,  has  been  a  difficulty  with  commentators.  But  this 
 difficulty,  he  says,  will  be  removed,  if  we  attend  to  the 
 notion  which  has  vulgarly  prevailed  concerning  ghosts  or 
 tnafies  ;  that  they  appear  of  a  stature  greater  thau  human  : 
 and  hence  our  author  thinks,  that  the  word,  which  originally 
 denoted  the  shades  of  the  departed,  came  to  be  transferred  to 
 denote  men  of  a  gigantic  bulk;  and  so  became  finally  an 
 appellation  for  both*^-See  Fitri?iga  in  Isai,  torn.  i.  pp. 
 432, 433. 
 
 I  find  that  Cocceius  explains  the  application  of  the  term 
 Rephaim  to  the  giants  in  Canaan,  on  the  same  principle, 
 though  not  so  explicitly  as  Vitringa.  liis  words  are, 
 ^'  possit  videri,  eos"  (gigantes  scil.)  "  ita  apj)ellatos,  quod 
 tanquam  manes  k  spectra  inter  homines  versarentur."  Th<? 
 VOL.  II.  M 
 
l62  THE   HISTORY 
 
 shall  be  troubled  at  midnight  and  pass  away  ;  and 
 the  mighty  shall  be  taken  away  without  hand.'* 
 
 word  itself  he  derives  originally  from  nQ*i,  resolvere;  or  as 
 the  LXX,  cTa^aXyec-fiai,  .-y.T-.vea^a.i ;  and  its  primary  meaning 
 he  considers  to  be  resoluti^  mortui  in  pulverem  redacti—- 
 hence  manes.  Michatlis  has,  in  a  way  that  appears  not 
 equally  satisfactoiy,  endeavoured  to  account  for  the  appli- 
 cation oi"  the  samj  term  Repkaim  to  giants  and  ghosts,  on 
 the  idea  ot  the  datk  caverns  inhabited  by  the  former. — See 
 Nut.  et  Epim.  pp.  28,  29. 
 
 The  very  learned  and  ingenious  examination  of  the  terms 
 She6l^n(\.  llephawi,  by  Peters^  (from  p.  318  to  382,)  merits 
 particular  attention.  Sheol  he  distinguishes  into  two  parts, 
 the  upper  and  the  lower  ;  in  the  last  of  which  he  places  the 
 residence  of  the  wicked  spirits  :  and  to  this  class  he  applies 
 the  term  Repkaim,  as  being  giants  in  impietj/.  In  this  point 
 however,  I  apprehend  he  has  carried  the  matter  too  far  :  for 
 the  giants  in  impiety  to  whom  he  primarily  alludes,  are  those 
 monstrous  deficrs  of  God's  authority,  who  lived  before  the 
 flood  and  were  overwhelmed  by  the  Almighty  for  their 
 enormous  wickedness  :  and  from  these  it  is,  that  he  transfers 
 the  term  Rephaim,  to  the  shades  of  all  such  as  had  been 
 mighty  in  violence  and  crmies.  But  in  doing  this,  he  has 
 fallen  into  the  same  error,  which  I  have  noticed  in  Bishop 
 Stock  and  others ;  namely,  that  of  supposing  Rephaim  to 
 have  been  the  name  of  those  heaven-defying  giants,  that 
 lived  before  the  flood:  whereas,  as  it  is  shewn  in  p.  151, 
 they  had  no  such  name,  being  known  only  by  that  of 
 Nephiliin,  Peters,  indeed,  appears  to  me  also,  to  have  fol- 
 lowed the  clue  of  interpretation,  with  respect  to  the  term 
 Rephaim,  in  a  wrong  direction  altopjcther,  by  transferring 
 the  word  from  the  primary  signification  of  giants  to  the 
 secondary  one  of  shades;  whereas  1  have  little  doubt,  that 
 it  was  first  the  proper  appellation  of  the  latter,  and  thenca 
 
 1 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  iGS 
 
 *— On  this  passage  his  Lordship  makes  the  follow- 
 injj   observations.  —  '^   The    sudden  death    here 
 
 ettcndcd  to  the  former,  in  the  manner  suggested  b)'  Vitringa. 
 At  the  same  time  I  agree  ^ith  Peters  and  with  SchultenSy 
 that  the  word  is  sometimes  taken  in  an  unfavourable  sense, 
 so  as  to  particularize  the  souls  of  the  wicked.  This  1  think 
 is  manifest  from  Prov.  ix,  18.  xxi.  16.  And  I  would  in  the 
 following  manner  explain  the  various  acceptations  of  the 
 word,  which  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  has  yet  been  satis- 
 factorily done  by  any  author. 
 
 From  the  verb  HQi,  signifying  resolvere,  I  derive,  with 
 Cocceiusy  the  word  O^t^Dn,  resoluti;  which,  applied  tohumau 
 beings,   denotes  that  they  are  reduced  io  their  first  elements 
 hy  dissolution.     Rephaim  therefore  implies  the  deceased^  m 
 that  separated  condition  of  the  component  parts  of  their 
 nature  which  is  produced  by  death  :  and  as  the  bodily  part 
 moulders  into  dust  and  becomes  insensible,  it  is  consequently 
 applied  to  that  active  principle,  which  retains  the  conscious- 
 ness and  continues  as  it  were  the  existence  of  the  man. 
 Rephaim  then  imports  men  in  that  state,  to  which  they  are 
 brought,  when  reduced  by  dissolution  to  the  simple  and 
 essential  element,   the  soul;    and   thence   has  been  used  to 
 signify  the  ghosts  of  the  deceased.    These  again,  being  clothed 
 by  the  imaginations  of  the  living  in  certain  airy  shapes,  and 
 magnified  through  terror  to  gigantic  stature,  in  process  o£ 
 time  lent  their  name  to  men  of  great  and  terrific  bulk  ;  and 
 hence  the  appellation  passed  to  giants,  and  became  the  deno- 
 mination of  certain  classes  of  that  description  in  Canaan. 
 Again  these  Rephaim  of  the  Canaanites,  being  distinguished 
 amongst  a  people  who  were  all  odious  for  their  crimes,  and 
 as  such  pronounced  to  be  an  abomination  to  the  Lord,  the 
 idea  of  great  wickedness  so  strongly  associated  with  the 
 name,   was  by  degrees   reflected  back  upon  the  primitive 
 ferm:  so  that  Rephaim^  as  applied  to  the  souls  of  the  dead. 
 M  2 
 
l64  THE  HIStORV 
 
 described,  its  happening  at  midnight^  the  trepiaa- 
 lion  of  the  people,  the  removal  of  the  strong  ones 
 
 eame  at  length  to  imply  also  specially  the  souls  of  the  guilty 
 dead.  Thus  Rephaim  becomes  properly  capable  of  these 
 three  senses,  Ghosts^  Giants^  and  Ghosts  of  the  Wicked. 
 
 Again,  as  to  the  origin  of  the  word  Vi«u;  Sheol,  signifying, 
 as  we  have  seen,  the  region  allotted  to  the  residence  of  the 
 Rephaim,  or  shades  of  the  departed;  it  has  been  best  derived 
 from  the  verb  Vi^u.>,  qiicesivit,  postulavit^  indicating  its  insatia^ 
 ble  craving :  a  character  which  we  find  particularly  attached 
 to  it  in  several  parts  of  Scripture — see  Isai.  v.  14.  Ilabak.  ii. 
 5.  Prov.  xxvii.  20.  xxx.  16. — At  the  same  time,  I  confess,  I 
 cannot  but  think,  that  there  has  been  overlooked  by  the  Critics 
 a  particular  acceptation  of  the  word  Vfc^v,  which  would  more 
 adequately  convey  the  true  character  and  nature  of  Sheol. 
 The  verb  is  known  not  only  to  signify,  to  demand^  or  crave, 
 but  to  demand,  or  crane  as  a  loan  ;  and  therefore  implies  that 
 what  is  sought  for  is  to  be  rendered  back.  In  this  view  of  the 
 case,  Sheol  is  to  be  understood,  not  simply  as  the  region  of 
 departed  spirits,  but  as  the  region  which  is  to  form  theii 
 temporary  residence,  and  from  which  they  are  at  some  future 
 time  to  be  rendered  up;  thus  indicating  an  intermediate  state 
 of  the  soul,  between  its  departure  from  this  world,  and  some 
 future  stage  of  its  existence.  This  particular  acceptation  of 
 the  word,  receives  countenance  in  this  passage  of  Job  espe 
 cially,  from  the  rendering  of  the  LXX  and  the  Chaldee,  with 
 which  our  common  version  corresponds.  The  word  iVVlfi', 
 the  former  renders  by  i^.onu^yiaovron,  (from  /*«»«,  obstetrix,) 
 shall  be  brought  forth  ;  and  the  latter,  by  a  word  signifying 
 regenerahuntur,  shall  be  born  again :  both  evidently  explain, 
 ing  the  Hebrew  word  VVn  or  Vin,  in  reference  to  the  pains  of 
 bringing  forth  ;  and  signifying,  that  the  Rephaim  were  to  be 
 rendered  up  from  the  place  of  their  residence,  and  as  it  wera 
 born  again  into  some  new  state  of  existence. — Codurcus  also, 
 
AND    BOOK    OF   JOB.  l6>5 
 
 to  the  other  world  by  an  invisible  hand;  what 
 are  all  these  but  the  circumstances   recorded  by 
 
 I  find,  in  his  explanation  of  Sheol,  describes  the  notion  enter- 
 tained of  it  by  the  Jews  thus;  "  Vib*U7,  purgatorii  locum 
 existimant,  ex  quo  redduntur  soperis  animae,  exantlatis  quibus 
 erant  obnoxiee  poenis."  (Crit.  Sacj\  tom.  iii.  p.  3318.) — 
 Windet  also  mer.tlons,  that  to  the  Slieol  of  the  Hebrews, 
 corresponds  the  Amenthes  of  the  Egypiians,  which  Plutarch, 
 comparing  it  with  the  Hades  of  the  Greeks,  expounds  by, 
 To»  ^a/x^ayo»T«  yttxi  ^i^ovrot^  in  his  book  of  Isis  and  Osiris. 
 (De  vita  functorum  statu^  p.  24.  also  Peters^  p.  320.)— 
 Windet  likewise  informs  us,  that  the  Jews  hold  Gehenna^  or 
 the  place  of  perdition,  to  be  the  lowest  part  of  Sheul^  the 
 general  receptacle  of  departed  souls  ; — and  that  in  order  to 
 express  the  great  depth,  to  which  they  conceive  it  to  be  sunk, 
 they  are  used  to  describe  it  as  beneath  the  zcaters:  their  idea 
 being,  that  the  waters  are  placed  below  the  earth,  and  that  th« 
 earth  doats  upon  them  like  a  ship.  De  vita  functorum  statUy 
 pp.  242,  243.  Tartarus^  in  like  manner,  he  says  (p.  245.) 
 the  Greeks  made  the  lowest  part  of  Hades, 
 
 On  the  Jewisl  notions  of  Sheol,  compared  with  the  Greek 
 notions  of  Hades^  I  would  refer  the  reader  to  the  entire  of 
 the  last  named  work;  to  Peters' s  Crit,  Diss,  as  before  noticed; 
 to  Bishop  Lowth's  Lectures,  vol.  i.  p.  156 — 166  (Greg, 
 edit.)  and  Mr.  Henley's  note  in  ditto,  p.  213;  to  Mich,  Not, 
 €t  Epim.  pp.  27,  28.  and  to  Bishop  Horsley's  Hosea,  pp.  46, 
 157 — 160.200,  ^01.  He  may  consult  also  with  advantage 
 the  Sermon  of  this  last  writer,  upon  Christ's  descent  into 
 Sheol:  and  upon  the  same  subject,  he  will  find  a  good  dis- 
 course by  Johnson  of  Cranbrooky  in  the  2d  volume  of  hit 
 Sermons. 
 
 Were  I  now,  upon  the  whole,  to  offer  my  own  rendering,  of 
 the  passage  in  Job  out  of  which  this  long  discussion  has  arisen^ 
 I  would  venture  the  following. 
 
 m3 
 
l66  THE   HISTORY 
 
 Moses  in  Exodus,  xii.  29,  of  the  destruction  of 
 the  first-born  of  the  Egyptians?  Pharaoh  hkewise 
 is  the  king,  to  whom  God  is  said  just  before  to 
 have  given  the  title  of  Behal.  We  have  here  of 
 course  another  proof,  that  the  writer  of  this  poem 
 was  posterior  in  time  to  Moses."* 
 
 The  souls  of  the  dead  tremble; 
 
 [The  places]  below  the  waters,  and  their  inhabitants. 
 
 The  seat  of  spirits  is  naked  before  him  ; 
 
 And  the  region  of  destruction  hath  no  covering. 
 
 Here  I  take  the  souls  of  (he  dead,  and  the  inhabitants  of 
 the  places  below  the  (abyss  of)  waters,  to  bear  to  each  other 
 the  same  proportion,  that  is  found,  in  the  next  verse,  to  sub- 
 sist between  the  seat  of  spirits^  and  i\\ii  region  of  destruction : 
 those  of  the  dead  who  were  sunk  in  the  lowest  parts  of  Sheol, 
 being  placed  in  the  region  of  destruction^  or  the  Gehenna  of 
 the  later  Jews.  So  that  the  passage,  on  the  whole,  conveys 
 this ;  that  nothing  is,  or  can  be  concealed  from  the  all-seeing 
 eye  of  God  :  that  the  souls  of  the  dead  tremble  under  his  view, 
 and  the  shades  of  the  wicked  sunk  to  the  bottom  of  the  abyss, 
 can  even  there  find  no  cove  ring  from  his  sight. 
 
 *  Heath,  who  is  extremely  anxious  to  lower  the  antiquity 
 of  the  Book  of  Job,  has  gone  before  the  Bishop,  in  the  notion 
 that  the  slaughter  of  the  first-born  is  here  alluded  to;  although 
 his  Lordsliip  has  mentioned  this,  as  one  of  the  notes  of  time, 
 which  had  escaped  all  thr  commentators.  To  make  the  refe- 
 rence appear  more  probable,  that  author  has  rendered  the 
 w  ord  n2JJ^  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  imply  the  passing  on  of 
 the  destroying  angel,  as  described  by  Moses.  In  doing  so,  he 
 has  undoubtedly  improved  the  resemblance  to  the  account  of 
 the  transaction  in  Exodus.  But  to  make  this  point  out,  he 
 is  com  polled  either  to  violate  grammar,  or  to  pluralizo  the 
 Angrl.     These  things,  however,  avail  nothing,  as  the  hypo- 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  I67 
 
 Now  undoubtedly,  if  this  supplies  a  pvooj^  of 
 the  point  proposed,  the  matter  of  demonstration 
 is  easier  than  has  been  commonly  imagined.  In 
 the  original  passage  here  referred  to,  it  must  be 
 remembered,  that  the  Bishop  does  not  pretend  to 
 
 thesis  mz^*^  be  supported.— rr^r^wr^ow,  Avith  the  same  resolute 
 determination   to  modernize  Job,  discovers,   in  the  passage 
 before  us,  not  only  the  transaction  in  Egj  pt,  but  also  another 
 of  a  nature  entirely  different.     The  words,  he  says,  "•  jjlainlj/ 
 refer  to  the  destruction  of  the  first-born  .in  Egypt,  and  Senna. 
 cherib''s  army  ravaging  Jiidcea.^" — Div.  Leg.  vol.  ii.  p.  498. 
 ' — What  now  becomes  of  that  appropriate  term,  "  midnighty^ 
 which,  with  the  Bishop,  singled  out  the  transaction  in  Egypt 
 from  every  other  ;  and  of  that  other  significant  word,  113]?% 
 "  pass  through^''^  which  has  so  completely  satisfied  Heath, 
 that  no  other  than  that  transaction  could  have  been  intended : 
 —neither  of  these  words  being  found  in  the  history  of  the 
 destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army. — Codurcus  has,  with  true 
 propriety  and  good  sense,  suggested  the  use  which  is  to  be 
 made  of  the  tv70  events  alluded  to  by  Warburton :  namely, 
 that  they  are  facts,  to  which  the  mind  is  naturally  led,  as  tend- 
 ing  to  exemplify  and  confirm  the  observation  on  the  Avays  of 
 Providence,  which  is  laid  down  in  this  part  of  Job :  and  that 
 had  these  events  taken  place  before  the  composition  of  the 
 poem,   it  would  not  be  unnatural  to  suppose,  that  the  writer 
 had  them,  with  others  of  the  same  kind,  in  his  view.     These 
 are  the  reflections  of  a  sober  judgment,  which,  it  were  much 
 to  be  wished,  was  more  frequently  to  be  met  with  in  our  com- 
 mentators and  translators.     I  should  mention  indeed,  that 
 Holden  and  Scott  have  taken  the  same  judicious  view  of  the 
 subject.     To  prove  how  wide  in  its  application  this  passage  in 
 Job  has  been  found,  I  shall  add  only  one  instance  more  of  its 
 appropriation.     The  Chaldee  has  discoyered  in  it  an  allusion 
 to  the  destruction  of  Sodom, 
 
 M  4 
 
l68  THE    HISTORY 
 
 have  discovered  any  one  expression,  which  is  to 
 be  found  in  the  description  of  the  slaughter  of  the 
 first-born  in  Egypt,  excepting  the  single  term, 
 '^  midnight.''  This  almost  total  diversity  of 
 phrase  is  surely  no  part  of  the  proof,  that  the 
 description  in  Job  is  taken  from  that  which  was 
 given  by  Moses.  But  although  there  be  not  an 
 identity  of  expressions,  yet  may  there  not  be  a 
 general  similarity  to  justify  the  Bishop's  asser- 
 tion ?  On  the  contrary,  there  is  nothing  more 
 requisite  than  his  Lordships  own  statement  of 
 the  case,  to  overturn  every  idea  of  a  reference 
 to  Moses's  account  of  the  above  transaction. 
 For,  in  the  first  place,  according  to  that  state- 
 ment, God  is  here  represented  as  having  given  to 
 Pharaoh  the    title  of  Belial.^ — Now  this   is  a 
 
 *  His  Lordship  has  here  created  a  difficulty  against  him- 
 self. For,  as  it  is  stated  above,  were  Pharaoh  supposed  to  be 
 in  this  place  intended  under  the  title  of  Belial,  this  would  dis- 
 prove the  Bishop's  position  that  the  writer  alludes  to  the 
 history  in  Exodus.  But  that  Pharaoh  is  intended  here,  there 
 is  not  the  slightest  ground  to  imagine.  In  this  I  will  be  judged, 
 even  by  the  Bishop's  own  translation: 
 
 ^'  Shall  even  the  hater  of  justice  give  laws? 
 
 And  wilt  thou  condemn  the  eminently  just  One? 
 "Who  saith  unto  a  king,  Thou  art  Belial ! 
 Ye  are  wicked  !  unto  princes: 
 Who  accepteth  not  the  persons  of  nobles. 
 Neither  .is  the  rich  man,"  &c. 
 Now  where  is  Pharaoh?   Is  it  in  the  word  Belial?  That 
 name  was  never  given  to  him.  — But  he  deserved  such  a  name, 
 AVhy?    Is   it  because  Belial  implies  wickedness;  and   waf 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  I69 
 
 piece  of  information,  with  which  Moses  does  not 
 appear  to  have  been  acquainted;  of  which  at  least 
 he  has  left  behind  him  no  record.     Again,  as  his 
 Lordship  reminds    us,  and  with    the  additional 
 emphasis  of  Italics,  the  passage  in  Job  describes 
 those  who  were  taken  away,  as  ''  the  strong  ones.'' 
 Now  what  does  Moses  tell  us  ?  That,  "  the  Lord 
 smote  all  the  first-born  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  from 
 the  first-born  of  Pharaoh  that  sat  on  his  throne, 
 unto  the  first-born  of  the  captive  that  was  in  the 
 dungeon;  and  all  thejirst-horn  of' the  cattle.^' — 
 In  other  words,  he  informs  us,  that  the  first-born, 
 of  both    man    and    least,   was  indiscriminately 
 destroyed  ;  and  this,  the  Bishop  thinks,  is  signifi- 
 cantly conveyed  by  the  phrase  strong  ones,  or 
 rather   (as   our  common   version  more  properly 
 reads)  the  mighty.     But  again,  his  Lordship  sees 
 plainly  in,  "  the  invisible  hand/'  (or  as  he  himself 
 
 Pharaoh  the  only  wicked  king  ?  We  might  also  demand  to  be 
 informed  who  were  those  Princes  of  PharaolVs  coiirty  who 
 are  at  the  same  time  denominated  zoicked.  In  truth  the 
 Bishop's  argument  might  on  the  whole  be  put  thus  :  Pharaoh, 
 it  is  true,  is  not  by  Moses  called  Belial,  but  he  ought  to  have 
 been  so  called  by  him,  and  therefore  we  may  consider  him  as 
 actually  having  bean  so  called. — Again;  Pharaoh  is  not  named 
 here,  but  as  the  word  Belial  is  used,  which  denotes  wicked- 
 ness, Pharaoh  ought  to  have  been  named,  and  therefore  we 
 may  consider  him  as  having  been  actually  named. — Really 
 this  is  too  extravagant. — N.  B  the  word  Vr^Va  Belial^  simply 
 signifies  worthless^  zciclcedy  oc^x.^noqy  nequam :  from  V?  non, 
 ^nd  \l'<  profuit* 
 
170  THE    HISTORY 
 
 renders  it,  and  as  it  ought  to  be  rendered,  ivithout 
 hand,)  a  marked  proof  of  the  allusion  in  this  part 
 of  Job  to  Moses.  To  this  it  may  safely  be  replied, 
 that  the  proof  is  as  invisible  as  the  hand,  for 
 nothing  corresponding  to  this  phrase  is  to  be 
 found  in  the  lano^uasfe  of  Moses. 
 
 In  short,  if  one  were  seeking  arguments  to 
 prove,  that  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Job  had  not, 
 in  this  place,  his  eye  fixed  upon  the  record  of  the 
 transaction  in  Egypt  which  has  been  left  by 
 Moses,  he  would  naturally  select  most  of  those 
 very  circumstances  on  which  the  Bishop  seems  so 
 firmly  to  rely.  For  it  must  be  remembered,  that 
 his  Lordship  is  not  content  to  say,  that  the  writer 
 of  the  Book  of  Job  refers  to  facts,  which  are 
 related  also  by  Moses:  but  he  contends  particu- 
 larly, that  he  must  have  derived  his  knowledge  of 
 those  facts,  from  the  very  accounts  which  Moses 
 had  given  of  them  in  his  writings : — facts,  he 
 observes,  not  being  usually  referred  to  before  the 
 history  recording  them  has  had  time  to  obtain 
 currency :  and  the  author  of  Job  being  conse- 
 quently indebted  to  tiie  history  of  Moses,  for  his 
 knowledge  of  such  facts  as  have  been  adverted  to 
 by  both.     See  p.  134. 
 
 But,  in  truth,  not  only  is  it  manifest,  that  the 
 writer  of  Job  has  not,  in  the  ])assage  before  us, 
 referred  to  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  destruction 
 of  the  first-born  in  Egypt,  but  there  appears  no 
 reasonable  ground  for  supposing,  that  he  meant  to 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  1 J^  1 
 
 allude  to  that  transaction  at  all.  This  will  be  best 
 seen  by  a  perusal  of  the  entire  {)assage  in  Jr>b,  as  it 
 is  given  in  the  common  version,  and  is  here  sub- 
 joined. "^ 
 
 *  "  Shall  pven  he  that  hateth  rlfirht  govern  ? 
 
 And  wilt  thou  condemn  him  that  is  most  just? 
 
 Is  if  Jit  to  say  to  a  King,  thou  art  wicked? 
 
 And  to  Princes,  ^e  are  ungodly  ? 
 
 Hozo  much  less  to  him  that  accepteth  not  the  persons  of  princes, 
 
 Nor  regardeth  the  rich  more  than  the  poor  ? 
 
 For  thty  are  all  the  work  of  his  hands. 
 
 In  a  moment  shall  they  die ; 
 
 And  the  people  shall  be  trovibled  at  midnight,  and  pass  away, 
 
 And  the  mighty  shall  be  taken  away  without  hand. 
 
 For  his  eyes  are  upon  the  ways  of  man, 
 
 And  he  seeth  all  his  goings. 
 
 There  is  no  darkness  nor  shadow  of  death, 
 
 Where  the  workers  of  iniquity  may  hide  themselves. 
 
 For  he  will  not  lay  upon  man  more  than  right; 
 
 That  he  should  enter  into  judgment  with  God. 
 
 He  shall  break  in  pieces  mighty  men  without  number, 
 
 And  set  others  in  their  stead. 
 
 Therefore  he  knoweth  their  works, 
 
 And  he  overturneth  them  in  the  night, 
 
 So  that  they  are  destroyed, 
 
 lie  striketh  them  as  wicked  men, 
 
 In  the  open  sight  of  others. 
 
 Because  they  turned  back  from  him. 
 
 And  would  not  consider  any  of  his  wjays. 
 
 So  that  they  cause  the  cry  of  the  poor  to  come  unfo  him  ; 
 
 And  he  heareth  the  cry  of  the  afllicted." 
 
 I  cannot  deny  myself  the  pleasure  of  introducing,  in  this 
 place,  to  the  reader's  acquaintance,  a  translator  of  the  book  of 
 Job,  in  the  person  of  a  young  lady ;  who,  adorned  with  all 
 
1*2  THE    HISTORY 
 
 Now  what  is  there  here,  to  lead  us  to  the  des- 
 truction  of  the  first  horn  in  Egypt  ?  Srtrely,  if 
 this  were  intended,  some  of  the  nirtny  extraor- 
 dinary circumstances  of  so  extraordinary  a  trans- 
 action would  have  been  glanced  at : — the  slaying 
 
 the  accomplishmenfs  which  disfinguishcd  her  own  sex,  devoted 
 herself,  at  the  age  of  tii'teen,  ro  studies  the  most  serious  and 
 intense,  that  are  used  to  ocruoy  tl:e  nitenfion  of  the  other: 
 and  this,  with  such  surj^rism^  sgcc^-es,  that  although  self- 
 taught  and  nearly  deprived  of  the  bsMieht  of  brohs,  she  left 
 behind  her,  at  the  expiration  of  l.er  t'vtntj.nind!  year,  a  nu, 
 merous  collection  of  writings,  so  vaiious  dn^  so  vaHjabie,  as 
 may  well  make  many  a  literary  maa  look  bacli  with  a  blush 
 upon  the  labours  of  a  lengthened  life. — See  Fragments  in 
 Prose  and  f^erse  hij  a  i/ounsc  Laih/. 
 
 Miss  Smithes  trairdation  of  the  book  of  Job,  for  which  she 
 had  qualified  herself  by  a  close  study  of  the  Arabic  and  He- 
 brew, was  completed  before  her  -wenty-sixth  year,  two  years 
 earlier  than  the  date  of  the  translation  by  the  Bishop  of  Killala. 
 It  is  at  this  time  well  known  to  the  public,  by  9  neat  edition  of 
 the  work,  which  has,  since  the  date  of  th'j  abcve  cbservations, 
 been  given  by  Dr.  Randolph,  m  ho  has  enhanced  its  valu^  by  a 
 variety  of  judicious  critical  observations.  1  aitucx  this  lady^s 
 version  of  the  passage  above  referred  to,  as  it  may  be  to  many  a 
 matter  of  curiosity,  to  compare  with  our  received  translation 
 any  part  of  so  extraordinary  a  production. 
 
 Shall  he  who  hateth  right  govern? 
 
 And  wilt  thou  condemn  him,  wl»o  aboundeth  in  justice? 
 
 Who  saith  to  the  King,  thou  art  unprofitable; 
 Wicked,  to  the  Nobles : 
 
 Who  I'fteth  not  up  the  faces  of  Princes, 
 Nor  tiirneth  away  from  the  cry  of  the  Poor; 
 For  they  are  all  the  work  of  his  hands. 
 
AND    BOOK   OF   JOB.  173 
 
 of  the  lamb  ; — the  blood  sprinkled  upon  the  door 
 posts; — the  destroying  angel ; — the  preservation  of 
 the  HebrevvS)  &,c.  On  the  contrary,  the  great 
 power  and  impartial  justice  of  God,  in  visiting. 
 
 In  a  moment  they  shall  die ; 
 
 At  midnight  the  people  shall  tremble,  and  pass  away. 
 
 And  the  mighty  shall  be  removed  without  hand. 
 
 For  his  eyes  are  on  the  w  ays  of  man, 
 And  he  seeth  all  his  steps. 
 
 There  is  no  darkness,  and  no  shade  of  death, 
 To  conceal  the  workers  of  iniquity. 
 
 For  on  no  man,  hath  h  yet  been  put. 
 To  walk  with  God  in  judgment. 
 
 He  breaketh  the  mighty — they  cannot  be  found. 
 And  setteth  up  others  in  their  stead. 
 
 Because  he  knoweth  their  works, 
 
 They  are  overturned  in  the  night — they  are  crushed. 
 
 He  striketh  them  like  culprits, 
 In  the  place  of  beholders. 
 
 Because  they  turned  from  beliind  him^ 
 And  would  not  follow  all  his  ways. 
 
 Bringing  before  him  the  cry  of  the  poor; 
 And  he  heard  the  cry  of  the  oppressed. 
 
 Oft  a  comparison  with  the  original,  this  will  be  found  more 
 faithful,  in  many  parts,  than  the  received  version.  Particu- 
 larly, in  that  very  difficult  passage  in  the  18th  and  19th 
 Y«rses,  in  which  the  latter  demands  so  large  an  ellipsis,  as 
 is  found  in  Italics  in  the  common  bible,  our  fair  translator 
 has,  by  a  close  adherence  to  the  original,  given  excellent 
 sense  to  the  whole.  She  was  not  aware,  that  she  coincided 
 with  high  authorities,  in  giving  this  turn  to  the  original : — 
 
174  THE   HISTORY 
 
 with  sudden  destruction,  all,  whether  people  or 
 princes,  whose  crimes  demand  vengeance,  seems 
 to  be  the  main  thing  insisted  upon,  without  any 
 discrimniating  characters  to  bind  down  this  ju- 
 
 see  Schnurrer  Disseti,   Philol.  p.  279. — "  Ilium,  qui  regem 
 adeo  compellat  hominem   nequam ;   viros  primarios,  impro* 
 bos?    Noti  respicit  principes,"    <&c.    &c.      The  LXX  and 
 Vulg.  render  it  in  like  manner,  "  qui  (licit  ;^^  and  one  MS 
 of  De  Rossi's  reads  '^D1^^^,  fixing  it  in  this  sense.      The  23d 
 verse  too, — whose  difficulty   is  so  great,    that  Schultens   has 
 reckoned  up  nineteen  different  meanings  assigned  to  it,  whilst 
 Schnurrer  has  added  several  others,  (p.  280;)— in  which  also 
 our  common  version  makes  out  the  sense  by  an  ellipsis,  and 
 Bishop  Stock  by   introducing  a  change  in  the  original  text, 
 (supposing  Dii  to  be  put  for  Vij;) — we  have,  here,   rendered 
 naturally  as  to  the  context,  and  simply  and  accurately  as  to 
 the  original,  without  supposing  any  change  in  the  text,  or 
 putting  any  force  upon  the  words.     The  sense  of  the  entire 
 passage  may,  agreeably  to  this  translation,  bo  now  thus  un- 
 folded.— The  wicked  are  at  once  and  suddenly  punished; 
 inasmuch  as  no  darkness  can  conceal  them  from  the  all  seeing 
 eye:  and  as  it  has  not  been  allotted  to   man  to  enter  into 
 judgment,  and  discu?s  the  right  of  the  case,  with  his  Cod* 
 so,  without  the  delay  of  any  judicial  process,  he  breake<h  the 
 mighty  at  once,  because  without  any  such  form  of  judicial 
 discussion  he  knozi-eth  their  zoorks,  S^'c.     A  marginal  reading 
 on  the  24th  verse   in  the  common  bible,  goes  to  strengtheu 
 tills  interpretation ;    "  zcithoui  searching  out,^^    exactly  ex- 
 pressing the  absence  of  that  formal  and  inquisitorial  exami- 
 nation, which  the  omniscience  of  the  deity  renders  unneces- 
 sary.    Perhaps  Miss  Smith  meant  this  by  the  words,  "  no 
 search,^^  which  she  has  added  as  another  rendering  for  that 
 which  she  has  paraphrased  by  the  expression, — "  ihcT^  cannot 
 he  found J^ 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  175 
 
 dicial  exercise  of  Iiis  power  to  any  one  particular 
 event.  As  to  tlie  circumstance  of  the  destruction 
 being  wrought  "  at  midnight^'  or  as  it  is  again 
 more  generally  stated  "  in  the  night,''  it  seems 
 to  connect  with  the  idea,  that  "  the  workers  of 
 iniquity  could,  as  they  imagined,  "  hide  them- 
 selves'' in  the  "  darhiess'"  and  privacy  of  the 
 night.  GreT/  and  SchitltenSy  accordingly,  ex- 
 plain the  phrase  of  night,  or  midnight,  "  in  secu- 
 ritate  profundissima.'*  The  paraphrase  of  Calvin 
 upon  this  passage,  seems  to  give  the  justest  notion 
 of  it. — "  Non  opus  erit,  ut  Deus  multos  milites 
 
 There  is  another  line  in  the  above  extract  from  this  lady's 
 version,  wliich  deserves  to  be  noticed.     "  Nor  turneth  away 
 from  the  cry  of  the  poor" — verse  19.     Here  the  word  i'lty, 
 ■\vhich  in  the  common  translation  is  rendered,  "  the  rich,''^  has 
 been  taken  in  its  ordinary  and  familiar  acceptation  ^''cry:'** 
 and  I  find  that  'Pagninus,  in  his  version  of  the  passage,  has 
 used  it  in  the  same  sense.     To  render  the  original  exactly 
 then,  according  to  this  meaning  of  the  term,  it  would  be, 
 "  Nor  turneth  away  from  the  cry  at  the  face  of  the  poor." — 
 "  The  cry  at  the  face  of  the  poor,"  for  "  the  cry  of  the  poor,'* 
 certainly  appears  a  harsh  construction,  but  yet  is  not  irre- 
 concileable  with  the  Hebrew  idiom.     The  parallelism  in  the 
 19th  verse,  is  undoubtedly  better  preserved  by  this  transla- 
 tion, than  by  the  common  one  :  the  poor  in  the  second  line 
 being  contrasted  with  ihe princes  in  the  first;  whereas,  in  the 
 usual  way  of  rendering,  (l'"iu;  being  taken  to  signify  the  rich,) 
 the  same  description  of  persons  that  aie  sjiokcn  of  in  the 
 .first  line,  are  again  introduced  into  the  second,  so  as  to  dis- 
 turb the  simplicity  of  the  contrast,  by  naming  twice  over  07ie 
 of  the  subjects  of  the  opposition. 
 
1/6  tHE    HISTORY 
 
 armet,  &c.  ad  potentissimos  et  robustissimos  ever* 
 tendos :  si  modo  insufflet,  parvi  &  magni,  puncto 
 temporis,  rapieiitur,  et  media  node  quum  omnes 
 qulesciint  at  que  nihil  minus  expectant ,  extermi- 
 nabuntur;  sine  manu  hominis  auxiliove;  quin 
 sine  conatu  aut  molimine  ullo." — Spanheim,  in 
 his  history  of  Job.  gives  the  same  explanation. 
 — Munster,  Vafablus,  Clarius,  Drusius,  Patrick, 
 Holden,  Scott,  and  Dathe,  hkevvise  concur  in 
 this  view  of  the  case.  Upon  the  whole,  it  must 
 be  clear  to  every  unprejudiced  reader,  that  no- 
 thing but  the  creative  eye  of  an  hypothesis  could 
 have  discovered,  in  this  passage  of  Job^  the  ap- 
 propriate mark  of  time  v^hich  the  Bishop  and 
 Heath  have  descried  in  it. 
 
 We  pass  on,  then,  to  the  next  and  only  re- 
 maining allusion  to  the  Books  of  Moses  ;  which, 
 his  Lordship  informs  us,  is  to  be  found  in  ch. 
 xxxi.  33.  compared  with  Gen.  iii.  8.  12.  The 
 words  in  Job  are,  '^  If  I  covered  my  transgres- 
 sions, as  Adam,  by  hiding  mine  iniquity  in  my 
 bosom.** — Now,  independently  of  the  probability, 
 that  the  general  outline  of  the  story  of  Adam's 
 transgression  had  been  handed  down  so  as  to  be 
 generally  known  to  those  who  lived  near  the  pa« 
 triarchal  age, — it  must  be  observed,  that  this 
 translation  is  by  no  means  generally  acquiesced 
 in,  either  by  the  ancient  or  by  the  modern  in- 
 terpreters of  Job.  The  Arabic  and  Syriac  render 
 the  phrase  D1S*D,  generally,  "  as  men,**  The 
 1 
 
AND    I>OOK    OF    JOB.  1/7 
 
 LXX  render,  or  rather  paraphrase  it,  oiK^cncdC, 
 involiaitarili/,'"  or  through  the  '^  iiiflrmity  which 
 belongs  to  man  :^^the  Vulgate,  "  gitasi  homoT — 
 Pagniniis,  in  like  manner,  "  iit  homo  ;" — J  Tr. 
 &  Pise.  "  more  homhnwi :" — Mercer,  "  s'lcut 
 homines ;" — Tindal,"  before  men ;" — Dathe,  '*  7nore 
 humanOy''  and  subjoins  to  his  translation  the  fol- 
 lowing remark :  "  Many  interpreters  think  that 
 Dlt^  is  here  the  proper  name  of  the  first  man. 
 But  since,  in  the  ivhole  book  of'  Job,  there  is  no 
 one  evident  allusion  to  the  sacred  history,  I  ra- 
 ther agree  with  those,  who  render  the  word 
 m.\D,  as  men,  after  the  manner  of  men'' ^ — 
 
 I  have  enumerated  these  opinions,  not  because 
 I  think  that  the  common  version  "  as  Adam," 
 ought  to  be  rejected,  but  for  the  purpose  of 
 shewing,  how  httle  reason  there  is  for  pronounc- 
 
 *See  pp.  344,  345,  vol.  i.  for  this  sense  o^cotea-iioc^  as  used  by 
 the  LXX.  See  also,  in  addition  to  what  is  there  said,'  the  re- 
 marks of  Fischer  in  his  Clavis  Rcliqidarum  Versionum  Grcom 
 carum^  Sfc.  p.  219 — 222.  Velthusen  Comment.  Theol.  torn.  iy. 
 
 +  Miss  Smithes  translation  of  the  word  has  run  into  a 
 freedom,  which  seems  not  justified  by  the  original — ''  as  a 
 mean  mai."  For  this  no  authority  is  adduced.  The  word 
 CD*T^^  is  undoubtedly  to  be  rendered  in  this  sense  in  Isai.  ii.  9; 
 But  Vitringa  well  remarks  upon  that  place,  that  when  th« 
 words  u^^^^  and  C3*tw  occur  contrasted  in  the  same  sentence, 
 the  former  signiiies  a  man  of  dignity  and  note,  the  other  a 
 person  of  meaner  condition.  There  is  no  passage,  1  be- 
 lieve, in  the  Old  Testament,  in  which,  without  such  a  con» 
 trast  implied  in  the  sentence,  the  word  is  car. fined  to  the  im- 
 port, which  has  here  been  given  to  it  by  Miss  Smith. 
 VOL.  II.  N 
 
178  THE   HISTORY 
 
 ing  with  confidence, — so  as  to  build  upon  it  any 
 argument  as  to  the  time  of  the  writer, — that  such 
 must  be  the  sense.  It  is  remarkable  that  all  the 
 early  interpreters  render  the  word  otherwise.  At 
 the  same  time,  I  cannot  but  confess,  that  it  ap- 
 pears to  me  to  be  a  natural  and  just  translation. 
 And  I  will  add,  that  there  is  introduced  in  the 
 same  verse,  another  expression,  on  which  the 
 Bishop,  had  he  noticed  it,  might  have  laid  some 
 stress  in  furtherance  of  the  argument  he  has  ad- 
 vanced, ''am*  has  for  its  root  xin,  the  same  that 
 is  used  in  Gen.  iii.  8,  10,  to  describe  the  hiding 
 
 *  This  is  commonly  rendered,  "  in  my  bosojti.''''  I  am 
 convinced  that  it  should  be  rendered,  "  m  ?ni/  lurking  place ;^* 
 and  that  the  whole  verse  should  be  thus  translated, 
 
 ''  Did  I  cover  like  Adam,  my  transgression, 
 By  hiding,  in  my  lurking  place,  mine  iniquity." 
 
 I  agree  also  with  Peters  (pref.  p.  viii.)  that  this  contains  a 
 reference  to  the  history  of  the  first  man,  and  his  endeavours 
 to  hide  himself  after  his  transgression.  But  when  he  joins 
 with  these  words,  and  as  part  of  the  same  sentence,  "  be- 
 cause I  feared  a  great  multitude^  or  the  contempt  of  families 
 terrified  we,"  I  think  he  joins  together  incongruous  ideas: 
 for  Job  would  in  no  degree  have  resembled  Adam  in  hiding 
 his  transgression,  had  it  been  done  through  tlie  fear  of  men, 
 and  to  avoid  the  contemi)t  of  families,  there  being  none  such 
 for  Adam  to  fear.  So  that  I  cannot  but  wonder  that  so  per- 
 spicacious a  writer  could  have  been  led  into  such  confusion. 
 The  Bishop  of  Killalla,  in  his  translation,  has  fallen  into  the 
 same  mistake.  Miss  Smith  has  marked  the  true  spirit  of  the 
 connexion :  ^'  Then  let  me  be  terrified,  &c. 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  l/f) 
 
 of  our  first  parents  from  the  presence  of  God. 
 But  vet,  even  this  must  be  admitted  to  form  a 
 very   shght  ground    of  inference,    in    supposing 
 
 •  The  translation  of  the  following  verse,  as  it  has  been 
 given  by  tlie  Bishop,  1  cannot  avoid  annexing,  on  account 
 of  a  singularity  in  the  version  which  I  believe  is  scarcely  to 
 be  parallel'd. 
 
 ''  Because  I  dreaded  the  great  multitude, 
 And  the  huz  of  families  scared  me,"  &;c. 
 
 I  need  not  say  that  the  word  buz  is  peculiar  to  this  ver- 
 sion. The  original  expression  signifies  simply  and  plainly 
 conlem'pt^  and  is  so  rendered  by  all.  V/hy  then  buz  ?  The 
 reader  will  be  surprized  to  learn,  that  this  is  the  very  word 
 in  Hebrew^  put  into  the  English  character  j  pi,  Buz. —This 
 translation  is  certainly  literal  in  the  most  literal  sense  of  the 
 word.  But  is  it  not  too  much  to  pursue  such  exactness,  so 
 as  to  allow  the  meaning  altogether  to  escape  ? 
 
 This  is  not  the  only  instance  afforded  to  us  by  the  Bishop, 
 of  this  new  species  of  literal  translation,  which  is  effected 
 merely  by  an  alteration  of  the  character  in  which  the  original 
 word  is  w  ritten,  and  so  giving  a  Hebrew  word  in  an  English 
 type.  Another  striking  one  is  supplied  in  ch.  iv.  10.  and 
 repeated  in  ch.  x.  16.  xxviii.  8.— in  all  which  places  we 
 find  the  word  Vnii>,  Shachal,  which  has  been  by  other  inter, 
 preters  rendered  a  lion,  conveyed  to  us  by  the  Bishop  under 
 the  term  Jackal: — a  change  of  the  sense,  for  which  no 
 conceivable  reason  can  be  assigned,  but  the  sameness  of 
 sound;  the  word  Jackal,  or  Schakal,  (the  name  being  thus 
 indifferently  written  by  English  zoologists,  from  the  French 
 Chacaly)  coinciding  exactly  with  the  Hebrew.  It  is  not 
 indeed  without  reason,  that  the  word  Vpvd^,  Shoghal,  hds 
 been  considered  as  denoting  that  species  of  Fox,  which  i» 
 called  the  Jackal:  as  may  be  seen  in  Parkhurst,  who  has 
 
 >J  2 
 
180  THE    HISTORY 
 
 the  passage  in  Genesis  to  have  been  referred  to 
 by  the  writer  of  Job ;  especially  when  it  is  con- 
 sidered, that  the  idea  of  hiding  or  concealing,  is 
 
 some  good  observations  on  the  wortl ;  and  as  it  is  used  by 
 Geddes  in  his  translation  of  Judges  xr.  4.  concerning  the 
 foxes  said  to  be  caught  by  Sampson.  But  Vnu;,  the  word 
 with  which  we  are  concerned,  has  I  am  confident,  never 
 been  so  rendered  by  any  writer  but  Bishop  Stock :  and  in 
 using  the  word  Jackal^  in  the  several  passages  above  men- 
 tioned, the  English  reader  Avill  be  immediately  aware,  on  the 
 bare  perusal,  how  miserably  the  sense  is  degraded.  But 
 still  more  so  will  he  find  it,  in  those  other  parts  of  Scripture, 
 wliere  this  word  is  to  be  met:  viz.  Psalms  xci.  13.  Pror. 
 ^xvi.  13.  Hos.  V.  14.  xiii.  7: — in  all  of  which,  a  fierce  and 
 powerful  animal  is  manifestly  intended,  AVhen  the  slothful 
 man  through  pretended  terror  is  made  to  exclaim,  "  There 
 is  a  LION  in  the  way;"  what  will  be  thought  of  the  changej 
 that  makes  him  cry  out,  "  There  is  a  Jackal  in  the  way  ?" 
 
 Bishop  Pococke  and  Primate  Newcome  have  both  justly 
 remarked  on  the  word  Vnu?  in  Hos.  v.  14.  that  it  undoubt- 
 edly signifies  a  species  of  Lion :  and  the  latter  has  well  ex- 
 plained the  word  in  agreement  with  Bochart : — "  "pnu;,  Leo 
 niger,   for  inu; ;    the  V  and  *i  being  often  exchanged  in  the 
 
 Eastern  languages." [N.  B.  On  the  first  of  the  three  texts 
 
 in  Job  above  cited,  there  is  a  judicious  criticism  made  by 
 Pilkington^  (in  his  Re?naj^ks,  p.  183.)  with  respect  to  the 
 true  pointing  of  the  place,  which  I  have  not  seen  noticed  by 
 any  translator  of  Job,  and  which  ought  not  to  be  over- 
 looked.] 
 
 Having  noticed  Bishop  Stock's  treatment  of  that  noble 
 animal,  the  Lion,  in  reducing  him,  (under  the  term  Vnu;) 
 to  the  low  estate  of  the  Jackal :  I  cannot  avoid  adverting  to 
 another  attack  made  by  him  upon  the  same  animal,  (under 
 ihe  term  nynu^^)  in  the  third  of  the  texts  already  referred  to. 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  181 
 
 conveyed,  in  the  same  verse^  in  two  other  words, 
 HDD  and  pD;  so  that  when  the  same  idea  was 
 again  to  be  expressed,  some  third  term  would 
 naturally  be  employed.  Besides,  independently 
 of  this  consideration,  the  mere  use  of  so  common 
 a  word,  and  one  which  has  been  so  frequently 
 employed,  throughout  the  poem,  could  of  itself 
 prove  nothing. 
 
 We  have   now   seen  the   full  amount  of  the 
 proofs,  by   which,  the   Bishop  of  Kill  all  a  per- 
 
 In  the  common  Vetslon  of  Job  xxviii.  8,  we  have,  "  The 
 Lion^s  whelps  have  not  trodden  it,  nor  the ^erce  Lion  passed 
 by  it.'*  In  the  Bishop's  rendering,  "  The  sons  of  the  split* 
 ter  tread  it  not,  neither  passeth  over  it  the  Jackal,''^ — Will 
 not  the  reader  exclaim,  "  Hyperion  to  a  Satyr  ? — But  now, 
 to  discover  what  is  meant  by  "  sons  of  the  splitter^''^  or  how 
 such  an  expression  could  come  to  be  substituted  for  "  ths 
 Lioii's  whelps^^^  must  surely  be  left  to  Oedipus  himself,  did 
 not  his  Lordship  step  in  to  relieve  us  from  our  difficulty,  by 
 a  translation  of  his  translation,  in  the  following  note.  — "  The 
 splitter,']  The  lion,  who  splitteth  his  prey  in  sunder." — His 
 Lordship  then  proceeds  to  explain  how  tlio  word  comes  to 
 signify  the  splitter.  The  word  nvnu;,  he  writes  nyn'u;,  zcho 
 splitteth;  and  so,  he  observes,  we  have  another  instance  of  th« 
 mode  of  tracing  the  meaning  of  words  that  commence  with 
 W ;— a  mode,  to  which  I  have  already  directed  the  reader's 
 attention,  in  the  note  p.  154 — 157.  To  the  instances  there 
 enumerated  of  the  application  of  this  strange  and  fanciful 
 rule,  he  will  be  pleased  to  annex  this  new  specimen  of  its 
 use,  which  has  changed  "  the  whelps  of  the  Lion,''^  into 
 "Me  5077*  of  the  splitter !''-—'N.  B.  "  The  daughters  of 
 screeching'''  (Stock's  Job  xxx.  29.)  seem  fit  companions  foi 
 these  "  sons  of  the  splitter r 
 
 N  3 
 
182  THE    HISTORY 
 
 suades  himself  that  he  has  estabhshed  the  pri- 
 ority of  the  writings  of  Moses  to  the  book  of 
 Job.  And  whether  those  "  notes  of  time/'  which 
 (he  adds)  "  have  escaped  the  dihgence  of  all 
 preceding  '*  critics,"  be  sufficient  to  justify  the 
 inference  so  confidently  drawn,  "  that  the  writer 
 of  Job  was  junior  to  the  Jewish  legislator/'  must 
 be  left  to  the  reader  to  decide. 
 
 Indeed,  were  the  utmost  that  *he  Bishop  de- 
 sires   conceded   to   his   arguments ;    even   allow- 
 
 *  Of  the  four  "  notes  of  time,'»  that  have  been  discussed, 
 there  is  but  one^  (that  which  is  founded  on  the  Bishop's  no- 
 Tel  translation,  quails^)  that  has  not  been  again  and  again 
 adverted  to,  by  different  writers,  as  supplying  sotue  ground 
 for  questioning  the  antiquity  of  the  book  of  Job;  and  as 
 often  either  abandoned  or  confuted.  The  same  is  to  be  said 
 of  the  other  notes  of  time  which  his  Lordship  has  advanced, 
 with  the  exception  of  that  one  which  relates  to  the  history 
 of  David,  on  which  more  hereafter.  The  assertion  however, 
 wliich  his  Lordship  has  made,  as  to  these  notes  of  time  hav- 
 ing escaped  the  diligence  of  preceding  critics,  is  easily  ex- 
 plained by  the  statement  wiiich  accompanies  it ;  namely,  that 
 his  lordship  declined  the  trouble  of  acquainting  himself  with 
 what  "  [ircceding  critics"  had  written. — This  offers,  at  the 
 same  time,  no  very  satisfactory  justitication  of  the  fact,  of 
 old  wares  being  put  forward  for  new.  The  general  reader, 
 would  naturally,  from  his  Lordship's  language,  have  in- 
 ferred, that  new  proofs  were  now  adduced  of  the  lateness  of 
 Job;  and,  from  faith  in  his  Lordship's  authority,  might  ima- 
 gine, that  these  proofs,  were  more  potent  than  any  that  had 
 gone  before;  but  would  little  expect  to  find  in  them,  nothing 
 but  the  shreds  and  refuse  of  former  hackneyed  criticisms  ancl 
 exploded  conjectures. 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  183 
 
 ing  his  Lordship's  flight  of  quails,  and  the 
 destruction  of  the  first-born  in  Egypt,  to  hold 
 good ;  the  poem  would  not  thereby,  of  necessity, 
 be  brought  lower  than  the  time  of  Moses ;  but 
 might  still,  consistently  with  this  admission,  have 
 been  composed,  during  the  sojourning  of  the 
 Israelites  in  the  wilderness;  which  (it  should  be 
 observed )  is  one  branch  of  the  hypothesis  which 
 supports  the  antiquity  of  the  poem. — See  page 
 127  of  this  volume. — And  yet  his  Lordship  is 
 not  content  with  inferring  from  the  fore-men- 
 tioned supposed  allusions,  that  the  writer  of  Job 
 was  junior  to  Moses,  but  would  also  deduce  from 
 them  the  likelihood  of  his  having  been  *'  junior 
 hi/  some  time'' — But,  since  ''  the  quaiV  cannot 
 be  maintained ;  since  the  mere  word  ^'  nighf^ 
 or  "  midnight/'  is  insufficient  to  designate  the 
 destruction  of  the  first-horn  in  Egypt;  since  the 
 facts,  of  the  existence  of  Giants  before  the  flood 
 (even  supposing  such  to  have  been  intended  by 
 the  Rephaim  of  Job,)  and  of  Adam's  transgres- 
 sion and  his  endeavour  to  conceal  it,  (supposing 
 these  also  to  have  been  alluded  to,)  must  have 
 been  known  even  to  the  latest  date  of  the  pa- 
 triarchal age  by  *  tradition; — it  seems    plainly 
 
 *  The  great  distance  of  time  from  Adam,  creates  no  dif- 
 ficulty respecting  Job's  knowledge  of  the  transaction  of  the 
 fall.  It  should  be  remembered,  that  the  patriarchal  lon- 
 gevity diminishes  the  effect  of  that  distance.  In  fact  we  can 
 connect  Adam  and  Abraham  by  two  intervening  links,  Me- 
 
 N  4 
 
184  THE    HISTORY 
 
 to  follow,  that  the  "  sandy  foundation,**  on 
 whicli  the  Bishop  conceives  the  opinion  of  the 
 antiquity  of  this  poem  to  be  built,  belongs  ra- 
 ti ler  to  another  structure,  which  his  Lordship 
 has,  by  his  own  confession  a  little  too  hasiily, 
 thrown  up. 
 
 On  the  three  remaining  marks  of  time  it  cannot 
 be  necessary  to  dwelL  The  reader  will  be  ea^ily 
 satisfied  upon  the  bare  peiusal  of  the  passages 
 referred  to,  even  in  the  Bishop's  own  translation 
 of  them,  that  they  contain  no  indications  what- 
 ever of  that  reduced  date  which  he  ascribes  to  this 
 book.     The  inference  from  ch.  xxxiii.  23.*  which 
 
 thuselah  and  Shem  ;  Methuselah  connecting  Adam  and  Shem, 
 as  having  lived  concurrently  witli  part  of  ihe  lives  of  both  ; 
 and  Shem  again  in  like  manner  connecting  Methuselah  and 
 Abraham.  The  history  need  then  have  passed  but  through 
 three  steps,  to  reach  Abraham  from  Adam ;  and  so  would 
 naturally  spread  through  the  several  branches  of  the  Abra- 
 hamic  family;  from  which,  and  not  remotely,  the  three 
 friends  of  Job,  and  Job  himself,  arc  supposed  to  have  been 
 descended. 
 
 Blair  gives  the  lives  of  the  four  patriarchs,  above  named, 
 no  as  to  make  it  appear,  that  Methuselah  was  243  years  old 
 at  the  death  of  Adam  ;  Slu  m,  97  years  old  at  the  death 
 of  Methuselah;  and  Abraham,  150  years  old  at  the  death 
 of  Shem. 
 
 *  It  is  whimsical  enough,  that  the  writers,  who  are  desi- 
 rous to  reduce  the  antiquity  of  the  book  of  Job,  discover  in 
 the  same  passages,  resemblances  to  events  entirely  diliereuf. 
 Bishop  Stock  sees  ckarlTj,  in  the  above  passage,  an  allusion 
 to  the  destroying  and  interceding  angels  in  the  time  of  Do- 
 s;V,  described  in  2  Sam»  xxiv.  16,  and  1  Chron   xxi.  15. — 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  185 
 
 would  bring  it  down  to  the  time  of  David,  is,  as 
 may  be  seen  in  the  note  below,  too  shadowy  to 
 bear  the   touch :  and   the   supposed  allusions  to 
 
 Warburton  discerns  in  it,  "  a  most  circumstantial  accoujii 
 of  God's  dealing  with  Ilezckiah,  as  it  is  told  in  the  books  of 
 Chronicles  and  Kings."  (Div.  Leg.  \ol.  ii.  p.  497.)  And 
 Heath  again  pronounces  of  it;  that  it  "  so  plainly  describes 
 the  case  of  Hezekiah,  when  he  fell  sick  and  the  prophet  Isaiah 
 came  to  him  with  messages  from  God,  that  it  is  hardly  possible 
 to  apply  it  othermse.^*  That  the  application,  so  strenuouslj 
 contendid  for  by  the  two  last  writers,  is  altogether  inadmissi. 
 ble,  has  been  decisively  shewn  by  Peters^  in  his  Crit.  Diss, 
 pp.  35,  36. — Were  objects  of  allusion  to  be  curiously  sought 
 after,  among  the  events  recorded  in  sacred  history ;  the  intended 
 sacrifice  of  Isaac,  might  perhaps  be  thought  an  object  of 
 reference,  not  less  likely  than  any  that  has  been  assigned. 
 But  in  truth,  of  all  that  have  been  suggested  by  any  supposed 
 resemblance,  none  has  been  more  unhappily  selected  than  that 
 which  the  Bishop  has  imagined,  and  in  which  I  verily  believe 
 he  has  not  been  anticipated  by  any  preceding  critic.  The 
 perusal  of  the  passage  in  Job,  and  of  the  history  to  which  his 
 Lordship  refers,  will  be  at  once  sufficient  to  prove,  not  only 
 that  they  do  not  correspond,  but  that  they  are  actually  repug- 
 nant. Yet  his  Lordship  speaks  with  full  confidence  of  the 
 conclusion  derived  from  this  reference. — ''  Here,  he  says,  is 
 a  remarkable  passage,  w  ell  worthy  of  the  attention  of  critics, 
 who  wish  to  ascertain  the  much  disputed  point,  the  date  of  the 
 poem  before  us:"  and  he  proceeds  to  point  out  the  precise 
 fact,  to  which  the  allusion  here  is  made;  *'  that  of  the  destroy^ 
 ing  angel^  seen  by  David  in  the  act  of  inflicting  a  plague  upon 
 Jerusalem,  and  commanded  to  stay  his  hand,  in  consequence 
 of  the  atoi  ement  which  the  interceding  angel  ordered  king 
 Lavi !,  by  ihe  prophet  Gad,  to  offer  unto  God;" — and  the 
 correspondence  of  course  is  made  to  consist^  in  there  being  an 
 
183  THE    HISTORY 
 
 events  belonging  to  the  age  of  the  captivity,  in 
 chapters  xxi  and  xxxvi,  the  Bishop  liimself 
 admits  to  be  so  faint  as  not  to  be  very  confidently 
 relied  on.  And  yet,  strange  to  say,  after  making 
 this  admission,  and  consequently  relinquishing 
 the  only  pretence  that  existed  for  reducing  the 
 poem  lower  than  the  age  of  David,  he  yet  speaks 
 of  thes^e  very  passages,  as  "  adding  strength  to  the 
 sentiment  of  those  learned  men,  who  have  been 
 inclined  to  orjve  the  honour  of  this  celebrated 
 composition  to  Ezra,''  That  is,  he  abandons  the 
 premises,  and  at  the  same  time  holds  to  the  con- 
 clusion:— and  this  too,  a  conclusion,  which  the 
 most  ingenious  critics,  who  have  ever  undertaken 
 its  support,  have  fiiiled  in  their  endeavours  to 
 maintain. 
 
 It  certainly  seems  strange,   that  an  hypothesis, 
 which  reduces  the  date  of  this  book  to  the  times 
 
 viteixeding  and  a  destroijing  angel  found  both  in  the  history 
 and  in  the  poem.  Now  it  unfortunately  happens,  that  it  is 
 not  quite  clear  that  there  is  an  angel  spoken  of  in  the  poem  at 
 all ;  but  admitting  that  there  be,  it  appears  that  we  have  then 
 in  this  place  an  interceding  angel  only,  and  no  destroying 
 one;  and  that  in  the  history  we  have  a  destroying  angel,  and 
 no  interceding  one: — that  is,  the  poem  and  the  history  are 
 directly  opposite  in  their  characteristic  features.  There  are 
 other  circumstances  of  obvious  unsuitablencss  on  which  it  is 
 unnecessary  to  enlarge.  The  answer  of  Peters^  even  to  the 
 application  made  to  Uezekiah,  supplies  at  onc<'  a  refutation  of 
 this.  To  Schultois,  Grey^  Scott^  and  Dathe,  in  their  annota- 
 tions on  the  place,  I  refer  the  reader :  a\so  io  Schnurrer^s 
 judicious  Tiew  of  it,  Dissert.  Phil,  Crit,  p.  275 — 277, 
 
AND    BOOK    OF   JOB.  187 
 
 of  the  Babylonish  captivity,  and  which  ascribes 
 the  production  of  so  subhine  a  poem  to  such  a 
 writer  as  Ezra,  should,  after  having  been  so  com- 
 pletely exploded,  be  at  this  day  revived ;  revived 
 too  in  the  face  of  the  triumphant  arguments  of 
 Grey,  Peters,  Loivth  and  Michaelis :  and  with- 
 out any  one  reason  advanced  for  its  support,  or 
 any  one  argument  against  any  of  the  numerous 
 and  {)ovverful  objections  which  those  writers  have 
 brought  against  it.  All  the  various  ingenuity 
 and  erudition  of  a  fFarburton,  had  been  pressed 
 into  the  service  of  this  hypothesis :  all  had  been 
 employed  to  deck  out  a  system  for  its  support. 
 A  machinery  was  contrived;  an  allegory  was 
 dressed  up;  an  assemblage  of  imposing  circum- 
 stances imagined :  an  end  devised;  means  suited 
 to  that  end  dexterously  adapted  :  and  the  reader's 
 curiosity  was  at  least  excited  and  amused,  if  his 
 judgment  was  not  convinced.  But  now,  after  all 
 this  machinery  has  been  broken  up ;  after  this- 
 engaging  allegory  with  all  its  plausible  accompa- 
 niments has  been  proved  to  be  but  a  splendid 
 vision,  a  baseless  fabric,  the  mere  dream  of  a 
 luxuriant  and  uncontrouled  imagination, — one  of 
 those  that  issue  from  the  Ivory  gate, — is  it  not 
 too  much  to  be  called  upon  by  a  cold^  dull,  and 
 cheerless,  ipse  dixit,  to  replace  the  fragments  of 
 the  shattered  structure,  to  embrace  the  visionary 
 t;heory  as  an  established  truth,  and  to  surrender  to 
 the  unsupported  assertions  of  Bishop  Stock,  what 
 
18S  THE    HISTORY 
 
 had  been  refused  to  the  learned  and  subtle  argu- 
 mentations of  Bishop  Warhurton  9 — When  I 
 speak  of  the  mere  assertion  of  his  Lordsliip, 
 I  desire  that  it  may  be  remembered,  that  I  allude 
 exclusively  to  his  reduction  of  the  date  of  the 
 poem  to  the  time  of  Ezra.  Some  colour  of  argu- 
 ment I  admit  to  have  been  held  forth,  for  his 
 lowering  it  to  the  age  of  David :  but  none  what- 
 ever has  been  offered  for  the  transition  from 
 David  to  Ezra.  This  interval  of  above  500 
 years,  including  the  times  of  all  the  early  ^ro- 
 phefs,  the  first  of  whom  (Jonah)  was  near  200 
 years  later  than  the  death  of  David,  is  flung  away 
 without  ceremony;  and  the  reader,  who  may 
 have  been  sufficiently  complaisant,  to  travel  with 
 the  Bishop,  so  far  down  as  to  the  second  of  the 
 Jewish  kings,  finds  himself  unexpectedly  trans- 
 ported, at  once  and  without  notice,  to  a  period 
 nearly  100  years  later  than  the  return  from  the 
 captivity. 
 
 As  a  translator  of  the  book  of  Job,  his  Lord- 
 ship was  more  particularly  called  upon  to  discuss 
 the  probability  of  this  last  supposed  era  of  its 
 production,  than  of  any  other;  inasmuch  as  many 
 arguments  advanced  particularly  against  this  era, 
 are  derived  from  the  nature  of  the  sfi/le  and 
 language  of  the  poem ;  a  subject,  on  which,  it  is 
 remarkable  that  his  Lordship,  whose  immediate 
 business  was  with  the  language  of  the  book,  has 
 given  no  opinion  whatever,  unless  what  may  be 
 
AND    BOOK    OF   JOB.  189 
 
 conceived  to  be  implied  in  the  supposition,  that 
 the   period  of  the  captivity  was  the  era  of  the 
 work,  and    Ezra   its   author.       Perhaps    Bishop 
 Lowth  was  too  severe  upon  his  rival  critic  War- 
 burton,  when  he  pronounced,  upon  his  advancing 
 the  same  supposition,  that  the  man  who  could 
 seriously  entertain  it,  must  not  have  "  read  either 
 Job  or  Ezra  in  their  original,  and  with  a  compe- 
 tent  knowledge  of  the  language."      {Letter   to 
 Warh,  p.  74.)     This  admirable  critic  proceeds, 
 however,  at  length,  (from  p.  73  to  p.  95.)  to  detail 
 those  distinctive  characters  of  style,  which    (he 
 thinks)  establish  the  truth  of  his  positions,  touch- 
 ing the  antiquity  of  the  composition  in  question, 
 —and  which  it  might  not  be  disadvantageous  to 
 some  modern  critics  to  peruse.     He  concludes  his 
 valuable  remarks  on  this  head  with  the  following 
 words : — "  But   what  is   the   difference  between 
 these,"    (namely  Isaiah,   Jeremiah,   and  Ezekiel) 
 ^'  in  comparison  of  the  difference   between  the 
 author  of  the  book  of  Job  and   Ezra  ?  Let  any 
 one  properly  qualified  to  judge   in  this  matter, 
 read  the  plain  historical  narrative  in  the  two  first 
 chapters   of  Job ;   it  is  neat,  concise,   clear  in  its 
 order  and  method,  pure  and  elegant  in  its  expres- 
 sion :  let  him  then  turn  to  Ezra,   and  find  if  he 
 can,  a  single  Hebrew  chapter,  on  which  he  can 
 with  a  safe  conscience  bestow  any  part  of  this 
 commendation.     Let  him  moreover  take  into  the 
 account  this  last   author's  barbarous  terms ;  and 
 
 1 
 
igO  THE    HISTORY 
 
 then  let  liiin  tell  me  fairly,  whether  he  does  not 
 find  as  much  difference  between  these  two  writers^ 
 as  between  Sallust  and  William  of  Malmsbury. 
 Let  him  next  look  into  the  poetical  parts  of  Job, 
 and  let  him  compare  them  with  any  part  of  Ezra's 
 undoubted  writings,  and  I  w^ould  then  ask  him, 
 whether  he  would  not  as  soon  pitch  upon  Geoffry 
 of  Monmouth  for  the  author  of  the  Eneid,  if 
 that  were  a  doubtful  point,  as  Ezra  for  the  author 
 of  the  poem  of  Job :  and  1  should  not  much 
 doubt  of  his  answering  in  the  affirmative." — 
 {Letter  to  fFctrb.  pp.  96,  97.) 
 
 Bishop  Lowth  does  not  stand  single  in  these 
 opinions.  For  the  evidence  supplied  to  the 
 antiquity  of  the  book  of  Job  from  the  nature  of  its 
 language,  I  refer  the  reader  to  p.  113 — 115. 
 119 — 121.  123 — 126,  of  this  volume:  and  in  the 
 subjoined  ^^  note^   the   opinions   of  some  of  the 
 
 ■  *  On  the  idea  that  Ezra  could  have  written  in  that  pure 
 and  poetic  style,  which  is  to  be  foand  in  the  Mosaic  writings, 
 the  Psalms,  and  the  book  of  Job,  Mkhaelis  makes  the  follow, 
 ing  remarks. — ."  Nihil  Ezra  inornatius  ;  ut  mirer,  quoerroris 
 portento  Mosaica  illi  scripta  tribui  potuerint:  quanquam  non 
 est,  quod  mirer,  cum  facinus  simillimum  ausus  sit  Ilarduinus." 
 (Prcrf.  in  Not.  et  Epim.  p.  ix.)  Again,  '•  Comparet  cui 
 lul)et,  quLU  ante  et  post  exilium  Babylonis  Ilebraice  scripta 
 supersunt;  nee  minorcm  inveniet  labcm  ac  ruinam  quam  in 
 lingua  Latina.  Quapropter  est  mihi  veri  dissimilliminn, 
 grande  ac  poeticum  spirantcs  psalmos  post  reditum  ex  Baby- 
 lone  scriptos  fuisse — Ezrw  certo,  cifjus  hebraismo  nihil  csf 
 humilius  et  ingratiuSy  psalmos  uobilissimos  tribuere,  pcccato 
 
 1 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    JOB.  I9I 
 
 most  distinguished  Hebrew  critics  will  be  found 
 in  a  more  detailed  state  to  yield  confirmation  to 
 the  above  positions.     In  speaking  of  Le  Clerc, 
 
 vicinum  est  Harduini,  odas  Horatiauas  infimte  lingua?  Latinae 
 a?lati  tribuentis."  (p.  196.) — Again,  speaking  particularly 
 of  the  book  of  Job,  he  says,  "  Totius  poematis  ea  est  puritas, 
 elegantia,  sublimitas,  qua  nihil  majus  perfectiusque  in  toto 
 Hebraico  codice  superest. — Hocne  poenia,  auream  ubique 
 linguae  Hebraicae  et  Mosaicam  eetatem  spirans,  ad  ferrea  ilia 
 temporadetrudamus,  quse  extincto  uno  bono  poeta,  Jeremia, 
 nihil  perfecti  ac  ne  quidem  mediocriter  pulcri,  fuderunt?" 
 (pp.  187,  188.) — Schuliens  is  not  less  strong  in  his  remarks 
 upon  the  language  and  antiquity  of  Job.  "  Nullus  inter 
 sacros  codices  tarn  genuinum  remotisslmae  antiquitatis  praefert 
 characterem. — Multo  facilius  Ennianae  linguse  Tenerandum 
 decus  et  pondus,  expressisset  scriptor  aliquis  ferreip  aetatis, 
 quam  Ilebrajus  ab  exilio  Bab^lonico  reduxgrandissimum  illud, 
 magnificum,  intemeratum,  ultimas  vetustatis  nota  emincntissimS, 
 impressum,  quod  e  sublimi  hacce,  tarn  materia,  quam  stylo, 
 compositione  relucet.  Hoc  qui  discernere  noji  valet,  ncc  ille 
 vel  dissipate,  vel  imperite,  judicare  censevidus.^^  (Prasf. 
 *  *  *  3.) — Warburton,  who  was  not  suspected  of  very  deep 
 knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  language,  was  little  qualified  to 
 feel,  and  less  disposed  to  admit  the  force  of  such  reasoning  as 
 the  above.  He  therefore  made  no  reply  to  the  arguments  so 
 powerfully  pressed  upon  him  from  these  sources,  by  Bishop 
 Lowth  in  his  Letter:  although,  as  appears  from  a  private 
 communication  to  his  friend  Hurd,  he  found  himself  most 
 sorely  galled  by  his  more  critical  adversary.  See  p.  369  oif 
 Letters  from  a  Late  eminent  Prelate. 
 
 Having  adverted  to  these  Letters,  I  cannot  avoid  transcrib- 
 ing an  extraordinary  passage,  relating  to  the  Book  of  Job  ; 
 as  an  instance  of  the  whimsical  originality,  for  which  that 
 extraordinary  man   conceived   his    superior   talents  to  have 
 
1§2  THE    HISTORY 
 
 who  lias  led  the  way  to  the  reduction  of  the  date 
 of  this  poem  to  the  age  of  Ezra,  Schultens  has 
 made  the  following  observations. — "  Dolenda  est 
 conditio  linguarum  orientalium,  prout  eae  a  multis 
 tractantur.  Unus,  alter,  tertius  ad  summum 
 annus  iis  percipiendis  datur.  Analysis  satis 
 prompta.  Explicatio  ad  receptam  versionenrnon 
 omnino  impedita.  Placent  profectus;  et  jam 
 metam  se  tenere  credunt,  qui  carceribus  vix 
 egressi. — Quid  causae?  Turn  alia,  de  quibus alias, 
 turn  hoc  vel  maxime,  quod  qui  in  Graecis,  La- 
 tinisve,  non  satis  subactus,  sibi  aliquid  arroget^ 
 mox  in  ordinem  cogatur,  atque  ad  subsellia  rele- 
 getur:  qui  in  Orientalibus,  etiam  in  re  pauperi 
 ditissimus,  non  sibi  tantum,  sed  et  reliquis,  vide- 
 atur,  si  modo  ope  Lexici  aliquid  in  medium  pro- 
 ferre,  mercesque  suas  venditare  queat."  Are  our 
 Commentators  of  the  present  day  more  conversant 
 in  Hebrew  literature,  and  more  cautious  in  giving 
 
 afforded  him  a  licence. — "  Poor  Job!  It  was  his  eternal  fate 
 to  be  persecuted  by  his  friends.  His  three  comforters  passed 
 sentence  of  condemnation  upon  him,  and  he  has  been  execut- 
 ing in  ejjigie  ever  since.  He  was  first  bound  to  the  stake  by 
 a  long  catena  of  preek  Fathers;  then  tortured  by  Pineda; 
 then  strangled  by  Caryl ;  and  afterwards  cut  up  by  Wesley, 
 and  anatomized  by  Garnet.  Pray  don't  reckon  me  amongst 
 his  hangmen.  I  only  acted  the  tender  part  of  hi&  wife,  and 
 was  for  making  short  work  with  him.  But  he  was  ordained, 
 I  think,  by  a  fate  like  that  of  Prometheus,  to  lie  still 
 upon  his  dunghill  and  have  his  brains  sucked  out  by  owls." 
 pp.  29,  30.  ' 
 
AND    BOOK    OF    SOB,  ig$ 
 
 to  the  public  their  interpretations  of  the  Hebrew 
 Scriptures,  than  Le  Clerc? 
 
 We  have  now  seen  how  indefensible,  in  the 
 opinion  of  the  most  distinguished  Hebrew  critics, 
 that  hypothesis  appears,  which,  reducing  the  book 
 of  Job  to  the  period  of  the  captivity,  ascribes  its 
 production  to  such  an  author  as  Ezra.  In 
 embracing  tliis  hypothesis,  however,  the  Bishop 
 of  Killalla  has  but  trodden  in  the  steps  of  others. 
 But  what  shall  we  say  to  that,  which  reduces  Job 
 himself  to  so  late  a  date?  This,  I  apprehend,  is  a 
 discovery  that  has  been  entirely  reserved  for  his 
 Lordship:  at  least  I  know  of  no  Commentator, 
 who  is  entitled  to  dispute  with  him  the  honour, 
 whatever  it  may  be,  that  belongs  to  the  invention. 
 It  cannot  indeed  be  affirmed,  that  he  has  laboured 
 directly  and  specially  to  establish  this  point. 
 But  has  he  not  so  conducted  his  reasoning,  as 
 that  it  must  follow  by  necessary  implication  ?  In 
 the  observations,  which  have  been  ofFered  at  the 
 outset  of  these  remarks,  p.  137—144,  we  have 
 seen,  that  the  time  of  Job,  and  the  date  of  the 
 Book,  are  treated  by  him  as  in  all  respects  the 
 *  same.     If  therefore  his  Lordship  has  succeeded, 
 
 *  It  is  possible,  that  his  Lordship  may,  to  the  justness  of 
 tfie  assertion  which  I  have  here  repeated  from  the  place  referred 
 to,  object  the  following  words,  which  will  be  found,  quoted 
 from  his  preface  in  p.  133.—"  But,  if  it  were  ever  so  difficult 
 to  ascertain  the  portion  of  time  when  the  patriarch  lived,  h 
 may  not  be  impossible  from  the  internal  marks  in.  the  .poem 
 VOL.  II.  O 
 
194  ^E   HISTORY 
 
 in  hringins^down  the  latter  below  the  Babylonish 
 captivity;  he  must  be  considered,  on  his  own 
 principles,  as  having  done  the  same  by  the  former. 
 The  last  noie  of  the  Translation  explicitly  affirms, 
 that  Job  must  have  lived  after  the  time  of  David. 
 The  entire  scheme  of  the  reasoning  pronounces, 
 that  he  must  Ijave  lived  in  the  time  of  Ezra. 
 
 On  this  result  I  think  it  not  necessary  to  offer 
 any  *  comment.  And  indeed  it  is  not  without 
 some  pain,  that  I  have  been  led  to  comment  upon 
 his  Lordship's  work  at  all.  There  are  many 
 reasons  why  I  could  have  wished  to  forbear:  and 
 among  these  is  not  the  least  forcible,  the  circum- 
 stance of  its  having  issued  from  a  member  of  that 
 distinguished  order  in  the  Church,  to  which  I  feel 
 at  all  times  disposed,  from  inclination  not  less 
 than  duty,  to  pay  the  utmost  deference  and 
 respect.  This  last  consideration,  however,  upon 
 reflexion,  seemed  to  render  it  the  more  necessary 
 that  I  should  undertake  the  unpleasing  task,  in 
 which  I  have  been  engaged  throughout  the  latter 
 
 itself,  to  conjecture  with  tolerable  certainty  the  er«  of  its 
 autJwry — I  do  not  deny,  that  the  Bishop  has  here  spoken  of 
 the  times  of  Job  himself  and  of  the  author  of  the  book,  as  not 
 necessarily  connected ;  nor  do  I  assert  that  he  deliberately 
 intended  to  consider  them  as  the  same :  I  only  affirm,  that  in 
 his  reasoning  (whether  intentionally  or  not,)  they  are  com- 
 pletely confounded. 
 
 *  If  any  were  requisite  on  a  point  so  perfectly  untenable^ 
 the  observations  in  the  first  part  of  this  Number  would  abun- 
 dantly supply  it. 
 
AND    BOOK    OF   JOB.  I95 
 
 part  of  this  number.     I  had  already  given  to  the 
 pubhc,   in   a   former  edition  of  this  work,  those 
 femarks  on  the  history  and  book  of  Job,  which 
 are  contained  in  the  former  part  of  the  number. 
 I  had  upon  grounds  which  appeared  to  me  satis- 
 factory,  maintained   the   antiquity    both  of   the 
 book  and  of  its  subject :  and  from  this  had  derived 
 an  argument,  in  favour  of  the  antiquity,  and  wide 
 extent,  of  the  sacrificial   rite.     I  had  also,  pro- 
 ceeding in  a  way  directly  opposite  to  that  which 
 the  Bishop  has,  in  his  preface,  described  himself 
 to  have  pursued,  spared  neither  pains  nor  time  to 
 acquire  the  best  information,  and  from  the  best 
 interpreters,  before  I  presumed  to  offer  my  ideas 
 to  the  public.     Soon  after  I   had  done  so,  the 
 Bishop's   work   appeared,   carrying   With    it  the 
 authority  of  his  station,  and  by  a  single  dictum 
 levelling  the  whole  of  my  laborious  structure  in 
 the  dust.    That  my  observations  were  not  thought 
 worthy    of  notice   by  his   Lordship,   could   not 
 cause,  even  to  the  feelings  of  an  Author,  much 
 uneasiness ;  as  the  works  of  the  most  learned  and 
 celebrated  commentators   on  Job,  were  left  not 
 only  unnoticed,  but  confessedly  unperused.    What 
 remained,  under  these  circumstances,  to  be  done  ? 
 Silence  might  be  construed  into  an  admission, 
 that  what  I  had  before  advanced,  had  been  unad- 
 visedly offered,  and  could  not  be  maintained:  and 
 on  the  other  hand,   in   treating  of  the  Bishop's 
 performance,  justice  required  that  J  should  speak 
 
 o  2 
 
igS  THE   HISTORY 
 
 of  it  in  terms  remote  from  those  of  commendation. 
 Executed  with  a  haste  that  nothing  can  excuse, 
 abounding  with  errors  both  of  reasoning  and 
 interpretation^  presuming  upon  sHght  and  fancied 
 theories  to  new  mould  the  ^-  original  text,  and 
 
 *  Bishop  Stock  prides  himself  on  a  list  of  conjectural  alte- 
 rations of  the  Hebrew  text,  contained  in  an  Appendix  to  his 
 translation  : — by  which  it  appears,  as  he  pronounces,  that 
 there  are  tnoi'e  than  sixty  places  in  Job,  in  which  the  text 
 has  been  coiTupted,  By  much  the  greater  number  of  these 
 alterations  is  proposed  upon  the  reading  of  a  single  MS.  or 
 of  a  couple  at  the  most;  and  what  deserves  yet  more  to  be 
 remarked  is,  that  for  not  fewer  than  tvcerdij-three^  no  autho- 
 rity of  any  MS.  or  version  whatever  is  pretended,  but  the 
 name  of  Stock  alone  is  annexed,  as  a  sufficient  justification  ! 
 To  this,  it  must  be  remembered  that  we  are  to  add,  the 
 rejection  of  the  two  last  verses  of  the  Book  upon  the  same 
 unsupported  dictum.— These,  one  would  think,  are  tolera. 
 ble  exercises  of  the  conjectural  faculty,  and  yet  strange  to 
 say,  they  are  far  exceeded  by  one  which  yet  remains  to  be 
 noticed :  and  which  will  be  found  contained  in  the  notes  oa 
 ch.  xli.  11,  12. 
 
 *'  I  am  strongly  of  opinion,  that,  in  the  original  of  this 
 fine  poem,  the  speech  attributed  to  God  ended  here"  (viz. 
 end  of  verse  12)  s  ''  not  only  because  it  forms  a  fuller  and 
 more  dignified  conclusion  than  that  which  now  closes  the 
 chapter ;  but  because  it  assigns  a  satisfactory  answer  to  the 
 question,  With  what  view  was  this  laboured  description 
 introduced,  of  the  two  formidable  works  of  the  Creator,  the 
 river  horse  and  the  crocodile?  Answer  that  question,  your- 
 selves, saith  the  Almighty  :  if  ye  shrink  with  terror  before 
 my  works,  how  will  ye  dare  to  set  yourselves  in  array 
 against  their  Maker?— But  to  w1:om  then  shall  we  ascribe 
 the  Appcudix  contained  ia  the  last  two  and  twenty  verses  of 
 
AND   BOOK   OF   JOB.  197 
 
 withal  setting  the  seal  of  Episcopal  authority  to 
 the  entire  congeries  of  precipitancies,  mistakes, 
 and  mutilations — a  due  regard  to  my  own  credit, 
 
 the  forty-first  chapter?  Either  to  the  author  himself  of  the 
 poem,  who,  in  his  second  but  not  better  thoughts,  conceiYed 
 he  might  add  something  yaluable  to  his  picture  of  the  croco- 
 dile ;  or,  which  is  more  likely,  to  some  succeeding  geniuSy 
 impatient  to  lengthen  out  by  his  inventive  powers  what  had 
 justly  obtained  possession  of  the  public  esteem. — After  en- 
 closing therefore  in  brackets  a  superfctation  that  might  well 
 have  been  spared,  we  will  go  on,  however,  to  give  light  to 
 it. — Observe  how  the  Appendix  is  ushered  in;  [12.  I  will 
 not  be  silent^  &c.]  Is  this  language  for  the  omnipotent? 
 Is  it  at  all  suitable  to  the  grandeur  of  conception  ma- 
 nifested in  the  rest  of  the  poem  ?  the  thread  is  too  visible^ 
 by  which  the  purple  patchy  of  more  shew  than  utility,  i^ 
 fastened  on." 
 
 Here  indeed  is  critical  amputation  with  a  vengeance.  And 
 here  we  have  a  large  portion  of  the  original  at  one  stroke 
 scored  oif,  and  rejected  as  a  "  superfctation,''  (so  his  Lord- 
 ship is  pleased  to  call  it,)  exactly  in  the  same  manner  as  we 
 find  the  history  of  the  birth  of  Christ,  in  the  beginning  of 
 Matthew  and  Luke  scored  oif,  as  a  superfetation,  by  the 
 Editors  of  the  Unitarian  Nezo  Testament. — Heath  had  indeed 
 transposed  the  first  14  verses  of  the  xlth.  chapter,  and  inserted 
 them  between  the  6th,  and  7th,  verses  of  the  xliid.  For 
 this  too  he  had  assigned  a  reason  not  deficient  in  plausibility. 
 But  to  reject  altogether  an  entire  portion  of  the  book,  and 
 this  upon  the  merely  fanciful  and  figurative  ground  of  a 
 <«  thread  too  visible''  and  a  "  purple  patch,"  has  been 
 reserved  for  a  Bishop  of  the  Established  Church. 
 
 Having  adverted  to  the  subject  of  conjectural  emendation 
 of  the  sacred  text,  I  cannot  but  enter  my  protest  most  decid- 
 edly against  the  spirit,  which  has,  of  late  years,  so  mis- 
 
 o3 
 
igS  THE    HISTORY 
 
 but  infinitely  more  a  due  regard  to  the  cause  of 
 truth,  demanded,  that  such  a  work  should  not  be 
 allowed  to  pass    upon  the  worlds   as  a  faithful 
 
 chievously  Infected  the  translators  of  the  books  of  Scripture 
 in  tha?  particular  respect.  The  Bishop  of  Killalla  unfortu- 
 nately has  had  no  &ma!l  desjree  of  countenance  in  such  prac- 
 tices. By  others,  and  those  too  critics  of  no  small  repute, 
 this  spirit  has  been  too  much  indulged.  The  late  Bishop  of 
 Si  Asaph  lias  well  obseiTcd,  that  considering  the  master 
 only  as  a  problem  in  the  doihine  of  chances,  the  odds  are 
 ahvu)s  infinitel)  against  conjecture.  (Hordey^s  HoseUy 
 pref.  p.  xxxiv.) — The  consequences  growing  out  of  the  habit 
 of  .litering  the  oji^inal  Hebrew  according  to  conjecture, 
 must  be,  that  we  shall  cease  altogether  to  possess  a  standard 
 text,  and  that  for  the  word  vf  God,  we  shall  ultimately  have 
 only  the  zvord  oj  man.  Bisho|>  Pocock  justly  observes  upon 
 this  practice,  that  ^'  every  one,  for  introducing  any  where 
 •uch  a  meaning  as  pleased  him  best,  might  alter  the  words  as 
 he  pleased,  of  w  eicu  there  would  be  no  end  ;  and  it  would  be 
 a  matter  of  very  ill  consequence  indeed.  We  must  (he  adds) 
 fii  our  meaning  to  the  words,  and  not  the  words  to  our 
 meaning."  (Pococ/c's  fVorks,  vol.  ii.  p.  493.)— That  the 
 MSS.  and  ancient  versions  are  not  to  be  ca'led  in,  to  assist 
 in  rectify. iig  the  HebreAV  text,  where  confus'on  has  mani- 
 festly arisen.  1  am  very  far  indeed  from  contending  :  but 
 that,  what  is  properly  called  conjecture  shouhi  be  permitted 
 to  interfere,  and  now  especially  after  the  immense  labours 
 of  Keiifiicot  and  De  Rosii  in  their  collation  of  the  various 
 copies  of  tie  Hebrew,  is  1  think  wholly  inadmissible.  This 
 is  not  the  place  to  enlarge  upon  such  a  subject.  I  would 
 strongly  recommend  to  the  perusal  of  the  reader,  the  judi^ 
 cious  obscrvafions  of  Bis' op  Jlorsley,  in  his  preface,  as 
 before  referred  to,  and  at  p.  xxxix.  See  also  Dathii  Opus*> 
 culiij  p.  1 35—137, 
 
AND   BOOK   OF   JOB.  I99 
 
 exposition  of  a  part  of  sacred  writ.  In  my  obser- 
 vations upon  the  individual  defects  of  this  work, 
 I  have  not  thought  it  necessary  to  travel  beyond 
 the  course,  which  the  Bishop's  remarks  upon  the 
 date  of  Job  unavoidably  prescribed.  But  I  can- 
 not dismiss  the  subject  finally  without  saying, 
 that  in  my  opinion,  the  necessity  for  a  new 
 English  version  of  the  Book  of  Job,  (if  any  be 
 supposed  previously  to  have  existed)  has  in  no 
 particular  been  diminished  by  that  which  has 
 been  given  to  the  world  by  the  Bishop  of  Kil- 
 ]alla.=^ 
 
 As  a  matter  of  curiosity,  and  as  supplying  some 
 relief  from  the  tsedium  controversiae,  I  annex  a 
 short  account  of  the  history  of  Job,  as  it  has  been 
 handed  down  amongst  the  Arabians. 
 
 Job,  or  Aiub,  (as  he  is  called  in  Arabic  agree- 
 ably to  the  Hebrew  name  IW,)  is  reported,  by 
 some  of  their  historians,  to  have  been  descended 
 from  Ishmael;  it  being  held,  that  from  Isaac, 
 through  Jacob,  all  the  prophets  had  sprung, 
 excepting  three,  Job,  Jethro,  (the  father-in-law  of 
 Moses,  called  by  the  Arabians  Schoaib,)  and 
 Mahomet ;  which  three  had  come  of  the  line  of 
 Ishmael,  and  were  Arabians.       By    others^   his 
 
 *  His  Lordship  has,  since  the  publication  of  the  second 
 pdition  of  this  work,  been  advanced  to  the  See  of  JVatcrford, 
 To  avoid  confusion,  however,  I  have  continued  io  designate 
 him  by  the  title,  under  which  he  is  known  to  the  public  as 
 the  translator  of  Job. 
 
200  THE   HISTORY 
 
 descent  Is  traced  from  Isaac,  through  Esau,  from 
 v;bom  he  was  the  third,  or  at  most  the  fourth,  in 
 succession.  And  in  the  history  given  by  Khen" 
 demir,  who  distinguishes  him  by  the  title  ot  the 
 Patient,  it  is  stated,  that  by  his  mother's  side  he 
 was  descended  from  Lot: — ihat  he  had  been  com- 
 missioned by  God  to  preach  the  faith  to  a  people 
 of  Syria: — that  although  no  more  than  three  had 
 been  converted  by  his  preaching,  he  was  notwith- 
 standing rewarded  for  his  zeal  by  immense  posses- 
 sions:— that  his  wealth  and  prosperity  excited  the 
 envy  of  the  Devil;  who,  presenting  himself  before 
 God,  charged  Job  with  motives  of  self-interest 
 in  his  religious  obedience,  and  asserted  that  if  the 
 Almighty  would  deprive  him  of  his  substance,  his 
 boasted  allegiance  would  not  hold  out  for  a  single 
 day: — that  the  Devii  obtained  permission  to  strip 
 him  of  his  wealth,  but  that  Job's  fidelity  remained 
 unshaken : — that  havincj  received  still  further 
 permission  to  afflict  him  in  his  person,  the  Devil 
 infused  by  a  pestilential  breath  such  infection,  as 
 to  render  Job*s  entire  body  one  putrid  ulcer,  and 
 of  a  nature  so  offensive,  as  to  repel  from  him 
 every  attendant,  and  to  force  the  inhabitants  to 
 drive  him  out  of  the  city  into  a  remote  and  soli- 
 tary place,  whither  his  wife  carried  every  day 
 what  was  necessary  for  liis  subsistence: — that  the 
 Devil  constantly  stole  from  her,  whatever  she  had 
 provided  for  this  purpose;  and  that  having  reduced 
 her  to  such  a  condition,  that  she  had  nothing  re^r 
 
AND    BOOK    OF   JOB.  201 
 
 maining  for  her  husband's  rehef,  he  appeared  to 
 her  in  the  form  of  a  bald  old  woman,  and  offered, 
 upon  condition  of  her  giving  two  tresses  of  hair 
 that  hung  upon  her  neck,  to  furnish  her  every- 
 day with  what  she  might  require  for  her  husband's 
 subsistence : — that  Job's  wife  having  agreed  to 
 the  proposal,  and  parted  with  the  tresses,  the 
 devil  produced  the  hair  to  Job,  affirming  that  it 
 had  been  cut  from  his  wife's  head,  when  caught 
 in  the  act  of  matrimonial  unfaithfulness: — that 
 Job,  enraged  against  his  wife,  was  led  to  swear, 
 that  if  he  recovered  his  health  he  would  most 
 severely  punish  her  for  her  offence: — that  the 
 devil  having  thus  got  the  better  of  Job's  patience, 
 transformed  himself  to  an  angel  of  light,  and 
 published  to  the  people  of  the  surrounding  coun- 
 try, that  Job  had  forfeited  the  favour  of  God,  and 
 that  they  should  no  longer  permit  him  to  abide 
 among  them  :— that  Job,  being  informed  of  what 
 had  passed,  had  recourse  to  God  by  prayer,  who 
 in  a  moment  put  an  end  to  all  his  sufferings;  for 
 that  the  Angel  Gabriel  descended  to  the  place 
 where  he  was,  and  striking  the  earth  with  his  foot, 
 caused  a  fountain  of  the  purest  water  to  spring 
 up,  wherein  Job  having  washed  his  body  and 
 drank  of  it,  was  suddenly  and  perfectly  restored 
 to  health :— and  that  after  this,  God  multiplied 
 his  riches  in  such  a  manner,  that,  to  express  the 
 abundance  of  it,  the  Arabian  authors  say  that  a 
 shower  of  Gold  fell  upon  him.     See  D'llerbelot, 
 
 I 
 
202  THE    HISTORY,    kc. 
 
 Bihl  Onent,  torn.  i.  pp.  75,  76.  432.  458.  also 
 Sales  Koran  vol.  ii.  p.  l62.  in  which  latter  place 
 the  story  is  given  with  some  minute  variations. 
 
 The  reader  will  of  course  consider  these  fables 
 as  introduced  here  prindpally  for  his  amusement. 
 One  fact,  however,  they  unequivocally  speak ; 
 the  belief  of  the  Arabians,  that  there  was  in  reality 
 such  a  person  as  Job,  who  lived  in  the  patriarchal 
 age,  and  was  distinguished  above  all  men  by  his 
 sufferings  and  his  patience.  The  reverence  for 
 the  name  of  Job  has  been  in  truth,  from  the 
 earliest  times,  and  to  this  day  continues  to  be, 
 through  all  Arabia,  extremely  great:  so  that  many 
 of  the  noblest  families  among  the  Arabians,  have 
 gloried  in  being  descended  from  that  Patriarch. 
 The  famous  dynasty  of  the  great  Saladin  have 
 been  known  by  the  name  of  Aiouhites,  ox  Johites ; 
 their  illustrious  founder  being  called  by  the  name 
 of  Job. — UHerh,  Bib.  Orient,  tom.  i.  p.  76. — 
 The  reverence  for  this  name  has,  I  am  sorry  to 
 say,  been  carried  still  farther  amongst  Christians: 
 the  worship  of  Job  being  (as  Broughton  tells  us) 
 of  great  antiquity,  both  amongst  the  Greek  and 
 Latin  Churches;  the  Greeks  having  chosen  the 
 6th  of  May  for  celebrating  the  festival  of  Saint 
 Job,  and  the  Latins  keeping  it  on  the  10th. — 
 Diction,  of  alt  liclig.  vol.  i.  p.  538. 
 
(      203      ) 
 
 NO.  LX. — ON    GROTIUSS    STRANGK    MISCONCEPTION 
 Ol:    THE    NATURE    OF    ABEL's    SACRIFICE. 
 
 Page  49.  (") — Grotlns,  followed  by  Le  Clerc, 
 interprets  the  v\ords  in  Gen.  iv.  4.  which  we 
 translate  the  Jirsfl'tngs,  as  signifying  the  besfy 
 2lxh\  Jinest ;  and  will  have  this  to  relate  only  to 
 the  wool  J  which  is  known  to  have  been  offered 
 to  the  Gods  in  later  times.  That  also,  which 
 we  render  the  fat  thereof,  he  considers  to  mean 
 no  more  than  the  milk,  and  appeals  to  the 
 Se/ea  y,  who  in  numerous  instances  have  cer- 
 tainly translated  the  word  l^n,  here  used,  by 
 yotXa.. 
 
 But  first,  as  to  aniDn,  it  cannot  be  denied, 
 that,  in  relation  to  man  or  beast,  it  is  never  found 
 in  any  part  of  the  bible,  in  any  other  sense  than 
 that  of  first-born.  So  appropriate  is  this  mean- 
 ing, that  nD2  is  used  absolutely,  to  express  y^ri- 
 mogeniture,  and  the  right  resulting  from  it,  as 
 in  Gen.  xxv.  31,  32,  33,  34.  and  xliii.  33.  It  is 
 indeed  applied  to  Jirst  fruits,  or  fruits^r^^  ripe^ 
 but  this  evidently  refers  to  its  radical  significa- 
 tion of  Jirst  born :  nor  can  any  instance  be 
 adduced  of  the  application  of  the  term  in  the 
 figurative  sense  o^  finest  and  best,  contended  for 
 by  Grotius,  unless  such  a  signification  be  tacitly 
 supposed  to  attach  in  all  cases  to  the  idea  of  the 
 first,    or  earliest,  in  its  kinc).     He  has  indeed 
 
204  NATURE    OF    ABEL's    SACRIFICE 
 
 referred  us  to  the  expression  iniD  "HI!)!  in  Job 
 xviii.  13:  to  the  use  of  the  word  C'^Di,  apphed 
 to  the  fruit  of  the  fig-tree ;  and  to  the  force  of 
 the  term  m:)i,  employed  to  denominate  the  spe- 
 cies of  camel,  distinguished  for  its  swiftness.  But 
 none  of  these  instances  can  bear  him  out. 
 
 The  first,  which  he  would  arbitrarily  render, 
 *^  morbus  maiime  lethalis,'*  is  no  more  than  the 
 FIRST-BORN  of  Death,  a  strong  poetical  expres- 
 sion ;  for  the  more  particular  meaning  of  which 
 see  Parhhurst  on  the  word,  and  Chappelow  on 
 Job  xviii.  13.  The  second,  which,  he  says,  im- 
 plies "  ficus  maxime  fractiferce,*'  is  an  expression 
 peculiarly  unfortunate,  as  the  word  in  this  appli- 
 cation is  used  to  denote  that  species  of  fig,  which 
 is  early  ripe :  insomuch  that  at  this  day  the 
 word  *  Boccore  ("lIDl)  signifies,  in  the  Levant, 
 the  early  ^g,  as  Shaw  states  in  his  travels,  p. 
 370.  fol.  As  to  the  third  instance,  the  reason  of 
 applying  this  term  to  the  fleetest  species  of 
 camel,  is  not  the  general  idea  of  distinction  and 
 superiority,  but  the  peculiar  quality  of  swiftness: 
 the  idea  of  celerity  and  prevention  being  most 
 appositely  conveyed  by  a  term,  whose  radical 
 signification  implied  the  Jirst,  or  earliest.  In 
 this  sense  the  word  is  explained  in  the  kindred 
 dialects,  of  the  Syriac,  and  (particularly)  the 
 Arabic:  for  which  see  Schindler  and  Cast  el.    In- 
 
 *  See  Louth's  Isai.  xxviii.  4.  Blaijncy's  Jer.  xxir.  2.  and 
 Nezccome's  IIos,  ix.  10. 
 
MISTAKEN    BY    GROTIUS.  S05 
 
 deed,  no  lexicon  whatever^  so  far  as  I  can  dis- 
 cover, supports  Grotius  in  the  general  signification 
 which  he  attributes  to  the  word.  But  all  con- 
 cur, in  giving  to  it  the  meaning  of  the  earliest, 
 or  first  produced,  or  some  other  flowing  from, 
 and  connected  with,  these. 
 
 Again,  with  respect  to  the  word  :hr\,  although 
 it  is  undoubtedly  used  in  several  places  to  sig- 
 nify milk,  as  well  as  Jat,  yet,  as  Reidegger 
 remarks,  (Hist.  Pair,  Exercit,  v.  §.  20.  tom.  i.) 
 there  is  not  a  single  passage  in  Scripture,  in 
 which  it  is  applied  in  that  sense,  when  sacri- 
 fice is  spoken  of;,  and  the  offering  is  said  to  be 
 
 But  moreover,  as  to  Grotius's  notion,  that  the 
 icool  and  milk  were  the  parts  of  the  animal, 
 which  alone  were  offered  by  Abel  on  this  occa- 
 sion, it  is  notorious,  that  neither  one  nor  the 
 other  is  ever  mentioned  in  Scripture,  as  an  offer- 
 ing to  the  Deity,  unless  this  single  passage  be 
 supposed  to  supply  an  instance.  Kennicot  also 
 contends,  in  opposition  to  Grotius,  that  the  strict 
 analogy  of  translation  will  not  admit  the  possi- 
 bility of  his  construction  of  this  passage  of  Ge- 
 nesis. For  if,  says  he,  "  it  be  allowed  by  all, 
 that  Cains  bringing  of  the  Jricit  of  the  ground, 
 means  his  bringing  the  fruit  of  the  ground, 
 then  Abel's  bringing  of  the  firstUngs  of  his 
 flock,    must  likewise    mean    his    bringing    the 
 
206  NATURE   OF    ABEL's    SACRIFICE 
 
 JirstUngs  of  his  flock''  the  exact  sameness 
 in  the  original  phrase  requiring  an  exact  simi- 
 larity in  the  translation,  (Ttvo  Dissert,  pp.  192> 
 193.)  The  passage  indeed  needs  but  to  be  read, 
 to  prove  the  whimsical  conceit  of  this  comment 
 of  Grotius.  Not  one  word  is  said  of  ivool,  or 
 that  can  lead  the  mind  to  it  by  any  conceivable 
 reference:  but  yet,  because  he  is  determined 
 not  to  allow  the  sacrifice  of  Abel  to  have  been 
 an  oblation  of  the  animal  itself;  and  there  being 
 no  part  of  it  that  could  be  offered,  w^ithout  slay- 
 ing the  animal,  except  the  wool  and  the  milk ; 
 he  is  therefore  led  to  pronounce,  that  in  the 
 offering  of  these  the  sacrifice  consisted. 
 
 Nothing,  in  truth,  can  be  more  strangely  chi- 
 merical, than  the  whole  of  Grotius's  observations 
 on  this  part  of  Scripture.  His  criticisms  on  the 
 words  ^D^^J^  '»12D,  furnishes  another  extraordi- 
 nary specimen.  By  these  words,  he  says,  no- 
 thing more  is  meant,  than  what  the  Heathens  in 
 later  times  understood  by  their  Sagmen,  which 
 was  a  sort  of  turf,  cut  out  of  sacred  ground,  and 
 carried  sometimes  in  the  hand  of  a  Roman  am- 
 bassador. On  this  Heidegger  is  compelled  to 
 exclaim — "  Secpe  vir,  csetera  magnus,  ex  paginis 
 ritibus  talia,  obtorto  collo,  ad  explicationem  re- 
 rum  sacrarum  rapit;  qua?,  si  propius  intueare, 
 nee  coelum  nee  terrain  attingunt."  (Exercit,  v.  §. 
 19.)  But  to  return.— 
 
MISTAKEN    BY    GROTIUS.  207 
 
 With  respect  to  the  word  ]n±>r]y  it  may  be 
 right  to  remark,  that  instead  of,  the  fat  there- 
 of, (which  is  ambiguous)  it  may  with  more 
 propriety  be  rendered,  the  fat  of  them,  mean- 
 ing thereby,  the  fattest  or  best,  among  the 
 firstlings.  It  is  well  known,  that  the  word 
 l^n,  is  often  used  for  the  best  of  its  kind. 
 Thus  n:on  l^n^,  is  the  finest  of  the  wheat,  Ps. 
 Ixxxi.  16.  cxlvii.  14.  And  the  fat  of  the  oil, 
 the  fat  of  the  wine,  stand  for  the  best  of  the 
 oil  and  wine,  and  have  been  so  translated,* 
 Numb,  xviii.  12.  It  is  the  more  necessary  to 
 make  this  distinction,  lest  the  particular  mention 
 of  the  fat  might  lead  to  the  supposition  that 
 the  sacrifice  was  a  peace  offeringy  the  fat  of 
 which  was  consumed  upon  the  altar,  and  the 
 flesh  eaten  by  the  priests  and  the  person  at 
 whose  charge  the  offering  was  made.  This  was 
 clearly  an  offering  of  a  later  date.  The  use  of 
 animal  food  was  not  as  yet  permitted.  And  the 
 sacrifice  seems  to  have  been  an  holocaust y  the 
 whole  of  which  was  consumed  upon  the  altar. 
 That  the  sacrifice  was  of  this  kind,  many  argu- 
 ments concur  to  render  probable.  (See  p.  22,  of 
 this  volume,  also  Shuck,  Connect,  vol.  i.  p.  81.) 
 But  it  is  placed  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt, 
 if  it  be  admitted,  with  the  authorities  and  rea- 
 sons adduced  in  p.  89-— 91,of  this  volume,  that 
 
 *  See  ChrysosU  Jun.  Vatah.  also  Jen.  Jew,  Antiq,  toI,  i. 
 p.  149.  and  Kenn,  Tzco  Dw.  pp.  193,  194. 
 
208  DIFFERENT    RECEPTION    OF   THB 
 
 the  sign  of  the  divine  acceptance  of  Abel's  sacri- 
 fice was  the  consumption  of  it  by  fire  from 
 heaven.  Porphyry,  in  his  2d  book,  De  Ahstin, 
 An'wi.  considers  this  a  sufficient  reason  to  pro- 
 nounce the  offering  of  Abel  to  have  been  an 
 holocaust^  and  compares  it  with  that  of  Solomon 
 described  in  2  Chr.  viii.  1.  where  it  is  said,  that 
 when  Solomon  had  made  an  end  of  praying,  the 
 Jlre  came  down  from  heaven,  and  consumed 
 the  burnt  offering  (or  holocaust)  and  the  sa- 
 crifices, 
 
 NO.    LXI. ON   THE    DIFFERENCE    IN    THE    DIVINE 
 
 RECEPTION    OF    THE    SACRIFICES    OF    CAIN    AND 
 ABEL. 
 
 Page  49.  (p) — To  those  who  reject  the  divine 
 institution  of  sacrifice,  this  has  always  proved  a 
 stumbling  block;  and  to  remove  the  difficulty, 
 various  solutions  have  been  elaborately,  but  un>- 
 successfully  devised.  The  difference  in  the  treat- 
 ment of  the  two  brothers  had  been  accounted 
 for  by  antient  commentators,  from  the  different 
 mode  of  division  of  their  several  oblations,  as  if 
 Cains  fault  had  consisted  in  not  giving  to  God 
 the  best  parts,  or  the  proper  parts  of  the  sacri- 
 fice. This  uninteihgible  notion,  which  an  early 
 enemy  of  revelation,  Julian,  failed  not  to  urge 
 against  Christians,  took  its  rise  from  the  Sep- 
 tuagint  translation  of  Gen.  iv.  7«  Ovyc,  sav  o^Qcog 
 
SACRIFICES    OF    CAIN    AND    ABEL.  209 
 
 ^poa-eviy^CTjg,  codug  Se  fiyj  SisXr^g,  vif^a^reg ; — If  you 
 should  rlghtli/  offer,  but  yet  not  rightly  divide, 
 would  you  not  sin  ? 
 
 Others  have  held,  that  the  difference  arose 
 from  this,  that  whilst  Abel  brought  of  the^;\s^- 
 lings  of  his  flock,  Cain  did  not  in  like  manner 
 bring  of  the  first,  or  best  of  his  fruits.  This 
 idea,  for  which  there  appears  no  farther  foun- 
 dation in  the  original,  than  that  it  is  simply 
 stated  that  Cain  brought  oj'  the  fruits,  originated 
 with  Philo,  (as  may  be  seen  in  p.  287,  vol.  i.  of 
 this  work,)  and  has  had  the  support  of  several 
 Christian  commentators.  See  Cyril,  cont.  Ju- 
 lian, lib.  X.  p.  349.  ed.  Spanh.  Lips,  and  Pol. 
 Synop.  in  Gen.  iv.  3.  Hallet  also,  in  his  note 
 (s)  on  Hebr,  xi.  4.  concurs  in  this  idea,  and  at 
 the  same  time  adds,  that  AbePs  faith  caused  him 
 to  select  the  choicest  for  sacrifice.  Primate 
 Kewcome,  in  his  new  version,  seems  to  adopt 
 the  same  notion,  explaining  the  more  excellent 
 sacrifice  in  Hebr.  xi.  4.  as  ''  consisting  of  more 
 choice  and  valuable  offerings." 
 
 Again,  the  reason  of  the  difference  assigned 
 by  Josephus  (Antiq.  Jud.  lib.  i.  c.  3.)  is,  that 
 "  God  was  more  pleased  with  the  spontaneous 
 productions  of  nature,  than  with  an  offering  ex- 
 torted from  the  earth  by  the  ingenuity  and  force 
 of  man."  This  strange  conceit  has  been  con- 
 fined to  Josephus,  and  the  Rabbins,  from  whom 
 Havercamp  affirms,  and  Cunseus  and  Heidegger 
 
 VOL.   II.  P 
 
210  DIFFERENT    RECEPTION    OF   THE 
 
 fully  prove,  it  was  derived  by  this  author — see 
 Krehs,  Ohserv.  in  Nov,  Test.  p.  383. 
 
 Another  reason  assigned  is  the  difference  of 
 moral  character.  But  the  history  clearly  con- 
 nects the  fact  of  the  acceptance  of  the  one  and 
 the  rejection  of  the  other,  with  the  nature  and 
 circumstances  of  the  respective  oblations. 
 
 Again,  it  is  said,  that  Cain's  entertaining  a 
 design  againt  his  brother's  life,  laid  the  founda- 
 tion for  the  difference  of  treatment.  But  this 
 intention  against  his  brother's  life,  is  expressly 
 affirmed  to  have  been  the  consequence  of  the 
 preference  given  to  his  brother's  oHering. 
 
 Dr.  Priestley  has  observed*  (Theol.  Rep,  vol. 
 i.  p.  195.)  that  "  the  actions  of  both  the  bro- 
 thers"  (in   the  offerings  made  by  them  of  the 
 
 *This  essay  of  Dr.  Priestley's,  in  which  (as  it  has  been 
 stated  in  p.  19  of  tliis  volume)  he  has  laboured  to  disprove 
 the  divine  institution  of  sacrifices,  and  to  establish  their  mere 
 human  invention  as  springing  from  anthropomorphitical  no- 
 tions of  the  Deity,  it  may  be  curious  to  compare  with  his 
 latest  observations  on  this  subject  in  his  Notes^  &c.  on  Gen. 
 iv.  3.  There,  in  treating  of  the  offerings  of  Cain  and  Abel, 
 he  expressly  asserts  his  belief  in  the  divine  origin  of  sacri- 
 fices. "  On  the  whole  (he  says)  it  seems  most  probable,  that 
 men  were  instructed  by  the  Divine  Being  himself  in  this 
 mode  of  worship,"  (sacrifice,)  "  as  well  as  taught  many 
 other  things  that  were  necessary  to  their  subsistence  and 
 Comfort." 
 
 This  observation,  together  with  those  which  have  been  al- 
 ready referred  to,  (p.  13 — 10  of  this  vol.)  cannot  be  read 
 M'ithout  wonder,  when  it  is  considered,  that  the  author  of 
 
SACRIFICES    OF    CAIN   AND    ABEL.  211 
 
 flock  and  of  the  fruits)  "  seem  to  have  been  of 
 the  same  nature,  and  to  have  had  exactly  the 
 same  meaning."  In  this  I  entirely  agree  with 
 him.  Viewed  in  the  hght  of  reason  merely,  the 
 distinction  made  between  them  by  the  Deity  is 
 utterly  unaccountable.  Sacrifices  being  consi- 
 dered as  gifts,  or  2.%  federal  rites,  or  as  sym- 
 bolical  actions  expressing  the  dispositions  and 
 sentiment  of  the  otierer,  or  in  any  way  that  liu- 
 man  invention  can  be  conceived  to  have  devised 
 them ;  the  actions  of  the  two  brothers  appear  to 
 stand  precisely  on  the  same  ground,  each  bring- 
 ing an  offering  of  that  which  he  respectively 
 possessed,  and  each  thus  manifesting  his  acknow- 
 ledgment and  worship  of  the  great  author  of  his 
 possessions. 
 
 But  w^iat  do  I  infer  from  this  ?  That   reason 
 cannot  untie  the   knot:    and  that  to   revelation 
 
 them  had  spent  a  life,  in  the  continued  endeavour  to  refute 
 the  assertions  Hhich  they  contain.  Tins,  however,  after  all, 
 but  shews  the  vast  difference  there  is  between  the  disputant 
 and  the  enquirer.  The  wonder  is  easily  removed  by  the 
 tiew  already  taken  of  this  matter  in  p.  17  of  this  volume. 
 And,  upon  the  whole,  there  seems  good  reason  to  think, 
 that  had  Dr.  Priestley  been  permitted,  for  a  longer  period, 
 to  enjoy  that  freedom  from  angry  polemics,  which  was  in. 
 dulged  to  the  few  concluding  years  of  his  life,  he  would  have 
 grown  into  a  juster  acquaintance  with  many  of  the  vital 
 truths  of  Scripture,  and  would  have  retracted  many  of  those 
 noxious  opinions  which  he  had  so  long  and  so  assiduously 
 toikd  to  disseminate, 
 
 P  2 
 
f  12  DtFI'ERE^T   HECEPTION    OF   THE 
 
 consequently  we  must  look  for  the  solutioii. 
 Here  the  difficulty  vanishes,  and  all  appears 
 connected  and  satisfactory,  as  I  trust  is  shewn  in 
 the  account  given  of  this  matter  in  the  second 
 of  these  Discourses — see  p.  49 — 55.  vol.  i. 
 
 The  words  of  Cloppenburg  on  this  subject  de- 
 serve to  be  noticed :  *'  Etsi  diversae  oblationi  vi- 
 deatur  occasionem  praebuisse  diversum  vitae  insti- 
 tutum,  ipsi  tamen  diversitati  oblationis  hoc  videtur 
 subesse,  quod  Abel  pecudum  oblatione  cruenta 
 ante  omnia  curavit,  to  iXa,(^mkOv  Sia.  TYjg  ingeoog  ev 
 TCd  uif^ccTij  propitiat'ionern  per  Jidem  in  san- 
 guine, quo  necessario  purificanda  erant  dona  Deo 
 oblata,  Heb.  ix.  22,  23. — Cainus  autem  oblatione 
 sola  Eucharistica  de  fructu  terrae  defungens,  su- 
 pine neglexerit  sacrificium  tXccgiycov,  ut  eo  nomine 
 Deo  displicuerit,  neque  potuerit,  obtinere  Jus- 
 titice  Dei,  cjiice  ex  fide  est,  testimonium,  quod 
 non  perhibebat  Deus,  neglecto  istoc  externo 
 symbolo  supplicationis  ex  fide  pro  remissione 
 peccatorum  obtinenda.  Qaemadniodum  ergo,  in 
 cultu  spirituali,  publicanus  supplicans  cum  pec- 
 catorum B^o[jLoXoy7}(rei,  descendit  in  domum  suani 
 justificatus  prce  pharisseo,  cum  gratiarum  acti- 
 one,  Deo  vovente  decimas  omnium  quse  possi- 
 debat,  Luc.  xviii.  12. — sic  censemus  hac  parte 
 potiorem  fuisse  Abelis  oblationem  pree  oblatione 
 Caini,  quod  ipse  supplicationem  suam  pro  im- 
 petranda  peccatorum  remissione  testatus  sit,  per 
 sacrificii  propitiatorii  cruentam  oblationem,  cum 
 
SACRIFICES    OF   CAIN    AND   ABEL.  213 
 
 alter  dona  sua  eucharistico  ritu  ofTerret,  %&;f;; 
 aiiJioiTox^criccgr  Sacrif'.  Patriarch.  Schola.  p.  1 5« 
 On  the  subject  of  this  Number  see  Kennlc.  Two 
 Dissert,  p.  225 — 238.  and  Barrlngtons  Misc. 
 Sacr,  p.  69 — 7 1 . 
 
 NO.    LXII. ON     THE    TRUE     MEANING     OF    THE 
 
 PHRASE,    HAEIGNA  ©YSIAN,   ATTRIBUTED  TO   THE 
 SACRIFICE    OF    ABEL. 
 
 Page  4g.  (^) — Dr.  Kennicot's  criticism  on 
 this  passage  combined  with  Gen.  iv.  4.  is  too  re- 
 markable to  be  passed  over  in  silence.  The 
 words,  TrXeiova.  6v(riocv,  he  contends,  should  be 
 rendered  a  sacrifice  greater,  or  more,  in  refer- 
 ence to  number,  rather  than  to  value :  for  that^ 
 althc>ugh  TToXvg  m  the  positive  sense  does  some- 
 times signify  excellens,  prcestans,  yet  in  the 
 other  degiees  of  comparison  it  is  never  so  used; 
 but  that  TrXsict^v  has  constantly  the  signification 
 of  plus,  amplior,  copiosior,  or  numerosior :  and 
 for  this  he  refers  to  the  several  lexicons  of  Bu- 
 dasus,  Constantine,  Gesner,  Hederic,  Leigh,  Sca- 
 pula and  Stephens :  and  from  Stephens's  Concor- 
 dance he  says  it  appears,  that  TrXeccdv  has  not 
 the  sense  of  prcestantior,  through  the  whole  of 
 the  New  Testament.  The  idea  of  number,  he 
 says,  necessarily  strikes  us ;  and  therefore  Wick- 
 liffe's,  which  reads  a  much  more  sacrifice,  he 
 affirms  to  be  a  just  translation ;  and  that  Queen 
 
 p3 
 
S14  TRUE    MEANING    OF   THE 
 
 Elizabeth's  version  was  right,  in  preserving  the 
 force  of  this  by  rendering  the  words,  a  greater 
 sacrifice. 
 
 In  conformity  with  these  observations  he  sug- 
 gests an  interpretation  of  Gen.  iv.  4.  which,  I 
 apprehend,  is  pecuhar  to  himself:  namely,  that 
 Cain  brought  a  single  offering,  of  the  fruits  of 
 the  ground ;  and  Abel  a  double  oblation,  consist- 
 ing likewise  of  the  fruits,  and  of  an  animal 
 sacrifice  besides.  His  principal  argument  in 
 support  of  this  novel  idea,  is  derived  from  the 
 use  of  the  word  Mincha  in  this  place ;  the  mean- 
 ing of  which,  he  says,  is  fixed  precisely  in  Levit. 
 ii.  1.  and  confined  to  an  unbloody  oblation,  viz. 
 a  meat-offering ;  or,  as  we  generally  appropriate 
 the  word  meat  to  Jlesh,  more  properly  a  bread- 
 offej^jig.  This  term,  he  argues,  being  here  ap- 
 plied to  Abel's  oblation,  and  being  totally  in- 
 applicable to  the  animal  sacrifice  wliich  he  is 
 expressly  said  to  have  offered,  it  follows^  that  he 
 must  likewise  have  made  an  offering  of  the  fruit 
 of  the  ground  such  as  Cain  had  brought.  And 
 this,  he  contends,  the  very  turn  of  expression 
 in  the  original  strongly  indicates:  for  that,  in 
 .strictness,  the  passage  should  be  rendered,  "  Caii:^ 
 brought  of  the  fruit  of  the  ground,  a  JNlincha  to 
 Jehovah — and  Abel  brouglit  (the  same),  he  also 
 (brought)  of  the  firstlings"  &c.  for  that  in  the 
 words,  N*n  D.I  ^^0^  bir\\  the  particle  d:i  cannot 
 b^  joined  to  the  verb   immediately  preceding, 
 
nAEIONA  ©YUAN    OF   ABEL.  21 0 
 
 from  the  nature  of  the  position,  and  its  con- 
 nexion with  a  second  nominative  case — and  that, 
 agreeably  to  this,  the  Seventy  liave  rendered  the 
 clause,   Kcct  A^eX  yjvsy'rcs,  Kcct  avrog  ocno  rcou  TToct}- 
 
 TOTOKCOV. 
 
 This  criticism  of  Dr.  Kennicot  seems,. how- 
 ever,   unworthy  of  so   great  a   name;    for  even 
 admitting,    that   the  particle  DJ  is  to    be   con- 
 nected, not  with  the  preceding  verb,    but  with 
 the  second  nominative  case,  the  inference  drawn 
 by  Dr.  Kennicot  will  by  no  means  follow  ;  there 
 being  no  form   of  expression   more  familiar  to 
 the  Hebrew,  than  the  emphatic  repetition  of  the 
 person  spoken  of,  with  this  particle  d;!  adjoined. 
 To  adduce  instances   of  this  were  idle,  as  it  is 
 one  of  the  most  common  idioms  of  the  language. 
 Whoever    wishes   for   examples,    however,    may 
 find  them  in  sufficient  plenty,  in  A^old.  Concord. 
 Partic.  Ehr.  pp.  201,  202.     Now,  in  this   ap- 
 plication of  the  particle,  it  is  manifest,  that  the 
 whole  of  Dr.  Kennicofs  construction  falls  to  the 
 ground.      Again,    admitting  the  particle  to   be 
 used   in  the   additive  sense,    also,  as  Dr.  Ken- 
 nicot's  view  of  the  passage  requires,  yet  will  not 
 this  justify  his  translation;  since,  being  necessa- 
 rily connected  with  the  second  nominative  case 
 by  this  writers  own  admission,  it  can  only  mean, 
 that  Abel  also,  as  ivell  as  Cain,  brought  an  ofTer- 
 ing ;  whereas,  according  to  Dr.  Kennicot,  it  must 
 signify,  that  he  brought,   also  of'  the   firstlingSj 
 
 P  4 
 
516  TRUE    MEANING    OF    THE 
 
 &c.  i.  e.  he  brought  not  only  what  Cain  had 
 brought,  but  besides,  or  in  addition  to  that,  of 
 the  firsthngs  of  his  flock;  to  make  out  which 
 translation^  the  word  also  must  be  connected, 
 not  with  the  second  nominative  case  m"!,  or  ccvro^f 
 but  with  the  following  words,  DnDlD,  or  ocTro 
 Tuv  TT^coTOTOKuv,  from  which  it  is  entirely  dis- 
 joined by  the  intervening  pronoun.  Thus  Dr. 
 Kennicot  becomes  inconsistent  with  himself,  hav- 
 ing first  contended  for  the  immediate  conjunc- 
 tion of  the  particle  with  the  second  nominative 
 case,  and  having  then  applied  it  in  such  a  sense 
 as  to  require  its  conjunction,  not  with  this 
 nominative  case,  but  with  another  part  of  the 
 sentence. 
 
 But  he  relies  on  the  force  of  the  word  Mincha, 
 which  is  applied  only  to  Abel's  offering:  the 
 Lord  being  said  to  have  had  respect  to  Ahel  and 
 to  his  MINCHA.  It  is  then  of  importance  to  as- 
 certain the  true  meaning  of  this  word  ;  and  the 
 more  so,  because  if  this  writer's  sense  of  the 
 term  be  admitted,  and  at  the  same  time  his 
 theory  of  the  double  oblation  be  rejected,  the 
 necessary  inference  is,  that  no  animal  was  slain 
 by  Abel,  but  that  the  offering  must  have  been 
 of  the  unbloody  kind,  and  consequently  that  it 
 was.  as  Grotius  has  contended,  merely  an  offer- 
 ing of  the  milk  and  vv()f)l  of  his  flock. 
 
 Now,  it  is  in  the  first  place  to  be  remarked, 
 that  he  explains  the  word  Mincha^  as  apj)lied 
 
nAEIONA  ©YSIAN    OF   ABEL.  2l7 
 
 to  the  offerings  of  Cain  and  Abel,  by  the  exact 
 definition  of  it,   as  we  find  it  specifically   used 
 under  the  law,  where  it  appears  to  be  confined 
 to  offerings  of  the  unbloody  kind,  (See  Two  Dis- 
 sert, p.  188— 192.)   But  if  Dr.  Kennicot  be  right 
 in   explaining   the  Minclia   in  all   cases  by  the 
 strictness  of  the  Levitical  definition,  then  it  ne- 
 cessarily follows,  that  Ca  n  did  not  merely  bring 
 an  offering  of  the  fruits  of  the  ground,  but  that 
 he  brought  the  very  kind  of  meat-offering,  or 
 Mine  ha,  appointed  in  the  ii.  ch.  of  Levit.  where, 
 as  Kennicot  emphatically  observes,  the  descrip- 
 tion of  the  rneat-offering  concludes   with  these 
 words,  i<^n  nmD,  THIS  IS  A   MiNCHA.    Cain's  of- 
 fering, then,  must  have  consisted  of  "  fine  flour 
 with  oil  poured  upon  it,  and  frankincense  placed 
 thereon."     The  exact  quantities  also  of  the  flour 
 and  oil,  as  prescribed  in  the  law,  must  have  been 
 employed.     This  the  force   of  Kennicot's   argu- 
 ment indispensibly  requires.     For  he  contends, 
 that  the  very  dejinition  of  the  Mincha,  as  given 
 in  Leviticus,  "  determines  the  sense  of  the  word 
 absolutely  in  the  five  books  of  Moses:  for  that 
 wherever  the  inspired  author  mentions  the  word 
 Mincha,  as  a  sacrificial  term,  he  must  certainly 
 use  it  in  the  same  sense ;  the  same,  which   had 
 been  settled  upon  it  by  God  himself,  before  Ge- 
 nesis was  composed." 
 
 Now,  it  is  certain,  that  wherever  the  mincha^ 
 properly  so  called^  is  spoken  of  under  the  laiv^ 
 
iJJS  TRUE    MLAMNG    OF    THE 
 
 it  must  be   understood  in    the  sense    expressly 
 given  to  it  hij  the  law;  and  in  this  reference  it  is, 
 that  Buxtorf^  Reland,   Outram,  and  Jos.  Mede, 
 (whom  Kennicot  quotes   in  justification  of  his 
 opinion^)   seem  to  have  spoken  of  the  Mincha, 
 But  surely,  when  applied  to  oblations  antecedent 
 to  the  law,    the  term  is   not  necessarily  to  be 
 taken  in  that  restrained  sense,  to  which   its  ge- 
 neral signification  was  limited,  in  later  times,  by 
 those  appropriate   circumstances   attached    to    it 
 by  the  legal  institution.     It  is  undoubtedly  true, 
 as   Gussetius,    who   is  referred   to  by  Kennicot, 
 remarks,  that  a  Mincha  presented  to  God   sig- 
 nifies an  unbloody  oblation.     But  when  he  says, 
 that  it  always  does  so,  and  that  "  there  is  not 
 one  instance  of  its  being  used  for  an  animal  ob- 
 lation throughout  the  Bible,"  (Comment,  Ling, 
 Ehr.  p.  473.)   he,    in   the  first  place,  begs  the 
 question  respecting  the  sacrifice  of  Abel,  which 
 is  expressly  called  a  Mincha  :  secondly,  he  for^ 
 gets,  that  every  other  instance  of  its  sacrificial 
 application,  is  an  instance  of  the  use  of  the  term 
 undei'  the   law,  by   which  its  original  meaning 
 had   been   narrowed:    and    lastly,    both    he   and 
 Kennicot  materially  err  in  point  of  fact,  the  word 
 Mincha  being  frequently  emplo3^ed  even  under 
 the  law,  to  denote  animal  sacrifices,  as  well  as 
 the  bread  or  flour-offerings.     Thus  in  1  Kings 
 xviii.  29,  3G.    2  Kings  iii.  20.  and  Ezra  ix.  4,  5. 
 we  find  the  morning  and  evening  sacrifices,  which 
 
nAEIONA  0YSIAN  OY    ABEL.         219 
 
 beside  a  bread -offering  and  drink  offering  in- 
 cluded also  the  offering  of  a  lamb,  described  by 
 the  general  appellation  of  Mincha.  In  Judg.  vi. 
 18.  the  same  term  is  applied  to  tbe  offering  of 
 a  kid  with  unleavened  cakes.  And  in  1  Sam.  ii. 
 17.  and  Mai.  i.  13,  14.  it  is  used  in  relation  to 
 animal  sacrifice,  in  a  manner  the  most  explicit 
 and  unqualified.  So  that,  although,  as  Rosen- 
 inuller  on  Levit.  ii.  1.  alErms,  this  word  be  ap- 
 plied per  eminentlajn  to  the  oblation  of  Corn, 
 yet  even  under  the  law  we  find  its  more  general 
 signification  force  its  way. 
 
 This  proves  decisively  the  weakness  of  Dr. 
 Kennicot's  argument  deri\^ed  from  the  supposition 
 that  the  words,  xn  HTOD  (Lev.  ii.  6.)  are  to  be 
 understood  in  the  sense,  this  is  a  mincha,  i.  e. 
 as  marking  the  precise  meaning  of  the  term, 
 wherever  it  occurred  in  a  sacrificial  relation. 
 Indeed  the  circumstance  of  the  various  kinds  of 
 Bread-offerings  comprehended  under  the  term 
 Mincha,  which  Kennicot  himself  admits  to  have 
 existed,  (p.  I9O — 19-0  ^^^^  ^^  which  there  were 
 not  fewer  than  five,  proves  that  this  passage  could 
 not  have  been  intended  here  as  conjining  the 
 term  to  the  specific  oblation  to  which  it  refers  ; 
 and  that  it  could  only  mean,  that  this  oblation 
 was  one  of  those,  which  might  be  included  under 
 the  term  Mincha,  Vatablus  renders  the  words, 
 ^*  Mums  est :  \,  e,  tale  est  munus  quod  offerri 
 
220  TRUE    MEANING    OF    THE 
 
 debet  Deo."  See  also  Fagius,  Vatahlus^  Castalio^ 
 on  Exod.  XXX.  9. 
 
 It  is  certain  that  the  true  and  original  signifi- 
 cation of  the  word,  is  that  of  an  offering  presented 
 to  a  superior.  Thus  we  find  it  in  Gen.  xxxii.  20. 
 and  xliii.  11.15.  in  which  places  it  is  used  for 
 the  purpose  of  appeasing:  again^  in  2  Chr.  xxxii. 
 23.  and  Ps.  Ixxii.  10.  where  it  is  applied  to  offer- 
 ings brought  by  strangers  to  the  temple  at  Jeru- 
 salem: and  also  in  I  Kings  x.  25.  2  Chr.  ix,  24. 
 2  Kings  viii.  8,  9.  where  it  is  used  to  denote  the 
 gifts  sent  to  earthly  princes.  The  word  appears 
 to  be  derived  from  an  Arabic  verb  signifying 
 donavit :  see  Rosenm,  and  Le  Clerc  on  Lev.  ii.  1. 
 and  Schindl.  Lexic\  Pentag.  Parkhurst  derives 
 it  from  the  Hebrew  verb  n^  quievit,  posuit,  and 
 Calasiofrom  r\T\l,  duxit,  without  however  making 
 any  change  in  the  signification.  From  this  it 
 follows,  that  all  sacrificial  offerings,  whether 
 bloody  or  unbloody,  must  fall  under  the  general 
 denomination,  MincJia,  That  it  is  taken  in  this 
 jarge  sense  by  all  Lexicographers,  Le  Clerc  (on 
 Lev.  ii.  1.)  positively  asserts.  See  also  Castell, 
 and  especially  Parkhurst,  on  the  word. 
 
 Drusius  (on  Hebr.  xi.  4  )  affirms,  that  it  is  of 
 greater  extent  than  is  commonly  admitted. 
 Ainsworth  observes  (on  Lev.  ii.  1  )  that  it  "  was 
 generallij  any  solemn  gift  or  present,  to  God,  or 
 man:  in  special,  a  present  or  sacrifice  unto  God: 
 
HAEIONA  GYriAN    OF    AbSL.  221 
 
 more  specially,  an  offering  of  the  fruits  of  the 
 earth/'  Sykes  also  (Essay,  &c.  p.  1 7.)  uses  the 
 word  in  the  same  general  sense,  whilst  he  admits, 
 that  "  later  use  has  pretty  much  confined  it  to 
 oblations  of  flour  or  meal." 
 
 How  little  reason  then  Dr.  Kennicot  had  for 
 introducing  so  novel  and  dangerous  a  criticism,  is, 
 1  trust,  upon  the  whole  sufficiently  evident.     How 
 inconsistent  also  it  is  with  the  ideas  of  sacrifice, 
 which  he  holds,  in  common   with  the  doctrine 
 maintained  in  these  discourses,  will  appear,  when 
 it   is   considered,   that  if  in   the  case  of  Abel's 
 oblation,  the  word  Mhicka  be  supposed  to  relate, 
 not  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  animal,  but  solely  to  an 
 offering  of  the  fruits  wdth  which  it  was  accompa- 
 nied, it  must  follow,  since  God  is  said  to  have 
 had  respect  to  his  MincJiay  that  it  was  not  the 
 animal  sacrifice,  but  the   offering  of  the  fruits, 
 which   conciliated  the  divine  regard.     And  thus 
 the  theory,  which  pronounces  the  animal  sacrifice 
 to  have  been  originally  enjoined,  as  a  type  of  the 
 great  sacrifice  of  Christ ;  and  which  ascribes  to 
 this,  as  the  instituted  expression  of  the  true  faith, 
 the  superiority    of  Abel's   offering  over  that   of 
 Cain,  is  at   once  overturned.     And  yet  to  this 
 very  theory  it  is,  that  Dr.  Kennicot,  in  his  Dis- 
 sertation on  the  Oblations  of  Cain  and  Abel,  has 
 given  his  warmest  support. 
 
 Perhaps  it  may  not  be  amiss  here,  to  endea- 
 vour to  fix  the  true  meaning  and  value  of  the 
 I 
 
2  22  TRUE    MEANING    OF    THE 
 
 sacrificial  terms,  pnp,  nraD,  and  mi,  Corbarii 
 Mincha  and  Zehach  ;  and  the  more  particularly, 
 as  their  relative  force  seems  not  to  have  been 
 staged  with  exactness  by  any  late  writer.  The 
 first  of  these  terms^  being  derived  from  mp,  sig- 
 nifies whatever  was  hrought  to  God  before  the 
 altar;  whether  dismissed,  as  the  scape-goat; 
 dedicated  to  the  service  of  the  Sanctuary,  as  the 
 sacred  vessels,  and  the  conductors  of  the  sacred 
 rites,  the  Levites  ;  or  offered  up,  as  the  sacrifices 
 properly  so  called,  which  were  consumed  at  the 
 altar.  Again,  the  Mincha  was  an  oblation,  which 
 was  of  the  nature  of  a  sacrifice,  being  Consumed 
 at  the  altar,  whether  it  consisted  of  things  ani- 
 mate or  inanimate,  although,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
 Mosaic  institution  in  a  good  degree  narrowed  its 
 application ;  confining  it,  for  the  most  part,  to 
 what  is  called  the  meat  offering,  or  as  it  should  in 
 strictness  be  denominated  the  bread  or  fioiir* 
 offering.  And  lastly,  the  Zebach  was  the  obla- 
 tion of  an  animal  ^/am  in  sacrifice.  Thus,  Cor- 
 ban  is  the  most  general  term,  including  all  sorts  of 
 oflferings,  or  dedications,  to  God  in  his  temple, 
 Mincha  is  the  next  in  order,  applying  to  those 
 offerings  which  were  consumed  at  the  altar.  And 
 Zebach  is  the  species  infirna  in  the  scale,  relating 
 only  to  the  animal  sacrifice. 
 
 But  to  return  to  Dr.  Kennicot,  and  the  imme- 
 diate subject  of  this  note.  His  remark  on  the 
 word  ttXhmv,  that  it  necessarily  involves  the  idea 
 
 1 
 
nAEIONA  GYSIAN   OF    ABEL.  223 
 
 of  number,  becomes  now  totally  inapplicable. 
 The  idea  of  a  double  oblation  in  the  case  of  Abel, 
 which  it  was  intended  to  support,  has  been  shewn 
 to  be  intirely  groundless  ;  and  indeed  his  observa- 
 tions on  the  force  of  the  word  'ttXziuv  itself,  seem 
 not  less  so.  That  "  the  notion  of  number  h 
 included  in  every  application  of  the  word  through- 
 out the  New  Testament,"  is  so  far  from  being 
 true,  that  numerous  passages  may  be  cited,  in 
 which  no  such  idea  can  possibly  attach  to  the 
 word.  Thus,  in  Mat.  vi.  25.  Is  not  the  soul 
 more  (TrXsiccv)  than  meat?- — and  again,  xii.  41. 
 Behold,  a  greater  (TrXeiuv)  than  Jonas  is  here. 
 Many  other  such  instances  may  be  seen  in  Ste- 
 phanus's  Greek  Concordance,  to  which  Dr.  Ken- 
 nicot  has  referred  in  support  of  his  opinion.  But 
 ^the  true  force  of  the  word,  both  in  the  positive 
 and  the  comparative,  may  be  best  seen  in  Schleus- 
 ner's  Lexicon.  It  will  thence  appear,  that  the 
 just  value  of  the  expression  in  the  passage  in 
 Hebrews  has  been  given  in  the  text:  a  more 
 ample,  or  fuller  sacrifice,  expressing  in  empha- 
 tical  terms,  that  which  partook  more  largeli/ 
 and  essentially  of  the  true  nature  and  virtue 
 of  sacrifice.  Vatablus  renders  the  word  nhe- 
 rhrem. 
 
(     «24      ) 
 
 NO.    LXIII. ON    THE    NATURE    AND    GROUNDS    OF* 
 
 THE    FAITH    EVIDENCED    BY    THE    SACRIFICE    OF 
 ABEL. 
 
 Page  50.  ("*) — Faith  (we  are  informed  by  the 
 apostle,  Romans  x.  1/.)  cometh  hy  hearing,  arid 
 hearing  by  the  word  of  God,     This  account  of 
 Faith,   combined  with   the  numerous  examples 
 exhibited  in  the  xith  ch.  of  Hebrews,  in  illustra- 
 tion of  its  nature,  can  leave  us  at  no  loss  to  pro- 
 nounce, that  Abel's  offering  was  in  obedience  to 
 a  divine  revelation.     For  it  must  be   remarked, 
 that    in    the   several    instances   adduced    in    this 
 chapter,  of  persons  actuated  by  this  exalted  prin- 
 ciple,   the   belief  of  something  declared^'  and  a 
 mode   of  action   conformable  to  that  belief,  are 
 uniformly   exhibited.     In  like  manner,  then,  as 
 Noah,  Abraham,  and  the  rest,  are  represented,  as 
 acting  in  consequence  of  a  divine  command,  plac- 
 ing an  entire  reliance  in  the  promise  of  him  who 
 commanded;    so  Abel,  in  the  sacrifice  which  he 
 offered,   must  be  supposed  to  have  acted  under 
 the  same  impression., — believing  what   God  had 
 promised,   and  therefore   sacrificing  as  God  had 
 ordered.      Indeed,    as    Heidegger    remarks,    the 
 divine  revelation  was  in  his  case  even  more  neces- 
 sary, than  in  any  other  of  those  mentioned. 
 
 The    sacred  writer   again  informs  us,    at   the 
 13th  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  that  Abel  and 
 
THE    FAITH    EVIDENCED    BY,    &C.  225 
 
 all  the  others  whom  he  had  named,  died  in  faith 
 (i.  e.  as  Hallet  paraphrases  it,  "  retained  their 
 faith,  until  their  death,  or  the  time  of  their  leaving 
 the  world")  not  having  received  the  'promises, 
 (not  having  received  the  completion  of  them: 
 that  being  reserved  for  later  times,  as  is  intimated 
 in  the  concluding  part  of  the  chapter,  and  is 
 clearly  expressed  in  Acts  xiii.  32,  33  :  // e  declare 
 unto  you  glad  tidings,  how  thut  the  promise 
 ivhich  ivcts  made  unto  the  fathers,  God  hath 
 FULFILLED  the  same  unto  us  their  children) — 
 but  having  seen  them  afar  off ;  and  icere  per- 
 suaded of  them,  and  embraced  them. 
 
 Now,  that  these  promises  included  the  promise 
 of  the  Messiah,  Kennicot  says,  is  plain:  "  first, 
 because  this  is  the  promise,  peculiarly  and 
 emphatically  so  called  throughout  Scripture:  and 
 secondly,  because  that  the  temporal  promises, 
 respecting  the  land  of  Canaan,  cannot  alone,  if 
 at  all,  be  meant  here,  as  the  apostle  speaks  of  all 
 the  patriarchs,  whom  he  had  mentioned  in  the 
 beginning  of  the  chapter:  and  Abraham,  who  is 
 one  of  those  mentioned,  is  expressly  said  to  have 
 sojourned  in  the  land  of  Promise ;  whilst,  on  the 
 other  hand,  Abel,  Enoch,  and  Noah,  (three  of 
 the  patriarchs  included  in  the  w^ord  all,)  had  not 
 received  the  promise  of  entering  the  land  of 
 Canaan,  So  that  some  other  promise,  made  in 
 the  first  ages,  and  frequently  repeated,  must  be 
 ihat  to  which  the  apostle  here  alludes.     And  what 
 
 VOL.  II.  O 
 
226  THE    FAITH    EVIDENCED    BY 
 
 promise  can  that  be,  but  the  promise  of  a  future 
 Redeemer  made  to  Adam  ?" — the  promise,  that 
 the  seed  of  the  ivoman  should  bruise  the  serpent's 
 head :  a  promise,  which  was  to  be  commemorated 
 in  the  patriarchal  and  all  succeeding  sacrifices. 
 until  the  seed  should  come.  Agreeably  to  this 
 the  Homily  on  Faith  applies  this  xith  ch.  of 
 Hebrews,  stating,  that  holy  men  of  old,  although 
 they  were  not  named  Christian,  yet  exercised  a 
 Christian  faith  ;  seeking,  as  we  do,  all  the  benefits 
 of  God  the  Father,  through  the  merits  of  his 
 So7i  Jesus  Christ;  and  differing  from  us  only  in 
 this,  that  whereas  "  they  looked  when  Christ 
 should  come,  we  be  in  the  time  ivhen  he  ii 
 come,*' 
 
 To  the  fulfilment  of  this  promise  then,  was  the 
 faith  of  Abel  directed ;  and  the  enjoined  mani- 
 festation of  this  faith,  the  apostle  justifies  us  in 
 pronouncing,  to  have  been  the  kind  of  sacrifice 
 which  he  offered  ;  and  which,  as  being  of  the  true 
 nature  of  the  sacrifice  required  of  the  faithful, 
 procured  from  God  that  acceptance,  and  wit- 
 nessing of  his  offerings,  which  was  refused  to 
 Cain.  See  Ileideg,  Hist,  Patr.  Exerc.  iii.  §.  5S. 
 tom.  i. — Shuckf,  Connect,  vol.  i.  pp.  86,  87,^-^ 
 Kennic.  Two  Dissert,  p.  212 — 215.  and  Ed- 
 wards's Survey  of  the  various  Methods,  pp.  99, 
 loo.  See  also  IVitsius,  (Misc.  Sac.  Lib.  II. 
 Diss,  ii.  ^.  7 — 10.)  who  removes  the  objections 
 brought  by    Spencer  against  tlie  application  of 
 
THE    SACRIFICE    OF    Ali^L,  2^7 
 
 this  chapter  of  Hebrews,  here  contended  for;  and 
 Jenn,  Jew,  Ant.  vol.  i.  p.  57 — 59.  where  some 
 excellent  remarks  are  to  be  found,  on  the  diffi- 
 culty, which  the  mention  of  Jephthah,  in  the 
 catalogue  of  distinguished  believers,  might  appear 
 to  create. 
 
 It  must  be  confessed  thnt  certain  commenta- 
 tors, among  whom  are  to  be  reckoned  Grotius, 
 Hammond,  Le  Clerc,  RosenmuUer,  and  Primate 
 Newcome  also  if  I  right!}/  understand  him,  inter- 
 pret the  promises  alluded  to  in  this  chapter  as 
 temporal ;  and  are  consequently  reduced  to  the 
 necessity  of  confining  the  expression,  uTOt  TTUvrs^i 
 ALL  these,  in  the  13th  verse,  to  some  of  those 
 that  had  been  named ;  or  of  referring  it  to  all 
 the  descendants  of  Abraham,  of  whom  mention 
 had  been  made  in  the  sentence  immediately  pre- 
 ceding. Now,  it  is  obvious,  as  Whitby  remarks, 
 that  all  the  descendants  of  Abraham  did  wof  die 
 in  faith:  and  how,  on  the  other  hand,  any  parti- 
 cular individuals  of  those  before  named,  can  be 
 selected  by  an  expression,  which  comprehends 
 ALL,  it  is  not  easy  to  discover.  And  if  all,  who 
 had  been  before  named,  are  referred  to^  (as  is 
 unavoidable,)  then,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the 
 promises  cannot  have  been  temporal,  there  being 
 some  to  whom  no  temporal  promises  were  made, 
 as  Abel  and  Enoch.  As  to  the  difficulty  arising 
 from  the  declaration,  that  the  persons  enumerated 
 had  DIED  injaitky  when  it  is  known  that  Enoch 
 
228  THE    FAITH    EVIDENCED    BY 
 
 did  7wt  die  J  but  was  translated;  this  is  easily 
 removed  by  considering,  that  the  stress  in  this 
 clause  is  not  laid  upon  the  death  of  those  be- 
 lievers, but  upon  their  having  retained  their  Jaith 
 through  lije,  as  is  well  marked  in  Hallefs  para- 
 phrase, quoted  in  p.  225  of  this  volume,  and  in 
 the  common  use  of  language  would  naturally  be 
 conveyed  in  the  words  here  used  by  the  apostle. 
 See  Drnsins^  in  loc.  who  supplies  several  instances 
 of  a  similar  latitude  of  expression  in  Scripture. 
 Hallet,  Doddridge,^ and  Whitby,  deserve  to  be 
 consulted  upon  this  entire  chapter.  They  furnish 
 a  complete  answer  to  the  arguruents  of  those,  who 
 contend  for  a  temporal  promise. 
 
 I  shall  only  add  here  an  observation  of  Eisner, 
 on  the  extravagant  eagerness,  shewn  by  two  of 
 these  commentators,  Grotius,  and  Le  Clerc,  in 
 defence  of  the  temporal  solution.  Having  re- 
 marked, that  Le  Clerc  condemns  Hammond,  for 
 his  rni^stical  interpretation  of  the  city  ivhich  has 
 foundations^  as  implying  an  everlasting  mansion 
 in  the  Heavens;  and  that  he  approves  of  the  idea 
 of  Grotius,  that  Jerusalem  was  the  city  here 
 intended:  hc'cxclaims,  *^  Mira  est  viri  illius  t?j 
 UTToSeo-ei  SaXevovTog  imprudentia :  quomodo  quaeso 
 exspectasse  illam  urbem  Abrahamus  dicetur, 
 quam  post  multa  demum  sascula  posteris  suis 
 cessuram  noverat  a  Deo  edoctus  ? — quomodo 
 deinde  Deus  conditor  vocabitur  Hierosolifince 
 terrestri^? — denique   infra,   v.    iG.   coclum  esse 
 
THE    SACRIFICE    OF   ABEL.  229 
 
 Ham  urbem  apparet,  nam  patria  coelestls  voca- 
 tur.  Simplicius  quoque  ad  Epictetum,  cap.  xii. 
 p.  77-  i"  morte  reperiri  t)?i/  oiXrfdivTjv  'ttcct^iSoc  dixit, 
 de  beat  is  sedibus.  Observat.  Sac)\  torn.  ii. 
 p.  367. 
 
 NO.    LXIV. — ^ON   THE    PROBABLE   TIME   AND    OCCA- 
 SION   OF    THE    INSTITUTION    OF    SACRIFICE. 
 
 Page  5l.  (^) — The  event,  which,  according 
 to  the  principle  of  sacrifice  maintained  in  the  page 
 here  referred  to,  gave  birth  to  the  estabhshment 
 of  the  rite,  seems  obvio^asly  to  determine  the  time 
 of  its  institution.  The  commission  of  sin,  and 
 the  promise  of  a  Redeemer,  being  the  grand  ob- 
 jects of  its  reference,  no  period  seems  more  fit 
 for  its  appointment,  than  that,  at  which  Sin  first 
 entered,  and  the  Froinise  was  first  dehvered: 
 that  is,  the  period  immediately  succeeding  the 
 Fall  And  indeed,  the  manner  in  wliich  the  first 
 sacrifice  recorded  in  Scripture  is  introduced  in 
 the  narrative,  strongly  indicates  the  pre-existence 
 of  the  rite;  the  words  D'^Q^  Vp!D,  intimating  (as 
 Kennicot  has  shewn  in  the  2d  of  his  Two  Dis- 
 sertations, p.  ill — 18.5.)  a  stated  tirne  for  the 
 performance  of  this  duty:  and  the  whole  turn  of 
 phrase  marki>}g  a  previous  and  famihar  observ- 
 ance. See  Richie's  Peculiar  Doctrines,  Part  IL 
 §.42.  vol.  i.  p.  138. 
 
 a3 
 
230    THE  TIME  AND  OCCASION  OF  THK 
 
 Jf,  then,  sacrifice  be  admitted  to  have  been 
 coeval  with  the  fall,  every  argument,  which  has 
 been  adduced  to  prove  that  Abel  offered  sacrifices 
 in  obedience  to  the  divine  injunction,  will  apply 
 with  encreased  force  to  shew,  that  Adam  must 
 have  done  the  same.  Scripture  also  supplies 
 additional  confirmation,  by  the  fact,  which  it 
 relates,  of  the  first  pair  having  been,  by  the 
 express  command  of  God,  clothed  with  the  skins 
 of  beasts.  Much  as  some  have  endeavoured  to 
 depreciate  the  value  of  this  fact,  it  will  be  found, 
 when  more  closely  examined,  to  supply  a  strong 
 evidence  on  this  head.  That  the  beasts,  whose 
 skins  were  allotted  for  covering  to  our  first 
 parents,  had  been  slain,  is  natural  to  suppose ;  as 
 it  is  not  reasonable  to  think  that  any  animals  had 
 died  of  themselves,  so  soon  after  their  creation, 
 and  without  having  yet  experienced  any  severi- 
 ties of  climate  or  situation.  Now,  there  were  no 
 purposes  for  wdiich  they  could  have  been  slain, 
 unless  those  of  food,  sacrifice,  or  covering.  That 
 they  were  not  slain  for  food,  has  been,  it  is  hoped, 
 sufficiently  established  in  Number  LII.  Neither 
 can  it  be  admitted,  that  they  were  slain  nierely 
 for  covering;  since  it  cannot  be  supposed,  that 
 Adam  would,  immediately  after  the  sentence  of 
 the  divine  displeasure,  have  dared  to  kill  God's 
 creatures  without  his  permission  ;  nor  is  it  likely, 
 that  God  should  order  them  to  be  slain  solely  for 
 their  skins,  when  n  an  could  have  been  supplied 
 
INSTITUTION    OF   SACRIFICE.  231 
 
 with  sufficient  covering  from  the  hair  and  wool; 
 and  when,  the    flesh  of  the  animal    not  being 
 permitted    for    food,  there  must   have  been  an 
 unnecessary  waste   of  the  creatures.     It  follows, 
 then,  that  they  had   been   slain  with  a  view  to 
 sacrifice.     This  alone  supplies  an   adequate  rea- 
 son.    The  whole  of  the  animal  (if  the  offering  be 
 supposed  an  holocaust,  as  there  is  good  reason  to 
 conclude  all  to  have  been,   *  until  the  Mosaic 
 institution)  would  here  be  devoted  to  the  uses  of 
 religion,  except  the   skin,  which  would  be  em- 
 ployed for  the  purpose   of  cloathing.     And  even 
 this  might  not  be  without  its  moral  and  religious 
 end,  as  it  might  serve  to  our  first  parents  for  a 
 constant  memorial  of  their  transgression ;  of  the 
 death  which  it  merited  ;  and  of  the  divine  mercy 
 by  which   that  death   was  withheld.     It  seems 
 also  not  unlikely,  that  from  this  institution  was 
 derived  the  appointment  in  Lev.  vii.  8.  that  the 
 priest  should  have  the  sVin  of  the  Burnt-offering. 
 See  particularly,  on  the  subject  of  this  Number, 
 Kennic,  Two  Diss.  pp.  67—70.  227,   228.  and 
 mts.  Misc.  Sacr,  Lib.  II.  Diss.  ii.  §.  12.— also 
 Heideg.  Histor.  Patr.  Exercit.  v.  §.  16.    Delan. 
 Rev.  Exam.  vol.  i.  diss.  viii.  p.  99—103.     Bar^ 
 ringt.  Miscell.  Sacr.  vol.  iii.  pp.  17.  67-     Shuchf. 
 Connect,  vol.  i.  b,  2.  pp.  80,  81.  and  Patr.  and 
 Ainsw.  on  Gen.  iii.  21. 
 
 *  See  pp.  22.  207,  208.  of  this  volume—also  Number 
 
 LXVII. 
 
 a4 
 
2o2  THE    TIME    AND    OCCASION    OF    THE 
 
 A  translation,  indeed,  has  been  given  of  the 
 passage  in  Gen.  iii.  9.  which  subverts  the  entire 
 of  the  argument  derived  from  the  sMns  given  to 
 the  first  pair  for  clothing,  by  referring  the  word 
 "n;;  to  the  skin  of  Adam  and  his  wife,  and  reading 
 it  in  this  sense,  "  that  God  made  for  them  coats, 
 or  coverings  of  their  skin."  Cloppenburg  re- 
 marks, (Sacrrf.  Patriarch,  Sch.  p.  13.)  that  the 
 w^ord  "nv  is  never  to  be  found  in  Scripture,  in  any 
 other  signification,  than  that  of  the  hide  of  an 
 animal.  Kennicot  also  concurs  in  this  criticism, 
 with  one  slight  and  conjectural  exception.  But 
 the  truth  is,  there  are  many  exceptions,  which 
 these  distinguished  scholars  must  have  hastily 
 overlooked.  Exod.  xxxiv.  30.  Job  x.  1 1 ,  xix. 
 20.  26.  with  others  which  may  be  seen  in  Cbc- 
 ceius,  Schindler,  and  Calasio,  and  need  not  be 
 enumerated,  supply  examples  as  strong  as  that, 
 which  has  been  noticed  by  Kennicot,  from  Exod. 
 xxii.  26.  But,  although  the  word  is  in  these 
 several  instances  applied  to  the  human  skin,  yet 
 the  form  and  construction  of  the  passage  before 
 us  will  not  admit  it  here.  It  is  here  introduced 
 ahsnlnteli/,  and  without  any  of  those  connecting 
 parts  of  speech  which  might  mark  its  relation  to 
 the  persons  spoken  of,  whilst  in  the  passages  above 
 referred  to,  the  relation  is  always  so  pointed  out. 
 On  the  supposition  that  the  human  skin  is  here 
 meant,  the  last  named  passage,  viz.  Fxod.  xxii. 
 26'.  exactly  corresponds  to  this,   the  raiment  J'or 
 
INSTITUTION    OF    SACRIFICE.  233 
 
 his  sMn,  in  the  one,  agreeing  precisely  with  the 
 covering  for  their  shin,  in  the  other.  But  there 
 the  word  has  the  preposition  b,  and  the  pronoun 
 suffixed  to  it,  ni>*S:  in  like  manner,  both  of 
 these,  or  at  least  the  suffixed  pronoun  (Dliy) 
 would  undoubtedly  have  been  used  here,  had 
 the  skiu  of  the  persons  covered  been  intended; 
 whereas  the  word  my  is  introduced  absolute  and 
 unconnected.  See  Kennic.  Two  Dissert,  pp, 
 68,  69.  Accordingly  the  LXX,  and  all  the 
 antient  versions,  except  the  Chaldee,  have  uni- 
 formly rendered  the  sentence  in  its  present  re- 
 ceived acceptation. 
 
 So  little  deservinoj  of  serious  attention,  did  the 
 translation,  which  has  been  here  discussed,  appear 
 to  Dr.  Lardner,  that  in  his  Essay  on  the  Mosaic 
 account,  &c.  (Kippis*s  edit.  vol.  xi.  pp.  "iS^,  249.) 
 when  engaged  in   a  direct  examination   of  the 
 subject,   he  does  not  condescend  to  notice  it,  at 
 the  same  time  that  he  observes   upon  Le  Clerc*s 
 interpretation,  which  is   scarcely  less  extraordi- 
 nary:  viz.  that  the  word,  m^ilJ,  does  not  signify 
 coats,  but  tents :   so  that  the  covering  provided 
 for  Adam  and  his  wife,  were  not  coats,  but  tents, 
 of  skins.     In  this,  however,  Le  Clerc  has  nothing 
 to  support  him  but  his  own  ingenuity  of  inven- 
 tion.     The   word   >^y\rS2,   which    is  exactly  the 
 Greek  %ito)v,   being  never   used    to   signify  any 
 thing  but  a  garment.     And  even  if  it  were,  it 
 seems  rather  extraordinary,  as  Kennicot  remarks. 
 
234  THE    TIME    AND    OCCASION,    &C. 
 
 that  God  should  take  care  to  make  a  tent  or 
 habitation  for  the  first  pair  in  Paradise,  when, 
 in  the  very  next  words  we  read  of  God's  turning 
 them  out  of  Paradise.  This  however  is  not 
 the  only  instance,  in  which  Le  Clerc  has  in- 
 dulged an  arbitrary  fancy,=^  in  his  Comments  on 
 Scripture. 
 
 *  AVhoevcr  wishes  to  be  satisfied  of  the  levity  of  Le  Clerc's 
 occasional  strictures  on  Scripture,  may  consult  the  dissertation 
 of  JVitsuis,  on  the  Author  of  the  Pentateuch.^  in  his  MisceL 
 lanea  Sacra.,  (torn.  i.  p.  106 — 130.)  in  which  he  discusses,  at 
 considerable  length  and  with  much  force,  the  objections  urgod 
 by  Le  Clerc  against  the  received  opinion  that  the  Pentateuch 
 was  the  work  of  Moses.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  Le  Clerc 
 afterwards  retraced  his  steps ;  and  in  the  third  dissertation  of 
 the  Prolegomena  of  his  commentary  on  the  Old  Testament, 
 refuted  the  several  objections  which  he  had  himself  before 
 advanced.  The  rashness,  however,  which,  upon  so  important 
 a  subject,  could  have  led  to  so  wild  a  theory  as  this  writer  had 
 set  up,  in  opposition  to  the  suffrage  of  all  antiquity,  to  the 
 authority  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  and  to  the  plain  evidence 
 of  the  thing  itself,  is  not  done  away  with,  although  its  mis- 
 chiefs may  be  mitigated,  by  his  subsequent  recantation. 
 Having  made  mention  of  the  objections  raised  against  the 
 authenticity  of  the  five  books  of  Moses,  I  think  it  right  to 
 direct  the  young  reader,  in  addition  to  the  dissertation  of 
 Witsius  already  noticed,  to  Bishop  Watson'' s  Apology  for 
 the  Bible  in  answer  to  Paine^  and  to  Dr,  Graves^s  Lectures 
 on  the  Pentateuch, 
 
(     235     ) 
 
 MO.    LXV. ON    THE     TRUE     INTERPRETATION     OF 
 
 THE     PASSAGE,     GEN.    IV.    7-    CONTAINING    GOD's 
 EXPOSTULATION    WITH    CAIN. 
 
 Page  54.  (^) — The  plain,    natural,  and  signi- 
 ficant interpretation,  which  in  the  page  here  no- 
 ticed has  been  given  to  a  part  of  Scripture,  which 
 had   long  exercised,  but  to  puzzle  and  perplex 
 the   Comnnentators,    was   first   proposed   by  the 
 learned   Lightfoot,    (see  his    JVorhs,  vol.  ii.  pp. 
 1085.    1243.)    and   has   since   been    adopted   by 
 Kennicot,    (Two   Dissert,   pp.    21 6,  2 1/,)    and 
 Pilkington  (Remarks,  &c.  p.  163.)    The  use  of 
 the  word  nj^^iOa  -^iw,   for  a  Sin-offering,   is  so 
 familiar,  that  it  can  scarcely  be  necessary  to  ad- 
 duce instances  in   proof  of  it.     Examples  of  it 
 may  be  seen  in  Exod.  xxix.  14.  xxx.  10.    Levit. 
 iv.  3.  21.  24.  29.  vi.  25. — 2  Kings  xii.  16.  Ezech. 
 xlv.  23.  Hos.  iv.  8.  and  in  numerous  other  pas- 
 sages.    On  this  idiom,  see  also  what  has  been 
 said    in  p.   235  —  242,    of  the  first   vol.    of  this 
 work,    and  in   PilJungtons  Remarks,  pp.  163, 
 164. 
 
 But  the  translation  of  the  passage  here  given, 
 receives  its  strongest  confirmation  from  the  pe- 
 culiar force  of  tlie  word  p"),  which  is  connected 
 with  rii^Dn,  and  which  strictly  implies  couching, 
 or  lying  down  as  a  beast.  For  this  see  Schind- 
 fer  and   Cast  ell  on   the  word.     And  indeed  all 
 
253  TRUE    INTERPRETATION 
 
 the  Commentators  have  heen  ohhged  to  admit 
 this  peiise  of  the  phrase,  even  whilst  they^  adopt- 
 ed a  translation  of  the  passage,  with  which  it 
 seems  but  httle  consistent:  the  idea  of  Sin  lying 
 couched  at  the  door,  being,  to  sav  the  least  of 
 it,  a  hold  image.  Yet  in  this  sense  they  have 
 been  compelled  to  apply  the  term.  See  I agiu.s^ 
 Vatablus,  Clanus,  Dathe,  and  Roseiimuller. 
 But  the  word  Sin-offering  being  substituted  for 
 Sin,  the  whole  difriculty  is  removed,  and  the 
 peculiar  propriety  of  the  term  employed  in- 
 stantly appears. 
 
 There  is  yet  another  circumstance  of  some 
 weight  which  is  n  marked  by  Parhhurst^  and 
 is  also  noticed  by  Castalio,  Dathe  and  Rosen- 
 midler,  although  they  have  nor  drawn  from  it 
 the  natural  inference ;  namely,  that  riKJOn,  which 
 is  femmine,  is  here  connected  with  a  word  of 
 the  masculine  gender,  yi"!;  which,  as  Parkhurst 
 judiciously  observes,  is  perfectly  consistent,  on 
 the  supposition  that  /ni>?:Dn  denotes  a  Sin-offer- 
 ing: for  then  according  to  a  cor.struction  com- 
 mon in  Hebrew,  which  refers  the  adjective  not  to 
 the  word  but  to  the  tiling  understood  by  it,  the 
 masculine  yi")  is  here  combined  with  the  animal, 
 which  was  to  be  the  sin-ofTering.  In  conformity 
 with  this  reasoning  it  will  h*^  found,  that  r^>yDn, 
 in  other  parts  of  Scripture  where  it  is  used  for  a 
 Sin-offerings  is,  though  feminine  itself,  con- 
 nected  with   a  masculine  adjunct.     See  Exod, 
 
OF   THE    PASSAGE,    GEN.  IV.  7.  237 
 
 xxix.  14.  Levit.  iv.  21.  24.  v.  9.  and  other  places 
 of  Leviticus,  where  the  masculine  pronoun  h^in  is 
 used  instead  of  the  feminine  K^n.  But  in  Gen. 
 xviii.  20.  XX.  9.  Exod.  xxxii.  2 J.  30.  and  other 
 places,  where  the  word  occurs  in  its  original  sig- 
 nification of  Sin,  it  has  constantly  the  adjective 
 connected  in  the  feinlnine. 
 
 Dr.  Geddes  was  either  not  aware  of  this  pecu- 
 liarit}^  or  did  not  chuse  to  notice  it,  whilst  he 
 laboured  so  hard  in  his  Critical  Remarhs  (p.  54.) 
 to  shew,  that  there  were  no  authorities  to  jus- 
 tify the  connecting  iHKJOn  a  feminine^  in  its  or- 
 dinary sense  of  sin^  with  a  masculine  adjunct. 
 He  has  not  taken  the  like  pains  to  shew,  that 
 such  a  connexion  is  unauthorized,  in  the  appli- 
 cation of  the  word  in  the  sense  of  sin-offering : 
 in  which  particular  application  it  is,  that  this 
 anomalous  connexion  is  specially  contended  for. 
 He  has  merely  contented  himself  with  asserting, 
 (p.  55.)  that  the  rendering  the  word  in  this  sense 
 is  liable  to  the  same  objections,  which  he  has 
 urged  against  its  application  to  the  sense  of  sin. 
 This  he  has  asserted,  whilst  it  will  appear  upon 
 a  single  glance,  that  to  every  objection  which  he 
 has  advanced,  this  signification  of  the  term  sup- 
 plies an  immediate  and  satisfactorv  reply. 
 
 The  principal  difficulty  attending  the  trans- 
 lation of  the  verse  in  question,  has  arisen  from 
 the  apparent  want  of  connexion  between  the  con- 
 cluding clause  and  those  which  go  before.      If 
 
238  TRUE    INTERPRETATION 
 
 however  the  context  be  well  considered,  the  con- 
 nexion becomes  clear  and  convincing.  Of  Cain, 
 v^'ho  was  filled  with  rage  at  tlie  preference  given 
 to  his  brother  Abel  by  the  acceptance  of  his  sa- 
 crifice whilst  his  own  was  rejected,  Jehovah 
 demands  the  reason  of  his  anger :  ^^  If'  thou 
 doest  ivell  (says  he)  shalt  thou  not  he  accept- 
 ed? or  rather  as  the  margin  of  our  bible 
 reads,  shalt  thou  not  have  the  excellency^  or 
 exaltation,  above  thy  brother,  which  thou  con^ 
 ceivest  to  belong  to  thy  birth-right?  And  if  thoU 
 doest  7iot  well,  a  siii-offering  lieth  at  thy  very 
 door,  to  make  the  due  reconciliation,  and  restore 
 thee  to  the  station  which  thou  hast  lost  by  thy 
 misconduct.  So  that  in  every  way  it  depends 
 upon  thyself,  that  thy  brother  shall  be  rendered 
 subject  unto  thee,  and  that  thou  shalt  have  the 
 superiority  over  him."  This  meaning  naturally 
 and  spontaneously  flows  from  the  literal  render- 
 ing of  the  passage  as  it  stands  connected.  u4?id 
 the  Lord  said  unto  Cain,  wherefore  art  thou 
 wroth,  &c.  (with  thy  brother)?  Is  there  not,  if 
 thou  doest  ivell,  exaltation;  and,  if  thou  doest 
 not  Will,  a  sin  offering  lying  at  thy  door  ?  And 
 thus  he  may  become  subject  to  thee,  and  thou 
 mayest  have  the  dominion  over  him.  It  is  appre- 
 hended that  this,  which  is  an  exact  translation  of 
 the  original,  affords  in  the  view  of  the  above  para- 
 phrase, a  clear,  consistent,  and  satisfactory  sense, 
 of  a  part  of  Scripture,  which  has  hitherto  caused 
 much  trouble  to  interpcters. 
 
OF   THE    PASSAGft.    GEN.  IV.  7-  239 
 
 The  rendering  by  the  LXX  is  so  very  dilfer- 
 cut  from  this,  and  from  the  commonly  received 
 translation,  that  on  the  first  view  it  would  seem 
 to  have  been  derived  from  a  Hebrew  original, 
 entirely  dissimilar  to  that,  which  we  at  present 
 possess.  It  therefore  will  not  be  unacceptable 
 to  the  curious  reader,  to  shew  how  the  (ireek 
 translators  must  have  considered  the  text,  in 
 order  to  have  derived  from  it  a  sense,  apparently 
 so  foreign  from  its  import.  They  render  it  thus; 
 Oj}Cy  eav  oaQug  'TroocrevsyK'/jCj  o^Oug  de  f^vj  diBXr;g, 
 TjyiccoTsg ;  7]G-vx^(rov'  TToog  <re  u7ro^^o(pyi  ocvra,  tccxi  (TV 
 i^D^Big  ocvth:  or,  as  in  some  of  Holmes's  various 
 readings,  —  e7rig'^o(p7]  aur^,  ytoci  au  ocvns  a^Pvig, 
 Though  you  may  have  rightly  offered,  yet  if 
 you  have  not  rightly  divided,  have  you  not 
 sinned?  Be  at  rest.  To  you  shall  he  submit 
 himself,  and  tjou  shall  rule  over  him.  Now,  if 
 in  the  original,  r\'iW  l'>:D^n  be  construed  in  con- 
 nexion, making  TSiW  the  infinitive  mood,  and 
 expressing  by  :i''tD^n  the  mode,  in  which  the  ac- 
 tion denoted  by  that  infinitive  was  performed; 
 and  if,  in  like  manner,  the  words  T\TS^  2'^^^'^r\  be 
 made  to  coalesce,  whilst  nn3  is  interpreted  in  the 
 sense  of  dividing:  if  nx^L^n  be  considered  as  a 
 verb,  and  yi"^  also  as  a  verb,  with  a  stop  pre- 
 ceding and  following  it:— the  sense  affixed  by 
 the  Septuagint  may  be  elicited.  For  then  y'^'Ti 
 i^iW  may  be  rendered  oo9ug  Tr^oa-evsyKv^g ;  and 
 nrs^  I'^^^'Tl,  o^9cog  SisXrjg.  m^ll^Tl  also  may  be  r^n- 
 1 
 
240  TRUE    INTERPRETATION 
 
 dered  by  vjfjLoc^Tsg,  and  \T)  by  oycm^aa-ci/.     All  this 
 however,  it  must  be  remembered,  is  to  be  con- 
 sidered rather  possible  than  natural.  For  although 
 the  infinitive  certainly  admits  such  a  connexion 
 with  the  verb  n''*uD>n,  as  to  imply  the  doing  well* 
 that  which  is  expressed  by  the  infinitive,  yet  the 
 use  of  the  verb  rsi^cD  for  offering  sacrifice,   and 
 of  nJlS  for  dividing,  can  scarcely  be  said  to  be 
 authorized   by  any  passages   in    Scripture.      In- 
 deed that  nna  should  admit  the  sense  of  divid- 
 ing,   it  ought   to    be  written   nn3,    unless    we 
 suppose   the   word   to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of 
 freely  sharing,  or  imparting,  (which  nTO  is  not 
 incapable   of  expressing,)  and   that   thence    the 
 Greek  translators  felt  themselves  justified  in  ex- 
 tending it  to  the  above  significjltion.     As  for  ym 
 also,  it  is  only  by  a  considerable  latitude  of  figu- 
 rative application  that  it  can  be  interpreted  as  in 
 the  Greek  ;  its  literal  meaning  being  that  of  li/ing 
 down  as  an  aiiimaL     So  that  u])on  the   whole 
 the  version  by  the  LXX  is  rather  to  be  defended 
 than  approved:  whilst  the  translation  by  Jerome, 
 and   still   more  that   by  Theodotion^  presents  a 
 view  of  the  passage  much  more  natural  as  well  as 
 grammatical. 
 
 Jerome's  translation  runs   thus,    "  Nonne   si 
 bene  egeris,    demittetur   tibi  ?    Et  si   non   bene 
 
 *  Of  this   construction,    Pror.   xxx.  29.    Psal.  xxxiii.   3. 
 Isai.  xxiii.  16.  Ezcch.  xxxiii.  J'2.  aud  many  other   part*  of 
 Scripture  supply  iustaDces. 
 1 
 
OF   THE   PASSAGE.     GEN.  tV.  7.  241 
 
 egeris,  ante  fores  peccatuni  tuum  sedebit  ?  Et  ad 
 te  societas  ejus:  sed  tu  magis  dominare  ejus.'* 
 (Qucest.  Hehi\  in  Genes.)  And  this  again  is 
 thus  modified  in  the  Roman  Vulgate,  "  Nonne 
 si  bene  egeris,  recipies  ?  Sin  autem  male,  statim 
 in  foribus  peccatum  aderit?  Sed  sub  te  eiit  ap« 
 petitus  ejus,  et  tu  dominaberis  illius."  In  both 
 of  these  the  sense  is  nearly  the  same  as  that  in 
 our  common  English  bibles,  except  that  the  last 
 clause  is  applied  by  the  followers  of  the  Vulgate 
 not  to  Ahel  but  to  the  sin  just  before  spoken  of, 
 and  is  interpreted  as  pronouncing  on  the  full  do- 
 minion of  man  over  his  sinful  desires^  and  assert- 
 ing the  uncontrouled  freedom''^  of  his  will.  The 
 Romish  writers  adduce  Jerome's  paraphrase-}-  on 
 the  text,  as  clearly  proving  this  to  have  been 
 his  view ;  and  also  refer  to  the  authority  of  Au- 
 gustine, who  specifically  argues  the  point  thus, 
 *'  Tu  dominaberis  iUius ;  nunquid  fratris  ?  absit. 
 Cujus  igitur  nisi  joecca^i  P"  On  these  authorities, 
 together  with  that  of  the  Jerusalem  Targum,  the 
 :};Doway  translators  ground  a  triumph  over  the 
 
 *  Erasmus  ( Hyper aspist,  Diatrib,  il.  sec.  96.)  cites  the 
 passage  thus ;  "  Sub  te  erit  appetitus  tuus,  et  tu  dominaberis 
 illius:"  and  from  this  unauthorised  reading,  deduces  an  ar- 
 gument in  opposition  to  Luther,  on  the  free  will  of  man. 
 
 +  In  his  Questions-  on  Genesis  he  thus  explains  the  ieiLt : 
 ^'  Quod  si  male  egeris,  illico  peccatum  ante  vestibulum  sede- 
 bit, et  tali  janitore  comitaberis;  verum,  quia  liberi  arbitrii  es, 
 moneo  ut  non  tibi  peccatum,  sed  tu  peccato  domineris." 
 
 X  Ernesti^  in  his  Inst'diUio  Interpreiis  Novi  Testamejiti, 
 VOL.  11.  R 
 
242  TRUE   INTERPRETATION 
 
 heretical  (Protestant)  versions,  whose  object  in 
 referring  the  clause  to  Abel  and  not  to  sin,  they 
 -conceive  to  be  that  of  escaping  from  the  doctrine 
 
 p.  79.  exclaims,  "  Quam  multi  errores  orti  sunt  in  Ecclesii 
 ex  lingusB  Hebraicae  igiioraatia  !  Doctrina  de  purgatorio,  poe- 
 nitentia,  fide,  bonis  operibus,  et  aliae,  ex  Augustino  quidem 
 €t  versione  vulgata  proferri  quidem,  sed  adseri  et  defendi  non 
 possunt  contra  interpretem  linguse  HebraicEe  gnarum," — Other 
 reasons,  however,  very  different  from  mere  ignorance  of  the 
 Hebrew  language,  have  been  assigned  for  the  errors  in  Scrip- 
 ture interpretation,  imputable  to  the  advocates  of  the  Church 
 of  Rome.  Father  Paul  informs  us,  in  one  of  his  Letters,  (Let- 
 ter 25.)  that  the  Pope,  complaining  of  Fra.  Fulgentio,  said, 
 "  that  preaching  of  the  Scriptures  is  a  suspicious  thing;  and 
 that  he,  who  keeps  close  to  the  Scriptures,  will  ruin  the  Ca. 
 tholic  faith."  And  again,  (Letter  26.)  the  Pope  is  made  to 
 say  of  him,  '•  that  indeed  he  made  some  good  Sermons,  but 
 bad  ones  withal :  and  that  he  insisted  itoo  much  upon  Scrip- 
 ture; which  is  a  book,  to  which  if  any  keep  close,  he  will 
 quite  ruin  the  Catholic  faith." — And  indeed,  that  the  Pope 
 had  reason  to  complain  of  Fra.  Fulgenilo's  sermons,  must  be 
 admitted,  when  we  find  from  Burners  Life  of  Bishop  Be. 
 dell,  (p.  119.)  that  that  father,  in  preaching  on  the  words, 
 Have  ye  not  read?  took  occasion  to  tell  the  auditory,  that 
 if  Christ  were  now  to  ask  this  question,  all  the  answer  they 
 could  make  to  it  would  be ;  iS^o,  for  they  were  not  suffered 
 to  do  it:  and  thence  proceeded  to  remonstrate,  with  the  most 
 animated  zeal,  against  the  restraint  put  on  the  use  of  the 
 Scripture  by  the  See  of  Rome. 
 
 In  a  work,  which,  within  a  few  years,  has  obtained  the 
 mostdistinguished  mark  of  approbation,  from  the  highest  learn- 
 ed society  of  a  nation  holding  communion  with  the  Church  of 
 Rome,  we  meet  with  a  detailed  statement  of  those  causes, 
 which  have  disqualified  the  votaries  of  that  Church  for  tlic  task 
 of  Scripture  interpretation.     After  an  enumeration  of  the  ad- 
 
^F   THE    PASSAGE.    GEN.  iV.  7-  243 
 
 of  free-will ;  for  the  hostility  to  which  doctrine, 
 entertained    by    the   first    Reformers^    they   are 
 
 Vantages,  derived  to  the  literature  and  civilization  of  Chris- 
 tendom, from  religious  houses,  as  depositaries  of  the  remaini 
 of  ancient  learning,    the  author  thus  proceeds.  — "  If  the 
 Churchmen  preserved  in  this  manner  the  faint  tradition  of 
 knowledge,  it  must,  at  the  same  time,  be  acknowledged,  that 
 in  their  hands  it  more  than  once  became  dangerous,  and  was 
 converted  by  its  guardians  to  pernicious  purposes.     The  do- 
 mination of  Rome,  built  upon  a  scaifolding  of  false  historical 
 proofs,  had  need  of  the  assistance  of  those  faithful  auxiliaries, 
 to  employ  on  the  one  side  their  half  knowledge  to  fascinate 
 men's  eyes,  and  on  the  other  to  prevent  those  eyes  from  per- 
 ceiving the  truth,    and  from  becoming  enlightened  by  the 
 torch  of  criticism.     The  local  usurpations  of  the  Clergy,  in 
 several  places,  were  founded  on  similar  claims,  and  had  need 
 of  similar  means  for  their  preservation.     It  followed,  there* 
 fore,    both  that  the  little  knowledge   permitted  should  be 
 mixed  with  error,  and  that  the  nations  should  be  carefully 
 maintained  in  profound  ignorance,    favourable    to  supersti- 
 tion.    Learning,  as   far  as  possible,  was  rendered  inacces- 
 sible to  the  laity.     The  study  of  the  ancient  languages  was 
 represented  as  idolatrous  and  abominable.     Above  all,  the 
 reading  of  the  holy  Scriptures,    that  sacred  inheritance  of 
 all  Christians,  was  severely  interdicted.     To  read  the  bible, 
 without  the  permission  of  one's  superiors,  was  a  crime :  to 
 translate  it  into  the  vulgar  tongue  would  have  been  a  temerity 
 ■worthy  of  the  severest  punishment.     The  Popes  had  indeed 
 their  reasons  for  preventing  the  word  of  Jesus  Christ  from 
 reaching  the  people,  and  a  direct  communication  from  being 
 established  between  the  Gospel  and  the  Christian.     AVhen  it 
 becomes  necessary  to  keep  in  the  shade  objects  as  conspicu.. 
 ous  as  faith  and  public  worship,  it  behoved  the  darkness  to 
 be  universal  and  impenetrable."     Villers's  Essay  on  tha  Re. 
 
 R  2 
 
244  TRUE    INTERPRETATION 
 
 branded  by  these  translators  with  the  title  of 
 Manichees.  (See  the  Doway  Bible  on  Gen. 
 iv.  7.) 
 
 formation  of  Luther^  p.  88 — 90.     The  same  writer  in  ano- 
 ther place,  thus  contrasts  the  character  of  the  Protestant  and. 
 Romish  Churches,  as  to  their  grounds  of  assent  to  sacred 
 truths. — "  The  Church  of  Rome  said,  '  Submit,  without  ex- 
 amination, to  authority  ?  The  Protestant  Church,  said,  '  Ex- 
 amine, and  submit  only  to  thy  own  conviction.'     The  one 
 commanded  men  to  believe  blindly  :  the  other  taught  them, 
 •with  the  Apostle,  to  reject  the  bad,  and  choose  only  that 
 which  is  good :"    Ibid.  p.  294. — And  when  the  Church  of 
 Rome  was,  at  length,  obliged  by  the  necessities  of  self  do- 
 fence,  to  grant  to  her  faithful  sons  the  privilege  of  theological 
 investigation,  in  what  way  does  the  same  writer  represent 
 the  system  of  studies  permitted  for  this  purpose  ?  The  theo- 
 logy of  the  Romanist,  and  that  of  the  Protestant,  he  describes, 
 as  "  two  worlds  in  opposite  hemispheres,  which  have  nothing 
 common  except  the  name." — "  The  Catholic  theology  rests 
 (says  he)  on  the  inflexible  authority  of  the  decisions  of  the 
 Church,  and  therefore  debars  the  man  who  studies  it  from 
 all  free  exercise  of  his  reason.     It  has  preserved  the  jargon, 
 and  all  the  barbarous  appendages  of  the  Scholastic  philo- 
 sophy.    We  perceive  in  it  the  w  ork  of  darkness  of  the  monks 
 of  the  tenth  century.     In   short,   the  happiest  thing  which 
 can  befal  him  who  has  unfortunately  learnt  it,  is  speedily  io 
 forget  it.    The  Protestant  theology,  on  the  contrary,  rests  on 
 a  system  of  examination,  on  the  unlimited  use  of  reason. 
 The  most  liberal  exegesis  opens  for  it  the  knowledge  of  sacred 
 antiquity;    criticism,  that  of  the  history  of  the  Church;  it 
 regards  the  doctrinal  part,  reduced  to  purity  and  simplicity, 
 as  only  the  body  of  religion,  the  positive  form  which  it  re- 
 quires ;  and  it  is    supported  by  philosophy   in  the  examina- 
 tion of  the  laws  of  nature,  of  morality,  and  of  the  relation* 
 
OF    THE   PASSAGE.    GEN.  IV.  7-  245 
 
 To  these  Romish  Doctors  I  leave  a  Romish 
 Doctor  to  reply.  Dr.  Geddes,  in  liis  Critical 
 Remarks,  pp.  54,  55.  has  endeavoured  to  shew 
 
 of  men  to  the  Divine  Being.  Whoever  wishes  to  be  instructed 
 in  history,  in  classical  literature,  and  philosophy,  can  choose 
 nothing  better  than  a  course  of  Protestant  theology." — Ibid, 
 pp.  307,  308. — Such  are  the  observations,  contained  in  a 
 work,  which  has  been  distinguished  by  a  prize,  conferred  by 
 the  National  Institute  of  France. 
 
 Perhaps,  one  of  the  most  decisive  proofs  of  the  justice  of 
 this  writer's  remarks  on  the  state  of  sacred  literature  in  the 
 Romish  Cliurch,  has  been  supplied  by  the  late  re-publica- 
 tion, in  this  country,  of  tha^  wretched  specimen  of  Scripture 
 criticism.  Ward's  Errata.  This  powerless  offspring  of  a 
 feeble  parent,  which  was  supposed  to  have  perished  when  it 
 first  saw  the  light  above  a  century  ago,  has  lately  upon  signs, 
 of  reanimatlon,  been  hailed  in  Ireland  with  shouts  of  joy. 
 And  the  meagre  abstract  of  Gregory  Martinis  Discoverif  of 
 the  manifold  corruptions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures^  a  work 
 w  hich  has  itself  lain  for  two  hundred  years  overwhelmed  by 
 confutation,  has  been  received  by  the  Romanists  of  this  part 
 of  the  Empire,  with  a  gratulation  that  might  well  become  the 
 darkest  ages  of  the  Church,  A  work,  condemning  the  Pro- 
 testant translation  of  the  Bible  for  using  the  term  messenger 
 instead  of  angel,  (in  Mai.  ii.  7.  iii.  1.  Mat.  xi.  10.  Luke 
 vii.  27,  &c.)  by  which  the  character  of  angel  is  withdrawn 
 from  the  jjriesthood,  and  of  a  sacrament  from  orders : — for 
 not  rendering  the  words  (in  Hebr.  xi.  21.)  'Tr^ocnKWYiaty  Eni 
 TO  uK^ov  rviq  ^cc'^^y  aurs,  as  the  Rhemish  does,  adored  the  top 
 of  his  rody  and  thereby  surreptitiously  removing  one  of  the 
 principal  Scripture  arguments  for  image  zcorship: — for  as- 
 cribing to  the  word  '?DD,  in  the  second  commandment,  the 
 meaning  graven  image,  whilst  the  Rhemish  renders  it  graven 
 thing,  which,  with  those  who  admit  an  image  not  to  be  a 
 
 r3 
 
246  TRUE    INTERPR2TATI0N 
 
 that  Jerome's  version,  or  that  of  the  Vulgate^, 
 cannot  be  maintained.  He  has  not,  however^ 
 adduced  the  arguments  which  bear  most  strongly 
 against  their  interpretation  ;  namely,  those  which 
 
 ihwg^  will  exempt  images  from  the  prohibition  of  the  com, 
 mandment : — for  not  giving  to  the  words  yarccvoiu  and  pcenL 
 tentia^  the  sense  oi  penance^  but  merely  assigning  to  them 
 their  true  interpretation,  repentance^  and  thus  doing  wilful 
 despite  to  i\{e  sacrament  oi penance: — a  work,  I   say,  con- 
 demning the  Protestant  translations  of  the  Bible  for  these, 
 and  some  other  6'«/c^  errors;  and  in  all  cases  demonstrating 
 the  error  by  one  and  the  same  irrefragable  proof, — that  the 
 Romish  version  is  the  true  one,  and  that  the  Protestant  ver- 
 sion which  differs  from  it  must  consequently  be  false, — is  cer- 
 tainly not  such  a  one,  as  might,  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
 be  expected  to  be  raked  up  by  the  clergy  of  a  widely  ex, 
 tended  communion,  and  exhibited  triumphantly  as  a  master- 
 piece of  critical  erudition.     In  the  opinion  of  many,   thi& 
 miserable  performance  did  not  deserve  an  answer;  especially 
 as  every  argument,  which  it  contained,  had  been  in  former 
 times   repeatedly  confuted.      Perhaps  however  they  judged 
 more  rightly,  who  thought,  that  even  the  weakest  reasonings 
 should  be  exposed  lest  they  might  be  imagined  to  be  strong, 
 and  that  even  the  most  hacknied  arguments  should  be  replied 
 to  lest  tliey  might  be  conceived  to  be  new.    Accordingly,  this 
 TTOrk  received  an  answer  from  Dr.  Ryan,  whose  zealous  ex- 
 ertions in  the  cause  of  religious  truth  are  well  known,  and 
 is  about  to  receive  another  from  the  Rev.  Richard  Grier  of 
 !Middleton.     These  gentlemen,  at  all  events,  display  courage 
 in  their  enterprize,  since  Die  author  whom  they  attack,  backed 
 by  the  wh:/le  council  of  Trent,  has  pronounced,  that  whoever 
 shall  not  receive  the  books  of  Sciipture,  as  thnj  are  read  in 
 the  Catholic  (Rcmhh)  Churchy  and  as  theij  are  in  the  Vidgate 
 l.utin  ediliony  shall  be  accup.sld.     Errata,  p.  37. 
 
 1 
 
OF   THE   PASSAGE,    GEN.    IV.    7.  24/ 
 
 apply  to  the  mistranslation  of  the  concluding 
 clause  of  the  seventh  verse,  and  to  the  violence 
 offered  even  to  that  mistranslation  in  pronouncing 
 that  Cain  having  sinned  should  acquire  dominion 
 over  his  sinful  desires,  which  is  as  much  as  to  say 
 that  by  yielding  to  sin  a  man  acquires  the  power 
 of  controuling  it.  But  too  much  has  been  said 
 \ipon  Romish  exposition.* 
 
 *  How  little  entitled  the  orthodox  member  of  the  Romish 
 church  is,  at  this  day,  to  expect  serious  consideration  in  the 
 walks  of  sacred  criticism,  may  be  inferred  (in  addition  to  what 
 has  been  said  in  the  last  note)  from  the  description  given  of 
 him  by  a  Doctor  of  his  own  communion.  "  The  vulgar  papist 
 rests  his  faith  on  the  supposed  infallibility  of  his  church, 
 although  he  knows  not  where  that  infallibility  is  lodged,  nor 
 in  what  it  properly  consists:  it  is  to  him  a  general,  vague, 
 indefinite  idea,  which  he  never  thinks  of  analysing.  He  reads 
 in  his  catechism,  or  is  told  by  his  catechist,  that  (he  Church 
 cannot  err  in  r^hat  she  teaches;  and  then  he  is  told,  that  this 
 unerring  church  is  composed  only  of  those  who  hold  commu- 
 nion with  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  precisely  believe  as  he,  and 
 the  bishops  who  are  in  communion  with  him,  believe.  From 
 that  moment  reason  is  set  aside;  authority  usurps  its  place, 
 and  implicit  faith  is  the  necessary  consequence.  He  dares 
 not  even  advance  to  the  first  step  of  Des  Cartes's  logic ;  he 
 dares  not  doubt:  for  in  his  table  of  sins,  which  he  is  obliged  to 
 confess,  he  finds  doubting  in  matters  of  faith  to  be  a  grievous 
 crime."  Such  is  Dr.  Geddes's  account  of  him  whom  he  is 
 pleased  to  calW/ie  vulgar  papist ;  under  which  title  he  in  truth 
 means  to  include,  all  who  are  sincere  votaries  of  the  Church 
 of  Rome,  and  whom  that  church  would  acknowledge  as  such  : 
 in  other  words  he  means  by  this  term  to  designate  all  who  arf^ 
 actually  within  the  pale  of  Popery. 
 
 r4 
 
248  TRUE    INTERPRETATION 
 
 I  come  now  to  the  translation  by  Theodotion, 
 which^  as  it  appears  to  me,  does  perfect  justice 
 to  the  original,  and  with  which  the  version 
 which  I  have  proposed  entirely  coincides.     Ovk, 
 
 And  let  it  not  be  supposed  that  this  is  the  testimony  of  an 
 enemy    in  the  disguise    of  a  frierd;    and    that  the    author, 
 whilst  he  assumed  the  name  of  Catholic^  was  influenced  by 
 the  feelings  of  a  Protestant.     On  the  contrary  it  is  manifest 
 from  the  following  passage  that  his  mind  remained  under  the 
 powerful  iniluence  of  R^omish   impression,  and  that  he  con- 
 tinued still  a  partizan  of  that  faith  whose  errors  he  aiiected  to 
 decry.     For,  says  he,  "  Is  the  faith  of  the  vulgar  Pi  o  estant 
 better  founded  ?  He  rests  it  on  a  book  called  the  Holy  Bible, 
 which  he  believes  to  be  the  infallible  word  of  God." — And 
 thus  he  pronounces  the   faith  of  the  Protestant  and  of  the 
 Papist   to  be  alike   implicit  and  alike  unfounded.     "  If  the 
 iastructor  of  the  Protestant  be  asked  how  he  knows  that  the 
 book  which  he  puts  into  the  hand  of  his  catechumen  is  the 
 infallible  word  of  God;  he  cannot  like  the  Priest,  appeal  to 
 an  unerring  church;  he  acknowledges  no  such  guide:  and 
 i/et  it  is  hard  to  conceive  nhat  other  better  argument  he  can 
 j/se.*' — He  goes  on  even  to  pronounce  that  "  in  the  Popish 
 controversy,  the  Romanists  have  on  this  point,  the  better  side 
 of  the  question ;  called,  by  some  of  their  controversialists, 
 the  question   of  questions.^'     And   in   what  way  does   their 
 superiority  appear  upon  this  question  of  questions?   By  "  its 
 never  having   been    satisfactorily    solved    by   the    Romanists 
 themselves:  they  having   always   reasoned  in  what  is  termed 
 a  vicious  circle;  jiroiing  iltc  infalliOilitj/  of  the  Church  from 
 the  authorili)  of  Scripture,  and  the  authority/  of  Scripture 
 from  the  Church's  infullibiliti/.''*     (Preface  to  Critical  Re- 
 marks^ p.  V.)     This  must   undoubtedly   have  given   the  Ro- 
 manists/^e /;e//t?r  */c/t'  of  the  question  j  for   what  Protestant 
 logician  could  successfully  reply  to  such   an  argument?  But 
 fhe  reader  must  be  wearied  of  this  fatuity. 
 
OF   THE   PASSAGE.       GEN.    IV.    7.  249 
 
 uv  uyocdug  Troirjg,  tiSKToV  jcoa  ctv  f^'>^  uya.9ug  tto/^^, 
 STTi  9v^(x,g  ufyLxpnoe.  eyzocdnrui'  zcci  TToog  (re  cof/,y}  ocvth, 
 ycott  of-oPetg  ocvra.  Here  is  an  agreement  in  all  its 
 parts  with  the  rendering  which  has  been  sub- 
 mitted ;  the  force  of  otfjioconoc,  like  that  of  n^^OT, 
 extending  to  t\ie  shi-ojferlng ;  eyicaGviroci,  as  well 
 as  vn>  denoting  the  posture  of  an  animal;  and 
 uvTou  the  masculine  decidedly  marking,  that  the 
 reference  in  the  last  clause  was^  not  to  ocfA,ocoTioc.'^ 
 but,  to  Abel.     See  Theodot.  apicd  Mont ef ale. 
 
 Grotius  has  given  the  passage  somewhat  of  a 
 different  turn,  and  yet  departs  but  little  from  the 
 meaning  which  has  been  here  assigned.  He 
 considers  the  force  of  the  si  bene  egeris,  as  car^ 
 ried  down  to  the  concluding  clause,  so  as  to  make 
 the  sense  this,  ''  if  thou  doest  well,  Abel  as  the 
 younger  shall  be  rendered  subject  to  thy  autho- 
 rity." And  so  makes  the  clause  beginning  with, 
 "  If  thou  doest  not  well,"  &c.  parenthetical;  of 
 which,  he  says,  innumerable  instances  are  to  be 
 found  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  This  mode  of 
 translating  the  ])assage  has  been  adopted  by  Purver 
 in  his  English  version:  and  is  certainly  not  un- 
 worthy of  commendation.  At  the  same  time,  I 
 cannot  but  think  the  view  of  the  sentence,  which 
 
 *  That  is,  to  «/%a^Tia,  in  the  sense  ot  sin ;  \\\  which  sense 
 alone  it  is,  that  it  has  been  by  some  made  the  subject  of  refe- 
 rence, in  opposition  to  Abel.  In  the  sense  of  sin-offering^ 
 it  would,  as  we  have  seen,  admit  the  wza.fcz^/ziV/e  pronoun  atry  ; 
 but  to  the  word,  taken  in  that  sense,  the  reference  of  tho 
 pronoun  would  have  no  meaning. 
 
250  SACRIFICES    BEFORE    THE    LAW 
 
 I  have  offered  to  the  reader,  more  grammatical, 
 more  consistent,  and  more  natural.* 
 
 NO.  LXVI. — ON  THE  COMPARISON  BETWEEN  THE 
 SACRIFICE    OF    ABEL    AND    THAT    OF    CHRIST. 
 
 Page  54.  (^') — Dr.  Richie  judiciously  observes, 
 on  this  passage  of  Hebrews,  that  "  it  makes  the 
 sacrifice  of  Abel  to  have  been  o?  the  piaciilar  kind, 
 by  the  comparison  which  it  makes  between  the 
 effect  of  it  and  that  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ, 
 which  without  doubt  was  of  the  piacular  kind. 
 For,  unless  these  two  sacrifices  had  been  of  the 
 same  kind,  and  productive  of  similar  effects,  such 
 a  comparison  could  not  have  been  made,  nor  the 
 effect  of  the  one  pronounced  to  have  been  better, 
 or  much  greater,  than  the  effect  of  the  other: 
 causes  of  a  different  nature  producing  effects  of  a 
 dissimilar  kind  :  and  between  effects  of  a  dissi- 
 milar kind,  no  such  comparison  as  that  here 
 made  being  admissible."  Peculiar  Doctrines  of 
 Revelation.     Part  II.  ^.  xlii.  p.  138. 
 
 NO.  LXVII.  —  ON  THE  NATURE  OF  SACRIFICE  HE- 
 FORE  THE  LAir:  TENDING  TO  SHEW  ITS  CON- 
 FINEMENT TO  ANIMAL  SACRIFICE,  EXCEPT  IN 
 THE    CASE    OF    CAIN. 
 
 Page  55.  (^^) — From  the  time  of  Abel's  sacri- 
 
 *  Tho  noto  of  Ludov.  do  Dieu  on  Uiis  passage  deserves  to 
 hi',  noticed.     ''  An  fwu,  sive  bene  ojfcras^  sive  non  bcne^  ad 
 
ANIMAL    SACRIFICES.  251 
 
 fice  to  the  giving  of  the  law,  we  find  the  sacrificial 
 offering  described  by  no  other  appellation  than 
 that  of  n^nornir,  the  holocaust  or  burnt-offerinjr, 
 and  the  Zehach  or  immolated  victim.  Thus  we 
 see  the  Jonner  expression  used  of  the  sacrifice  of 
 Noah  in  Gen.  viii.  20.  and  aj^ain  repeatedly  applied 
 to  the  sacrifice  of  Abraham  in  the  xxiid  chapter. 
 It  is  also  employed  by  Moses  in  speaking  of  sacri- 
 fices to  Pharaoh,  in  Exod.  x.  25,  and  again  in 
 describing  the  offerings  of  Jethro,  xviii.  l  2.  The 
 oblations  of  Job  likewise,  (Job,  i.  5.)  and  of  his 
 friends  (xlii.  7,  8.)  are  so  denominated:  as  are 
 those  of  Balaam,  in  the  xxiiid  ch.  of  Numbers. 
 
 ostium  peccatum  cubat?  Quum  scilicet,  indigne  ferret  Cain, 
 fratris  sacrificium  suo  esse  praelatum,  quod  non  minus  rectc 
 sacrificiorum  ritus  observasset  fratre,  neque  quicquam,  sive 
 quoad  rem  oblatara,  sive  quoad  externam  ofl'erendi  rationem  ac 
 ceremoniam,  dignius  a  fratre  ac  melius  profectum  esset,  monet 
 Deus,  non  esse  hie  Ipsam  oblationem  respiciendam,  recte  ne 
 ea  secundum  legem  scilicet  ceremonialem  facta  sit,  an  secus : 
 sed  personam  olferentem,  dedita  ne  ca  sit  peccato,  an  nou. 
 Tu  peccatum  perpetuo  circumfers,  illudque  in  procinctu 
 habes,  Cubans  quippe  ante  fores:  itaque  nihil  refert,  bene  ne 
 an  male  secundum  ritus  legales  oiTeras.  Vel  optima  tua  obla- 
 tio  a  peccato  -vitiatur.  Non  debebat  appetitus  tuus  ferri  ad 
 peccatum,  sed  peccati  appetitus  ad  te,  sicut  muiieris  appetitus 
 ad  maritum  cui  subcst,  tuque  eidominari. — Posset  etiam  verti, 
 jin  non  sive  pulchrum  quid  adf eras ^  sive  no?i  pulchnim,  &c. 
 < — Animodv.  in  Vet.  Test.  p.  13. — These  interpretations  pos- 
 sess much  ingenuity;  but  are  liable  to  the  grammatical  objection 
 already  urged,  of  taking  mi^^x-ij  in  tlie  sense  of  sin^  in  the 
 piasculine  gender. 
 
252  SACRIFICFS    BEFORE   THE    LAW 
 
 In  the  numerous  other  instances  of  the  mode  of 
 worship  by  sacrifice,  which  occur  in  this  early 
 period,  the  expression  used  is  either  r,2h  or,  where 
 the  sort  of  sacrifice  is  not  exactly  specified,  a 
 word  immediately  derived  from  and  clearly  imply- 
 ing it,  niD,  which  though  translated  generally  by 
 us  an  miliar,  and  being  sometimes  applied  to  that 
 on  which  Incense  was  presented,  cannot,  as  Sykes 
 remarks,  (Essay,  p.  246.)  when  used  absolutely, 
 and  in  its  strict  sense,  be  otherwise  understood, 
 than  as  signifying  "  that  on  which  slain  animals 
 were  offered.*' 
 
 Doctor  Richie,  indeed,  not  only  maintains  that 
 none  but  animal  sacrifices  were  offered  from  the 
 time  of  Cain  to  the  promulgation  of  the  law,  but 
 that  all  during  that  period  were  none  other  than 
 liolocausts,  or  h  ur  nt- offer  in gs ;  the  Zehach,  or 
 slain  animal,  having  been  uniformly  offered  up  in 
 that  manner:  and  that  consequently  all  the  sacri- 
 fices of  this  early  period  w^ere  piacular.  In  this 
 last  position  Sykes  concurs,  so  far  as  to  allow, 
 that  "  all  holocausts  before  the  days  of  Moses 
 Avere  deprecations  of  wrath,"  and  he  admits  also, 
 that  from  the  time  of  x'^bel  until  that  of  Jacob, 
 there  is  no  instance  of  any  other  sacrifice  than  the 
 hurnt-off bring.  But  from  his  peculiar  notions 
 concerning  the  nature  of  sacrifice  he  is  led  to 
 contend,  that  the  sacrifice  of  Jacob,  and  those 
 of  Moses  and  Jcthro  included  a  peace-offering, 
 although  he  confesses,  that  in  no  one  instance  is 
 
 1 
 
ANIMAL   SACRIFICES.  253 
 
 there  any  mention  expressly  made  o^ peace-offer- 
 ings before  the  law. 
 
 The  circumstances,  on  which   Sykes   grounds 
 his    opinion,    are —  1.   the   introduction    of  the 
 word  nit:  which  is  of  no  weight,  because  nothing 
 prevents  the  Zehach  from  having  been  an  holo- 
 caust, — 2.  the  mention  of  the  eating  of'  Bread 
 at  the  time  of  the  sacrifice:  from  which  no  infe- 
 rence can  be  drawn  respecting  the  nature  of  the 
 sacrifice,  as  we  have   aheady  seen   in   Number 
 XLIX. — and  3.  the  mention  of  both  the  Zehach 
 and  the  Holocaust,  in   the  cases  of  Moses  and 
 Jethro,  in  Exod.  x.  25    and  xviii.  12:  to   which 
 Richie  has  satisfactorily  replied,  by  shewing  that 
 the  particle  i,  is  to  be  taken,  not  in  the  sense  of 
 and,  but  in  that   of  even.     Indeed  Dr.   Richie 
 deserves  particularly  to  be  consulted  ou  the  whole 
 of  this  subject.     See  PeciiL  Doctr.  Part  II.  §. 
 42 — 49.   vol.  i.  p.  I37-— 144.     See  also  Syhess 
 Essay,  p.    231 — 251;   where,    if  allowance    be 
 made  for  the  author's  peculiar  bias  on  the  subject 
 of  sacriiice,  considerable  support  will  be  found  for 
 the  principal  part  of  Dr.  Richie's  positions.     But 
 whether  Dr.  Richie  be  well  founded  or  not  in  his 
 opinion,  that  all  the  oblations  prior  to  the  law, 
 excepting  that  of  Cain,  were  holocausts;  this  at 
 least  must  be  admitted,  that  they  were  animal 
 sacrifices;  more  than  which,  the  present  argu- 
 ment does  not  require. 
 
254  DISPROPORTION    OF   THE   MOSAIC 
 
 Josephus,  it  is  to  be  observed,  expressly  de- 
 scribes the  holocaust  offered  by  Noah,  as  a  sacri-^ 
 fice  of  deprecation.  He  states  that  this  Patriarch, 
 under  a  persuasion  that  God  had  doomed  man- 
 kind to  destruction,  and  through  terror  of  the 
 repetition  of  the  dreadful  judgment  he  had  so 
 lately  witnessed,  offered  up  prayers  and  sacrifices 
 to  God,  to  turn  away  his  wrath.  Antiq.  Jud^ 
 Lib.  I.  cap.  iv.  This  testimony  of  the  Jewish 
 Historian,  as  to  the  received  notions  of  the  nature 
 of  sacrifice  in  his  day,  the  reader  will  pkase  to 
 add  to  those  which  have  been  adduced  in  Number 
 XXX HI,  in  reply  to  Dr.  Priestley's  remarks 
 upon  that  head.  It  W\\\  most  naturally  fall  in 
 at  p.  280.  vol.  i. 
 
 NO.    LXVIII.  ON    THE    DISPROPORTION    BETW^EEN 
 
 THE    EFFECTS    OF    THii    MOSAIC    AND    THE    CHRIS- 
 TIAN   SACRIFICES. 
 
 Page  6o.  (^) — On  this  subject  particular  atten- 
 tion should  be  paid  to  the  observations  in  Num- 
 bers XXXI.  XXXIV.  XXXVL  and  XXXVII.; 
 especially  to  those  contained  in  pp.  254,  255,  and 
 p.  348 — 351.  of  the  first  volume. 
 
 The  following  elucidation  by  the  learned  Gro- 
 tius,  whose  unbiassed  reflexions  are  always  valua- 
 ble, deserves  to  be  noticed. — Lex  vetus  dupliciter 
 spectatur:  aut  carnaliter;,  aut  spiritualiter.     Car- 
 
AND    THE    CHRISTIAN   SACRIFICES.  255 
 
 naliter,  qua  instrumentum  fuit  TToXiTSiocg,  relpub- 
 licce  Judaiccc.  Spiritualiter,  qua  (tkiocv  «%g  ruv 
 fisXXovTuv,  umhram  hahehat  futurorunu  Hebr. 
 X.  1.  Quod  ad  priorem  considerationem  attinet, 
 sacrificia  Legis  expiatoria  sanctificabant  ad  cariiis 
 puritatem,  Uebr.  ix.  1.— Deus  enhn  Rex  He- 
 braeorum  (quoiiiam  Legislator!  licet  suam  legem, 
 prsesertim  pceiialem,  nonnihil  relaxare)  in  quibus- 
 dam  delictis  victimas  expiatorias  admisit  vice 
 ipsius  peccatoris,  et  per  illas  ac  non  aliter  pecca- 
 torem  a  mortis  poena  (quae  juxta  carnalem  sensum 
 erat  sanctio  Legis)  liberare  voluit. — In  quibusdani 
 ergo  delictis;  quod  ad  poenam  carnalem  attinebat, 
 admittebatur  placamen,  redemptio,  satisfaction 
 compensatio  denique  mortis  bestiae  cum  morte 
 hominis  alioque  debita. — Victimaepropeccato  ita 
 in  Veteri  Foedere  peccata  expiarunt;  nimirum 
 Deum  movendo,  ut  poenam  carnalem  remitteret, 
 idque  per  satisfactionem  quandam. 
 
 Quod  autem  typi  prsestiterunt  carnaliter,  hoc 
 0  avTiTV-TT^,  exemplar,  Christus  praestat  spiritua- 
 liter;  et  quod  typi  in  quibusdam  duntaxat  delictis, 
 id  Christus  in  omnibus,  Deum  scilicet  movendo, 
 ut  spiritualem  poenam  remittat,  idque  per  satis- 
 factionem perfectissimam.  Plus  enim,  non  minus 
 semper  est  in  re  typo  design ata,  quam  in  typo, 
 ut  ratio  monstrat.  Commune  est  sacrificio  ex- 
 piatorio  legali  et  sacrificio  Christi  iliud,  quod  sine 
 sanjiuinis  efFusione  non  fit  remissio,  Hebr.  ix.  S5. 
 Hanc  impetrationem   remistiionis  per  sanguinem 
 
256  DISPROPORTION    Of   THE   MOSAIC 
 
 ibidem  divinus  scriptor  appellat  modo  ocyioca-fjLov, 
 sanctijicationem  (13.)  modo  Kot^oc^icrfjuov,  expia- 
 tionem,  (14,  22,  23. )  Sed  in  Veteri  Lege  victimae 
 erant  pecudes,  (12,)  in  hac  nostra  Christus  ipse 
 lion  sacerdos  tantum  sed  est  victima  (14,  26.) 
 Legalis  ilia  expiatio  hujus  coelestis  sive  .spiritualis 
 VTTo^eiyfjLoc  (23,)  et  ocvtltvttov,^  exemplar  (24,)  quo- 
 modo?  Quia  ilia  praestabat  carni  munditiem  (14,) 
 id  est^  reatus  ablationem,  non  autem  spiritui  sive 
 conscientiae  (9,)  haec  autem  ipsi  conscientiae  (14.) 
 Quia  quod  in  Veteri  Lege  erat  mors  temporalis, 
 hoc  in  Novo  Foedere  est  mors  aeterna,  Hebr.  x.  29 : 
 ac  proinde  illie  liberatio  erat  temporalis,  hie  vero 
 aiuvi^  XvToet)(rig,  (jeterna  redemptlo,  Hebr.  ix.  12. 
 Ouare  sicut  eodem  loco  ab  effectu  legalis  victimae 
 ad  effectu m  hujus  per  spiritum  oblatae  argu- 
 mentum  producitur,  Quanto  77iagis,  &c.  sic  et 
 nobis  licet  hunc  in  modum  certissime  argu- 
 mentari,  Victima  legalis  reatimi  carnalem  sustu- 
 Ut,  Deum  movendo  ad  remissionem ;  ergo  multo 
 magis  reatum  spirit ualeyn,  Deum  itidem  ad 
 remissionem.  movendo,  tolUt  ohlata  per  spiritum 
 victima. — Grotii  Opera  Theolog.  tom.  iv.  p. 
 331—333. 
 
 The  principles  from  which  Grotius  has  derived 
 his  conclusion  are  manifestly  these.  1.  That  the 
 expiation   wrought  by  the   sacrifices  under  the 
 
 *  Grotius  lias  here  used  tlie  word  antitype  improperlj,  and 
 in  a  sonse  directly  opposite  to  that  in  which  he  has  just  before 
 properly  applied  the  term. 
 
AND    THE    CHRISTIAN    SACRIFICES.  257 
 
 Law  were  typical  of  that  effected  by  the  death  of 
 Christ:  2.  That  in  every  type  there  must  be 
 something  of  the  same  general  nature  with  that 
 which  is  contained  in  the  thing  typified:  and 
 ,3.  Tliat  combined  with  this  general  correspon- 
 dence between  the  type  and  the  thing  prefigured, 
 there  should  exist  that  disproportion  which  might 
 be  expected  between  the  shadow  and  the  sub- 
 stance. 
 
 These  principles  indeed  are  so  clearly  and  un- 
 equivocally laid  down  by  the  apostle  in  his 
 epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  that  even  the  great  fa- 
 thers of  the  Socinian  school,  Faustus  Socinus 
 and  Crellius,  admit  their  evidence,  and  differ 
 from  Grotius  only  in  the  application.-  In  esta- 
 bhshing  the  correspondence,  and  the  dispro- 
 portion, of  the  Mosaic  and  the  Christian  ex- 
 piation, they  urge  the  reasoning  of  the  apostle 
 no  less  forcibly  than  Grotius  has  done ;  as  may 
 be  seen  in  the  treatise  of  Socinus  l)e  Jes.  Christ, 
 Serv.  (Opera,  tom.  ii.  pp.  157,  158.)  and  iu 
 Crellius's  Respons.  ad  Grot.  (Opera,  tom.  i.  p. 
 204  —  211.)  These  expositors,  not  having  been 
 initiated  into  the  convenient  artifice,  so  familiar 
 to  their  followers,  of  rejecting  the  authority  of 
 an  apostle  when  it  made  against  them,  found 
 themselves  compelled  by  the  plain  language  of 
 scripture  to  acknowledge  the  validity  of  these 
 principles. 
 
 VOL.  II.  S 
 
356  DISPROPORTION    OF   THE    MOSAIC 
 
 The  nature  of  their  system,  however,  being 
 at  variance  with  their  admission,  they  were  led 
 to  strain  one  principle  to  an  extreme,  subversive 
 of  the  other ;  and  by  urging  disproportion  within 
 the  confines  of  dissitnilitude,  they  were  enabled 
 to  escape  the  bearings  of  that  correspondence  of 
 the  two  dispensations,  which  forms  the  founda- 
 tion of  the  apostle's  argument,  and  for  which 
 they  had  themselves  in  the  first  instance  strenu- 
 ously contended.  For  whilst  in  professing  to 
 represent  the  expiation  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
 as  of  a  superior  order  to  that  eiFected  by  the  sa- 
 crifices of  the  law,  they  endeavour  to  establish 
 this  by  such  a  description  of  its  nature,  as  divests 
 it  of  every  character  which  the  Mosaic  sacrifice 
 possessed,  they  in  truth  shew,  that  the  death  of 
 Christ  bore  no  relation  whatever  to  those  sacri- 
 fices by  which  they  admit  it  to  have  been  typi- 
 fied:  that  is  in  other  words,  they  make  the 
 Mosaic  sacrifices  at  the  same  time  typical  and 
 not  typical  of  the  death  of  Christ. — See  this 
 point  well  treated,  though  in  a  diflferent  manner, 
 by  Stillingfleet,  in  his  Discourse  concerning  the 
 true  Reasons,  &c.  p.  365 — 367. 
 
 On  another  fallacy  in  the  reasoning  of  the 
 above  writers  it  is  also  necessary  to  remark. 
 Whilst  they  profess  faithfully  to  follow  the 
 apostle's  reasoning  in  his  address  to  the  He- 
 brews, they  represent  the  expiation  of  the  legal 
 
AND    THE   CHRISTIAN    SACRIFICES.  259 
 
 sacrifice  as  wholly  typical ;  whereas  it  was  not 
 less  real  and  effectual  under  its  own  proper  sys- 
 tem, than  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  under  that 
 by  •which  it  was  succeeded ;  whilst  at  the  same 
 time  it  prefigured  that  more  important  expia- 
 tion, which  was  to  be  introduced  under  the  new 
 dispensation  ;  all  the  parts  of  which,  the  aj)ostle 
 distinctly  informs  us,  had  their  corresponding 
 circumstances  in  that  which  went  before. 
 
 Upon  the  whole  then  briefly  to  sum  up  the 
 present  subject.  The  people  of  the  Jews  being 
 placed  under  a  peculiar  polity,  whereby  they 
 stood  at  the  same  time  in  a  civil  and  a  ritual 
 relation  to  their  divine  governor;  their  offences 
 in  these  several  relations  exposed  them  to  the 
 inflictions  appropriate  to  each.  The  mercy  of 
 the  Legislator  at  the  same  time  provided  for 
 them  the  means  of  expiation  by  sacrifice,  where- 
 by, in  certain  cases,  the  corporal  punishment 
 incurred  by  the  violation  of  the  civil  law^  and 
 the  legal  impurities  contracted  by  the  neglect 
 of  the  ritual  institutions,  might  be  done  away. 
 The  entire  system,  however,  being  but  prepa- 
 ratory for  another  by  which  it  was  to  be  super- 
 seded, was  constituted  in  all  its  essential  parts 
 in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  emblematical  of  that 
 which  it  was  intended  to  introduce:  and  the 
 several  parts  of  the  one  consequently  adjusted  by 
 the  same  proportions  which  were  to  obtain  in 
 the  other. 
 
 S  2 
 
260  DISPROPORTION    OF   THE   MOSAIC 
 
 Hence  it  follows,  that  the  sacrifices  under  the 
 temporal  and  ceremonial  dispensation  of  the 
 Law  had  a  real  efficac/  in  releasing  those  who 
 were  subjected  to  it  from  its  temporal  penalties 
 and  ceremonial  disqualifications;  in  like  manner 
 as  the  one  great  sacrifice  under  the  Gospel  pos- 
 sesses the  power  to  release  mankind  at  large 
 from  the  everlasting  penalties  of  that  spiritual 
 law  under  which  all  men  are  bounds  and  to 
 cleanse  the  conscience  from  those  moral  impu- 
 rities, which  forbid  ail  access  to  that  holy  Being, 
 who  is  to  be  worshipped  only  in  spirit  and  in 
 truth.  The  expiation  then,  under  the  old  law, 
 w^as  no  less  real  than  that  which  it  prefigured 
 under  the  new,  whilst  it  bore  to  the  dispensation, 
 of  which  it  was  a  part,  the  same  proportion 
 which  that  more  perfeot  expiation  by  the  death 
 of  Christ  bears  to  the  more  perfect  dispensation 
 to  which  it  appertains.  The  wisdom  of  the  di- 
 vine contrivance,  in  this  as  in  the  other  branches 
 of  providential  arrangement,  rendering  that  which 
 was  complete  and  eflfectual  for  its  own  imme- 
 diate purpose,  at  the  same  time  introductory 
 and  subservient  to  other  and  more  important 
 objects. 
 
 Berryman,  in  treating  of  the  typical  interpre- 
 tation of  the  Law,  although  leaning  a  little  too 
 much  to  the  notion  of  its  being  merely  symbo- 
 hcal,  places  the  parallelism  and  proportion  of  the 
 two  dispensations  in  a  just  and  satisfactory  light. 
 
AND    THE    CHRISTIAN    SACRIFICES.  26l 
 
 ^'  From  what"  (he  asks)  "  was  the  offender  deh- 
 vered  by  the  legal  sacrifices  ?  Was  it  not  from 
 the  temporal  death,  and  the  danger  of  being  cut 
 off  from  the  congregation  ?  And  to  what  privi- 
 lege was  he  restored  or  entitled  ?  Was  it  not  to 
 the  privilege  of  appearing  before  God,  and  join- 
 ing in  the  public  worship  ?  What  was  the  puri- 
 fying or  sanctification  consequent  upon  such 
 atonements?  Was  it  not  (as  the  apostle  styles  it) 
 the  purifying  of'  the  flesh ;  an  outward  and  a 
 transient  efficacy,  which  could  not  reach  to  purge 
 their  consciences  from  dead  worhs  ?  And  why 
 was  all  this  neccjsary  to  be  (  ften  repeated,  but 
 because  it  had  no  solid  or  permanent  effect,  nor 
 deserved  to  find  acceptance  of  itself?  But  if  we 
 take  it  in  a  symbolical  or  typical  point  of  view, 
 then  it  leads  us  to  acknowledge  the  benefit  of 
 Christ's  redemption,  and  those  invaluable  privi- 
 leges he  has  purchased  for  us.  That  temporal 
 death,  which  was  denounced  by  the  Law,  will 
 denote  that  everlasting  punishment  to  which  sin- 
 ners are  exposed  as  such.  The  legal  impurity, 
 which  wanted  to  be  cleansed,  will  denote  the  de- 
 filement and  impurity  of  sin.  The  outw^ard 
 admission  \o  the  service  of  the  temple,  will  de- 
 note our  spiritual  privilege  of  access  unto  God, 
 as  well  in  the  present  ordinances  of  his  church, 
 as  in  the  future  inheritance  of  his  eternal  king- 
 dom. And  all  this  being  performed  by  the  ob- 
 lation of  sacrifices,    clean  and  perfect  in  their 
 
 s  3 
 
262  SACRIFICIAL    TERMS    IN    THE   O.  T. 
 
 kind,  will  import  our  being  redeemed  ivith  the 
 precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  ivithout 
 blemish  and  without  spot;  ivho  through  the 
 eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  ivithout  spot  to 
 God,  for  a  sweet'SmelUng  savour^,  and  entered 
 not  into  the  holy  places  made  with  hands,  which 
 are  the  fgures  of  the  true,  but  into  heaven 
 itself,  that  true  tabernacle,  ivhich  the  Lord 
 pitched,  and  not  man,  there  to  plead  the  merit 
 of  his  sacrifice,  and  make  for  ever  intercession 
 for  i(s.'' — Boyle  Lecture  Sermons,  vol.  iii.  pp. 
 77^.  777. 
 
 On  the  subject  of  this  Number  in  general, 
 there  are  some  excellent  remarks  of  Bishop  Stil- 
 lingfleet,  to  be  found  in  his  Discourse  concern- 
 ing the  true  reasons,  &c.  p.  315 — 318. 
 
 NO.    LXIX. ON    THE     CORRESPONDENCE    BETWEEN 
 
 THE  SACRIFICIAL  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  OLD  TES- 
 TAMENT AND  THAT  EMPLOYED  IN  THE  NEW  TO 
 DESCRIBE  REDEMPTION  BY  THE  DEATH  OF 
 CHRIST*.  AND  THE  ORIGINAL  ADAPTATION  OF  THE 
 FORMER    TO  THE    SUBJECT    OF    THE    LATTER. 
 
 Page  6i.  (>') — If  indeed  it  be  considered,  that 
 the  sacrilice  of  Christ  was  the  great  object  held 
 in  view  in  the  a})pointment  of  all  preceding  sa- 
 critices,  and  that  these  were  primarily  designed 
 as  sacramental  representations  of  that,  it  will 
 follow,  that  in  reference  to  it  must  the  sacrificial 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST.    263 
 
 terms  have  been  originally  framed:  and  that 
 therefore,  when  applied  by  the  Apohtles  to  the 
 death  of  Christ,  they  were  adopted,  not  merely 
 as  being  familiar  to  the  Jews  from  their  appli- 
 cation to  the  sin-ofFlrings  under  the  law,  but 
 because  of  their  original  adaptation  to  this  one 
 great  sacrifice,  in  consequence  of  which  they  had 
 been  applied  to  the  legal  sacrifices  ordained  to 
 represent  it.  For  some  valuable  observations 
 on  this  subject,  see  Holmes's  Four  Tracts,  pp. 
 102,   103. 
 
 If  this  view  of  the  matter  be  just,  it  then  fol- 
 lows, that  so  far  were  the  writers  of  the  New 
 Testament  from  employing  the  sacrificial  terms 
 in  mere  accommodation  to  Jewish  notions,  (an 
 argument  much  insisted  on  by  Dr.  Priestley,  H. 
 Taylor,  and  others,  see  pp.  .SO^  31,  and  p.  253 
 — 25b*,  of  the  first  volume)  that  they  must  have 
 used  them  as  primarilif  belonging  to  the  death 
 of  Christ,  and  as  in  strict  accuracy  more  aptly 
 characterizing  the  Christian  sacrifice,  than  those 
 sacrifices  of  typical  import  to  which  they  had 
 been  applied  under  the  law.  From  this  also  it 
 might  be  expected,  that  a  fuller  light  would 
 now  be  thrown  upon  the  nature  of  the  Jewish 
 sacrifice;  and  the  true  force  and  value  of  the  sa- 
 crificial ceremonies  and  phrases,  more  perfectly 
 understood.  And  this  we  find  to  be  the  case; 
 the  language  of  the  New  Testament  on  the  sub- 
 ject of  atonement  being  more  precise  and  signi- 
 
 s  4 
 
26*4  SACRIFICIAL  TERMS  IN  THE  O.  T. 
 
 ficant  than  that  of  the  old.  Instances  of  this 
 may  he  seen  in  pp.  356.  395,  396,  of  the  first 
 volume,  and  are  not  denied  by  the  opponents  of 
 the  doctrine  of  Atonement,  as  it  has  been  ah'eady 
 observed  in  the  phices  referred  to.  Thus  then 
 we  find  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  New,  be- 
 stowing mutual  elucidation,  on  this  head :  the 
 rites  and  terms  of  sacrifice  in  the  Old,  exem- 
 plifying and  describing  the  leading  principles  and 
 fundamental  notions  of  atonement;  and  the  more 
 exact  and  perfect  delineation  of  it  in  the  New, 
 filling  up  the  outline,  and  exhibiting  the  great 
 work  of  our  Redemption,  in  its  genuine  magni- 
 tude and  beauty. 
 
 The  train  of  reflexion  pursued  in  this  Number, 
 leads  nie  naturally  to  notice  the  opinions  of 
 Archbishop  Tillotson,  as  connected  with  its  sub- 
 ject. Nor  is  it  without  much  regret,  that  I  find 
 myself  compelled  to  notice,  for  the  express  pur- 
 pose of  marking  with  condemnation,  the  opi- 
 nions of  a  prelate,  whose  great  talents  and  virtues 
 liave  combined  to  shed  so  bright  a  lustre  on  the 
 annals  of  the  EnHish  church.  This  distinouish- 
 ed  writer,^  liaving  been  forcibly  impressed  with 
 
 *  So  liigbly  was  Tillotson  psteemed  as  a  writer  by  the 
 celebrated  Locke,  that,  in  his  treatise  Concerning  reading 
 und  studi)  for  a  gentleman^  he  specifically  recommends  the 
 constant  perusal  of  the  works  of  that  prelate,  as  a  most 
 useful  exercise  for  the  stiu^  iit  who  is  dcsirons  to  acquire  the 
 taltut  of perspicui/i/.     So  vcr)  highly,  indeed,  did  that  most 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE   OF  CHRIST.     265 
 
 the  many  visible  traces  of  the  doctrines  and 
 truths  of  revelation  discoverable  in  the  mytho- 
 logy and  worship  of  the  Heathen  world,  was  led 
 to  conclude,  with  a  rashness  little  to  be  expected 
 from  such  a  man,  that  the  Christian  religion, 
 whilst  it  was  in  its  substance  a  most  perfect  in- 
 stitution, was  yet,  in  condescension  to  the  vveak- 
 ness  of  mankind,  accommodated  to  the  existing 
 prejudices  of  the  world,  so  far  as  was  consistent 
 with  the  honour  of  God,  and  its  own  great  and 
 
 excellent  judge  of  whatever  is  requisite  to  clearness  of  ex- 
 pression, rate  the  archbishop's  endowmenis  in  this  particular, 
 that  he  has  joined  with  him  but  one  other  writer  in  the  Eng- 
 lish language,  as  exhibiting  a  just  model  for  the  acquisition 
 of  a  perspicuous  style.  That  writer  is  Chilllngicorth^  whom 
 he  commends  also  for  attainments  of  yet  higher  \alue. — 
 *'  Besides  perspicuity"  (he  says)  "  there  must  be  also  right 
 reasoning;  without  which,  perspicuity  serves  but  io  ex- 
 pose the  speaker.  And  for  the  attaining  of  this,  I  should 
 propose  the  constant  reading  of  Chilllngworth,  who,  by  his 
 example,  will  teach  both  perspicuity  and  the  way  of  right 
 reasoning,  better  than  any  book  that  I  hiozo  ;  and  therefore 
 will  deserve  to  be  read  upon  that  account  over  and  over 
 again ;  not  to  say  any  thing  of  his  argument." — Locke'' s 
 Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  601. 
 
 Why  I  have  so  readily  availed  myself  of  the  opportunity, 
 aflforded  by  this  honourable  testimony,  of  presenting  Chil. 
 lingzoorth  to  the  more  immediate  notice  of  the  student,  at 
 this  period,  and  in  this  country,  will  not  be  dilTicult,  upon 
 reflexion,  to  discover. — Quaere — Are  Tillotson,  and  Chil- 
 lingwordi,  and  writers  of  that  manly  stamp,  those,  with  whom 
 the  youth  of  the  present  day  are  most  solicitous  to  converse, 
 for  the  improvement  of  their  reasoning  and  their  style  ? 
 
266  SACRIFICIAL  TERMS    IN    THE  O.  T. 
 
 valuable  purposes.  And  accordingly  he  main- 
 tains, that  the  doctrine  of  our  redemption  by 
 the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  had  its  origin  in  the 
 notion  of  sacrifices  entertained  amongst  the 
 Pa^fans. 
 
 "  This  notion"  (he  says)  '•  of  the  expiation  of 
 sin,  by  sacrifices  of  one  kind  or  other,  seems  to 
 have  obtained  very  early  in  the  world  ;  and,  among 
 all  other  ways  of  divine  worship,  to  have  found 
 the  most  universal  reception  in  all  times  and 
 places.  And  indeed  a  great  part  of  the  Jewish 
 religion  and  worship,  was  a  plain  condescension 
 to  the  general  apprehensions  of  men,  concerning 
 this  way  of  appeasing  the  Deity  by  sacrifice: 
 and  the  greatest  part  of  the  Pagan  religion  and 
 worship  was  likewise  founded  upon  the  same 
 notion  and  opinion^  which,  because  it  w^as  so 
 universal,  seems  to  have  hac}  its  original  from 
 the  first  parents  of  mankind,  either  immediately 
 after  the  Creation^  or  after  the  Flood ;  and  from 
 thence,  I  mean  as  to  the  substance  of  this  no- 
 tion, to  have  been  derived  and  propagated  to  all 
 their  posterity.  And  with  this  general  notion 
 of  mankind,  whatever  the  ground  or  foundation 
 of  it  might  be,  (jod  was  pleased  so  far  to  com- 
 ply, as  once  for  all  to  have  a  general  atonement 
 made  for  the  sins  of  all  mankind,  by  the  sacri- 
 fice of  his  only  Son  " — llUotson's  worlis,  vol.  i. 
 p.  440.  For  similar  observations  see  do.  pp. 
 430,   446,   447,  451.     And  again  in  vol.  ii.  p. 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE   GF  CHRIST.    26/ 
 
 112,  he  states  the  matter  thus: — that  '^  with 
 these  notions,  which  had  generally  possessed 
 mankind,  God  was  pleased  to  comply  so  far,  as^ 
 in  the  frame  of  the  Jewish  religion^  (which  was 
 designed  for  a  type  of  the  more  perfect  institu- 
 tion of  the  Christian  religion,  and  a  prepfiration 
 for  it,)  to  appoint  sacrifices  to  be  slain  and  of- 
 fered up  for  the  sinner,"  &c.  and  that  after- 
 wards, in  the  dispensation  of  the  Gospel,  the 
 same  condescension  to  the  apprehensions  of  man- 
 kind was  hkevvise  observed,  as  has  been  ah'eady 
 stated. 
 
 Now  it  is  surely  much  to  be  lamented,  that 
 when  this  learned  Prelate  had,  upon  a  full  exa- 
 mination of  the  case^  been  led  to  discover  such 
 a  striking  conformity  between  Paganism  and 
 Christianity,  as  must  reduce  the  matter  to  this 
 alternative,  either  that  the  Christian  dispensation 
 was  framed  in  compliance  with  Heathen  pre- 
 judices, or  that  Paganism  was  a  corruption  of 
 those  oracles  which  conveyed  anticipations  of 
 the  Christian  scheme :  it  is,  much,  I  say,  to  be 
 lamented,  that  he  should  have  been  drawn  into 
 a  conclusion^  so  directly  at  variance  with  his- 
 tory and  scripture,  when  one  so  powerfully  sus- 
 tained by  both  was  immediately  at  hand. 
 
 The  stumbling  block  to  the  Archbishop,  as  an 
 ingenious  writer  has  justly  remarked,  w^as  the 
 supposition  of  a  Religion  of  Nature,'^  prior  to^ 
 
 *  One  of  the  most  singular  theories  ever  dcTiscd  on  the 
 
2b8  SACRIIICIAL  TERMS  IN  THE  O.  T. 
 
 and  independent  of  revelation.  Hence  arose  the 
 assumption,  that  the  notion  of  expiation  for  sins 
 hy  sacrifice,  which  he  found  so  early  and  so  uni- 
 
 subject  of  Natural  Religion^  is  that  of  Bishop  Warburton ; 
 which  I  subjoin  here  the  more  readily,  as  it  tends  to  shew 
 to  what  strange  conceits  even  the  greatest  raen  may  be  car. 
 ricd,  wlien  they  attempt  to  be  wise  beyond  Avhat  is  written, 
 and  presume  to  substitute  their  own  conjectural  reasonings 
 for  the  solid  truths  of  rcTelation. — Man,  he  contends,  was 
 created  mortal,  in  (he  immaterial  as  well  as  the  material  part 
 of  his  nature,  immateriality  simply  being  common  to  him 
 with  the  whole  animal  creation.  But  by  God's  breathing 
 into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and  thereby  making  him 
 a  livifig  soul^  the  life  in  man  was  discriminated  from  the  life 
 in  brutes  ;  since  by  this  act  was  communicated  to  his  immate- 
 rial part  a  rational  principle,  which,  by  making  him  responsi- 
 ble for  his  actions,  must  require,  according  to  the  existing 
 constitution  of  things,  a  continuance  of  life,  and  consequently 
 a  distinct  existence  of  the  soul  after  its  separation  from  the 
 body.  In  the  state,  in  which,  according  to  the  Bishop,  the 
 first  couple  were  placed  previous  to  their  admission  into  Pa- 
 radise, they  were  subject  only  to  the  law  o(  Natural  Religion^ 
 the  constituent  parts  of  which  religion  were  discoverable  by 
 the  efforts  of  the  human  understanding  unassisted  by  divine 
 instruction.  On  being  advanced  to  the  Paradisiacal  state, 
 man  became  the  subject  of  Revealed  Religion;  and  as  the 
 reward  of  his  obedience  to  the  positive  precept  attached  to 
 his  new  condition,  imjnortality  (meaning  thereby  the  per- 
 petual duration  and  uninterrupted  union  of  the  body  and 
 soul)  a  quality  which  was  altogether  extraneous  to  his  ori- 
 ginal nature,  was  placed  within  his  reach  by  the  fi'ee  grace 
 of  God.  The  opportunity  now  afforded  to  him  of  exalting 
 his  nature  by  the  superinduced  blessing  of  immortalit^-^,  was 
 lost  by  his  non-compliance  with  the  condition:  and  at  the 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE   SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST.    SG^ 
 
 Versal,  was  the  mere  suggestion  of  human  ap- 
 prehension; not  deduced  from  any  express  reve- 
 lation concerning  the  Lamb    of  God  slain,    in 
 
 «ame  time  the  corruption,  which  his  disobedience  caused  to 
 that  rational  nature  in  which  he  had  been  made  to  resemble 
 the  divine  image,  degraded  him  to  his  first  condition  of  mor- 
 tality, and  made  him  again  liable  to  that  total  death,  that 
 complete  annihilation  to  which  his  frame  was  originally  sub- 
 ject. But  by  the  intervention  of  Jesus  Christ,  man  was  not 
 only  restored  to  the  advantages  of  his  original  state,  namely 
 the  continuance  of  the  soul  after  the  dissolution  of  the  body; 
 but  he  was  also  enabled  to  obtain  that  immortality,  which 
 Adam  by  his  obedience  might  have  secured ;  with  this  differ- 
 ence however,  that,  in  the  immortality  procured  by  Christ, 
 death  is  permitted  to  give  a  temporary  interruption  to  that 
 existence  and  union  of  the  soul  and  body,  which,  in  the  other 
 case,  would  have  been  unbroken.  But  not  only  had  the 
 transgression  occasioned  a  relapse  into  that  state  of  mortality 
 in  which  man  had  been  originally  created,  but  it  also  threw 
 him  back  into  that  subjection  to  natural  Religion  in  which 
 he  was  at  first  placed.  In  this  dispensation  of  Natural  Re. 
 Ugion^  which,  according  to  Bishop  Warburton,  was  thus 
 permitted  to  precede  the  dispensation  of  Grace^  the  aids  and 
 succours  of  virtue  were  not,  however,  according  to  his  hy- 
 pothesis, wanting;  for,  in  his  view  of  the  subject,  the  light  of 
 revelation  is  by  no  means  required  to  make  known  the  effi- 
 cacy of  repentance,  or  the  rewards  of  upright  conduct.  Both 
 these  points,  he  contends,  are  evidently  manifest  to  the  eye  of 
 reason,  tracing  the  connexion  that  must  subsist  between  the 
 creature  and  his  Maker.  Such  are  the  paradoxical,  and,  it 
 must  be  added,  unscriptural  sentiments,  conveyed  by  this 
 learned  writer  in  the  ixth  book  of  the  Dipine  Legation, 
 They  will  be  found  well,  though  briefly,  treated  by  Mr. 
 Pearson,  in  the  first  three  sections  of  his  Critical  Essa?/,-  a 
 
iJ/'O  SACRIFICIAL    TERMS    IN    THE    O.  T. 
 
 decree  and  type,  from  the  foundation  of  the 
 world;  not  springing  from  any  divine  institution, 
 ordained  for  the  purpose  of  shewing  forth  Christ's 
 death,  until  he  should  himself  appear  in  the 
 flesh,  to  fulfil  all  that  was  prefigured  of  him,  and 
 to  take  away  sin,  and  put  an  end  to  sacrifice,  by 
 the  one  great  sacrifice  of  himself. 
 
 work,  of  which  I  have  already  had  occasion  to  speak,  in  p. 
 96,  of  the  former  volume,  and  p.  28  of  this.  Dr.  Graves, 
 also,  in  the  4th  section,  part  III.  of  his  Lectures  on  the  Pen. 
 iateuchy  has  made  many  valuable  remarks,  affecting,  thougli 
 not  directly,  these  positions  of  the  too  Ingenious  Bishop. 
 
 It  ought  not  to  pass  unnoticed  that  his  Lordship  in  one  of 
 his  letters  to  his  friend  Dr.  Ilurd,  speaks  of  this  his  favourite 
 theory,  as  intended  to  "  confute  the  triumphant  reasoning  of 
 unbelievers,  particularly  Tindal,  who  say  redemption  is  a 
 fable:  for  the  only  means  of  regaining  God'' s  favour^  which 
 they  eternally  confound  with  immortality^  is  that  simple  one 
 which  natural  religion  teaches,  viz.  repentance.  To  confute 
 this,  it  was  necessary  to  shew,  that  restoration  to  a  free  gift^ 
 and  the  recovery  of  a  claim ^  were  two  very  different  things. 
 The  common  answer  was,  that  natural  religion  does  not  teach 
 reconciliation  on  repentance;  which  if  it  does  not,  it  teaches 
 nothing,  or  worse  than  nothing."  Of  Natural  Religion  then, 
 after  all  that  Bishop  Warburton  has  written  about  it,  we  have 
 his  full  confesiiion,  tliat  if  it  does  not  teach  the  suj/icicnci/  of 
 repentance,  it  teaches  even  zcorse  than  nothing. — The  oppo- 
 nent of  the  notion  of  Natural  Religion,  may  safely  alloAV  tho 
 matter  to  rest  upon  the  ground,  on  which  the  Bishop  has 
 placed  it.  That  God  will  accept  repentance  in  compen- 
 sation for  obedience,  nothing  short  of  the  word  of  God  can 
 ever  establish  satisfactorily  to  any  reasonable  mind.  The 
 consequence  of  this  position  is  supplied  by  the  author  of  th« 
 Divine  Legation. 
 
ADAPTED    TO    THE   SACRIFICE    OF    CHRIST.    271 
 
 Had  the  Archbishop,  as  the  same  writer,  ob- 
 serves, reflected,  that  a  rehgion  or  law  of  nature,* 
 is  a  mere  ens  rationis:  that  the   first    parents    of 
 
 *  To  him  who  would  wish  to  sec,  how  little  the  Religion 
 of  Nature^  so  far  as  it  contains  any  thing  truly  valuable  to 
 man,  is  stri6lly  entitled  to  tliat  name,   I  would  recommend 
 the  perusal   of  the    preface  to   The  Religion  of  Jesus  deli- 
 neated.     The   observations  there     contained,    whilst    they 
 tend   to  sheWT,  in  animadverting  upon  The  Religion  of  Na- 
 ture delineated^  how  sadly  deficient  the  scheme  of  natural 
 religion  is    found,  even  at  this   day,  although  sketched   by 
 the  hand    of  a   master,  and  aided   by    the  borrowed  disco- 
 Ycries  of  revelation,  at  the  same  time  clearly   evince,  that  the 
 promulger  of  the  truths  of  what  is  called   natural  religion^ 
 in  almost  every  case  in  which  he  advances  any  that  are  of 
 importance  to   mankind,  is  in   reality  to  be  deemed,   not 
 AvTo^ioocKToc^  but  ©c-ooi^KKTo?.     Of  this,  howcvcr,  the   fullest 
 and  most  complete  proof  is  to  be  derived  from  the  invalu- 
 able work  of  Dr.  Ellis,  in  which  he  may  be  said  to  have  de- 
 monstrated   The  Knowledge  of   Divine  Things  to  be  fro?n 
 Revelation^  not  from  Reason  or  Nature.     Leland  has   also 
 abundantly  established  the  facl,   of  the  total  insufficiency 
 of  human  reason  in  religious  concerns,  by  the  vie\v,  which 
 he  has  given,  of  the  state   of  religion  in  the  Heathen  world, 
 in  his  work  on   The  Advantage  and  Necessity  of  the  Chris- 
 tian  Revelation.      From    Clarke's  6th   and  7th.  propp.  of 
 his  Evidences  of  Natural  and  Revealed  Religiop,  although 
 this  author  is  disposed  to  attribute  to  the  powers   of  reason 
 rather  more  than  their  due  share,  the  same  inference  may  be 
 deduced — especially   from   what  is  said    p.   659 — QQb.  and 
 
 666—671.   vol.  ii.   of  his  works. 1   should  be  guilty  of 
 
 injustice  to  an  accomplished  modern  writer,  if  on  this  sub- 
 ject I  permitted  to  pass  unnoticed,  Dr.  Maltby's  Thesis  for 
 his  degree  of  B,  D.  contained   in  the   volume  of  his  lilus- 
 
 J 
 
'272  SACRIFICIAL    TERMS    IN    THE    O.    T. 
 
 mankind  were  not  left  to  the  unassisted  light  of 
 reason  or  nature,  but  were  from  the  beginning 
 fully  instructed  by  their  Creator,  in  all  things 
 necessary  for  them  to  know  :  that,  after  their 
 fall,  the  way  and  method  of  their  salvation  was, 
 in  a  certain  degree,  made  known  to  them :  that 
 all  religious  rites  flowtrd  from  the  same  divine 
 source,    viz.    the    original  revelation  of  the    re- 
 
 trations  of  the  Truth  of  the  Christian  Religion,  The  follow, 
 ing  proposition,  "  Nequit  per  se  hiiniana  ratio  cognitione 
 satis  plena  ct  ccrta  asseqiii,  quo  potissimum  modo  Deiis  sit 
 colendus  ;  quie  sint  hominiim  officia;  vita  denique  futura 
 sit,  necne,  a3terna,"  is  there  treated  with  a  justness,  a  suc- 
 cinctness, a  good  taste,  a  correctness  of  style,  and  a  strength 
 of  authority,  which  refledl  honour  upon  its  author  as  a 
 divine  and  as  a  scholar,  and  cannot  fail  to  give  satisfaction 
 to  the  reader,  who  wishes  to  find  the  substance  of  what  can 
 be  said  upon  this  important  question,  compressed  into  the 
 smallest  compass,  and  in  the  best  manner.  The  conclud- 
 ing observation,  concerning  such  as  at  the  present  day  re- 
 pose on  the  sufficiency  of  reason  for  a  knowledge  of  their 
 duties,  contains  a  truth,  in  which  every  retle6ting  mind 
 must  necessarily  acquiesce.  ''  Profceto  eadem,  qua  veteros 
 philosophi,  ca'igine  animi  eorum  sunt  raersi ;  aut  si  quid 
 melius  sapiunt,  idomne  a  Christiana  rcligionc  inula  fide  mu- 
 tuati  sunt.'^  p.  355.  And  therefore,  as  the  writer  finally 
 remarks,  it  is  most  devoutly  to  be  desired,  that  the  advo- 
 cates for  the  all-sufficiency  of  reason,  would  deeply  im- 
 print upon  their  minds,  this  momentous  maxim  of  the 
 great  Bacon — "  Causa  vero  et  radix  fere  omnium  malo- 
 jiim  in  scientiis  ea  una  est,  quod  dura  mentis  humanae  vires 
 falso  miramur  et  extolliraus,  vura  ejus  auxilia  non  quadra- 
 mus."     p.  359. 
 
 1 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST.       2^3 
 
 demption   of  the  world  by  the  sacrifice  of  our 
 Lord    Jesus    Christ:   that  all   the  apprehensions 
 and  common  prejudices  of  mankind,  as  they  are 
 called,    were  derived   from   the    same   fountain: 
 that  all,  imtil  the  apostasy  at  Babel,  had  the  same 
 tongue,  the  same  faith,  the  same  Lord :  that  the 
 Heathen  carried  off  from  thence  the  same  religious 
 rites   and  ceremonies,   and   the  same  sentiments 
 concerning  God  and  his  ways  with  man,  which, 
 by  change  of  language,  length  of  time,  wantonness 
 of  imagination,  perverseness  of  human  nature,  and 
 subtlety  of  the  devil,  were  reduced  to  that  cor- 
 rupted  state  of  faith  and  practice  in  which  ou^ 
 Saviour  at  his  advent  found  them :— and  that,  as 
 already  observed,  from  the  first  promise  made  to 
 Adam,  during  the  patriarchal  and  legal  dispensa- 
 tions, all  was  Christianity  in  type  and  figure;  so 
 that   Christianity   was  the  Jirst  religion   in   the 
 world,  corrupted  afterwards  indeed  by  the  Gentile, 
 but  preserved  by  the  Jew  in  type,  till  Christ,  the 
 great  antitype,  the  reality  and  completion,  came : 
 —had  he  (this  writer  observes)  pursued  this  train 
 of  thinking,   he  would  have  found  the  reverse  of 
 his  conclusion  to  be  the   truth;  namely,  ''  that 
 Christianity  was  not  instituted  in  compliance  with 
 Paganism,  but  that  Paganism  was  nothing  else 
 but  the    great    truths   of  Christianity   split  and 
 debased  into  a  legend  of  fables,  such  as  we   meet 
 with  in  their  myihoXo^y .'"^—Speerman's  Letters 
 *  If  this  view  of  the  case  be  a  just  one,  we  cortainlv  might 
 
 vol..  II.  T 
 
274  SACRIFICIAL   TERMS    IN   THE    O.  T. 
 
 to  a  Jrieyid  concerning  the  Septuagint  transla^ 
 tionandthe  Heathen  Mt/thologtj,\:)p,  150,  151. 
 
 The  writer,  who  has  made  the  above  observa- 
 tions, and  whose  reasonings  would  not  have  been 
 less  valuable  had  they  taken  less  tincture  from  the 
 Hutchinsonian  school,  has  endeavoured,  and  not 
 without  success,  to  establish  the  point  last  adverted 
 to,  namely  the  derivation  of  the  Pagan  mythology 
 from  the  divine  revelations. 
 
 Tillotsoris  idea  corresponds  with  that  which 
 w^as  afterwards  adopted  by  Spencer,  For  since 
 he  admits  the  Jewish  dispensation  to  have  been 
 typical  of  the  Christian,  the  accommodation  of 
 the  Christian  scheme  to  Pagan  prejudices,  for 
 which  he  contends,  could  only  have  been  effected 
 through  the  previous  accommodation  of  the 
 Jewish  scheme  to  those  prejudices;  which,  as 
 we  have  seen  in  Number  XLVII,  falls  in  with 
 the  theory  maintained  by  Spencer.  And  this 
 theory,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  same  Number,  p.  5, 
 is  satisfactorily  refuted  by  Shicckfbrd,  whose  work 
 on  The  Sacred  and  Prophane  History  of  the 
 World  Connected,  goes  to  establish  the  direct 
 contradictory  of  Spencer  s  position.*     The  argu- 
 
 reasonably  expect  to  find  ia  the  mythology  of  the  ancients,  in 
 a  much  larger  and  more  important  sense,  what  Plutarch  says 
 of  the  Egyptian  fables,  uixv^^a.^  T»m?  t[x(pciia-tK;  tu$  <Ji^»39£»a?,  some 
 faint  and  obscure  resemblance  of  the  truth. 
 
 *  The  particular  application  of  his  arguments  to  Spencer^s 
 uotion  will  bo  found  briefly  sketched  in  vol.  i.  p.  313 — 317, 
 
 1 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST.      275 
 
 inents  of  Spencer  are  also  successfully  combated 
 by  JVitslus  in  his  .^gi/pf'/aca  :  see  likewise  the 
 same  author's  ^//.yc.  Sacr.  Lib.  I.  Diss.  i.  p.  429  — 
 437.  PVarhurton  confesses  truly,  that  Spencers 
 work  is  but  a  paraphrase  and  comment  on  the 
 third  book  of  the  Moreh  Nevachim  of  Rabbi 
 Malmonides  :  and  joining  forces  with  Spencer^ 
 
 *  IIow  little  Spencer  deserved  to  have  the  support  of  War- 
 burton,  is  not  only  manifest,  from  the  whole  scheme  of  his 
 argument,  in  his  great  work  De  legibus  Hehrceorum^  which 
 ts  itself  unsupported  by  true  history,  and  has  always  been 
 resorted  to  by  Infidel  writers  in  order  to  wing  their  shafts 
 more  effectively  against  the  Mosaic  Revelation  :  but  may  also 
 be  made  to  appear,  more  evidently  and  briefly,  by  the  quota- 
 i\o^  of  a  single  passage  from  this  writer's  Discourse  concenung 
 Prodigies.  "  It  is,"  he  says,  "  the  nature  of  the  soul  to  be 
 greatly  impressire  to  a  persuasion  of  parallels^  equalities^ 
 similitudes^  in  the  frame  and  government  of  the  world. — This 
 general  temper  of  the  soul  easily  inclines  it  to  believe  great 
 and  mighty  changes  in  states,  ushered  with  the  solemnity  of 
 some  mighty  and  analogous  changes  in  nature;  and  that  all 
 terrible  evils  are  prefaced  or  attended  with  some  prodigious 
 and  amazing  alterations  in  the  creation : — Hence  perhaps  it 
 is,  that  we  generally  lind  great  troubles  and  judgments  oii 
 earth  described,  especially  by  persons  ecstatical^ prophets  and 
 poeiSy  (whose  speeches  usually  rather  follow  iheeasi/  sense  of 
 the  soul  than  the  rigid  truth  of  things,)  by  all  the  examples  of 
 horror  and  confusion  in  the  frame  of  the  creation:  The 
 Prophet  David  describes  God's  going  forth  to  judgment  thus; 
 The  earth  shook  and  trembled,  the  foundations  also  of  the  hills 
 moved  and  li^cre  shaken,''''  &c.  (p.  70 — 72) — Now  can  it  be 
 any  defence  against  this  irreverent  attack  upon  the  prophets 
 inspired  bij  God,  which  charges  them  w  ith  indulging  in  enthn. 
 
 T  2 
 
^6  SACRIFICIAL  TERMS  IN  THE  O.  t. 
 
 in  maintaining  the  orthodoxy  of  the  philoso- 
 phizing Jevv^*  he  contends,  with  all  his  might, 
 against  the  arguments  of  IVitsius  and  Shucliford, 
 
 siastlc  visions  and  expressions  founded  only  in  their  oion 
 fancies  and  not  in  the  truth  of  things ;  can  it,  I  say,  be 
 deemed  any  defence  to  urge,  as  Warburton  has  done,  that 
 "  through  his  intention  to  the  argument,  he  often  expresses 
 himself  very  crudely  .^"  (Div.  Leg.  vol.  ii.  p.  341.)  If  he  be 
 so  crude  in  his  expression,  as  to  cast  discredit  upon  revelation, 
 whilst  his  intention  is  to  support  it,  he  must  surely  be  a  very 
 unsafe  guide  in  theology.  At  the  same  time,  it  can  hardly  be 
 imagined,  that  an  author,  possessing  considerable  powers  and 
 facilities  of  langrage,  could,  in  any  case,  especiallj^  in  one 
 affecting  the  very  foundation  of  revealed  religion,  express  him- 
 self so  crudely^  as  to  represent  himself  destitute  of  a  belief, 
 which  hp  firmly,  habitually,  and  reverently  maintained.  At 
 all  events,  it  is  evident,  that  such  a  writer  is  to  be  consulted 
 with  much  caution,  and  his  authorities  scanned  with  much 
 suspicion. 
 
 *  For  a  very  curious  and  interesting  account  of  the  circum- 
 stances which  gave  rise  to  the  production  of  the  celebrated 
 work,  the  Moreh  Nevochim,  in  which  Maimonides  first  gave 
 to  the  world,  the  theory  of  the  ceremonial  institutions  of  the 
 Jews  here  referred  to,  the  reader  may  consult  Warbni^ton^s 
 Div.  Leg.  vol.  ii.  pp.  353,  354.  He  will  probably  however 
 not  be  altogether  satisfied,  that  the  existing  necessity  of"  shew- 
 ing to  the  apostatizing  Jews,  that  the  Scriptures  might  be 
 defended  or  even  explained  on  the  principles  of  Aristotle ;  and 
 of  gratifying  the  inquisitive  and  disputatious  tendencies  of 
 those,  who  enquired  after  the  reasons  of  the  Jewish  laws,  by 
 finding  out  a  reasonableness  and  convenience  in  their  ceremo- 
 nial rites,"  supplies  a  proof,  that  those  reasons,  which  the 
 philosophic  Jew  had  thus  assigned,  were  the  true  reasons, 
 which  iiiflueaced  the  divine  legislator  in  the  several  ordinances 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST.       277 
 
 — Div.  Leg,  Book  IV.  Sect.  6.  To  this  he  was 
 urged  by  the  necessity,  which  his  paradoxical 
 system  had  imposed  upon  him,  of  making  out 
 for  the  Egyptian  rites  and  institutions  an  extra- 
 vagant antiquity:  and,  in  defence  of  his  dogmas, 
 he  advances  every  thing,  that  a  powerful  but 
 perverted  ingenuity,  acting  on  a  wide  range  of 
 learning,  could  supply.* 
 
 of  his  Law.  The  parallel,  which  Warburton  here  insinuates, 
 between  the  nature  of  his  own  great  work  and  that  of  Maimo- 
 nides,  will  not  escape  the  notice  of  the  observing  reader. 
 
 *  The  character  of  this  distinguished  scholar  and  divine,  as 
 it  is  pourtrayed  by  the  hand  of  a  master,  I  here  willingly 
 subjoin. — "  He  was  a  man  of  vigorous  faculties,  a  mind  fervid 
 and  vehement,  supplied  by  incessant  and  unlimited  enquiry, 
 with  wonderful  extent  and  variety  of  knowledge,  which  yet 
 had  not  oppressed  his  imagination,  nor  clouded  his  perspica- 
 city. To  every  work  h-^  brought  a  memory  full  fraught,  with 
 a  fancy  fertile  of  original  combinations,  and  at  once  exerted 
 the  powers  of  the  scholar,  the  reasoner,  and  the  wit.  But  his 
 knowledge  was  too  multifarious  to  be  always  exact,  and  his 
 pursuits  were  too  eager  to  be  always  cautious.  His  abilities 
 gave  him  an  haughty  confidence,  which  he  disdained  to  conceal 
 Off  mollify:  and  his  impatience  of  opposition  disposed  him  to 
 treat  his  adversaries  with  such  contemptuous  superiority  as 
 made  his  readers  commonly  his  enemies,  and  exc'tod  against 
 him  the  wishes  of  some  who  favoured  his  cause.  He  seems  to 
 have  adopted  the  Roman  emperor's  determination,  otLrint 
 dum  jnetnant;  he  used  no  allurements  of  ger.tle  language,  but 
 wished  to  compel  rather  than  persuade. — His  style  is  copious 
 without  selection,  and  forcible  without  neatness:  he  took  the 
 words  that  presented  themselves:  his  diction  is  coarse  and 
 
 t3 
 
2/ S  SACRIFICIAL  TERiMS  IN  THE   O.  T. 
 
 Lord  BoUnghrohc  has  seldom  been  found  in^ 
 strumental  in  correcting  theological  mistakes, 
 and  yet  nothing  can  be  more  apposite  in  reply  to 
 
 impure,  and  his  sentences  are  unmeasured." — Johnson''s  L?fe 
 of  Pope. 
 
 For  a  Tiew  of  the  character  more  favourable,  but  not  more 
 just,  I  would  refer  to  tliat  Avhich  Bishop  Hurd,  the  uniform 
 admirer  and  panegyrist  of  AVarburton,  has  given  in  the  life  lie 
 has  written  of  that  prelate.  His  encomiums,  on  The  Divine 
 Legation  especially,  are  overcharged ;  and  the  recollection 
 tliat  the  cause  of  truth  and  of  religion,  no  less  than  the  reputa* 
 tion  of  his  friend,  was  involved  in  the  estimation  of  that 
 important  work,  should  have  rendered  his  panegyric  more 
 qualified. 
 
 My  friend  Doctor  Graves,  In  his  late  excellent  work  on  the 
 Pentateuch^  has  sketched  a  portrait,  which  for  likeness  of 
 feature  and  justness  of  colouring,  seems  to  me  to  merit  a 
 place  in  the  neighbourhood  of  that  which  has  been  drawn  by 
 Johnson. — Speaking  of  the  Divine  Legation^  and  having 
 observed,  that  "  While  its  author  lived,  his  splendid  talents 
 and  extensive  learning,  raised  in  his  followers  and  defenders 
 such  enthusiastic  admiration,  that  they  could  not  perceive,  or 
 at  least  would  not  allow,  that  he  had  been  in  the  smallest  point 
 erroneous:  while  the  keenness  of  his  controversial  asperity, 
 the  loftiness  of  his  literary  pretensions,  and  the  paradoxical 
 form  in  which  he  too  frequently  chose  to  clothe  his  opinions, 
 louscd  in  his  answerers  a  zealof  opposition,  which  would  some- 
 times yield  him  no  credit  for  (lie  discovery  of  any  truth  :"  he 
 then  proceeds:  "  Time  should  now  enable  us  to  view  him  in 
 his  true  light:  in  reasoning,  sni;;i(-ious  yet  precipitate;  in  criti, 
 cism,  ingenious  but  not  unprejudiced  ;  his  comprehensive  view 
 sometimes  embraced  in  the  jKocess  of  his  enquiries  too  wide 
 an  extent;  while  his  quick  iniaginatiou  sometimes  led  him  to 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST.       279 
 
 these  dangerous   notions   of   Tillotson,  Spencer, 
 and  Warburton,  than  his  observations  upon  this 
 very  subject.     For  the  weighty  reasons  assigned 
 by  these  writers,  he  says,  (alluding  to  such  as  held 
 the  opinions  of  Spencer) — "  The  God  of  truth 
 chose  to  indulge  error,  and   suited  his  institutions 
 to  the  taste  of  the  age:  he  contented  himself  also 
 to  take  ordinary  and  natural   means,   in  a  case  to 
 which  they  were  not  adequate :  and  whilst  mira- 
 cles  and  divine  interpositions  were   displayed  in 
 great  abundance  before  the  eyes  of  the  Israelites, 
 yet  Moses,  under  the  direction  of  the  Almighty, 
 chose  to  make  use  of  superstitions  which  he  did 
 not  want,  and  which  defeated  instead  of  securing 
 his  intent ;  insomuch,  that  if  the  apostasies  of  the 
 Israelites,  after  such  manifestations  of  the  one  true 
 God,  can  be  any  way  accounted  for,  it  must  be  by 
 the  effect  of  the  very  expedient  which   had  been 
 employed  to  prevent  these  apostasies."     In  short, 
 he  says,  the  whole  plan  of  Providence  seems  to 
 
 combine  his  arguments  with  too  slight  a  connexion.  But  when 
 he  directed,  to  any  one  grand  point,  his  undivided  and  unpre- 
 judiced attention,  he  frequently  diffused  over  it  the  raJiance 
 of  genius,  and  discovered  the  recesses  of  truth.  Happy,  had 
 his  humility  been  equal  to  his  talents,  and  had  his  temper  been 
 as  calm  and  tolerant,  as  his  understanding  was  luminous  and 
 penetrating.  His  researches  would  then  have  been  conducted 
 with  more  caution  and  impartiality,  would  have  produced 
 more  unexceptionable  conclusions,  and  been  attended  with 
 happier  success."  Dr,  Graves's  Lectures  on  the  Pentateuch, 
 vol.ii.  p.209— 211. 
 
 T  4 
 
280  SACRIFICIAL  TERMS  IN  THE  O.  T. 
 
 have  been,  "  to  destroy  idolatry  hy  indulgence 
 to  the  very  superstitions  out  of  which  it  greiv."'* 
 — BoUngbroke's  PhiL  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  313— 
 
 Slf). 
 
 What  the  noble  Sophist  had  intended  with  no 
 better  will  to  Revealed  Religion  itself,  than  to 
 those  of  its  advocates  whom  he  professes  to  re- 
 buke, 1  have,  in  this  extract^  taken  such  liberties 
 in  nniodifying,  as  will  permit  the  argument  to  bear, 
 only  where  truth  would  have  directed  it;  namely, 
 upon  those  mistaken  interpreters  of  revelation, 
 who  depart  from  the  written  word  of  God,  to 
 follow  the  guidance  of  their  own  fancies  in  ex- 
 plaining the  grounds  and  motives  of  the  divine 
 dispensations.  Such  it  is  impossible  not  to  pro- 
 nounce Tillotson,  Spencer  and  Warburton,  to 
 have  been  on  the  particular  subject  now  be- 
 fore us. 
 
 *  On  the  same  subject,  (his  -writer,  in  another  place,  thus 
 pointedly,  (though  as  his  custom  is,  irreverently)  expresses 
 himself.  In  order  to  preserve  the  purity  of  his  worship, 
 the  deity  is  represented,  as  prescribing  to  the  Israelites,  a 
 multitude  of  rites  and  ceremonies,  founded  in  the  supersti 
 tions  of  Kgypt  from  which  thry  were  to  be  weaned,  and  he 
 fucceeded  accordingly.  They  were  never  weaned  entirely 
 from  all  these  superstitions:  and  the  great  merit  of  the  law  of 
 Moses  was  teaching  the  peo])le  to  adore  one  God,  much  as  the 
 idolatrous  nations  adored  several.  Tliis  may  be  called  sancti- 
 fying l^agan  rites  and  ceremonies,  in  theological  language: 
 but  it  is  profaning  the  pure  worship  of  Cod,  in  the  language  of 
 popimcn  sense. — Phil,  JVorLs,  vol.  v.  p.  ^75. 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST.       281 
 
 III  how  very  different  a  manner,  we  ought  to 
 pursue  our  enquiries,  from  that  which  these  writers 
 would  propose,  I  have  already  endeavoured  to 
 enforce,  p.  45—6*0  of  vol.  i.  also  Number  XLVII. 
 and  pp.  262,263.271—^273  of  this  volume.  And 
 how  fully  we  are  justified  in  so  doing,  will  yet  more 
 satisfactorily  appear,  on  consulting  Dr,  Graves's 
 Lectures  on  the  Pentateuch,  (especially  the  two 
 sections  of  Lect.  vi.  part  iii.)  and  the  Eight  Dis- 
 courses on  the  Connexion  between  the  Old  and  New 
 Testament;  in  which  latter  work,  the  unity  of  the 
 scheme  of  Redemption  pervading  the  entire  series 
 of  the  divine  dispensations,  has  been  treated  with 
 much  ability  by  Archdeacon  Daubery;  whose 
 opinions,  upon  so  many  important  points,  I  am 
 happy  to  find  perfectly  coincident  with  those, 
 which  I  have  submitted  to  the  public,  throughout 
 these  pages,  on  the  nature  of  the  atonement. 
 
 To  such  as  may  be  desirous  to  investigate  more 
 deeply,  the  opinions  of  the  three  distinguished 
 writers  against  whom  I  have  found  it  necessary  to 
 contend  in  discussing  the  subject  of  the  present 
 Number,  1  recommend  an  attentive  perusal  of  the 
 tenth  book  ofEusehinss  Prceparatio  Evangelica: 
 —Book  III.  chap.  v.  of  Stillingfeefs  Origines 
 Sacrce  :—Bocharfs  Geographia  Sacra  :— Wit- 
 siuss  jF.gi/ptiaca :  -  Winders  Historjj  of  Know- 
 ledge :  —  Ellis  s  Knowledge  of  Divine  Thi?igs 
 from  Revelation  (especially  p.  1^22— 1 29):  ^i- 
 \holss    Conference  ivith  a  Theist,   (particularly 
 
 1 
 
282  SACRIFICIAL  TERMS  IN  THE  O.  T. 
 
 vol.  i.  p.  290—308,  and  pp.  31,9,  320.) :  Fahers 
 Horce  Mosaicce :  and  Dr.  Woodwai^d's  Discourse 
 on  the  Antient  Egypiians^^  (Archoeoiog,  voL 
 iv. )  The  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  in  his  excellent 
 Elements  of  Christian  Theology^  (Part.  I.  cliap. 
 i.  p.  37 — 48.)   has    admirably  summed  up   the 
 
 *  All  extract  from  this  discourse  I  here  subjoin,  as  particu- 
 larly worthy  of  attention,  in  reply  to  the  favourite  theory  of 
 Spencer. — "  Whatever  might  be  the  bent  and  dispositions  of 
 the  Israelites,  it  was  Moses's  proper  business  to  rectify  them. 
 He  was  not  to  indulge  them  in  their  fancies,  but  inform  them 
 of  their  duties,  and  direct  them  to  what  was  fit,  reasonable 
 and  consistent  with  good  morals  and  piety,  though  that  hap- 
 pened to  bo  never  so  much  against  their  gusts  and  inclinations, 
 which  accordingly  he  every  where  did  :  and  there  arc  nume. 
 rous  instances  of  it  through  all  his  government  of  them.  His 
 doing  otherwise  might,  indeed,  have  shown  a  great  deal  of 
 policy^  but  not  near  so  much  probity  and  goodness,  as  are 
 discoverable  through  his  whole  conduct  of  this  great  people. 
 I  can  very  easily  allow  Dr.  Spencer,  that  this  was  the  method 
 that  Mahomet,  ApolloniusTyanaeus,  and  some  politicians  have 
 taken :  nor  will  I  enter  into  any  contest  with  him,  whether 
 the  Devil  makes  use  of  the  same  in  order  to  seduce  mankind 
 from  the  worship  of  God;  all  M'hich  he  gives,  I  think,  surely 
 with  a  little  too  much  looseness,  as  parallel  instances  in  con- 
 firmation of  his  notion :  but  tliis  I  am  mighty  sure,  Moses 
 was  on  all  occasions  very  far  from  it."  pp.  281,  282. — 
 Spencer  had  justified  these  observations  by  his  strange  asser- 
 tions. "  In  eo  enim  eluxit  sapientia  divina,  quod  antidotum 
 e  veneno  faceret,  et  illis  ipsis  ceremoniis  ad  populi  sui  utilita- 
 tem,  qiiibus  olim  Diabolus  ad  hominum  perniciem  uteretur." 
 And  again  he  cites  this  political  axiom,  to  kxxqv  bv  y.ii[y.uo»  ax. 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST.       283 
 
 argument  from  the  concurrence  of  profane  tradi- 
 tion with  the  Mosaic  history ;  deducing  both  from 
 the  common  source  of  revelation,  disguised  indeed 
 and  disfigured  in  the  one  by  allegories  and  fabu- 
 lous conceits,  but  conveyed  to  us  by  the  other  in 
 its  pristine  and  uncorru])ted  purity.  The  labo- 
 rious and  valuable  researches  of  Mr.  Bryant,  Mr. 
 Maurice,  and  particularly  Sir  William  Jones, 
 have  thrown  new  and  powerful  lights  upon  this 
 important  subject. 
 
 As  to  the  searching,  with  a  curious  minuteness, 
 into  the  resemblances,  which  subsist,  between  the 
 Pagan  mythologies,  and  the  great  truths  of  the 
 Jewish  and  Christian  revelations ;  this  may  un- 
 doubtedly be  carried  too  far.  And  I  agree  entirely 
 with  the  learned  and  judicious  Mr.  Nares,  that  we 
 are  not  bound  in  the  proof  of  the  authenticity  of 
 revelation,  to  mark  out  its  traces,  amidst  the 
 rubbish  of  absurd  fables  and  disgusting  mysteries, 
 which  compose  the  various  religions  of  the  Hea- 
 then world.  See  Nares's  Bampton  Lecture, 
 pp.  251,  252. — x\nd  yet,  since  these  resemblances 
 have  been  employed,  by  the  pen  of  infidelity,  to 
 overthrow  Revelation,  under  the  pretence,  that 
 the  discoveries,  which  we  ascribe  to  it,  had  been 
 derived  from  Pagan  mythology^,  it  surely  must  be 
 admitted,  that  such  enquiries  of  the  learned,  as 
 tend  to  reverse  this  position,  possess  no  inconsi- 
 derable value.  The  engines,  designed  for  the 
 destruction  of  Christianity,  are  hereby  converted 
 
5S4  SACRIFICIAL  TERMS  IN  THE  O.  T. 
 
 into  instruments  for  its  defence.  The  infidel, 
 who  laboured  in  the  support  of  error,  is  thus 
 rendered  an  auxihary  in  the  cause  of  truth.  And 
 it  may  perhaps  not  unfairly  be  viewed,  as  a  sort 
 of  providential  retribution,  that  a  Hume,  a  Boling- 
 broke,  and  a  Voltaire,*  should  be  pressed  into 
 
 *  Volney  is  not,  perhaps,  of  sufficient  calibre,  to  be  rank- 
 ed  with  the  above  mentioned  fUscoverers  of  moral  and  reli- 
 gious truths.  And  yet,  he  has  given  specimens,  which  prove 
 him  not  wholly  unworthy  of  such  society.  He  has,  amongst 
 many  curious  maUers,  discovered.  iha.t  the  mysterious  birth  of 
 the  Messiah,  signifies  nothii);;  more,  than  the  Sun  rising  in 
 the  constelhdion  of  Virgo ;  that  the  twelve  apostles,  are  the 
 twelve  signs  of  the  Zodiac  ;  and  that  all  "  the  pretended  per- 
 sonages from  Adam  to  Abraham,  are  mythological  beings, 
 sta7's^  constellations^  conntries.^^  Ruins,  pp.  348.  388,  389. 
 — Of  this  work  of  Mr.  Volney,  it  has  been  well  remarked  by 
 a  learned  writer,  that  it  "  is  truly  stiled  The  Ruins  :  for 
 thatj  agreeably  to  its  title,  it  menaces  destruction  to  every 
 thing  that  has  justly  commanded  the  respect  and  veneration  of 
 man;  as  it  would  rob  men  of  the  inestimable  blessings  of  peace 
 and  good  order,  of  the  endearing  ties  of  social  connexion,  and 
 consequently  of  what  constitutes  both  public  and  private  hap- 
 piness; and  by  breaking  the  sahitary  restraints  of  religion, 
 would  batjish  peace  from  the  human  breast,  and  spoil  it  of  its 
 firmest  support  in  life  and  surest  consolation  in  death."  And 
 to  this  is  most  properly  su])joined,  that  ''  its  baleful  inlUience 
 is  not  confined  to  these  alone;  that  it  carries  in  ilself  the  seeds 
 of  its  ozcn  ruin  and  confusion;  and  that  it  would  almost  re- 
 quire a  volume,  to  enumerate  the  contradictory  and  jarring 
 atoms,  of  which  this  chaos  of  confusion  is  compos-^d.'*  An 
 Enquiry  into  ike  origin  of  the  ConstclUUions  that  compose  the 
 Zodiac,  p.  197. 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST.      285 
 
 the  ranks  with  the  champions  of  Revelation,  and 
 compelled  to  march  in  the  triumphal  procession 
 which  celebrates  their  own  defeat. 
 
 The  latest  claim,  that  has  been  set  up  in  oppo- 
 sition to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  is  on  behalf  of 
 the  sacred  books  of  the  Hindus.  These,  it  has 
 been  pretended,  evince  not  only  the  priority  of 
 the  Indian  records;  but  also,  that  Moses  has 
 borrowed  from  the  Brahmens,  much  of  what  has 
 been  commonly  ascribed  to  him  as  original,  espe- 
 cially with  regard  to  the  creation  of  the  world. 
 The  fallacy  of  such  pretences  has,  indeed,  of  late 
 years,  been  fully  manifested,  by  the  valuable 
 exertions  of  Sir  William  Jones,  and  those  of  his 
 respectable  fellow-labourers  in  the  field  of  Indian 
 literature.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  to  be  lamented, 
 that  the  admissions  of  that  illustrious  vindicator 
 of  the  Hebrew  writings,  as  well  as  those  of  Mr. 
 Maurice,  and  others,  respecting  the  antiquity  of 
 the  Vedas,  have  been  such  as  to  furnish  those, 
 who  were  desirous  to  pervert  the  truth,  with  an 
 opportunity  of  applying  the  produce  of  their 
 meritorious  labours  to  the  prejudice  of  the  Jewish 
 
 Such  are  the  judicious  observations  of  a  writer,  whose 
 learning  has  enabled  him  to  overthrow  the  principal  theories, 
 which  have  been  erected  by  others  upon  the  subject  of  which 
 lie  treats;  and  yet  has  not  prevented  the  writer  himself,  from 
 adding  one  more  to  the  numerous  instances,  tliat  already- 
 existed,  of  the  danger  of  adventuring:  into  those  visionary  re- 
 gions, in  which  fact  supplies  no  solid  footing,  and  fancy  is  tha 
 only  guide. 
 
2S6  SACRIFICIAL  TERMS  IN  THE  O.  T. 
 
 records;  an  opportunity  which  was  not  neglected.* 
 The  futility  of  the  attempt  was,  happily,  at  once, 
 exposed  by  a  few  judicious  observations  in  the 
 British  CrzVic,  (vol.  xvi.  pp.  14^,  150.)  and  has 
 since  received  more  ample  refutation  from  the 
 pens  of  Mr,  Faber  and  3Ir.  Nares,  in  their 
 Bampton  Led lu^e  volumes.  But,  in  truth,  not- 
 withstanding that,  as  has  been  abundantly  proved, 
 such  admissions  of  the  great  antiquity  of  the 
 Hindu  records,  by  no  means  justify  an  inference, 
 affecting  the  originality  and  priority  of  the  He- 
 brew Scriptures;  yet  it  is  fairly  to  be  questioned, 
 whether  that  antiquity  has  not  been  rated  macli 
 above  its  real  standard. 
 
 The  astronomical  tables  of  tlie  Hindus,  it  is 
 well  known,  supply  the  only  reasonable  data  from 
 
 *  See  the  Advertlspincnf  prefixed  to  the  5th  volume  of  the 
 Jjondon  edition  of  the  Jsiatic  Researches :  in  which,  after 
 noticing  the  antiquity  ascribed  to  the  Vedas  by  the  above 
 Orientalists,  tlie  Editors  insidiously  subjoin  the  following 
 observation,  *'  We  shall  not  fake  up  your  time,  with  a  dis- 
 sertation on  the  exact  age  of  citJicr  the  Ulkrew,  or  the  Hindu 
 ScRirTUREs;  both  areaticient:  let  the  reader  judge. — Whe- 
 ther THE  Hindu  Brahmixs  bokhowed  from  Moses,  or 
 Moses  from  the  Hindu  Brahmens,  is  not  our  present 
 enquiry."  p.  iv. — The  merit  of  these  observations,  it  should 
 be  noticed,  belongs  exclusively  to  the  London  Editors:  the 
 adverlisement  being  altogether  a  fabrication  of  theirs;  and  no 
 one  part  of  it  being  to  be  found  in  the  original  C(dcutta  Edi- 
 tion, of  which  this  professes  to  be  a  faithful  copy. — Such  is  the 
 use,  to  which  the  pure  gold  of  Sir  AV.  Jones  would  be  con- 
 verted, by  these  workers  of  base  metal. 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE  OP  CHRIST.       287 
 
 which  to  judge  of  their  chronology:  their  habi- 
 tual exaggerations  rendering  every  other  source  of 
 chronological  information  altogether  chimerical; 
 insomuch  that  Sir  W.  Jones  pronounces,  (in  his 
 Dissertation  on  the  Gods  of  Greece,  Italy,  and 
 India)  that  "  the  com})rehensive  mind  of  an 
 Indian  chronologist  has  no  limits  \'  and  at  the 
 same  time  proves  his  assertion  by  a  number  of  the 
 most  extraordinary  instances  indeed.  Their  astro- 
 nomical calculations,  therefore,  having  naturally 
 become  a  subject  of  great  curiosity  and  interest 
 with  men  of  science,  the  celebrated  M.  Bailly,  in 
 the  year  1787?  published,  at  Paris,  a  volume  on 
 the  Indian  astronomy,  in  which  he  contended 
 for  its  great  antiquity,  carrying  it  back  to  a  period 
 of  more  than  3000  years  before  the  Christian  era. 
 This  conclusion  he  founded  upon  the  nature  of 
 certain  of  their  .astronomical  tables ;  which,  he 
 contended^  contained  internal  evidence,  that  they 
 had  been  formed  from  actual  observation,  and 
 must  therefore  be  carried  up  to  so  early  a  date  as 
 that  of  3102  A.C.  His  reasonings  upon  this 
 subject,  in  his  elaborate  Traite  de  f  Astronomie 
 Indienne  et  Orientate,  were  followed  by  other 
 astronomers,  particularly  by  Professor  Playfair  in 
 the  2d  vol.  of  the  Edinhurgh  Transactions,  in 
 J  789:  and  the  *  Suryd  Siddhantd,  supposed  to 
 
 *  Mr.  Davis,  who  was  the  translator  of  this  most  ancient 
 ©f  the  Sastras,  thinks  that  he  finds  in  it  sufficient  data,  from 
 which,    computing  the  diminution    of  the   obliquitj   of  the 
 
288  SACRIFICIAL  TERMS  IN  THE  O.  T. 
 
 contain  the  most  antient  astronomical  treatise  of 
 the  Indians,  was  also  carried  up  to  a  very  high 
 date,  not  less  tlian  2000  years  before  the  Chris- 
 tian era. 
 
 That  the  reasonings,  however,  which  led  to 
 both  these  conclusions,  are  erroneous,  later  dis- 
 cussions of  the  subject  leave  but  little  room  for 
 doubt.  Mr.  Marsden,  in  an  ingenious  paper  in 
 the  Phil.  Trans,  for  1 790,  had,  without  attempt- 
 ing to  impeach  M.  Bailly's  astronomical  argu- 
 ments, pointed  oat  a  satisfactory  mode,  of  ac- 
 counting for  the  apparent  antiquity  of  the  Indian 
 tables,  by  conceiving  the  computations  to  be 
 founded,  not  upon  a  real,  but  an  imaginari/, 
 conjunction  of  the  planets,  sought  for  as  an 
 epoch,  and  calculated  retrospectively.  The  cele- 
 brated M.  Laplace,  again,  after  the  most  accu- 
 
 Ecliptic  at  the  rate  of  50"  in  a  centurj^,  he  can  fairly  infer 
 the  age  of  the  Avork  itself  to  be  3840  years ;  tliereby  carry- 
 ing it  back  more  than  2000  years  A.  C.  (Jsiatic  Researches^ 
 vol.  ii.  p.  238) — But  Professor  Playfair,  proceeding  at  a 
 rate  of  computation,  ^hich  he  conceives  more  accurate, 
 places  the  tlate  of  the  work  above  3000  years  earlier  than 
 the  Christian  era.  (Edinb.  Trans,  vol.  iv.  p.  103.)  He 
 therefore  thinks  himself  perfectly  secure,  in  adopting  the 
 interval  of  2000  years  A.  C :  in  -which,  also,  he  fortifies 
 himself  by  the  authority  of  Sir  W.  Jones. — The  demands, 
 both  of  Mr.  Davis  and  Professor  Playfair,  must  certainly 
 be  admitted  to  be  modest,  compared  with  that  of  the  Hindus 
 themselves ;  who  require  of  us  to  believe,  that  this  book  is 
 2,164,899  years  old,  having  been  at  that  distant  period  given 
 by  divine  revelation. 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE    SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST.    289 
 
 rate  mathematical  investigation,  lias  not  only* 
 pronounced  upon  the  recent  date  of  the  tables, 
 but  has  also  pointed  out  errors   in  the  calcula- 
 
 *  I  cannot  refrain  from  giving,  at  full  length,  the  opinions 
 and  reasonings  of  so  distinguished  a  matliematician  as  M. 
 Laplace,  on  a  point  of  such  vital  moment,  as  that  of  the 
 great  antiquity,  which  it  lias  been  the  fashion  to  ascribe  to 
 the  astronomical  tables  of  the  Hindus:  and  on  a  point, 
 also,  in  which,  the  opinions  of  a  mathematician  can  alone 
 have  weight. 
 
 "^  Les  tables  Indlennes   indiquent    une  astronomic    plus 
 perfection ee ;  mats  tout  porte  a  croire  qu^elles  ne  sont  pas 
 ifune  haute  antiqaite.    Ici,  je  m'eloigne  a  regret  de  I'opinion 
 d'un  savant  illustre,  (M.  Bailly)  qui,  apres  avoir  honoie   sa 
 carriere,  par  des  travaux  utiles  aux  sciences  et  a  I'humanite, 
 mourut  victime  de  la  plus   sanguinare  tyrannic,  opposant  le 
 calme  et  la  dignite  du  juste,  aux  fureurs  d'un  peuplc  abuse, 
 qui  sous  ses  yeux  meme,  se  fit  un  plaisir  barbare  d'appreter 
 son  supplice,     Les  tables  Tndiennes  ont  deux  epoques  prin- 
 «ipalcs,    qui  rem.ontent,    I'une   a  I'annee   3102  avant  I'ere 
 Chretienne,  I'autre  a  1491:  ces  epoques  sont  liees  par  le* 
 moyens  mouvemens  du  soleil,  de  la  lune,  et  des  plane tes, 
 de  sorte  que  I'une  d'elles  est  necessairement  fictive.     L'au- 
 teur  celebre  dont  je  vicns  de  parler,  a  cherche  a  etablir, 
 dans  son  traite  de  1' Astronomic  Indienne,  que  la  premier® 
 de  ces  epoques  est  fondee  sur  I'observation.      Malgre  ses 
 preuvcs,  exposees  avec  I'interet  qu'il  a  su  repandre  sur  les 
 choses  les  plus  abstraites, Je  regarde  comme  ires  vraisembable^ 
 que  cctte  epoque  a  tic  imaginee,  pour  donner  une  commune 
 ^riffine  dans  le  Zodiaque^  aux  mouvemens  des  corps  celestes* 
 En  effef,    si,    partant  I'epoque  de   1491,    on  remonte,    au 
 moyen  des  tables  Indiennes,  a  Pan  3102  avant  I'ere  Chre- 
 tienne; on  trouve  la  conjonction  generale  du   soleil,  de  la 
 June,  et  des  planetes,  que  ces  tables  supposeat:  maitceti^: 
 
 VOL,  II,  U 
 
290  SACRIFICIAL  TERMS  IN  THE  O.  T. 
 
 lions  from  which  M.  Bailly  deduced  his  results; 
 and  has  clearly  demonstrated  the  epoch  in  the 
 tables,    not  to   have    been   real^    but  Jictitious, 
 
 conjondion  trop  cVffcrente  du  resultat  de  nos  meilleures  ta- 
 bles^ pour  avoir  cu  lieu,  nous  montrc  que  Vt^poque  a  laquelU 
 elle  se  rapporte,  n'est  point  appvyce  sur  les  observations, 
 A  la  verite,  quelqucs  elemens  de  I'astronomie  Indieime  sem- 
 blent  indiquer,  qu'ils  ont  ete  determines,  meme  avant  cette 
 premiere  epoqiie ;  ainsi,  I'equation  du  centre  du  soleil, 
 qu*elle  fixe  a  2°,4173,  n'a  pu  etre  de  celte  grandeur,  que 
 vers  Pan  4300  avant  I'ere  Chretienne.  Mais,  indcpendam- 
 ment  des  erreurs  dont  les  determinations  des  Indiens  ont  ete 
 susceptibks,  on  doit  observer  qu'ils  n'ont  considere  les  in- 
 egalifes  du  soleil  et  de  la  lune,  que  relativcment  aux  eclipses 
 dans  lesquelles  I'equation  annuelle  de  la  lune  s'ajoute  a 
 I'equation  du  centre  du  soleil,  et  I'augmente  d'environ  22'; 
 ce  qui  est  a-peu-pres  la  diflerence  de  nos  determinations,  a 
 celle  des  Indiens,  Plusieurs  elemens,  tels  que  les  equations 
 du  centre  de  Jupiter  et  de  Mars,  sont  si  differens  dans  les 
 tables  Indiennes,  de  ce  qu'ils  devoient  ^tre  a  leur  premie i^e 
 epoque;  que  I'on  ne  pent  rien  conclure  des  autres  elemens, 
 en  faveur  de  leur  antiquite.  L^ ensemble  de  ces  tables,  et 
 surUout  l'impossibilite  de  la  covjonction  qu^elles  supposent 
 a  la  meme  epoquc,  prouvcnt  au  contraire,  qu^elles  ont  ete 
 construites,  ou  du  nioins  redifiees  dans  des  temps  modernes  ; 
 ce  que  confirment  les  moyens  mouvemens,  qu'elles  assignent 
 a  la  lune,  par  rapport  a  son  perigee,  a  sts  noeuds,  et  au 
 soleil ;  et  qui  plus  rapidcs  que  suivant  Ptulemee,  indiquent 
 evidemment  que  la  formation  de  ces  tables  est  posltrieure  ati 
 temps  de  cet  astronome;  car  on  a  vu  que  ces  trois  mouvemens 
 s'accelerent  de  siecle  en  siecle." — Exposition  du  Sijstcme 
 du  Monde,  pp.  293,  294. 
 
 Thus  has  M,  Laplace,  from  the  evidence,  which  the  tables 
 Ihemselves  supply,  not  only  overturned  the  prevailing  notioa 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST.     29I 
 
 And,  last  of  all,  Mr.  Bentleij  seems  completely 
 to  have  settled  the  point,  in  his  two  most  in- 
 genious and  learned  papers,  in  the  6th  and  8tli 
 volumes  of  the  Asiatic  Researches,  in  which,  he 
 not  only  contends,  that  from  the  principles  of 
 the    Hindu   astronomy,    the  recent  date  of  the 
 
 of  their  great  antiquity,  but  reducer]  their  date  even  lower 
 than  the  second  century,  since  he  places  them  lower  than  the 
 age  of  Ptolemy,  who  lived  until  IGl  A.  D. 
 
 Having  been  led  to  make  mention  of  this  eminent  mathe- 
 matician, than  whotn  a  greater  name  has  not  arisen  since  the 
 days  of  Newton,  I  cannot  forbear  noticing,  as  a  matter  of 
 singular  curiosity,  the  coincidence  of  a  remarkable  astro- 
 nomical epoch,  as  fixed  by  his  calculations,  with  the  year, 
 in  -which  Archbishop  Ussher  has  placed  the  creation  of  the 
 world,  according  to  the  chronology  of  the  Hebrew.  The 
 epoch  is  that  of  the  coincidence  of  the  greater  axis  of  the 
 earth's  orbit  with  the  line  of  the  equinoxes,  at  which  tirtie 
 the  true  and  the  mean  equinox  were  the  same.  This  M. 
 Laplace  computes  to  have  taken  place,  about  the  year  4004 
 before  the  Christian  era;  which  is  the  very  era  of  the  crea- 
 tion, as  chronologists  have  derived  it  from  the  Hebrew  scrip- 
 tures.— Traite  dc  Mtcanique  Celeste^  tom.  iii.  p.  11 3.- -This 
 point  I  have  stated,  merely  for  the  gratification  of  the  curi- 
 ous reader,  without  intending  to  lay  upon  it  any  particular 
 stress.  At  the  same  time,  I  cannot  avoid  observing,  the 
 if  a  coincidence,  equally  striking,  bore  an  aspect  unfavour- 
 able to  the  truth  of  the  scripture  history,  it  would  be  cried 
 up  by  a  certain  class  of  literati,  (who  admire  Mr.  Bry- 
 done's  lavas  and  such  like  trash,)  as  a  circumstance  amount- 
 ing to  a  demonstration  of  the  falsehood  of  the  Hebrew 
 Scriptures. 
 
 V   2 
 
2^2  SACRIFICIAL  TERMS  IN  THE  O.  T. 
 
 tables  can  be  deduced ;  but  that  also,  from  au- 
 thentic testimony,  independent  of  all  calculations, 
 the  age  of  the  Surya  Siddhaanta  can  be  proved 
 such  as  not  to  carry  the  date  of  ils  composition 
 farther  back  than  the  year  loGs,  In  his  endea- 
 vours to  establish  these  points,  he  has  not 
 scrupled  to  pronounce  M.  Bailly  and  Professor 
 Play  fair  to  have  been  totally  mistaken,  in  their 
 reasonings,  concerning  the  antiquity  of  the  In- 
 dian astronomy ;  and  to  have  proceeded  upon  an 
 entire  ignorance  of  the  principles  of  the  artifi- 
 cial system  of  the  Hindus :  the  nature  of  which 
 he  states  to  consist  in  this, — that  "  certain  points 
 of  time  hacJi  are  fixed  upon  as  epochs,  at  which 
 the  planets  are  assumed  to  fall  into  a  line  of 
 mean  conjunction  with  the  sun  in  the  beginning 
 of  Aries;  and  that  from  the  points  of  time  to 
 assumed  as  epochs,  the  Hindu  astronomer  carries 
 on  his  calculations,  as  if  they  had  been  settled 
 so  by  actual  observation ;  and  determines  the 
 mean  annual  motions,  which  he  must  employ 
 in  his  system,  from  thence,  as  will  give  the  po- 
 sitions of  the  planets  in  his  ow^n  time,  as  near 
 as  he  is  able  to  determine  the  same  by  obser- 
 vation," (Vol.  vi.  p.  542.) — He  then  proceeds 
 to  shew  by  what  means,  such  fictitious  epochs 
 may  be  assumed,  without  incurring  the  danger 
 of  a  perceptible  variation  from  the  real  mean 
 motions:  and  upon  the  whole,  he  has  fortified 
 his  argument  in  a  way  that  renders  it  not  easy 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST.    293 
 
 to  be  shaken.  The  high  autliority  of  the  names, 
 which  Mr.  Bentley  has  to  oy^pose  on  this  sub- 
 ject^ (Sir  W.  Jones  himself,  having,  as  well  as 
 M.  Bail!y  and  Professor  Playfair,  maintained 
 the  antiquity  of  the  Indian  astronomy,)  may  oc- 
 casion some  delay  to  the  reception  of  his  opi- 
 nions. But  from  the  proofs  which  have  been 
 advanced  in  their  support,  and  from  the  addi- 
 tional lights  to  be  expected  upon  this  subject, 
 there  seems  little  reason  to  doubt,  that  they  will 
 ere  long  be  generally  acquiesced  in. 
 
 At  all  events,  the  main  foundation,  on  which 
 the  extraordinary  antiquity  of  the  Indian  records 
 has  been  built,  must  be  given  up  as  no  longer 
 tenable :  and  the  decided  priority  of  the  Mosaic 
 scriptures,  cannot  any  longer  reasonably  be 
 questioned.^     So  that,    as  the  Chaldean,    Phe- 
 
 *  Mr.  Nares,  in  his  valuable  note  upon  this  subject, 
 (Banipton  Lecture^  p.  256 — 273.)  seems  somewhat  reluctant 
 to  admit  Mr.  Bentley's  results,  in  opposition  to  those  which 
 could  boast  so  many  distinguished  names  in  their  support. 
 He  has,  however,  with  great  learning  and  ability,  shewn, 
 that  even  from  the  evidence,  which  M.  Bailly  himself  ad- 
 duces in  corroboration  of  his  opinion,  no  inference  can 
 reasonably  be  drawn,  which  in  any  degree  interferes  with 
 the  truth  and  originality  of  the  Scripture  history.  Indeed, 
 the  whole  of  Mr.  Nares's  discussion  of  this  subject,  is  par- 
 ticularly worthy  of  attention.  Of  his  entire  work,  it  may- 
 be, as  it  has  been,  most  truly  affirmed,  that  there  is  perhaps 
 no  other  extant,  which,  within  the  same  compass,  brings  so 
 much  argument  \o  bear,  against  the  various  enemies  of  our 
 religion  from  without,  or  against  the  betrayers  of  it  from 
 
 U  3 
 
294  SACRIFICIAL  TERMS  IN  THE  O.  T. 
 
 nician,  Egyptian,  Grecian,  and  Chinese  anti- 
 quities, which  at  different  times  have  been 
 deemed  irreconcileable  with  the  truth  of  Scrip- 
 ture history,  have,  to  a  more  minute  inspection, 
 contracted  their  dimensions  to  a  perfect  agree- 
 ment with  the  Scripture  standard;  so  it  may 
 without  hazard  be  pronounced  of  the  Indian 
 antiquities,  that  the  day  of  their  exaggerated 
 extent  has  nearly  gone  by ;  and  that  there  is  no 
 longer  much  danger  of  any  serious  impediment, 
 from  that  quarter,  to  the  belief  of  the  Mosaic 
 history.  That  the  Indians  did^  at  a  very  early 
 age,  CLiltivate  astronomy,  and  that  to  them  we 
 are  indebted^  for  that  most  ingenious  and  useful 
 invention  of  an  arithmetical  character,  possess- 
 ing at  the  same  time  an  absolute  and  a  local  value, 
 cannot,  undoubtedly,  be  denied.  And  yet,  it 
 must  be  admitted,  that  there  are  such  indica- 
 tions of  gross  ignorance,  in  the  very  science, 
 which  they  have  so  much  studied,  that  one 
 scarcely  knows  how  to  give  them  credit  for  cer- 
 tain other  discoveries  which  are  ascribed  to  them. 
 To  make  the  circumference  of  the  earth  amount 
 
 Avithin,  And,  as  compressing,  in  the  best  manner,  the 
 greatest  quantity  of  important  information,  on  all  the  great 
 subjects,  on  which  modern  wisdom  has  attempted  to  assail 
 Revelation,  I  most  earnestly  recommend  it  to  the  Theolo- 
 gical student. — I  cannot  permit  the  very  favourable  mention, 
 which  this  author  has  made  of  my  former  publications  on  the 
 Atonement^  to  prevent  me  from  giving  a  testimony,  whici) 
 the  cause  of  religious  truth  so  imperiously  demands. 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST.    295 
 
 to  2,456,000,000  British  miles  (Aslat.  Research, 
 vol.  V.  art.  18  )  and  to  hold  the  mooiVs  distance 
 from  the  earth  to  be  greater  than  that  of  the 
 ^un,*  are  not  proofs  of  any  great  progress  in 
 astronomical  research.  On  this  subject,  see  Mon- 
 tuclas  observations,  in  the  part  referred  to  in 
 the  note  below.  In  truth,  from  circumstances 
 such  as  these,  joined  to  the  fact,  of  the  Indians 
 being  unable  to  give  any  explanation  of,  or  assign 
 any  reasons  for  their  particular  tables  and  calcu- 
 lations, there  seems  good  reason  to  think,  that 
 much,  of  what  has  been  supposed  to  be  their 
 own  invention,  has  been  derived  to  them  from 
 other  sources;  as  has  proved  to  be  the  case,  with 
 respect  to  the  Chinese  tables;  and  as  Mr.  Nares 
 has  well  shewn  to  be  extremely  probable,  with 
 respect  to  those  of  the  Indians  Iilvewise.-f-  Bampt. 
 Led.  pp.  270,  271. 
 
 *  "  lis  font  aussi  la  Luiie  plus  eloignee  de  nous  que  le  So- 
 leil,  et  nieme  iis  sont  aussi  attacbees  a,  cette  opinion,  qu'on 
 Pest  encore  dans  certaines  contrees  a  i.ier  le  mouveraent  de 
 la  terre.  Un  Brame  et  un  missionaire  elant  dans  la  meme 
 prison,  le  premier  souflVoit  assez  patiemment,  que  I'autre 
 entreprit  de  le  desabuser  du  culte  de  Brama;  mais  lorsque, 
 dans  d'antres  conversations,  il  vit  que  le  JVlissionaire  preten- 
 doit,  que  le  Soleil  etoit  au  dela  de  la  Lunc,  9'en  fut  fait :  il 
 rompit  entierement  avec  lui,  et  ne  voulut  plus  lui  parler." — 
 Montuc.  Hist,  des  Mathem.  torn.  i.  p.  404. 
 
 +  Will  not  this  supposition  throw  some  light  upon  that  ex- 
 traordinary acquaintance  with  certain  Trigonometrical  prin- 
 ciples, laid  down  in  the  Suryd  Siddhanta^  which  have  excited 
 Professor  Playfair's  wonder  in  Edinb.  Trans,  vol.  iv  ? 
 
 u  4 
 
296  SACRIFICIAL  TERMS  IN  THE  O.  T. 
 
 As  to  the  readiness  of  the  Indians  to  impose 
 fabrications  upon  the  Europeans^  all  must  now 
 be  tolerably  well  satisfied,  since  the  publication 
 of  Mr.  Wilford's  letter,  in  which  he  confesses, 
 with  a  grief  that  had  actually  reduced  him  to 
 a  fit  of  sickness,  that  "  his  Pundits  had  totally 
 deceived  him,  in  almost  all  that  he  had  written 
 about  the  Sacred  Islands  in  the  West;  having 
 at  different  times,  and  in  proportion  as  they  be- 
 came acquainted  with  his  pursuits  and  his  wishes, 
 made  erasures  in  the  Sanscrit  MSS,  and  on 
 those  erasures  inserted  the  names,  Rajata- 
 DwEEP,  for  England,  and  Suvarna  Dweep,  for 
 Ireland."  He  adds,  also,  that  '^  those  frequent  It/ 
 recurring  erasures  in  most  Indian  mss,  tended 
 to  throw  a  deep  shade  over  their  presumed  au- 
 thority/' Another  imposition,  on  a  subject  in- 
 finitely more  important^  has  also  since  come  to 
 light.  For,  unfortunately,  we  find,  that  the 
 remarkable  passage  in  the  Sd.  vol.  of  the  Re- 
 searches, which  Sir  W.  Jones  affirms,  to  be  an 
 exact  translation  by  himself,  from  an  Indian 
 MS,  forwarded  to  him  by  Mr.  Wilford,  rela- 
 tive to  Noah,  under  the  name  of  Satijavarmany 
 and  his  three  sons,  Sherma,  Charma,  and  tli/a-' 
 pet  I,  is  altogether  a  forgery  by  the  Brah- 
 men s. 
 
 I  cannot  forbear  annexing  to  this  Number  a 
 passage  from  an  old  translation  of  a  work  of  the 
 celebrated  Amyraut.     It  has  a  close  connexion 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST.     29^ 
 
 with  tne  principal  topics  under  discussion ;  and 
 the  singular  value  of  its  contents,  will,  I  trust, 
 justify  its  insertion. — - 
 
 "  Furthermore,  whereas  it   was   well  said  by 
 one,  that  things  of  greatest   antiquity  are  best; 
 and  the  philosophers  themselves,  when  they  treat 
 concerning   God  and   rehgion,  extremely  cry  up 
 antiquity,  and  attribute  much  to  the  dictates  of 
 their  ancestors ;  as  if  nature  itself  had  suggested 
 to  them,  that   there   was  a   source  of  all   these 
 things,  from    which   they,  that  w^ere   nearest  it, 
 drew  the  purest  and  since  rest   waters ;  whereas, 
 accordingly  as  they  are  derived  through  several 
 minds^  as  so  many  several    conduit  pipes,  they 
 become   corrupted  and  tincted   with   extraneous 
 qualities,    and   contract  impurity.      If  there  be 
 found   a  doctrine  that  has  all  the  marks  of  an- 
 tiquity, and  there  appears  nothing  in  the  world 
 that  equals  it,  it  ought  not  to   be  doubted,  but 
 that  the  same  proceeded  from  him  that  is  more 
 ancient   than  all,  as  being  author  of  all  things. 
 If  the  lan«:uao[e  in  which  it  was  revealed  be  as 
 the  mother  and  stock,  from  which  others,  though 
 very  ancient,  are   sprung;  if  it  describes  the  his- 
 tory of  the  world,  and  of  men,  and  their  pro- 
 pagation  upon   the   earth;   if  it  affords  the  de- 
 monstration of  times,  and  that  without   it   the 
 knowledge  of  chronology  would  be  more  intricate 
 than  a  labyrinth;  if  it  deduces   its   history  from 
 point  to  point  with    an  exact  correspondence; 
 1 
 
'29S  SACRIFICIAL  TERMS  IN  THE  O.  T. 
 
 if  it  clearly  and  certainly   relates  histories,  that 
 are  as  the  body  of  the  f\ibulous  shadows  that  we 
 see  in  the  writings  of  the  most  ancient  authors 
 in  the  world ;    who  will   doubt,  but  all   which 
 they  have,   is  taken   from    thence,  and  that  we 
 ought  to  refer  what  is  therein  depraved  and  cor- 
 rupted, thereunto,  as  to  its   principle,  and  have 
 recourse  thither  to  learn  what  we  are  ignorant 
 of? — If  there  be  found  a  religion,  all  whose  parts 
 accord  together  with  an  admirable  harmony,  al- 
 though it  has  been  propounded  at  several  times, 
 and    by   several    persons,    in    several    places;    if 
 there  be  a  discipline,  a   doctrine,  a  book,  a  so- 
 ciet}^  in  which  God  himself  speaks  to  men  in  a 
 style  and  manner  agreeable  to  the  eminence  of 
 his  majesty,   displays  his  justice  to  them  most 
 terrible   in   its  appearance,    discovers  his  power 
 in   its  highest  magnificence,  and  gives  them  to 
 sound  the  breadth  and  length,  depth  and  height 
 of  his   infinite    mercies :    lastly,    if  examples  of 
 an  incomparable  virtue  be  found   therein,    with 
 incitations    and   instructions    to   piety ;    such   as 
 are  not  to  be  })aralleled  any  other  where  in  the 
 world ;  'tis   an    indubitable  argument,  that  they 
 are  proceeded  from  some  other  than  the  liumau 
 mind,  or  the  school  of  ]VL\n/' 
 
 In  referrinor  to  the  authors  who  have  illus- 
 t rated  the  primary  subjects  of  this  Number  I 
 ought  not  to  omit  the  name  of  Mr.  Lloi/d,  who, 
 in  his  valuable  treatise  on  Christian  Theologi/^ 
 
ADAPTED  TO  THE  SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST.       299 
 
 has  so  justly  propounded,  and  so  impressively  and 
 eloquently  enforced,  the  leading  doctrines  of  the 
 Christian  religion.  But  that  this  Number  has 
 been  already  carried  to  an  unreasonable  length,  I 
 should  add  to  it  some  extracts  from  his  1st.  and 
 2d.  chapters,  which  could  not  fail  to  enhance  its 
 value.  From  his  remarks  in  the  1st.  chap,  (par- 
 ticularly  p.  6 — 10)  on  the  proper  provinces  of 
 Natural  and  Revealed  Religion ;  and  from  those 
 in  the  2d.  on  the  unity  of  divine  truths  displayed 
 in  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations  ;  1  can 
 promise  the  judicious  reader  much  satisfaction 
 and  instruction. 
 
 In  bestowing  upon  Lord  Bolinghroke  the  epi- 
 thet of  Sophist,  in  the  preceding  Number,  at 
 p.  280,  I  feel  upon  second  thoughts,  that  I  have 
 not  been  strictly  correct  in  the  application  of  the 
 term.  Ingenuity  exerted,  under  a  subtle  show  of 
 reasoning,  for  the  purpose  of  misleading  and  over- 
 reaching the  controversial  opponent,  is  the  distin- 
 guishing attribute  of  the  character  so  denomi- 
 nated. His  Lordship,  however,  has  not  con- 
 descended to  deal,  in  this  treacherous  manner,  with 
 those  whom  he  combats  in  argument.  His  mag- 
 nanimity, and  his  candour,  are  both  at  war  with 
 guch  mean   and  petty  artifices.     The   one  raises 
 
300  POSTSCRIPT    TO    NO.    LXIX  : 
 
 him  above  the  Httle  forms  of  logical  and  exactr 
 ratiocination;  and  the  other  inspires  him  with  the 
 disdain  of  concealing  from  his  opponent  any  vul- 
 nerable part.  His  argument  is^  accordingly,  of 
 that  elevated  quality,  that  deals  in  lofty  language 
 and  privileged  assertion,  and  of  that  intrepid 
 character,  that  fears  not,  as  occasion  may  demand, 
 to  beat  down  the  very  positions,  which,  when 
 other  occasions  demanded,  it  had  been  found  con- 
 venient to  maintain.  The  noble  writer,  in  short, 
 too  courtly  to  associate  with  the  antiquated  fol- 
 lowers of  Aristotle,  and  too  free  to  be  trammelled 
 by  the  rules  of  a  precise  and  circumscribing  dia- 
 lectic, passes  on  fluently  in  one  smooth  and 
 gentlemanly  tenor,  undisturbed  by  any  want  of 
 connexion  between  premises  and  conclusion,  and 
 at  perfect  liberty  to  relinquish  either,  or  both, 
 just  as  his  lordly  humour  may  happen  to  direct. — 
 To  these  ingenuous  qualities  which  exalt  his 
 Lordship's  reasoning  above  the  pedantic  exact- 
 nesses of  logic,  is  superadded  an  easy  freedom 
 which  releases  his  Lordship's  history  from  the 
 troublesome  punctilios  oi'Jhct.  So  that,  upon  the 
 whole,  there  is  scarcely  any  writer,  who,  in  a 
 flowing  and  copious  vein  of  declamation,  possesses, 
 in  any  degree  comparable  to  his  Lordship,  the  art 
 of  arriving  at  whatever  conclusion  he  pleases, 
 and  by  whatever  route:  not  merely  overwhelming 
 the  a^^tonished  adversar}^,  by  a  rapid  succession  of 
 movements  the  most  unexpected;  but  displaying 
 
OM    BOLINGBROKE   AND    HUME.  SOl 
 
 still  greater  argumentative  powers,  in  overturning 
 those  veiy  dogmas  which  had  just  before  been 
 rendered  impregnable  to  all  but  himself^  and 
 thereby  defeating  the  only  antagonist  worthy  to 
 be  opposed  to  so  illustrious  a  disputant. 
 
 To  be  serious,  there  is  no  writer  of  any  name, 
 Voltaire  perhaps  alone  excepted,  whose  attempts 
 upon  Christianity  are  more  impotent  and  con- 
 temptible than  those  of  Lord  Bolingbroke.  The 
 bare  enumeration  of  the  positions  he  has  main- 
 tained, throughout  his  Letters  on  History,  and 
 vt'hat  are  called  his  Philosophical  f Forks,  would 
 be  an  exposure  of  ignorance  and  imbecilit}^,  suffi- 
 cient not  merely  to  satisfy  truth,  but  to  satiate 
 malice.  It  was  therefore  scarcely  necessary  that 
 his  deistical  productions  shoukMiave  been  sub- 
 mitted to  the  careful  dissection  of  Clayton,  War- 
 ner,  and  Leland,  and  the  powerful  and  unmerciful 
 lacerations  of  IVarhurton.^^  They  must  soon 
 have  done  the  work  for  themselves.  Having  little 
 more  than  their  impiety  and  their  viciousness  to 
 recomm.end  them^  they  must  inevitably,  excepting 
 only  with   those   to  whom  impiety  and  vice  are 
 
 *  See  the  View  of  Lord  Bolingbroke'' s  Philosophic  in  four 
 letters  to  a  friend^  in  which  all  that  fervid  vigour  and  burning 
 severity  for  which  its  author  is  so  distinguished,  are  over- 
 poweringly  exerted  for  the  purpose  of  laying  bare  to  the  pub- 
 lic eye,  the  miserable  deficiencies  of  his  Lordship,  as  a  philo. 
 sophical  writer,  under  the  several  hovniiS  oi  ingenuity ^  oitruih^ 
 of  consistency^  o[ learning,  and  oi  reasoning. 
 
303  POSTSCRIPT   TO    NO.    LXIX  i 
 
 a  recommendation,  have  ere  long  reached  that 
 obhvion,  to  which,  save  only  with  such  persons, 
 they  are  now,  I  may  say,  almost  universally  con- 
 signed. On  their  first  publication,  it  was  pro- 
 posed as  the  best  mode  of  counteracting  their 
 mischievous  design,  to  collect  the  contradictory 
 passages,  and  merely  arranging  them  mutually 
 confronted  in  opposing  columns^  so  to  leave  them 
 without  comment  to  the  reflexions  of  the  reader: 
 and,  if  I  mistake  not,  this  idea  was  acted  on  by 
 one  writer,  in  a  work,  entitled  an  Analysis  of  the 
 Philosophical  Worhs  of  the  late  Lord  Bollng- 
 broke.  This  work  I  have  not  seen  :  but  so  exact 
 a  specimen  of  this  nature  is  supplied  by  the  very 
 part  of  this  writer's  works,  to  which  I  have  had 
 in  the  foregoing  Number,  occasion  to  refer,  that 
 I  cannot  refuse  to  produce  it  for  the  reader's 
 satisfaction. 
 
 Being  anxious  to  prove,  in  opposition  to  the 
 received  opinion,  that  the  idolatries  of  the  Gentile 
 world  could  not  have  been  derived  from  the  cor- 
 ruptions of  an  original  Revelation,  he  peremptorily 
 asserts,  that  "  it  is  impossible  for  any  man  in  his 
 senses  to  believe,  that  a  tradition  (namely,  that  of 
 the  unity  of  God)  derived  from  God  himself, 
 through  so  few  generations,  was  lost  among  the 
 greatest  part  of  mankind;  or  that  Polytheism  and 
 Idolatry  were  established  on  the  ruins  of  it,  in  the 
 days  of  Serug,  before  those  of  Abraham,  and  so 
 soon  after  the  deluge."  (Philos.  fforks,  Svo. 
 1 
 
ON    BOLINGBROKE  AND    HUME.  303 
 
 Ed.  vol.  i.  p.  299.)     At  the  distance  of  less  than 
 two  pages,  we  find  it  as  peremptorily  asserted,  by 
 this  same  extraordinary  writer,  that  '^  Polytheism 
 and  Idolatry  have  the  closest  connexion  with  the 
 natures  and  affections  of  rude  ignorant  men:"  and 
 in  less  than  half  a  page  more,  that  "  the  vulgar 
 embrace  them  easily,  even  after   the  true  doc- 
 trine oj   a  divine  iinitij    has  been  taught  and 
 received,  as  we  may  learn  from   the  example  of 
 the  Israelites:  and  that  superstitions  grow  apace y 
 and  spread  wide,  even  in    those  countries  where 
 Christianity   has    been  established  and  is   daily 
 taught,  as  we   may  learn  from   the  examples  of 
 the  Roman  churches,"  &c.— But  this  is  not  all. 
 We  find  this  same  writer  again,  in  vol.  ii.  p.  200 
 —210,  both  deny  ih^fact,  that  the  divine  unity 
 had  been  taught  to  the  Israelites  and  soon  forgot- 
 ten by  them,  (which  is  the  very  example  he  builds 
 upon  in  the  above  passage)   and  also  the  applica- 
 tion of  that  fact  to   the  case  of  other   nations, 
 (which  application  is  the  very  use  he  has  himself 
 made  of  that  fact.)— And  tlien,  after  all  this,  and 
 almost  in  the  same  breath  in  which  he  has  made 
 these  assertions,  he  draws  back  again  in  part,  and 
 says  "  I  do  not  so  much  deny  the  truth  of  the 
 facts,  as  I  oppose  .  their  apphcation."     (p.  210.) 
 Xhat  is,— I  cannot  resist  the  recapitulation,  -our 
 author  first   denies  a  certain  fact  as  impossihle  ; 
 then  establishes  its  strong  probability  upon  gene- 
 ral principles  of  human  nature,  supported  by  an 
 
304  J>OSTSCRIPT   TO    NO.    LXIX : 
 
 example  drawn  from  the  case  of  the  Israehtes,  and 
 applied  {o  Xhdit  of  mankind  at  large:  then  he  both 
 denies  the  truth  of  that  very  example,  and  the 
 j'ustness  of  its  application  (both  of  which  are  his 
 own  vmdisputed  property:)  and  then  again  he 
 admits  them  both,  in  certain  (but  different)  de- 
 grees ;  since  he  does  not  so  much  deny  the  one  as 
 he  opposes  the  other.  What  does  all  this  mean  ? 
 Is  it,  or  is  it  not  nonsense?  Have  we  not  here 
 then,  (to  use  the  sort  of  pleasant  and  sportive 
 phrase,  that  might  not  improbably  have  been 
 used  by  such  writers  as  his  Lordship,)  in  beating 
 about  for  game,  sprung  a  whole  covey  of  contra- 
 dictions, which,  after  winging  their  tortuous 
 course  in  all  directions,  have  at  last  sought  shelter, 
 by  taking  flight  into  the  impenetrable  thickets  of 
 nonsense?  Now  what  is  to  be  done  with  such  a 
 writer  as  this?  The  author  of  the  memoirs  of  his 
 life,  whilst  he  speaks  in  terms  much  too  strong  of 
 his  qualities  as  a  statesman,  remarks,  in  alluding 
 to  the  excursions,  which,  as  an  author,  he  had 
 ventured  to  make  beyond  his  proper  sphere :  "  I 
 should  be  sorry,  that  you  took  your  politics  from 
 priests  ;  but  1  should  be  in  more  pain  if  I  thought 
 you  in  danger  of  receiving  your  religion  from  a 
 politician."  Meiuoirs  of  the  Life  of'  Lord  Bo- 
 Unghrohe,  p.  232. 
 
 In  truth,  to  sum  up  all  in  a  word,  my  Lord 
 Bolingbroke  was  no  more  than  a  coxcomb  in  lite- 
 rature, and  a  pretender  in  iscience.     Nor  has  reli- 
 
ON    EOLXNGBROKE    A^D    HUME.  505 
 
 gion,  though  the  principal  object  of  his  hostiht}', 
 so  much  to  complain  of  his  bunghng  attempts  as 
 philosophy :  at  the  same  time  that  both  have  expe- 
 rienced more  of  malevolence  than  injury  at  his 
 hands.  With  him,  the  great  sages  of  antiquity 
 have  been  as  much  the  objects  of  lordly  con- 
 tempt, as  the  Prophets  and  Apostles :  and  the 
 maxims  of  ancient  wisdom  have  been  held  as 
 cheap  as  the  established  doctrines  of  Revelation. 
 Whatever,  in  short,  is  not  Lord  Bolingbroke,  is 
 not  sense.  All,  whether  ancient  or  modern,  who 
 have  trod  the  same  ground  before  him,  historians, 
 chronologists,  moralists,  philosophers,  divines,  all 
 are  either  blockheads  or  impostors.  And  even 
 Locke  and  Newton  dwindle  into  drivellers,  where 
 they  have  presumed  to  meddle  with  those  subjects, 
 which  the  Viscount  condescends  to  illustrate  — 
 (Phil.  U^orJxS,  vol.  ii.  Essay  3.  ubique,  especially 
 p.  160.) 
 
 The  treatment,  which  the  truly  wise  and 
 learned,  both  of  ancient  and  modern  times,  con* 
 stantly  receive  at  his  Lordship's  hands,  naturally 
 calls  to  mind  the  sarcasm  of  Crito  in  Berkeley's 
 Alciphron. — "  I  tell  you,  Euphranor,  that  Plato 
 and  TuUy  might  perhaps  make  a  figure  in  Athens 
 or  Rome:  but  were  they  to  revive  in  our  days,  they 
 would  pass  but  for  underbred  pedants,  there  being 
 at  most  coffee-houses  in  London,  several  able  men 
 who  could  convince  them  they  knew  nothing,  in 
 what   they  are  valued  so  much  for,  morals   and 
 
 VOL.   JT.  X 
 
306  POSTSCRIPT   TO    KO.    LXIX: 
 
 politics."  And  Lysicles  immediately  subjoins, 
 "  How  many  long-headed  men  do  I  know,  both 
 in  the  court-end  and  the  city,  with  five  times 
 Plato's  sense,  who  care  not  one  straw,  what  notions 
 their  sons  have  of  God  or  virtue.'* — Berkeley's 
 Works,vo\,  i.  pp.  369,  3/0.  The  versatility,  also, 
 with  which  this  noble  writer  can,  at  one  time, 
 affect  grave  and  learned  research,  and  at  another, 
 as  it  may  suit  his  purpose,  profess  to  hold  all  such 
 pedantic  argumentation  in  contempt,  is  most  hap- 
 pily illustrated,  in  the  same  admirable  treatise,  by 
 the  picture  which  is  there  drawn,  of  the  Proteus 
 shiftings  and  modifications  of  the  free-thinking 
 tribe. — '^  When  one  of  these  has  got  a  ring  of 
 disciples  around  him,  his  method  is,  to  exclaim 
 against  prejudice,  and  recommend  thinking  and 
 reasoning ;  giving  to  understand  that  himself  is  a 
 man  of  deep  researches  and  close  argument,  one 
 who  examines  impartially  and  concludes  warily. 
 The  same  man,  in  other  company,  if  he  chance  to 
 be  pressed  with  reason,  shall  laugh  at  logic,  and 
 assume  the  lazy  supine  airs  of  a  fine  gentleman,  a 
 wit,  a  railleur,  to  avoid  the  dryness  of  a  regular 
 and  exact  enquiry.  This  double  face  of  the  Mi- 
 nute Philosopher  is  of  no  small  use  to  propagate 
 and  maintain  his  notions.  Thoudi  to  me  it 
 seems  a  plain  case,  that  if  a  fine  gentleman  will 
 shake  off  all  authority,  and  appeal  from  religion 
 to  reason,  unto  reason  he  must  go."  (pp.  460, 
 461.)     But  the  truth  is,  as  the  same  writer  again 
 
ON    BOLINGBROKE    AND  HUME.  SO? 
 
 remarks,  (p.  G39.)  '^  tliat  in  the  present  age 
 thinking  is  more  talked  of  but  less  practised  than 
 in  ancient  times;  and  that  since  the  revival  of 
 learning  men  have  read  much  and  wrote  much, 
 but  thought  (comparatively)  little:  insomuch  that, 
 with  us,  to  think  closely  and  justly  is  the  least  part 
 of  a  learned  man,  and  none  at  all  of  a  polite  man. 
 The  free-thinkers  indeed  make  great  pretensions 
 to  thinking,  and  yet  they  shew  but  little  exactness 
 in  it.  A  lively  man,  and  what  the  world  calls  a 
 man  of  sense,  are  often  destitute  of  this  talent, 
 which  is  not  a  mere  gift  of  nature,  but  must  be 
 improved  and  perfected,  by  much  attention  and 
 exercise  gn  very  different  subjects ;  a  thing  of 
 more  pains  and  time  than  the  iiasty  men  of  parts 
 in  our  age  care  to  take." 
 
 What  time  our  man  of  parts  employed  for  this 
 purpose,  may  easily  be  inferred  from  the  circum- 
 stance, of  his  having  commenced  his  philosophical 
 investigations  at  the  age  of  fortij,  after  a  youth 
 revelled  in  the  most  voluptuous  and  dissipating 
 enjoyments,  and  a  manhood  distracted  by  the 
 most  tumultuous  political  agitations.  But  it  is 
 full  time  to  have  done  with  him;  I  shall  therefore 
 only  add  to  what  I  have  said  upon  so  unworthy  a 
 subject,  by  referring  the  reader,  who  can  have 
 any  curiosity  to  know  more  of  such  a  man,  to  the 
 characters  that  have  been  given  of  him,  by  Ches- 
 terfield and  by  Blair.  Tlie  latter  concludes  a  very 
 quahfied  commendation  of  his  stylcy  by  observing. 
 
 X  2 
 
^08  POSTSCRIPT  to   NO.    LXIX: 
 
 that  in  his  matter  there  is  "  hardly  any  thing  to 
 commend;  that  in  his  reasonings,  for  the  most 
 part,  he  is  flimsy  and  false ;  in  his  political  writ- 
 ings factious;  in  what  he  calls  his  philosophical 
 ones,  irreligious  and  sophistical  in  the  highest  de- 
 gree."— Blair's    Lectures   on    Rhetoric^    vol.   i. 
 Lect.  xix,  p.  282.     See  also  the   observations  in 
 Lect.   XV.   p.   211.   of  the   same   volume.     The 
 former  gives  such  an  account  of  him,  upon  the 
 whole,  as  must  be  edifying,  to  the  young  reader 
 particularly ;  who  will  thereby  be  completely  let 
 into  the  secret  of  such  men,  by  one  of  themselves; 
 and  will  have  the  benefit  of  observing,  how  much 
 even    a  libertine,  when    in    cold  blood,   can    be 
 shocked  by  libertinism.     One  or  two  passages  I 
 cannot  avoid  transcribing,  as  proving  how  greatly, 
 even  from  the  testimony  of  his  warmest  admirer. 
 Lord  Bolingbroke   is   found    deficient   in    every 
 thing  that  is  truly  valuable,  either  in  a  philosopher 
 or  in  a  man.     His  noble  panegyrist,   in  recom- 
 mending to  his   son  to  study  the  manner,  that 
 would  best  enable  him  "  to  seduce  and  to  impose," 
 proposes  to  him    Lord    Bolingbroke's   style  and 
 mode  of  writing,  for  his  imitation,  in  direct  oppo- 
 sition to  works  of  learning  and  sound  reasoning, 
 which  he  particularly  decries  :  and  after  pressing 
 upon  him,  again  and  again,  the  repeated  perusal 
 of  Lord  Bolingbroke's  writings,  he  assigns  as  liis 
 reason  for  so  doing,  that  he  wishes  him  '^  to  lay 
 aside  all  thoughts  of  all  that  dull  fellows  call  solid, 
 
ON  bOI-lNG^ROKE    AND  HUME.  S09 
 
 and  exert  his  utmost  care  to  acquire  what  people 
 of  fashion  call  shiningr --Chest.  Letters,  vol.  hi. 
 p.  151.     And  in  another  place,  where  he  speaks 
 of  the  whole  of  that  unhappy  Lord's  character, 
 he  is  obliged,  though   with  much  softening,  to 
 describe  him  as  "  a  most  mortifying  instance  of 
 the  violence  of  human  passions,  and  of  the  weak- 
 ness of"    (what  he  chuses  to  call)  ''  the  most 
 exalted  human  reason."     "  His  youth  (he  says) 
 was  distinguished  by  all  the  tumult  and  storm  of 
 pleasures,  in  which  he  most  licentiously  triumphed, 
 disdaining  all  decorum.     His  fine  imagination  has 
 often  been  heated  and  exhausted  with  his  body, 
 in  celebrating  and  deifying  the  prostitute  of  the 
 night ;  and  his  convivial  joys  were  pushed  to  all 
 the  extravagancy  of  frantic  Bacchanals.     Those 
 passions  were  interrupted  but  by  a  stronger,  ambi- 
 tion.    The  former  impaired  both  his  constitution 
 and  his  character,  but  the  latter  destroyed  both 
 his  fortune  and  his  reputation.'*     Vol.  ii.  p.  328. 
 
 Such  was  the  Pythagorean  institution  of  this 
 great  philosopher,  who  was  to  be  qualified  by 
 these  intense  lucubrations,  to  communicate  new 
 hghts  to  mankind,  and  to  improve  the  world  by  a 
 j  aster  set  of  notions  in  morals  and  philosophy. 
 The  noble  characterizer,  after  glossing  over  these 
 hideous  enormities,  and  contrasting  with  them 
 what  he  is  pleased  to  represent  as  splendid  quali- 
 ties, is  compelled,  after  all,  to  conclude,  in  words 
 no  less  applicable  to  the  insincere  and  unprinci- 
 
 x3 
 
310  POSTSCRIPT   TO    NO.    LXIX: 
 
 pled  writer,  than  to  his  subject:  '•  Upon  the 
 whole,  of  this  extraordinary  man,  what  can  we 
 say,  but,  alas,  j30or  human  nature!'* — Poor  in- 
 deed, when  it  presumptuously  rejects  those  aids 
 which  heaven  designed  to  minister  to  its  weak- 
 ness, and  to  rectify  its  corruption. 
 
 Jn  a  course  of  observations,  in  which  I  have 
 insensibly  been  drawn  to  enlarge  at  so  much 
 length,  upon  the  subjects  of  free-thinking  and 
 scepticism,  it  is  impossible  to  forget  David  Hume, 
 The  ideas  suggested  in  the  progress  of  it^  bring 
 into  view,  by  necessary  association,  this  chief  of 
 modern  sophists:  who,  whether  the  precedence 
 be  determined  by  the  boldness  of  impiety,  the 
 contempt  of  truth,  the  perplexities  of  disputation, 
 or  the  inconsistencies  and  contradictions  in  rea- 
 soning,— is  undoubtedly  entitled  to  the  first  place 
 in  the  list  of  British  infidels.  The  leading  subject 
 also  of  the  discussion,  in  which  we  are  at  present 
 engaged,  naturally  summons  him  to  our  tribunal. 
 For,  as  his  philosophic  forerunner,  Bolingbroke, 
 Pias  bestovved  much  unprofitable  labour  on  the 
 questions  of  polytheism  and  the  divine  unity,  the 
 same  questions  solicit  the  minutest  investigations 
 of  this  author,  especially  in  his  treatise  upon 
 the    *    Natural  Histori/   of  Religion ;    a  title> 
 
 *  On  this  treatise  Warburton  makes  the  following  oljser- 
 \ations,  in  a  letter  to  his  friend  Ilurd.  '*  The  Essay  is  to 
 establish  an  atheistic  naturalism,  like  Bolingbroke:  and  he 
 goes  upon  one  of  Bolingbroke's  cnpital  arguments,  that  idolatry 
 
ON    HOLINGBROKE    AND  HUME.  oil 
 
 which,  as  has  been  remarked,  contains  a  form  of 
 expression,  much  as  proper,  as  if  lie  had  spoken 
 of  the  Moral  Illsfojy  of  Meteors.  And  here, 
 having  positively  pronounced,  that  '^  Polytheism 
 MUST  have  been  the  first,  and  most  ancient'* 
 (which  certainly  may  be  admitted  if  it  was  the 
 Jirst,)  ''  religion  of  mankind :"  (Essays,  vol.  ii. 
 p.  402)  and  having  affirmed  it  to  be  an  incontes^ 
 table  fact,  that  about  1^00  years  back  «// man- 
 kind were  Polytheists ;  (p.  403)  and  that,  as  far 
 as  history  reaches,  mankind  appear  universally 
 to  have  been  Polytheists;  at  the  same  time  that 
 he  does  not  pretend  to  be  ignorant,  that  about 
 1700  years  back,  there  was  in  existence  such  a 
 book  as  the  Old  Testament,  and  such  a  history 
 as  that  of  Josephus;  and  that  he  himself  informs 
 us,  (p.  433)  that  it  appears  from  Herodotus,  that 
 *•  the  Getae  w^ere  genuine  Theists  and  Unita- 
 rians :" — having,  I  sa}^,  thus  dogmatized  as  became 
 a  sceptic,  and  falsified  as  became  an  historian,  he 
 proceeds  in  a  manner  perfectly  his  own,  to  shew^ 
 what  never  had  been  dreamed  of  before,  not  even 
 in  the  craziest  reveries  of  a  Bolingbroke,  that  the 
 notion  of  the  Divine  Unity  had  sprung  up  from 
 
 and  polytheism  were  before  i\\e  worship  of  the  one  God.  It 
 is  full  of  absurdities.  They  say  this  man  has  several  mo- 
 ral qualities.  It  may  be  so.  But  there  are  vices  of  the 
 mind  as  well  as  body  :  and  a  wickeder  heart,  and  more  deter- 
 mir.ed  to  do  public  mischief,  I  think,  I  never  knew."  Let- 
 ters of  a  late  Eminent  Prelate,     p.  230. 
 
 Si  4 
 
312  POSTSCRIPT   TO    NO.  LXIX: 
 
 the  blundering  conceptions  of  the  Vulgar,  and 
 that  it  demanded  the  reasoning  powers  of  the 
 Phil(?sophers  to  restore  again  the  old  system  of 
 a  plurality  of  Gods ! ! ! 
 
 This  wil)  hardly  be  credited.  Let  the  reader 
 therefore  turn  to  the  precious  original,  (p.  435.) 
 where  he  will  find  the  manner  fully  described, 
 in  which  this  notion  takes  its  rise  amongst  th^ 
 vulgar,  for  of  these  it  is  that  he  has  been  speak- 
 ing througliout  the  preceding  page.  "  Men's  ex- 
 aggerated praises  and  compliments  still  swell 
 their  idea  upon  them ;  and  elevating  their  deities 
 to  the  utmost  bounds  of  perfection,  at  last  beget 
 the  atiributes  of  Unify  and  Infinity,  simplicity 
 and  spirituality.'*  Thus,  then,  the  one,  infinite, 
 , UNGOMPOUNDEp,  and  SPIRITUAL  first  cause, 
 sprmgs,  as  we  see,  out  of  the  tendencies  of  the 
 vulgar  to  praise  and  panegyric.  But  immedi- 
 ately after  we  find,  that  this  is  a  height  too  giddy 
 for  those  who  have  thus  risen  to  it,  and  that  it  is 
 necessary  that  they  should  be  quietly  let  down 
 again  to  the  firmer  and  more  peaceful  footing  of 
 Polytheism.  For,  "  such  refined  ideas,  being 
 somewhat  disproportioned  to  vulgar  compre- 
 hension' (although  \\,\\'vAg  grown  naturally  out 
 of  vulgar  conception)  '<  lemain  not  long  in  their 
 original  purity :  but  require  to  be  supported  by 
 the  notion  of  inferior  mediators  or  subordinate 
 agents,  which  interpose  between  mankind  anc| 
 their  supreme  deity.    These  demi-gods  or  middle 
 
ON    BOUNGBROKE    AND    HUME.  313 
 
 beings,    partaking  more   of  human  nature,    and 
 being  more  familiar  to  us,  become  the  chief  ob- 
 jects of  devotion,  and  gradually  recall  that  ido- 
 latry which  has  been  formerly  banished  by  the 
 ardent  prayers  and  pane;/;yrics  ot  timorous  indi- 
 gent ir.ortals/^^See  also  pp.  429,  430,  or  rather 
 the  whole   of  the  extraordinary  reasoning  upon 
 this  subject  in   the  6th,  7th,  and  Sth  sections.— 
 Thus  then  we  see,  that  the  vulgar  in  their  high 
 flights  of  praise  and  panegj/ric,  rose  to  the  dis- 
 covery of  ajirst   cause;   while   a   set  of  iviser 
 men^  we  must  suppose  called  in  to   restore  the 
 
 *  In  truth   Mr.   Hume  himself    sccras   entitled    to   rank 
 amongst  those  wiser  men,  as  he  has  been  able  to  discover 
 many  advantages  in  the  scheme  of  polytheism.     For,  he  says, 
 if  ^ve  examine  without  prejudice,  the  antient  heathen  mytho- 
 logy, as  contained  in  the  poets,  we  shall  not  discover  in  it 
 any  such  monstrous  absurdity,  as  we  may  at  first  be  apt  to 
 apprehend.     Where  is  the  difficulty  in  conceiving,  that  the 
 same  powers  or  principles,  z.^hatevcr  they  were,  which  formed 
 this  visible  world,  men  and  animals,  produced  also  a  species 
 of  intelligent  creatures  of  more  refined  substance,  and  greater 
 authority  than  the  rest?  That  these  creatures  may  be  caprici- 
 ous, revengeful,  passionate,  voluptuous,  is  easily  conceived; 
 nor  is  anv  circumstance  more  apt  among  ourselves  to  engen. 
 dcr  such 'vices  than  the  licence  of  absolute  authority.     And 
 in  short  the  whole  mythological  system  is  so  natural,  that  m 
 the  variety  of  placets  and  worlds  contained  in  this  universe,  it 
 seems  more  than  probable,   that  somewhere  or  other   it^ 
 really   carried   into    execution."     Essaijs,  vol.  ii.  p.  242.— 
 Thus  the  cautious  investigator,    whose   scepticism  wdl  not 
 v-eld  to  the  proofs  of  the  existence  of  one  God,  sees  no  d.f. 
 
314  POSTSCRIPT   TO    NO.   LXIX: 
 
 mob  of  middle  deities  to  their  pristine  honours, 
 since  the  purpose  is  to  suit  the  objects  of  wor- 
 ship to  vulgar  comprehensions.  And  so  we  find, 
 that,  under  tiie  direction  of  this  wonder-working 
 
 iicuUy  in  admitting  it  as  tnoj'c  than  probable  that  there  are 
 manij»  In  this  system  of  polytheism  also  our  philosopher  finds 
 many  advantages.  For  ''  where  the  Deity  is  represented, 
 as  infinitely  superior  to  mankind ;  this  belief,  though  alto, 
 gether  just,  when  joined  with  superstitious  terrors,  is  apt  to 
 sink  the  human  mind  in  the  lowest  submission  and  abase- 
 ment, and  to  represent  the  monkish  virtues  of  mortification, 
 penance,  humility,  and  passive  suffering,  as  the  only  qua- 
 lities which  are  acceptable  to  him.  But  where  the  Gods  are 
 conceived  to  be  only  a  little  superior  to  mankind,  and  to 
 liave  been  many  of  them  advanced  from  that  inferior  rank, 
 we  are  more  at  our  ease  in  our  addresses  to  them,  and  may- 
 even  without  profaueness,  aspire  sometimes  to  a  rivalship  and 
 emulation  of  them  :  hence  activity,  spirit,  courage,  magna- 
 nimity, love  of  liberty,  and  all  the  virtues  which  aggrandize 
 a  people."  Ibid.  p.  440.  Our  author  has  forgotten  to  add, 
 that  in  our  aspirings  to  a  rivalship  with  these  nearer  Gods, 
 that  he  proposes  as  the  objects  of  our  addresses,  we  might 
 rise  also  to  that  capriciousncss,  revengefulness,  passionateness, 
 voluptuousness,  and  other  such  qualities  with  which  he  has 
 been  pleased  to  invest  them,  and  which  qualities  seem  in  the 
 "view  of  himself  and  Mr.  Gibbon  to  be  the  principal  ingre- 
 dients in  that  "  elegant  mi/thologi/y''^  which  they  would  so 
 strongly  recommend  to  our  admiration.  It  has  been  well 
 remarked,  hy  an  eloquent  and  interesting  Avriter,  that  anti- 
 christian  writers,  while  they  are  giving  us  their  opinions, 
 may  in  truth  be  giving  us  more;  may  be  discovering  their 
 morals^  while  they  mean  to  teach  us  only  their  creed:  and 
 thus  may  carry,  like  Bellerophon,  their  own  condemnation, 
 while  they  imagine  they  are,  gracoiusly,  couvcying  intelli- 
 
ON    BOLINGBROKE    AND    HUME.  315 
 
 X^pyjy^,  the  philosophers  and  the  people  are 
 made  at  once  to  change  sides,  and  act  each 
 other's  parts ;  the  people  taking  to  themselves 
 the  discovery  of'  the  Jirst  cause ^  and  the  philo- 
 sophers, in  return,  the  d'lscoverij  of  demi-gods 
 and  middle  beings.  Unless  indeed,  as  Bishop 
 Hurd  says,  the  people  are  supposed  to  have  done 
 both ;  "  discovered  the  iinifi/  in  their  blind, 
 timorous,  and  indigent  state,  and  when  they 
 were  so  well-informed,  struck  out,  in  a  lucky 
 moment,  their  gross  system  of  Polj/fheism''^^ 
 On  this,  and  the  whole  monstrous  assemblage  of 
 falsehoods,  inconsistencies,  and  nonsense,  with 
 which  this  extraordinary  Essay-^-  is  stuffed,  I 
 would  refer  the  young  reader  to  the  Remarks  on 
 
 gcnce  and  new  light  to  mankind.  So  that  the  old  proverb, 
 Bellcrophontis  Literce,  may  be  a  proper  motto  for  the  learn- 
 ed labours  of  them  all. — Young's  Centaur,  p.  29. 
 
 *  Diderot,  indeed,  in  his  execrable  Sijstenie  dc  la  Nature^ 
 has  completed  the  view  of  this  subject,  that  had  been  so  im- 
 perfectly sketched  by  .Bol//igbrokc3.nd  IIume»  He  has  man- 
 fully undertaken  to  prove,  not  only  that  Polytheism  must 
 have  been,  in  the  early  ages  of  the  v.orld,  the  necessary  result 
 of  men's  observation  of  nature;  but  that  it  must  be  much  more 
 so  no'ii'',  that  the  course  and  progress  of  philosophy  has  tended 
 to  rono'ce  men's  prejudices  1 1 — This  completely  relieves 
 Hume's  argument  from  all  its  perplexities. 
 
 +  Mr.  Nares,  in  his  admirable  collection  of  sermons, 
 preached  at  the  Bampton  Lecture  in  1805,  pronounces  of  this 
 extraordinary  production,  that  if  he  wished  to  satisfy  any 
 person  of  the  indispensable  necessity  of  a  divine  revelation  in 
 th%  first  ages  of  the  world^  upon  the  infidel's  own  view  of 
 
3l6  POSTSCRIPT   TO    NO.  LXIX: 
 
 Mr.  David  Humes  Essay  on  the  Natural  His^ 
 iory  of  Religion,  in  which  *  Dr.  Hurd  has  so 
 successfully  employed  the  weapons,  with  which 
 his  friend  Warburton  had  just  before  transfixed 
 the  brother- infidel  Bolingbroke. 
 
 Yet  such  writers  as  these,  such  writers  as 
 Hume  and  Bolingbroke,  (at  least  until  their  ig- 
 norance, falsehood,  and  absurdities  had  become 
 sufficiently  notorious  to  expose  their  followers  to 
 the  lik^  imputations,)  it  had  been  the  fashion  to 
 extol  and  admire.  How  such  writers  could  ever 
 have  obtained  followers,  may  at  first  sight  indeed 
 appear  difficult  to  explain.  The  difficulty  how- 
 ever admits  a  satisfactory  solution :  and  one 
 which  has  been  so  justly  given  by  a  late  respect- 
 ed writer,  that  I  shall  content  myself  with  the 
 mere  repetition  of  what  he  has  said  upon  the 
 subject.  Having  remarked,  that,  in  his  Treatise 
 of'  Human  Nature^    Mr.   Hume's  vain  love  of 
 
 things,  he  would  refer  him  at  once  to  Mr.  Hutne^s  Natural 
 History  oj  Religion.  (Narcs's  Bawpton  Lectures^  p.  485.) 
 And  Dr.  Maclaine  says  of  the  same  work,  in  his  Letters  to 
 Mr.  Soame  Jenyns^  that  perhaps  no  book  is  more  adapted  to 
 shew  the  unspeakable  advantages  of  a  divine  Revelation. 
 
 *  This  work  has  been  here,  agreeably  to  the  hitherto  com- 
 monly viewed  opinion,  ascribed  to  Bishop  Hurd.  But,  from 
 the  Letters  of  Bishop  Warburton  lately  published,  it  now 
 appears,  that  it  was  the  [)roduction  of  his  own  pen,  and  re- 
 ceived only  some  additional  colouring  from  his  literary  friend. 
 —  See  a  curious  account  of  this  (ransaction  in  the  Letters  of  a 
 late  Eminent  Prelate^  pp.  239,  2 10. 
 
ON    BOLINGBROKE    and    HUME.  3l7 
 
 singularity  had  led  him  to  endeavour   to  involve! 
 even  the  fundamental  principles  of  geometry  in 
 confusion  ;  but  that  finding  it  impossible  by  his 
 paradoxes  on  such  a  subject  to  rouse  the  atten- 
 tion of  the  public,  he  turned  himself  to  moral 
 paradoxes;    this   vs'riter  goes  on   to   shew,    that 
 Mr.  Hume   in  doing   so  had  calculated  rightly, 
 for  that  these,  "  when  men  begin  to  look  about 
 for  arguments  in  vindication  of  impiety,  debau- 
 chery and  injustice,  become  wonderfully  interest- 
 ing, and  can  hardly  fail  of  a  powerful  and  nu- 
 merous   patronage.      The    corrupt    judge;    the 
 prostituted  courtier ;  the  statesman,  who  enriches 
 himself  by  the  plunder  and  blood  of  his  country ; 
 the  pettifogger,  who  fattens  on  the  spoils  of  the 
 fatherless   and  widow;    the  oppressor,    who,   to 
 pamper   his  beastly  appetite,    abandons   the  de- 
 serving   peasant    to    beggary    and    despair;    the 
 hypocrite;    the  debauchee;    the    gamester;    the 
 blasphemer ;— prick  up  their  ears  when  they  are 
 told,  that  a  celebrated  author  has  written  a  book 
 full  of  such  comfortable  doctrines  as  the  follow- 
 ing:  ^That  justice  is  not  a  natural  but  an  arti- 
 ficial virtue,  depending  wholly  on  the  arbitrary 
 institutions  of  men,    and  previous  to  the  esta- 
 blishment of  civil  society  not  at  all  incumbent:— 
 That  moral,    intellectual,    and  corporeal  virtue, 
 are  all  of  the  same  kind;  in  other  words,  that  to 
 want   honesty,    to   want   understanding,   and  to 
 want  a  leg,  are  equally  the  objects  of  moral  dis- 
 
318  POSTSCRIPT   TO    NO.  LXIX: 
 
 approbation,  and  that  it  is  no  more  a  man's  duty 
 to  be  grateful  or  pious,  than  to  have  the  geniua 
 of  Homer,  or  the  strength  and  beauty  of  Achilles: 
 — that  every  human  action  is  necessary,  and 
 could  not  have  been  different  from  what  it  is: — 
 that  when  we  speak  of  power  as  an  attribute  of 
 any  being,  God  himself  not  excepted,  we  use 
 words  without  meaning: — that  we  can  form  no 
 idea  of  power,  nor  of  any  being  endued  with  any 
 power,  7nuch  less  of  one  endued  with  infinite 
 power:  and  that  we  can  never  have  reason  to  be- 
 lieve that  any  object  or  quality  of  an  object  exists, 
 of  which  we  cannot  form  an  idea: — that  it  is  un- 
 reasonable to  beheve  God  to  be  infinitely  wise  and 
 good,  while  there  is  any  evil  or  disorder  in  the  uni- 
 verse ;  and  that  we  have  no  good  reason  to  think 
 that  the  universe  proceeds  from  a  cause  : — that  the 
 external  material  world  does  not  exist;  and  that  if 
 the  external  world  be  once  called  in  doubt  as  to  its 
 existence,  we  shall  be  at  a  loss  to  find  arguments 
 by  which  we  may  prove  the  being  of  God,  or 
 any  of  his  attributes : — that  those  who  believe 
 any  thing  certainly  are  fools:  —  that  adultery 
 vnist  he  practised,  if  men  ivould  obtain  all  the 
 adva)itages  of  life ;  that^  if  generally  practised ^ 
 it  would  soon  cease  to  he  scandalous ;  a?id  that, 
 if  practised  secretly  and  frequently,  it  would 
 by  degrees  come  to  he  thought  no  crime  at  all:^' 
 
 *  "   ^\y  inquiry  concQYUin^  ilw  Principles  of  Moj^ah  is  of 
 all  my  wrilings,  historical,  pliilosophical,  or  literary,  incom- 
 1 
 
ON  BOLIKGBROKE    AND  HUME.  319 
 
 that  the  question  concerning  the  substance  of 
 the  soul  is  uninteHigible: — that  matter  and  mo- 
 tion  may   often    be    regarded   as    the    cause    of 
 
 parabh'  the  bcst.''^  Hiimc''s  Life,  p.  vH. — Tlio  passage,  re- 
 ferred to  above,  afibrtls  an  excellent  specimen  of  the  writer's 
 qualifications  as  a  moral  irstruclor.  And  yet  it  is  of  such  a 
 fnan  as  this,  that  such  a  man  as  Adam  Smiih  has  delivered 
 the  following  testimony: — "  I  have  always  considered  Mr, 
 Hume,  both  iu  his  life  time  and  since  his  death,  as  approaching 
 as  nearly  to  the  idea  of  a  perfectly  wise  and  virtuous 
 MAy,  as  perhaps  the  nature  of  human  frailty  will  permit." — 
 Letter  from  Adam  Smithy  L.L.  D.  to  JV..  StraJum,  Esq. 
 annexed  to  Ilume^s  Life,  and  prefixed  to  the  late  edition  of 
 Harness  Histo?y  of  England. — For  the  reception,  which  such 
 a  declaration  as  this  so  amply  merited,  I  refer  the  reader  to 
 Bishop  Home's  Letter  to  Dr,  Adam  Smiih :  in  which,  as  w  ell 
 as  in  the  Letters  071  Infidelity  at  large,  he  w  ill  find  the  ablest 
 and  most  incontestable  confutation  of  Hume  and  his  infidel 
 associates. 
 
 In  truth,  the  extract  from  Hume  on  the  subject  of  adultery 
 appeared  to  me  so  monstrous,  that,  with  some  doubts  of  Dr. 
 Beattie's  accuracy,  I  turned  to  the  original  to  ascertain  its 
 fairness,  and  there  found  the  following  justification  of  the 
 reporter: — ''  it  is  needless  to  dissemble.  The  consequence 
 of  a  very  free  commerce  between  the  sexes,  and  of  their  living 
 much  together,  will  often  terminate  in  intrigues  and  gallantry. 
 We  must  sacrifice  somewhat  of  the  useful,  if  ice  be  very  anxi. 
 ous  to  obtain  all  the  agreeable  qualities  ;  and  cannot  protend 
 to  reap  alike  every  advantage.  Instances  of  licence  daily 
 multiplying  will  weaken  the  scandal  with  the  one  sex,  and 
 teach  the  other  by  degrees  to  adopt  the  famous  maxim  of  La 
 Fontaine,  with  regard  to  female  infidelity;  that  if  one  knotzs 
 it,  it  is  but  a  small  matter  ;  if  one  knoi::s  it  not,  it  is  nothing.'' 
 (Hume's  Essays,  toI.  ii.  p.   334.)     Again  (p.  255)  he  con- 
 
520  POStStUlPT    TO    NO.    LXIX: 
 
 thought: — that  the  soul  of  man  becomes  every 
 difierent  moment  a  different  being,  so  that  the 
 actions  I  performed  last  year,  or  yesterday,  or 
 this  morning,  whether  virtuous  or  vicious,  are  no 
 
 tends,  that  the  necessary  "  combination  of  the  parents  for  the 
 subsistence  of  their  young  is  that  alone  which  requires  the 
 virtue  of  chastity  or  fidelity  to  the  married  bed.  Without 
 such  a  utility,  it  will  readily  be  owned  (he  asserts)  that  such 
 a  virtue  z:ould  never  be  thought  of.''^  And,  this  being  a 
 favourite  subject  with  this  writer,  whose  Inquiry  concerning 
 the  Principles  ofJMorals^  is  boasted  of  by  himself  as  his  best 
 work,  he  proceeds  to  enlarge  upon  it  in  an  additional  note, 
 (p.  490)  in  which  he  calls  in  the  aid  of  Greek  to  sustain  him 
 in  his  philosophic  profligacy,  and  referring  all  notions  of 
 virtue  and  vice  to  public  utilifij^  asks  with  an  air  of  final 
 triumph,—"  And  indeed  to  ichat  other  purpose  than  that  of 
 utilitjj  do  all  the  ideas  of  chastity  and  modesty  serve  ?"--^ 
 This  is  the  perfectly  wise  and  virtuous  man  of  Adam 
 Smith. 
 
 Dr.  Aikin's  remarks  (in  tlie  General  Biography^)  on  this 
 extraordinary  language  of  Dr.  Smith,  although  not  pressing 
 upon  the  parts  of  Hume's  writings  here  adverted  to,  deserve 
 to  be  noticed.  "  We  may  (he  says)  reasonably  demur  io 
 Dr.  Smith's  moral  estimate,  in  attributing  the  perfection  of 
 virtue  to  a  man,  whose  leading  principle  was,  by  his  own 
 confession,  selfish,  (the  acquisition  of  literary  fame,)  and 
 who  never  seems  to  have  made  any  of  those  sacrifices  of  inte* 
 rest  and  inclination  to  public  good,  in  which  virtuous  action 
 chiefly  consists.  Further,  A\hatever  degree  of  freedom  of  dis- 
 cussion may  be  justifiable,  with  the  benefit  of  mankind  in 
 view;  it  may  be  doubted,  whether  a  mere  fondness  for  specu- 
 lation, or  a  love  of  philosopliic  applause,  will  morally  excus« 
 a  writer,  for  sporting  with  opinions,  Mhicii  are  commonly  held 
 of  the  liighest  importance  to  human  welfare." 
 1 
 
ON  BOLINGBROKE  AND  HUM£.  321 
 
 more  imputable  to  me^  than  the  virtues  of  Aris- 
 tides  are  imputable  to  Nero,  or  the  crimes  of 
 Nero  to  the  man  of  Ross.'* — Essay  on  the  Nature 
 and  ImmutahlHty  of  Truth,  hy  Dr.  Beattie,  p. 
 Ill — 113.  See  also  pp.  315,  31 6,  where  many 
 other  doctrines  equally  rational  and  valuable  are 
 to  be  founds  together  with  the  references  to  those 
 parts  of  Mr.  Hume's  works  in  which  they  are 
 contained. 
 
 But  this  is  not  alU  Mr.  Hume  has  not  done 
 enough,  it  seems,  for  the  extinction  of  religion 
 and  the  subversion  of  morals:  but,  with  a  zeal, 
 bespeaking  his  fidelity  to  the  master  whom  he 
 served,  he  left  behind  him  blaspherpies  to  be 
 published  after  his  death,  which  even  he  was 
 afraid  to  publish  whilst  he  lived.  So  indeed  his 
 great  admirer,  tells  us,  in  his  Apology  for  the 
 Life  and  Writings  of  David  Hume:  whose 
 posthumous  papers,  he  says^  would  probably 
 "carry  his  philosophy  still  nearer  to  that  point, 
 which  he  might  not  think  it  discreet  to  'push 
 too  vigorously  in  his  life  time."  What  that  point 
 was,  is  but  too  evident  on  a  single  glance  at  the 
 works  which  he  thus  bequeathed  for  the  public 
 benefit.  The  Dialogues  on  Natural  Religio?i, 
 and  the  Essay  on  Suicide,  are  standing  monu- 
 ments of  a  heart  as  wicked,  and  a  head  as  weak, 
 as  ever  belonged  to  any  man,  who  pretended  to 
 the  character  of  a  philosopher  and  a  moralist. 
 To  leave  deliberately  as  a  legacy  to  mankind^  a 
 
 VOL.  II,  Y 
 
322  POSTSCRIPT   TO   NO.  LXIX: 
 
 recommendation  of  self  murder,  and  an  assu- 
 rance that  there  is  no  god,  at  the  very  moment 
 when  he  was  himself  about  to  appear  before  the 
 bar  of  that  dread  being ;  and,  whilst  thus  occu- 
 pied for  the  destruction  of  his  fellow-creatures, 
 to  amuse  himself  with  pleasant  conceits  about 
 Charon  and  his  ferry  boat,  (as  his  biographer 
 informs  us  he  did,  when  he  was  almost  dropping 
 into  his  grave,)  has  something  in  it  so  frightful, 
 that  one  naturally  recoils  from  the  thought  of 
 it  with  horror.  It  seems  to  be  equalled  only 
 bv  the  hideous  impiety  of  Diderot,  who  adduces 
 it  as  a  decisive  proof  of  the  non-existence  of  a 
 God,  that  he  was  permitted  to  write  a  work, 
 filled  with  blasphemies  against  his  nature,  and 
 arguments  against  his  being.=^ 
 
 Having  however  made  mentio^n  of  this  valuable 
 bequest  of  Mr.  Hume,  1  cannot  deny  the  reader 
 the  satisfaction  of  knowing  somewhat  of  the  pre- 
 cious material  of  which  it  consists.  And  first  as 
 to  his  Dialogues.  He  there  exhibits  various 
 modes,  in  which  the  world  may  have  been  pro- 
 duced, all  of  which  he  pronounces  to  be  to  the 
 full  as  satisfactory,  as   that  of  a  creation  by  the 
 
 '•  *  Si  ce  Dieu  tout  puissant  est  jaloux  tie  S€S  prerogatives^ 
 — comment  pcrmtt-il,  qu'un  mortel  comme  moi,  ose  atta- 
 quer  ses  droits,  ses  titres,  son  existence  meme?"  Vol.  ii.  p.. 
 60,  of  Sj/stime  de  la  Nature;  a  work  which  was  published 
 under  the  name  of  Mirabaud^  but  is  supposed  with  good 
 ceason  to  have  had  the  atrocious  Diderot  for  its  author. 
 
ON    BOLINGBROKE   AND    HUME.  323 
 
 will  of  the  Deity.      Generation  or  vegetation,  he 
 
 says,    will   answer  the  purpose:    and   the  latter 
 
 process,  which   he  prefers,  he   thus  particularly 
 
 explains :  "  In   like  manner  as  a  tree  sheds  its 
 
 seed  into  the  neighbouring  fields,  and  produces 
 
 other  trees,  so  the  great  vegetable,  the  world,  or 
 
 this   planetary    system,     produces    within    itself 
 
 certain   seeds,    which,    being  scattered   into  the 
 
 surrounding  chaos,  vegetate  into  new  w^orlds.     A 
 
 comet,  for  instance,  is  the  seed  of  a  world:  and 
 
 after  it  has  been  fully  ripened,  by  passing  from 
 
 sun  to  sun,  and  star  to  star,  it  is  at  last  tossed 
 
 into  the  unformed  elements  which  every  wdiere 
 
 surround  this   universe,  and  immediately  sprouts 
 
 up  into  a   new   system."    (Dialogues,  p.  132.) 
 
 But,    as   this    process  of  vegetable   production, 
 
 supposes  a  mother-vegetable  already  in  existence, 
 
 or  a  world  already  in  being,  so  accurate  a  rea- 
 
 soner  could  not  but  account  for  the  formation  of 
 
 the   first  world,    from   which   all   others  are  to 
 
 sprout.     And  this  he  does  in  two  ways,  that  he 
 
 may  the  better  satisfy  all  descriptions  of  readers. 
 
 Either  such  a  process  has  been   going  on  from 
 
 eternity:   or  a  world   might  have  been   formed 
 
 originally  thus; — "  A  finite  number  of  particles 
 
 is  only  susceptible  of  finite  transpositions  :  and  it 
 
 must  happen  in  an  eternal  duration,  that  every 
 
 possible  position  must  be  tried.— The  continual 
 
 motion  of  matter  therefore  in  less  than  infinite 
 
 transpositions,    must  produce  order:  and  order, 
 
 Y  2 
 
324  POSTSCRIPT   TO    NO.  LXIX : 
 
 when  once  established,  supports  itself."  (Dia-- 
 logues,  pp.  146'.  149.) — Now  must  not  Ephraim 
 Jenkinson^  and  his  cosmogonies,  hide  their  di- 
 minished heads,  on  a  comparison  with  this  Phi- 
 losopher and  his  sublime  inventions  ?  How  far 
 inferior  also  was  the  object  of  the  former  sage  to 
 that  proposed  by  the  latter  ?  The  one  but  sought 
 to  cheat  the  honest  Vicar  of  Wakefield  of  his 
 horse,  but  the  other  looks  to  the  more  glorious 
 attainment^  of  cheating  mankind,  of  their  trust 
 in  a  God,  and  their  hopes  of  a  futurity. — How 
 meagre  and  unphilosophical  is  the  first  chapter 
 of  Genesis,  compared  with  such  lofty  speculations 
 as  these  of  Mr.  Hume  '.! 
 
 If  we  turn  now  to  that  other  valuable  perform- 
 ance, the  Essay  on  Suicide,^  there  we  find 
 truths  no  less  momentous,  and  reasonings  no  less 
 acute,  than  those  which  the  former  had  exhi- 
 bited. He  informs  us,  that  the  whole  scope  of 
 man  s  creation  is  limited  to  the  present  life : — 
 that  the  life  of  a  man  is  of  no  greater  importance 
 than  that  of  an  oyster : — and  as  it  is  admitted 
 that  there  is  no  crime  in  diverting  the  Nile 
 or  the  Danube  from  their  courses,  so  he  con- 
 tends  there  can    be    none,    in  turning  a  fiew 
 
 *  Some  of  Mr.  Hume's  admirers  became  so  much  ashamed 
 of  this  monstrous  and  absurd  performance,  that  they  were  led 
 to  deny  that  it  ever  came  from  his  pen.  Whoever  wishes  for 
 a  complete  proof  of  his  being  the  author,  may  consult  th» 
 Monthly  Rftiiftw  for  1784,  vol.  Ixx.  p.  427. 
 
ON    BOLINGBROKE    AND    HUME.  S25 
 
 vunces  of  blood  from  their  natural  channel : 
 and  so,  upon  the  whole,  he  peremptorily  con- 
 cludes in  favour  of  self-murder///  He  goes  far- 
 ther: and  to  satisfy  the  conscience  of  the  Theist, 
 he  maintains  that  on  the  supposition  of  a  God, 
 we  are  acting  under  the  direction  of  Providence, 
 when  we  put  an  end  to  our  existence :  and  again 
 to  satisfy  the  conscience  of  the  Christian,  he  en- 
 deavours to  evince  the  lawfulness  of  suicide 
 under  the  Christian  dispensation.  The  last 
 point  indeed,  it  has  been  remarked,  it  is  not 
 difficult  to  make  out,  provided  the  liberty  of 
 putting  two  texts  together  be  permitted: — thus, 
 Judas  departed,  and  ivent  and  hanged  himself. 
 — Go  and  do  thou  likewise.  Mr.  Hume's  argu- 
 ments are  little  better. 
 
 So  much  for  this  paragon  of  modern  meta- 
 physicians;  this  deep  thinker  and  acute  rea- 
 soner,  whom  it  was  at  one  time  so  much  the 
 fashion  with  witlings  and  libertines  to  extol.  As 
 to  certain  advantages  of  style,  Mr.  Hume,  no 
 doubt,  possessed  them,  but  as  to  his  reasoning, 
 nothing  under  that  name  can  be  more  con- 
 temptible. This  indeed  seems  now  pretty  gene- 
 rally admitted:  and  few,  who  have  any  regard 
 for  the  opinion  of  men  of  sense,  would,  at  this 
 day,  venture  to  support  the  paradoxes,  and  ad- 
 duce the  arguments  of  David  Hume.  By  the 
 species  of  reasoning  adopted  by  that  writer^  Dr. 
 Beattie  has  well  remarked,  it  would  be  easy  to 
 
 y  3 
 
326  POSTSCRIPT   TO   NO.  LXIX: 
 
 prove  any  doctrine :  and  to  evince  this,  he  sup- 
 plies   the  following  recipe,    as    conveying  the 
 whole  mystery  of  the  manufacture  of  his  meta- 
 physical  paradoxes.     "  — Take  a  word  (an   ab- 
 stract term  is  the  most  convenient)  which  admits 
 of  more  than  one  signification:  and  by  the  help 
 of  a    predicate    or   copula,    form    a   proposition 
 suitable  to  your  system,  or  to  your  humour,  or 
 to    any  other  thing   you  please,    except  truth. 
 When  laying  down  your  premises,  you   are  to 
 use  the  name   of  the  quality  or  subject,  in  one 
 sense ;  and,  when  inferring  your  conclusion,  in 
 another.     You  are  then  to  urge  a  few  equivocal 
 facts  very  slightly  examined  (the  more  slightly 
 the  better)  as  a  further  proof  of  the  said  conclu- 
 sion ;  and  to  shut  up  all  with  citing  some  ancient 
 authorities,  either  real  or  fictitious,  as  may  best 
 suit  your  purpose.     A    few  occasional  strictures 
 on  religion   as  an  unphilosophical    tiling,  and  a 
 sneer  at  the  Whole  Duty  of  Man,  or  any  other 
 good  book,  will  give  your  dissertation  what  many 
 are  pleased  to  call  a  liberal  turn;  and   will  go 
 near  to  convince  the  woikl,  that  you  are  a  can^ 
 did  philosopher,    a  manlij  jree-thinher,  and  a 
 very  fine  writer^  (Essay  on  Truth,  p.  309.) 
 This  gives   by  no  means  an  exaggerated  idea  of 
 Mr. -Hume's  mode  of  conducting  his   metaphy- 
 sical disquisitions ;  so  that,  what  ha?  been  said 
 of  his   Dialogues,  may  be  applied,  with   truth, 
 to  almost  all  his  reasonings  on  moral  or  religious 
 
ON    BOLINGBROKE    AND    HUME.  327 
 
 ^nhiecfs:  — namely,  that  they  cannot  possibly 
 hiri  any  man  (^f  a  philosophical  turn,  or  even 
 a-.iv  man  of  coannon  sense:  that  they  may  serve 
 indeed  to  confirm  the  giddy,  the  profligate,  and 
 the  unprincipled  in  tlieir  prejudices  against  reli- 
 gion aud  virt'ie,  but  must  be  despibed  by  every 
 ma  1  whc»  has  the  smallest  grain  of  seriousness  or 
 
 reflexion. 
 
 Gray's  estimate  of  his  character  I  cannot  pre- 
 vail upon  mvself  to  suppress,  not  only  because  it 
 conies  from  a  man  of  real  genius,  learning,  and 
 reflexion,  but  because  it  must  be  admitted  to  be 
 altogetlier   untinctured   with    the   supposed    pre- 
 judices of  a  divine.— ^^  I    have  always   thought 
 David  Hume  a  p«^riiicious  wTiter,  and  believe  he 
 has  done  as  much    mischief  here  as  in  his  own 
 country.     A  turbid  and  shallow  stream  often 
 appears   to  our  apprehensions  very   deep,      A 
 professed  sceptic  can  be  cruided  by  nothing  but 
 his   present  passions,    (if  he  has   any,)  and   his 
 interests;   and   to  be  masters  of  his  philosophy 
 we  need  not  his  book  or  advice,  for  every  child 
 is  capable  of  the  same  thing,  without  any  study 
 at  all.      Is  not  that  naivete  and   good   humour, 
 which   his  admirers  celebrate  in  him,  owing  to 
 this,  that  he  has  continued  all  his  days  an  infant, 
 but  one  that  unhappily  has  been  taught  to  read 
 and   write?    That  childish    nation,    the  French, 
 have  given   him  vogue  and  fashion,  and  we,  as 
 visual,   have  learned  from  them  to  adiiiire  him 
 
 Y4 
 
328  POSTSCRIPT   TO   NO.  Lxix: 
 
 at  second  hand."    (Masons   Gray,*  vol.  ii.  pp, 
 249,  250.) 
 
 There  are  two  striking  features  in  the  charac- 
 ter of  Hume,  which  have  not  been  adverted  to  in 
 the  sketch  here  drawn  of  him  by  Gray : — his 
 disingenuoiisnesSj  and  his  bigotry, 
 
 *  For  some  admirablo  and  beautiful  remarks  by  the  same 
 author,  on  (lie  jSIuterialists^  and  upon  Lord  Shajtesburify 
 and  parficulaily  on  Lord  Bolingbroke  and  his  Philosophical 
 Works,  see  the  same  lolumej  p.  118 — 125,  AVith  respect 
 to  hitnie^  we  aie  infornjed  by  Mr.  Ritchie,  that  he  was 
 particularly  stung  by  the  severe  animadversions  of  Gray. 
 For,  as  tlie  biographer  adds,  "  notwithstanding  the  eulogium 
 which  he  sonietimes  bestows  on  the  equanimity  of  his  own 
 temper,  it  is  kuoMn,  that  he  felt  the  attacks  on  his  literary- 
 reputation  with  exquisite  sensibility :  and  although  he  per- 
 severed in  the  resolution  of  writing  no  answers  to  his  anta. 
 gonists  (except  in  the  single  case  of  his  quarrel  with  Rousseau) 
 he  did  not  alwnys  receive  the  criticisms  of  others  with  the 
 apathy  he  professes,"  Account  of  the  Life  and  Writings  of 
 David  Hume,  p,  301.  Indeed,  if  we  give  credit  to  the  ac- 
 count given  of  him  in  the  London  Review  for  1777,  we  shall 
 pronounce  him  one  of  the  most  choleric,  instead  of  being  one 
 pf  the  calmest  of  philosophers.  His  Treatise  of  Human 
 Nature  having  exj)erienced  considerable  severity  of  criticism 
 in  a  publication  entitled,  The  Works  of  the  Learned,  the 
 author  (as  the  Review  states)  became  so  highly  provoked, 
 that  "  he  flew  into  a  violent  rage  to  demand  satisfaction  of 
 Jacob  Robinson  the  publisher  3  whom  he  kept  during  the 
 paroxysm  of  his  anger,  at  his  sword's  point,  trembling  lest 
 a  period  should  bo  put  to  the  life  of  a  sober  critic  by  a  raving 
 philosopher." — ft  is  well  known  also,  that  his  resentment 
 against  Dr.  Eeattie  was  so  viclcntj  that  he  could  hardly  pu^ 
 pn  it  any  decent  restraint. 
 
ON  BOLINGBROKE   AND  HUME.  329 
 
 To  couple  die  term  higot  *  with  the  name  of 
 David  J  lame,  may  at  first  sight  appear  to  partake 
 of  his  own  paradox.     But  it  should  be  considered, 
 that   bigotry   is   not   necessarily  connected   with 
 religious  belief;  and  that  it  is  no  less  possible  to 
 display  its  invincible  prejudices,   by  an  irrational 
 and    intolerant  zeal    against,  than   for,   religion. 
 Now   undoubtedly,   in   this   sense,   no  man   has 
 proved  himself  more  of  a  bigot  than  Hume.     Far 
 from   being  the  calm   and  philosophic  enquirer 
 which  he  pretends  to  be,  he  is  evidently  influenced 
 by  an  insatiable  zeal  for  the  propagation  of  his 
 Atheistical  tenets;  and  his  intolerant  and  perse- 
 cuting   spirit    against    those,    who    oppose    the 
 adoj)tion  of  his  infidel  creed,  is  every  wbere  mani- 
 fested by  his  furious  abuse  of  all  who  are  tenacious 
 of  their  Christian  hopes,  but  more  particularly  of 
 the  clergy,  and  these  too  of  every  religious  persua- 
 sion   without    distinction.       OF   this,    abundant 
 proofs  are  to  be  met  with,  in  almost  every  part  of 
 his   writings:   but  more   especially    in    his    121st 
 Essay,  on  National  Characters,  (Essays,  vol.  i, 
 p.  215)  where,  and  in  the  annexed  note  T,  he 
 
 *  I  find  indeed  from  an  anecdote  in  Ritchie^s  Life  of 
 Hume^  that  I  have  his  own  authority  for  this  epithet.  For,  as 
 his  biographer  informs  us,  his  reply  to  a  friend,  who  jocularly 
 threatened  him  with  writing  an  account  of  his  life  and  charac- 
 ter, was,  that  as  to  his  character  he  would  himself  give  it  in  a 
 single  sentence;  "  candid  and  liberal  with  respect  to  the  pre. 
 judices  of  others,  bigoted  with  respect  to  his  own," 
 
330  POSTSCRIPT  TO   NO.    LXix: 
 
 pronounces  ^'  priests  of  all  r  llgions  to  be  the 
 same/*  and  goes  on  laboriously  to  prove,  that  a 
 PRIEST,  as  sue/if  MUST  bc  destitute  of  every  virtue^ 
 and  possessed  bi/  almost  every  vice.  How 
 strongly  Horace  Walpole,  (whom  I  particularly 
 name,  as  not  having  any  undue  leaning  tov»'ards 
 revelation,  and  as  being,  it  must  be  supposed, 
 tolerably  free  from  that  odium  theologicum,  which 
 our  author  so  plentifully  charges  against  the 
 clergy,) — how  strongly,  I  say,  he  condemns  this 
 intolerant  zeal  in  this  man  of  pretended  modera- 
 tion and  philosophic  calmness,  may  be  seen  on 
 looking  into  his  works.* — Now,  surely,  this  is  a 
 most  unreasonable  intrusion  into  what  our  author 
 
 *  Lord  Orford  indeed  omits  no  opportunity  of  expressing 
 his  dislike  and  even  contempt  of  the  common  run  of  what  are 
 called  Geniuses^  and  Philosophers^  in  modern  times.  "  No 
 Genius  I  have  known,  (says  he,)  has  had  common  sense 
 enough   to    balance   the  impertinence    of  their  pretensions. 
 
 TUEY  HATE  PRIESTS,  BUT  LOVE  DEARLY  TO  HATE  AN  ALTAR 
 
 AT  THEIR  feet:  for  which  reason  it  is  much  pleasanter  to 
 read  them  than  to  know  them."  (Lord  Orforcfs  WorkSy 
 vol.  V.  p.  421.)  This  observation,  though  immediately  di- 
 rected against  Rousseau,  who  was  at  tl  i«  time  introduced  into 
 England  by  ITumf,  wa*;  mar\ifostly  not  designed  exclusively 
 for  him.  And  altl  ough  tli  me  is  frequently  spoken  of  in 
 terms  apparently  favourable,  yet  even  in  his  Lordship's  letters 
 to  Hume  himself,  (vol.  iv.  p.  260 — 2G5)  the  cutting  sarcasms 
 and  contemptuous  sneers  against  authors  and  philosophers  of 
 a  certain  class,  sufficiently  inrnnate  in  what  light  the  noble 
 author  really  viewed  the  Scoich  as  well  as  the  French  phi. 
 losopher. 
 
ON  BOLINGBROKE   AND    HUME.  331 
 
 SO  willingly  admits  to  be  the  exclusive  province  of 
 the  clergy.  There  is  some  excuse  for  warmth,  in 
 the  man,  who  perceives  an  attempt  to  rob  him 
 of  what  he  holds  most  precious  ;  but  there  is  none 
 for  the  man,  who  makes  that  attempt,  flying  into 
 a  passion,  because  it  is  resisted. 
 
 Again,  as  to  the  dis ingenuousness  of  Hume ; 
 this  is  sufficiently  manifest  on  the  inspection  of 
 his  works.  The  instances  adduced  by  the  various 
 writers,  who  have  taken  the  trouble  to  expose  his 
 flimsy  sophisms,  are  so  multiphed  as  to  render  it 
 unnecessary  to  dwell  upon  this  subject.  Of  these 
 writers,  in  addition  to  the  authors  of  the  well- 
 known  answers  to  his  Essay  on  Miracles,  (an 
 essay  which  but  for  adventitious  circumstances 
 could  not  have  deserved  an  answer,)  I  would 
 particularly  recommend  to  the  young  reader.  Dr. 
 Beattie^  and  Bishops  Hard  and  Home,  who  have, 
 in  the  works  already  alluded  to  in  this  Postscript, 
 exhibited  this  imposing  and  deceitful  infidel  in 
 his  true  colours.  Nor  is  it  only  in  matter  of 
 reasoning,  but  in  matter  o^  fact,  that  he  stands 
 convicted  of  dishonesty.  No  writer,  perhaps, 
 has  established  this  more  clearly  than  Dr.  Elring- 
 ton,  in  his  Donnellan  Lecture  Sermons,  to  which 
 I  refer  particularly  at  pages  233,  234.  and  29G1 
 —302. 
 
 It  is  but  fair  however  to  confess,  that  Mr. 
 Hume  has  not  confined  altogether  to  religious 
 subjects,  his  talent  of  disingenuous  representation. 
 
 1 
 
S32  POSTSCRIPT   TO   NO.    LXIX: 
 
 His  unfaithfulness,  and  gross  partiality,  as  an 
 historian,  have  been  long  pretty  generally  acknow- 
 ledged: and  it  has  been  pronounced  by  judicious 
 and  candid  writers,  upon  the  subject  of  English 
 history,  that  the  History  which  Mr.  Hume  has 
 given  to  the  world,  is  a  most  injurious  work  to 
 put  into  the  hands  of  the  British  youth,  in  order 
 to  give  them  just  ideas  of  the  history  or  consti- 
 tution of  England.  Dr.  Towers,  in  his  Observa^ 
 iions  on  Mr.  Humes  History,  says  that  "  fide- 
 lity, accuracy,  and  impartiality  are  requisite  in 
 an  historian:  and  that  in  these  Mr.  Hume  is 
 greatly  deficient." — Dr.  Gilbert  Stuart  also  points 
 out,  in  his  Vieiv  of  Society  in  Europe,  (see  parti- 
 cularly pp.  320.  323.  32^)  many  gross  and  wilful 
 errors  in  the  Historian  : — and,  at  p.  327,  he  fully 
 demonstrates^  how  unfit  Mr.  Hume  was  for  the 
 task  which  he  undertook. — ''  Mr.  Hume  (he 
 says)  struck  with  the  talents  of  Dr.  Brady,  de- 
 ceived by  his  ability,  disposed  to  pay  adulation  to 
 government,  or  willing  to  profit  by  a  system, 
 formed  with  art,  and  ready  for  adoption,  has 
 executed  his  history  upon  the  tenets  of  this  writer. 
 Yet,  of  Dr.  Brady  it  ought  to  be  remembered, 
 that  he  was  the  slave  of  a  faction,  and  that  he 
 meanly  prostituted  an  excellent  understanding, 
 to  vindicate  tyranny,  and  to  destroy  the  rights  of 
 his  nation.  With  no  less  pertinacity,  but  with 
 an  air  of  greater  candour,  Mr.  Hume  has  em- 
 ployed himself  to  the  same  purposes:  and  his 
 
ON  BOLINGBROKE   AND  HUME.  333 
 
 history,  from  its  beginning  to  its  conclusion,  is 
 chiefly  to  be  regarded  as  a  plausible  defence  of 
 prerogative.  No  friend  to  humanity,  and  to  the 
 freedom  of  this  kingdom,  will  consider  his  con- 
 stitutional enquiries,  ivith  their  effect  upon  his 
 narrative,  and  compare  them  with  the  ancient 
 and  venerable  monuments  of  our  story,  without 
 feeling  a  lively  surprize,  and  a  patriot  indignation/' 
 Mr.  Fox  also,  in  his  late  celebrated  work,  speaks 
 of  the  continual  display,  in  Hume's  History,  of 
 his  '^  partiaHty  to  kings  and  princes,  as  intolera- 
 ble. Nay  (he  adds)  it  is,  in  my  opinion  quite 
 ridiculous;  and  is  more  like  the  foolish  admira- 
 tion, which  women  and  children  sometimes  have 
 for  kings,  than  the  opinion,  right  or  wrong  of  a 
 philosopher.'' — And  a  set  of  writers,  whose  na- 
 tional partialities  would  not  indispose  them  to 
 Hume,  agree  fully  in  this  sentiment.  "^  Few 
 things  (they  say )  seem  more  unaccountable  and 
 indeed  absurd,  than  that  Hume  should  have  taken 
 part  with  high  church  and  high  monarchy  men. 
 The  persecutions  which  he  suffered  in  his  youth 
 from  the  Presbyterians,  may  perhaps  have  in- 
 fluenced his  ecclesiastical  partialities.  But  that 
 he  should  have  sided  with  the  Tudors  and  the 
 Stuarts  against  the  people,  seems  quite  inconsis- 
 tent with  all  the  great  traits  of  his  character" 
 (Edinb.  Review,  vol.  xii.  p.  276.)— What  great 
 traits  of  character?  We  have  already  seen  what 
 they  amount  to.— Noj  no:  the  man  who  is  not 
 I 
 
334  POSTSCRIPT   TO   NO.    Lxix: 
 
 influenced  by  a  love  of  truth,  must  be  destitute 
 of  principle.  And,  in  such  a  character,  inconsis- 
 tencies must  abound.  Where  there  is  no  standard 
 to  refer  to,  no  anchor  to  hold  fast,  what  can  be 
 expected  but  perpetual  vacillation?  The  man  who 
 laboured  to  traduce  Scripture,  would  not  fail  to 
 falsify  history.  He  who  could  be  blind  to  the 
 grandeur  and  glory  of  the  Christian  dispensation, 
 could  not  easil}^  discover  the  beauty  and  the  sub- 
 limity of  the  British  constitution.  And  we  need 
 not  be  surprized  to  find  the  same  man,  a  renegade 
 in  religion,  and  a  slave  in  politics. 
 
 The  mischievous  and  dishonest  uses,  also,  to 
 which  Hume  perverts  his  history,  should  not  pass 
 without  observation.  Mere  historic  falsehood 
 had  lost  much  of  iis  interest  in  the  breast  of  this 
 writer,  had  it  not  been  made  subservient  to  his 
 favourite  object,  the  subversion  of  moral  and  reli- 
 gious truth.  The  picture,  which  has  been  already 
 drawn  of  the  historian  in  this  light,  is  sketched 
 with  such  justness  and  good  taste  by  the  masterly 
 pencil  of  Mrs.  H.  More,  that  I  cannot  do  better 
 than  present  it  to  the  reader  s  view  as  it  has  come 
 from  the  hand  of  that  admirable  woman. 
 
 "  There  is  a  sedateness  in  his  manner,  which 
 imposes;  a  sly  gravity  in  his  scepticism,  which 
 puts  the  reader  more  oif  his  guard,  than  the  vehe- 
 mence of  censure,  or  the  levity  of  wit ;  for  we  are 
 always  less  disposed  to  suspect  a  man  who  is  too 
 wise  to  appear  angry.     That  same  wisdom  makes 
 
ON  BOTINGBROKE    AND  HUME.  335 
 
 him  too  correct  to  invent  calumnies,  but  it  does 
 not  preserve  liini  from  doing  what  is  scarcely  less 
 disingenuous.  He  implicitly  adopts  the  injurious 
 relations  of  those  annalists  v/ho  were  most  hostile 
 to  the   reformed  faith;  *   though  he  must  have 
 
 *  Villeis,  in  his  Essai/  on  the  Reformation,  (Mills's 
 translation,  p.  107.)  offers  the  following  observations,  which 
 go  to  support  the  above  allegation,  and  deserve  to  be  par- 
 ticularly attended  to. — "  It  is  well  known  with  what  fury 
 the  rage  of  party  pours  out  calumny  upon  eminent  men. 
 Upon  Luther,  above  all  men,  it  has  been  discharged  in  tor- 
 rents. Among  olher  causes,  it  has  been  found  out,  that  his 
 zeal  arose  only  from  the  discontent  of  the  Augustins,  who 
 beheld,  it  is  said,  with  envy  the  Dominicans  invested  by  the 
 Pope  with  the  commission  of  preaching  indulgences.  That 
 Maimbourg  should  have  picked  up  such  a  story  is  nothing 
 "wonderful.  But  it  is  inconceivable,  that  Voltaire  and  Hume 
 should  have  repeated  it  as  a  certain  fact."  This  author  then 
 proceeds  to  expose  the  falsehood  of  the  calumny,  and  refers  to 
 a  note  of  Dr.  Maclaine  on  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History, 
 m  which,  he  says,  is  ''  proved,  beyond  dispute,  the  absurdity 
 of  the  imputation."  The  translator  pursuing  the  same  subject^ 
 goes  on  thus.  "  The  credit  of  Voltaire  is  now  so  low  in  thi» 
 country,  that  no  means,  however  base,  of  forwarding  a  favour- 
 ite object  will  be  thought  beneath  him.  He  is  now  detected;, 
 and  his  authority  is  of  very  little  value.  But  Hume,  who 
 through  the  whole  course  of  his  history  lies  ia  wait  for  an 
 opportunity  of  throwing  discredit  upon  the  cause  both  of  reli- 
 gion and  of"  liberty,  who  possessed  a  rooted  enmity  against  all 
 the  best  interests  of  mankind,  and  whose  actions  exhibit  more 
 of  deliberate  misanthropy  than  those  of  any  other  man  perhaps 
 that  ever  lived,  still  enjoys  a  reputation  and  authority  which 
 he  by  no  means  deserves;  and  his  writings  contribute  strongly 
 to  corrupt  the  public  sentiments.     Dr.  Maclaine's  note,  re- 
 
336  POSTSCRIPT   TO    NO.    LXiXJ 
 
 known  their  accounts  to  be  aggravated  and  disco* 
 loured,  if  not  absolutely  invented.  He  thus 
 makes  others  responsible  for  the  worst  things  he 
 
 ferred  to  by  Villers,  is  a  full  exposure,  more  full  perhaps  than 
 was  necessary,  of  one  of  those  instances  of  bad  faith  witli 
 which  his  history  abounds.  If  any  one  were  to  publish  an 
 edition  of  his  history,  with  notes,  pointing  out  tlie  eagerness 
 with  which  he  has  used  not  only  lawful  but  poisoned  arms 
 against  religion  and  liberty,  exposing  the  unfounded  assertions, 
 the  weak  reflections,  and  the  barbarous  phraseology  uhich  he 
 tso  often  employs,  he  would  abate  that  false  admiration  so  long 
 attached  to  his  works,  and  confer  a  great  obligation  upon  fh6 
 public."  These  charges  against  Hume  may  possibly  not  be 
 sufficiently  temperate  and  measured  :  but  they  Contain  in  them 
 much  of  truth :  and  the  principal  charge,  that  of  historical  bad 
 faith,  is  undoubtedly  made  out  by  Dr.  Maclaine,  in  the  note 
 alluded  to  ;  which  note  I  here  subjoin,  not  merely  because  it  es- 
 tablishes the  point  at  present  under  consideration,  but  because 
 it  so  completely  rescues  the  author  of  the  Reformation  from 
 the  unfounded  calumnies  which  Hume  had  contributed  to 
 circulate,  and  which  of  late  days  an  interested  zeal  has  pro- 
 pagated in  this  country  with  more  than  usual  industry. 
 
 "  Mr.  Hume,  in  his  history  of  the  reign  of  Henry  the  8th, 
 has  thought  proper  to  repeat  what  the  enemies  of  the  Reformat 
 tion,  and  some  of  its  dubious  or  ill-informed  friends,  have 
 advanced,  with  respect  to  the  motives  that  engaged  Luther  to 
 oppose  tJic  doctrine  of  indulgences.  This  elegant  and  per- 
 suasive historian  tells  us,  ih^t  the  Ausiin  friars  had  usually 
 been  employed  in  Saxony  to  preach  Indulgences^  and  frojn 
 this  trust  had  derived  both  profit  and  consideration ;  that 
 Arcemboldi  gave  this  occupation  to  the  Dominicans ;  that 
 Martin  Luther,  an  Austin  friar^  professor  in  the  Univerm 
 sitif  of  Wirtemherg^  resenting  the  affront  put  upon  his  own 
 Order  J  began  to  preach  against  the  ubuscsy  that  were  com* 
 
ON  BOLINGBROKE    AND  HUME.  337 
 
 asserts,  and  spreads  the  mischief  without  avowing 
 the  mahgnity.  When  he  speaks  from  himself, 
 the  sneer  is  so  cool,  the  irony  so  sober,  the  con- 
 
 mitted  in  the  sale  of  indulgences^  and,  being  provoked  hi/ 
 opposition,  proceeded  even  to  decry  indulgences  themselves. 
 It  were  to  be  wished,  that  Mr.  Hume's  candor  had  engaged 
 him  to  examine  this  accusation  better,  before  he  had  yentured 
 to  repeat  it.  For,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  not  true,  that  the 
 Austin  friars  had  been  usually  employed  in  Saxo7iy  to 
 preach  Indulgences.  It  is  well  known,  that  the  commission 
 had  been  offered  alternately,  and  sometimes  jointly,  to  all  the 
 Mendicants,  whether  Austinfriars,  Dominicans,  Franciscans, 
 or  Carmelites.  Nay,  from  the  year  1229,  tliat  lucrative  com- 
 mission was  principally  intrusted  with  the  Dominicans ;  and 
 in  the  records  which  relate  to  Indulgences,  we  rarely  meet 
 with  the  name  of  an  Austin  friar,  and  not  one  single  act  by 
 which  it  appears  that  the  Roman  Pontif  ever  named  the  friars 
 of  that  order  to  the  office  under  consideration.  More  parti, 
 cularly  it  is  remarkable,  that,  for  half  a  century  hQ^ovQ  Luther 
 (i.  e.  from  1450  to  1517),  during  which  period  Indulgences 
 were  sold  with  the  most  scandalous  marks  of  avaricious  extor- 
 tion and  impudence*,  we  scarcely  meet  with  the  name  of  au 
 Austin  friar  employed  in  that  service,  if  we  except  a  monk, 
 named  Palzius,  who  was  no  more  than  an  underling  of  the 
 papal  questor  Raymond  Peraldus :  so  far  is  it  from  being 
 true,  that  the  Augustine  Order  were  exclusively,  or  ereii 
 usually  employed  in  that  service.  Mr.  Hume  has  built  his 
 assertion  upon  the  sole  authority  of  a  single  expression  of 
 Paul  Sarpi,  which  has  been  abundantly  refuted  by  De  Priero, 
 Pallavicini,  and  Graveson,  the  mortal  euemies  of  Luther. 
 
 "  But  it  may  be  alleged,  that,  even  supposing  it  was  not 
 usual  to  employ  the  Augustin  friars  a.\one  in  the  propagation 
 of  indulgences,  yet  Luther  might  be  offended  at  seeing  such 
 an  important  commission  given  to  the  Dominicans  «xclusiyely,. 
 
 VOL.  II.  Z 
 
338  POSTSCRIPT  TO  NO.   Lxix: 
 
 tempt  so  discn  et,  the  moderation  so  insidious, 
 the  difference  between  Popish  bigotry  and  Pro- 
 testant firmness,  between  the  fury  of  the  perse- 
 
 and  that,  consequently,  this  was  his  motive  in  opposing  the 
 propagation  of  indulgences.  To  shew  the  injustice  of  this 
 allegation,  I  observe  secondly^  that  in  the  time  of  Luther,  the 
 preaching  of  indulgences  was  become  such  an  odious  and 
 unpopular  matter,  that  it  is  far  from  being  probable,  that 
 Luther  would  have  been  solicitous  about  obtaining  such  a 
 commission  either  for  himself  or  for  his  order.  The  princes 
 of  Europe,  with  many  bishops  and  multitudes  of  learned  and 
 pious  men,  had  opened  their  eyes  upon  the  turpitude  of  this 
 infamous  trailRc:  and  even  the  Franciscans  and  Domiuicatis^ 
 towards  the  conclusion  of  the  15th  century,  opposed  it  pub- 
 licly, both  in  their  discourses  and  iu  their  writings.  Nay 
 more,  the  very  commission,  which  is  supposed  to  have  excited 
 the  envy  of  Luther,  was  offered  by  Leo  to  the  General  of 
 the  Franciscans^  and  was  refused  both  by  him  and  his  order, 
 who  gave  it  over  entirely  to  Albert,  bishop  of  Mentz  and 
 Magdeburg.  Is  it  then  to  be  imagined,  that  either  Luther,  or 
 the  other  ^w5^/w /ncr^  aspired  after  a  commission,  of  which 
 the  Franciscans  were  ashamed  ?  Besides,  it  is  a  mistake  to 
 affirm,  that  this  office  was  given  to  the  Dominicans  in  general  ; 
 since  it  was  given  to  Tetzel  alone,  an  individual  member  of 
 that  order,  who  had  been  notorious  for  his  profligacy,  barba- 
 rity and  extortion. 
 
 "  But,  that  neither  resentment  nor  envy  were  the  motives 
 that  led  Luther  to  oppose  the  doctrine  and  publication  of 
 indulgences,  will  appear  with  the  utmost  evidence,  if  we  con- 
 sider in  the  third  place, — That  he  was  never  accused  of  any 
 6uch  motives  either  in  the  edicts  of  the  pontifs  of  his  time,  or 
 amidst  the  other  reproaches  of  the  contemporary  writers,  who 
 defended  the  cause  of  Rome,  and  who  were  far  from  being 
 sparing  of  their  invectives  and  calumnies.    All  the  contera- 
 
ON  BOLINGBROKE  AND    HUME.  339 
 
 cutor  and  the  resolution  of  the  martyr,  so  Uttle 
 marked ;  the  distinctions  between  intolerant 
 phrenzy   and    heroic   zeal   so   melted    into  each 
 
 porary  adversaries  of  Luther  are  absolutely  silent  on  this 
 head.  From  the  year  1517  to  1546,  when  the  dispute  about 
 indulgences  was  carried  on  with  the  greatest  warmth  and  ani- 
 mosity, not  one  writer  ever  ventured  to  reproach  Luther  with 
 these  ignoble  motives  of  opposition  now  under  consideration. 
 I  speak  not  of  Erasmus^  Sleiden^  De  Thou^  Gidcciardini^ 
 and  others,  whose  testimony  might  perhaps  be  suspected  of 
 partiality  in  his  favour:  but  I  speak  of  Cajetan^  Hogstrat^ 
 De  Prterio,  Emser^  and  even  the  infamous  John  Tetzclj 
 whom  Luther  opposed  with  such  vehemence  and  bitterness. 
 Even  Cochlcpus  was  silent  on  this  head  during  the  life  of 
 Luther;  though  after  the  death  of  that  great  Reformer  he 
 broached  the  calumny  I  am  here  refuting.  But  such  was  th« 
 scandalous  character  of  this  man,  who  was  notorious  for  fraud, 
 calumny,  lying,  and  their  sister  vices,  that  Fallavicini^  Bos. 
 ^iiet^  and  other  enemies  of  Luther,  were  ashamed  to  make  us« 
 cither  of  his  name  or  testimony.  Now,  may  it  not  be  fairly 
 presumed,  that  the  contemporaries  of  Luther  were  better 
 judges  of  his  character  and  the  principles  from  which  he  acted, 
 than  those  who  lived  in  after-times  ?  Can  it  be  imagined,  that 
 motives  to  action,  which  escaped  the  prying  eyes  of  Luther^s 
 contemporaries,  should  have  discovered  themselves  to  us  who 
 live  at  such  a  distance  of  time  from  the  scene  of  action,  io 
 M.  Bossuet^  to  Mir.  Hume,  and  to  other  abettors  of  this  ill- 
 contrived  and  foolish  story  ?  Pilither  there  are  no  rules  of  moral 
 evidence,  or  Mr.  llume^s  assertion  is  entirely  groundless." 
 Mosheim^s  Ecdes.  Hist.  cent.  xvi.  sect.  i.  chap.  2.  vol.  ii, 
 pp.  17,  18. 
 
 Da  Madaine  has  very  properly  observed,  that  the  cause  of 
 the  Reformation  (which  must  stand  by  its  own  intrinsic  dig- 
 nity, and  is,  in  no  way,  affected  by  the  views  or  characters  of 
 
 2  2 
 
340  POSTSCRIPT   TO    NO.    LXIX  J 
 
 other,  that  though  he  contrives  to  make  the  reader 
 feel  some  indignation  at  the  tyrant,  he  never 
 leads  him  to  feel  any  reverence  for  the  sufferer. 
 He  ascribes  such  a  slender  superiority  to  one 
 religious  system  above  another,  that  the  young 
 reader^  who  does  not  come  to  the  perusal  with  his 
 
 its  instruments)  can  derive  no  strength  from  this  inquiry,  but 
 as  it  may  tend  to  vindicate  the  personal  character  of  a  man, 
 who  has  done  eminent  service  to  the  cause  of  religion.     In 
 truth,  so  far  from  looking  for  selfish  and  ignoble  motives  to 
 account  for  Luther's  zealous  opposition  to  the  publication  of 
 indulgences  by  Tetzel,  one  has  only  to  read  the  account  given 
 by   Alosheim   of  this  transaction,    to  have  his  astonishment 
 excited,  that   J^uthers  did  not  start  up  in  thousands  to  raise 
 their  voices  against  it. — "  This  bold  and  enterprizingmonk,'* 
 he  says,  speaking  of  Tetzel^  "  had  been  chosen,  on  account  of 
 his   uncommon  impudence,  to  preach  and  proclaim  in  Ger- 
 many, those  famous  indulgences  of  Leo  X.  which  administered 
 remission  of  all  sins,  past,  present,  and  to  come,  however 
 enormous  their  nature,  to  those  who  were  rich  enough  to 
 purchase  them.     The  frontless  monk  executed  this  iniquitous 
 commission,  not  only  with  matchless  insolence,  indecency? 
 and  fraud,  but  even  carried  his  impiety  so  far,  as  to  derogate 
 from  the  all.suiTicient  power  and  influence  of  the  merits  of 
 Christ."     The  translator  adds,  in  exemplification,  that  "  in 
 describing   tlie   eflicacy    of  these    indulgences,    Tetzel   said, 
 among  other  enormities,  that  even  had  any  one  ravished  the 
 mother  of  God,  he  (Tetzel)  had  wherewithal  to  efface  his 
 ^uilt.     He  also  boasted,  that  he  had  saved  more  souls  from 
 hell  hy  these  indulgences,  than  Si.  Peter  had  converted  to 
 Christianity  by  his  preaching.^^ — Yet  Hume  could  discover 
 no  cause  for  Luther's  resistance  of  such  indulgences,  but  that 
 he  had  lost  the  sale  of  them  himself. 
 
ON    BOLINGBROKE   AND    HUME.  34 1 
 
 principles  formed,  will  be  in  danger  of  thinking 
 that  the  reformation  was  really  not  worth  con- 
 tending for.  But,  in  nothing  is  the  skill  of  this 
 accomplished  sophist  more  apparent,  than  in  the 
 artful  way  in  which  he  piques  his  readers  into  a 
 conformity  with  his  own  views  concerning  reli- 
 gion. Human  pride,  he  knew,  naturally  likes  to 
 range  itself  on  the  side  of  ability.  He  therefore 
 skilfully  works  on  this  passion,  by  treating  with 
 a  sort  of  contemptuous  superiority,  as  weak  and 
 credulous  men,  all  whom  he  represents  as  being 
 under  the  religious  delusion.  To  the  shameful 
 practice  of  confounding  fanaticism  with  real  reli- 
 gion, he  adds  the  disingenuous  habit  of  account- 
 ing for  the  best  actions  of  the  best  men,  by  re- 
 ferring them  to  some  low  motive ;  and  affects  to 
 confound  the  designs  of  the  religious  and  the 
 corrupt,  so  artfully,  as  if  no  radical  difference 
 subsisted  between  them."  (Mrs.  H,  Mores 
 Hints  for  a  Young  Princess,  vol.  i.  p.  156 — 158.) 
 Thus  does  this  elegant  writer  describe  the  perni- 
 cious tendencies  of  Hume's  History,  which,  as 
 possessing  at  the  same  time  many  of  the  beauties 
 of  stile,  she  happily  characterises  in  a  word,  as 
 "  a  serpent  under  a  bed  of  roses."  (p.  155.) — 
 And  thus  we  see,  that  in  no  occupation  of  Mr. 
 Hume,  whether  exercising  himself  as  the  light 
 Essayist,  the  deep  Philosopher,  or  the  grave  His- 
 torian, does  he  ever  lose  sight  of  the  one  great 
 
 z3 
 
342         ANNUAL    EXPIATION    CORRESPONDENT 
 
 warfare,  in  which  he  had  enhsted  himself  against 
 truth,  virtue,  and  rehgion. 
 
 In  this  Postscript  to  the  foregoing  Number,  I 
 have  wandered  far  indeed  from  my  subject;  but 
 by  no  means  from  my  object.  For  if  I  shall 
 have  the  good  fortune  of  impressing  any  one  of 
 my  youthful  readers,  with  a  just  opinion  and 
 abhorrence  of  such  writers  as  Bolingbroke  and 
 Hume,  I  conceive  I  shall  have  done  no  small 
 service  to  the  cause  of  truth,  of  virtue,  and  of 
 religion. 
 
 no,     LXX. ON  THE  CORRESPONDENCE  BETWEEN 
 
 THE  ANNUAL  EXPIATION  UNDER  THE  LAW,  AND 
 THE  ONE  GREAT  EXPIATION  UNDER  THE  GOSPEL. 
 
 Page  6i.  (^) — The  sacrifice  on  the  anniversary 
 of  expiation  seems  to  be  distinguished  from  all 
 others  by  a  peculiar  degree  of  solemnity,  as  if 
 to  mark  its  more  immediate  reference  to  the 
 great  sacrifice  of  Christ.  Thu?^  on  this  day,  we 
 find  the  High  Priest  exclusively  commanded  to 
 officiate:  and  on  this  day' alone,  in  the  stated 
 exercises  of  his  office,  was  he  permitted  to  enter 
 into  the  IIoli/  of  Holies,  and  to  carry  the  blood 
 of  the  victim  into  the  presence  of  God,  to  offer 
 it  before  tb.at  Glori/,  wliich,  seated  between  the 
 two  cherubims,   overshadowed  the  mercy  seat^ 
 
TO   THE   EXPIATION    BY   JESUS   CHRIST.     343 
 
 and  represented   the  divinity: — a  circumstance, 
 which  the  Apostle  particularly  marks,  (Hebr.  ch. 
 ix.)  as   prefiguring   the    entrance  of  our  great 
 High  Priest,  with  the  blood  offered  by  him  for 
 our  redemption,   into  the  true  presence  of  the 
 most  High,  the  immediate  habitation   of  God's 
 holiness  and  glory.    The  High  Priest  also  seems 
 to  have  been  selected  for  the  solemn  services  of 
 this  day,    as  more  adequately   representing  the 
 whole   assembly,    in   whose   name  he  sacrificed 
 and  supplicated  forgiveness;  and  therefore  more 
 properly  typifying  him,    who^  representing  the 
 whole    human    race,    was    to   procure    redemp- 
 tion  by   his  blood   for   the    whole  assembly  of 
 mankind. 
 
 Whoever  wishes  for  a  more  minute  detail  of 
 the  particulars  of  this  solemn  sacrifice,  and  of 
 its  peculiar  fitness  to  represent  the  sacrifice  of 
 Christ,  may  consult  Out  ram,  De  Sacr.  lib.  1. 
 cap.  xviii.  §.  6,  7.  lib.  11.  cap.  iii.  §.  2,  3,  4. 
 He  will  also  receive  much  satisfaction,  from  an 
 examination  of  AinswortKs  comment  on  the 
 sixteenth  chapter  of  Leviticus.  For  many  va- 
 luable remarks,  connected  with  the  subject  of 
 this  Number,  Datihenys  Discourses  on  the 
 Connexion  between  the  Old  and  New  Test,  may 
 be  consulted.  And  in  Rhenferdius's  treatise 
 De  Comparaiione  Expiationis  Anniv,  Pontificis 
 Max.  V.  et  N.  Test,  (Meuschen\s  Nov.  Test. 
 &c.  p.  1013 — 1039.)   a  most  copious  and  cir-* 
 
 Z4 
 
344      NATURE  AND  IMPORT  OF  THE 
 
 cumstaiitial  enumeration  is  given,  of  the  par- 
 ticulars, in  which  the  annual  expiation  by  the 
 Jewish  High  Priest  resembled  the  one  great 
 expiation  of  the  New  Testament.  It  may  be 
 proper  to  observe,  that  such  is  the  force  of  the 
 resemblance,  that  Socinus  himself  admits  this 
 anniversary  sacrifice  of  atonement, — inasmuch  as 
 "  it  was  of  special  divine  ordinance,  at  a  stated 
 season,  offered  by  the  High  Priest,  and  appointed 
 to  atone  for  all  the  sins  of  all  the  people," — to 
 be  fairly  accounted  typical  of  the  sacrifice  of 
 Christ.  Socin.  Oper.  (P reelect,  Theol.  cap.  xxii.) 
 torn.  1.  p.  583. 
 
 NO.  LXXI. ON    THE    NATURE    AND    IMPORT    OF 
 
 THE    CEREMONY    OF   THE   SCAPE-GOAT. 
 
 Page  62.  (^) — On  this,  see  what  has  been 
 said  in  pp.  370,  37 1,  of  vol.  i.  and  attend  par- 
 ticularly to  the  5th,  7th,  and  lOth  verses  of  the 
 xvith  ch.  of  Leviticus,  from  which  it  appears, 
 that  the  tico  goats  are,  throughout  the  chapter, 
 spoken  of  as  one  sin-offering;  being  expressly 
 so  called  in  the  first  of  these  verses;  presented 
 jointly  as  the  offering  of  the  people  in  the 
 second  ;  and  though  separated  into  two  distinct 
 parts  by  the  lot  cast  in  the  9th  verse,  yet  each 
 described  as  contributing  to  the  atonement  for 
 the  ])eople,  as  appears  from  the  10th  verse  com- 
 pared with  the  17th.    Indeed,  that  the  t too  goats 
 
CEREMONY    OF   THE    SCAPE-GOAT.  345 
 
 made  but  one  sin-oftering  on  this  occasion,  the 
 best  commentators  freely  admit.  See  Jameson's 
 observations  on  this  ch.  of  Leviticus.  The  rea- 
 son of  this  seems  obvious.  The  death  of  the 
 animal  was  requisite  to  rej^resent  the  means  by 
 w^hich  the  expiation  was  effected :  and  the  bear- 
 ing away  the  sins  of  the  people  on  the  head  of 
 the  animal  was  requisite  to  exhibit  the  eJJ'ect ; 
 namely,  the  removal  of  the  guilt.  But  for 
 these  distinct  objects,  two  animals  were  necessary 
 to  complete  the  sin-ofFering. 
 
 It  must  be  allowed  that  an  account  some- 
 what different  has  been  given  of  this  matter  by 
 some  very  judicious  commentators.  The  goat 
 sent  into  the  wilderness,  and  that  which  was 
 offered  up  in  expiation,  jointly,  they  say,  ty- 
 pify the  great  Redeemer  of  mankind:  the  former 
 animal  exhibiting  that,  which  could  not  be  dis- 
 played by  the  latter,  as  having  been  slain; 
 namely,  that  Christ  was  not  only  to  be  delivered 
 for  our  ojfences,  but  to  be  raised  again  for  our 
 justification,  (Rom.  iv.  25  ;)  and  that  although 
 he  was  to  be  crucijied  through  weahiess,  yet  he 
 was  to  live  by  the  power  of  God.  (2  Cor.  xiii.  4.) 
 Thus  Ainsivorth,  Bochart,  Alt  in  g,  and  before 
 them  Augustine  and  Procopius,  understand  it. 
 The  opinion  of  these  writers,  respecting  the  truth 
 to  be  illustrated  by  the  dismissal  of  the  second 
 goat,  may  perhaps  not  improperly  be  combined 
 with  that,    which   has  been   here  proposed:    so 
 
 1 
 
346      NATURE  AND  IMPORT  OF  THE 
 
 that,  whilst  the  goat,  which  was  slain,  exem- 
 pHties  the  sacrifice  offered  for  the  sins  of  man- 
 kind; that  which  was  sent  away  ahve,  may 
 represent^  not  only  the  removal  of  those  sins  in 
 consequence  of  that  sacrifice,  but  also  the  resto- 
 ration to  life  of  him  by  whom  they  were  so 
 removed.  Whether,  however,  this  point  be  ad- 
 mitted or  not,  the  circumstance  of  the  two  goats 
 jointly  constituting  one  offering,  by  exhibiting 
 its  different  adjuncts,  cannot,  1  think,  with  any 
 reason  be  controverted. 
 
 Rhenferd  contends,  that  this  point  is  com- 
 pletely established  by  an  evidence  resulting  from 
 the  nature  of  the  ceremony  itself  For,  he  says, 
 the  imposition  of  hands,  and  the  confession  and 
 implied  translation  of  sins  upon  the  victim, 
 being  usual  in  the  sacrifice  of  animals  in  expia- 
 tion ;  and  this  ceremony  being  omitted  in  the 
 case  of  the  goat  that  was  slain,  whilst  it  was 
 employed  in  the  case  of  the  goat  that  was  sent 
 away ;  decidedly  prove,  that  both  animals  were 
 designed  to  be  considered  as  one  offering,  and 
 that  the  latter,  consequently,  represented  him 
 who  was  to  bear  the  sins  of  Israel,  and  by  his 
 sufferings  to  expiate  and  to  remove  them. — See 
 Jac,  RhenJ'erd,  exp.  anniv,  &c.  p.  1033,  of 
 Meuschem,  Nov,  Test,  ex  Talm, 
 
 Whoever  niay  have  a  curiosity  to  know,  whe- 
 ther any,  and  what  ceremony,  analogous  to  that 
 of  the  Scape-goat,  is  observed,  by  the  Jews  of 
 
CEREMONY    OF   THE   SCAPE-GOAT.  34f 
 
 modern  times,  on  the  dai^  of  Expiation,  may 
 turn  to  vol.  i.  pp.  275,  2/6,  where  he  will  find, 
 that  a  cock  is  now  substituted  for  the  legal  vic- 
 tims ;  and  that  the  entrails  of  the  animal  to 
 which  the  sins  of  the  offerers  are  conceived  to 
 have  been  transferred  by  imprecation^  are  ex- 
 posed upon  the  top  of  the  house,  to  be  carried 
 away  by  the  birds  into  their  solitary  haunts,  in 
 like  manner  as  under  the  law,  the  scape-goat 
 had  been  conceived  to  carry  away  the  sins  of  the 
 people  into  the  wilderness.  See  also  Buxtorf, 
 Synag,  Jud,  and  BrougJitons  Dictionary  of 
 Religions,  Article  Expiation. 
 
 NO.    LXXIl.  SOCINIAN    OBJECTIONS    URGED    BV    A 
 
 DIVINE  OF  THE  ESTABLISHED  CHURCH,  AGAINST 
 THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  VICARIOUS  IMPORT  OF 
 THE  MOSAIC  SACRIFICES^  AND  AGAINST  OTHER 
 DOCTRINES    OF    TIIR    CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND. 
 
 Page  6,3.  (^^) — The  arguments  in  behalf  of  the 
 vicarious  import  of  the  Mosaic  sacrifices,  have 
 been  so  fully  examined  in  Numbers  XXXVI I [ 
 and  XXXIX,  that  nothing  need  here  be  added 
 to  what  has  been  already  offered  upon  this 
 head. 
 
 It  is  with  great  regret  that,  in  reverting  to 
 this  subject,  I  feel  myself  obliged  to  notice 
 the    following    observations;    which  have   been 
 
348  BIOSAIC    SACRIFICES    VICARIOUS, 
 
 recently  hazarded  by  a  Divine  of  the  Esta- 
 hlished  Church,  with  a  rashness  and  a  flip- 
 pancy which  cannot  too  strongly  be  con- 
 demned. 
 
 '•  Those  who  seek  a  protection  for  their  ab- 
 surd and  unscriptural  ideas  of  a  vicarious  punish- 
 ment, under  the  shelter  of  the  Jewish  ritual,  do 
 not  consider  that  that  ritual  was  solely  intended 
 to  preserve  the  Jews  from  the  idolatry  and  po- 
 lytheism of  the  neighbouring  nations,  by  keeping 
 their  imaginations  sensibly  interested,  their  minds 
 perpetually  employed,  and  their  time  continually 
 occupied  with  the  performance  of  rites  and  cere- 
 monies, sacrifices  and  oblations,  which  all  tended 
 to  keep  alive  iri  their  minds  the  unity  of  the 
 Godhead  ;  and  thus  to  preserve  them  a  distinct 
 people,  till  the  time  appointed  came  for  the 
 opening  of  the  Christian  dispensation ;  when 
 the  distinction  between  Jew  and  Gentile  was  to 
 be    done    away.*      There    are,    I    know,    some 
 
 *  The  same  idea  this  author  takes  pains  frequently  to  en- 
 force. In  his  Religion  Kithout  Cant^  (p.  112.)  he  states  it 
 thus.  "  The  ceremonial  laws  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation 
 were  intended  merely  to  preserve  unbroken  the  barrier  be- 
 tween Jew  and   Gentile,  till  tlie  coming  of  him,"  &c. 
 
 And  yet,  will  it  be  believed,  that  in  the  very  same  page, 
 this  determined  enemy  of  every  thing  typical  in  the  Mosaic 
 dispensation,  alarms,  that  "  in  the  Mosaical  law,  the  great 
 scheme  of  redemptioji  was  obscurely  insinuated,  rather  than 
 distinctly  pourtrayed,  in  types  and  Jigures^  in  the  sacrifices 
 of  the  altar,  and  the  atonements  of  the  Priest.     The  JRe*- 
 
A^D    OTHER    DOCTRINES,   OBJECTED    TO.    349 
 
 people  ivlme  fancy  is  stronger  than  their  jiidg- 
 ment,  who  suppose  that  the  varied  sacrifices  and 
 ordinances  of  the  Mosaic  ritual,  and  indeed  all 
 
 (leemer,  he  adds,  ^vas  seen  through  the  rites  of  the  Mosaic 
 dispensation,  as  through  a  veil  or  a  glass,  darkly."     How 
 then  docs  this  "  wise  and  sober"  writer  differ  from  those, 
 "  whose  fancy  prevailing  over  their  judgment"  has  led  them 
 to  view  the  Mosaic  dispensation  as  containing  in  it  something 
 typical  of  the  Christian?  He  admits,  that  the  sacrifices  and 
 atonements  under  the  one,    did  obscurely  typify  the  great 
 scheme  of  redemption  in  the  other.     And  who  contends  that 
 the  type  was  any  other  than  a  faint  and  obscure  draught  of 
 the  reality  ?  Thus,  then,  he  saves  his  reader  the  trouble  of  con- 
 futing the  assertion,    that  the  Jewish  ritual   was  solely  in- 
 tended to  form  a  barrier  between  Jew  and  Gentile,  and  that 
 none  but  a  visionary  could  ever  have  dreamed  of  its  bearing 
 a  typical  relation  to  the  Christian  scheme. 
 
 This  is  not  the  only  case,  in  which  the  freedom  and  va- 
 riety of  this  author's  views  have  led  him  to  mutually  con. 
 fronting   positions  on  the    same   subject.  — To    select   one 
 instance  more  out  of  a  rich  abundance.— In  p.  179,  of  the 
 last  named  work,  he  tells  the  Christian,  that  "  it  i.  only  by 
 personal  acts  of  sin,  hardening  into  habits  of  sin,  that  he 
 becomes  a  transgressor,  subject  to  the  wrath  of  God;"  and, 
 agreeably  to  this,    he  asserts  again,    in  p.  210,  t..at  "  it  is 
 not  by  some  occasional  misdoings  that  we  are  to  pass  sen- 
 tence on  any  man  ;"— that,   ''   in   estimating  the  worth  of 
 the  human  character.  Me  are  net  to  form  our  calculations  on 
 the  conduct  of  one  single  day,  but  to  take  the  average  of 
 many  days  and  years,  and  see  what  proportion  a  man's  vio^ 
 lation  of  his  duty  bears  to  its  peiformance,  his  virtues  io 
 his  vices,  his  sins  to  his  righteousness :^—h.ni\  yet  this  in- 
 dulgent moralist,  who  had  thus  far  endeavoured  to  relieve  us 
 from  any  inconvenient  pressure  of  sin  upon  our  consciences, 
 
350  MOSAIC    SACRIFICES    VICAllIOUS, 
 
 the  fractional  parts  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation, 
 were  intended  only  as  types  and  figures  of  par- 
 ticular facts  and  doctrines  in  the  history  and  in- 
 stitution of  the  Messiah. — Those,  ivhose  minds 
 are  not  Jitted  for  larger  and  grander  views  of 
 the  ways  oj  God,  may  ivell  employ  their  time 
 ifi  these  puerile  conceits,  but  they  tvill  be  des- 
 pised by  wise  and  sober  inen,  who  do  not  like 
 to  assimilate  the  operations  of  the  Deity  to 
 the  trick  and  pantomime  of  a  conjurer T — The 
 Guide  to  Immortality,  by  Robert  Felloives, 
 vol.  iii.  pp.  55,  56. 
 
 Such  are  the  modest  insinuations  of  a  divine, 
 whose  mind  is  of  course  "  fitted  for  large  and 
 grand  views  of  the  ways  of  God ;"  whose  com- 
 prehensive ken  enables  him,  although  unaided 
 by  any  lights  from  scripture,  to  discern  what 
 was  the  sole  design  of  the  Jewish  ritual ;  who  is 
 possessed  of  '^  a  judgment/'  that  at  once  detects 
 
 by  enabling  us  to  reduce  the  balance  against  us  in  the 
 debtor  and  creditor  account  of  transgression  and  righteous- 
 ness, shortly  after  turns  upon  us,  all  at  once,  Mith  this 
 unpleasant  sentence :  — '*  The  moment  \\c  have  violated  an^ 
 one  duty  of  truth,  justice,  and  humanity,  or  any  one  saying 
 of  the  perfect  law  of  Christ ;  that  moment  zee  are  polluted 
 %£ith  guilt;  and  without  repentance  obnoxious  to  punish- 
 ment." See  p.  2^0. — Really,  it  uere  by  no  means  unad- 
 viseable,  that  a  writer  (not  excepting  even  a  teacher  of 
 theology,)  should  take  some  little  pains  to  know  what  his 
 own  opinions  were,  before  he  proposed  them  for  the  instruc- 
 tion of  the  public. 
 
AND    OTHER  DOCTRINES,    OBJECTED   TO.   351 
 
 the  silly  fancies  of  all  such  as  '^  suppose"  that 
 that  ritual  could  bear  any  relation  to  the  Mes- 
 siah ;  and  who  is  also  "  wise  and  sober"  enough, 
 to  '^  despise"  all  those,  who,  by  forming  such  a 
 supposition,  "  assimilate  the  o{)eratious  of  the 
 Deity  to  the  trick  and  pantomime  of  a  con- 
 jurer." 
 
 Now,  who  are  the  persons,  who,  by  forming 
 such  strange  suppositions,  and  by  indulging  in 
 such  "  puerile  conceits,"  have  rendered  them- 
 selves the  objects  of  this  gentleman's  contempt  ? 
 Not  to  speak  of  the  person  alluded  to  in  the 
 last  note,  (who  probably  stands  too  well  with 
 the  author,  to  be  exposed  to  any  portion  of 
 that  scorn,  which  is  to  be  shared  among  those 
 who  entertain  such  notions,)  one  of  the  first  and 
 most  distinguished  in  this  way  is  the  Apostle 
 Paul.  He  has  gone  the  unreasonable  length  of 
 endeavouring  to  prove,  in  a  most  minute  and 
 laboured  detail,  that  the  institutions  of  the  Lavr 
 were  but  shadows  of  things  to  come.  But  then, 
 of  St.  Paul,  and  his  various  "  puerile  conceits," 
 this  writer  makes  no  account.  The  Apostle, 
 he  informs  us,  "  labours  with  mysterious  mean- 
 ings, which  he  fails  in  developing  ivith  sufficient 
 perspicuity'' — "  He  was  of  the  sect  of  the  Pha- 
 risees, who  were  wont  to  allegorize  on  the  literal 
 sense  of  scripture.  His  writings  have  a  tincture 
 of  cahaUstical  refinement, — and  even  occasionally 
 glimme}*  with  a  ray  of  Grecian  philosophy," 
 I 
 
352  MOSAIC    SACRIFICES    VICARIOUS^ 
 
 "  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  bewildered  \,ith 
 the  polemical  Christianity  of  that  day." — His 
 epistles,  generally,  are  "  jfilled  with  the  abstruse 
 discussions  of  Rabbinical  learning ;  or  relate  to 
 questions  which  are  at  present  of  7nore  curiosity 
 than  importance'' — "  A  modern  believer  has" 
 (consequently)  "  very  little  concern  with  any  of 
 the  epistles  of  this  Apostle;"  or  indeed,  it  must  be 
 added,  with  any  of  the  epistles,  all  of  which  this 
 writer  finds  to  be  ''  involved  in  a  tenfold  obscu- 
 rity ;"  and  to  which,  he  pronounces  it  impossible, 
 that  we  could  ever  pay  the  smallest  attention,  but 
 that "  we  prefer  stumbling  in  darkness  ;  that  we  de- 
 light more  in  error  than  in  truth  ;  or  that  we  ima- 
 gine there  is  no  piety  where  there  is  no  mystery." — 
 Picture  of  Christian  Philosophy,  Pref.  p.  iv. — vi. 
 pp.  1.31,  132. — See  also  Guide  to  Immort.  vol.  iii, 
 pp.  230,  231,  where  the  same  point  is  again  ear- 
 nestly enforced.  In  another  work,  (Relig.  vnthout 
 Cant  J  pp.  13,  14.)  the  same  author  takes  care 
 to  acquaint  his  reader,  more  particularly,  with 
 those  Pharisaical  dogmas  and  heathenish  notions^ 
 which  St.  Paul  had  so  deeply  imbibed :  and  he 
 illustrates  the  power  of  antient  prejudices  over 
 the  mind  of  the  Apostle,  by  a  happy  and  ele- 
 gant allusion  to  the  tang  of  the  tainted  cash ; 
 which,  as  he  has  presented  it  in  a  latin  phrase, 
 likely  to  excite  attention  from  its  novelty,  will, 
 he  thinks,  give  to  "  the  sagacious"  a  sufficient 
 idea  of  his  meanincr. 
 
AND    OTHER    DOOTRINES,    OBJECTKD    TO.    ooS 
 
 or  his  meaning,  in  truth,  no  person  can  en- 
 tertain a  doubt.  II is  language  is  plain  and  in- 
 telHgible  enough.  It  is  neither  more  nor  less 
 than  this ;  that  St.  Paul,  and  indeed  the  Authors 
 of  all  the  Apostolical  epistles,  have  shewn  them- 
 selves to  be  mere  drivellers:  that  we  should 
 consequently  reject  all  their  fancies ;  discard  the 
 hitherto  received  doctrines  of  Christianity,  as 
 idle  dreams ;  and  regard  the  Gospel  merely  and 
 exclusively  as  a  nioral  system,  or,  as  he  chooses 
 sometimes  to  term  it,  as  a  rule  of  life.  This 
 IS  the  point  which  this  writer  mainly  labours  to 
 establish    throughout    his    various    theological  =»'' 
 
 *  The  Jnikahimst,  A  Picture  of  Christian  Philosophy^ 
 Religion  zcithoift  Ca?7(,  and  The  Guide  to  Immortality,  are 
 the  works,  with  which  this  author  has  favoured  the  public  on 
 theological  subjects.  [Another  theological  work  has,  I  un. 
 derstand,  issued  from  the  same  pen,  since  the  time  at  which 
 this  note  was  written:  but  wljat  the  nature  of  its  contents 
 may  be,  I  confess  I  have  not  been  anxious  to  discover.]— 
 Of  these  several  volumes,  all  largely  descanting  upon  the 
 morality,  to  the  disparagement,  or  rather  to  the  exclusion  of 
 the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  the  Christian  excellence  which 
 forms  the  favourite  theme,  is  benevolence.  It  were  well,  if 
 he  had  treated  those,  from  whose  opinions  he  thinks  proper 
 to  dissent,  with  that  mildness  and  brotherly  forbearance, 
 which  might  prove  him  to  have  written  under  the  influence  of 
 the  virtue  which  he  so  highly  praises.  His  language,  on  the 
 contrary,  is  every  where  that  of  the  bitterest  rancour,  and 
 the  most  arrogant  contempt,  against  all  who  embrace  the  doc- 
 trines which  he  rejects,  and  which,  in  subscribing  the  articles 
 of  the  church  to  which  he  belongs,  he  bound  himself  by  a 
 solemn  promise  to  maintain.     JVay,  he  even  dooms  to  thf 
 
 VOL.  U,  A  A 
 
354  MOSAIC    SACRIFICES    VICARIOUS, 
 
 publications.  And  for  the  purpose  of  effecting  this, 
 he  strenuously  contends  that  the  Christian  religion 
 contains  in  it  no  doctrine  that  is  mysterious  ;^ 
 
 place  of  future  torments,  in  common  with  the  most  profligate 
 and  abandoned  of  sinners,  all  who  have  taught  the  *•'  false 
 and  pernicious  doctrircs  of  innate  depravity,  imputed  righ- 
 teousness, and  such  other  dogmas  aR  are  contrary  to  good- 
 ness." Guide  to  Immort.  vol.  i.  p.  316.  Yet  with  all  thisgali 
 perpetually  discharging  itself,  charity  and  the  kindly  affec- 
 tions are  the  never-ending  topics  of  declamation  j  a  declama- 
 tion even  sometimes  swelling  into  pindaric. 
 
 Love^  indeed,  of  one  kind  or  other,  is  with  this  writer  so 
 favourite  a  theme,  that  a  late  work,  in  which  he  has  indulg- 
 ed in  the  effusions  of  poetry,  is  exclusively  devoted  to  the 
 subject.  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  the  love  there 
 treated  of,  is  as  far  removed  from  Chrisiiun  love,  as  any  that 
 a  Christian  ministtr  could  feel  himself  justified  in  recom- 
 mending.— Poems  chiefly  descriptive  of  the  softer  and  more 
 delicate  sensations  and  emotions  of  the  heart!}!  Surely, 
 surely,  there  is  mischievous  stuff  enough  of  this  kind 
 abroad,  without  calling  in  the  clergy,  to  contribute  their 
 stock  of  silly  love  songs^  to  the  encrease  of  the  nuisance. — 
 And  yet,  perhaps,  the  love-songs  of  this  clergyman  are  not 
 more  mischievous  than  his  theology.  They  certainly  are  not 
 more  poetic. 
 
 *"  In  the  following  work,  it  will  perhaps  be  objected 
 that  I  have  introduced  no  mysteries :  but  whatever  is  mys- 
 terious is  unnecessary.  The  essentials  of  a  religion  consist 
 in  a  few,  and  those  the  plainest  truths." — "  False  religions 
 may  extol  the  importance  of  mysteries :  but  there  is  no  mys- 
 tery in  the  true." — Guide  to  hnmortality^  vol.  i.  pref.  p. 
 xiv. — Similar  language  is  scattered  plentifully  amongst  the 
 pages  of  this  work.  Being  thus  prepared  to  render  all  per- 
 fectly smooth  throughout  the  Gospels,  and  the  Epistles  being 
 altogether  discarded,  our  author  proceeds  with  his  pruning 
 
AND    OTHER    DOCTRINES,   OBJECTED   TO.    355 
 
 tliat  it  pronounces  a  good  moral  life  to  be  the 
 
 knife  lu  his  hand,  and  freely  and  unsparingly  lops  or  bends 
 every  thing  to  his  own  wish,  and,  as  he  conceives,  to  the  great 
 edification  of  his  reader.     And  yet,  strange  to  say,  notwiih- 
 standiiig  his  j)lain  reasoning^  which  "  all  men  in  the  pos- 
 session of  reason  may  understand,"  he  lias  left  behind  him 
 mysteries  not  less  than  those  which  he  boasts  to  have  remov- 
 ed ;  if  that  which  cannot  be  comprehended  be  allowed  to  be 
 mysterious.     Amongst  many  such,  his  observations  upon  the 
 incarnation  and  the  atonement,    supply  notable  specimens. 
 The  very  opening  of  his  work,  indeed,  cannot  fail  to  satisfy 
 ail  who  examine  it,  of  his  qualifications  as  a  commentator, 
 who  is  to  remove  from  the  sacred  writings  all  the  obscurities 
 of  mystery.     Confessing  that  he  cannot  discover  what  mean, 
 ing  should  be  assigned  to   the   word  Aoyo?,    he  "  gives  no 
 translation  to  this  mysterious  term,    but  retains  in  the  text 
 the  original  word  Logos^  to  which  he  leaves  every  reader 
 at  liberty  to  annex  whatever  interpretation  he  may  thinls; 
 best."  (Vol.  i.  p.  3.) — This  U  certainly  a  new  mode  of  re* 
 moving  a  difficulty :  and  Mr.  F.  is  evidently  not  quite  satis* 
 fied  with  it  himself.     lie  therefore,  in  the  succeeding  notes, 
 calls  in  the  aid  of  Dr.  Lardner,  and  labours,  with  the  help 
 of  this  Socinian  ally,  to  explain  the  nature  of  that,  the  terni 
 to  express  which   he  does  not  venture  to  translate.     And 
 now  the  matter  comes  out,    that  this  Logos,    let  the  word 
 mean  what  it  may,  must  actually  be  God  himself^     For  if 
 it  be  the  reason,  the  wisdom,  or  the  power  of  God,  then 
 what  but  God  himself  can  it  be?— Thus  the  first  poinfc 
 gained  in  making  the  matter  plain,  is,  that  the  aitrihute  of 
 any  Being  is  that  Being. — Well  then,  this  Logos  is  actually 
 God  himself.     How  goes  on  ih^  plain  reasoning  t\o\\'>~Li 
 the  beginning  zcas  God;   and  God  was  with  God;  and 
 God  was  God. — So  far  there  is  no  mystery  undoubtedly ; 
 iior   yet    in    the   succeeding  assurance,    that    Gael    zi-as   iri 
 f he  beginning  zcllh  God.     And  for  such  coajrauqic^tionj/ it 
 A  a  2 
 
356  MOSAIC    SACRtFlCES^^JCARIOUS, 
 
 only  requisite  condition=^  of  salvation ;  that  m 
 the  Gospels  alone  are  to  be  found ,  comprized 
 every  useful  truth  and  every  religious  duty ;  and 
 
 roust  be  conceded  to  Mr.  F.  and  his  Socinlan  auxiliaries,  that 
 the  Evangelists  could  have  but  little  need  of  inspiration. 
 But  as  we  advance  a  little  farther,  we  find  that  this  Logos, 
 (that  is,  Gody)  is  called  The  Light;  and  that  this  Light, 
 which  in  one  verse  is  God,  becomes,  in  the  next,  the  Mcs. 
 siah,  "  the  visible  image  of  the  wisdom  of  God  ;"  and  that 
 immediately  after  it  becomes  God  again. — (See  the  notes, 
 p.  3 — 7.  vol.  i.  of  Guide,  &;c.) — So  much  for  the  freedom 
 from  mystery,  and  clearness  of  exposition,  in  which  this 
 author  exuUs;  and  for  the  Avant  of  which  be  every  where 
 indulges  in  the  most  indignant  invectives  against  such  as 
 give  support  to  the  creeds  and  articles  of  the  Established 
 Church;  all  of  whom  indiscriminately  he  never  fails  to  abuse 
 as  ignorant  and  intolerant,  in  a  manner  that  evidently  marks 
 where  these  terms  may  justly  be  applied. 
 
 A  glance  at  the  exposition  of  the  introductory  verses  of  St. 
 John's  Gospel,  as  given  in  pp.  79,  80,  of  the  1st  vol.  of 
 this  work,  will  satisfy  the  reader,  with  what  associates  this 
 Church  of  England  divine  is  to  be  ranked  in  hi^  comments 
 upon  Scripture.' 
 
 *  Guide  to  Lnmor,  vol.  i.  p.  327. — This  is  also  the  fami- 
 liar language  of  Mr.  F.  throughout.  The  clergy  he  says, 
 (Vol.  i.  p.  323.)  "  ought  solely  and  exclusively  to  be  the 
 moral  teachers  of  the  people.'*  (He  means  to  say,  that  the 
 clergy  "  ought  to  be  solely  and  exclusively  moral  teachers 
 of  the  people.")  Indeed  he  carries  this  point  so  far,  that  he 
 would  have  "  the  ministers  of  the  Establishment  compelled 
 to  teach  nothing  but  that  pure  morality  which  Christ  taught, 
 without  any  cant  or  mystcrij.'''* — Religion  zcithout  Cant,  p. 
 131. — It  has  been  remarked  of  the  work  so  entitled, — which 
 deals,    usque  ad  nauseam^    in   the   cant  or    common-place 
 
AND  OTHER  DOCTRINES^  OBJECTED  TO.      357 
 
 that  consequently  in  his  own  work,  which  pro- 
 fesses to  give  a  just  view  of  whatever  the  Gospels 
 teachj  the  Christian  reader  will  meet  "  a  faithful 
 and  a  cheering  Guide  to  Immortality^  The 
 author  goes  yet  farther :  he  holds,  that  our  Sa- 
 viour's Sermon  on  the  Mount  "  contains  a  sum- 
 mary of  every  thing  which  it  is  necessary  to 
 believe  or  to  practise."  (Anti  calvinist,  pp.  1 3. 
 25.)  So  that  even  his  own  three  volumes,  ex- 
 planatory of  the  true  meaning  of  the  four  Evan- 
 gelists, are  in  a  great  degree  superfluous  ;  inas- 
 much as  the  substance  of  a  few  chapters  which 
 have  been  given  by  one  of  them,  comprehends 
 all  that  is  actually  requisite.  This  is  undoubtedly 
 making  brief  work  with  the  writings  of  the 
 New  Testament :  and,  in  this  view  oF  the  case, 
 he  might  with  as  much  propriety  have  entitled 
 his  book,  a  short  cut,  as  a  cheering  guide,  to 
 immortality. 
 
 But  that  we  may  appreciate  the  more  justly 
 the  value  of  this  writer's  theological  opinions,  it 
 is   necessary  to   observe,    that   whilst   he   every 
 
 usual  with  a  certain  class  of  writers  on  the  subjects  of  libe. 
 ralitj/,  benevolence,  morality,  &c.  blended,  at  the  same  time 
 (ill  the  indulgence  it  is  to  be  presumed  of  benevolent  and 
 moral  feelings,)  with  no  small  portion  of  the  cant  of  bwec^ 
 live  against  all  the  supporters  of  the  established  religion, — 
 that  instead  of  being  denominated  Religion  Kiihout  Cunt,  it 
 might  by  a  slight  transposition  have  acquired  a  much  more 
 appropriate  description.  Cant  zoithout  Religion. 
 A  a  3 
 
SJ8  MOSAIC    SACRIFICES    VICARIOUS, 
 
 where  *  Insists  on  the  propriety  of  confining  the 
 entire  range  of  Christian  instruction  within  the 
 hmits  of  our  Lord's  discourses,  as  recorded  by 
 the  Evangehsts,  he  at  the  same  time  very  can- 
 didly informs  us,  that  some  of  the  grandest  and 
 most  important  truths  of  Christianity  were  not 
 made  known  to  the  Apostles  until  after  their 
 master's  death.  "  The  great  mystery  of  a  suffer- 
 ing Messiah,"  he  says,  (and  with  what  consis- 
 tency he  talks  of  such  a  m3'stery,  or  of  any 
 mystery  whatevter,  let  the  reader  judge)  "  could 
 not  prudential ly  he  explained,  and  was  not 
 openly  and  unreservedly  taught  till  after  his  re- 
 surrection/' (Guide,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  344.)  In  the 
 sentence  preceding  this,  he  takes  care  to  state 
 distinctly,  that,  during  the  life  of  our  Lord,  this 
 knowledge  was   withheld  even   from  his   imme- 
 
 *  Besides  what  has  been  already  quoted  upon  this  subject, 
 in  p.  351,  v/e  find  the  following  remarks  in  this  writer's 
 Guide  to  Jmm.  vol.  iil.  p.  231. "  Those,  who  prefer  re- 
 ligious speculation  to  the  practice  of  religion,  or  who  wish 
 to  keep  nlive  the  memory  and  to  re-kindle  the  heat  of  con., 
 troversies,  wliose  lustre  and  whose  interest  have  long  since 
 been  lost  in  the  night  of  ages,  may  dedicate  the  best  portion 
 of  their  days  to  the  fruitless  studjj  of  that  imperviousli/  dark 
 and  inextricably  beidldering  polemical  matter^  which  is  still 
 preserved  in  the  Apostolical  epistles." — "  But  the  precepts 
 of  Christ,  as  they  are  contained  in  his  various  parables  and 
 discourses  in  the  four  Evangelists,  contain  all  the  instruc- 
 tions whicli  arf  necessary  to  our  improvement  in  righteous, 
 ne5s; — Includo,  in  short,  every  essential  principle  of  genuine 
 Christianity." 
 } 
 
AND  OTHER  DOCTRINES^  OBJECTED  TO.      359 
 
 diate  followers.    Neither  could  it  have  been  com- 
 niLinicated  to  theiii^  in  the  interval  between  the 
 resurrection  and  ascension,  consistently  with  the 
 representation    of  the    case   which    this    author 
 gives :   for  he  particularly  acquaints   us,  (which 
 he  admits  to  be  more  than  the  Evangelists  them- 
 selves   have   done,)    with    the    subjects    of    our 
 Lord's  discourse  during  that  interval.     "It  was 
 principally  occupied  with  instructions  relative  to 
 their   (the  Apostles')   ministry,"    &c.    But  ^'  all 
 things  necessary  for   the    helief  or   the  prac- 
 tice of  men,  and  which  are  essential  to  salvation, 
 our  Lord  had  repeatedly  inculcated  on  his  dis- 
 ciples before  his  death."    And  accordingly,  "  the 
 Apostles  delivered  nothing  necessary  to  salvation, 
 which  Christ  had  not  previously  enjoined  in  his 
 discourses    to    his   disciples ;    and   of  which    we 
 have  a  copious  summary  in  the  writings   of  the 
 Evangelists."    (Guide,  &c.  vol.  iii.  pp.  229,  230.) 
 — What  now  follows  from  all  this? — That  "  the 
 great  mystery  of  a  suffering  Messiah,''   is  of 
 no    importance  in   the  Christian  scheme.     For 
 nothing  is  important  that  is   not  contained   in 
 our  Lord's  discourses  delivered  before  his  death, 
 and  as  they  are  given  to  us  by  the  Evangelists: 
 and  in  these  discourses,  we  are  told,  the  subject 
 of  a  suflfering  Messiah  is  carefully  suppressed. 
 
 But  we  have  not  yet  done  with  the  variety  of 
 the  author  s  views  upon  this  head.     He  has  again 
 and  again  assured  us,  that  our  Lord  had,  in  several 
 A  a  4 
 
360  MOSAIC    SACRIFICES    VICARIOUS, 
 
 discourses  before  his  death,  communicated  to  his 
 disciples  every  important  truth:  and  yet  he  freely 
 confesses,  in  other  places,  that  there  were  several 
 important  truths  which  were  not  so  communi- 
 cated, but  which  our  Lord  had  promised  to  convey 
 to  his  disciples  by  the  spirit  of  truth,  whom  he 
 would  send  to  them  after  his  death.  (Guide, 
 vol.  iii.  }).  64.) — It  is  true  indeed,  that  as  to  this 
 Iwly  spirit,  or  paraclete,  Mr.  F.  questions,* 
 (p,  63)  whether  it  may  not  simply  signify  Clirist's 
 RESURRECTION  AND  ASCENSION^!!  This,  however, 
 lie  proposes  only  to  the  '^  dispassionate  and  deep- 
 
 *  ''  It  is  a  question,  which  may  he  proposed  to  cahn  and 
 dispassionate  and  deep-thinking  men,  whether  our  Lord, 
 under  the  idea  of  a  paraclete  or  counsellor,  spoke  of  his 
 resurrection  and  ascension;  events  which  so  greatly  contri- 
 buted to  dispel  the  prejudices,  to  enlighten  the  minds,  and  to 
 elevate  the  liearts  of  his  disciples;  and,  ,in  short,  to  lead  them 
 into  all  truth." — So  much  (or  plain,  unrefined,  natural  e'K\m^ 
 sition.  Now,  if  in  speaking  of  the  comforter  that  was  to  be 
 sent,  our  Lord  meant  his  resurrection  and  ascension,  it  is 
 evident  that  we  may  substitute  these  words  for  that  whicli  they 
 imply,  wherever  it  is  spoken  of.  And  then,  our  Lord's  address 
 lo  his  disciples  would  run  thus:  "If  I  go  not  away,  my 
 resurrection  and  ascension  will  not  come  to  you ;  but  if  I  go, 
 I  will  send  him  (i.  e.  mij  resurrection  and  ascension)  unto  you. 
 And  when  he  is  come,"  kc.  ''  However,  when  lie  cometh, 
 fiven  the  spirit  of  truth,  (or,  in  other  words,  iny  resurrection 
 and  ascension,)  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth:  for  he  (that 
 h,  iHTj  resurrection  and  ascension)  will  not  speak  of  himself,'- 
 &c. — I  certainly  must  leave  this  to  "  the  dispassionate  anc^ 
 deep  thinking,"  for  I  find  it  quite  beyond  the  reach  of  w^ 
 comprehension. 
 
AND  OTHER  DOCTRINES,   OBJECTED  TO,       36 1 
 
 tkhiMng," — But  what  again  shall  we  say  of  the 
 EvangeHcal  narration,  as  Mr.  F.  describes  the 
 matter  in  another  place?  (p.  6*8.)  "  After  my 
 res^irrection^  I  will  declare  to  you  the  ivill  and 
 counsels  of  the  Father,  without  any  indistinct- 
 7iess  or  obscurity*'  And  yet  to  this  he  imme- 
 diately subjoins;  "  the  sacred  historians  have  only 
 very  hriejiy  recited  the  discourses  of  Jesus  with 
 his  disciples  a/?er/u*5  resurrection,'' — Thus,  then, 
 "  the  will  and  counsels  of  the  Father^'  the 
 expounding  in  all  the  scriptures^  (beginning 
 from  Moses  and  all  the  prophets,)  the  things 
 concerning  himself, — which  were  vouchsafed  by 
 Christ  to  his  disciples  after  his  resurrection,  and 
 which  the  Evangelists  have  (not  "  briefly^'  but) 
 not  at  all  '^  recited,"  are  to  be  sought  for  pre- 
 cisely  where  it  is  confessed  that  they  are  not:  and 
 the  Gospels  are  alone  to  be  referred  to,  for  clear 
 and  distinct  views  of  doctrines,  which  the  Gos- 
 pels do  not  contain:  whilst  that  part  of  scripture 
 is  to  be  rejected  as  unnecessary  and  even  injurious, 
 which  was  specially  allotted  to  the  purpose  of 
 communicating  to  mankind,  that  knowledge  of 
 the  truth,  which  the  Spirit  of  truth,  as  well  as  the 
 words  of  our  Lord,  conveyed  to  the  Apostles,  sub- 
 sequent  to  his  resurrection. 
 
 Thus  we  find  this  writer,  who  is  to  clear  away 
 all  mystery  and  difliculty  from  Scripture  truth, 
 perpetually  at  variance  with  himself  no  less  than 
 with  the  real  doctrines  of  Christianity.     Surely, 
 
36*2  MOSAIC  SACRIFICES  nCARIOUS, 
 
 he  should  have  endeavoured   to  form  at  least  a 
 consistent  set  of  opinions,  before  he  attempted  to 
 obtrude  them  on  the  public  ;   and  more  particu- 
 larly, before   he  ventured  to  fly  in  the  face  of  the 
 whole  Christian  worlds   by  an   open  rejection  of 
 one  of  the   most  important  portions   of  inspired 
 scripture.     Humihty  however,  is  not  one  of  the 
 weaknesses  of  this  writer:  and  certainly  knowledge 
 IS  not  his  Jbrt. — Any  reply  to  the  arguments  ad- 
 vanced by  Mr.  Fellowes,   for  the  rejection  of  the 
 epistles  in  the  investigation  of  the  Christian  doc- 
 trines, is  rendered  unnecessary  by   the  arguments 
 themselves.     Independent  of  their  extravagance^ 
 (I  had  almost  said  their  folly?)  they  carry  in  them, 
 as  we  have  seen,  their  own  refutation.     In  truth, 
 the  object  of  our  Saviours  life  was  to  supply  the 
 subject,   not  to  promulgate   the  doctrines  of  the 
 Gospel.     The  Evangelists  therefore  confine  them- 
 selves to  the  simple  duty  of  narration:  and  the 
 doctrines^  which  altogether  depended  upon  what 
 our  Lord  had  done  and  suffered,  particularly  upon 
 his  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension  into  heaven, 
 were,  after  this  groundwork  was  fairly  laid,  to  be 
 fully   set  forth  by  those,   to   whom  our  blessed 
 Saviour  had  solemnly  promised  the  unerring  aid 
 of  the   Holy  Spirit,  and  who  were  especially  de- 
 signated   by  him    for  that   very  purpose.      See 
 p.  471 — 474.  of  vol.  i.   for  farther  observations 
 upon  the  attempt  made  by  Dr.  Priestley  and  his 
 Socinian   phalanx,  similar  to  this  of  Mr.  F.'s  to 
 
AND  OTHER  DOCTRINES,    OBJECTED  TO*       363 
 
 beat  down  the  authority  of  the  Epistles.  By 
 rejecting  the  Epistles,  or,  which  is  the  same 
 thing,  the  doctrines  which  they  contain,  Mr.  F, 
 indeed  thinks  that  he  may   *  reconcile  "  Jews, 
 
 *  Upon  this  prudential  plan  of  clearlt^g  away  mysteries 
 from  Christiaaity,  in  order  to  bring  infidels  of  all  descriptions 
 within  its  pale,  I  cannot  avoid  noticing  the   observations  of  a 
 writer,  whose  opinions  deserve  at  least  as  much  respect  as 
 those  of  Mr.  FcIIozdcs, — "  As  to  the  mysterious  articles  of 
 our  faith,  which  Infidels  wouhi  by  no  means  have  us  forget ; 
 '  Who,'  say  they,  '  can  swallow  them  ?'  In  truth,  none  but 
 those  who  think  it  no  dishonour  to  their  understandings  to 
 credit  their  Creator.     Socinus,  like  our  Infidels,  was  one  of  a 
 narrow   throat;   and   out  of  a  generous  compassion   to  the 
 Scriptures,  (which  the  world,  it  seems,  had  misunderstood  for 
 1500  years,)  was  for  weeding  them  of  their  mysteries;  and 
 rendering  them,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  infallible  reason,  undis- 
 gusting   and  palatable  to   all  the  rational  part  of  mankind. 
 Whi/  should  honest  Jezcs  and  Turks  be  frighted  from  ks  hy 
 the  Trinity^  S^'C?    Ily  Avas  for  making  religion  familiar  and 
 inoffensive.     And  so    he  did;  r^A  unchristian  too." — The 
 same  admirable  writer  subjoins.     "  Those  thiuijs  which   our 
 hands   can  grasp,   our   understandings   cannot   comprehend. 
 Why  then  deny  to  the  Deity  himself,  the  privilege  of  being 
 one  amidst  that  multitude  of  mysteries^  which  he  has  made  ?" 
 — Such  are  the  striking  and  just  reflexions  of  the  celebrated 
 I)r.    Young^  on  this  important  subject,  in  his   Centaur  not 
 Fabulous;  (p.  14.)  a  work,  which   in  this  age  of  frivolity, 
 Toluptuousness  and  irreligion,   I  would  particularly  recom, 
 mend  to  the  attention  of  my  young  reader,  promising  him  in 
 the  perusal,  not  less  entertainment  from  the  liveliness  of  its 
 illustrations  and  the  brilliancy  of  its  wit,  than  improvement 
 from  the  soundness  of  its  reasonings  and  the  animation  of  its 
 piety. 
 
364  MOSAIC  SACRIFICES  VICARIOUS^ 
 
 Turks,  and  infidels  of  whatever  denomination"  to 
 Christianity.  (Guide.  &c.  vol.  i.  pref.  p.  xv.) 
 — No;  that  he  will  not  effect:  but  he  will  accom- 
 plish this, — he  will  render  Christianity  very  little 
 different  from  what  Jews,  Turks,  and  infidels, 
 have  already  embraced. 
 
 Thus  then,  upon  the  whole,  it  is  manifest,  that 
 we  have  the  very  essence  of  Socinianism,  presented 
 to  us  by  a  writer,  in  the  garb  of  a  Minister  of  the 
 Established  Church :  a  writer  too,  who  expatiates 
 in  every  page  on  the  moral  virtues ;  on  the  virtues 
 of  truth,  honesty,  and  fidelity ;  whilst  he  openly 
 boasts  of  the  good  policy,  of  continuing  in  the 
 bosom  of  that  Conniiunion,  which  he  labours  to 
 subvert;  and  exultingly  avows  his  breach  of  those 
 solemn  engagements,  by  virtue  of  which  he  ob- 
 tained admission  within  its  pale.  Such  plain 
 and  unenlightened  Christians,  as  have  not  ac- 
 quired a  relish  for  the  refinements,  which  enable 
 an  ingenious  casuist  to  violate  his  promise  and  to 
 betray  his  trust,  will  be  apt  to  suspect,  that  in 
 this  author's  hands,  Christianity  has  not  only 
 been  abridged  of  its  mysteries,  but  also  curtailed 
 somewhat  in  its  morality.  For  what  do  those 
 articles  contain,  to  which  every  clergyman  of  the 
 Established  Church  has  declared  his  entire  and 
 unfeigned  assent,  but  the  very  doctrines,  which 
 this  Gentleman  ridicules  and  rejects?  Surely,  the 
 doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation^  the 
 Redemption,  and  the  various  other  momentous 
 
AND  OTHER  DOCTRINES,    OBJECTED  TO.      365 
 
 Christian  trutlis,  which  they  pronounce  to  be 
 indispensable  to  the  formation  of  a  genuine  Chris- 
 tian faith,  are  not  to  be  found  comprized  in  the 
 Sermon  on  the  Mount,  wliich  this  author  main- 
 tains to  be  a  "  summary  of  every  thing,  which 
 it  is  necessan/  to  believe  or  to  practise" 
 
 It  is  indeed  scarcely  conceivable,  how  a  person 
 in  the  possession  of  a  sane  understanding  can 
 reconcile  to  himself,  subscription  to  the  articles  of 
 any  Church,  and  rejection  of  the  doctrines  which 
 those  articles  define.  To  say,  as  this  author 
 does,  that  the  sixth  article,  in  pronouncing,  that 
 nothing^is  to  be  received  as  an  article  of  faith 
 which  is  not  founded  in  holy  writ,  supplies  a  dis- 
 pensation from  the  obligation  of  the  rest,  is  to 
 make  as  short  w^ork  with  the  articles  of  the 
 Churchy  as  he  has  already  made  with  the  canon 
 of  Scripture.  Would  it  not,  under  these  circum- 
 stances, have  saved  much  unnecessary  trouble,  to 
 reduce  the  articles  of  the  Church  to  the  single 
 declaration  of  the  sixth?  Or,  indeed,  were  we  to 
 seek  the  simplicity,  which  this  author  so  strong] v 
 recommends,  the  sixth  article  itself  must  be  yet 
 farther  reduced,  to  correspond  to  the  just  dimen- 
 sions of  gospel  truth;  and  the  whole  that  our 
 Church  should  pronounce  to  be  requisite,  for  the 
 true  belief  of  a  Christian  teacher,  should  at  once 
 be  confined  to  the  range  of  Christ's  Sermon  on 
 the  Mount.  But,  to  a  person  not  desirous  of 
 escaping  from  the  obligations  of  a  solemn  engage- 
 
366  MOSAIC  SACRIFICES   VICARIOUS, 
 
 ment,  it  would  naturally  occur,  that  the  Church, 
 in  propounchng  certain  articles  of  belief,  could 
 never  have  acted  so  absurdly,  as  to  superadd  to 
 these,  one  paramount  article,  which  was  to  do 
 away  the  obligation  of  all  the  rest.  On  the  con- 
 trary, he  would  necessarily  reason  thus :  that, 
 whilst  certain  doctrines  are  proposed  as  articles  of 
 faith,  and  it  is  at  the  same  time  declared  that  none 
 are  to  be  received,  as  such,  which  are  not  founded 
 on  the  authority  of  Scripture;  it  is  clearly  in- 
 tended to  be  conveyed,  tliat  the  articles  proposed 
 are  founded  upon  that  authority,  and  to  be  re- 
 ceived as  articles  of  faith,  by  those  onli/,  who 
 conceive  them  to  be  so  founded. 
 
 The  language  which  Mr.  Fellowes's  reasoning 
 would  put  into  the  mouths  of  the  framers  of  the 
 aj'ticles,  is  rather  whimsical.  "  For  the  purpose 
 of  avoiding  diversities  of  opinion,  and  the  esfa- 
 blishing  of  consent  touching  true  religion,^  we 
 require  from  the  clergy  of  the  Established  Church 
 of  England  an  unfeigned  assent,  to  the  several 
 doctrines,  which  we  propose ;  and  for  the  better 
 effecting  the  aforesaid  purpose^  we  also  require  of 
 them,  each  for  himself,  according  to  his  private 
 interpretation  of  scripture,  to  modify,  or  to  reject 
 those  doctrines,  at  pleasure;  and  to  introduce  such 
 diversities  of  opinion,  as  they  may   respectively 
 
 *  The  Title  of  our  Articles,  in  describing  tlie  object  for 
 which  they  are  framed,  uses  the  very  words  which  are  her§ 
 printed  ia  Italics. 
 
AND  OTHER  DOCTRINES,    OBJECTED  TO.       367 
 
 think  fit."— This  is  Mr.  Fellowes's  view  of  the 
 !natter.  I  would  suggest  to  him  a  view  of  it 
 somewhat  different,  in  the  words  of  one  of  the 
 most  distinguished  ornaments  of  the  Enghsh 
 Church  at  the  present  day. — ''  I  do  willingly  and 
 ex  animo  subscribe  to  the  thirty-nine  articles  of 
 the  Church  of  England,  is  the  indispensable 
 form  of  subscription ;  and  therefore  it  behoves 
 every  one,  before  he  offers  himself  a  candidate 
 for  holy  orders,  to  peruse  carefully  the  Articles 
 of  our  Church,  and  to  compare  them  with  the 
 written  word  of  God.  If,  upon  mature  exami- 
 nation, he  believes  them  to  be  authorized  by 
 Scripture,  he  may  conscientiously  subscribe  them  ; 
 but  if,  on  the  contrary,  he  thinks,  that  he  sees 
 reason  to  dissent  from  any  of  the  doctrines  as- 
 serted in  them,  no  hope  of  emolutnent  or  honour, 
 no  dread  of  inconvenience  or  disappointment, 
 should  induce  him  to  express  his  solemn  assent  to 
 propositions,  which,  in  fact,  he  does  not  believe.*'* 
 — (Bishop  of  Lincoln's  Elements,  &c.  vol.  ii. 
 .  567.) — According  to  Mr.  Fellowes's  reasoning, 
 on  the  other  hand^  a  Christian  minister  7nay  ex- 
 press his  solemn  assent  to  propositions,  which,  in 
 fact,  he  does  not  believe.     And  this  is  the  writer 
 
 *  Dr.  Balguy^  in  speaking  of  the  duties  of  the  clergy,  touch- 
 ing the  articles,  alfirms,  that  "  every  word  that  comos  from 
 our  mouths  in  opposition  to  the  established  faith,  is  a  vloltUion 
 of  the  most  solemn  engagements^  and  an  act  of  disobedience  to 
 lawful  authority." 
 
36s  MOSAIC  SACRIFICES  VICARIOUS, 
 
 who  resolves  the  whole  of  Christianity  into  mO^ 
 rallfy. 
 
 Juravi  lingud,  mentem  injuratam  gem,  is  a 
 sentiment  which  has  seldom  been  so  openly 
 avowed,  as  by  this  gentleman.  Tlie  dishonest 
 subterfuge  of  mental  reservation,  has  been  often 
 charged  upon  tliat  Church  against  whose  corrup- 
 tions it  has  been  the  glory  of  ours  to  protest.  It 
 might  *  now  with  justice  be  retorted  upon  our 
 own,  if  indeed  it  could  (as  I  confidently  trust  it 
 
 *  It  has  in  truth  been  retorted,  in  a  late  publication,  by  a 
 Roman  Catholic  writer,  and  directed  even  against  those  of  our 
 clergy,  who  conceive  themselves  to  be  bound  by  their  subscrip- 
 tion to  consider  the  articles  merely  as  articles  oi peace.     Even 
 of  these  this  author  pronounces,  that  they  must  be  allowed  to 
 have  acted  under  impressions  "  contrary  to  every  principle  of 
 Christian  sincerity,  and  favourable  to  perjury."     AVhat  then 
 would  the  same  writer  have  said  of  a  minister  of  the  Established 
 Church,  who,  so  far  from  viewing  those  Articles,  to  which  he 
 had  solemnly  declared  his   unfeigned  assent,  as  Articles  of 
 peace,  openly  arraigns  tliem  as  grossly  antiscriptural,  and 
 professes  it  to  be  his  determination  to  oppose  and  to  overturn 
 them  by  every  means  In  his  power? — The  passage  to  which  I 
 have  referred,  is  to  be  found  at  p.  Ivi.  of  the  Introducllon  to  a 
 work,  entitled  The  Protestant  Jpologij for  the  Roman  Catho.. 
 lie   Church. — The   author  of  the  Introduction,    (who  styles 
 liimself  Irenwus)  possesses  ability  and  information,  worthy  of 
 a  better  cause  than  that  which  he  has  undertaken  to  support; 
 and   many  things  have  fallen  from  his  pen,   in  that  treatise, 
 which  well  deserve  the  consideration  of  Protestant  divines. — I 
 mention  this  the  more  willingly,  because  it  has  not  been  my  lot 
 to  meet  with  publications  by  any  late  writer  of  the  Romish 
 Church,  alike  deserving  of  notice. 
 1 
 
A^D  OTHER  DOCTRINES,   OBJECTED  TO.      369 
 
 ©annot)  reasonably  be  supposed,  that  opinions  on 
 the  subject  of  subscription,  similar  to  those  enter- 
 tained by  Mr.  F.  prevail  in  any  degree  amongst 
 the  clergy  of  the  Establishment, 
 
 But,  after  all,  we  do  not  find  this  gentleman 
 completely  satisfied  with  his  own  views  of  the 
 subject.  In  the  wish,  which  he  expresses,"*  that 
 Parliament  should  give  relief  from  all  subscript 
 tions  to  doctrine,  it  is  manifest,  that  he  is  not 
 altogether  contented  with  the  dlspensatioji,  which 
 he  conceives  the  6th  article  to  supply.  Whether 
 Parliament,  however,  grant  such  relief  or  not,  his 
 free  spirit  is  not  to  be  restrained. — "  When  the 
 Church  of  England  got  rid  of  o)ie  Pope,  it  never 
 intended  to  raise  up  tkirtij-nine  in  its  place."*!' 
 (p.  xxi.)  And  if  the  Church  presume  to  do  so, 
 he  is  at  all  events  released  from  such  iniquitous 
 exercise  of  authority,  by  a  duty  of  higher  obliga- 
 tion, the  duty  which  he  owes  to  the  great  spiri- 
 tual king.    (p.  xxi — xxiii.)     But  it  may  be  asked, 
 
 *  Guide  to  Imm.  vol.  i.  pp.  xvlii.  x\%. 
 
 +  It  is  curious  to  observe  this  advocate  for  Christian  free* 
 dom,  who  spurns  with  such  indignation  these  Popes  which 
 are  imposed  by  the  authority  of  the  Church,  devising  at  the 
 same  time  a  Pope  of  his  own,  to  which  he  would  have  the 
 whole  body  of  the  clergy  compelled  to  bend  the  knee.  For, 
 as  we  have  already  seen,  (note  *  pp.  356,  357.)  his  favourite 
 plan  is,  that  the  ministers  of  the  Establishment  should  be  com- 
 i-ELLED  to  teach  nothing  but  pure  morality.  Thus,  like  most 
 of  the  other  mighty  advocates  for  freedom,  the  liberty  which 
 he  wishes  for,  h  merely  the  liberty  i<y  deprive  others  of  theirs 
 
 VOL  n.  B  B 
 
370  MOSAIC  SACRIFICES  VltARlOUSy 
 
 whether  this  duly  authorizes  him  to  betray  his 
 trust,  by  voluntarily  continuing  a  member  of  a 
 particular  communion,  which  he  labours,  in  vio- 
 lation of  the  most  solemn  engagements,  to  over- 
 turn; labours  to  overturn,  by  the  very  means 
 which  his  connexion  with  that  communion  sup- 
 plies; and  the  enjoyment  of  which  means,  he 
 pretty  plainly  intimates  to  be  the  principal  cause, 
 for  which  he  maintains  that  connexion,  (pp. 
 xix.  XX.) 
 
 It  is,  however,  but  fair  to  state,  that,  in  this 
 deliberate  endeavour  to  overturn  the  doctrines 
 which  the  articles  enforce,  tliis  author  considers 
 himself  by  no  means  chargeable  with  a  violation 
 of  his  engagements.  The  argument  indeed  is 
 somewhat  new.  It  amounts  to  this :  that  he  who 
 attends  to  the  direct,  natural,  and  obvious  mean- 
 ing of  the  articles,  is  least  likely  to  arrive  at  their 
 right  construction:  and  that  as  to  the  letter^  they 
 are  in  truth  more  honoured  in  the  breach  than  in 
 the  observance.  Whoever  doubts  this  to  be  a 
 fair  representation,  may  turn  to  the  pages  last 
 referred  to;  and  also  to  p.  33 — 42.  of  Relig,  with" 
 out  Cant,  where  we  find  the  author  more  fully 
 unfolding  the  entire  mystery  of  his  reasoning 
 upon  this  subject; — for  mystery  and  paradox  this 
 author  does  not  dislike^  where  they  are  of  his  own 
 creation.  It  is  there  laid  down,  authoritatively, 
 that  the  true  meaning  of  the  articles  is  not  to  be 
 collected  from  the  articles  themselves^  but  from 
 
AND  OTHER  DOCTRINES,    OBJECTED  TO.      371 
 
 the  sense  of  the  clergy  at  large;  who,  it  is 
 affirmed,  ''  may  put  «???/ construction*  upon  ihem 
 which  they  think  best:"  that,  "  according  to  that 
 
 *  Dr.  Paley^  a  writer  certainly  not  of  the  same  stamp  with 
 Mr.  Fellowes,  gives  a  very  different  account  of  this  matter. 
 ''  Subscription  to  Articles  of  Religion,  though  no  more  than  a 
 declaration  of  the  subscriber's  assent,  may  properly  enough  be 
 considered  in  connexion  with  tlie  subject  of  oaths,  because  it 
 is  governed  by  the  same  rule  of  interpretation  ;  which  rule  is 
 the  ANIMUS  iMPONENTis.  The  enquiry,  therefore,  concerning 
 subscription,  will  hQ^quis  imposuit^  ct  quo  animo.''^ — (Princu 
 pies  of  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy^  p.  148.)  —This  is 
 manifestly  an  enquiry,  of  a  nature  very  far  removed  from  that, 
 which  Mr.  F.  recommends  to  us.  And,  although  I  cannot 
 agree  with  Dr.  Paleij  either  as  to  his  general  notion  of  the  intertf 
 of  the  articles,  or  as  to  his  idea,  that  the  animus  imponentis 
 terminates  with  the  legislature  that  enacted  them,  yet  it  can- 
 not, I  think,  be  reasonably  denied,  that  he  proposes  the  true 
 principle  of  their  interpretation.  A  just  corrective  of  the 
 laxity,  with  which  Dr.  Paletj  applies  that  principle,  may  be 
 found  in  Mr.  Gishorne^s  Principles  of  Moral  Philosopht/^ 
 p.  190 — 192.  To  this  work,  as  well  as  to  the  Bishop  of 
 Lincohi's  Elements^  I  would  earnestly  advise  the  divinity 
 student  to  resort,  for  accurate  notions  upon  this  subject* 
 Very  loose  opinions  have  been  scattered  abioad,  by  various 
 writers,  upon  this  point;  a  point,  which  of  all  others  demands 
 a  most  conscientious  precision.  But  of  all  these  writers, 
 none,  perhaps,  of  any  note,  has  advanced  a  more  relaxed 
 system,  than  the  late  Cambridge  Professor,  Dr.  Hey,  who,  in 
 his  Lectures  on  Divinity^  however  much  of  learning  and  good 
 sense  they  may  otherwise  contain,  has  certainly  merited  the 
 charge  made  by  Bishop  Law,  of  leading  the  members  of  the 
 Church  "  into  all  the  labyrinths  of  a  loose  and  a  perfidious 
 casuistry."  (Vol.  ii.  p.  13.)  His  description  of  the  nature 
 B  B  2 
 
3/2  MOSAIC  SACRIFICES  VICARIOUS, 
 
 construction,  the  articles  may  and  ought  to  be 
 subscribed:"  and  that  lie,  who  thus  subscribe* 
 them,  inasmuch  as  he  maintains  a  unity  of  doc- 
 trine with  the  majority  of  his  brethren,  "  is  a 
 better  friend  to  the  Church  of  England,  than  he 
 is,  who  may  subscribe  the  articles  in  a  sense 
 more  agreeable  to  the  letter,"  &c. — Thus  we  are 
 informed  by  a  writer,  who  boasts  of  not  submit- 
 
 of  the  tacit  repeal  adopted  by  the  Church  of  Geneva^  (vol.  ii. 
 p,  56.)  and  his  manifest  recommendation  of  it  as  an  example 
 to  be  followed  by  other  churches,  will  supply  a  sufficient  proof 
 of  the  truth  of  this  assertion.— Dr.  Pozccll,  again,  another 
 eminent  member  of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  has  given  but 
 too  much  colour,  by  certain  expressions  of  his  in  his  Discourse 
 on  Subscriptions^  for  the  wild  opinions  of  Mr.  Fellozces  upon 
 this  subject :  although  when  well  considered,  and  in  connexion 
 with  the  context,  they  will  be  found  to  give  him  no  support. 
 The  following  observations  of  this  writer  deserve  to  be  quoted. 
 Speaking  of  the  subscription  of  the  c/er^^,  he  says;  *'  Our 
 articles  of  Religion  are  not  merely  articles  of  Peace.  They 
 are  designed  also  as  a  test  of  our  opinions.  For,  since  it  can- 
 not be  imagined,  that  men  should  explain  with  clearness,  or 
 enforce  with  earnestness,  ordefend  with  accuracy  of  judgynent, 
 such  doctrines  as  they  do  not  believe  ;  the  Church  requires  of 
 those,  who  are  appointed  to  teach  religion,  a  solemn  declara- 
 tion of  their  faith.  Nor  is  it  more  unreasonable  to  exclude  a 
 man  from  this  office,  who,  through  error,  unavoidable,  sup- 
 pose, and  innocent  error,  is  unfit  to  execute  it;  than  to  deny 
 him  a  civil  employment,  for  which  he  is  accidentally  disquali. 
 iied.  He  therefore  who  assents  to  our  articles,  must  have 
 examined  them,  and  be  convinced  of  their  truth." — Dr. 
 Powell^ s  Discourses  on  various  subjects,  pp.  33,  34,  The 
 whole  of  this  passage  is  well  worthy  of  attention. 
 
AND  OTHER  DOCTRINES^  OBJECTED  TO.   373 
 
 ting  his  opinions  to  authority,  that  we  are  not  to 
 exercise  our  private  judgment  in  discovering  the 
 true  sense  of  the  articles,  but  to  take  it  entirely 
 on  trust  from  others.  This  however  turns  out, 
 in  the  conclusion,  to  be  after  all,  but  a  convenient 
 mode  of  rendering  the  whole  dependant  upon  the 
 judgment  of  the  very  individual,  who  thus  mo- 
 destly disclaims  its  exercise.  For,  since  all  is  now 
 to  be  decided  by  the  suffrage  of  the  clergy,  and 
 since  there  is  no  practicable  contrivance  whereby 
 this  suffrage  can  be  numerically  collected;,  the 
 sense  of  the  majority  must,  of  G<5urse,  be  precisely 
 that,  which  each  individual  may  conceive  it  to  be. 
 But  again,  as  it  is  not  merely  '•  the  majority  of 
 the  living  members,"  but  ''  particularly  the  most 
 learned,  upright,  and  judicious  members  of  the 
 Church  of  England,  that  constitute  that  Church  ;" 
 it  must  be  the  sense  of  the  majority  of  these,  it 
 is  manifest,  that  is  to  determine  the  point.  Now 
 who  are  the  most  learned,  upright,  and  judicious 
 members  of  that  Church?  These  clearly  ca?i  be 
 no  other  than  they  who  reject  all  mi/stery ;  who 
 make  Christianity  nothing  but  a  moral  rule ;  who 
 can  discern  in  it  nothing  more  than  Dr.  Priestley 
 or  Mr.  Belsham,  or  any  other  free  expositor  who 
 would  divest  it  of  all  its  peculiarities ;  who,  in 
 short,  agree  with  Mr.  Fellowes  in  pronouncing 
 the  entire  sum  and  substance  of  the  Christian 
 religion  to  be  comprized  in  Christ's  Sermon  on 
 the  Mount.     Thus,  then,  it  appears,   that  our 
 
 BB  3 
 
374  MOSAIC    SACRIFICES    VICARIOUS, 
 
 author  ends  where  he  began,  and  that  the  true 
 meaning  of  the  articles  as  well  as  the  genuine 
 sense  of  scripture,  is  to  be  collected  only  from 
 him  who  has  supplied  us  with  The  Guide  to 
 Immortality, 
 
 Now  what  is  all  this  less  than  insanity  ?  But 
 it  is  the  insanity  of  a  vain  mind,  of  which  we 
 see  too  many  instances  on  religious  subjects 
 daily.  Well  might  a  periodical  writer,  whose 
 attachment  to  relioious  truth  entitles  him  to 
 general  praise,  describe  this  writer  as  "  pre- 
 sumptuousj  idolizing  his  ovvn  conceptions,  and 
 fancying  his  ovvn  reason  infallible,  and  cutting 
 short  the  line  of  faith,  exactly  where  it  happens 
 
 to  interfere  with  their  suggestions. Already" 
 
 (it  is  added) ^^  "  he  is  a  latitudinarian  in  the 
 widest  sense  of  the  word :  the  natural  progress 
 is  from  that  to  a  fanciful  self-willed  merely  no- 
 minal Christian  ;  making  even  the  Gospels  bend 
 to  his  own  whim.  From  this  point  the  de- 
 scent to  Deism  or  even  Atheism  is  perfectly 
 easy:  nor  do  v,e  know  indeed  that  a  Deist  differs 
 much,  except  in  name,  from  such  a  Christian." 
 
 Mr.  F.  has,  it  is  true  congratulated  himself 
 on   his   good  fortune,    in   being   the   subject  of 
 
 *  It  should  be  o])sorved5  that  (hose  remarks  were  drawn 
 forth  by  one  of  the  earliest  of  this  writer's  performances. 
 Tie  has  since  travelled  farther  in  the  same  direcHJon;  and 
 given  additional  proof  of  the  justice  of  these  animadversionsj 
 and  the  truth  of  tliese  prognostics, 
 
 1 
 
AND  OTHEH  DOCTRINES^    OBJECTED  TO.      375 
 
 these  animadversions  of  the  British  Critic;  as 
 they  have  furnished  the  occasion  of  his  '^  receiv- 
 ing so  much  elegance  of  praise,  from  one  who 
 is  equally  distinguished  by  the  vigour  of  his 
 intellect,  and  the  fervour  of  his  benevolence." 
 (Rtlig.  without  Cant,  pref.  p.  xxxviii.) — That 
 Dr.  Parr  has  proved  his  benevolence,  by  the 
 high  panegyric  which  he  has  bestowed  upon  Mr. 
 F.  there  can  be  no  question  ;  but  whether  he 
 has  done  equal  credit  to  his  intellect,  ov,  what 
 is  of  more  consequence,  whether  he  has  served 
 the  cause  of  truth  and  of  Christianity  by  such 
 indulgence  of  that  amiable  feeling,  is  certainly 
 much  to  be  doubted.  Had  Dr.  Parr  confined 
 himself  to  the  testimony  which  he  has  borne 
 to  the  purity  and  benevolence  ^  displayed  in  the 
 
 *  Dr.  Parr  speaks  in  terms  altogether  unmeasured  of  the 
 benevolent  and  charitable  feelings  which  uniformly  govern 
 the  life  and  guide  the  pen  of  Mr.  Fellozces.  And  yet  it  is  an 
 extraordinary  effect  of  those  benevolent  and  charitable  feel- 
 ings, that  he  should  every  where  throughout  his  writings 
 pour  forth  the  language  of  virulence  and  contempt  against 
 all  who  support  the  creeds  and  articles  of  the  Church,  against 
 all  in  short  who  deem  any  thing  beyond  his  abridged  form 
 of  Christianity  necessary  for  a  Christian.  Perhaps  even 
 from  the  writings  of  the  most  illiberal  bigot  a  stronger  instance 
 of  the  want  of  charity  cannot  be  adduced  than  that  which 
 this  author  supplies,  (as  has  been  noticed,  pp.  353,  354.)  in 
 speaking  of  those,  who  "  teach  the  false  and  pernicious  doc- 
 trines of  innate  depravity^  imputed  right eousness,'''*  &c.  In 
 short,  it  is  of  a  writer,  who  has  w£^  continually  in  his  mouth, 
 that  Dr.  Parr  pronounces  peace  to  be  for  ever  in  his  heart, 
 B  b  4 
 
376*  MOSAIC    SACRIFICES    FICARJOVS, 
 
 private  life  of  Mr.  Fellow es,  as  he  is  a  com- 
 petent, so  he  would  have  been  admitted  to  be 
 an  unexceptionable  witness.  But,  in  speaking 
 of  an  author,  whose  works  are  before  the  pubhc. 
 Dr.  Parr,  however  highly  his  learning  and  ta- 
 lents may  be  (and  highly  they  ought  to  be)  rated, 
 yet  cannot  possibly  expect,  that  the  opinion, 
 which  he  thinks  fit  to  pronounce  upon  that 
 author's  productions,  shall  necessarily  regulate  the 
 public  decision.  Perhaps,  indeed,  in  the  decla- 
 rations which  this  classical  and  most  elaborate 
 writer  has  hazarded  on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Fel- 
 lotve-ss  theological  publications,  although  nothing 
 can  shake  his  reputation  as  a  scholar^  he  may 
 not  have  added  much  to  his  character  as  a  di- 
 vine. For  when  he  tells  us,  that  he  finds  but 
 "  two  or  three  poinds  of  controversial  dwimty 
 in  which  he  dissents  from  Mr.  Fellowes,''  (who 
 in  almost   every  point  of  controversial  divinity 
 
 It  is  almost  ludricous  to  see  such  a  writer  represented  as 
 using  in  his  own  person  the  language  of  Grotius,  "  Pacem 
 amavi  semper  anioque,"  even  in  the  qualilied  sense  in  which 
 this  pacific  disposition  is  described.  (Spital  Sermon^  p.  82.) 
 — Dr.  Parr's  universal  acquaintance  with  the  antient  classics 
 will  readily  suggest  to  him  whose  language  I  use,  when, 
 (without  being  deterred  by  the  "  talcs  pacis  hostes  insurrec- 
 turos,"  iS:c.)  1  beg  to  substitute  for  the  foregoing,  the  fol- 
 lowing description  as  more  aptly  illustrative  of  the  character 
 
 of   his    friend. — Hte    ttTt?,     afTot?   ^vjtT^uv,    (pcctrj    'Trtipvuinui    ixi 
 
AND  OTHER  DOCTRINES,  OBJECTED  TO.  SJJ 
 
 dissents  from  the  articles  of  the  estabhshed 
 Church:)  and  that  he  discovers  scarcely  any 
 thing  to  be  objected  to,  except  "  that  Mr.  F. 
 does  not  assent  to  some  positions  of  Mr.  fVilber- 
 force^  about  original  sin ;  for  tlie  attempt  to 
 refute  whom,  some  enhghtened  behevers  may 
 applaud,  and  some  orthodox  churchmen  would 
 pardon  him  :" — when  he  tells  us  these  things,  he 
 proves  beyond  a  doubt,  either  that  he  has  pe- 
 rused Mr.  F's  writings  with  an  eye  of  b!ameabld 
 partiality,  where  the  cause  of  religious  truth  de- 
 
 *  Dr.  Tarr^  in  speaking  of  the  state  of  his  mind  respect- 
 ing the  book  published  by  this  excellent  man,  and  sincere 
 Christian,  which  gave  rise  to  the  strictures  of  Mr.  FelloweSy 
 states,  that  the  description  of  it  lies  in  the  following  narrow 
 
 compass — ra  ^aiv  b^  ^f%*5?,  ov  ^/.t^vn^cci  ;  ra  ^a  ^la-oc^  ov  crvji-riijn  ; 
 rcc  ^E  iiTi  -aracrtv,  ov  ^oxt/xa^w. — Now  although  there  be  some- 
 opinions  in  Mr.  Wilberforce^s  work,  to  which  I  am  as  un. 
 willing  io  apply  the  ^ontf^a^to  as  Dr.  Parr  can  be;  yet  I 
 cannot  help  thinking,  that  it  would  neither  have  discredited 
 his  discernment  to  have  understood  the  reasoning,  nor  his 
 taste  and  piety  to  have  stored  his  meviory  with  many  of  the 
 results,  which  it  contains. — I  confess,  I  think  it  but  a  bad 
 symptom  of  the  times,  when  even  grave  characters  can  be 
 found  to  join  in  the  vulgar  ridicule  of  distinguished  piety  : 
 when  religious  seriousness  but  serves  as  a  ground  for  ludi- 
 crous denominations  and  sarcastic  epithets;  and  these  too 
 not  confined  to  the  light  and  the  malevolent,  but  receiving  a 
 partial  sanction  from  the  philosopher  and  the  divine,  and 
 even  admitted  with  more  than  toleration  in  one  of  the  great 
 assemblies,  with  whose  morality  and  corruption  those  of  tho 
 entire  people  of  these  nations  are  vitally  iu(crwov<jn. 
 
378  MOSAIC    i»ACRlFICES    VICARIOVSy 
 
 manded  an  honest  search  and  even  a  piercing 
 scrutiny ;  or  that  his  own  opinions  hang  but 
 loosely  and  uncertainly  upon  the  point  of  ortho- 
 doxy. Dr.  Pay^r  needs  not  to  be  informed, 
 that  the  truths  of  Christianity  are  not  to  be  con- 
 ceded even  to  the  amiable  sympathies  of  friend- 
 ship; nor  their  just  measure  and  degree  to  be 
 accommodated  to  the  formation  of  a  polished  and 
 a  pointed  sentence.  It  were  to  be  wished,  that 
 in  his  praises  of  Mr.  F.  he  had  not  selected  as 
 a  mark  of  liis  sense,  his  being  ''  a  Christian 
 WITHOUT  BIGOTRY."  It  Certainly,  on  the  other 
 hand,  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  Mr.  Fel- 
 hives  has  returned  the  compliment,  by  describ- 
 ing his  eloquent  encomiast,  as  "  a  Priest  with- 
 out   INTOLERANCE    AND    WITHOUT    GUILE." The 
 
 reciprocal  panegyric  might  surely  have  been  ren- 
 dered sufficiently  palatable,  without  the  season- 
 ing of  illiberal  aspersions  upon  Christianity  and 
 its  Priesthood. 
 
 Dr.  Parr,  for  whose  general  character  and 
 talents,  I  feel,  in  common  with  all  who  can 
 appreciate  integrity  and  genius,  a  sincere  and 
 unaffected  reverence,  may  think,  that  I  have 
 spoken  too  strongly  upon  this  subject.  But 
 the  impress  of  his  praise  is  no  slight  matter ; 
 and  the  danger  of  its  giving  a  circulation  to 
 what  ought  not  (and  without  it  perhaps  would 
 not)  obtain  currency  with  the  public,  demands 
 
AND  OTHER  DOCTRINES,    OBJECTED  TO.     379 
 
 an  open   exposure  of  the  baseness  of  the  coin, 
 to  which  it  would  attach  a  fictitious  value^ 
 
 In   truth,    mischievous    as    are    the   pubhca- 
 tions  of  Mr.  Felloives,  I  should  not  hav^  thought 
 it   necessary   to   anin^advert  upon  them   in   this 
 place,    but    that   the   eloquent  eulogies    of    Dr. 
 Parr,   joined    to   the   writer's    presenting   him- 
 self  to   the  public  as  a  clergyman  of  the   Es- 
 tahlib^hmont,  might,  by   throwing  young  readers 
 oil'  their    guard    as    to    the   true    character  and 
 object  of  his  works,   expose  them  to  be  misled 
 by  the  false  lights  of  a  treacherous   Guide,    To 
 such   readers,    the    satis   eloquent  ice,   sapient  ice 
 parum,    of  the  author,    is   imposing;    the   spe- 
 cious gloss  of  iiberality  and  benevolence,  which 
 his  writings  wear,  is   attractive:  the  classic   au- 
 thority of  his  splendid  panegyrist  is  corrimand- 
 ino".     And,  a«=.  it  was  for  readers  of  this  descrip- 
 tion, especially  for  studenis  in  divinity  intended 
 for    holy    orders,    that    tlie    present    work    was 
 originally  designed,  it  naturally  falls  within  its 
 province  to   endeavour  to   secure    them   against 
 such    snares,    when   Ccdculated    to   entrap   them 
 into  false  notions  of  tlieir  duties  as  professors  of 
 a    christian    faith,    or   of  their    engagements    as 
 jnembers  of  a  national  clergy. 
 
(     380      ) 
 
 NO.  LXXIII. — THE  ATONEMENT  BY  THE  SACRIFICE 
 OF  CHRIST  MORE  STRICTLY  VICARIOUS,  THAN 
 THAT  BY  THE  MOSAIC  SACRIFICES,  WHEREBY  IT 
 WAS    TYPIFIED. 
 
 Page  64.  (^) — The  justness  of  the  position, 
 here  laid  down,  will  be  readily  perceived,  not 
 only  from  the  observations  in  pp.  63,  64,  of 
 vol.  i.  but  yet  more  fully  from  comparing  what 
 has  been  said  in  Numbers  XXXVIII.  and 
 XXXIX.  on  the  vicarious  import  of  the  legal 
 sacrifices,  with  the  remarks  in  Number  XLIL 
 on  the  true  and  essentially  vicarious  sacrifice 
 of  Christ.  The  reflexions  contained  in  pp.  356, 
 357.  395,  396,  of  vol.  i.  should  be  particularly 
 attended  to,  as  pointing  out  the  due  proportion 
 of  the  Mosaic  and  Christian  atonements.  See 
 also  p.  59 — 61.  of  vol.  i.  and  Number  LXVIII. 
 and  p.  262 — 264.  in  Number  LXIX. 
 
 I  subjoin  here  a  very  extraordinary  paragraph, 
 which  1  find  in  a  treatise  of  Danziiis  de  Avroco 
 Redemptionis  humance,  on  the  subject  of  an 
 admission  by  the  Jews  of  the  vicarious  suffer- 
 ing of  the  Son  for  the  sins  of  men,  pursuant 
 to  an  eternal  compact  with  the  Father  to  that 
 end. — "  Consentiunt  hie  nobismet  Judaei,  sci- 
 licet Deum  Patrem  cum  Filio  suo  jam  ab 
 aeterno  de  redimendo  humano  genere  consilium 
 iniise.     Hinc  notabilem  quendam  hac  de  re  in- 
 
THE  SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST,   &C.  381 
 
 ter  Deum  et  Messiam  dialogum  per  fabulam, 
 fingunt :  quem  ex  Helvico  hie  apponere  placet, 
 qui  eundem  ex  R,  Mos.  Haddarschan,  super 
 Gen.  i.  3.  excerpsit,  et  ita  sonat ;  Dixit  Jehova 
 sanctus  Benedictus,  Messia  juste  mi!  isti,  qui 
 sunt  reconditi  apud  te,  hujusmodi  erunt,  quod 
 Jiiturum,  ut  peccata  eorum  inducant  te  in  ju- 
 gum  grave,  &c.  Respondit  coram  eo  Messias, 
 Domine  mundi!  Ego  quidem  loetus  suscipio 
 super  me  trlhulationes  istas,  sive  tormenta  :  eo 
 tamen  pactOy  ut  tu  in  diehus  rneis  vivifices  mor^ 
 tuoSy  et  eos,  qui  a  primo  Adamo  u^que  ad 
 illud  tempus  mortui  fuerint,  8^c,  Dixit  ei 
 Sanctus  Benedictus^  Concedo.  Protinus  igitur 
 suscepit  ex  dilectione  super  se  Messias  tor- 
 menta  omnia  et  tribulationes,  sicut  scriptum 
 est,  les.  LIII.  afflictus  ipse,  et  angustiatus 
 
 EST." Meuschen,   Nov.    Test,    ex    Talm.   p. 
 
 850. This  extract   I   give  to   the   reader  as 
 
 matter  of  curiosity. 
 
 LXXIV.       CONCLUDING    NUMBER. 
 
 Page  Q4.  {^^) — Those  objections,  the  discus- 
 sion of  which  would  have  been  improper  and 
 impracticable  from  the  pulpit,  have  been  care- 
 fully canvassed  in  the  preceding  dissertations. 
 It  has  been  the  wish  of  the  Author  to  notice 
 all,  that  seemed  in  any  degree  deserving  of 
 attention.  They  who  are  acquainted  with  the 
 J 
 
S82  CONCLUDING    NUMBER. 
 
 subject,  will,  it>  is  hoped,  do  him  the  justice 
 to  allow,  that  he  has  omitted  none  of  moment. 
 Whether  he  has  been  as  successful  in  their  re- 
 futation, as  he  has  been  indiistrious  in  their 
 collection,  it  is  with  others  to  judge.  This  at 
 least  he  can  venture  to  affirm,  that  he  has  ex- 
 amined them  with  a  conscientious  regard  to 
 Truth  and  Scripture.  And  he  now  concludes 
 this  enquiry,  with  an  humble  and  not  un- 
 anxious  hope,  that  the  word  of  God  may  not 
 have  suffered  in  his  hands. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING  AN  ACCOUNT  OF  THE 
 
 UNITARIAN  SCHEME, 
 
 AS  DESCRIBED  BY  MR.  BELSHAM, 
 
 IN    HIS 
 
 REnEWOFMR.WILBERFORCE'sTUEATISE; 
 WITH  OCCASIONAL  STRICTURES 
 
 ON  THE  LEADING  ARGUMENTS  ADVANCED  IN  THAT  PUBLICATION. 
 
 £7rt  roc  troiu^x.  ^a7\7\ov  TPi7ro)/7ai.^'* 
 
 Thucyd.  p.  15. edit.  Franc.  1594. 
 
 '*  I  like  not  that  arrogant  theology,  which  presumes  to  ex|ilore  what 
 angels  desire  io  look  into^  and  which  failing  in  its  attempt,  rejects  as 
 absurd  what  it  is  not  able  to  understand." 
 
 Bishop  Watson's  Charge  in  1795. 
 
 "  Aperte  dicite  non  vos  credere  Christi  Evangelio  :  nam  qui  in  I^van- 
 gelio  quod  vultis  creditis,quod  vultis  non  creditis,  vobis  potius  quam 
 Evangelio  creditis." 
 
 Aug.  cont.  Faust,  torn.  vi.  p.  336.  ed.  15G9. 
 
 VOL.  II.  C  C 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 J.N  supplement  to  certain  remarks  in  the  pre- 
 ceding sheets,  (particularly  to  those  in  vol.  i. 
 pp,  12,  13.  69—88.  148—158.  I7I— 180.)  it 
 becomes  necessary  to  exhibit  a  brief  outline  of 
 the  opinions  of  that  sect,  which,  under  the  as- 
 sumed title  of  Unitarian,  has  presumed  to  arro- 
 gate the  exclusive  profession  of  the  divine  unity ; 
 and  which  has  of  late  years  exerted  itself,  in  the 
 sister  country,  with  uncommon  zeal  and  activity, 
 for  the  subversion  of  the  doctrines  and  the  esta- 
 blishment of  the  national  rehgion. 
 
 An  abstract,  presentn:ig  atone  view,  the  leading 
 principles  and  consequences  of  the  system,  di- 
 vested of  the  imposmg  phraseology,  which  writers 
 of  modern  days  know  so  well  how  to  apply  to  all 
 objects  whether  worthy  or  unworthy,  may  prove 
 not  less  beneficial  to  some  who  have,  than  to 
 others,  who  have  not,  embraced  its  doctrines. 
 The  task  indeed  is  not  without  its  difficulty.  To 
 seize  what  is  fugitive:  to  fix  that  which  is  ever  in 
 the  act  of  change :  to  chain  down  the  Proteus  to 
 C  C  2 
 
388  APPENDIX. 
 
 one  form,  and  to  catch  his  hkeness  ere  he  has 
 shifted  to  another: — this  is  certainly  a  work  not 
 easy  to  be  acconiphshed.  What  Unitarianism, 
 however,  was  in  the  year  ^  J  798,  a  writer,  who 
 professes  himself  its  faithful  interpreter  and  vin- 
 dicator, has  circumstantially  detailed.  Mr.  Bel- 
 sham,  the  late  theological  teacher  at  Hackney, 
 has  ex  officio  announced  the  creed  of  the  day: 
 and,  so  far  as  the  principle  of  dissent  can  admit 
 concurrence,  the  doctrines  which  he  has  pro- 
 mulged,  may  reasonably  be  presumed,  to  he 
 those  generally  received  by  the  Dissenters  of  the 
 Unitarian  denomination  throughout  the  Sister 
 Country. 
 
 The  scheme,  as  presented  by  this  writer,  in 
 his  Review  of  3Ir,  IVilherforce's  Enquiry,  is 
 briefly  as  follows.  Beginning  with  the  existence 
 of  "  an  infinitely  powerful,  wise,  and  good  being, 
 as  the  first  and  fundamental  principle  of  rational 
 religion,"  he  pronounces  the  essence  of  this  being 
 to  be  love:  and  from  this  he  infers,  as  a  demon- 
 strable conseiquence,  that  none  of  the  creatures 
 formed  b}'  such  a  being,  "  will  ever  be  made 
 eternally  miserable."     To  suppose  the  contrary, 
 
 *  Tills  appendix  was  originally  drawn  up  in  the  year  ISOO. 
 What  have  been  tiie  wanderings  of  the  fugitive  since  that 
 period,  <he  Author  has  had  little  leisure,  and  less  inclination, 
 to  explore.  Jle  is  also  disposed  to  think,  that  full  as  much 
 consecjuence  has  been  already  attached  to  the  subject,  as  it  is 
 f'ntitled  to. 
 
.APPENDIX,  589 
 
 he  maintains,  is  not  only  inconsistent  with  the 
 divine  benevolence,  but  directly  contradictory  to 
 the  plainest  principles  of  justice.  That  all  will 
 rise  again  after  death,  he  admits  to  have  been 
 taught  by  Christ:  and  he  likewise  admits,  that 
 "  the  wicked  will  be  raised  to  suffering."  But, 
 since  God  would  ^ot  unjustly  in  inflicting  "  eter- 
 nal misery  for  temporary  crimes ;  the  sufferings 
 of  the  wicked  can  be  but  remedial^  and  will  ter- 
 minate in  a  complete  purification  from  moral 
 disorder,  and  in  their  ultimate  restoration  to  vir- 
 tue and  happiness;"'*  or,  as  he  elsewhere'|"  ex- 
 presses it,  ''  Moral  evil  must  be  expelled  by  the 
 application  of  natural  evil;"  and  if  not  fully 
 effected  in  this  life,  "  the  process  must  be  carried 
 on  by  the  severer  sufferings  of  a  future  retribu- 
 tion.**— Thus  the  doctrine  of  a  purgatory:^  stands 
 immoveably  fixed  on  the  basis  of  the  Divine 
 justice:  and  the  antithesis  between  eternal  miserj- 
 and  temiporary  crimes,  is  made  to  complete  the 
 demonstration  of  the  Unitarian;  by  which,  he  is 
 not  only  enabled,  to  communicate  "  confidence" 
 and  "  tranquillity"  to  the  "-  enlightened  and  vir- 
 tuous believer;"^  but,  he  might  have  also  added, 
 a  hardened  and  fearless  security  tothe  impenitent 
 offender:  and  without  this,  he  contends,  ''  the 
 God  of  nature  must  be  view^ed  as  frowning  orer 
 
 *  Review,  &c.  p.  l^  —  lfi.  +  pp.  41,  42. 
 
 J  See  beside  the  above  reft'rences,  p.  lr)4.         ^  p.  2K 
 
 ^       CO,-; 
 
390  APPENDIX. 
 
 his  works,  and  like  a  merciless  tyrant,  dooming 
 his  helpless  creatures  to  eternal  misery/*  &c.* — 
 Whoever  desires  to  see  this  curious  specimen  of 
 reasoning  fully  examined  and  exposed,  will  find 
 ample  satisfaction  in  3Ir.  f^Falkers  Letter  to 
 Mr.  Belsham  :  p.  40—42. 
 
 Having  thus  softened  down  the  article  of 
 judicial  retribution,  and  lightened  guilt  of  most 
 of  its  terrors,  as  well  as  of  much  of  its  deformity, 
 (there  being,  as  he  contends,  '^  a  preponderance 
 of  virtue,  even  in  characters  contaminated  with 
 the  grossest  vice;**)-^  he  naturally  proceeds  to 
 depreciate  the  value  of  the  atonement  hij  Christ. 
 — The  notion  of  his  death,  as  a  propitiatory  sacri- 
 fice for  the  sins  of  men,  Mr.  B.  totally  rejects :  and 
 the  doctrine  of  redemption  through  his  blood,  he 
 holds  to  be  an  entire  mistake,  founded  in  the 
 misunderstanding  of  certain  phrases  peculiar  to 
 the  Jews;]::  and  finally  for  the  full  establishment 
 of  his  opinions,  he  refers  us  to  Dr.  J.Taylor; 
 the  amount  of  whose  reasoning  on  this  head, 
 "  in  his  admirable^  ^^.^5"  ^s  Mr.  B.  finds  con- 
 venient to  call  it,  has  been  already  examined  at 
 
 *  p.  20.  +  pp.  14.  38,  39,  40.  42. 
 
 +  pp.  17,  18.  105,  106. 
 
 §  In  a  periodical  publication,  distinguished  for  the  upright- 
 ness and  talent  with  which  it  is  conducted,  there  is  lobe  found 
 a  series  of  valuable  letters,  upon  the  subject  of  the  work  aboTe 
 alluded  to:  and  ia  the  concluiion,  the  writer  observes  as 
 
APPENDIX.  391 
 
 lurge,    in  the  foregoing   work,   especially  vol.  i* 
 pp.  181— 188.  199— 201.  32^i— 333. 
 
 The  merits  and  the  sufferings  of  Christ  having; 
 in  the  scheme  of  this  writer,  no  connexion  with 
 the  acceptance  of  man  ;  the  notion  of  his  (hvine 
 nature,  and  even  that  of  his  pre-existence,  are 
 discarded  as  wild  chimeras.  Jesus  Christ  he  con- 
 siders, "  as  a  man  in  all  respects  like  to  his  bre- 
 thren:'' and  he  seems  particularly  anxious,  that 
 the  opinions  of  the  Unitarian  should  not  he  con- 
 founded with  those  of  Socinus ;  who,  he  says, 
 vvhilst  he  properly  maintains,  "  that  Jesus  had 
 no   existence   before  his    birth,   yet    admits    the 
 
 follows,  upon  this  "  admirable  Key^ — •'  The  key  of  this 
 author  is  not,  I  am  persnadi  d,  tlie  legitimate  one.  I  should 
 ratlier  be  tempted  to  resemble  it  to  some  of  those  false  keys, 
 Vulgarly  called  picklocks. — The  web  of  the  key,  to  speak 
 technically,  is,  in  those  ingenious  instruments  cut  to  as  slender 
 a  form  as  is  consistent  with  the  strength  necessary  for  turning 
 the  bolt^in  order  that  the  chance  of  the  impediment  from  the 
 wards  may  be  as  little  as  possible.  But  the  lock,  with  which 
 this  theological  adventurer  had  to  do,  was  of  such  a  peculiar 
 construction,  as  to  resist  every  effort  to  open  it,  except  with 
 the  true  key.  The  Doctor  gave  some  desperate  wrenches, 
 and  doubtless  imagined  that  he  had  effected  his  purpose  when 
 he  found  the  key  turn  in  his  hand.  But  it  has  been  discovered 
 by  others,  that  he  did  no  more  than  break  it  in  the  lock,  and 
 the  bolt,  for  any  thing  which  he  has  done  to  remove  it,  remains 
 -where  it  was  before."— CAn>^  Obscrv.  vol.  vi.  p.  504. — The 
 figure  undoubtedly  conveys  no  unjust  idea  of  the  work,  which 
 it  is  so  much  the  fasliion  with  Socinian  writers,  and  with  good 
 reason,  to  extol. 
 
 c  c  4 
 
392  APPENDIX. 
 
 unscriptural  and  most  incredible  notion,  that  since 
 his  resurrection,  he  has  been  advanced  to  the 
 government  of  the  universe*".  The  father  of 
 Socinianism,  had  but  half  accomphshed  the  work 
 of  degrading  the  Son  of  God,  whilst  he  allowed 
 him  a  superiority  over  the  human  kind  after 
 death.  Mr.  B.  with  strict  consistency,  completes 
 the  system;  and  boldly  contends,  that  as  he 
 differed  in  no  respect  from  man  in  his  mode  of 
 coming  into  the  world,  so  can  he  have  no  domi- 
 nion or  superiority  over  him  in  the  w^orld  of 
 spirits.  That  he  "  is  indeed  now  alive,  and 
 employed  in  offices  the  most  honourable  and 
 benevolent,"  he  does  not  attempt  to  deny :  but, 
 since  *^  we  are  totally  ignorant  of  the  place 
 where  he  resides,  and  of  the  occupations  in 
 which  he  is  engaged,^'  he  maintains,  that  "  there 
 ran  be  no  proper  foundation  for  religious  ad- 
 dresses to  him,  nor  of  gratitude  for  favours  now 
 received,  nor  yet  of  confidence  in  his  future  inter- 
 position in  our  behalf."-}-  Thus,  because  we  a^e 
 ignorant  of  the  jtlacc  and  occupations  of  the  Son 
 of  God,  is  all  intercourse  between  man  and  his 
 Redeemer  at  an  end!  Thus  says  Mr.  Belsham. 
 And  so  far  is  he  from  considering  our  blessed 
 Lord  as  an  object  of  religious  address,  that  he 
 can  look  on  him  only  as  the  "  most  excellent  of 
 human  characters,  the  most  eminent  of  all  the 
 
 •■f-  P.  74.  +  p.  85. 
 
APPENDIX.  393 
 
 prophets  of  God  ;'*  whose  "  memory  he  reveres," 
 whose  ^^  doctrine  he  embraces,"  in  whose  "  pro- 
 mises he  confides/'  and  to  whose  "  autliority  he 
 bows."*= 
 
 To  what  then  does  Christianity  amount,  on 
 Mr.  B's.  plan  ?  To  nothing  more  than  good 
 habits;  and  these  habits,  the  result  of  man's  own 
 unaided  and  independent  exertions,  or  rather  the 
 result  of  external  influences  and  irresistible  im- 
 pressions."^  Those  usually  received,  and  (as  Mr. 
 Wilberforce  properly  styles  them )  peculiar  doc- 
 trines of  Christianity,  which  declare  the  corrupted 
 ■state  of  human  nature,  the  atonement  of  the 
 Saviour^  and  the  sanctfying  influence  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit,  our  author  rejects^  as  utterly  incon- 
 sistent with  truth  and  scripture  ;{:  The  prepon- 
 derance of  virtue  over  vice  in  the  world  at  large, 
 and  with  a  very  few,  if  any,  exceptions,  in  every 
 individual  in  particular,  he  maintains  to  be  indis- 
 putable.§  The  practice  of  virtue,  he  pronounces 
 to  be  the  only  ground  of  acceptance  with  God, 
 without  any  regard  to  faith  m  Christ,  to  his  merits 
 or  his  sufferings,  all  which  he  proscribes  as  notions 
 unscriptural  and  absurd:  ||  and  as  to  the  influence 
 of  the  holy  spirit  being  that  which  prompts  to 
 virtue,  he  finds  little  difficulty  in  expunging  this 
 likewise    from    his  creed,    being   fully    satisfied, 
 
 *  pp.  84,85.  f  p.  170—175.  t  p.  170. 
 
 •     «»  pp.  13,  14.  38,  39.  I!  pp.  104,  105.  172,  173. 
 
394  APPENDIX. 
 
 "  that  the  scriptures  do  not  teach  the  existence 
 of  any  such  person  as  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that 
 there   is  no  ground  for   the  expectation  of  any 
 supernatural  operation  on  the  rnind.""^     The  sole 
 incitements  to  virtuous  conduct,  spring,  according 
 to   Mr.  B.  from  ''  the   circumstances   in  which 
 men   are  placed,  and   the  impressions   to  which 
 they  are  exposed  :" — "  moral  and  religious  habits, 
 not   being  acquired  in    any   different  way,  from 
 other  habits  of  mindf-f- — that  is,  according  to  his 
 reasoning,  all  being  equally  the  result  of  a  neces- 
 sarij  operation  :  the  religious  tendency,  as  well  as 
 its  opposite,   naturally   arising   out   of  a   certain 
 '^  state  of  the  brain  f'J  and  "  habits  growing  by 
 the  influence  of  particular  impressions  with  the 
 same  regularity   and   certainty,  with   which   the 
 fruits   of    the   earth  are   produced  and  matured 
 by  the  genial  influence  of  the   sun,   and  of  the 
 fructifying  showers. "|| 
 
 Thus  does  the  advocate  of  human  meritj  vin- 
 dicate the  independencij  of  human  virtue.  Let 
 us  stop  for  a  moment  to  examine  this  more  fully. 
 — '^  Virtue^  is  a  system  of  habits,  conducing  to- 
 
 •  P.  97.— see  also  pp.  70,  71.  76,  77,  78,  79. 
 
 +  pp.  134.148.173.  leo.  +  p.  171. 
 
 tl   pp.  174,  175.— also  p.  41. 
 
 ^  Mr.  B.  in  his  Elements^  where  it  is  his  inienfioii  to  con- 
 vey his  ideas  in  the  most  scientific  forin,  defines  Virtue  fo  be, 
 "  the  tendency  of  an  action,  affection,  habit  or  character,  \o 
 the  ultimate  happiness  of  the  agent."  (p.  371.) — It  is  at  the 
 1 
 
APPENDIX.  S95 
 
 the  greatest  ultimate  happiness:"*  "  and  men 
 being  the  creatures  of  circumstanceSj  the  habits 
 they  form,  whether  good  or  bad,  are  the  result  of 
 
 same  time  to  be  noted,  that  of  this  tendency  the  trile  and  pro- 
 per judge  is  the  agent  himself.  What  then  follows?  Why 
 plainly  this,  as  Dr.  Price  has  properly  olyected,  that  agreeably 
 to  this  definition,  ''  Any  the  most  pernicious  and  horrible 
 effects  will  become  just  and  fit  to  be  produced  by  ajiy  being, 
 if  but  the  minutest  degree  of  clear  advantage  or  pleasure  may 
 result  to  him  from  them."  (Reviezo  of  Morals^  p.  183.) 
 Now  how  does  Mr.  Cooper,  who  coincides  in  Mr.  Bolsham'8 
 sentiments,  reply  to  this? — "  Granted.  But/c/  God  look  to 
 that.  A  future  state  of  retribution  has  been  ascertained  for 
 the  very  purpose  of  obviating  this  objection." — Mr.  B.  indeed 
 admits,  that  "  the  expression  is  harsh,  and  hardly  consistent 
 with  the  reverence  due  to  the  Supreme  Being;"  but  contends 
 "  that  the  meaning  is  just,  and  the  reply  satisfactory." — 
 What',  a  retribution  hereafter!  Wherefore  a  retribution? 
 Must  a  being,  w  hose  only  business  was  to  calculate  the  balance 
 of  advantage,  suiTer  for  a  mistake  in  that  calculation,  when  he 
 made  it  with  a  view  to  that  which  alone  he  was  bound  to  look 
 to,  his  own  advantage  ?  And  this  too,  when  he  could  not  by 
 any  possibility  have  made  a  different  calculation.  For,  as 
 Mr.  B.  informs  us,  {Elements^  p.  391.)  "  The  only  differ- 
 ence between  the  most  virtuous  and  the  most  vicious  person 
 is,  that  the  former  was  placed  in  circumstances,  and  exposed 
 to  impressions  which  generated  virtuous  habits  and  affections, 
 and  the  latter  in  circumstances  by  which  vicious  principles 
 and  dispositions  were  produced;"  the  one  so  circumstanced 
 as  that  he  must  unavoidably  calculate  right,  and  the  other  so 
 circumstanced  as  that  he  must  unavoidably  calculate  tvrong. 
 — So  much  for  the  true  distinction  between  virtue  and  vice. 
 *  P.  3S. 
 
396  ,  APPENDIX. 
 
 the  impressions  to  which  they  are  exposed;"* — 
 or,  as  we  have  just  seen,  are  the  result  of  a  neces- 
 sary  and  mechanical,  operation,  and  arise  out  of 
 causes  independent  of  the  agent,  if  such  he  can 
 be  called.  Now  it  seems  natural  to  demand  of 
 this  writer,  in  what  respect  his  scheme  differs 
 from  that  part  of  the  high  doctrines  of  Calvin, 
 which  he  most  strongly  reprobates  ?  Does  he  not 
 equally  with  the  Reformer  of  Geneva,  contend 
 that  man  has  nothing  which  he  can  call  his  own  ? 
 Does  he  not,  equally  with  him,  reduce  every 
 action  under  the  necessary  d\\d  irresistible  controul 
 of  motives,  in  which  the  agent  has  no  choice,  and 
 over  which  he  can  have  no  power:  And  does  he 
 not,  whilst  he  thus  concurs  with  the  follower  of 
 Calvin,  differ  from  himself,  by  abolishing  the  very 
 idea  of  merit,  whilst  he  makes  merit  the  founda- 
 tion of  his  system  r 
 
 Mr.  B.  indeed,  exerts  all  his  ingenuity,  as  Doc- 
 tor Priestley  had  done  before,'}-  to  escape  from 
 this  resemblance  to  the  Calvinist.  The  attempt 
 however,  is  vain.  The  Unitarian  may  fancy, 
 that  he  has  provided  a  complete  salvo  for  the 
 difficulties  of  his  system,  and  a  clear  distinction 
 from  that  of  the  Calvinist,  by  substituting  hi-s 
 notion  of  a  purgatory  for  that  of  eternal  punish- 
 ment.    But  here,  the  consequences   with  which 
 
 *  P.  41.  \  Philosoph,  Necessity^  s,qqX.-sl\\\, 
 
APPENDIX.  397 
 
 he  presses  the  Calvinist,  return  upon  himself. 
 For,  if  it  be  inconsistent  with  "  infinite  justice 
 and  goodness  to  doom  a  being  to  eternal  misery^ 
 for  no  other  cause,  but  that  of  not  extricating 
 himself  out  of  the  state  in  which  his  creator  placed 
 him,  without  any  power  to  act  or  will;"''^  I  would 
 ask,  by  what  principles  of  reasoniVig  it  can  be 
 reconciled  to  the  same  infinite  justice  and  good- 
 ness, to  doom  to  iemporaiy  wz/^er?/,  a  being  placed 
 in  circumstances  precisely  similar;  z.  e.  deter- 
 mined to  one  certain  mode  of  action,  by  an  indis- 
 soluble chain  of  motives,  and  an  irresistible  neces- 
 sity. If  the  idea  of  pimishmefif  for  that  which 
 was  the  result  of  inevitable  necessity,  be  repug- 
 nant to  the  essential  nature  of  justice  y  it  must  be 
 equally  so,  whether  that  punishment  be  of  long 
 or  of  short  duration.  The  quantity  of  the  evil 
 endured,  \f  no  e\\\ivhat ever  ought  to  be  inflicted, 
 can  make  no  change  in  the  nature  of  the  case. 
 The  Power  that  prolongs  or  heightens  the  punish- 
 ment, where  no  punishment  was  deserved,  may 
 be  more  malignant,  but  cannot  be  more  unjust. 
 Thus  then,  allowing  to  the  Unitarian  the  full 
 benefit  of  his  purgatorial  scheme  (for  which 
 
 *  Review^^.  58. 
 
 +  The  formal  notion  of  ^ purgatory ^  I  find  laid  down  by 
 our  autlior,  in  tlie  philosophical  treatise  before  alluded  to,  in 
 which  it  is  his  professed  object  to  give  to  students,  accurate 
 and  fundamental  notions,  on  all  the  leading  subjects  of  mora- 
 lity and  religion.  That  the  precision  of  his  ideas  may  not 
 1 
 
SgS  APPENDIX. 
 
 however  scripture  supplies  not  the  smallest  foun- 
 dation); he  is  exposed,  equally  with  the  Cal- 
 vinist,  to   the  charge,   which  he  himself  brings 
 
 suffer  in  the  reporting,  I  shall  state  them  in  his  own  Mords. 
 ^'  If  there  be  a  future  life,  the  immediate  condition  of  the 
 great  mass  of  mankind  when  they  enter  upon  it,  must  be  a 
 state  of  very  considerable  pain  and  suffering.  For  the  great 
 majority  of  human  characters  are  alloyed  with  one  or  more 
 vicious  habits  and  affections.  These  must  be  put  under  a 
 process  of  cure^  more  or  less  severe  in  proportion  to  the 
 malignity  of  the  moral  disease,'^ — Elements  of  the  Philosophy 
 of  the  JMind,  p.  402.  Our  author  also  affirms  that  he  has 
 the  testimony  of  scripture  for  this  doctrine.  I  apprehend  it 
 must  be  the  second  Maccabees^  where  others  have  pretended 
 to  find  it  also.  Or,  perhaps,  as  he  has  not  joined  in  turning 
 the  doctrine  to  so  good  account  as  those  who  profess  to  have 
 found  it  there,  his  authority  has  been  of  that  classical  nature 
 which  might  better  suit  a  philosopher. 
 
 "  Ergo  exercentur  poenis,  veterumque  malorum 
 Suppliciaexpendunt:  aliae  panduntur  inanes 
 Suspensae  ad  ventos;  aliis  sub  gurgitevasto 
 Infectum  eluitur  scelus,  aut  exuritar  igni. 
 Quisque  suos  patimur  Manes." 
 
 jEn.  Lib.  vi. 
 
 "  For  this  arc  various  penances  enjoined; 
 And  some  are  hung  to  bleach  upon  the  wind; 
 Some  phmged  in  vNatf^rs,  others  plunged  in  fires, 
 Till  all  the  dregs  are  draiiied,  and  all  the  rust  expires. 
 All  ha\'e  their  Manes,  and  tiiose  Manes  bear." 
 
 Dryden. 
 
 Pagans^  Jeus^  Mahometans  and  Papists  have  heretofore 
 hold  these  notions:  to  these  we  must  now  add  the  Philosoph\ 
 ml  Unilarian. 
 
APPENDIX.  399 
 
 against  the  latter,  of  ''  impeaching  the  charuc- 
 ter  of  his  maker  and  traducing  liis  works."* 
 — Thus  much  for  the  consequences  of  ihe  two 
 systems. 
 
 Again,  as  to  the  principle  of  necessity,    it  is 
 precisely  the  same,  whether  the  Unitarian  endea- 
 vour to  dignify  it,  by  the  title  o?  philosophical  ; 
 or  degrade  it,  by  that  of  predestinarian.     Or,  if 
 Mr.  Bjlsham  will  still  pretend  to  differ  from  the 
 follower  of  Calvin,  whom  he  describes  as  equally 
 with  himself  pronouncing  man  a  necessarij  instru- 
 ment destitute  of  self-agency,   it   can  only  be  in 
 this;  that  whilst  the  latter  makes  man  a  necessary 
 instrum.ent  in  the  hand  of  God,  Mr.  B.'s  system 
 admits  the  possibility  of  rescuing  him   from  this 
 slavish  subjection  to  his  Maker,  by  placing  him 
 under    the   irresistible    coiitroul   of    chance,    or 
 destiny,  or  some  other  equally  conceivable  power. 
 For,  to  suppose  all  the  actions  of  man  to  spring 
 necessarily  from  motives,  and   these  motives  the 
 unavoidable  result  of   external  impressions   and 
 local  circumstances;  the  divine  spirit  giving  no 
 direction  in   the  particular   case,   and    the    man 
 having  no   power   either    to   regulate   their  ope- 
 ration   or    to   resist    their    impulse:    is   to    sup- 
 pose all  that   the  Stoic,   and   the  Atheist,  could 
 ^esire. 
 
 *  Reviexi^  p.  37. 
 
400  APPENDIX. 
 
 Such  is  the  exalted  wzerzY  of  man,  fashioned 
 by  the  deistical  jargon  of  that,  which  equally 
 disgraces  Christianity,  and  philosophy,  by  as- 
 suming their  names.  Such  are  the  lights  af- 
 forded us  by  the  Rational  Christian  :  who  mends 
 Calvinism  by  Purgatory ;  secures  to  man  a  pro- 
 perty in  his  actions,  by  rendering  him  the  un- 
 resisting slave  of  motives;  and  maintains  the 
 interests  of  religion,  by  subjecting  human  con- 
 duct solely  to  the  mechanical  operations  of 
 secondary  causes. 
 
 It  is  indeed  extremely  difficult  to  make  out 
 Mr.  Belsham's  system.  But  it  is  one  of  the  ad- 
 vantages of  inconsistency,  that  the  statement  of 
 the  absurdities  in  one  part  of  an  argument,  is 
 liable  to  be  discredited  by  contradictory  positions 
 in  another.  Thus,  whilst  Mr.  B.  repeatedly 
 affirms,  that  man  is  not  to  look  to  the  influence 
 and  sustaining  aid  of  the  divine  spirit,  but  solely 
 to  his  own  exertions,  or  as  he  most  singularly 
 explains  these  exertions,  to  circumstances  and 
 impressions  which  work  upon  his  mind  by  a 
 mechanical  and  necessary  operation;  he  pro- 
 fesses, in  other  places,  not  altogether  to  banish 
 the  notion  of  the  divine  agency.  We  are,  he 
 says,  "  thankfully  to  ascribe  all  our  improve- 
 ments, our  hopes  and  our  consolations  to  God."* 
 
 *  P.  175. 
 
APPENDIX.  401 
 
 Mr.  B.  has  here  struck  a  httle  out  of  the  path  to 
 direct  Atheism,  in  which  he  seemed  before  ra- 
 pidly advancing:  and  this  saving  clause  was  in- 
 dispensable to   a  writer,  who  professes  a  belief 
 in  the  existence  of  a  God.     But  when  we  come 
 to  enquire,  on  what  ground  our  gratitude  is  due 
 to   a   Being,   who   has   not  contributed  by  any 
 beneficial  influence  to  the  improvement  of  our 
 virtue,    we   find   our  independence   of  a  divine 
 grace   still  carefully    secured,    inasmuch   as   the 
 sole  foundation  of  our  thankfulness  to  the  Su- 
 preme Being  is,  that  "  to  his  appointment,  and 
 continued  agency,  all  causes  owe  their  efficacy.*** 
 It    is    then,    for    the    original    constitution    and 
 general    arrangement    of  the   works    of    nature 
 alone,  that  we  are  to  be  grateful:  and  not  for 
 any  special   operation  of  a  divine  influence,   in 
 ttny  individual  case.    May  we  not  therefore  fairly 
 apply    to    our   philosopher,    what    Cicero    pro- 
 nounced of  the  refiners  of  ancient  times,  "  verbis 
 reliquisse  Deos,  re  sustulisse?" 
 '    But,  that  we  may  the  more  perfectly  under- 
 stand our  author's  meaning,  he  supplies  us  with 
 a  specimen  of  the  mcde,  in  which  a  judicious 
 instructor  should  endeavour  to  reclaim  a  vicious 
 person,    desirous  of   reformation.      Having  first 
 carefully   guarded   him   against  all   unscriptural 
 
 *  pp.  175.  180. 
 VOL.  II.  D  D 
 
402  APPENDIX. 
 
 doctrines,  such  as  original  sin,  atonement,  merits 
 of  Christ,  and  the  like:  having  warned  him, 
 not  to  expect  any  supernatural  impressions  upon 
 his  mind,  nor  to  imagine  that  moral  and  reli- 
 gious habits  are  to  be  acquired  in  a  way  different 
 from  any  other :  having  pointed  his  attention 
 particularly,  to  those  parts  of  scripture,  which 
 direct  him  to  do  justice,  to  love  mercy ^  &c. : 
 having  urged  him  to  "  fix  in  his  mind,  just  and 
 honourable  sentiments  of  God,  as  the  greatest, 
 wisest,  and  best  of  beings"*  : — he  proceeds^  more 
 circumstantially,  to  the  case  of  the  offender; 
 and  beginning  in  due  form,  with  a  definition  of 
 Virtue,  as  "  a  course  of  conduct  leading  to  the 
 greatest  ultimate  happiness :"  and  of  Vice,  as 
 "  that  which  leads  to  misery ;" — he  next  lays 
 before  the  sinner,  (or  in  the  milder  vocabulary 
 of  Mr.  B.  the  "  person  oppressed  by  the  tyranny 
 of  evil  habits"^!-)  the  exact  state  of  his  case. — 
 "  You  are  deficient  in  virtuous  habits,  you  wish 
 to  form  them :  you  have  contracted  vicious  affec-* 
 tions,  you  wish  J  to  exterminate  them.  You 
 know  the  circumstances,  in  which  your  vicious 
 
 *  P.  174.  +p.  172. 
 
 X  N.  B.  It  is  above  all  things  necessary  for  the  reforma- 
 tion of  this  person  "  oppressed  by  the  tyranny  of  evil  habits,'* 
 (so  alarming  and  fanatical  a  phrase  as  that  of  sinner  I  must 
 not  use,)  that  he  feel  no  remorse^  be  the  vicious  acts  that  h« 
 has  committed  ever  so  enormous.  For  Mr.  Belsham  informs 
 us.  in  his  Elements^  (pp.  307.  406.)  that  "  the  doctrine  of 
 
APPENDIX.  403 
 
 ha'oits  were  originally  contracted,  and  by  which 
 they  have  been  confirmed.  Avoid  *  these  cir- 
 cumstancesj  and  give  the  mind  a  contrary  bias. 
 
 philosophical  necessity  supersedes  remorse.'*  And  Indred  it 
 is  happy  that  it  does  so;  because,  whilst  on  the  one  hand, 
 he  pronounces  remorse  not  to  be  essential  to  repentance ;  he 
 proves  on  the  other,  that  it  is  a  thing  in  ilself  highly  pernL 
 cious ;  inasmuch  as  it  is  "  founded  u))on  the  belief,  that  in 
 the  same  previous  circumstances  it  was  possible  to  have 
 acted  olherwise." — A  perfect  freedom  from  uneasiness  of 
 mind,  after  the  murder  of  a  parent,  or  tlie  seduction  of  the 
 innocent;  an  undisturbed  composure,  flowing  from  the  con- 
 Tiction  that  under  all  the  circumstances  it  was  impossible  io 
 have  acted  otherwise,  must  surely  contribute  much  to  ac- 
 celerate the  repentance  of  the  oliender,  and  to  complete  his 
 refo'-mation ! 
 
 *  This  is  a  whimsical  sort  of  address,  from  a  writer,  who, 
 upon  his  principle  of  necessitjj,  maintains  the  impossibility  of 
 avoiding,  upon  the  recurrence  of  similar  circumstances,  any 
 act  which  has  once  been  performed.  For  if  this  be,  as  h« 
 contends  it  is,  (Elements^  &c.  p.  107.)  a  sufficient  reason 
 for  asserting,  that  the  person  who  has  once  yielded  to  any 
 temptation,  must  under  the  like  circumstances  yield  to  it 
 again,  and  that  consequently  the  only  chance  for  his  escape 
 is  to  be  found  in  flight:  it  must  likewise  be  a  sufficient  rea- 
 son for  concluding,  that  he  who  has  not  at  one  time  been 
 able  to  fly  from  the  circumstances  which  brought  the  temp- 
 tation, will  not  be  able  to  fly  from  them  at  another;  the  cir- 
 cumstanct^s  at  the  time  of  the  intended  flight,  being  the  same 
 as  before :  and  thus  the  impossibility  recurs  ad  infinitum. — 
 Our  writer  had  condemned  Mr.  Godwin,  (Elements^  &c. 
 p.  405.)  for  the  indiscreet  avowal  of  the  consequences  of 
 this  s}sem;  namely,  that  necessar^y  agents  are  incapable  of 
 moral  ducipline.  But  has  not  Mr.  B.  Iiimself,  as  completely 
 D  d  2 
 
404  APPENDIXw 
 
 You  know  what  impressions  will  produce  jus- 
 tice, benevolence,  &c. — Expose  your  mind  re- 
 peat edhf  and  perseveringly  to  the  injluence  of 
 these  impressions,  and  the  aifections  themselves 
 will  gradually  rise,  and  insensibly  improve,  &c. 
 — ALL,  that  is  required,  is  judgment,  reso- 
 lution, time,  and  perseverance''! ! !^ Really, 
 
 Mr.  B.  must  excuse  me,  if  I  take  the  liberty  of 
 saying,  that  I  know  nothing  in  the  English 
 language  to  equal  this,  except  the  Energies  of 
 3Iiss  Bridget ina  Botherim.^  It  is  not  my  in- 
 disclosed  the  secret  by  his  reasoning  ?  For,  if  a  necessary 
 agent  can  never  acquire  an  increase  of  strength,  to  resist  the 
 temptations  of  vice,  ^vhere  is  the  improvement  in  moral  dis- 
 cipline ?  This  Pa,  thian  moralist,  who  is  to  be  for  ever  un- 
 equal to  the  Tci^iYi  va-ixivn,  and  can  hope  to  conquer  only  by 
 flying,  will  find  that  he  will  not  have  much  to  boast  of  in  the 
 way  of  conquest,  if  his  steed  is  to  be  as  much  fettered  in  the 
 flight,  as  he  is  himself  manacled  in  the  conflict.  Alas!  that 
 Mr.  B.  will  not  permit  his  penitent,  to  call  to  his  aid,  that 
 auxiliary,  and  that  armour,  which  would  enable  him  to  quench 
 all  (he  fiery  darts  of  the  zcicked! 
 
 *  pp.  174,  175. 
 
 i  Modern  Philosophers:—:!,  work,  which  if  perused  with 
 feelings  favourable  to  religion  and  order,  must  be  allowed  to 
 furnish  a  decisive  proof,  that  Mrs.  Hannah  More  is  not 
 the  only  female  of  the  present  day,  by  whom  zeal  and 
 talents  have  been  eminently  displayed,  in  defence  of  all 
 that  can  be  deemed  valuable  in  this  life,  and  in  that  which  is 
 to  come* 
 
 Were  we,  in  truth,  io  search  out  among  the  authors  of 
 later  times,  for  those  who  have  most  successfully  promoted 
 fhe  cause  of  virtue  and  religion,  by  the  combiuatioii  of  what 
 I 
 
APPENDIX.  405 
 
 tention  to  introduce  ludicrous  ideas  upon  such  a 
 subject :  but  the  resemblance  is  too  striking  and 
 apposite  to  be  overlooked. 
 
 So  far  as  Mr.  Belsham*s  language  is  intelli- 
 gible, his  process  of  conversion  amounts  to  this. 
 He  tells  the  vicious  person,  that  he  has  con- 
 tracted bad  habits;  and  he  desires   him  by   all 
 
 is  most  interesting  with  what  is  most  edifying  in  their  writ- 
 ings, we  should  find  them  to  have  been  principally  of  the 
 other  sex.  With  the  name  of  Mrs.  Hannah  More,  who 
 ranks  eminent  in  that  class, — and  whose  numerous  and  di- 
 versified publications,  scattering  their  benefits  through  every 
 gradation  of  society  from  the  prince  down  to  the  peasant, 
 have  come  home  to  the  breasts  of  all  with  that  irresistible 
 force  that  springs  from  the  united  powers  of  piety  and  ge- 
 nius,—  we  have  to  connect  in  grateful  remembrance,  the 
 names  of  Hamilton,  of  Bowdler,  of  West,  of  Chapone,  and 
 (notwithstanding  something  that  one  could  wish  to  be  other- 
 wise) of  Barbaidd.  To  ''  the  venerable  Elizabeth  Carter 
 and  the  blooming  Elizabeth  Smith,'^  we  have  also  to  cast  our 
 eyes;  if,  in  Mrs.  More's  words,  we  wou'd  "  contemplate 
 profound  and  various  learning  chastised  by  true  Christian 
 humility ;"  and  if  we  would  wish  to  dwell  on  the  recollection 
 of  '*  acquirements,  which  would  have  been  distinguished  in 
 a  University,  meekly  softened  and  beautifully  shaded  by  the 
 gentle  exertion  of  every  domestic  virtue,  the  unaffected  exer- 
 cise of  every  feminine  employment."  (Ca^lebs,  pp.  250,  231.) 
 — Did  my  present  subject  lead  me  merely  to  advert  to  the 
 distinction,  which  superior  talenrs,  exquisite  taste,  and  the 
 charms  of  fine  composition,  confer  upon  the  female  writer j 
 of  the  present  day,  it  would  be  impossible  to  overlook  the 
 commanding  claims  of  Miss  Edgeworth. 
 
 D  da 
 
406  APPENDIX. 
 
 means  to  g^t  rid  of  them.     How  far  this  salu- 
 tary advice   and  direction  would  opera »^e  to  tlie 
 reformation  of  the  sinner,  they  who  may  have 
 been    reclaimed    from    vicious   courses   by    such 
 means^    can   best  say.     But   one  thing  deserves 
 particularly    to    be   remarked,    that    whilst    the 
 mind  of  the  sinner,  is  directed  to  contemplate 
 the  excellence  of  virtue,  to  excite  its  own  ener- 
 gies,   to   expose  itself  to   impressions,    and   the 
 ]ike ;  not  one  word  escapes  of  the  propriety  of 
 prai/er ;    on    the   contrary,    all   supplication   for 
 divine  assistance  seems  to  be  expressly  excluded, 
 and  indeed  evidently   must  be  so,  on  Mr.   Bel- 
 sham's  principles.    For,  if  goodness  be  th^  neces- 
 sari/  result  of    impressions    and    circumstances, 
 the  mechanical  effect  of  particular  traces  on  the 
 brain,  derived  from  the  general  operation  of  es- 
 tablished  and   unalterable  laws  of  bur  constitu- 
 tion; there  is  no  room,   in   the  particular  case, 
 for  divine  interference.     We  may,  according  to 
 Mr.    B.'s   principles,    indulge    in    sentiments   of 
 complacency  to  that  first  cause,    the  beneficial 
 effects  of  whose  original  arrangement  we  feel   in 
 the  individual  instance,  but  prayer  addressed  to 
 the   divine  being,    can  have  no  rational    object. 
 Prayer,  accordingly,  forms  no  part  of  this  wri- 
 ter's system.     In  no  one  line  of  his  work  does 
 he  recognize  it  as  a  Christian  duty :  —indeed  the 
 mention  of  it  has  not  once  escaped  liim. 
 
APPENDIX.  407 
 
 It  is  not  then  surprizing,  that  we  should  find 
 Mr.  B.  endeavouring  to  diminish  the  opportu- 
 nities and  inducements  to  prayer  by  contending, 
 that  the  Christian  rehgion  has  not  prescribed 
 the  appointment  of  a  day,  for  the  purposes  of  di- 
 vine worship.  But  he  goes  farther.  He  affirms, 
 that  "Christianity  expressly  abolishes  every  such 
 distinction  of  days:''^  that,  "  under  the  Chris- 
 tian dispensation  every  day  is  alike;  no  one 
 more  holy  than  another :  that  whatever  employ- 
 ment, or  amusement,  is  lawful  or  expedient  upon 
 any  one  day  of  the  week,  is  equally  lawful  and 
 expedient  on  any  other  day:"-^  that,  conse- 
 quently, "  a  virtuous  man  is  performing  his 
 duty  to  the  Supreme  Being,  as  really,  and  as 
 acceptably,  when  he  is  pursuing  the  proper  bu- 
 siness of  life,  or  even  when  enjoying  its  inno- 
 cent and  decent  amusements,  as  when  he  is 
 offering  direct  addresses  to  him,  in  the  closet,  or 
 in  the  temple.":}:  From  these  premises  he  peremp- 
 torily concludes,  that  all  distinctions  of  days  should 
 be  exploded:  that  our  business,  and  our  amuse- 
 ments should  be  pursued  on  every  day  alike :  and 
 that  the  laws  which  enjoin  the  observance  of  the 
 Sabbath  are  '^  unreasonable  and  unjust."§  He 
 likewise  maintains,  that  the  Sabbatical  spirit  na- 
 turally leads  to  uncharitable  and  censorious  feel- 
 ings :  II  that  "  persons  who  are  so  very  religious 
 
 *  Review,  p.  20.         +  pp.  20.  139.         J  p.  133. 
 
 §pp.  140,  141.  II  p.  141. 
 
 D  d  4 
 
408  APPENDIX. 
 
 on  a  Sunday,"  (as  to  make  regular  attendance 
 on  the  services  of  the  church  a  matter  of  consci- 
 ence) "  are  too  apt  to  lay  aside  religion  for  the 
 rest  of  the  weekf^  and  that,  upon  the  whole,  the 
 Sabbatical  observance  is  highly  injurious  to  the 
 cause  of  Virtue.  To  this  pernicious  institution, 
 our  author  does  not  scruple  to  attribute  the 
 decrease  of  national  morality :  and  he  rejoices, 
 with  a  Christian  joi/,  that  the  late  "  ill  advised" 
 proposition,  '-  for  enforcing  a  stricter  observation 
 of  the  Lord's  day,"  was  wisely  rejected  by  the 
 Legislature."^ 
 
 Now,  it  may  perhaps  occur  to  a  plain  unphilo- 
 sophical  reader  to  enquire,  what  sort  of  a  teacher 
 of  Christianity  is  this,  who  thus  levels  Christ, 
 through  the  uhole  of  his  existence  to  the  rank  of 
 human  nature: — leaves  man,  for  acceptance,  to 
 liis  own  merit;  and  that  merit  the  pure  result  of 
 external  impressions,  and  mechanical  operation  : 
 —rejects  the  notion  of  prayer,;}:  making  man  as 
 
 *  P.  142,  +  p.  203. 
 
 X  How  different  are  the  reflexions  of  true  philosophy, 
 guided  by  a  pious  reverence  for  the  superior  lights  of  Reve-, 
 lation !  The  words  of  a  distinguished  and  attractive  writer, 
 whose  publications  liave  always  tended  to  promote,  what  his 
 life  has  uniformly  exemplified,  the  love  and  practice  of  vir- 
 tue, are  too  interesting  and  impoi  tant  to  be  omitted  on  this 
 subject.  — "  If  we  admit  the  truth  of  revelation,  ihe  evidence 
 which  it  delivers  of  the  special  interposition  of  Goch  in  the 
 physical  and  moral  government  of  the  world,  must  be  deemed 
 (Ipciaive,     Instejid,   therefore,   of  invohing  ourselves  in  the 
 
APPENDIX.  409 
 
 it  were  independent  of  his  maker: — and  finally, 
 proscribes  the  Sabbath  as  destructive  of  Religion 
 and  Morality  ?  Mr.  B.  being  aware  that  such  a 
 
 mazes  of  metaphysical  subtility,  let  us  direct  our  attention 
 to  the  foundation  of  that  intercourse  with  the  Deity,  which  \i 
 at  once  the  most  interesting  duty,  and  the  noblest  privilege  of 
 our  nature.  We  are  taught  that//c  zc/io  comcth  to  God,  must 
 believe  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a  reicardcr  of  them  zcho  dili. 
 geritlij  seek  him :  that  in  him  zee  live^  and  move,  and  have  our 
 being :  that  as  a  father  pitieth  his  children,  so  the  Lordpitieth 
 them  that  fear  him  :  that  if  zee,  being  evil,  knozo  hozo  to  give 
 good  gifts  to  our  children,  how  much  more  shall  our  father , 
 2iohich  is  in  heaven,  give  good  things  to  them  that  ask  him.  For 
 this  thing,  says  St.  Paul,  /  besought  the  Lord  thrice,  that  it 
 might  depart  from  me:  And  our  Saviour  is  recordc^d  to  have 
 prayed  the  third  time,  saying  the  same  zjcords,  O  !  my  Father ^ 
 if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me:  Nevertheless  not 
 as  I  zcill,  but  as  thou  zcilt.  Indeed  the  form  of  devotion, 
 •which  Christ  recommended  to  his  disciples,  affords  the  clearest 
 proof  that  he  regarded  prayer  as  an  acceptable  and  efficacious 
 act.  Nor  is  this  supposition  inconsistent  with  that  immuta- 
 bility of  the  divine  attributes,  which  is  essential  to  their  nature 
 and  perfection.  The  v/isdom,  benevolence,  and  justice  of  the 
 Deity  are  the  same  yesterday,  to  day,  and  for  ever.  But  this 
 unchangeableness  implies,  that,  in  their  exercise  they  are 
 always  accommodated  to  the  purest  rectitude,  and  to  the 
 greatest  sum  of  felicity.  And  thus  a  providence  is  established, 
 which  discriminates  between  the  virtuous  and  the  vicious ; 
 which  adapts  the  properest  means  to  the  accomplishment  of 
 the  best  ends;  and  regulates  all  things  so  as  to  work  together 
 for  the  highest  good.  To  this  superintending  direction  a  pious 
 christian  will  look  up,  with  humble  confidence, /or  ease  under 
 f:(ffering,  for  protection  in  danger ,  and  consolation  in  sorrow. 
 
410  APPENDIX. 
 
 question  would  naturally  suggest  itself,  has  been 
 careful  to  supply  the  answer.  He  tells  us,  that 
 he  desires  to  be  considered,  as  a  "  Moral  teacher 
 
 If  prayer  were  not  enjoined,  as  a  duty,  he  would  instinctively 
 perform  it  as  a  refuge  for  human  infirmity.  And  he  may 
 reasonably  presume,  that  such  filial  dependence  will  be  indul- 
 gently accepted  by  his  heavenly  father,  who  in  his  divine 
 administration  is  characterized  as  being  ever  ready  to  bind  up 
 the  broken  in  heart ;  to  heal  the  wounded  in  spirit;  and  to 
 give  good  gifts  to  them  that  worthily  ask  him.''''  Father's 
 Instructions — Part  the  Third — by  Thos.  Percival,  M.  D. 
 p.  118 — 120.  I  the  more  willingly  refer  to  this  excellent 
 performance,  because,  independent  of  the  value  of  the  passage 
 here  extracted,  and  the  vein  of  fervent  piety  which  pervades 
 the  entire  volume,  the  observations  which  it  contains  on  the 
 subject  of  the  Divine  permission  of  Evil^  the  topics  it  suggests 
 for  the  farther  confirmation  of  the  Evidences  of  Christianity^ 
 and  the  directions  it  conveys  for  the  due  regulation  of  the 
 Clerical  conduct  and  character^  entitle  it  to  the  most  serious 
 perusal  from  every  friend  to  religion  and  virtue. 
 
 Since  the  date  of  the  first  edition  of  this  work,  the  revered 
 person,  spoken  of  in  the  above  note,  has  paid  the  last  debt 
 of  nature  :  and  has  gone  to  receive  in  another  state,  the  reward 
 of  the  piety  and  virtues  which  distinguished  him  in  this. — To 
 offer  any  general  remarks  here  upon  the  life  and  character  of  a 
 man  so  estimable  and  so  esteemed,  would  be  little  worthy  of  a 
 subject  whose  magnitude  and  interest  entitle  it  to  the  most 
 ample  consideration.  To  the  memory  of  this  venerated 
 friend,  I  have  already  elsewhere  offered  an  humble  tribute. 
 And  happily,  as  preserving  to  societ}'^  a  valuable  light,  a 
 complete  Memoir  of  his  life  and  writings  lias  been  given  to 
 the  public,  by  his  son,  Doctor  Edward  Percival,  now  of  Dub- 
 lin.— This  Memoir,  prefixed  to  the  entire  collection  of  Doctor 
 
APPENDIX.  411 
 
 of  Christianity."*  And,  lest  we  might  not  per- 
 fectly understand  the  nature  of  this  Moral  or 
 Uniiarian  Clirislianity  which  he  teaches,  he 
 informs  us,  that  it  is  substaiitialli/  the  same,  with 
 the  system  of  Lepaux,  and  the  Theophilanthropes 
 of  France.  This  is  a  fair  and  candid  account  of 
 the  matter.  The  same  title,  which  they  can 
 produce  to  the  denomination  of  Christians,  Mr. 
 B.  can  undoubtedly  advance.  Indeed,  his  must 
 be  allowed  to  be  yet  stronger:  for,  though,  as  he 
 observes,  their  "  common  principle  is  a  belief  in 
 the  existence,  perfection,  and  providence  of  God, 
 and  in  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life :  and  their  rule 
 of  morals,  love  to  God,  and  good  will  to  men  ;** 
 and  thus,  as  he  remarks,  their  ''  professed  princi- 
 ples comprehend  the  essence  of  the  Christian 
 religion :  yet,  in  not  admitting  the  resurrection 
 of  Christ,  the  Theophilanthropists  deprive  them- 
 selves of  the  only  solid  ground,  on  which  to  build 
 the  hope  of  a  future  existence. "^^  Thus,  we  see, 
 in  one  short  view,  tlie  nature  of  INlr.  Belsham*s 
 
 Pcrclval's  works,  must  be  too  well  known  and  too  justly  ap- 
 preciated, to  render  it  necessary  for  me  to  enlarge  upon  the 
 fidelity  and  ability  with  which  it  has  been  executed.  The 
 spirit  which  it  breathes,  and  the  talent  which  it  exhibits, 
 conspire  to  aiford  the  happiest  presage,  that  the  son  will  prove 
 himself,  through  life,  not  unworthy  of  the  father,  whose 
 endowments,  whose  attainments,  and  whose  excellencies,  he 
 has  recorded. 
 
 *  P.  227.  f  p.  217. 
 
412  APPENDIX. 
 
 Unitarian  scheme,  and  its  advantage  over  that  of 
 the  French  Theophilanthropes.  He  not  only 
 holds,  in  common  with  them,  the  above  men- 
 tioned essential  principles  of  Christianity ;  but 
 he  also  maintains,  in  addition,  that  a  man  has 
 actually  risen  from  the  dead:  the  admission  of 
 which  fact  into  the  creed  of  the  Theophi- 
 lanthropes, he  candidly  confesses,  would  have  left 
 his  scheme  no  superiority  over  theirs ;  inasmuch 
 as,  hy  laying  a  solid  ground  for  their  doctrine 
 of  a  future  life,  it  would  have  rendered  their 
 system  perfectly  complete. 
 
 But  seriously,  are  these  the  doctrines  of  that 
 sect,  who  call  themselves  Unitarians,  in  the 
 sister  country :  or  are  they  erroneously  ascribed 
 to  them  by  Mr,  Belsham  ?  Indeed,  if  we  are  to 
 judge  from  the  applause  bestowed  on  Mr.  B/s 
 performance  by  writers  of  that  denomination  in 
 England,  we  have  reason  to  think  that  he  has 
 given  a  fair  representation.  Now,  if  he  has,  it 
 surely  seems  unworthy  of  men,  who  exult  in  the 
 open  and  fearless  avowal  of  their  opinions,  to  trifle 
 with  the  name  of  Chi^istian ;  and  if  he  has  not,  it 
 is  full  time,  that  they  should  throw  back  Mr.  B.'s 
 doctrines,  on  himself,  and  his  Theophilanthrope 
 associates.  I  am  most  willing  to  admit,  that  no 
 person  has  a  right  to  deny  to  Mr.  B.  the  appella- 
 tion of  a  "  Moral  teacher."  To  this  he  is  fully 
 entitled,  as  having  a  firm  belief  in  the  existence 
 
APPENDIX.  413 
 
 and  general  providence  of  God ;  and  as  inculcating 
 principles,  that  tend  to  beget  love  and  gratitude 
 to  that  Being,  and  to  produce  a  corresponding 
 benignity  of  affection  to  our  fellow-creatures, 
 impressing  the  duties  of  benevolence  and  social 
 kindness  to  man,  as  I  make  not  the  smallest 
 question,  he  truly  feels  them.  But,  whilst  thus 
 much  is  freely  admitted;  surely  Mr.  B.  cannot 
 reasonably  be  offended  if  he  should  be  denied 
 the  appellation  of  a  "  teacher  of  Christiamtij  ?" 
 For  what  is  Christianity?  Is  it  any  thing  differing 
 from  the  natural  religion  of  the  Deist?  And  if 
 differing ;  is  it  in  doctrines,  or  in  precepts  ?  Not 
 in  doctrines,  according  to  Mr.  B.  for  he  asserts 
 again  and  again,  that  it  has  none  peculiar.  Is  it 
 in  precepts?  no,  says  Mr.  B.  for  the  pure  and 
 simple  scheme  of  the  Theophilanthrope,  who 
 rejects  revelation^  "  comprehends  the  essence  of 
 Christianity."  And  has,  then,  Jesus  Christ 
 passed  as  a  mute,  across  the  great  stage  of  human 
 affairs  ?  And  shall  we  denominate  ourselves  from 
 him,  who  has  taught  us  nothing  different  from 
 what  we  knew  before  ?  No,  says  Mr.  B.  this  is 
 not  so:  by  his  rising  from  the  dead,  he  has 
 proved  to  us  the  certainty  of  a  future  life, — Is 
 this  then  Christianity? — Of  this,  Mr.  B.  may  be, 
 an  excellent  teacher:  but  in  such  Christianity, 
 his  instructions  will,  I  trust,  ever  be  confined  to  a 
 very  small  number  indeed. 
 
414  APPENDIX. 
 
 And  IS  Mr.  B.  displeased  with  Mr.  Wilber- 
 force,  for  calling  this  "  a  sort  of  halfway-house 
 between  orthodoxy  and  infidelity  ?"  I  cannot  but 
 think,  that  most  people  of  plain  sense  and  candid 
 minds,  who  have  not  been  visited  by  any  rays  of 
 modern  illumination,  will  rather  be  of  opinion, 
 that  Mr.  W.  has  erred,  in  not  advancing  this 
 mansion  a  little  beyond  the  middle  point.  Nor  is 
 this  without  countenance  from  Mr.  B.  himself, 
 since  he  confesses,  that  "  of  the  two  he  would 
 rather  approach  the  confines  of  cold  and  cheerless 
 scepticism,  than  the  burning  zone  of  merciless 
 orthodoxy;"*  by  which  last  it  must  be  observed, 
 he  understands  the  principles  of  Christianity,  as 
 held  by  the  established  church ;  merciless  being 
 merely  the  ordinary  adjunct  to  the  character  of 
 every  established  priesthood. 
 
 On  this  subject,  Mr.  B.  exhibits  rather  an 
 unfortunate  specimen,  of  that  calm  and  softened 
 charity,  which  distinguishes  and  adorns  the  tem- 
 perate region,  where  he  rejoices  to  find  himself 
 placed,  in  a  happy  medium  between  the  two 
 above  mentioned  ''  ineligible  extremes."  A  want 
 of  integrity,  a  disregard  of  truth,  "  indolence^ 
 pride,  and  bitter  zeal  against  all  who  oppose  the 
 doctrines  of  the  public  creed,"  he  represents,  ak 
 the  never  failing  conseq»iences,  of  an  established 
 religion,  "  whether  true  or  false:'*  the  unvarying 
 
 *  P.  263. 
 
APPENDIX.  415 
 
 characteristics  of  "  an  established  priesthood." 
 Such  a  body,  he  contends,  "  is,  in  its  very  nature, 
 a  persecuting  order.'*  "  All  breathe  the  same 
 fiery  and  intemperate  spirit.  Truth  and  honest 
 enquiry  they  are  paid  to  discountenance  and  re- 
 press."^^  *'  Interested  priests  and  crafty  statesmen 
 will  continue  to  support  a  religious  establishment, 
 which  answers  their  private  and  political  pur- 
 poses, at  the  same  time  that  they  hold  its  doctrines 
 in  contempt.'^-l-  The  object,  to  which  these 
 observations  are  intended  more  immediately  to 
 apply,  Mr.  B.  does  not  leave  his  reader  at  a  loss 
 to  discover,  when  he  plainly  affirms,  that  the 
 heads  of  our  establishment,  look  to  means  very 
 different  from  that  of  '^  a  sincere  faith  in"  their 
 own  "  creeds  and  homilies,  for  the  prosperity  of 
 the  national  church  :":J: — and  with  the  same  liberal 
 reference  it  is,  that  he  reminds  us  of  the  saying  of 
 Cicero,  "  that  he  wondered  how  augur  could 
 meet  augur  without  laughing:"  and  again,  of  that 
 memorable  exclamation  of  Leo,  in  the  days  of 
 papal  Rome,  "  how  lucrative  is  this  fable  of  Jesus 
 Christ!"^ — thus  clearly  intimating,  what  a  warm 
 supporter  of  his  doctrines  and  his  performance  has 
 since  announced  in  terms  a  little  more  direct ; 
 "  it  is  well  knownj  that  many  of  our  public 
 teachers  laugh  in  their  sleeves, — and  some  of 
 these  sleeves,  they  say  are  of  latvn, — at  those 
 
 *  P.  199.         +  pp.  230.233.         %  p.  220.         §  p.  230. 
 1 
 
41 6  APPENDIX, 
 
 doctrines,  which  they  inculcate  from  the  piilpity 
 with  a  pretended  earnestness."^ 
 
 Nor  does  Mr.  Belsham  confine  his  charges  ta 
 those,  who  are  the  immediate  superintendants  of 
 the  national  religion.  Though  particularly  fa- 
 voured with  Mr.  B/s  notice,  they  do  not  entirely 
 engross  it.  By  his  observations  on  the  institution 
 of  a  national  fastj-f-  he  takes  care  to  hold  up  the 
 civil,  no  less  than  the  ecclesiastical,  heads  of  the 
 state,  as  objects  of  public  contempt,  and  execra- 
 tion, for  their  gross  insincerity,  and  unprincipled 
 imposition  on  the  people.  Now,  if  all  this  be  of 
 the  nature  of  that  charity,  which  belongs  to  the 
 middle  region,  under  whose  temperate  influence, 
 Mr.  B.  professes  to  enjoy  philosophic  repose;  I 
 rather  apprehend,  that  the  inhabitant  of  this 
 "  pleasant  and  commodious  dwelling,"  is  as  far 
 removed  from  the  charity^  as  he  boasts  to  be 
 from  the  peculiar  doctrines,  of  Christianity, 
 
 It  must  indeed  be  confessed,  that  great  allow- 
 ance is  to  be  made  for  those,  who  have  been  as 
 it  were,  rocked  in  the  very  cradle  of  discontent: 
 and  who  have  been  used  from  iiifimcy,  to  view 
 every  act  of  the  Government,  and  every  ordinance 
 of  the  Church,  with  the  bitterness  of  a  discom- 
 fited and   vindictive  enemy.     But   it  is   strange 
 
 *  Layman''s  Letters  to  Mr.  Wilberjorce  on  the  Doctrine 
 of  Hereditarif  Depravity,  p.  172. 
 +  Review.^  pp.  204,  205. 
 
APPENDIX.  4  1  7 
 
 that  whilst  langiiage  of  the  nature  here  cited,  every 
 where  deforms  Mr.  B.'s  pages,  and  tho^e  of  his 
 Unitarian  associates,  they  should  make  the  ivant 
 of  charity,  the  principal  charge  against  alh  who 
 hold  Christianity  in  any  other,  than  the  vague, 
 and  fleeting,  form,  in  which  they  profess  to  em- 
 brace it.  In  the  management  of  a  controversy, 
 it  may  not  indeed  be  bad  policy,  to  charge  the 
 adversary  with  whatever  unfair  arts,  you  mean  to 
 resort  to  yourself.  Thus,  whilst  the  opposite 
 party  bears  all  the  odium,  you  possess  yourself  of 
 the  profit.  So  at  least  it  seems  to  be  with  the 
 writers  of  Mr.  B/s  way  of  thinking.  A  total 
 want  of  candour  and  charity  is  perpetually  ob- 
 jected to  all,  who  defend  the  rectitude  of  the 
 national  religion ;  whilst  every  principle  of  both 
 is  grossly  violated,  by  those  who  oppose  it : — 
 and  at  the  same  time  that  the  charge  of  self-inte- 
 rest, is  freely  bestowed  upon  such  as  support  the 
 establishment;  it  is  hoped,  that  it  will  not  be 
 remembered,  that  interest  is  as  much  concerned 
 to  acquire,  as  to  retain :  it  is  modestly  expected, 
 that  no  mention  will  be  made  of  the  pride  and 
 fervour  of  party ;  and  that  no  note  will  be  taken 
 of  the  resentful  jealousy  of  those  temporal  advan- 
 tages, which,  as  they  form  the  leading  theme  of 
 animadversion,  may  not  unreasonabl}^  be  pre- 
 sumed to  be  the  principal  ground  of  hostility. 
 
 In  a  spirit  congenial  to  these  feelings,  Mr.  B. 
 seems  not  a  little  to  have  participated,  when  he 
 
 VOL.  II.  E  E 
 
4  IS  APPENDIX. 
 
 thus  o])enly  states,  as  in  another  place*  he  indi- 
 rectly insinuates^  under  the  thin  covering  of  the 
 terms  paganism  and  popery,  that  the  rehgion  of 
 the  Church  of  England  is  a  mere  engine  of  state; 
 and  as  such  "  cried  up  by  interested  statesmen 
 and  their  hireling  priests ;"  who,  he  says  again, 
 naturally  "  support  that  religion  which  supports 
 them:"-!-  and  that,  at  this  moment,  ^' pure  Chris- 
 tianify'*  (by  which  he  describes  the  system 
 taught  by  himself  and  Dr.  Priestley,)  "  is  so  far 
 from  meeting  with  public  encouragement  in 
 England,  that  it  is  in  a  state  bordering  upon  per- 
 secution.":}; This  last  remark  indeed  seemS;,  ac* 
 cording  to  Mr.  B.'s  view  of  things,  to  have  been 
 altogether  unnecessary.  The  assertion,  that  "  an 
 established  priesthood  is  in  its  very  nature  a  per- 
 secuting order,"  renders  this  a  tautologous  posi- 
 tion. But,  in  what  way  do  these  professors  of 
 j)ure  Cliristianity  appear  to  be  "  in  a  state 
 bordering  upon  persecution?"  Simply,  because 
 they  are  not  permitted  to  rail  against  esta- 
 blished authority  with  impunity ;  to  preach  up 
 doctrines  in  politics,  subversive  of  subordination  ; 
 to  bring  the  government,  both  in  church  and 
 state,  into  disrepute  and  contempt  amongst  the 
 people,  by  eveiy  species  of  calumny ;  to  establish 
 the  enlightened  system  of  France,  the  Theo- 
 philanthropism    of  Lepaux,    and    the   miso-mo 
 
 ♦  P.  196.  f  p.  233.  X  p.  197, 
 
APPENDIX.  419 
 
 narclilsm  of  Paine.  The  government,  the  clergy, 
 and  the  people  of  England,  are  surely  much  to 
 blame,  in  throwing  any  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
 such  great  reforms ! 
 
 And  what  is  the  grand  proof,  adduced  by 
 Mr.  B.  of  the  persecution  carried  on  against  pare 
 Christianity,  in  England,  at  the  present  day  ? 
 Plainly  this,  that  the  great  champion  of  Unita- 
 rianism  has  been  driven  from  his  native  country, 
 and  ''  compelled  to  seek  for  refuge"  from  the 
 rage  of  persecuting  bigotry,  *'  in  the  transatlantic 
 wilderness  ;'* — in  which,  however,  it  appears  that 
 he  is  subject  to  no  deprivations ;  since  we  are 
 informed,  in  the  \evy  next  line,  that,  in  this 
 ivildernesSj  he  has  the  good  fortune  to  be  sur- 
 rounded by  ^'  enlightened  sages/'^  But,  ludi- 
 crous as  is  this  picture  of  the  wilderness  of  sages, 
 here  presented  by  our  author,  it  were  unfeeling, 
 and  unpardonable,  to  trifle  on  such  a  subject. 
 What  Doctor  Priestley's  reasons  may  have  been 
 for  exchanging  England  for  America,  I  shall  not 
 presume  to  pronounce.  That  they  are  not  to  be 
 resolved  "  solely''  into  his  religions  opinions, 
 as  Mr.  B.  seems  desirous  to  convey,  is  I  believe, 
 pretty  generally  understood.  That  the  purity  of 
 Dr.  P.'s  private  character,  the  amiable  simplicity 
 of  his  manners^  the  variety  and  strength  of  his 
 talents,  the  persevering  industry  with  which  he 
 
 *  pp.  197,  198 
 E  E  2 
 
'120  APPENDIX. 
 
 pursued  what,  he  deemed  useful  truth,  and  the 
 independent  spirit,  with  which  (had  it  not  been 
 phrenzied  by  the  intemperance  of  party,)  he 
 might  have  so  profitably  maintained  it, — are  cir- 
 cumstances, which  must  make  every  good  man 
 regret  that  misapplication  of  his  powers,  which 
 rendered  it  necessary  for  him  to  abandon  his 
 native  country  in  the  decline  of  life,  I  will  most 
 readily  admit:  and  I  freely  subscribe  to  the  strong- 
 est testimony,  which  his  warmest  admirers  can 
 bear,    to   the    many   and   great  virtues,*   which 
 
 *  From  a  friend,  of  the  highest  literary  distinction  and 
 moral  worth,  "who  was  connected  by  habits  of  early  and  conti- 
 nued intimacy  with  Dr.  Priestley,  I  received,  on  the  lirst  pub- 
 lication of  these  remarks  on  that  author's  character,  a  letter 
 containing  the  following  observations. 
 
 ''  The  character  you  give  of  Dr.  Priestley,  has  reminded 
 me  of  that  drawn  by  Dr.  Samuel  Parr,  in  his  letter  from  Ireno- 
 polis,  to  the  inhabitants  of  Eleutheropolis.  As  this  pamphlet 
 was  a  temporary  publication  during  the  riots  of  Birmingham, 
 and  you  have  probably  never  seen  it,  I  will  transcribe  the  pas- 
 sage to  which  I  refer. — '  I  confess,  with  sorrow,  that  in  too 
 many  instances,  such  modes  of  defence,  have  been  used  against 
 this  formidable  Ileresiarch,  as  would  hardly  be  justifiable  in  the 
 support  of  Revelation  itself,  against  the  arrogance  of  a  Boling- 
 broke  the  bulfoonery  of  a  Mandeville,  and  the  levity  of  a 
 Voltaire,  But  the  cause  of  orthodoxy  requires  not  such  aids. 
 The  Church  of  England  approves  them  not.  The  spirit  of 
 Christianity  warrants  them  not.  Let  Dr.  Priestley  be  con- 
 futed where  he  is  mistaken.  Let  him  be  exposed  where  he  is 
 superficial.  Let  him  be  rebuked  where  he  is  censorious. 
 Let  him  be  repressed  where  he  is  dogmatical.  But  let  not  his 
 attainments  be  depreciated,  because  they  are  numerous  almost 
 
APPENDIX.  421 
 
 adorn  his  private  life.  But  whilst  I  most  chear- 
 fully  make  these  concessions  to  the  talents  and 
 the  virtues  of  Dr.  Priestley;  and  whilst  I  join  in 
 
 without  a  parallel.  Let  not  his  talents  be  ridiculed,  because 
 they  are  superlatively  great.  Let  not  his  morals  be  vilified, 
 because  they  are  correct  without  austerity,  and  exemplary 
 without  ostentation ;  because  they  present  even  to  common 
 observers  the  innocence  of  a  hermit  and  the  simplicity  of  a 
 patriarch;  and  because  a  philosophic  eye  will  at  once  discover 
 in  them,  the  deep  fixed  root  of  virtuous  principle,  and  the  solid 
 trunk  of  virtuous  habit.'  This  beautiful  portrait  is,  I  think, 
 accurate  in  its  lineaments.  But  there  are  two  features  in  the 
 character  of  Dr.  Priestley,  wliich  it  does  not  exhibit,  and 
 which  to  you  I  will  not  scruple  to  communicate.  He  has  a 
 sort  of  moral  upathij^  which  makes  him  absolutely  insensible 
 of  the  severity  of  the  wounds  he  inflicts  in  his  polemic  discus- 
 sions. Feeling  no  enmities  in  his  constitution,  he  makes  no 
 discrimination  between  friends  and  foes.  And  having  adopted 
 the  language,  and  dipped  his  pen  in  the  gall  of  controversy,  he 
 suspects  not  that  he  excites  bitterness  of  heart,  because  he  is 
 unconscious  of  it  in  himself.  I  could  exemplify  this  observa- 
 tion, by  his  treatment  of  Dr.  Enfield,  Dr.  Brocklesby,  Judge 
 Blackstone,  and  several  others  whom  he  really  loved  or 
 respected. — Another  striking  trait  in  his  character,  is  an 
 almost  total  deficiency  in  discretion^  that  intellectual  faculty, 
 which  is,  as  Pope  well  expresses  it,  '  although  no  science, 
 fairly  worth  the  seven.' — A  report  has  prevailed  here,  that 
 Dr.  Priestley  proposes  to  return  to  England.  But  I  find 
 that  his  latest  letters  signify  his  intention  of  passing  the  re- 
 mainder of  his  life  in  America,  where  he  is  happy  in  every 
 respect,  except  the  enjoyment  of  literary  society,  and  possesses 
 a  library  and  philosophical  apparatus  far  superior  to  those 
 whjch  he  had  at  JMrmingham." 
 
 E  E  3 
 
422  APPENDIX. 
 
 the  most  decided  reprobation  of  those  savage  acts 
 of  violence,  which  in  his  instance  have  disgraced 
 the  annals  of  English  polity;  yet  I  cannot  hesitate 
 to  believe,  that  if,  in  any  country,  in  which  the 
 direction  of  affairs  was  held  by  those  enlightened 
 politicians,  and  professors  of  pure  Christianity ^ 
 who  form  the  associates  of  Dr.  Priestley  and 
 Mr.  Belsham,  any  man  had  employed  himself  for 
 a  series  of  years,  in  labouring  to  overturn  the 
 established  order  of  things;  and  had  even  ad- 
 vanced so  far,  as,  in  the  intoxication  of  his  fancied 
 success,  openly  to  boast,  that  he  had  prepared  a 
 train,  whereby  the  whole  must  inevitably  be 
 destroyed  ;^  a  very  different  lot  from  that,  which 
 
 This  fiagrnont,  containing  so  much  that  is  interesting,  con- 
 cerning Dr.  Priestley,  will,  1  conceive,  not  be  unacceptable 
 to  the  reader ;  and  altliough  I  consider  the  bright  parts  of  (he 
 character,  to  have  been  too  highly  emblaaoned  by  Dr.  Parr, 
 the  darker  spots  to  have  been  too  sparingly  touched  by  my 
 much  valued  correspondent,  and  some  important  points  to 
 have  been  entirely  overlooked  by  both,  yet  1  cannot  withhold 
 from  the  memory  of  a  man  certainly  possessed  of  many  amia, 
 ble  qualities,  and  some  extraordinary  endowments,  a  tribute, 
 to  which,  two  persons,  eminent  for  their  worth  and  their  at, 
 taiiniients,  have  conceived  him  !o  be  justly  entitled. 
 
 *  ''  Vv'e  are,  as  it  were,  laying  gun^powder,  grain  by  grain, 
 under  the  old  building  of  error  and  superstition,  which  a 
 hingle  spark  may  hereafter  inllame,  so  as  to  produce  an  instan. 
 tanious  explosion." — Imparl ancc  of  Free  Enquiry,  p.  40. 
 What  Dr.  P.  means  by  tlie  old  bnildlng  of  error  and  snpcrsii^ 
 lion,  the  context  sulficiently  explains.  On  the  impossibility 
 i>f  sui^porting  the  ecclesiastical  constitution,  if  once  a  great 
 
APPENDIX.  423 
 
 has  fallen  to  Dr.  Priestley,  would  await  liim. 
 The  privilege  of  transferring  his  residence  to 
 another  land,  unless  indeed  it  were  to  that  land 
 from  which  no  traveller  returns,  would  hardly  be 
 conceded.  Our  enlightened  philosophers,  of  the 
 present  day,  adopt  on  these  occasions  much 
 simpler  modes  of  proceeding:  and  a  peep  across 
 the  British  Channel,  may  readily  satisfy  us  as  to 
 
 majority  of  the  people  can  be  made  hostile  to  it;  and  on  "  the 
 power  of  small  changes  in  the  political  state  of  things,  to  over- 
 turn the  best  compacted  establishments,"  he  likewise  enlarges 
 with  much  earnestness,  and  force:  ibid.  pp.  39.  41.  44.  The 
 fittest  seasons,  and  best  opportunities,  for  i-z'/e/i//!/  working  out 
 the  great  effects,  which  he  here  professes  to  hold  in  view,  this 
 writer  had  before  communicated  to  his  fellow  labourer  Mr. 
 Lindsey,  in  the  dedication  of  his  History  of  Corruptions^ 
 pp.  vi.  vii. — "  While  the  attention  of  men  in  power,  is  en- 
 grossed by  the  difTiculties  that  more  immediately  press  upon 
 them,  the  endeavour  of  the  friends  of  reformation,  in  points  of 
 doctrine,  pass  with  less  notice^  and  operate  zcithout  obstruct 
 tionJ*^  Times  of  public  danger  and  difficulty  are  thus 
 pointed  out,  as  best  suited  to  lay  that  train,  which  was  finally 
 to  explode  with  the  ruin  of  the  establishment.  And  indeed,  at 
 an  earlier  period  of  life,  he  had  even  ventured  to  promisehimself 
 a  more  rapid  accomplishment  of  the  great  object  of  his  wishes. 
 Speaking  of  the  establishment,  and  those  abuses  which  he 
 ascribes  to  the  principles  of  the  hierarcliy,  he  does  not  scruple 
 io  predict,  that  in  "  some  general  convulsion  of  the  state,  some 
 bold  hand,  secretly  impelled  by  a  vengeful  providence,  shall 
 sweep  down  the  whole  together." — Vleic  of  the  Principlea  and 
 Conduct  of  the  Protestant  Dissenters^  p.  12.— Passages  con- 
 veying similar  sentiments  in  the  waitings  of  Dr.  Priestley,  might 
 be  accumulated:  but  their  notoriety  renders  it  unnecessary. 
 
 E  E  4 
 
424  APPENDIX. 
 
 the  nature  of  the  process,  where  tliere  is  no 
 ^'  lucrative  fable  of  Jesus  Christ"  to  be  main- 
 tained; 7W  "  established^  clergy  to  breathe  the 
 fiery  spirit  of  persecution;"  and  where  the  rights 
 of  civil  and  religious  man,  are  explained  and 
 exercised^  upon  the  broadest  principles  of  a  philo- 
 sophy, untrammelled,  even  to  Mr.  B.'s  most  san- 
 guine wishes. 
 
 One  distinction  between  the  two  cases  may 
 indeed  possibly  exist.  The  professors  of  an  all- 
 perfect  philosophy  and  a  Rational  Christianity, 
 hnounag  theirs  to  be  the  cause  of  virtue,  and 
 acting  only  from  a  love  of  truth,  are  meritorious 
 in  removing,  by  ivhatever  means,  all  impediments 
 to  the  accomplishment  of  ends  so  glorious,  as 
 those  they  hold  in  view :  whereas  the  advocates 
 of  received  doctrines,  and  of  existing  establish- 
 ments, not  even  believing  what  they  profess,  and 
 being  only  concerned  to  defend  a  lucrative  false- 
 hoodj  are,  by  the  original  sin  of  their  cause,  cri- 
 minal in  the  performance  of  every  act,  however 
 natural  and  necessary,  which  has  a  tendency  to 
 maintain  it.  This  distinction  may,  possibly  supply 
 a  satisfactgry  explanation: — but  to  proceed. 
 
 As  I  cannot  entirely  agree  with  Mr.  Belsham, 
 respecting  the  persecution  carried  on  by  the  esta- 
 blished clergy,  against  those,  who,  under  the  title 
 of  Unitarians,  are,   as  Mr.  B.  affirms,   the  only 
 
 *  It  will  be  recollected  that  this  was  written  in  the  year 
 18C0. 
 
APPENDIX.  425 
 
 professors  of  a  fure  Christianity  ;  so  neither  do 
 \,  respecting  that,  which  he  deems  a  natural  con- 
 sequence of  this  persecution,  the  great  encrease  of 
 this  body  in  numbers  and  consequence.  Possibly 
 indeed,  without  making  any  very  valuable  con- 
 cession to  Mr.  B.  it  might  be  admitted,  that 
 "  the  number  of  /i<2;^/o;?a/ Christians,"  (by  which 
 he  means  Unitarians,  or  the  professors  of  his 
 Moral  Christianity,)  "  was  never  so  great  as  at 
 present;"* — a  position,  which,  at  the  same  time, 
 but  badly  accords  with  the  assertion,  that  the 
 early  christian  church  was  almost  exclusively 
 Unitarian.  But,  that  "  it  is  still  a  progressive 
 cause,'*  can  by  no  means  be  allowed.  So  that 
 Mr.  B.  may  safely  release  his  mind  from  all 
 apprehensions  of  that,  which  he  so  sincerely 
 deprecates,  "  the  support o^ c\w\\  authority;"  from 
 which  he  seems  to  dread  the  only  impediment  to 
 its  triumphant  progress. 
 
 If  indeed,  by  "  a  progressive  cause/'  be  meant 
 a  progression  in  its  course  to  that,  which  seems 
 its  natural  termination,  Deism ;  it  might,  un- 
 doubtedly, in  that  sense,  be  admitted  to  be  pro- 
 gressive. But,  if  thereby  be  meant,  a  continued 
 encrease  of  numbers,  nothing  can  be  more  oji- 
 posite  to  the  real  state  of  the  case.  For  let  any 
 candid  and  reflecting  man,  even  of  this  very 
 cjenomination^  lay  his  hand  upon  his  heart,  and 
 
 *   Jieviczcj  p.  198. 
 
426  APPENDIX. 
 
 say  what  he  thhiks  likely  to  be  the  case  of  the 
 rising  generation,  educated  in  the  Unitarian 
 principles:  let  him  say,  what  has  been  the  case 
 of  those  educated  in  the  strait  est  principles  of 
 the  sect^  under  the  immediate  instruction  of  its 
 greatest  luminaries.  Dr.  Priestley  and  Mr.  Bel- 
 sham,  at  the  Academy  of  Hackney.  Let  Mr. 
 B.  himself  say,  what  has  been  the  progressive 
 nature  of  the  cause  in  that  seminary.  Mr.  B. 
 has  too  great  a  regard  for  truth,  not  to  admit, 
 that  the  pupils  of  the  new  light  had  gone  beyond 
 their  teachers  a  little  too  far:  that  they  had 
 somewhat  too  strongly*  exemplified  the  progres- 
 
 *  Mr.  Belsham  himself,  in  speaking  of  this  subject,  is  ob. 
 iiged  in  a  great  measure  to  acknowledge  the  truth  of  this 
 chart^e.  "  This  fact,"  (he  says,  alluding  to  a  statement 
 similar  to  the  above  made  by  Mr.  Carpenter,)  "  to  a  certain 
 extent,  cannot  be  denied;  and  most  surely,  it  excited  un- 
 pleasing  sensations  in  many,  and  not  least  in  the  minds  of 
 those,  whose  endeavours  to  form  them  to  usefulness  in  the 
 Church  were  thus  painfully  disappointed." — However,  imme- 
 diately after,  he  seems,  in  the  contrast  between  the  systems 
 pursued  at  Hackney  and  in  other  seminaries  where  education 
 is  conducted  on  a  different  principle,  to  change  the  tone  of 
 lamentation  on  this  head  into  a  note  of  triumph.  It  is  an 
 easy  thing,"  he  remarks,  "  for  tutors  to  educate  their  pupils 
 in  the  trammels  of  any  religious  faith  which  they  may  chuse. 
 Take  away  the  key  of  knowledge,  and  the  business  is  done. 
 You  bring  them  out  at  once  Calvinists,  Arians,  Papists, 
 Protestants,  any  thing  that  you  please;  and  ready  to  join  in 
 the  cry  against  any  sect,  which,  for  (he  season,  may  be  ob- 
 noxious to  the  ruling  party.     This  was  not  the  method  pur- 
 
APPENDIX.  427 
 
 sive  nature  of  the  system,  by  reaching  at  once 
 the  goal  of  Deism;  and  that  in  some  instances, 
 
 suofl  at  Hackney:  they  gloried  in  encouraging  freedom  of 
 inquiry  :  nor  were  they  at  all  apprehensive,  that  the  interest! 
 of  truth  and  virtue  would  sutler  by  it  in  the  end."  (Lctter9 
 on  ArUmism,  p.  40.)  — Thus,  Mr.  Bclsham,  on  second 
 thoughts,  is  of  opinion,  that  what  was  done  in  Hackney,  it 
 a  thing  to  be  gloried  in  :  and  that  in  educating  those  who 
 were  designed  for  the  christian  ministry,  so  as  to  render 
 them  infidels  and  atheists,  "  the  interests  of  truth  and  virtue 
 cannot  sutler  in  the  end." 
 
 But,  that  we  may  the  better  form  a  right  judgment  of  that, 
 which  is  conceived  to  constitute  the  excellence  of  those  dis- 
 senting academies,  to  which  such  friends  of  rational  inquiry 
 as  Mr.  Bclsham  and  Dr.  Priestley  have  been  used  to  look  for 
 the  real  improvement  of  youth,  I  here  give  an  extract  from 
 Dr.  Priestley's  Memoirs  relative  to  this  subject.  In  my  time, 
 the  academy  was  in  a  state  peculzarli/  favourable  to  the  serious 
 pursuit  of  truth ^  as  the  students  zoere  about  equaltjj  divided 
 upon  everi)  question  of  much  importance^  such  as  liberfij  and 
 necessitij^  the  sleep  of  the  soul^  and  all  the  articles  of  theolo- 
 gical orthodoxy  and  heresy ;  in  consequence  of  which,  all 
 these  topics  were  the  subjects  of  continual  discussion.  Our 
 tutors  were  of  different  opinions;  Dr.  Ashworth  taking  the 
 orthodox  side;  Mr.  Clarke,  the  sub.tutor,    that  of  heresy, 
 
 though  always  with  the  greatest  modesty." Here  is  a  view 
 
 of  the  true  way,  in  which,  under  the  guidance  of  the  new 
 lights  of  philosophy  and  religion,  youth  is  to  be  led  on 
 ^'  inter  sylvas  Academi  quserere  verum."  The  calm  and 
 undisturbed  retirement  of  study  exchanged  for  the  unceasing 
 wrangling  of  a  debating  club.  Tutor  and  sub.tutor,  master 
 and  pupil,  all  together  by  the  ears,  continually,  on  the 
 gravest  and  deepest  subjects  of  theological  controversy. 
 And  the  sublimest  truths  and  most  awful  mysteries  of  reve, 
 
 I 
 
428  APPENDIX. 
 
 perhaps  not  a  few,  the  race  had  been  crowned 
 with  the  prize,  of  direct,  avowed,  and  unquahtied 
 Atheism. 
 
 lation  bandied  about  amongst  boys,  as  the  common  and 
 hourly  topics  of  disputation  :  whilst  the  parties  of  combatants 
 on  every  subject  are  equally  matched,  and  falsehood  and 
 truth,  infidelity  and  religion  maintained  by  equal  numbers. 
 Under  such  circumstances  of  education,  it  has  been  truly 
 remarked  in  reference  to  Dr.  Priestley,  that  in  the  course, 
 which  by  his  own  account  he  steered  in  his  theological  opi- 
 nions, there  is  nothing  to  excite  surprize.  "  A  Calvinist  at 
 twelve;  becoming  an  Arminian  at  eighteen;  at  twenty-one 
 an  Arian ;  at  twenty-four  a  djenier  of  his  Saviour,  and  a  dis- 
 believer in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. — Miserable  in- 
 fatuation! (it  is  justly  added)  to  set  the  stripling  on  a  sea,  of 
 which  he  knows  neither  the  soundings  nor  the  shore;  and 
 calmly  to  see  him  rush  to  every  point  of  the  compass,  before 
 he  knows  the  bearings  of  any  I'* 
 
 But  this  Academy,  which  was  "  in  a  state  so  peculiarly 
 favourable  to  the  serious  pursuit  of  truth,"  was  distinguished 
 by  other  circumstances  enumerated  by  Dr.  Priestley,  which 
 were  perhaps  not  less  favourable  to  that  end,  than  those 
 which  have  been  already  named.  "  There  was  no  provision 
 for  teaching  the  learned  languages.  AVe  had  even  no  com- 
 positions, or  orations,  in  latin.  Our  course  of  lectures  was 
 also  defective,  in  containing  no  lectures  on  the  Scriptures  or 
 on  ecclesiastical  history ;  and  by  the  students  in  general 
 (and  Mr.  Alexander  and  myself  were  no  exceptions)  com- 
 mentators in  general,  and  ecclesiastical  history  also,  were 
 held  in  contempt.''^ — (Memoirs  of  Dr,  Priestlci/,  p.  21.) — 
 Thus,  all  the  prejudices  of  ancient  learning,  which  might 
 have  acted  as  so  many  clogs  upon  the  youthful  genius,  were 
 completely  removed;  and  nothing  hindered  the  boy  of  the 
 academy  from  fancying  himself  at  once  arrived  at  lliat  gonl. 
 
APPENDIX.  429 
 
 ]VIr.  Belsham  affirms,  that  '■  Mr.  Wilberforce, 
 and  others  who  agree  with  him,  seldom  regard 
 their  system  in  a  comprehensive  view,  or  pursue 
 their  principles  to  their  just  and  necessary  con- 
 sequences:"* and  he  adds,  that  "  it  is  from  the 
 absurd  and  injurious  consequences,  which  neces- 
 sarily result  from  Mr.  W.'s  principles,  that  he 
 infers  their  falsehood  and  impiety ."-{^  No  words 
 can  more  aptly  convey  my  ideas  of  Mr.  B.'s 
 scheme,  than  those  with  which  he  has  here  sup- 
 plied me:  for,  strange,  as  this  gentleman  and 
 those  who  think  with  him,  may  aifect  to  con- 
 sider the  charge,  they  by  no  means  follow  up 
 their  principles  to  their  just  and  necessary  con- 
 sequences; nor,  whilst  they  boast  in  a  loud  and 
 exulting  tone  of  their  dauntless  pursuit  after 
 truth,  have  they  aUvays  the  courage  to  be  con- 
 sistent throughout,  and  to  advance  boldly  in  the 
 face  of  those  conclusions,  which  to  any  intelligent 
 and  unprejudiced  mind  could  not  fail  to  evince 
 "  the  falsehood  and  impiety"  of  the  system.  But 
 Mr.  B.  himself  has  well  remarked,  that  "  the 
 natural  and  necessary  consequences  of  principles 
 are  the  same,  whether  the  advocates  of  such 
 piinciples  are  apprized  of  them  or  not,  and  wlie- 
 ther  they  do  or  do  not  chuse  to  contemplate  and 
 
 which,  in  the  more  measured-  walks  of  science,  the  matured 
 student  feels  many  laborious  eftbrts  still  requisite  to  attain. 
 *  P.  10.  i  P.  11. 
 
430  APPENDIX. 
 
 avow  them  :*'*  and  fact  completely  proves,  what 
 reason  would  obviously  suggest,  that  where  the 
 principles  of  this  new  sect  have  been  fairly  and 
 honestly  followed  on  to  their  legitimate  conse- 
 quences, the  system  of  revelation,  and  in  many 
 cases  of  theism,  has  been  entirely  thrown  up  as 
 a  heap  of  mummery  and  priestcraft.  To  cite 
 particular  instances  were  invidious ;  but  they  are 
 numerous,  and  could  easily  be  adduced. 
 
 By  what  has  been  said,  it  is  however  far  from 
 my  intention,  to  charge  either  Dr.  Priestley  or 
 Mr.  Belsham,  with  a  disingenuous  attempt,  to 
 escape  from  such  consequences,  as  naturally  flow 
 from  the  opinions  which  they  maintain.  No,  I 
 believe  them  both  to  be  incapable  of  duplicity. 
 But,  originally  educated,  as  both  confess  to  have 
 been,  in  the  strictest  tenets  of  that  creed,  whose 
 distinguishing  doctrines  they  now  reject ;  and 
 having  at  an  early  age  entertained  a  full  convic- 
 tion of  the  truth  and  importance  of  the  Chris- 
 tian scheme;  some  latent  influence  of  their  first 
 persuasion  naturally  remaining,  they  cannot  now 
 release  themselves  entirely  from  a  Christian  be- 
 Hef.  Strangely  as  they  have  altered  and  disfigured 
 the  structure,  the  foundation  still  remains.  The 
 first  impressions  of  the  youthful  mind  are  not 
 easily  eflfaced.  And  fortunately  for  these  gen- 
 tlemen, something  of  "  what  the  nurse  and  priest 
 have  taught/'    still  continues^  in  spite  of  their 
 
 ♦P.  u. 
 
APPENDIX.  431 
 
 boast  to  the  contrary,  to  retain  a  secret  hold  npoa 
 their  thoughts.  To  have  a  fair  experiment  of 
 the  system,  we  must  look  to  its  effects  upon 
 those,  who  have  never  known  Christianity,  but 
 in  the  Unitarian  dress  of  Mr.  Belsham  and  Dr. 
 Priestley.  Examine  these,  and  behold  its  ge- 
 nuine fruits. 
 
 How  then  can  we  admit  the  truth  of  Mr.  B.'s 
 assertion,  that   the  numbers  of  this  sect  daily  * 
 
 *  The  writer  of  a  judicious  paper  in  a  late  periodical  publica« 
 tion,  makes  the  following  observations  on  the  nature  of  the  Uni- 
 tarian or  Socinian  sect,  and  on  the  unlikelihood  of  its  exten- 
 sion.— "  Socinianism  must  ever  from  its  nature  be  the  most 
 harmless  of  all  heresies,  the  least  contagious  of  all  the  varieties 
 of  human  opinion.  It  has  been  called,  and  how  aptly  the  his- 
 tory of  its  Hackney  Academy  and  all  its  other  institutions  may 
 prove,  the  half-way  house  to  infidelity  :  but  it  should  be  remem- 
 bered, that  many  who  set  out  on  the  pilgrim's.progress  of  in- 
 quiry, take  up  their  place  of  rest  there,  who,  if  there  were  no 
 such  inn  upon  the  road,  would  infallibly  proceed  to  Doubting 
 Castle.  It  is  a  system  which  saves  men  from  utter  unbelief 
 more  frequently  than  it  tempts  them  to  it;  and  it  never  can 
 become  a  popular  doctrine.  It  appeals  to  the  vanity  of  the 
 half-learned,  and  the  pride  of  the  half-reasoning :  but  it  nei- 
 ther interests  the  imagination,  nor  awakens  the  feelings,  nor 
 excites  the  passions,  nor  satisfies  the  wants  of  the  human 
 heart.  Hence  it  must  ever  be  confined  to  a  few  scanty  con- 
 gregations composed  wholly  of  the  reading  class,  and  is 
 equally  incapable  of  producing  either  extensive  good  or  ex- 
 tensive evil."  Qnarierlif  Review^  vol.  iv.  p.  485.  With 
 this  writer  I  entirely  agree  in  the  opinion,  that  this  jejune 
 and  cheerless  heresy  is  not  likely  to  be  embraced  by  many ; 
 
432  APPENDIX. 
 
 encrease  ?  In  one  way  indeed,  but  in  that  way 
 only,  can  it  bear  any  resemblance  to  fact  Men, 
 who,  having  rejected  the  Christian  revelation, 
 are  yet  restrained,  by  a  regard  to  opinion  and 
 decorum,  from  openly  abdicating  the  Christian 
 name,  may  find  it  not  inconvenient  to  rank  them- 
 selves of  a  class,  whose  latitude  of  opinion  can 
 occasion  but  little  embarrassment  to  that  freedom 
 for  which  they  contend :  and  thus  Mr.  B.  may 
 possibly  reckon  among  the  residents  of  his  "  man- 
 sion,'* many  who  are  content  to  sojourn  there, 
 on  account  of  its  commodious  neighbourhood  to 
 that  region,  which  they  regard  as  their  true  and 
 proper  home. 
 
 One  proof,  however,  Mr.  B.  produces  of  his 
 assertion,  which  might  not  have  occurred  to 
 many,  and  which  is  entitled  to  a  more  than  or- 
 dinary degree  of  attention:  namely,  that  "  there 
 are  thousands"  of  those  professing  themselves  of 
 the  established  church,  who  think  with  him, 
 '^  but  are  deterred  by  secular  considerations,  and 
 the  harsh  spirit  of  the  times,  from  avowing  their 
 
 but  dmt  so  far  as  its  influence  does  extend,  it  will  be  found 
 productive  of  great  evil  without  any  counteryailing  good,  is, 
 1  think,  as  evident,  as  that  such  an  effect  must  follow  from  a 
 dereliction  of  all  the  leading  tenets  of  a  Christian's  belief:  nor, 
 I  confess,  does  it  appear  to  me  a  matter  of  much  consequence, 
 whether  the  traveller,  of  whom  the  Reviewer  speaks,  proceeds 
 on  his  entire  journey,  or  stops  short  at  the  inn  which  Uuita- 
 rianism  provides  for  him  on  the  way. 
 2 
 
APPENDIX.  433 
 
 real  principles."^  Indeed  according  to  the  cha- 
 ritable notions  entertained  by  Mr.  B.  in  common 
 with  Dr.  Priestley j-j-  of  the  character  of  those 
 who  maintain  the  national  faith,  it  is  not  sur- 
 prizing,   that  this   should  appear,    to   minds  so 
 
 *  P.  227. 
 +  Mr.  Belsham's  liberal  views  of  the  character  of  the 
 clergy  of  the  established  church,  have  been  already  noticed, 
 in  this  appendix  pp.  414,  415.  Dr.  Priestley's  represcn. 
 tations  are  of  a  nature  equally  complimentary.  In  his  Uist. 
 of  Cor.  vol.  i.  }).  147.  he  says  of  the  Trinitarians  of  the  pre- 
 sent age,  that  "  they  are  all  reducible  to  two  classes,  viz. 
 that  of  those  who,  if  they  were  ingenuous,  would  rank  with 
 Socinians,  believing  that  there  is  no  proper  divinity  in  Christ 
 besides  that  of  the  father;  or  else  with  Tritheists,  holding 
 three  equal  and  distinct  Gods."  Having  thus  distributed 
 the  whole  body  of  professed  Trinitarians  between  Insincerity 
 and  Ignorance^  he  afterwards  in  the  conclusion  of  the  same 
 work,  (vol.  ii.  p.  471.)  narrows  his  attention  to  the  clerical 
 part  of  that  body,  pronouncing  their  arguments  in  defence  of 
 the  system  they  support,  to  be  "  so  palpably  weak,  that  it  is 
 larely  possible  they  should  be  in  earnest :"  by  which  it  is 
 not  difficult  to  discover,  to  which  of  the  two  classes  before 
 named,  the  established  clergy  were  in  his  opinion  to  be  con- 
 signed.—That  Dr.  Priestley  should,  indeed,  have  imagined, 
 that  many,  who  rejected  the  doctrines  of  the  Established 
 Church  might  yet  be  found  among  the  ranks  of  its  professed 
 teachers,  may  well  be  supposed,  when  we  find,  that  he  deli, 
 berately  advised  Mr.  Lindsey  to  retain  his  preferments  in 
 the  Church,  at  the  same  time  that  he  laboured  to  undermine 
 its  creed:  an  advice,  however,  which  the  Hector  of  Cat- 
 terick  was  too  honest  to  comply  with,  although  it  might  not 
 be  unpalatable  to  certain  clergymen  of  the  present  day  j  such 
 as  Mr.  Feilowe§  and  Mr.  Stone. 
 VOL.  II.  F  F 
 
434  APPENDIX. 
 
 prepared^  with  all  the  circumstances  of  proba- 
 bihty.  And  certainly  no  argument  can  be  more 
 convenient:  from  no  combination  of  events  can 
 its  force  suffer  any  diminution,  and  from  no 
 ingenuity  of  reply  can  it  ever  meet  refutation. 
 Though  the  entire  host  of  those  professing  the 
 j)ure  Christianity  of  the  Unitarian,  were  osten- 
 sibly reduced  to  Dr.  P.  and  himself,  yet  by  the 
 application  of  this  argument,  aided  by  a  por- 
 tion of  that  faith,  which  not  having  been  largely 
 expended  on  other  subjects,  Mr.  B.  might  have 
 to  bestow  in  abundance  on  this  and  similar  oc- 
 casions, I  should  not  be  surprized  to  find  him 
 solacing  himself  even  then  with  the  satisfactory 
 persuasion,  that  the  "  glorious  period"  w^as  fast 
 approaching^  in  which  '^  the  Unitarian  church" 
 was  about  to  "  comprehend  in  its  ample  enclo- 
 sure, the  whole  Christianized  w'orldf*  the  pre- 
 judices and  interests  of  mankind,  causing  but  a 
 temporary  and  artificial  suppression  of  those  sen- 
 timents;^ which  must  necessarily  and  universally 
 prevail.  This  argument  then  I  must  admit  to 
 be  wholly  unanswerable. 
 
 Dr.  Priestley  has  indeed  advanced,  that  he 
 "  never  knew  a  single  instance  of  any  person, 
 who  was  once  well  grounded  in  Unitarian  prin- 
 ciples, becoming  an  unbeliever.''-}-  If  the  be- 
 coming an  unbeliever,  be  admitted  as  the  proper 
 
 *  Review,  p.  266. 
 t  TheoL  Repos,  vol.  iv.  p.  2 1. 
 
APPENDIX.  435 
 
 proof  of  an  antecedent  deficiency  of  confirma- 
 tion in  Unitarian  principles,  the  position  is  a 
 safe  one.  But  if  Dr.  P.  means  to  say,  that  the 
 influence  of  Unitarian  principles  is  unfavourable 
 to  infidelity,  it  need  only  be  replied,  that  the 
 fact  speaks  a  language  directly  the  reverse.  For 
 it  is  notorious,  and  it  will  require  no  small  de- 
 gree of  hardihood  to  deny  it,  that  from  those 
 who  have  professed  Unitarianism  in  England, 
 the  largest  stock  of  unbelievers  has  arisen :  na}^ 
 more,  that  their  principal  Academy,  the  place  in 
 which  Unitarian  principles  were  inculcated  in 
 their  greatest  purity  and  with  every  advantage 
 of  zealous  ability  in  the  teacher,  and  of  unbiassed 
 docility  in  the  learner,  has  borne  witness  to  the 
 eflBcacy  of  those  principles,  by  its  dissolution, 
 imperiously  demanded  by  the  prevalence  of  In- 
 fidel opinions.  Now  in  what  way  shall  we 
 account  for  this  event  ?  Was  Unitarianism  not 
 properly  taught  at  Hackney?  Or,  with  all  its 
 vaunted  simplicity,  is  it  a  scheme  so  diflicult  to 
 conceive,  that  the  learners  not  being  able  to 
 comprehend  it  rightly,*  became  unbelievers  from 
 
 *■  Indeed  Mr,  B.  seems  to  represent  Unitarianism,  as  a 
 matter  complicated  and  difficult  to  be  understood.  For  the 
 total  rejection  of  Christianity  by  some  of  his  Unitarian 
 brethren,  he  assigns  the  following  reasons.  '•  They  either 
 did  not  understand  their  principles ;  or  they  vfeie  perplexed 
 zsUh  difficulties^  which  perhaps  patience  and  attention  might 
 have  solved;  or"  &c.  ReviezD,  p.  26j. 
 Ff  2 
 
436  APPENDIX. 
 
 not  having  been  firmly  grounded  9  Howsoever 
 it  be  explained,  the  fact  is  incontrovertible,  and 
 seen)s  not  a  little  to  countenance  the  idea,  that 
 the  road  to  Unitarianism  differs  from  that  which 
 leads  to  Infidelity  by  so  slight  a  distinction,  that 
 the  traveller  not  unfrequently  mistakes  his  way. 
 And  surely,  if,  with  Mr.  Wilberforce,  we  sup- 
 pose the  station  of  the  former  to  be  placed  at  no 
 great  distance  from  the  confines  of  the  latter,  it 
 is  not  surprizing,  that  they  who  in  the  morning 
 of  life  begin  their  journey  from  this  advanced 
 stage,  should  be  able  to  finish  the  entire  course 
 with  ease ;  whilst  those  who  do  not  reach  it  till 
 the  evening  of  their  days,  may  have  some  indis- 
 position to  proceed,  especially  if  from  early 
 habits,  they  had  been  taught  to  feel  a  salutary 
 horror,  of  those  regions  that  lie  beyond. 
 
 One  difficulty,  amounting  to  paradox,  which 
 attaches  to  this  entire  system,  yet  remains  to 
 be  noticed.  It  might  appear  to  such  as  have 
 been  used  to  consider  Christianity,  as  something 
 jnore  than  natural  religion  with  a  superadded 
 proof  of  a  future  state  of  retribution,  that  they 
 who  hold  this  to  be  the  sum  of  the  Christian 
 scheme,  must  at  the  same  time  reject  the  writ- 
 ings of  the  New  Testament,  or  at  least  all  those 
 parts  that  go  beyond  the  mere  facts,  of  the  life 
 find  resurrection  of  Christ.  Mr.  B.  however 
 informs  us,  in  what  manner  the  Unitarians 
 Tivhilst  they  retain  the  title  of  Christians  by  ac- 
 
APPENDIX.  437 
 
 knovvledging  the  authority  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment, yet  contrive  to  preserve  their  '^  simple 
 creed,"  unaffected  by  those  important  truths 
 which  it  contains.  There  are  two  vvays^,  in 
 which  the  word  of  revelation,  and  a  system  of 
 rehgious  belief  may  be  made  to  square.  One  is, 
 by  conforming  our  belief  to  revelation:  the 
 other,  by  adjusting  the  revelation  to  our  belief. 
 The  latter  is  that  chosen  by  Mr.  B.  and  his 
 Unitarian  associates;  and  accordingly,  the  New 
 Testament,  and  the  creed  of  the  Unitarian,  aye 
 at  the  same  time,  without  difficulty  retained. 
 
 Of  the  mode  of  adjustment  Mr.  B.  exhibits  a 
 perfect  specimen.  Christ,  he  says,  being  described 
 in  the  New  Testament  as  a  man,  having  appeared 
 as  a  man,  having  called  himself  a  man, — having 
 had  all  the  accidents  of  a  man;  having  been  born, 
 having  lived,  eaten,  drank,  slept,  conversed,  rejoic- 
 ed, w^ept,  suffered,  and  died  as  other  men,*'  there  is 
 sufficient  reason  to  pronounce  him  really  such  ; 
 no  farther  proof  can  be  required:  and  the  onus 
 pr.obandi,  he  contends,  lies  with  them,  who 
 "  maintain  that  he  was  something  more  than 
 man :"  and  whatever  texts  of  scripture  can  be 
 adduced  in  support  of  that  opinion,  he  adds, 
 "  the  Unitarians  pledge  themselves  to  shew,  that 
 they  are  all  either  interpolated^  corrupted^  or, 
 rnisunderstood:"^^  in  short,  they  engage  to  get 
 
 *Revieio,  pp.270,  271,272. 
 F  f3 
 
^38  APPENDIX, 
 
 clearly  rid  of  them  in  some  way  or  other.     Either 
 the  pas;sage  should  have  no  place  in  scripture:  or, 
 if  it  must  be  admitted,  it  should  appear  under 
 some   different  modification:  or,  if  the  present 
 reading  must  be  allowed,  it  is  wrongly  interpreted 
 by  all  but   Unitarians;  and  sometimes  even  the 
 subject  originally  misunderstood  by  the  inspired 
 writer  himself:  until,  at  length,  the  sacred  volume 
 is  completely  discharged  of  all  that  exceeds  the 
 convenient  and  portable  creed  of  the  Unitarian. 
 This,  it  will  be  allowed,  is,  in  Mr.  B.'s  own  words, 
 ^'  maJihig  Scripture  with  a  witness:"^  and  exhi- 
 bits no  mean  specimen  of  my  Lord  Peter's  inge- 
 nious device,  in  extracting  the  legitimate  meaning 
 of  his  father's  will:  the  "  totidem  syllabis,"  or  at 
 all  events  the  "  totidem  literis,"   cannot  fail  to 
 supply  the  deficiencies  of  the  "  totidem  verbis."-!* 
 Lest  however  these  ingenious  modes  of  elicit- 
 ing the  sense  of  scripture,  should  be  deemed  too 
 bold,  Mr.  B.  supplies  a  decisive  reason  to  prove, 
 that  the  Unitarian  alone  is  duly  qualified,  to  form 
 a  sound  judgment  in  matters  of  sacred  criticism. 
 To  comprehend  the  true  import  of  scripture,  he 
 informs  us,  "  requires  time,  labour,  patience  and 
 candour.":!:     How  then  could  it  be  expected,  that 
 any  but  the  aforesaid   moral  teachers  of  Chris- 
 tianity,  should    rightly   ascertain    its   meaning?. 
 
 *  Rcviczcy  p.  116.  +  Talc  of  a  Tub,  sect.  ii. 
 
 %  Reviezc^  p.  272. 
 
APPENDIX.  439 
 
 That  this  laborious,  patient,  and  candid  expurga- 
 tion of  scripture,  whereby  every  passage  intimat- 
 ing the  divine  nature  of  Christ  is  completely  ex- 
 punged, or  nevi'  modelled  so  as  to  speak  a  different 
 language,  should  be  stigmatized  by  the  harsli 
 representation,  of  "  mangling  and  altering  the 
 translation  to  the  mind"  of  the  Unitarian,  as  Mr. 
 Fuller  and  Mr.  Wilberforce  have,  it  seems,  very 
 uncivilly  described  it,  only  serves  to  recall  to  Mr. 
 Belsham's  "  recollection  the  honest  quaker's 
 exclamation,  O  argument!  O  argument!  the  Lord 
 rebuke  thee  f^  the  argument  being  without  ques- 
 
 *  This  animated  and  delicate  species  of  Irony  is,  with  Mr, 
 Belsham,  a  favourite  mode  of  treating  his  literary  antagonists. 
 Having,  in  his  controversy  with  Mr.  Carpenter,  established 
 the  inconsistency  of  man's  freedom  with  the  divine  foreknow- 
 ledge, on  such  principles,  that,  as  he  modestly  affirms,  "  no 
 proposition  in  Euclid  admits   of  a  more  perfect  demonstrum 
 tion ;"    he  suddenly   recollects   himself, — "  But  all  this  is 
 metaphysical  reasoning;  and  why  should  we  puzzle  ourselves 
 with  metaphysical  subtilties?"  And  then  in  a  spirit  of  huv/ia- 
 nity,  sympathizing  most  tenderly  with  his  galled  and  lacerated 
 opponent,    he  exclaims, — "  O   naughtif   metaphysics  I   thus 
 cruelly  to  impale  azcorthi/  zcell-meaning  gentleman,  upon  the 
 horns  of  a  goring  dilemma,  and  to  leave  him  writhing  and 
 smarting  there  without  relief. — I  am  sorry  for  my  friend's 
 unfortunate  situation,"  kc.     (Lett,  on  Arian.  p.  47.)  and  so 
 he  goes  on  grieving  for  the  cruel  discomfiture  which  he  had 
 himself  caused  to  his  friend;  but  which,  it  seems,  lie  could 
 not  well  have  avoided,  from   the  uncommon  keenness  of  his 
 argumentative  talent,  and  the  piercing  potency  of  his  Meta- 
 physics.— It  should  however  be  observed,  to  the  credit  of 
 F  f  4 
 
440  APPENDIX. 
 
 tion,  all  on  the  side  of  the  Unitarian,  whose 
 modifications  of  the  Gospel,  exhibiting  it  as  a 
 mere  revival  and  confirmation  of  natural  religion, 
 
 Mr.  Belsham,  that  he  has  not  been  Influenced  by  any  unworthy 
 fear,  to  withhold  from  the  Avorld,  the  knowledge  of  the  nature 
 and  use  of  those  all-subduing  weapons,  which  have  never 
 failed  to  secure  to  him  such  easy  triumphs  in  his  controversial 
 campaigns.  The  Logic  and  Metaphysic,  whereby  he  has  laid 
 many  a  sturdy  combatant  low,  he  has  fairly  given  to  the 
 public ;  and  it  is  now  the  fault  of  those,  with  whom  he  has 
 henceforward  to  contend,  if  they  do  not  conceive  with  the 
 same  clearness,  and  reason  with  the  same  precision,  as 
 himself. 
 
 On  the  work  which  exhibits  these,  and  which,  dignified 
 with  the  title  of  Elements  of  the  Philosophy  of  the  Mind  and- 
 of  Moral  Philosophy^  professes  to  give,  within  the  compass  of 
 one  octavo  volume,  a  most  complete  view  of  Logics,  Morals, 
 and  Metaphysics,  I  have  had  occasion  already  to  offer  some 
 remarks,  in  the  preceding  notes  of  this  appendix.  Those 
 remarks  however,  as  they  relate  for  the  most  part,  to  detached 
 topics,  rather  incidental  to  the  main  object  of  the  work  than 
 essentially  connected  with  it,  scarcely  supply  an  adequate  idea 
 of  its  true  value,  and  of  the  Benefits  which  must  have  accrued, 
 in  point  of  strict  reasoning  and  just  concepfions,  to  the  stu- 
 dents of  Hackney,  and  which  are  now  held  out  by  this  pub- 
 lication to  the  world  at  large.  1  shall  here  adduce  a  few 
 specimens,  which  go  more  immediately  to  its  general  excellence 
 as  a  treatise  of  Logical  and  Metaphysical  Instruction. — First, 
 in  the  list  of  axioms  we  find  the  following,  which  may  prove 
 the  degree  of  caution,  with  which  our  author  proceeds. — 
 *'  Axiom  4.  The  agreement  of  two  ideas  with  a  third,  cannot 
 prove  their  disagreement  with  each  other."  (p.  lii.) — By  this, 
 such  reasoners  as  are  naturally  led  to  conclude,  that  when 
 two  ideas  agree  with  a  third,  they  must  disagree  with  eacl\ 
 
 2 
 
APPENDIX.  441 
 
 cannot  fail  to  a])prove  themselves  to  all  "  men  of 
 enlightened  minds;"  whilst  the  old  orthodox  fan- 
 other,  are  completely  guarded  against  falling  into  this  Tulgar 
 error. — Again,  in  the  next  page,  we  are  apprized  of  a /en/?, 
 so  circumstanced,  as  that  it  may  become  a  proposition ; 
 namely,  the  major  term  in  a  Syllogism,  whose  major  premiss 
 is  a  particular  affirmative.  For  of  such  a  term  he  says,  "  If 
 it  be  the  subject,  it  is  particularly  taken  as  being  a  particular 
 proposition  ;''  and  again,  "  If  it  be  the  predicate,  it  is  par- 
 ticularly taken  as  being  an  ajjlrrnalive  proposition.''^  This 
 •will  provide  against  the  errors  of  those,  who  might  have  con- 
 ceived, that  the  term  would  still  remain  a  term^  and  could 
 never  have  turned  into  a  proposition  of  any  sort. — Again,  ia 
 the  matter  of  Definition^  we  find  much  more  of  copiousness 
 and  versatility  than  can  be  met  with  in  ordinary  treatises  of 
 Logics  and  Metaphysics.  The  definitions  with  which  the 
 work  commences,  are  those  of  Perception y  and  Sensation. 
 These  and  their  concomitants  we  find  thus  variously  pro^ 
 pounded. 
 
 1.  "  Perception  is  the  attention,  which  the  mind  pays 
 to  a  variety  of  impressions  made  upon  it  by  external 
 objects  or  by  internal  feelings." 
 
 2.  "  Perception  is  the  faculty,  by  which  we  acquire  sen* 
 sations  and  ideas." 
 
 3.  "  Sensation  is  the  perception  of  an  object  by  the 
 organs  of  sense." 
 
 4.  "  Sensation  is  the  faculty  of  acquiring  certain  inter- 
 nal feelings,  by  the  impression  of  external  objects 
 upon  the  organs  of  sense." 
 
 5.  "  A  Sensation^  is  the  impression  made  upon  the  mind 
 by  an  object  actually  present." 
 
 6.  "  Sensations  are  internal  feelings,  excited  by  the  Im- 
 pressions of  external  objects  upon  the  organs  of  sense." 
 Siee  pp.  vii.  10,  11.  15;  16^. 
 
442  APPENDIX. 
 
 cies,~ that  "  the  corruption  of  humuu  nature,  the 
 atonement  of  the  Saviour,  and  the  sanctifying 
 influence  of  the  holy  spirit/'  are  the  prominent 
 
 Now,  not  only  have  we  here  a  rich  variety  of  definitions, 
 but  such  as,  by  a  due  combination  of  their  powersj  is  found 
 capable  of  engendering  more.— Thus,  if  we  combine  the  second 
 and  fifth,  we  obtain  a  new  definition  for  Perception;  namely 
 *'  the  faculty  by  which  we  acquire  i?7iprcssions  made  upon 
 the  mind,"  &c. :  so  that  Perception  finally  turns  out  to  be 
 ifs  own  producer,  inasmuch  as  it  seeks  after  and  acquires 
 those  impressions,  from  which,  we  are  told  in  the  first  defini- 
 tion, it  derives  its  existence. — Again,  if  we  combine  the  first 
 and  sixth,  we  obtain  a  more  extensive  and  detailed  view  of 
 the  nature  of  Perception :  for  since  in  the  latter,  Sensations 
 are  described  as  a  species  of  "  internal  feelings  ^''^  it  follows, 
 that  ^'  Perception  is  the  attention  which  the  mind  pays  to  a 
 variety  of  impressions  made  upon  it,  1.  by  external  objects, 
 2,  by  Sensations^  3.  by  all  other  internal  feelings."     And, 
 lastly,  since  by  the  fifth  definition,  "  a  Sensation  is  an  im- 
 pression  made  upon  the  mind,"  if  we  join  this  in  friendly 
 union  with  the  two  former,  we  have  then  contained  in  the 
 definition  of  Perception^  "  an  attention  to  impressions  made 
 upon  the  mind,  by   impressions   which  are  made  upon  the 
 mind." — I  will  follow  this  no  farther.     I  do  not  pretend  to 
 exhaust  the  combinations  and  their  results:  these  few  perhaps 
 may  satisfy  the  reader. 
 
 Of  our  author's  uncommon  powers  in  definition^  I  shall 
 only  give  one  instance  more:  but  that  one  cannot  but  be 
 deemed  sufficient,  inasmuch  as  it  will  shew  the  possibility  of 
 deciding,  in  an  instant,  the  most  difficult  questions  in  Meta- 
 physics.— "  Volition  is  that  state  of  mind,  which  is  imme- 
 diately previous  to  actions  which  are  called  voluntary." — 
 "  Natural  J^iBERTY,  or,  as  it  is  more  properly  called  I^hi- 
 LOsoriiicAL  LiBERTYj  IS  the  powcf  of  doiug  an  action^  or  its 
 
APPENDIX.  443 
 
 doctrines  of  the  Christian  revelation, — are  left 
 to  the  professors  of  the  national  faith  ;  interested 
 and  unprincipled  men,  who,  not  beheving  the 
 doctrines  they  uphold,  '^  testify  their  regard  to 
 
 contrary,  all  the  previous  circumstances  remaining  the  same." 
 (p.  227.) — Now  here  Is  the  point  of  free  Avill  at  once  decided: 
 for,  "colition  itself  being   included   among  the  previous  cir» 
 cu?nstanccs,  it  is  a  manifest  contradiction  in  terms,  to  suppose 
 ^'  the  power  of  doing  an  action  or  its  contrary,  all  the  pre- 
 tIous  circumstances  remaining  the  same;"  since  that  supposes 
 the  power  of  acting  volunturilij  against  a  volition.     After 
 this,  surely,  Mr.    Belsham    might  have    spared  himself  the 
 trouble  of  the  ninety-two  pages  which  follow,  as  his  opponents 
 must  have  been  at  once  suffocated  by  the  above  definitions. 
 But  the  philosopher  was  determined  to  give  the  absurd  advo- 
 cate for  free  Mill  no  quarter;  and  therefore  has  dealt  out 
 argument  after  argument,  blow  after  blo'.v,  until  the  adver- 
 sary is  no  longer  able  to  stand  before  him.     He  was  not  eyen 
 content,  uniil  he  brought  the  evidence  of  Mathematics  to  his 
 aid,  to  prove  ex  ahsurdo^  that  philosophical  liberty  totally 
 confounds  the  distinction  between  virtue  and  vice.     Thus, 
 "  for   example,   benevolefice   without  liberty   is  no  virtue; 
 malignitij  Tinihout  liberty  is  no  vice.     Both  arc  equally  in  a 
 neutral  state.     Add  a  portion  of  liberty  to  both  ;  benevolence 
 instantly  becomes  an  eminent  virtue,  and  malignity  an  odious 
 vice.     That  is,  if  to  equals  you  add  equals,  the  wholes 
 WILL  BE  unequal;  than  which  nothing  can  be  more  ab- 
 surd"! !!  I —  Does  the    reader  doubt  that  these  words   are 
 fairly  quoted  ?   Let  him  turn  to  pp.  258,  259.  of  the  treatise, 
 and  satisfy  himself  that  there  is  in  the  world  such  a  mathema- 
 tician as  the  author  of  the  above  proof.     But  I  have  done  with 
 this  work,     ii  must  by  this  time  be  clear,  tiiat   in   Logics, 
 Metaphysics,  Morals^  and  Mathematics^   the  students  must 
 }iave  been  well  instructed  at  Hackney. 
 
444  APPENDIX. 
 
 the  scriptures  by  empty  professions;"  or  ignorant 
 and  blundering  bigots,  who  are  led  by  a  slavish 
 and  "  blind  submission  to  vulgar  interpreta- 
 tions."''^     It  needs  scarcely  to   be  remarked^  that 
 
 Having  been  led  by  the  subject  of  this  note  to  the  mention 
 of  a  combination  of  metaphysical  and  mathematical  reasoning 
 almost  too  ludicrous  for  serious  observation,  I  cannot  make 
 better  amends  to  the  reader  for  such  a  demand  upon  his 
 patience,  than  by  directing  his  attention  to  a  very  small  but 
 valuable  tract,  entitled,  The  Doctrine  of  Philosophical  neccs. 
 sity  brief  ij  invalidated;  in  which  the  author,  Mr.  Dazcson 
 of  Sedbergh^  has  most  happily  effected  that  which  has  been 
 so  unmeaningly  caricatured :  having  enlisted  the  accuracy  and 
 brevity  of  Mathematics  (a  science  with  which  he  is  so  well 
 acquainted)  in  the  cause  of  Metaphysics  :  and  having  thereby 
 been  enabled  to  plant  the  standard  of  Philosophical  Liberty 
 on  a  strength,  from  which  the  advocates  of  the  opposite  doc- 
 trine have  not  found  it  convenient  to  attempt  to  dislodge  him. 
 One  faint  effort  indeed  was  made  by  a  writer  in  the  Monthly 
 Review  for  July  1781.  But  this  was  so  easily  repelled  by 
 the  author  in  a  second  edition  of  his  Tract,  that  as  far  as  \ 
 can  learn,  the  attempt  has  not  been  repeated. 
 
 *  For  these  two  descriptions  of  characters,  and  for  that 
 of  the  Unitarians,  placed  in  direct  opposition  to  both,  as  the 
 only  "  enlightened  and  consistent  Christians,"  the  reader 
 may  turn  to  what  Mr.  B.  has  said,  Reviezc,  pp.  26 — 30.  196. 
 199.  220.  230.  233.  Indeed  it  should  be  stated  injustice  to 
 Mr.  B.  that  the  charges  of  incompetency,  insincerity,  and 
 slavish  adherence  to  popular  systems,  are  not  confined  by  him 
 to  the  divines  of  the  established  church.  Some  not  a  little 
 distinguished  amongst  the  Dissenters,  are  examples  of  the 
 impartiality  of  his  strictures.  Even  the  pious,  candid,  and 
 learnrd  Doddridge  had  adopted  an  "  erroneous  and  unscrip- 
 tural  system."     ''  His  love  of  popularity,"  with  other  causes. 
 
APPENDIX.  445 
 
 among  the  virtues  of  the  new  system,  modesty 
 seems  not  to  occupy,  any  more  than  charity,  a 
 very  distinguished  place. 
 
 For  the  fulfihnent  of  the  engagement,  to  over- 
 turn every  interpretation  of  scripture,  that  wars 
 with  the  simple  creed  of  the  Unitarian,  Mr.  B. 
 refers  us, — for  he  has  not  thought  proper  to 
 undertake  the  task  himself, — to  a  list  of  com- 
 mentators, on  whose  critical  exertions  he  is  wiU 
 ling  to  rest  his  cause.  Here  we  find,  in  addition 
 to  some  respectable  names,  and  to  some  from 
 whom  his  peculiar  opinions  will  not  receive  much 
 support,  the  names  of  '^  Wakefield,  Evanson, 
 Lindsey,  and  Priestley."^  These  last  being  the 
 only  persons  now  -{-  living,  of  those  whom  he  has 
 
 had  "  strangely  warped  his  judgment  in  the  interpretation  of 
 the  scriptures;  and  his  works  are,  consequently,  "  not  cal- 
 culated to  instruct  his  readers  in  the  true  sense  of  the  Christian 
 scriptures,  nor  to  infuse  into  them  a  spirit  of  rational  and 
 manly  piety."  (pp.  102,  103.  213,  214.)  He  had  unfor- 
 tunately retained  some  of  those  old  fashioned  notions  about 
 atonement  and  grace,  which  have  been  vulgarly  supposed  to 
 distinguish  Christianity  from  natural  religion.  He  was  not 
 in  short  a  Rational  Dissenter:  for  it  is  not  from  the  members 
 of  the  establishment  solely,  but  from  the  various  other  classes 
 of  dissenters,  that  the  grand  characteristic  of  Rationality 
 divides  the  Unitarian. 
 
 *  Review,  p.  206. 
 +  It  is  matter  of  melancholy  reflexion  that  of  the  above- 
 named  writers,  all  actively  engaged  in  the  propagation  of  their 
 respective  opinions  when  the  first  edition  of  this  work  was 
 published,  not  one  is  at  this  day  living.     So  rapidly  do  we  all 
 
446  APPENDIX. 
 
 enumerated  as  the  great  oracles  of  Gospel  inter- 
 pretation, to  these  of  course  he  must  principally 
 refer,  when  he  affirms,  as  we  have  seen,  that 
 *^  the  Unitarians  pledge  themselves ;"  to  get  rid  of 
 every  passage  in  scripture,  that  militates  against 
 the  principles  of  their  system.  Now,  I  do  agree 
 with  Mr.  B.  that  if  he  had  traversed  the  entire 
 range  of  all  who  profess  to  have  a  single  shred  of 
 Christianity  hanging  to  them,  he  could  not  have 
 found  a  phalanx  more  admirably  fitted,  by  the 
 apparatus  of  '^  interpolations,  omissions,  false 
 readings,  mistranslations,  and  erroneous  interpre- 
 tations,"^ to  empty  scripture  of  every  idea,  that 
 does  not  correspond  with  the  pure   Christianity 
 
 pass  off  in  this  fleeting  scene  of  things! — Respecting  those 
 "who  no  longer  live  to  answer  for  themselves,  I  confess  I  feel 
 somewhat  of  the  force  of  the  maxim,  De  mortuis  nil  7iisi 
 bonum.  And  yet,  when  it  is  considered,  that  though  the  man 
 dies,  the  author  lives ;  that  the  interests  pf  the  living  should  not 
 be  sacrificed  to  a  sentiment  unprofitable  io  the  dead  ;  that,  on 
 the  contrary,  were  the  deceased  himself  to  rise  from  the  grave, 
 he  Avould  probably  feel  it  his  first  duty  to  oppose  those  very- 
 errors  which  he  had  before  been  industrious  to  disseminate: — 
 there  seems  no  good  reason,  why  any  greater  delicacy  should 
 now  be  used  in  treating  of  the  pernicious  mistakes  and  mis- 
 conceptions of  such  writers,  than  had  formerly  been  observed  ; 
 more  particularly  as  the  subject  is  infinitely  too  important  for 
 compromise.  I  have  therefore  neither  retracted  nor  softened 
 any  observation  applying  to  the  works  of  the  above  named 
 authors,  unless  where  I  have  had  cause  to  doubt  the  truth  and 
 .justice  of  the  observation  itself. 
 
 *  Review^  p.  206. 
 
APPENDIX.  447 
 
 of  those  who  call  themselves  Unitarians.  Paine 
 could  not  well  have  been  added  to  the  list.  lie 
 most  imprudently/  strikes  down  all  at  once,  and 
 would  brush  away  the  flimsy  cobwebs,  of  both 
 old  and  new  testament,  at  one  stroke.  But  cer- 
 tainly,   more-}-  resolute  expungers,    parers,    and 
 
 +  Dr.  Gediles  has  travelled  too  slowly  through  the  old  tes- 
 tament, to  entitle  him  by  his  meritorious  services  in  the  new, 
 to  a  place  in  the  present  list.     But  from  the  liberal  views 
 "Nvhich  the  part  of  his  translation  already  publislied,  joined 
 to  his  late  volume  of  Critical  Remarks^  presents,  concerning 
 the  false  representations  of  the  Deity  in  the  pentateuch^  the 
 cruel  and  sanguinary  character  of  the  God  of  the  HebrezcSy 
 ' — the  Juggle  of  the  miracles  said  to  be  zcr ought  by  Moses, — 
 the  incredible  number  of  prodigies  not  literally  to  be  believed^ 
 '— the  frequent  interposition  of  the  Deity  and  his  agents,  not 
 to  be  admitted, — the  absurdity  of  attributing  inspiration  to 
 the  writers  of  the  early  books  of  the  old  testament, — the 
 error,  inconsistency,  and  dozonright  absurdity,  to  be  found 
 in  the  Ilebren:)  zoritings,  from  which  their  inspiration  cannot 
 be  credited,  even  on  the  authority  of  St.  Paul,  or  though  aft 
 angel  from  heaven  were  to  teach  it, — the  information  of  the 
 Hebrew  historians  derived  from  public  registers^  popular 
 traditions,  and  old  songs, — from  these,  and  other  observa- 
 tions of  a  similar  nature,  there  is  oflfered  a  reasonable  pro- 
 mise,  that  when  this  translator  of  the  books  accounted 
 SACRED,  shall  have  extended  his  researches  to  the  new  tes- 
 tament,   and   thereby    clearly    made  known  his  scheme  of 
 Christianity,  he  will  prove  himself  fully  entitled,  to  have  his 
 name  enrolled,  among  the  most  enlightened  of  Mr.  B.'s  Uni- 
 tarian commentators.     When  we  find  him  thus  freely  con- 
 curring with  Lord  Bolingbroke,  in  pronouncing  the  God  of 
 Mqscs  to  be  "  partial,  unjust,  and  cruel,  delighting  in  blood. 
 
448  APPENDIX. 
 
 diversifiers  of  sacred  writ,  he  could  not  have 
 discovered  in  the  whole  tribe  of  polemics.  Of 
 their  powers  in  this  way  some  few  specimens 
 have  been  exhibited^  in  the  foregoing  Disser- 
 tations :  and  from  the  notable  exertions  of  mas- 
 ter-criticism, which  have  been  there  occasionally 
 noticed,  little  doubt  can  be  entertained,  of  the 
 sufficiency  of  these  writers,  to  fulfil  the  engage- 
 ment, entered  into  on  their  behalf  by  Mr.  Bel- 
 sham.  ^'^ 
 
 commanding  assassinations,  massacres,  and  even  extermina- 
 tions of  people:"  can  we  doubt,  that  he  will  agree  with  his 
 Lordship,  and  other  philosophic  enquirers,  in  viewing  the 
 God  of  Paul  in  a  light  equally  unworthy  of  our  religious 
 
 adoration? Bolin^broke's  IVorks^    vol.  v.  p.  567. — 
 
 4to.  1754. 
 
 The  earthly  career  of  Dr.  Geddes  has  been  closed,  since 
 the  above  was  written :  nor  did  he  live  long  enough  to  carry 
 his  mischievous  perversions  of  Scripture  beyond  the  limit  of 
 the  Pentateuch  and  the  Historical  books. 
 
 *  The  above  engagement  has  in  fact  been  fulfilled  by  the 
 Version  of  the  New  Testament,  which  has  lately  issued  from 
 the  press;  and  which,  as  appears  by  a  note  on  the  beginning 
 of  the  first  Epistle  of  St.  John,  has  been  founded  principally 
 upon  the  labours  of  those  able  expositors  and  associates  of 
 Mr.  Belsham,  to  whom  we  have  been  above  referred.  I  hold 
 myself  therefore  now  bound,  in  point  of  justice,  to  retract, 
 (so  far  at  least  as  the  New  Testament  is  concerned)  what  I 
 had  ventured  io  pronounce,  in  pp.  177,  178.  of  Vol.  I.  con- 
 cerning tlie  unlikelihood  of  any  Unitarian  version  of  the 
 Scripture  being  given  to  the  public.  It  must  however  be 
 confessed,  that  by  what  has  been  done,  these  Unitarian  ex- 
 positors have  not  much  abridged  the  liberty  for  which  they 
 
APPENDIK.  44<) 
 
 Our  author  himself,  indeed,  has  favoured  us 
 with  but  few  displays  of  his  critical  ini^^enuity. 
 
 So  strenuously  contend.  Their  version  is  of  lliat  convenient 
 latitude,  that  a  person  may  at  the  same  time,  admit  i(s 
 authority,  and  yet  disbelieve  almost  every  doclrinej  and 
 every  important  truth  of  the  Christian  il(=velation.  It  is, 
 in  short,  like  the  antient  mantle  of  my  country,  a  coverint; 
 of  such  loose  and  -wide  dimensions,  that  the  wearer  may 
 turn  round  and  round  in  it,  -svilliout  disturbing  its  shape, 
 or  depriving  himself  of  its  slielter.  And  like  that  too,  it  has 
 been  used  as  a  disguise  to  muffle  the  assassin,  and  to  conceal 
 the  dagger. 
 
 The  Editors  of  this  work  have  not,  it  must  be  observed, 
 conducted  themselves  in  the  publication  of  it,  with  that 
 manly  boldness,  wliich  they  are  at  all  times,  so  ambitious  to 
 put  forward,  as  their  distinguishing  characteristic.  They 
 have  on  the  contrary  not  scrupled  to  adopt  one  of  those 
 picus  frauds,  which  they  are  pleased  to  consider  the  ordi- 
 nary expedients  of  their  orthodox  opponents.  The  name  of 
 a  Bishop  of  the  Established  Church  was  calculated  to  lull 
 suspicion,  and  to  contribute  to  a  more  extended  circulation, 
 and  accordingly  this  Improved  Version^  which  they  have 
 now  sent  abroad,  they  profess  to  found  upon  the  basis  of 
 Archbishop  Nezccome's  translation  of  the  New  Testament ; 
 whilst  in  truth  they  adopt  no  part  of  that  translation,  which 
 in  any  degree  shackles  them  in  point  cf  doctrine,  but  abide 
 by  it  in  such  places  only  as  are  of  a  nature  perfectly  indif- 
 ferent. They  have  thus  contrived  to  give  a  respectable  name 
 to  their  Unitarian  blasphemies.  They  thus  hold  out  deceit, 
 ful  colours  to  the  unwary,  and  vend  their  poisons  under  a 
 false  label. 
 
 To  give  any  adequate  idea  of  the  nature  of  this  Inp^roved 
 Version  within  the  narrow  bounds  of  a  note,  would  be  im- 
 possible.     The  reader    may  easily  conceive  that  the  whole 
 
 VOL.  ir.  G  G 
 
450  APPENDIX. 
 
 Those  few,   however,  prove  him  by  no  means 
 
 apparatus  of  "  interpolations,  omissions,  false  readings,  mis- 
 translations, and  erroneous  interpretations,"  on  which,  as 
 we  have  seen  above,  Mr.  Behham  places  so  firm  a  reliance, 
 has  been  fully  brought  to  bear,  and  has  most  thoroughly  per- 
 formed its  work,  in  the  forging  of  this  last  great  production 
 of  the  Unitarian  foundery.  A  few  particulars  however, 
 which  may  suffice  to  give  some  faint  notion  of  the  design  and 
 execution  of  the  performance,  I  cannot  but  advert  to. 
 
 In  the  introduction  to  the  work  (p.  v.)  we  are  fairly  ap- 
 prised, that  it  has  been  a  principal  part  of  its  design,  to 
 ''  divest  the  sacred  volume  of  the  technical  phrases  of  a 
 systematic  theology." — That  is,  in  other  words,  we  are  told, 
 that  the  great  object  has  been,  so  to  render  the  New  Tes- 
 tament, as  to  empty  it  of  all  such  expressions,  as  might  give 
 support  to  any  of  the  received  and  peculiar  doctrines  of  Chris- 
 tianity. This  appears  pretty  manifestly  to  be  what  is  here 
 intended:  for  agreeably  to  this,  we  find,  that  all  those 
 phrases,  which  in  any  way  connect  with  the  unscriptural 
 notions,  of  the  miraculous  conception^  i\\Q  pr coexistence^  and 
 the  divinifj/  of  Christy — the  personal  existence^  divine  nature 
 and  gi^acious  injluences  of  the  Holy  Spirit^ — tiie  existence  of 
 evil  spirits  and  angels^  ^c.—'dixe  all  completely  swept  away; 
 and  nothing  left  to  us,  but  >\hat  perfectly  agrees  with  Mr. 
 Beishara's  idea, — that  Christianity  comprizes  a  good  moral 
 system,  with  indeed  the  knowledge  of  this  one  fact,  that  a 
 wan  has  risen  from  the  grave. — In  the  next  place,  we  are 
 told,  what  sufficiently  explains  how  this  has  been  effected. 
 It  is  stated,  that  it  has  not  been  the  intention,  "  to  exhibit 
 a  version  critically  correct  in  every  minute  particular":  and 
 that  "  verbid  criticism  had  of  course  not  been  attended  to  in 
 the  degree  that  some  might  wish  and  expect."  (p.  vi.) — 
 Thus  we  are  fairly  informed,  that  certain  liberties  are  to  be 
 taken  in  the  translation,  to  which  the  minuteness  of  verbal 
 criticism  might  possibly  present  some  impediment.     That  is. 
 
APPENDIX.  451 
 
 unworthy    of    the    cause    which    he    supports. 
 
 in  a  work,  wliose  very  ohjcct  is  to  ascertain  tlie  exact 
 meaning  of  words,  the  exact  meaning  of  words  is  not  to  be 
 attended  to,  lest  it  might  embarrass  the  freedom  of  trrnslation, 
 and  force  upon  the  translator  a  sense  diflcrent  fiom  that 
 which  hs  chooses  to  assign.  Of  what  nature  are  those  free- 
 doms in  translation,  which  have  grown  out  of  the  facilities, 
 and  arc  adapted  to  the  objects  which  the  Editors  have  here 
 planned  for  themselves,  I  shall  now  give  two  or  thiee  slight 
 specimens. 
 
 The  first  which  I  shall  mention,  relates  to  the  doctrine  of 
 the  Licamalion,  which  is  at  once  thrown  off,  by  rejecting 
 from  the  beginning  of  the  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
 Luke,  the  whole  of  what  belongs  to  the  miraculous  birth  of 
 our  Lord.  This  has  been  done,  it  must  be  allowed,  with 
 sufficient  boldness:  for  it  is  fairly  admitted,  that  these  por- 
 tions of  the  Gospels  '^^  are  to  be  found  in  all  the  MSS.  and 
 Tersions  now  extant." — Now  it  is  actually  amusing  to  ob- 
 serve, what  is  the  leading  evidence,  hy  which  the  Editors 
 conceive  themselves  justified,  thus  to  expunge  from  the  ca- 
 non of  scripture,  what  has  come  supported  by  the  teslimony 
 of  all  the  Manuscripts  and  all  the  versions.  With  respect  to 
 the  passage  in  Matthew,  they  tell  us,  that  the  Ebloniics  did 
 not  read  the  two  first  chapters  in  their  copy  of  his  Gospel; 
 and  with  respect  to  St.  Luke,  they  tell  us,  that  Marcio?i,  a 
 heretic  of  the  2d  century,  did  not  admit  the  two  first  chap- 
 ters of  his.  Therefore,  it  follows,  that  since  the  sect  of  the 
 Ebfonites,  and  the  heretic  Marcion  of  the  2d  century,  are 
 against  all  the  Manuscripts  and  all  the  Versions,  it  is  impos- 
 sible that  these  last  can  be  received  as  true*  The  argument 
 is  certainly  quite  intelligible.  But  let  us  enquire  a  little 
 about  these  irrefragable  witnesses.  And,  first,  as  to  these 
 Ebionites^  we  are  informed,  that  their  canon  of  the  New 
 Testament  rejected  the  three  last  Gospels,  ;ind  all  the  Epistles 
 G  g2 
 
453  APPENDIX. 
 
 The  two  passages,  which  expressly  ascribe  the 
 
 ©f  St,  Paul.  Aiid  next  as  to  this  Marcion,  we  find,  that  he 
 rejected  the  Old  Testament,  and  every  part  of  the  New 
 \^hich  contained  quotations  from  the  Old,  and  tliat  he  used 
 CO  Gospel  but  that  of  St.  Luke,  expunging  from  this  also 
 whatever  he  did  not  approve :  and  we  are  told  these  things 
 too,  upon  the  very  authority,  on  which  the  Editors  build, 
 respecting  the  omissions  from  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke. — 
 Whj  then  have  not  these  admirers  of  Marcion  and  the  EM- 
 vnitcSy  received  the  testimony  of  such  unimpeached  witnesses 
 throughout?  Why  have  they  not,  on  the  authority  of  the 
 latter,  rejected  all  the  New  Testament  except  St,  Matthew; 
 or,  on  the  authority  of  the  former,  rejected  the  entire  of  the 
 Old  Tesifimcnt,  and  all  of  the  New  excepting  a  part  of  St. 
 Luke  aiKi  some  of  the  Epistles :  or,  on  the  authority  of  both 
 together,  why  have  they  not  rejected  the  whole  Bible,  both 
 Old  and  New  Testament? — But  it  seems,  that  these  witnesses 
 are  to  be  brought  up  and  turned  down  at  pleasure :  they  are 
 both  good  and  bad,  according  as  may  ser\e  the  present  pur- 
 pose. For,  not  only  do  we  find,  that  they  are  not  believed, 
 by  the  party  producing  them,  in  any  part  of  their  testimony 
 except  that  which  relates  to  the  beginnings  of  the  two  Gos- 
 pels; but  we  find  that  even  iu  lliese  they  are  believed,  only 
 so  far  as  is  convenient;  our  Editors  themselves  admitting, 
 that  the  EbloniUs  liad  mutilated  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew, 
 by  iakmg  azzaij  the  gcncalogi/ ;  that  is,  by  taking  away  the 
 first  16  verses  of  the  first  chapter.  And  therefore,  respect- 
 ing these  first  IG  verses,  the  Editors  reject  the  testimony  of 
 the  EbionUts  as  being  convicted  of  a  mutilation  of  the  Gos- 
 pel; but  as  to  the  remaining  verses  of  the  first  chapter  and 
 tlie  whole  of  the  second,  they  hold  the  testimony  of  these 
 same  Ebionites  to  be  good,  against  all  gain-sayers,  against 
 all  Manuscripts,  and  against  all  Versions.  —  All  this  is 
 put  forward  honestly  and  without  any  attempt  at  disguise. 
 The  Ebionite  witueiises  pronounced,  ou  one  side  of  a  leaf, 
 
APPENDIX.  455 
 
 office  of  intercession  to  Christ,  are,  (Rom.  viii. 
 
 as  not  credible,  from  their  acknowledged  mutilation  of  the 
 sacred  text;  and  upon  the  other  side  of  the  same  leaf,  main- 
 tained to  be  witnesses  of  such  repute,  as  ought  to  be  relied 
 upon,  in  opposition  to  all  the  MSS.  and  all  the  Versions  of 
 the  New  Testament  in  the  whole  world. 
 
 But  that  we  may  form  a  better  judgment  of  the  value  of 
 this  Ebionite  testimony  according  to  the  shewing  of  its  Uni- 
 tarian abettors,  let  us  attend  to  a  few  more  particulars  on 
 this  head.     The  gospel  of  the  Ebionites  began,  it  is   said, 
 with  these  words,  //  came  to  pass  in  the  days  of  IIeuod 
 King  of  Jude.\,  ihat  John  came  baptizing  z;:ith  the  bap. 
 iism  of  repentance  in  the  river  Jordan,     This  the  Editors 
 distinctly  state,  in  their  third  note,    from  the  authority  of 
 Epiphanius;  whilst,  in  the  very  note  which  precedes,  they 
 reject  the  text  of  St.  Matthew,  expressly  because  it  places 
 the  birth  of  Christ  before  the  death  of  Ilerod ;  which  event, 
 they  contend  from  Lnke  ili.  23.  must  have  taken  place  two 
 years  at  least  before  Christ  was  born.     Thus,    the  gospel 
 ascribed  to  Matthew  is  spurious,  because  it  fixes  the  birth  of 
 Christ  before  the  death  of  llerod  ;  and  yet  the  gospel  of  the 
 Ebionites,  which   fixes  it  not  less  than  thirty  years  before 
 that  event,  (inasmuch  as  it  represents  Herod  to  be  alive  at 
 the  commencement  of  the    Baptist's    ministr) )    is    notwith- 
 standing   to    be    relied    on    as   a   genuine   and    indisputable 
 document. — Yet  farther, — for  the  Editors  seem  ambitious  to 
 malie  an  overpowering  dii^piay  of  the  riches  of  tlieir  criti- 
 cism on  the  first  opening  of  their  work, — they  inform  us,  from 
 Epiphanius,    that    Cerinthus   and   Carpocrates  argued   from 
 the  genealogy  at  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel^  that  Christ 
 was  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary;  whilst,  at  the  same  time, 
 they    acquaint    us,    that  the    gospel,    which    was    used    by 
 Cerinthus  and   Carpocrates,  was  ike  gospel  of  the  EbioniieSy 
 to  which  they  admit  no  genealogy  was  prefixed,   or  from 
 G  G    i 
 
454  APPENDIX. 
 
 34.)    He  is  now   at   the   right  hand  of   God 
 
 which  (to  use  Iheir  own  and  Epiphanius's  words)  the  genea^ 
 logy  zcas  taken  crxaij.  This,  it  will  be  confessed,  is  making 
 a  tolerably  large  demand  upon  the  complaisance  of  the 
 reader ;  yet  there  remains  still  more  occasion  for  his  courtesy, 
 if  he  will  travel  on  amicably  with  the  Editors  even  through 
 the  first  two  pages  of  their  translation.  The  geneulogi} 
 appears,  upon  the  first  view,  to  be  a  difficulty  in  their  way, 
 which  they  have  themselves  unnecessarily  created.  The 
 Ebionites  they  have  produced,  as  their  favourite  witnesses, 
 to  ascertain  what  vras  the  true  and  original  gospel  of  St. 
 ^Matthew.  But  <he  Ebionites  omit  the  entire  of  th**  two 
 first  chapters  of  that  gospel.  Why  then  injure  their  evi- 
 dence by  contending  for  the  genealogi/,  which  they  reject? 
 The  reason  is  plainly  assigned.  The  genealogy,  as  it  stands, 
 may  answer  the  purpose  of  proving,  that  Jesus  was  the 
 offspring  of  Joseph  and  Mary  :  and,  accordingly,  the 
 Editors  apprize  us,  that  Cerinlhus  and  Carpocrates  applied 
 it  to  this  use,  and  hence  deduced  the  mere  humanity  of 
 Christ.  They  proceed  also  to  shew  the  reasonableness  of 
 admitting  the  genealogy  to  be  genuine,  on  the  ground,  that 
 '•  it  can  hardly  be  supposed,  that  an  author  writing  for  the 
 instruction  of  Hebrew  Christians  would  have  omitted  to 
 trace  the  descent  of  Christ  from  Abraham  and  David,  upon 
 which  tlicy  justly  laid  so  great  a  stress."  They  then  proceed 
 to  evince  the  like  reasonableness  of  discarding  all  that 
 follows  the  genealogy  to  the  end  cf  the  second  chapter, 
 "  This"  (they  say)  ''  could  not  have  been  written  by  the 
 uiUhor  of  the  genealogy^  for  it  contradicts  his  desigx, 
 ■which  was  to  prove,  that  Jesus,  being  the  son  of  Joseph,  was 
 the  descendant  of  Abraham  and  David ;  whereas  the  design 
 of  this  narrative  is  to  show,  that  Joseph,  the  reputed  father 
 of  Jesus,  was  not  his  real  father.  This  account  therefore 
 of  the  miraculous  conception  of  Jesus  Christ  must  have  bceq 
 
APPENDIX.  455 
 
 making  intercession  fo?^  us  :  and  (Ilebr.  vii.  25.) 
 
 ^ranting  in  the  copies  of  Cerintlius  and  Carpocratcs,  as  well 
 as  in  those  of  the  Ebionites  :  and  ij  the  genealogij  be  genuine^ 
 this  narrative  must  be  spuriousJ^^  Thus,  then,  the  whole 
 matter  is  completely  arranged.  The  genealogy  must  be 
 genuine  as  marking  the  human  descent  of  Christ  from  Abra- 
 ham and  J)avld,  a  thing  expected  by  the  Jews:  and  by  all 
 Avho  received  it  as  genuine,  the  narrative  of  the  miraculous 
 conception,  as  contradicting  its  design,  must  be  nj<'cted  as 
 spurious.  At  the  same  time,  lest  we  should  imagine,  that 
 the  force  of  this  reasoning  might  have  operated  so  powerfully 
 npon  those  Hebrew  Christians  who  received  the  genealogy 
 and  maintained  the  proper  humanity  of  Christ  as  to  induce 
 them  to  take  awajj  the  narrative  which  so  directly  contradict- 
 ed the  genealogy,  in  like  manner  as  it  is  admitted  others  of 
 them  had  taken  azcat/  the  genealogy  itself,  the  Editors  take 
 care,  in  the  very  next  note  to  assure  us,  that  to  that  descrip- 
 tion of  Christians  "  the  account  of  the  miraculous  concep- 
 tion could  not  have  been  in  any  degree  unacceptable:" 
 "  nor  zcoiild  iV^  (they  add)  "  at  all  have  ?nilitatcd  against 
 ike  doctrine  of  the  proper  humanitij  of  Christy  it  being  a  fact 
 analogous  to  the  miraculous  birth  of  Isaac,  Samuel,  and 
 other  eminent  persons  of  the  Hebrew  nation."  Thus  it 
 appears,  that  the  history  of  the  miraculous  conception  is 
 itself  something  miraculous;  for  it  at  the  same  time  contra, 
 dicts^  and  yet  does  not  at  all  militate  against^  the  idea  of 
 Christ's  human  descent. 
 
 Now  perhaps  it  may  be  doing  no  more  than  justice  to 
 these  erudi'j  and  luminous  commentators,  to  bring  together 
 into  one  poi-'t  of  view,  the  scattered  lights,  which  have  been 
 here  distinctly  noticed;  but  which  cannot  fail  from  their 
 combined  brlTumcy  to  shed  a  brighter  glory  upon  the  work 
 which  they  .uo  designed  to  illustrate.— 1.  The  Ebionites  and 
 Marcion  have  omitted,  ia  their  respective  copies  of  ceitaiii 
 
 G  G  4 
 
455  APPENDIX. 
 
 He   ever  liveth  to    make  intercession  for   us. 
 
 portions  of  scripture,  passages,  which  are  undoubtedly  parts 
 of  the  genuine  sacred  tG\t-^  and  the  former  (it  is  confpssed) 
 have  actually  taken  cncciij  the  genealogy  from  St.  Matthew's 
 gospel :  the  proof,  therefore,  arising  from  their  omission  of 
 whatever  relates  to  the  miraculous  conception  of  Christ  must 
 be  received  as  decisive  against  that  fact,  although  it  is 
 admitted,  that  the  narratives  of  it,  as  given  by  St,  Matthew 
 and  St.  Luke,  come  attested  by  every  manuscript  and  every 
 version  now  extant  without  exception. — 2.  The  gospel  of 
 St.  Matthew,  as  it  is  conveyed  to  us  at  this  day  by  all  the 
 MSS.  and  all  the  versions,  cannot  be  genuine,  because  it 
 requires  us  to  believe,  that  our  J^ord  was  born  before  the 
 death  of  Ilerod ;  but  we  may  admit  as  nnquestionaI)le  the 
 gospel  of  the  Eblonites,  which  pronounces  Ilerod  to  be 
 living  at  the  commencement  of  the  Baptist's  m.inistry,  or 
 about  the  thirtieth  year  after  our  Lord's  nativity.  La&tly, 
 the  narrative  of  the  miraculous  conception  ascribed  to  Saint 
 Matthew,  must  Iiave  been  rejected  by  all  who  received  the 
 genealogy,  as  contradicting  the  design  of  the  genealogy, 
 which  was  to  establish  the  human  descent  of  Christ;  at  the 
 same  time  that  it  is  quite  clear,  that  the  fact  of  (he  miracu* 
 lous  conception  could  not  at  all  have  militated  against  the 
 doctrine  of  the  proper  humanity  of  Christ,  nor  consequently 
 have  been  in  any  degree  unacceptable  to  those  who  held  that 
 doctrine. — Such  are  the  new  views  presented  at  the  opening 
 of  this  Improved  Version^  which  is  to  set  every  thing  to 
 rights  in  the  Christian  Scriptures.  See  pp.  1,  2,  3.  5.  ancl 
 also  p.  121. 
 
 There  are,  moreover,  certain  chronological  deductions  con- 
 nected with  some  of  the  foregoing  observations,  which  I  cannot 
 avoid  laying  before  the  reader.  Three  pages  back  it  has  been 
 stated,  that  the  Editors  contend,  that  the  death  of  Jlcrod 
 must  have  taken  place  ij:o  ijears  al  least  be j ore  Christ  wa^ 
 
APPENDIX.  Aby 
 
 NoWj  as  Mr.  B.  cannot  allow  to  Christ  the  office 
 
 horn.  Their  mode  of  establishing  this  point  Is  deserving  of 
 some  detail.  It  follows,  they  say,  as  a  necessary  conse- 
 quence from  the  death  of  Ilerod  being  placed  (as  it  is  by 
 Lardner)  in  the  year  750,  or  751,  U.  C.  Lardner,  in  the 
 part  referred  to  by  the  Editors  (p.  199)  had  asserted,  that 
 ''  if  Ilerod  died  In  750  U.  C.  he  died  three  years  and  nine 
 nwnlhs  before  the  vulgar  christian  era;  if  at  a  certain 
 time  before  mentioned  in  the  year  751,  then  he  died  about 
 izco  ijeurs  and  nine  months  before  the  said  era:''''  and  which 
 is  the  truth,  he  professes  himself  unable  to  determine.  (See 
 Lardner's  JForks^  vol.!.  p.  428).  Our  Editors,  referring  to 
 Lardner  (twice  upon  the  same  subject,  at  p.  2,  and  at  p.  129.) 
 contend  peremptorily,  that  Christ  "  must  have  been  born 
 (it  least  tzcoT/ears  and  nine  months,  and  probably  three  years 
 and  nine  niGiiths.  after  the  death  of  Ilerod :''  and  thus,  in 
 litter  disregard  of  all  the  arguments  by  which  the  Vulgar 
 Christian  Era  has  been  disproved,  or  rather  with  an  apparent 
 ignorance  of  the  existence  of  any  such  arguments,  they  have 
 at  once  assumed  ilu^  vulgar  and  the  true  era  of  our  Lord's 
 nativity  to  be  the  same ;  and  on  this  assumption,  as  in  itself 
 sufficient  to  invalidate  the  whole  story  of  our  Lord's  birth  as 
 given  by  St.  Matthew,  they  build  the  rejection  of  that  story 
 as  an  utter  fabrication.  They  profess  at  the  same  time  to 
 ground  their  reasoning  on  the  authority  of  Lardner  ;  whose 
 main  object  has  been  to  establish  the  direct  reverse  of  their 
 position,— that  Christ  ''  must  have  been  born  two  years  at 
 leastafter  tlie  death  of  Ilerod" ;— inasmuch  as,  with  great  learn. 
 ing  and  sound  argument,  he  has  hibcured  to  demonstrate  the 
 consistency  of  St.  Luke's  declaration  respecting  the  age  of 
 Christ  in  the  15th  of  Tiberius,  with  the  narrative  of  St.  Mat- 
 thew which  places  tlie  birth  of  Christ  about  two  years  before 
 the  death  of  Ilerod.  (  Lardner's  JForks,  vol.  i.  p.  339—382.) 
 That  learned  writer,  however,  In  his  Jp^cndix  concerning  the 
 1 
 
4jS  appendix. 
 
 of  intercessor,    he  begins  with   remarking,  that 
 
 ii'me  of  HcroiVs  death,  has,  unfortunately  for  our  Editors,  in 
 the  passage  above  referred  to,  spoken  of  the  Vulgar  Christian 
 Era  as  posterior  to  the  death  of  Ilcrod  :  and  they,  substituting 
 for  the  Vulgar  Christian  Era,  the  time  of  ChrisPs  vatimty^ 
 Iiave  at  once   inferred  the  priority  of  Herod's  death  to  the 
 birth  of  Christ;  and  have  adduced  tlie  authority  of  Lardner's 
 rame    in    behalf  of  a   position,    which    Lardner   has   most 
 triumphantly    overthrown.      A    similar    instance    of  careful 
 reference  to  authorities,  and  of  minute  attention  to  tlie  accu* 
 racies  of  ecclesiastical  history,  is  presented  to  us  in  the  very 
 front  of  tliis  elaborate  performance,    which  I  cannot  avoid 
 adverting  to  in  this  place.     The  Editors,  whilst  dealing  out  ia 
 their  Introduction  large  portions  of  i\v<3.t  knowledge  of  manu- 
 scripts and  the  various  critical  apjiaratus  for  the  translation  of 
 the   New  Testament,  which  Vv'etstein,  Michaelis,  Griesbach 
 and  others  hud    already  amply  supplied,  take  occasion  to 
 h[)Qdi\i  oi  Ephrcni  the  Sjjrian,'ds  "  a  writer  of  some  note  in 
 the  SIXTH  century."     (P.  xiv.)     In  this  at  least  they  have 
 thought  and  spoken  for  themselves :   the  commonly  received 
 opinion  having  hitherto  been,  that   E[)hrem  flourished  about 
 the  middle  of  the  fourth  century.     From  Asseman  we  learn, 
 that  he  was  present  at  the  council  of  Nice,  in  the  year  325  j 
 and  we  are  told  by  Jerome,  that  he  died  in  the  time  of  the 
 Emperor  Valens,  that  is,  at  some  time  before  the  year  379, 
 AVeare  also  informed  by  the  early  authorities,  that  this  same 
 Ephrem,  who    is  here  so  slightly  glanced  at  as  ''  a  zDriter  of 
 some  ?2o/c',"  was  a  person  of  the  most  distinguished  celebrity  : 
 a  man,  of  whom  Jrromc  says,  "  ad  taniam  venitclaritudinem, 
 ut  post  lectionem  scripturarum  publice  in  quibusJam  ecclesiis 
 ejus  scrlpta   recitentur :"  wiio  is  described  by  Ebedjcsu,  a 
 learned  Syrian  of  the  13lh  century,  "  Ephra^m  magnus,  qui 
 appellatus  estSyrorum  propheta":  who  was  even  entitled  by 
 the  Syrians,  "  the  doctor  of  the  whole  world;"  and  who,  ia 
 truth,  with  the  consent  of  all  A\lio  have  hitherto  made  men* 
 
APPENDIX.  459 
 
 "  the  exact  import  of  the  phrase  is  difficult  to  be 
 
 tlon  of  him,  lias  been  estimated  as  one  of  the  most  illustrious 
 divines  and  writers  in  the  century  in  which  he  lived,  that  is, 
 as  we  have  seen  in  the  fourth  centiiry.  The  Editors  of  the 
 Improved  Version^  however,  acquaint  us,  that  he  was  "  « 
 loriter  of  some  note  in  the  sixth  ccniunj.''''  It  is  the  less  par- 
 donable, I  may  add,  in  these  r.uitors,  to  have  been  thus  iiiat. 
 tentive  in  the  case  of  Ephrem  ;  as  he  is  reported  (Lardner^ 
 vol.  ii.  pp.  419,  420.)  to  have  written  a  commentary  upon  the 
 Jlarmojuf  of  Tatian^  a  writer,  whom  the  Unitarians  have  boea 
 at  all  times  anxious  (though  most  u'.founclcdly  indeed)  to 
 claim  as  an  auxiliary  to  their  cause.  (See  jrHliams's  Free 
 Inquirij^  p.  60 — CO.) 
 
 I  need  not,  I  think,  go  much  farther  upon  this  subject.-— 
 I  shall  however  touch  briefly  upon  two  or  three  points  more. 
 The  beginnij?gs  of  the  gospels,  (at  least  of  three  of  them,) 
 have  always  been  found  sadly  troublesome  to  Unitarians. 
 Matthew  and  Luke  however,  have  now  been  forced  to  part 
 •with  theirs.  This  could  not  be  so  easily  effected  with  regard 
 to  St.  John.  AVe  have  no  Ebionite  or  Marcion  appropriate 
 to  his  use.  But  we  have  what  just  answers  as  well,  a  Unita- 
 rian expositor. — For  example.  "  The  woud  was  in  the 
 beginning,  and  the  word  was  with  Cion,  and  the  word  was 
 a  GOD."  The  woud  then  is  found,  not  to  be  god,  but  only 
 A  GOD.  But  again,  lest,  as  being  a  god,  it  might  still  by 
 possibility  be  supposed,  that  the  formation  of  the  world  has 
 been  ascribed  to  this  word  in  the  verse  which  follows,  we  are 
 told  that  "  all  things  were  done  by  him  ;  and  without  iiim 
 was  not  any  thing  done,  that  Avas  done?"  that  is,  says  the 
 note,  "  all  things  in  the  christian  dispensation  were  done  by 
 Christ;  i.  e.  by  his  authority, — the  wordyivo/zat  never  signi- 
 fying to  create."— Well ;  but  then  we  come  to  the  10th  verse, 
 in  which  we  find  the  words,  O  ;ioc-/^o?  o»'  olvth  iyivzro.  This,  to 
 common  readers,  would  indicate,  that  the  zcorld  icas  created 
 by  this  w^ORD.  But  as  we  have  seen  above,  that  tzxvtx  sytyo-jTo 
 inast  be  rendered,    "  all  things  were  done  by  him  3"   of 
 
460  APPENDIX, 
 
 ascertained"  in   these  passages:  and   for  this  he 
 
 course  it  must  follow  here,  that  "  the  zDorhl  was  done  by 
 him  :"  let  tiiese  words  mean  what  they  may.  No  such  thing 
 after  all.  Our  expositor  tells  that  the  only  true  rendering 
 is,  ''  the  world  was  enlightened  by  him."  And  thus  the 
 whole  matter  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  his  creation  of  the 
 world,  are  cleared  away  from  the  introduction  of  St.  John's 
 Gospel.  For,  it  must  be  observed,  that  in  the  opening  clause 
 (III  the  Beginning  zzas  the  J For^/J  nothing  indicative  of 
 Qhn'iVs  pre. existence  is  contained;  inasmuch  as  the  beginning 
 here  means  simply  (we  are  told)  "  the  commencement  of  the 
 gospel  dispensation,  or  of  the  ministry  of  Christ."  The  whole, 
 then,  as  duly  explained  by  these  critics,  stands  thus:  Christ 
 (for  so  they  admit  the  avord  is  to  be  understood)  zcas  from 
 the  commencement  of  the  ministry  of  Christ;  and  Christ 
 zcithdrezc  to  commune  zcilh  Gud^  and  to  receive  instructions 
 for  his  ministry  ;  and  Christ  zcas  a  God.  For  the  excellent 
 and  strictly  classical  reasons  assigned  for  these  improvements 
 upon  the  common  version,  I  refer  to  this  profoundly  learned 
 work  itself,  pp.  199,  200.  If  the  reader  should  not  be  alto- 
 gether satisfied  with  those  reasons,  he  will  however  be  pleased 
 to  recollect,  that  the  Editors  have  given  fair  notice,  that  it 
 was  not  their  intention  to  condescend  to  the  "  minuteness  of 
 verbal  criticism." 
 
 I  shall  content  myself  with  one  specimen  more  of  the  quali- 
 fications of  the  Kdifors  for  the  work  whicii  they  have  under- 
 taken. 1  have  given  one,  as  an  example  of  their  accuracy, 
 in  ascertaining  the  genuine  text  of  Scripture:  a  second  as  an 
 example  of  their  precision  in  reference  to  historical  dates:  a 
 third,  as  an  example  of  their  attention  to  the  minutias  of  Eccle- 
 siastical history:  a  fourth,  as  an  example  of  their  acumen,  in 
 detecting  the  precise  signification  of  the  original  language  ;  and 
 this  will  serve  as  an  example  of  the  justness  of  their  inferences 
 on  general  principles  of  reasoning.     Acts  vii.  GO,  we  find 
 
APPENCIX.  4GI 
 
 assigns  a  reason^  which  cannot  he  denied  to  he 
 
 St.  Stephen  addressing  his  prayers  to  Jesus  Christ, — '^  Lord 
 Jesus  receive  my  spirit;"  and, — "  Lord  lay  not  tliis  to  tli(;ir 
 charge."  On  these  passages,  our  expositors  favour  us  with 
 the  following  just  distinction  and  salutary  caution.  "  This 
 address  of  Stephen  to  Jesus,  uhen  he  actually  saw  him,  doci 
 not  authorize  us  to  olfer  prayers  to  him,  now  he  is  invi- 
 sible;" and  for  farther  explanation  they  refer  to  Mr.  Lind- 
 sey,  who  states  the  matter  thus.  "  Unquestionably  Stephen 
 addressed  this  prayer  to  the  Lord  Jesus.  But  this  can  be 
 no  precedent  for  directing  prayer  to  liim  unseen,  or  address- 
 ing him  as  God,  whom  the  blessed  martyr  declares  \\n  sera 
 zcith  his  eyes,  and  calls  him  the  Son  of  Man  standing  on  the 
 right  hand  of  God;  calls  him  the  Sox  of  Max,  in  that  his 
 highest  state  of  exaltation." — Apologii,  kc.  p.  129. — Tliis 
 reasoning  is  quite  invincible,  and  contains  in  it  a  mine  of 
 valuable  matter,  which  does  not  at  first  sight  present  itself. 
 Jesus  must,  it  is  evident,  be  a  ?jie7^e  man,  or  he  could  not 
 have  been  seen  by  Stephen  in  bodily  form,  "  standing  on  the 
 right  hand  of  God,"  nor  have  been  called  by  him  the  Son  of 
 Man. — ("  Behold  I  see  the  Heavens  opened,  and  the  Son  of 
 Man  standing  on  the  right  hand  of  God.")  He  might  then  of 
 course  be  worshipped  and  prayed  to,  whilst  he  was  plainly 
 visible  as  a  man.  But  when  he  ceased  to  appear  as  a  man, 
 he  ought  no  longer  to  be  addressed  in  prayer.  Or  perhaps 
 generally  speaking,  it  is  meant,  that  no  being  that  is  invisible 
 can  properly  be  an  object  of  worship.  How  all  the  argu- 
 ments which  Popery  has  ever  devised,  in  defence  of  image 
 Tjcorship,  fade  and  vanish,  in  comparison  of  the  brigiit  and 
 overpowering  evidence,  which  this  reasoning  supplies  1 
 
 By  this  time  the  reader  must  be  sufficiently  aware  of  the 
 great  value,  of  this  Improved  version  of  the  NeiJ  Testa, 
 mcnt:  and  it  may  accordingly  be  safely  dismissed;  more 
 particularly  as  J//\  Nares's  valuable  Rmarks  rendt^r  all 
 
4G3  APPENDIX. 
 
 sufficient^  that  probably  the  writers  themselves 
 
 farther  criticism  upon  the  work  nearly  superfluous.    And  yet 
 before  1  finally  take  my  leave  of  it,  I  must  do  it  the  justice 
 to  say,  that  there  are  criticisms,  the  production  of  certain 
 Unitarian  commentators,    which  are  too  bold  even  for  its 
 adoption.     Of  this,  one   striking  instance  is  to  be  found  in 
 the  translation  of  Acts  xx.  28.  in  which  the  Editors  prefer 
 the  safer  mode  of  evading  the  admission  of  our  Lord's  divi- 
 nity, by  reading  Kv^ts  instead  of  ©es.  Lord  instead  of  God, 
 Mr.   Wakefield,  on  the  contrary,  contends   strenuously  for 
 ©£s,  and  afterwards  effects  his  escape  from  the  consequence, 
 by  proposing  two  of  the  most  extraordinary  criticisms  that 
 w^re  ever  ventured  by  a  Greek  scholar,     Te  ih-s  aiL'.cx.ro<;y  he 
 renders,  not  his  ozon  bloody  but,  his  own  son,  because  truly 
 a  man's  so?i  may  be  said  to  be  his  ozcn  blood ;  and  therefore, 
 the  S071  of  God  may  be  expressed  by  God's  own  blood, — • 
 an  expression,  which  had  it  been  used  of  God  the  Father 
 by  a  T?imtari(m  in  defence  of  his  doctrine,  would  have  sub- 
 jected him  to  Mr.  Wakefield's  ineHable  contempt.     Mr.  W. 
 supplies  also  another  mode  of  getting  rid  of  the  difficulty, 
 (that  is,  the  difficulty  of  acknowledging  the  divinity  of  our 
 Lord,)  viz.  that  of  translating  the  Avords,  '•  by  the  blood  of 
 his  own,"  (supplying  the  word  So?:,) — This^  observe,  is  the 
 rendering  of   ha   ry   the  aiy^aroc.      So  much  for  the  most 
 celebrated  scholar  of  the  Unitarian  school  which  England  has 
 produced. — The  reader  will  be  rewarded  for  his  trouble  in 
 looking  into    MidiHcto7i''s  Doctrine  of  the  Greek  Atiida^ 
 p.  418 — 428,  on  this  passage.     \\\  truth,  I  refer  most  wil- 
 lii'gly  to  this  work,  as  one  which  will  supply  to  the  scripture 
 student,  some  of  the  most  valuable  helps  to  the  critical  in- 
 vestigation of  the  Text  of  the  New  Testament,  which  can  be 
 derived  from  any  modern  publication. 
 
APPENDIX.  AG,^ 
 
 annexed  to  it  no  ven/  dlstinet  idea.*     St.  Pmil 
 
 Having  ])een  led,  in  the  foregoing  pjirt  of  tlils  note,  (o  aj. 
 vert  to  the  rejection,  by  the  Unitarian  Editors,  of  tlie  portion 
 which  follows  the  genealogy  in  tlie  first  two  chapters  of  St. 
 Matthew's  Gospel,  I  deem  it  not  unadvisable  to  offer  here  a 
 few  remarks  upon  the  subject  of  those  chapters,  which  w  ithout 
 going  at  length  into  the  proof  of  liielr  authenticity,  will  I  trust 
 be  found  sufiicient  to  supply  at  once  a  satisfactory  assurance 
 on  that  licad.  Dr.  Marsh,  in  his  ninth  lecture  observes,  that 
 if  we  turn  to  the  second  volume  of  Gn'csbach^s  Sjjmboloi 
 Cniicce,  we  shall  find  a  quotation  from  the  Jirst  chapter  of 
 St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  and  a  reference  to  the  second  made  by 
 Celsus  the  Epicurean  philosopher,  which  quotation  and  re- 
 ference are  noted  by  On'gcji,  who  wrote  in  answer  to  Celsus. 
 Griesbach,  he  adds,  juctly  remarks,  "  Hinc  patet  duo  priora 
 Matthaji  capita  Celso  nota  fuisse."  And  with  no  less  justice 
 on  his  own  part,  he  deduces  the  following  inference;  that  if 
 Celsus,  »vho  wrote  his  celebrated  work  against  the  Christians 
 in  the  time  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  and  consequently  little  more 
 than  an  hundred  years  after  St.  Matthew  himself  w^ote,  yet 
 found  the  first  two  chapters  in  his  manuscript  of  St.  Mat- 
 thew's Gospel,  those  chapters  must  either  have  been  origimit 
 parts  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  or  they  must  have  been  added 
 at  a  time  so  little  antecedent  to  the  age  of  Celsus,  that  a 
 "writer  so  inquisitive,  so  sagacious,  and  at  the  same  time  so 
 inimical  to  Christianity,  could  not  have  failed  to  detect  the  im- 
 posture. But  that,  in  this  case,  he  would  not  have  quoted 
 those  chapters  as  parts  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel :  and  conse- 
 quently, that  the  truth  must  lie  in  the  olhcr  part  of  the 
 dilemma,  namely,  that  those  chapters  arc  [inVAQuiic.—Coures 
 oj'  Lectures^  Part.  ii.  pp.  55,  56. 
 
 To  this  reasoning  of  the  learned  and  able  Professor  no- 
 thing can  be  added,  which  will  give  greater  force  to  his  con. 
 
 *  JRfncu?,  pp.  C9.  70. 
 
464  'APPENDIX. 
 
 it  is   clear,  was  no   Rational  Christian ;   or  he 
 
 elusion.  In  point  of  fact,  however,  it  is  Important  to  observe,, 
 that  vio  are  not  left  to  a  single  quotation  from  ih^  first ^  and  a 
 single  reference  to  the  second  chapter  of  St.  Matthew,  for  (lie 
 proof  that  these  two  chapters  were  known  to  and  admitted 
 by  Celsus.  In  truth  we  find,  from  Origen's  refutation  of 
 that  author's  charges  against  Christianity,  that  his  references 
 to  those  chapters  were  so  numerous  as  nearly  to  supply  a 
 perfect  detail  of  the  facts  which  they  relate.  See  Origcn 
 against  Celsus,  pp.  108.  119.  125.  131.  139.  181.  189.  192. 
 208.  The  reader  who  may  dislike  the  trouble  of  referring 
 to  Origen's  work  for  the  proof  of  this,  will  probably  acquiesce 
 in  the  following  recapitulation  given  by  Lardner  of  the  testi- 
 mony borne  by  Celsus  to  the  facts  recorded  in  the  ii rst  two 
 chapters  of  St.  Matthew. 
 
 "  We  learn  from  him"  (Celsus)  "  that  Christ  was  born  of 
 a  virgin,  in  a  small  village  of  Judea,  supposed  to  have  been 
 descended  from  the  Jewish  kings :  that  she  was  married  to  a 
 carpenter:  that  for  some  while  her  husband  was  doubtful 
 about  her  chastity :  that  Chaldeans,  or  other  wise  men  from 
 the  East,  came  to  J^rusalem  soon  after  his  nativity,  to  do 
 him  homage  as  Ring  of  the  Jews,  having  been  excited  to  that 
 journey  by  the  appearance  of  a  star :  that  Ilerod  moved  by 
 jealousy  put  to  death  many  young  children,  hoping  to  kill  Jesus 
 with  them:  that  by  direction  of  an  angel  he  was  carried  by 
 his  parents  into  Egypt  for  the  preservation  of  his  life;  where, 
 as  Celsus  insinuates,  Jesus  learned  the  charms  practised  iu 
 that  country.  lie  calls  Jesus  the  Nazarasan  man,  or  man  of 
 Nazareth,  from  tl'.e  place  wliere  he  was  brought  up  and 
 chiefly  resided  before  his  appearance  in  a  public  character." 
 See  Lanlncr's  JVorks,  vol.  viii.  pp.  10,  11.  1  9—22.  5S,  59. 
 and  for  a  yet  more  particularized  detail  by  Dr.  Doddridge, 
 see  ibid  p.  63. 
 
 Now,  what  is  this,  but  an  abridgement  of  the  history  givea 
 by  the  Evangelist?     Indeed  the  testimony  thus  borne  by  CeL 
 
APPENDIX.  465 
 
 Would  not  have  used  words  so  inaccurately  and 
 
 sus  !S  SO  irresistible,  that  its  application  is  not  denied  even  hy 
 the  writers,  who  most  strenuously  oppose  themselves  to  thft 
 authenticity  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel. 
 Thus,  Dr.  Williams^  in  his  Free  Enquirif^  p.  49.  when 
 urging  his  objections  strongly  against  those  chapters,  asserts, 
 that  "  we  have  no  certain  references  or  allusions  to  them,  tilt 
 the  days  of  Celsus  the  Epicurean,  about  the  year  150  or 
 later."  That  the  reference  made  by  Celsus  to  these  chapters, 
 is  certain  and  undoubted.,  is  then,  plainly  admitted.  As  to 
 the  lateness  of  that  reference,  the  drawback  thence  arising 
 will  not  be  considered  very  formidable,  when  it  is  recol- 
 lected, that  the  date  of  Celsus's  work  is  not  removed  from 
 that  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  by  more  than  about  one  hun- 
 dred years,  nor  from  the  death  of  St.  John  by  more  than 
 fifty;  and  when,  in  addition  to  this,  the  remarks  already 
 quoted  from  Dr.  Marsh  are  held  in  remembrance.  But  ima- 
 ginary as  this  drawback  is,  yet  cannot  even  this  be  conceded 
 to  Dr.  Williams;  the  very  reverse  of  his  allegation  being  the 
 truth.  For  we  do  find  certain  references  to  the  first  two 
 chapters  of  St.  Mattliew  before  the  date  of  Celsus's  work. 
 
 In  the  first  place,  we  find  them  numerous  and  decisive 
 in  the  writings  of  Justin  Martyr:  so  much  so  indeed,  as 
 nearly  to  supply  a  recapitulation  of  all  the  facts  related  in 
 those  chapters;  and  in  such  language  as  clearly  to  prove, 
 that  from  those  chapters  the  information  of  the  writer  was 
 pri'.ici pally  derived.  The  very  words  also  of  St.  Matthew 
 are  sometimes  quoted  with  a  precision  so  unequivocal  as  to 
 determine  the  source  of  the  quotations.  Passages  and  phrases 
 which  occur  in  St.  Matthew  only,  ar.d  applications  of  the 
 prophecies  of  Isaiah,  Micah  and  Jeremiah  which  are  made 
 by  no  other  Evangelist,  a4-e  adopted  by  Justin  ;  and  adoj)ted 
 by  him  with  a  literal  adherence  to  St.  Matthew's  text ;  and, 
 what  renders  the  demonstration  perfect,  with  a  literal  adhe- 
 
 VOL.  II.    •  H  K 
 
466  APPENDIX, 
 
 tinphilosophically;    for,    besides    the    aforesaid 
 
 rence  in  those  very  citations  from  the  Old  Testament,  in  which 
 St.  Matthew  has  departed  from  the  words  both  of  the  He- 
 brew and  the  Septuagint,  (See  Just.  Mart,  pp.  53,  .54.  304— 
 307,  and  the  observations  upon  these  parts  of  Justin,  at  p. 
 472  of  this  volume.)  These  references  to  St.  Matthew  are 
 contained  in  Ju stints  First  Apology y  presented  by  him  to  the 
 Emperor  Antoninus  Pius  in  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  and 
 in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho ;  both  of  which  are  supposed 
 by  the  best  Commentators  to  have  been  written  about  the 
 year  140.  Thus  we  have  travelled  nearer  io  the  age  of  the 
 Apostles;  and  in  truth  we  come  nearer  still,  if  we  consider 
 that  Justin's  testimony,  though  not  published  till  the  year 
 140,  may  fairly  be  carried  back  to  the  period  at  which  he 
 became  a  Christian;  inasmuch  as  we  must  suppose  him  at  that 
 time  well  aequainted  with  the  Christian  scriptures,  which 
 must  in  fact  have  been  the  means  of  his  conversion;  and  con- 
 sequently cannot  easily  imagine,  that  what  was  not  then  con- 
 ceived to  form  a  part  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  could  be  after- 
 wards received  by  him  as  such.  In  this  view  of  the  case,  the 
 authority  of  Justin's  testimony  reaches  backwards  nearly  to 
 the  year  130. 
 
 To  a  date  equally  early  may  be  referred  the  testimony  of 
 the  Composer,  or  (perhaps  I  might  more  properly  say)  the 
 Christianizer  of  the  Sibylline  Oracles;  who,  as  Lardner 
 justly  observes,  was  manifestly  acquainted  with  the  first  two 
 chapters  of  St.  Matthew.  For  a  few  extracts  from  this  work, 
 see  p.  476,  of  this  volume.  The  objection,  that  this  collec- 
 tion, or  at  least  a  part  of  it,  was  the  forgery  of  a  Christian 
 writer,  instead  of  detracting  from  its  value,  supplies  the  very- 
 circumstance,  which  renders  it  admissible  as  evidence  in  the 
 cause:  since  otherwise,  (were  it,  what  it  professes  to  be, 
 strictly  prophetical,)  its  similarity  to  any  other  written  docu- 
 ment could  afford  no  proof  of  that  document's  previous  exist- 
 
 I 
 
APPENDIX.  4Gj 
 
 vagueness  of  expression,  it  is  certain,  that  "  God 
 
 ence.  The  only  point,  which  it  is  important  to  establish,  is 
 the  date  to  be  assigned  to  this  collection:  and,  that  it  existed 
 from  an  early  period  of  the  second  century,  may  be  fairly 
 deduced  from  the  authorities  collected  by  Lardner.  Celsus 
 makes  the  interpolation  of  these  Oracles  a  subject  of  reproach 
 against  Christians.  And  Justin  quotes  them  in  matters  re- 
 lating to  Christian  doctrine.  I  shall  not,  however,  dwell 
 upon  the  testimony,  which  these  writings  present ;  but  pro- 
 ceed to  that,  which  brings  us  back  within  the  limits  of  the 
 Apostolic  age,  and  which  offers  itself  with  an  authority  not 
 inferior  to  that  of  Apostolic  origin.  I  mean  the  testimony 
 of  Ignatius, 
 
 This  Apostolic  father,  who  suffered  martyrdom  at  Rome  in 
 the  tenth  of  Trajan,  that  is  in  the  year  107,  (See  Lardner, 
 vol.  ii.  p.  69.)  we  find,  in  his  (genuine)  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
 aians,  plainly  referring  to  the  history  of  the  Virgin  Marj-'s 
 miraculous  conception  of  our  Lord,  and  to  the  appearance  of 
 the  star  which  so  wonderfully  announced  his  birth.  (See  Patt\ 
 Apost.  vol.  ii.  pp.  38.  94.  110.  112.  114.)  In  the  larger  Epistle 
 also,  (ibid.  part.  4.  p.  78.)  we  find  an  exact  quotation  of  th« 
 passage  in  Matth.  i.  23  :  on  which,  however,  I  will  not  lay 
 particular  stress,  as  the  larger  Epistles  of  this  Father  are, 
 and  not  unjustly,  suspected  of  interpolation,  and  therefore 
 this  quotation  may  possibly  be  of  spurious  origin.  We  have 
 now  travelled  back  within  about  forty  years  from  the  pub- 
 lication of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel;  and  we  have  the  testimony 
 of  a  cotemporary  and  associate  of  the  Apostles,  one  who 
 outlived  the  Apostle  John  but  by  six  or  seven  years,  who 
 had  received  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles,  who  had  been  ap- 
 pointed by  the  Apostles  themselves  to  tlio  Bishoprick  of 
 Antioch,  the  first-and  oldest  Christian  thurch  anwng  the 
 Gentiles,  appointed  to  it  within  less  than  ten  years  from  the 
 date  of  St.  Matthew's  Crospel,  (see  Lnnlnvr.  rol.  ii.  p.  «r».) 
 
468  APPENDIX. 
 
 has  no  right  hand  at  ivhich  Jesns  can  standi 
 
 and  who  himself,  like  the  Apostles,  died  a  martyr  to  the 
 truth  of  the  religion  which  he  professed.  We  have,  then, 
 in  fact,  what  amounts  to  Apostolic  testimony  for  the  truth 
 and  authenticity  of  the  disputed  chapters  of  St.  Matthew.^ 
 Yet,  strange  to  say,  a  deficiency  in  this  very  respect  has 
 been  alleged  as  an  objection  against  their  authenticity. 
 
 It  is  urged  by  Dr.  Williams,  that  the  silence  of  the  Apos- 
 tolical Fathers  supplies  an  argument  of  this  nature.  It  is  true, 
 indeed,  he  does  not  here  mean  to  include  Ignatius,  having  made 
 his  testimony  the  subject  of  a  distinct  enquiry.  He  speaks 
 only  of  the  other  Fathers ;  and,  of  these,  he  adds  that,  without 
 which  their  silence  could  afford  no  semblance  of  an  argument 
 whatever;  namely,  that  they  "  often  cite  and  refer  to  other 
 ])arts  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  and  had  frequent  occasion 
 in  their  debates  with  Jewish  unbelievers,  to  refer,  also,  to 
 the  first  and  second  chapters,  had  they  known  or  acknow- 
 ledged them  to  be  genuine."  (Free  Enq.  p.  103.)  And  in 
 another  place  (p.  93.)  he  says,  that  '"'  as  these  Fathers  fre- 
 quently had  occasion  to  speak  of  the  family  and  birth  of 
 Christ,  it  is  hardly  credible,  that  none  of  them  should  have 
 referred  to  those  chapters,  had  they  been  extant,  and  ac- 
 knowledged to  be  the  composition  of  St.  Matthew."  Now, 
 the  direct  opposite  of  both  the  assertions  herein  contained  is 
 precisely  the  fact.  For,  in  the  first  place,  the  references 
 made  by  these  Fathers  to  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  are  extremely 
 few:  and,  in  the  next  place,  they  are  in  no  part  of  their 
 Writings  engaged  in  any  debate  or  discussion  whatever  on  the 
 subject  of  the  birth  of  Christ:  (both  of  which  points  shall  h» 
 more  particularly  adverted  to  at  the  conclusion  of  this  note.) 
 So  that  were  any  inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  silence  of 
 these  Fathers  upon  the  subjects  contained  in  the  first  two 
 chapters  of  St.  Matthew,  it  should  rather  be,  that  on  those 
 Subjects  no  controversies  existed  at  that  day,  the  facts  related- 
 
APPENDIX.  46^ 
 
 to  intercede"!!*    By  this  philosophical  discovery, 
 
 in  (hose  chapters  b(  ing  acquiesced  in  without  dispute :  this, 
 I   say,  should  be  the  natural  inference,  when  we  find  the 
 facts  familiarly  alluded  to  by  the  only  one  of  the  Apostolical 
 Fathers  whose  subject  led  him  to   refer  to  them, — Ignatius; 
 and  again  by  Justin,  who   immediately  succeeded  the  times 
 of  those  fathers,  and  who  in  truth  wrote  both  his  First  yipo. 
 logjj  and  his  Dialogue  with  Trijpho  l)efore  the  death  of  one 
 of  them,  namely  Polycarp.     Many  have  been  the  occasions 
 on  which  I  have  found  myself  compelled  in  the  course  of  these 
 volumes  to  protest  against  the  disingenuousness  of  Unitarian 
 critics  in  their  treatment  of  ancient  authorities;  but,  perhaps, 
 there  is  no  one,  against  whom  such  a  protest  is  more  loudly 
 demanded,  than  against  the  writer  whose  objections  I  have 
 been  engaged  in  noticing.  The  foregoing  observations,  coupled 
 with  those  which   will  be  found  subjoined  to  the   present 
 note,    will    probably  appear    to  most   readers    suificient  to 
 substantiate  this  charge ;   and  yet  they  supply  but  a  small 
 part  of  what  might  be  adduced  in  its  support.     At  the  same 
 time,  it  remains  to  be  remarked,  that,  notwithstanding  the 
 strained    exertions   of  this  writer    against    the   authenticity 
 of  the  introductory  chapters  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,    he 
 affords  but  very   imperfect  aid  to  the  Editors  of  the  Uni- 
 tarian Version;  inasmuch  as  his  arguments  are  principally 
 directed   against   the  genealogy,    which  they    retain   as  ge- 
 nuine ;  and  the  proofs,   by   which    he   endeavours  to    over- 
 turn  St.  Matthew's  relation  of  the  circumstances  attending 
 the  miraculous  nativity  of  our  Lord,  are  built  upon  the  as- 
 sumed genuineness  of  the  history  of  the  same  event  as  given 
 by  St.  Luke :  so  that  if  Dr.  Williams  be  right  in  his  results, 
 the  Editors  are  wrong  in  theirs:  wrong  in  retaining  the  ge- 
 nealogy of  St.  Matthew,  and  wrong  in  rejecting  the  first  twa 
 chapters  of  St.  Luke, 
 
 *  Review,  p.  70. 
 H  h  3 
 
AJO  APPENDIX. 
 
 the  authority  of  St.  Paul  is   completely  and  at 
 
 But  to  return  to  our  imme'5iate  subject.     We  have  seen 
 that  the  testlmouy  supporting  the  authenticity  of  the  first  two 
 chapters  of  St.  Matthew  carries  us  back  to  the  age  of  the 
 Apostles.     A  farther  confirmation  is   had  from  the  Syriac 
 Version,  whose  date  is  justly  referred  to  the  same  early  age, 
 and  in  which  (as  in  every  other  Version  of  St.  Matthew,  in- 
 cluding the  Old  ItaliCy  whose  antiquity  is  also  unquestioned,) 
 those  two  chapters  are  found  to  exist.     And  that  evidence 
 should  not  be  wanting  from   any   description  of  the  early 
 writers,  we  have  the  testimony  of  a  Hebrew  Christian,  J/e- 
 gesippus;  who,   as   Eusebius  informs  us,    was  amongst  the 
 first  successors  of  the  Apostles;  and  who  is  described   by 
 Gobar,  as  A^;;^aio?  T£  avr,^  y.cii  ct7roroXi.x.a(;.     In  a  fragment  of 
 this  writer,  we  have  a  reference  to  part  of  the  history   in 
 the  second  chapter  of   St.  Matthew;    from  which   Lardner 
 pronounces,  that  it  "  appears  plainly,  that  this  part  of  St. 
 Matthew's  Gospel  was  owned  by  this  Hebrew  Christian:"  so 
 that,  he  adds,  "  he  must  either  have  used  our  Greek  Gospel ; 
 or  if  he  used  only  the  Hebrew  edition  of  St.  Matthew,  this 
 history  must  have  been  in  it  in  his  time."  (  Lard.  Works,  vol.  ii. 
 p.  143.)  How  then  stands  the  evidence  upon  the  whole?  The 
 Syriac  Version,  which  is  one  of  Apostolical  antiquity,  and 
 the  Old  Italic,    both  contain   the  two  chapters.     Ignatius, 
 the  only  Apostolical  Father  who  had  occasion  to  make  refer- 
 ence to  them,  does  so.     The  Sibylline  oracles  do  the  same. 
 Justin  Martyr  does  the  same.     Celsus,  the  bitter  enemy  of  the 
 Christian  faith,  does  the  same.     Hegesippus,  a  Hebrew  Chris- 
 tian, does  the  same.  Irenaeus,  and  all  the  fathers  who  succeed 
 him,  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  do  the  same.     And  the  chap- 
 ters areat  this  day  found  in  every  manuscript  and  every  version 
 of  the  Gos'pel  of  St.  Matthew  which  is  extant  throughout  the 
 world.  Thus  we  have  one  continued  and  unbroken  series  of  tes. 
 tijnpny  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  to  the  present  time;  andj 
 
APPENDIX.  471 
 
 •nee  set  aside.     His  words,  it  is  sliewn,  admit  no 
 
 in  opposition  to  this,  we  find  only  a  vague  report  of  the  state 
 of  a  Hebrew  copy  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  said  to  be  re- 
 ceived amongst  an  obscure  and  unrecognised  description  of 
 Hebrew  Christians,  who  are  admitted,  even  by  the  very 
 "writers  who  claim  the  support  of  their  authenticity,  to  have 
 mutilated  the  copy  which  they  possessed,  by  removing  the 
 genealogy. — I  should  not  have  dwelt  so  long  upon  a  subject, 
 which  is  at  this  day  so  fully  ascertained  as  the  authenticity  of 
 the  first  two  chapters  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  did  it  not 
 furnish  a  fair  opportunity  of  exhibiting  the  species  of  evi- 
 dence, which  Unitarian  critics  are  capable  of  resisting;  and  the 
 sort  of  arguments,  with  which  they  do  not  scruple  to  resist  it. 
 I  have  mentioned  above,  that  the  first  two  chapters  of  St. 
 Matthew  are  found  in  all  the  MSS.  that  are  extant.  To  those 
 hitherto  commonly  known,  a  late  discovery  in  the  library  of 
 this  University  enables  me  to  add  the  testimony  of  one  more, 
 and  that  one  of  considerable  antiquity.  For  this  discovery 
 the  public  is  indebted  to  the  great  industry  and  accurate  re- 
 search of  the  Rev.  Doctor  Barret,  now  Vice-Provost  of 
 Trinity  College.  This  manuscript,  which  is  a  codex  rescrip-^ 
 tits,  contains  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  in  the  most  ancient 
 Greek  character,  of  which  a  fac  simile  has  been  published 
 by  the  University:  and  it  has  been  satisfactorily  shewn  by 
 the  learned  Editor  not  to  be  of  later  date  than  the  sixth 
 century.  In  this  MS.  we  find  the  first  two  chapters  of  Mat- 
 thew's Gospel,  with  the  exception  of  some  parts  wanting 
 from  mutilation  :  namely,  the  first  sixteen  verses  of  the  first 
 chapter,  and  from  the  seventh  to  the  twelfth  and  from  the 
 twentieth  to  the  twenty-third  verse  of  the  second  chapter. — 
 It  is  a  circumstance  worthy  of  observation,  that  Dr.  Williams, 
 speaking  of  this  manuscript,  of  which  he  had  received  an  ac- 
 count previous  to  its  publication,  observes,  "  no  information 
 eoDcerning  our  enquiry  can  be  derived  from  this  manuscript ' 
 H  h  4 
 
4^2  APPENDIX. 
 
 precise  meaning.    That  however,  which  St.  Paul 
 
 (Free  Encj.  p.  xxi.)  Now  the  course  of  the  enquiry  had 
 been  to  discover  MSS.  that  could  justify  the  rejection  of  the 
 first  two  chapters  of  St.  Matthew,  or  at  least  of  the  genealogy. 
 For  that  purpose,  undoubtedly,  this  MS.  could  yield  no  \iu 
 formation  :  but  for  that,  which  ought  to  be  the  purpose  of  aa 
 enquirer,  it  affords  full  information;  viz.  information  of  the 
 fact,  that  at  the  date  of  the  manuscript,  the  genealogy  and  the 
 whole  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  St.  Matthew  were  deemed 
 by  its  writer  to  be  authentic,  and  were  found  as  a  genuine 
 part  of  the  Gospel  in  the  MS.  from  which  it  was  copied. 
 
 In  support  of  what  has  been  asserted  (pp.  465,  466.)  con- 
 cerning Justin  Martjjr^s  reference  to  St.  Matthew's  Gospel, 
 the  following  remarks  will  probably  be  deemed  satisfactory. 
 
 The  quotation  from  Isaiah  vii.  14,  by  Justin  Martyr^  is  as 
 follows  ;  lotf  75  Tra^Scvo?  El/  yocT^i  eIe*,  Jcat  n^Brai  yiou'  y.cn  a^ai^-ts/ 
 liTTt  Tw  oyo/xart  ocvTii^  ^eO'  o)ju,a;j/  o  0£o?.  (p.  53.)  In  another  place 
 (p.  223.)  this  is  quoted  with  some  little  variation,  A»)^|/£Ta^ 
 being  read  for  eIei,  and  there  being  added  after  vtov  the  words, 
 
 jtat  nuXBcnrut  to  ovoy.cc  avTH  E/y./iAav&r.A,  Now  St.  Matthew,  and 
 he  only  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  has  quoted 
 this  prophecy.  Both  he  and  Justin  quote  it  in  the  same  ap« 
 plication.  Both  quote  it  in  the  third  person,  instead  of  the 
 second^  (thou  shult  call,)  in  which  it  is  given  by  both  the 
 Hebrew  and  Scptungint  of  the  Prophet :  and,  what  is  most 
 remarkable,  both  annex  the  interpretation  of  Emmanuel  ii^ 
 the  very  same  words,  /^.eO'  Ky.aiv  o  0£o?,  God  with  us.  So  that, 
 upon  the  whole,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  of  Justin's 
 having  taken  the  quotation  from  St.  Mattl.ew ;  as  w(  11  from 
 their  mutual  agreement  in  general,  as  from  their  common  de- 
 parture from,  and  commojgi  addition  to,  the  text  of  the  prophet 
 
APPENDIX.  4/3 
 
 might  to  have  said^,  jMr.  B.  informs  us :  viz.  "  tliat 
 
 as  it  stands  both  in  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek. — Again,  in  p. 
 64,  Justin  rdates  the  dcchiration  of  the  Angel  to  the  Virgin  in 
 the  manner  descrilx  d  both  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  ;  and, 
 having,  through  the  first  part  of  it,  used  the  expressions  of  both 
 indiflerently,  lie  concludes  with  these  words,  y.a»  y.aAjfrsi,-  t« 
 
 ovofAO,  ocvTU  Ircryi/,  scvroq  ycc^  <rua-n  rov  Aaov  aura  ccitq  tuv  ay^ccfnuv 
 uvruv;  which  last  clause  contains  the  very  words  of  St.  Mat- 
 thew, words  to  be  found  in  no  other  writer  of  the  New  Tes- 
 tament.    Justin,  moreover,  to  prove  that  he  was  giving  a 
 quotation  from  the  Evangelists,  adds,  "  as  ihcij  have  taught 
 us,  who  have  written  the  history  of  all  things  concerning  our 
 Saviour  Jesus  Christ:"  hereby  clearly  announcing,  that  he 
 derived  his  information  from  move  than  one  of  the   sacred 
 historians,    and  therefore  manifestly   pointing   out  both   St. 
 Matthew  and  St.  Luke,  who  only  of  the  sacred  historians 
 had  related  the  story  of  the  angel's  address  to  Mary.     And 
 yet,  what  is  Dr.  Williams's  observation  upon  this  passage  of 
 Justin  r — "  The  words  supposed  to  be  here  cited  from  St. 
 Matthew,  are,  for  he  shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins. 
 This,  however,  is  by  no  means  certain  ;    for  all  the  other 
 parts  of  the  quotation  are  taken  out  of  St.  Luke,  though  in  ^ 
 manner  somewhat  disordered.     These  words,  therefore,  may 
 be  no  more  than  a  loose  citation^  by  memory,  from  St.  Luke, 
 or  a  reference  to   some  other  passages  of  the  same  writer — 
 see  Acts  iv.  1^.  x.  43.     The  thought  occurs  in  a  variety  of 
 places  in  the  New  Testament;  so  that  we  are  not  necessarily 
 obliged  to  conclude  that  there  is  an  allusion  to  St.  Matthew, 
 and  to  no  other  Evangelist."     He  adds  also,  in  a  note,  that 
 f  the  manner  in  which  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
 make  citations  from  the  old,  plainly   shews  (hat  they  often 
 quoted  from  memory."  (Free  Enq.  p.  98.)--Here  is  surely 
 most  extraordinary  reasoning.     The  verj/  words  of  St.  Mat- 
 thew, to  a  letter^  arc  used  by  Justin.    The  same  words  ar« 
 
 1 
 
4/4  APPENDIX. 
 
 Jesus  having  been  advanced  to  great  dignity  and 
 
 employed  by  no  other  writer  of  the  New  Testament.  And 
 yet,  there  is  reason  to  think,  that  this  precise  repetition  of 
 St.  Matthew  is  not  a  quotation  from  him,  but  rather  a  looic 
 citation  from  St.  Luke,  who  has  not  used  any  terms  resemb- 
 ling them.  And,  because  the  thought  occurs  in  various 
 places  of  the  New  Testament,  we  are  not  obliged  io  conclude 
 that  there  is  an  allusion  to  St.  Matthew,  who  is  the  only 
 writer  that  has  used  the  woi^ds :  and  this  too,  although  Justin 
 tells  us,  that  he  quotes  from  the  Evangelists,  at  the  same 
 time  that  it  must  be  admitted,  that  no  other  but  Matthew  and 
 Luke  can  be  alluded  to ;  the  one  of  whom  does  not  at  all 
 employ  the  words  alluded  to,  and  the  other  does  most  accu- 
 rately. 
 
 Dr.  Williams,  indeed,  in  a  note,  adds,  that  "  Justin  also 
 seems  to  allude  to  the  Arabian  Magi,  Math.  ii.  11.  in  hi» 
 dialogue  with  Trypho,  p.  315,  &c.  but  it  may  be  only  an 
 allusion  to  a  common  tradition."  (Free  Enq.  p.  98.) — Now 
 the  reader  will  be  surprized  to  learn,  that  this  seeming  allu- 
 sion to  the  passages  in  Matth.  ii.  11.  concerning  the  Arabian 
 Magi,  is  almost  an  exact  transcript  of  that  part  of  St.  Mat* 
 thew's  history,  and  in  several  places  conveyed  in  the  very 
 words  of  St.  Matthew.  The  Magi,  speaking  of  the  king, 
 whose  birth  was  signified  by  the  appearance  of  the  star,  tell 
 Herod,  in  the  precise  terms  of  the  Evangelist,  xa<  rAfioasy 
 9r^ocnti'vns-a.t  avrov '.  and  having  come  to  Bethlehem,  and  fallen 
 down  and  worshipped  the  young  child,  they  are  described 
 by  Justin  as  bringing  their  gifts,  in  the  very  language  of  St. 
 
 Matthew  •  'Trcoaiviyy.av  avru  ou^cc^  ^^va-ot/^  xai  Xi^ocvoy^  xa» 
 o-y.v^vav:  and  again,  being  warned  in  a  vision  not  to  return  to 
 Ilerod,  they  are  described  l)y  Justin,  as  returning  into  their 
 own  country  by  a  different  way,  in  almost  the  very  words  of 
 thp  Evangelist  likewise,  ^t'  cc^^Mq  o^a  sk;  rxv  %(i'fav  avruv.  See 
 Matth.  ii.  2.  11,  12.  and  Justin^  pp.  304,  305.  307.  which 
 
APPENDIX.  475 
 
 felicity,  iS;,  by  the  appointment  of  God,   conti- 
 
 iast  pages,  indeed,  whoever  reads,  will  be  instantly  satisfied, 
 that  St.  Matthew  is  scarcely  out  of  the  view  of  the  "writer  in 
 a  single  line.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  it  is  not  to  this  part  of 
 Justin  that  Dr.  Williams  has  referred,  when  he  has  spoken 
 of  the  seeming  allusion  to  the  Mngi,  but  to  p.  315.  C.  Colon, 
 1686  ;  that  is,  to  p.  330  of  the  edition  here  cited.  But  why 
 did  not  Dr.  Williams  take  care  to  inform  himself  of  what 
 Justin  did  say,  before  he  ventured  to  pronounce  what  ho  did 
 not  say.  More  however  yet  remains.  We  find  in  this  his- 
 tory, as  given  by  Justin,  two  prophecies  applied,  which  are 
 applied  by  none  else  but  St.  Matthew ;  and  we  find  also,  that 
 these  prophecies  are  cited  in  the  words  of  St.  Matthew,  and 
 not  in  those  of  the  prophets  by  whom  they  were  delivered. 
 What  can  be  proof,  if  this  be  not? — 1.  In  like  manner  as  in 
 St.  Matthew,  we  here  find  Herod,  when  alarmed  by  the  re- 
 port of  the  wise  men,  consulting  the  scribes  and  elders ;  who 
 inform  him,  that  Christ  was  to  be  born  in  Bethlehem,  for 
 that  the  Prophet  had  said,  Kat  a-v  BefiAfe/A    7/;  la^a,  a^ui^ug 
 
 tha,-^i<Tri  E»  £v  Tot?  Ytyiy^.oo'w  I«da,  ex  (TH  ya.^  i^jXivtTB^oci  rtynfjiivoq 
 orK  Toi^ixvn  rov  y^cccv  jM.tf.  See  JMatt,  ii.  6,  and  J  uslin^  pp.  53. 
 305.  Now,  in  this  citation  of  the  prophecy,  the  Evangelist 
 and  the  Martyr  agree  in  every  letter ;  whilst  the  prophecy 
 itself,  as  given  by  the  LXX,  runs  differently  thus ;  Kai  av 
 
 BeOAeejx  oiKoq  Ttf  E^^aGa,  oXiyoro?  ei  t»  stvat  iv  ^\,\iot(7iv  la^a,'  £« 
 «■»  /*o^  t^i'KiVO'i'Ton  i^yaixevoq  re  Eivat  ei?  a^^ovrac  bv  tw  Icr^ar/A. — 
 Alex.'^^.  When  describing  the  slaughter  of  the  children 
 at  Bethlehem,  and  the  consequent  fulfilment  of  Jeremiah's 
 prophecy,  Justin  thus  quotes  the  prophecy:  <^w^r,  i>  Vacux 
 XXHc^n^  ;tAay9//o?  r.at  oav^fjcoq  ttoXv^'  '9a,yj{h  y.^^ama-a.  ra.  ny.ix 
 #cyT'/3?,  xa(  ax  jjOeXe  Tru^ctKXriQrivxi  oTi  Hx.  nat.  See  Justin^  p. 
 307,  and  Malt.  ii.  18.  Here  also,  we  have  a  complete  agree- 
 ment between  Justin  and  St.  Matthew,  with  this  single  ex- 
 peption,    that  the  words  3§*jvo?  x«j,    found  in  the  common 
 
476  APPENDIX. 
 
 nually  employing   his   renovated  and  improved 
 
 readings  of  St.  Matthew,  are  here  wanted.  But  it  should  be 
 at  the  same  time  noted,  that  these  words  are  likewise  wanted 
 in  some  manuscripts  and  many  versions  of  St.  Matthew;  and 
 that  Griesbach  marks  them  as  most  probably  to  be  expunged 
 from  the  text  of  the  Evangelist.  Now,  on  the  other  hand, 
 how  stands  the  prophecy  itself,  as  rendered  by  the  Seventy? 
 
 C>uv/)  IV  PociAcc  YiKHa^Yi  ■S'pjjva,  y.cci  xXocv^i^H^  xat  oov^[/.8y  Vo^yyiK 
 tcTTOKXociofji.iri);  £7rt  ruv  Viuv  ot,vrvi<;^  y.a,i  Hk  ijOeAev  Tra^ajtAvjOiji/a*,  on 
 Vy.  sio-iv. — uilex, — or,  as  in  Vatic.  a.iroy.'Xctio^/.ivn  en  ijQsAa  'Trccvaa.a-^on 
 fTTi  Ton;  vton;  cx,vrr,c,^  ori  ay.  eicriv. — These  remarkable  passages 
 in  Justin^  it  must  be  observed,  have  been  altogether  unno- 
 ticed by  Dr.  Williams. — What  then,  upon  the  whole,  is  to 
 be  judged,  concerning  the  likelihood  of  Justin's  having  quot- 
 ed from  St.  Matthew,  and  concerning  the  accuracy  of  Dr. 
 Williams's  examination  of  this  subjectj — it  cannotbe  necessary 
 farther  to  discuss. 
 
 At  p.  466  of  this  volume,  the  Sibylline  Oracles  have  been 
 referred  to.  A  few  extracts  from  those  oracles  are  here 
 subjoined.  In  the  eighth  book  are  to  be  found  several  pas- 
 sages relating  to  the  nativity  of  Christ.  The  angel  Gabriel  is 
 there  described,  as  visiting  Mary  the  mother  of  our  Lord, 
 and  foretelling  the  miraculous  production  of  the  Saviour: 
 and  the  birth  of  this  illustrious  deliverer,  at  Bethlehem,  of  a 
 virgin  mother,  is  at  length  detailed.  To  this  detail  is  added 
 what  follows. 
 
 Kaivo^aw/^  ^i  y.a.yoia-i  o-kQcta-^rt  Bea-(paro(;  ar*!^» 
 
 Kat  Aoytf  r)  BiQt^sbjjl  Trxr^iq  ^toy^Xviroq  eAEp^Or? 
 B«T£AaT:cK  T£  noih  otr/ijvoixoK;  x.xi  -Troj/xEcrtv  u^vuy, 
 
 p.  258. 
 
APPENDIX.  477 
 
 poNyers,  in  some  unknown  way,  for  the  benefit 
 
 In  the  same  work  also,  at  p.  65,  we  find  Ihe  incarnation 
 of  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  the  name,  l*;<roy?,  by  which,  in  his 
 human  form,  he  uas  to  be  known  to  men,  thus  described : 
 
 A/9  TOTE  y.cci,  (XByoiXoio  Qeov  TTixtq  afO^wTroicrtr 
 
 Ttac-a^a.  (puvYttvxa,  (pi^n'  nroe,  ^i  a:pa';a  ^f'  ccvru. 
 
 Dr.  Williams  refers  to  both  the  above  passages ;  and  admits, 
 that  there  are  manij  which  relate  to  the  birth  of  Christ.  Yet 
 he  contends,  that  they  are  all  eridently  taken  from  St.  Luke's 
 Gospel,  one  only  excepted  ;  r.amely,  that  one  first  cited 
 above,  which  states,  that  "  the  wondrous  new  star  that  ap- 
 peared was  revered  by  the  wise  men :"  and  this  he  endeavours 
 to  explain  away,  as  being  derivable  from  the  general  tradi- 
 tion, and  therefore  not  necessarily  to  be  traced  to  St.  Mat- 
 thew's Gospel.  (Free  Enq.  p.  97.) — Dr.  AVilliams  has,  how- 
 ever, been  rather  unfortunate  in  the  assertion,  that  every 
 circumstance  noticed  in  this  work  concerning  the  history  of 
 Christ,  with  the  single  exception  just  made,  is  taken  from 
 the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke.  Had  he  examined  the  Sibylline  Orcu 
 cles  for  himself,  and  not  contented  himself  with  looking  to 
 the  extracts  given  by  Lardner,  he  would  have  discovered  his 
 assertion  to  be  untenable;  he  would  have  found  one  passage, 
 at  least,  alluding  to  a  fact  not  recorded  by  St.  Luke,  nor  by 
 any  Evangelist  but  St.  Matthew,  that  of  the  preservation  of 
 the  infant  Jesus  by  the  flight  into  Egypt. 
 
 TOTS  ff'DjtAa  Q^oroic-iv 
 
 Efat  tfccK^y^^r,   orroray  '7rt(pv>^cicyy.Bifoi;  r|»? 
 
 Ex.  yyji;  AtyuTTTOjo  y.a.Xo<;  AtSo?.  tv  (5^'  cc^a.  tutu 
 
 Aao$  TT^ocry.o-^ei  st^atwv,   sGv)}  o'  ays^oiyrcii 
 
 Avra  v^-nyr,an, 
 
 pp.  65,  66. 
 
4/8  APPENDIX. 
 
 of  his  church."     We  are  told,    that  ^^  we  may 
 
 It  has  been  said  in  the  preceding  note,  p.  468,  that ''  the 
 references  made  by  the  Apostolical  Fathers  to  St.  Matthew'? 
 Gospel  are  extremely  few;*»  and  that,  (with  an  exception  in. 
 the  case  of  Ignatius)  "  these  Fathers  are,  in  no  part  of  their 
 writings,  engaged  in  any  debate  or  discussion  whatever  on 
 the  subject  of  the  birth  of  Christ.'*     The  truth  of  these  posi- 
 tions will  be  manifest  on  a  short  review.     The  Apostolical 
 Fathers  are  five^  Barnabas,  Clement,  Hermas,  Ignatius  and 
 Polycarp.     Now,    first,  as  to  St.  Barnabas;   the  greatest 
 number  of  possible  references  made  by  this  Father  to  St. 
 Matthew's  Gospel  amounts  to  eight:  and,  in  the  opinion  of 
 Lardner,  those,  that  may  with  any  strength  of  probability 
 be  considered  as  such,  do  not  exceed  /oz/r,  viz.  Matth.  xvi. 
 24;  XX.  16;  t.  42;  ix.  13.     And  neither  in  these,    nor  in 
 any  allusion  of  this  Father  to  any  part  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment, is  there  to  be  found  any  thing  controversial  respecting 
 the  birth  or  history  of  Christ.    That  the  reader  may  satisfy 
 himself  as  to  this  fact,  I   subjoin  the  several  passages,  toi 
 which,  in  addition  to  those  above  enumerated,  St.  Barnabas 
 can  be  supposed  to  have   referred.      Matth.  xxii.   43,  44. 
 xxiv.  22.    XXV.  5,  6.  10.    xxvi.  31.   Luke  vi.  30.  Acts  x.  42. 
 Rom.  iv.  3.  V.  16.  ix.   10,11,12.  xi.  36.    xv.  S.   1  Cor.  iii. 
 16.  xi.  20.  2  Cor.  v.  17.    Eph.  ii.  2.    v.  16,  17.   Phil.  iv.  5. 
 2  Tim.  i.  10.  Heb.  iii.  5.    x.  26.   1  Pet.  i.  17.  ii.  3.  2  Pet.  iii. 
 10.  Rev.  xxii.  12. 
 
 2.  As  to  St.  Clement.  In  the  Epistle,  wliich,  as  Bishop 
 of  Rome,  he  addressed  to  the  Church  of  Corinth,  we  find 
 but  four  references  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew;  viz. 
 vii.  1,  2,  12.  ix.  42.  xviii.  6.  xxvi.  21.  And  neither  in 
 these,  nor  in  any  allusions  to  other  parts  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment, do  we  meet  with  any  matter  connected  with  tlie  history 
 of  the  birth  of  Christ,  or  relating  to  any  object  but  that  of 
 moral  and    religious  improvement,   and  the  enforcement  of 
 
APPENDIX.  4/9 
 
 imagine  what  we  please,  but  that  more  than  tins 
 
 Christian  rules  of  conduct.     The   passages  supposed  to  b» 
 
 alluded  to  by  this  father,  are,  in  addition  to  those  already 
 
 fpecified,  these  which  follow.      Luke  vi.  36,  37,  38.  xvii.  2. 
 
 Acts  xiii.  22.  xx.  35.  Rom.  i.  29,   30.   32.  ii.  20.  ix.  4,  5. 
 
 xiv.  I.  3.  XV.  1.  1  Cor.  i.  12.  x.  24.  xii.  12.  15.  22.  24.  xiii.  4. 
 
 X?.    20.    2  Cor.  iii.  18.    viii.   5.    x.  17,   18.    xi.   24,    25. 
 
 Gal.  i.  4.  Eph.  iv.  4,  5,  6.  Phil.  i.  10.  ii.  5,  6,  7.  Col.  i.  10. 
 
 1  Thess.  V.  18.  23.     1  Tim.  ii.  8.    iii.  13.  v.  4.    2  Tim.  i.  9. 
 
 Tit.  iii.  1.    Heb.  i.  3,  4,  5.  7.  13.     iii.  2.  5.    iv.  12.   vi.   18. 
 
 xi.  5.  7,  8.  31,  32,  33,  34,  35,  36,  37.  39.  xii.  1,  2.  6.  9, 
 
 10,  11.   James  i.  5,  6,  7,  8.    ii.  21.  23.  iii.  13.    iv.  3,  4.  6. 
 
 1  Pet.  iv.  8.  V.  5.  2  Pet.  ii.  5,  6,  7.  9.  iii.  4. 
 
 [This  father's  allusion  to  one  of  the  above  passages,  Gal.  i.  4. 
 I  insert  here,  though  not  connected  with  the  present  subject, 
 as  throwing  a  strong  light  upon  the  sense,  which,  in  those 
 apostolic  days,  was  assigned  to  the  phrase  giving  himself  for 
 us  as  applic  d  to  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  Akx  mn  ayottr^v  r,v 
 ia^iv  ir^oq  rifitxiy  TO  a»aa  avra  i^uy.sr  vtts^  rjuur  Irjaot/j  X^iro^  » 
 Kv^iof  vfjiuy^  sv  9iX>5//.«T»  Qiov^  xati  rv*  crct^y.oc  vTn^  t>??  cra^^Koq  ri^uv^ 
 xoki  fnv  ■^v^viy  vTTB^  rut  -^v^uD  njAUP,  (Pair.  Apost,  vol,  i. 
 pp.  189,  190.^  Through  the  love  which  he  had  for  us, 
 Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  by  the  zcill  of  God,  gave  his  bloud 
 for  us  :  his  flesh  for  our  flesh,  his  soul  for  our  soul.  The 
 reader  will  please  to  carry  this  exposition  of  the  passage  of 
 Galatians,  i.  4.  back  to  p.  217 — 252  of  vol.  i.  where  the  sub- 
 stitutive force  of  the  word  vTre^  has  been  already  considered.] 
 3.  In  the  Shepherd  of  licrmas  we  rceet  with  allusions 
 (most  of  them  remote)  to  ten  passages  of  St.  Matthew  at  the 
 most:  viz.  Matt.  v.  28.  42.  x.  32,  33.  xiii.  5,  6,  7.  20,  21, 
 22.  31,  32.  xix.  23,  24.  xviii.  3,4.  xxiii.  6.  xxviii.  18.  The 
 other  parts  of  the  New  Testament  to  which  this  father  may 
 be  supposed  to  allude,  are  the  following.  Mark  ix.  50. 
 T^kexiii.  24,25.  xvi.  18.    John  xiv.  0.  Acts  v.  41.  Horn. 
 
480  APPENDIX. 
 
 is  not  revealed ;    of  which  it  unfortunately  hap- 
 
 Tiii.  11.  ix.  4.  xi.  29.  xv.  7.  1  Cor.  iii.  16,  17.  vii.  11.  15. 
 2  Cor.  Tii.  10.  Gal.  iii.  27.  Eph.  iv.  4.  30,  31.  Philip,  iv.  18. 
 Gol.  i.  15,  16.  1  Thess.  v.  13.  2  Tim.  i.  14.  iv.  18.  Heb. 
 xii.  17.  James  i.  5.  ii.  7.  iii.  13.  17.  iv.  2,  3,4.7.  12.  v.  1, 
 2.  4.  1  Pet.  1.  6,  7.  iii.  15.  v.  7.  2  Pet.  ii.  15.  20.  1  John 
 ii.  27.  iv.  6.  v.  6.  2  John  4.  3  John  3,  4.  Jude  xxi.  24. 
 There  are  expressions  also  in  this  father  resembling  several 
 m  the  book  of  Revelations.  But  in  none  of  these  allusions 
 to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  do  we  find  the  author 
 concerned  with  any  other  than  topics  of  moral  and  religious 
 exhortation. 
 
 4.  In  those  Epistles  of  Ignatius  which  are  received  as 
 genuine,  there  are  to  be  discovered,  besides  the  allusions  to 
 the  fii'St  two  chapters  of  Matthew  noticed  at  p.  467  of  this 
 Tolume,  but  six  passages  of  that  Evangelist  to  which  this 
 father  can  be  supposed  to  refer:  viz.  iii.  15.  x.  16.  xii.  33. 
 xviii.  19,  20.  xix.  12.  In  addition  to  these,  he  may  be  con- 
 sidered as  referring  to  the  following  parts  of  the  other  Gos- 
 pels and  Epistles.  Luke  xiv.  27,  John  iii.  8.  viii.  29.  x.  9. 
 xii.  49.  x\i.  11.28.  Acts x.  41.  Rom.  viii.  38,  39.  xv.  7.  1  Cor. 
 i.  10.  18, 19,20.  iv.4.  v.  7.  vi.  9,  10.  xv.  8.  2  Cor.  v.  14,  15. 
 Gal.  i.  1.  V.  4.  Eph.  ii.  22.  iv.  3,  4,  5.  v.  2.  25.  29.  vi.  13, 
 14.  16,  17.  Philip,  i.  21.  ii.  3.  5.  Col.  i.  7.  1  Tluss.  v. 
 17.  2  Tim.  i.  16.  18.  ii.  4.  Tit.  ii.  3.  Piiilem.  20.  Ileb.  x. 
 28,  29.  xiii.  9.  1  Pet.  v.  5.  1  John  i.  2.  3  John  2.  Of 
 these,  as  of  the  passages  of  the  New  Testament  alluded  to  by 
 the  fathers  before  named,  i  is  to  be  remarked,  that  none  are 
 connected  wilh  any  discussion  concerning  the  nativity  of  our 
 Lord.  And  the  allusions,  which  this  fatiier  (as  observed  at 
 p.  467.) has  made  to  that  subject,  will  be  found,  upon  exami-^ 
 nation,  not  to  have  been  studiously  and  formally  brought  for- 
 ivard  for  the  purpose  of  proving  the  miraculous  circumstances 
 of  our  Lord's  birth,  as  if  they  were  at  that  time  not  generally 
 
APPENDIX.  481 
 
 penS;  that  not  one  word  is  revealed — except  by  Mr. 
 
 assented  to;  but  introduced  familiarly  and  unqualifiedly, 
 as  relating  to  a  fact  well  known,  and  about  which  no  dilfor- 
 cnce  of  opinion  prevailed,  or  at  least  none  that  demanded  a 
 more  detailed  consideration. 
 
 Lastly,  with  respect  to  Polycarp^  of  wboR^  writings  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Philipjnans  is  the  only  one  that  has  been  pre- 
 served; his  references  to  St.  Matthew  are  as  follo\7.  Matdi. 
 V.  3.  7.  10.  44.  vi.  12,  13,  14,  15.  vii.  1,  2.  xxvi.  41.  These 
 relate  merely  to  matter  of  religious  exhortation  and  enforce- 
 ment, as  do  his  remaining  references  to  other  parts  of  the 
 New  Testament ;  namely,  Acts  ii.  24.  Rom.  xii.  17.  xiii.  9, 
 iO.  xiv.  10.  12.  1  Cor.  v.  11.  vi.  2.  9,  10.  2  Cor.  iv.  14.  vi.  7. 
 ▼iii.  21.  Gal.  i.  1.  iv.  26.  vi.  7.  Ephes.  ii.  8,  9.  iv.  26.  Philip. 
 ii.  10,  11.  16.  Col.  i.  28.  1  Thess.  v.  17.  22.  2Thess.  iii.  15. 
 1  Tim.  ii.  1,  2.  ti.  7.  10.  2  Tim.  ii.  11,  12.  iv.  10.  Heb.  iv. 
 12, 13.  I  Pet.  i.  8.  13.21.  1  Pet.  ii.  11,  12.  17.  22.  24.  iii.  9. 
 14.  iv.  §.  7.  V.  5.  1  John  ii.  7.  iv.  3,  Jude  3. 
 
 The  purposes,  for  which  the  Apostolical  Fathers  referred 
 to  the  New  Testament,  will  readily  be  discerned  by  a  re- 
 view cf  the  passages,  to  which  they  can  be  supposed  to  have 
 alluded,  and  which  have  been  here  very  fully  enumerated. 
 In  truth,  so  far  are  they  frcm  having  had  occasion  to  refer 
 to  such  parts  of  scripture  as  relate  to  the  family  and  birth  of 
 Christ,  that,  with  the  exception  of  Ignatius,  their  subjects 
 in  no  in7.ta.ice  lead  them  to  any  discussion  or  even  notice  of 
 these  points.  The  epistle  of  Barnabas*  consists  of  two  parts : 
 the  one  exhorting  to  constancy  in  the  belief  and  profession 
 of  the  Christian  doctrine  zmthoul  the  rites  of  the  Jev:uh  tazv : 
 and  the  other  containing  a  course  of  moral  instructions.  (See 
 Menard.  Judic.  deS.  Barn.  Fair.  Aposi.  vol.  i.  p.  \xviii.)  The 
 epistle  of  Clement  is  designed  to  compose  dissensions,  which 
 had  sprung  up  in  the  church  of  Corinth  respecting  spiritual 
 governors;  and  is  prlricipaiiy  occupied  in  recommendiuij 
 VOL.    II.  i  I 
 
482  APPENDIX. 
 
 Belsham:  St.  Paul  having  simply  said,  that  Christ 
 
 peace,  and  harmony,  and  humility,  and  faith,  and  all  the  vir- 
 tues of  a  Christian  life.  The  writings  of  Ilermas  consist  of  vi- 
 sions, mandates,  and  similitudes,  all  totally  unconnected 
 T\ith  the  person  and  history  of  Christ-  The  short  letter  of 
 Polycarp,  which  is  scarcely  of  sufficient  bulk  to  fill  ten  oc- 
 tavo pages,  is  entirely  employed  in  godly  exhortation.  And 
 in  the  genuine  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  in  which  heretical  opi- 
 nions are  adverted  to,  we  find  that  father  opposing  to  those 
 opinions  the  fact  of  our  Lord's  miraculous  birth,  agreeably 
 to  the  account  given  of  it  by  St.  Matthew ;  and  opposing  that 
 fact  as  decisive  and  unanswerable  in  argument,  whilst  it  is 
 itself  assumed  as  a  matter  about  which  there  was  no  dispute. 
 That  the  heretical  opinions,  moreover,  against  which,  he  had 
 to  contend,  were  not  those  which  maintained  the  simple  hu- 
 manity of  Christ,  but  those,  on  the  contrary,  which  denied 
 his  human  nature  altogether,  and  the  reality/  of  his  sufferiog 
 and  resurrection ;  seems  fairly  deducible  from  the  entire  tenor 
 and  language  of  his  Epistles,  and  more  especially  from  the 
 xith  section  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Magnesians,  in  which  he  lays 
 particular  stress  on  these  things  having  been  do?ie  truly  and 
 ^ertainly^  ir^oi.'x^^ivroe,  u'Kr,^u<i  y.oa  Qs^cnu;<;.  [On  this  subject  I 
 cannot  forbear  recommending  to  the  reader  an  excellent  work 
 of  the  late  Mr.  Wilson,  of  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge, 
 on  the  Method  of  Explaining  the  New  Testament  by  the 
 early  opinions  of  JeKS  and  Christians  concerning  Christ, 
 i^et  him  look  particularly  to  p.  357,  and  the  argument  con- 
 nected therewith.  1  cannot  but  think,  that  this  ingenious 
 writer  has  taken  a  juster  view  than  that,  which  even  the 
 learned  Bishop  Fearson,  the  great  vindicator  of  Ignatlus's 
 wiitlngB,  has  formed,  of  the  nature  of  the  heresies  with  whicb 
 this  antient  father  had  to  contend.] 
 
 How  little,  then,  upon  the  whole,  these  early  fathers  had 
 to  do  with  establishing  the  truth  of  the  history  relating  to 
 "  the  family  and  birth  of  Christ/*  how  little  they  were,  in 
 
APPENDIX.  4S3 
 
 ts  now  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  making  inter- 
 cession for  as. — God  however  has  no  right  hand; 
 and  interceding  does  not  mean,  interceding."^ 
 
 their  writings,  concerned  in  *'  debates  with  Jewish  unbe.. 
 Uevers  i''"'  how  little  they  were  urged  to  the  necessity  of  *'  re- 
 ferring to  the  first  two  chapters  of  St.  Matthew,"  and  how 
 little  consequently  Dr.  Williams  is  at  liberty  to  infer  from 
 the  silence,  which  he  attributes  to  them  on  the  subject  matter 
 of  those  chapters,  the  conclusion  that  tliey  are  spurious, — I. 
 leave  to  the  reader  to  determine.  That  he  may  form  th» 
 better  judgment  of  the  value  of  the  argument  derived  from 
 the  silence  of  the  Apostolical  Fathers  concerning  any  assigned 
 portion  of  Scripture,  I  shall  conclude  with  transcribing  some 
 observations  of  the  indust  ious  and  cautious  Lardner  upon 
 the  subject  of  their  writings.  (JVorks^  vol.  ii.  pp.  103, 104.) — 
 ''  All  these  are  but  short  pieces.  The  largest  is  the  Shepherd 
 of  Hermas,  which  is  almost  as  large  as  all  the  rest  put  toge- 
 ther. But  it  was  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  that  work 
 for  the  writer  to  quote  books.  All  these  pieces,  except  the 
 Shepherd  of  Hermas,  are  epistles  written  to  Christians;  who, 
 it  is  likely,  needed  not  at  that,  time  to  be  particularly  in- 
 formed what  books  they  ought  to  receive ;  but  only  to  be  ad- 
 monished to  attend  to  the  things  contained  in  them,  and  to 
 maintain  their  respect  for  them,  as  is  here  often  done."  From 
 these  and  other  particulars,  he  proceeds  to  say, — "  it  is  ap- 
 parent, that  these  Apostolical  Fathers  have  not  omitted  to 
 take  notice  of  any  book  of  the  New  Testament,  which,  as  far 
 as  we  are  able  to  judge,  their  design  led  them  to  mention. 
 Their  silence,  therefore,  about  any  other  books  can  be  no 
 prejudice  to  their  genuineness,  if  we  shall  hereafter  meet  with 
 credible  testimonies  to  them."  What  has  been  here  justly 
 remarked  respecting  the  books  of  Scripture,  equally  applies 
 to  portions  of  those  books. 
 
 *  Mr.  Belsham's  remark  on  the  force  of  the  original  word, 
 
484  APPENDIX. 
 
 With  a  few  other  criticisms  of  the  hke  nature 
 Mr.  Belsham  has  enriched  his  work.     He  has. 
 
 Tendered  by  us,  making  intercession^  deserves  to  be  noticed. 
 "  The  word'*  he  says,  '*  expresses  any  interference  of  onQ 
 person /or  or  against  another."  Now,  from  this  it  follows, 
 that  if  Christ  be  not  supposed  to  interfere  for  us^  he  must  be 
 employed  in  exercising  his  powers  against  us.  Does  Mr.  B. 
 prefer  this  to  the  received  sense  ?  It  appears,  however,  that 
 he  has  borrowed  his  view  of  this  passage  from  Dr.  Taylor'ii 
 note  on  Rom.  viii.  27.  as  he  refers  us  to  that  for  full  satis- 
 faction. Such  then  is  the  joint  light  of  Dr.  Taylor  and  Mr. 
 Belsham.  But  it  seems  necessary  to  remind  Mr.  B.  of  the 
 difference  between  eyTfyp^avst?  y.a,rct,^  and  evrvy^otvtiv  v<m^.  I 
 must  therefore  take  the  liberty  of  referring  him  to  his 
 Lexicon.  Or,  if  he  xcill  look  to  Commentators,  perhaps 
 iscre  he  to  consult  Locke  and  Peirce, — two  of  those  very 
 commentators  whom  he  himself  has  named,  but  seems  to  have 
 named  only  as  giving  a  grace  and  character  to  his  list,  whilst 
 they  certainly  deserved  to  have  been  placed  in  better  com- 
 pany,— he  would  find  their  interpretation  decidedly  in  favour 
 of  that,  w  hich  no  scholar  can  question  to  be  the  sense  of  the 
 original,  interceding.  As  the  authority  of  a  German  com- 
 mentator, is  likely  also  to  have  considerable  weight  with 
 Mr.  B.  I  would  recommend  It  to  him  to  attend  to  Rosenmiil- 
 ler's  distinction,  (Rom.  xi.  2.) — "  iL.vtvyxO'mv  vm^  rivoi;,  est 
 negotium,  alicvjus  commendare,  intercedere  pro  aliquo ; 
 fyrt/yxafEtf  zara  tus?,  est  oliqiiem  accusare  :^^  so  says  Schleus- 
 uer  likewise,  (who  deserves  to  be  particularly  consulted  on 
 the  word  eiryyp^^aiw)  and  so  say  all  the  Lexicons.  Mr,  B.  how- 
 ever says  otherwise.  "  Time,  labour,  patience,  and  candour" 
 liave,  no  doubt,  convinced  him  that  they  are  wrong. 
 
 As  Mr.  B.  has  referred  to  Dr.  Taylor,  for  the  true  and 
 adequate  sense  of  the  original  word  in  these  passages,  it  U 
 but  fair  to  state  that  writer's  observations  on  the  force  of  the 
 
APPENDIX.  485 
 
 hoWever,  not  adventured  far  into  the  field  of  con- 
 troversy.    He  has  trusted  rather  to  abstract  i  ea- 
 
 term  as  applied  In  Rom.  vlii.  27.    "  The  spirit  of  God  ?nakcx 
 intercessio7i  for  the  Saints^  not  by  making  application  to  God 
 on  their  behalf,  but  by  directing  and  qualifying  their  suppll. 
 cations  in  a  proper  manner,  by  his  agency  and  injlucnces 
 upon  ihcir  hearts;  ichkh,  according  to  the  Gospel  scheme^ 
 is  the  peculiar  zcork  and  office  of  the  holy  spirit." — What 
 then?  is   Dr.   Taylor,  he  who  has  so  "well  explained  the 
 Jewish  phrases  in  his  admirable  kejj^^^ — is  he^  after  all,  but 
 one  of  those  "  popular  interpreters,"  who,  in  opposition  to 
 the  "  Rational  Christian,"  contend  for  the  idle  notion  of  the 
 existence  and  influence  of  the  IJolij  Spirit?  And  does  he,  to 
 ■whom  Mr.  B.  refers,  for  a  full  explanation  of  the  original 
 phrase  commonly  rendered  in  the  sense  of  making  interces. 
 sion  for  us,  expound  the  v/ords  evTvy^avsiv  vrap,  when  ap- 
 plied to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  signifying  that  benevolent  inter- 
 ference, whereby  our  supplications  are  rendered  more  ac- 
 ceptable and  effectual  wilh  our  Almighty  Father?  The  same 
 words',  it  is  clear,  cannot  be  instantly  purged  of  this  mean- 
 ing, w  hen  they  are  applied  by  the  same  writer,  in  a  few  lines 
 after,  to  tlie  case  of  our  blessed  Lord;  so  that  I  fear  much, 
 that  when  Mr.  B.  comes  to  reconsider  this  matter,  he  will  b« 
 obliged  to  repudiate  his  boasted  auxiliary,  Dr.  Taylor,  as 
 little  better  than  Orthodox. 
 
 What  had  been  thus  given,  in  the  former  editions  of  this 
 work,  as  matter  of  speculation,  has  now  become  matter  of 
 fact:  Mr.  Belsbam,  in  his  latter  views  of  this  subject,  has 
 carefully  omitted  the  mention  of  Dr.  Taylor.  lie  finds 
 it  much  safer  to  place  his  reliance  on  Mr,  Lindsey;  an  au- 
 thority, which  is  not  likely  to  fail  him  in  any  Unitarian  per. 
 version  of  the  sense  of  scripture.  And,  with  his  assistance, 
 having  first  explained  the  word  f^n -/%«»«,  as  expressing  any 
 kind  of  interference  whatever,  he  arrives  at  this  couclusion^ 
 lis 
 
486  APPENDIX. 
 
 soning,  upon  what  he  calls  philosophical  prin- 
 ciples; and  whilst  he  has  confined  himself  to  the 
 stringing  together  a  number  of  rapid  conclusions 
 from  plausible  premises,  or  to  what  is  vulgarly 
 stiled  *  declamation,  he  has  left  it  to  the  more 
 
 that  what  is  called  the  intercession  of  Christ  implies  the  "  ope- 
 ration and  effect  of  his  missitii  and  doctrine  in  the  world." 
 (Calm  Inquiry^  kc.  p.  327.)  In  like  manner,  the  Unitarian 
 Version,  to  which  he  refers,  and  in  which  probably  he  but 
 quotes  himself.  For  an  admirable  exposure  of  the  absurdity 
 of  the  interpretation  thus  given  by  Mr.  Belsham  and  his  Uni- 
 tarian Version,  I  refer  the  reader  to  Mr.  Narcs's  Remarks, 
 p.  140 — 144.  I  shall  only  add,  for  the  purpose  of  shewing 
 how  miserably  unfit  the  Editors  of  this  Version  are  for  the 
 task  which  they  have  undertaken,  that  in  their  note  on  this 
 word  in  Rom.  viii.  34,  whilst  they  profess  to  give  the  inter- 
 pretation of  it  by  Schleusner^  (an  authority  to  which  I  had  for- 
 merly taken  the  liberty  of  referring  Mr.  Belsham,)  they  garble 
 and  actually  falsify  his  application  of  the  term:  and  again,  that 
 in  their  note  on  the  same  word  in  Hebr.  vii,  26,  they  repeat 
 the  identical  error  of  reference  into  which  Schleusner  had 
 fallen,  quoting  Acts  xxvii.  24,  instead  of  Acts  xxv.  24:  and 
 this  too,  whilst  they  are  engaged  in  enumerating  the  precise 
 parts  of  the  New  Testament  in  which  the  word  is  to  be  found, 
 and  would  have  us  believe  that  they  have  consulted  those 
 very  passages  for  its  meaning :  thus  evincing,  at  the  same 
 time,  their  servile  adherence  to  any  authority  on  which  they 
 may  choose  to  rely,  and  their  negligent  rashness  united  with 
 afl'ected  research  in  matters  relating  to  the  accuracy  of  the 
 sacred  text. 
 
 *  One  of  the  finest  possible  specimens  of  the  species  of 
 criticism  that  goes  by  this  name,  is  to  be  found  in  another 
 publication  of  Mr.  Bclshani's^  which  I  have  already  noticed, 
 
APPENDIX.  4S7 
 
 critical  advocates  of  Unitarianism  to  prove,  that 
 the  words  of  scripture  bear  that  meaning  which 
 
 entitled  Letters  on  Jvianism.     At  p.  129,  of  that  work,  he 
 attacks  the  absurdity,  of  deducing  from  the  language  used 
 throughout  the  New   Testament  respecting  the  creation  of 
 nil  things  h\j  Jesus  Christy  the  strange  conclusion,  that  by 
 him  a  creation  was  literally  efl'ected.    lie  admits,  indeed,  that 
 in  Ephesians  iii.  9.  it  is  said,  that  "  God  created  all  things 
 by  Jesus  Christ :" — that  in  Ileb.  i.  2.  it  is  said,  "  by  whom 
 also  he  made  the  worlds:" — and  again  in  Colossians  i.  15,  IG. 
 *'  Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  first  born  of 
 every  creature,  for  by  him  were  all  things  created  that  are  in 
 heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether 
 they  be  thrones  or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers, 
 all  things  were  created  by  him,  and  for  him,  and  he  is  be- 
 fore all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  consist."     But  after 
 launching  against  these,  the  usual  Socinian  refutations, — that 
 creating  does  not  mean  creating^  and  that  zcorlds  are  dispen. 
 sations,  &c.  &c. — he  proceeds,  by  a  still  happier  llight,  to 
 shew  that  the  same  language  is  as  applicable  to  Buonapartti 
 as  to  Jesus  Christ.  I  give  his  words. — '•  Of  a  certain  person, 
 who  now  makes  a  very  considerable  figure  in  the  world,  it 
 may  be  said  with  truth,  so  far  as  the  civil  state  of  the  con- 
 tinent of  Europe  is  concerned,  that  he  is  the  creator  of  all 
 these  new  distinctions,  high  and  low,  whether  thrones,  or 
 dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers,  all  these  things  are 
 made  by  him,  and  for  him,  and  he  is  before  them  all,  takes 
 precedence  both  in  time  and  dignity,  and  by  him  do  all  these 
 things  consist.     Yet  who  would  infer  from  such  language  as 
 this,  that  the  present  ruler  of  France  is  a  being  of  superior 
 order  to   mankind,  much  less  that  he  is  the  maker  of  i\\% 
 world  ?   The  language  which  is  true  of  Bonaparte^  in  a  civil 
 sense,  is  applicable  to  Jesus  Christ  in  a  moral  viezc ;  but  it 
 no  more  implies prcexistence,  or  proper  creative  jioicer,  in  . 
 I  i  4 
 
4SS  APPENDIX. 
 
 he  every  where  assumes.  Indeed  this  work,  the 
 professed  object  of  which  is  to  try  the  doctrines  of 
 the  gospel  by  the  standard  of  scripture  no  less 
 than  by  that  of  reason^  is  so  miserably  deficient 
 in  the  point  of  critical  enquiry,  that  its  avowed 
 admirers,  the  Analytical  Reviewers,  feel  it  neces- 
 sary to  admit,  whilst  they  endeavour  to  vindicate, 
 this  defect. — "  We  have  said,  this  is  a  popular 
 work.  The  reader  must  not  look  into  it  for  ver- 
 bal criticism,  or  the  citation  of  ancient  authority." 
 But  they  add,  in  excuse,  "  the  work  to  which 
 it  is  a  reply,  was  altogether  declamation.''*  And 
 if  so,  it  has  undoubtedly  been  answered  in  its 
 own  way. 
 
 I  have  now  done  with  Mr.  Belsham ;  nor 
 should  I  have  directed  the  attention  of  the  reader 
 so  much  to  this  gentleman's  performance,  had  I 
 known  any  'f' other  work,  than  the  Review  of  Mr, 
 
 one  case^  than  in  the  other.''''  Ill — This  comment  of  Mr.  Bel- 
 sham's  requires  no  comment  from  me. 
 
 ^-  Review  for  March,  1798. 
 +  That  part  of  the  Unitarian  creed,  which  relates  io  the 
 person  and  character  of  our  Lord,  has  received  some  addi. 
 tional  touches  from  tlie  hand  of  Mr.  Belsham,  in  a  work 
 recently  published  ;  which  he  entitles,  A  Calm  Inquiry  into 
 the  Scripture  Doctrine  concerning  the  Person  of  Christ; 
 and  in  which  he  professes  to  give  a  formal  digest  of  the  re- 
 cognised opinions  of  the  UnitariasiE;  upon  this  subject  in  the 
 year  1811.  Of  this  digest  I  seh  ct  the  ^qw  passages  which 
 follow. — "The  Unitarian  doctrine  is,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
 was  a  man  constituted  in  all  respects  like  other  men    subject 
 
APPENDIX.  489 
 
 IFilher force's  Treatise,  in  vvliich  the  entire  sys- 
 tem and  bearings  of  the  doctrines  called  Unitarian^ 
 
 to  the  same  infirmities,  the  same  ignorance,  prejudices,  and 
 frailties," — "  that  he  Mas  born  in  low  circumstances,  having  no 
 peculiar  advantages  of  education,   or  learning,   &-c." — "  The 
 Unitarians  maintain,  that  Jesqs  and  his  Apostles  were  super- 
 naturally  instructed  as  far  as  was  necessary  for  the  execotion 
 cf  their  commission,  that  is,  for  the  revelation  and  proof  of 
 the  doctrine  of  eternal  life,  and  that  the  favour  of  God  ex, 
 fended  to  the  Gentiles  equally  with  the  Jews;  and  that  Jesus, 
 and  his  Apostles,  and  others  of  the  primitive  lielievers,  were 
 occasionally   inspired    to    foretell  future  events.      But  they 
 believe  that    supernatural  inspiration  was    limited    to    tJiese 
 cases  alone :    and   that  when   Jesus  or  his  Apostles  deliver 
 opinions  upon   subjects  unconnected  with  the  object  of  their 
 mission,  such  opinions,  and  their  reasonings  upon  them,  are 
 to  be  received  vvitii  the  same  attention  and  caution  with  those 
 of  oilier  persons  in   similar  circumstances,  of  similar  educa- 
 tion, and  with  similar  habits  of  thinking."  (pp.  4  17.  451.) 
 Here  then  is  an  improved  view  of  the  case:  a  manifest  pro. 
 gress  in  the  Unitarian  system.     The  supernatural  instruction 
 Touchsafed  to  our  Lord  was  strictly  limited  to  the  object  of 
 his  mission:  this  object  was,  exclusively,  to  make  known  the 
 doctrine  of  eternal  life,  and  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles  to 
 divine  favour  equally  widi  the  Jews :  in  all  matters  not  con- 
 nected with  this  object,  the  opinions  and  reasonings  of  our 
 Lord  are  to  be  esteemed  of  no  greater  value  tliau  those  of  any 
 person  of  similar  circumstances  and  education,  he  beirig  sub- 
 ject to  the  same  ignorance  and  prejudices  io  which  tiio  com- 
 mon nature  of  man  is  subject:  and  as  he  was  of  low  circum- 
 stances and  had  no  peculiar  advantages  of  education  or  learn- 
 ing, of  course  it  follows  upon  the  whole,  that  the  opinions  and 
 reasonings  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  C'iirist,  are  (ex- 
 cept when  they  relate  to  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life  and 
 
490  APPENDIX. 
 
 are  exhibited  with  equal  brevity,  distinctness^  and 
 candour.     To  Mr.  B.  is  certainly  due^,  the  praise 
 
 tiniversal  retribution)  to  be  treated  with  as  little  respect,  as 
 those  of  any  person  of  low  origin  and  circumstances  who  had 
 received  as  few  advantages  of  learning  or  education.     I  have 
 not  carried  on  the  argument  as  regarding  the  Apostles,  for 
 Mr.  Belsham  and  his  associates  have  long  ago  disposed  of  the 
 Epistles.     But  how  much  of  the  Gospels  must  now  follow 
 them  as  waste  paper? — Yet  farther,    it  is  not  merely  the 
 tngnorance  and  prejudices^  to  which  our  Lord  was  as  subject 
 us  other  men^  that  we  have  to  guard  against  in  his  opinions 
 and  reasonings  on  all  topics,  save  the  one  above  excepted ; 
 but  we  have  also  to  secure  ourselves  against  the  consequences 
 of  those  infirmities  and  frailties  of  all  descriptions  which 
 are  incident  to  human  nature,  and   to  which  our  Lord  was 
 not  less  liable  than  other  human  beings.     Thus,  according 
 to  Mr.  Belsham,  the  moral  as  well  as  the  intellectual  im- 
 perfections, which  render  the  opinions  and  reasonings  of  men, 
 and  more  particularly  of  men  w^ho  have  had  no  peculiar  ad- 
 vantages of  education  or  learning,  liable  to  error  and  ex- 
 ception,   alike   affect  the    opinions  and  reasonings  of  our 
 blessed  Lord ;  save  only  on  that  one  subject,  to  which,  Mr. 
 Belsham  informs  us,  his  commission  was  rigidly  restricted. 
 As  Mr.  Belsham's  language  seems  here  to  cast  a  reflexion  on 
 the  moral  character  of  our  Lord,  it  is  but  justice  to  Mr.  B. 
 to  state  what  he  has  expressly  said  upon  that  point.     "  The 
 moral  character  of  Christ,  through  the  whole  course  of  his 
 public  minislrij^  as  recorded  by  the  Evangelists,  is  pure  and 
 unimpeachable  in  every  particular.     Whether  this  perfection 
 of  character  in  public  life,  combined  with  the  general  decla- 
 ration of  his  freedom  from  sin,  establish,  or  were  intended 
 to  establish,  the  fact,  that  Jesus  through  the  whole  course  of 
 his  private  life  was  completely  exempt  from  all  the  errors  and 
 failings  of  human  nature,  is  a  question  of  no  great  intrinsic 
 
APPENDIX.  4gi 
 
 of  an  honest  and  open  avowal  of  his  sentiments. 
 And,  in  his  work,  as  I  doubt  not  in  his  life,  are 
 exhibited  strong  traits  of  talent,  combined  with 
 amiable  and  virtuous  feeling.    The  same  freedom 
 
 moment,  and  concerning  which  we  have  no  sufTicient 
 data  to  lead  to  a  satisfactory  conclusion."  (p.  190.)  Here 
 Mr.  Belsham  admits  that  we  have  no  actual  proof  of  any 
 sinful  acts  committed  by  our  Lord  in  his  private  life,  so  tliat 
 we  cannot  positively  and  satisfactorily  pronounce  any  thing 
 npon  that  head.  But  it  must  be  observed,  that  this  admis- 
 sion has  been  made  after  the  recital  of  certain  declarations  of 
 scripture,  that  "  he  knew  no  sin;"  that  he  "  was  holy, 
 harmless,  undefiled,  and  separate  from  sinners;"  that  he 
 ''  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in  his  mouth;"  and 
 others  of  the  same  import: — although,  as  these  declarationi 
 do  not  relate  to  the  object  of  Christ's  mission  as  stated  by 
 Mr.  Belsham,  it  is  difficult  to  discover  to  what  credit  they 
 are  entitled  upon  the  principle  which  he  has  laid  down.  In 
 a  distant  part  of  his  work,  however,  in  which  he  was  sufli- 
 ciently  removed  from  the  influence  of  the  above  testimonies, 
 and  when  he  prepares  himself  to  sum  up  resolutely  the  ar- 
 ticles of  the  Unitarian  creed,  he  rises  above  the  weakness  into 
 which  he  had  here  allow  ed  himself  to  fall ;  and  (as  we  have  seen 
 in  the  two  preceding  pages)  affirms  of  ihat  great  Being,  who 
 came  to  redeem  the  world  from  sin,  that  he  was  subject  to  the 
 common  intirmities  and  frailties  of  human  nature.  It  will 
 not  now  appear  surprizing,  that  Mr.  Belsham  and  his  Uni- 
 tarian associates  are  so  extremely  anxious  to  establish  the 
 apocryphal  Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes  io  be  the  true  original 
 Gospel  of  St.  Matthew:  for  that  Gospel,  as  Jcrcm.  JoncSy 
 (a  favourite  with  the  Unitarians,)  has  shewn,  in  his  Method 
 of  settling  the  Canonical  Juthoriti)  of  the  Nc7c  Testament, 
 vol.  i.  p.  37C,  has  left  us  reason  to  believe,  that  "  Chri\t  icas 
 a  sinnef\  or  at  least  that  it  is  doubtful  tchethcr  he  :c«5  so  or 
 pot.''!!! 
 
493  APPENDIX. 
 
 with  which  he  has  treated  others,  and  with 
 which,  were  he  to  offer  any  animadversions  on 
 these  voUimes,*  his  pen  would  be  directed  to- 
 wards me,  1  have  not  scrupled  to  use  with  him. 
 If  I  have  misrepresented  him,  it  certainly  has  not 
 been  my  intention.  His  language  I  confess,  has 
 offended  me  by  its  arrogance:  and  perhaps  the 
 feeling,  which  that  would  naturally  excite,  may 
 have  dictated  a  mode  of  reply,  not  always  suffi- 
 ciently respectful.  If  any  thing  like  asperity  or 
 sarcasm  has  escaped  me,  I  wish  it  to  be  consi- 
 
 *  It  is  now  ten  years  since  the  first  publication  of  this  work : 
 and,  during  that  time,  neither  Mr.  Belsham  nor  any  of  his 
 learned  Unitarian  fellow  labourers,  have,  as  far  as  I  know,  fa- 
 voured the  public  with  any  observations  upon  the  arguments 
 wliich  it  contains.  Dr.  Priestley,  if  I  recollect  rightly,  about 
 the  year  1790,  stated  in  one  of  the  public  prints,  that,  his 
 Historic  of  Earlij  Opinions  having  remained  a  long  time  un« 
 answered,  if  the  same  silence  should  be  observed  during  a 
 limited  period  which  he  specified,  he  would  consider  it  as  an 
 acknowledgment  on  the  part  of  the  whole  Chrisfhn  world 
 that  it  was  unanswerable.  In  this  I  will  not  presume  io  fol- 
 low Dr.  Priestley's  example.  It  had  better  become  Dr. 
 Priestley  to  suppose,  tliat  his  work  had  not  received  an  an- 
 swer, because  it  was  not  deemed  of  sufficient  moment  to 
 demand  one.  it  must  surely  become  me  to  suppose  ihe  same 
 of  mine.  At  the  same  time,  I  cannot  but  rejoice,  that  its 
 reception  and  circulation  have  been  such  as  to  give  good  rea- 
 son to  believe,  that  there  is  no  small  portion  of  the  commu- 
 nity to  whom  it  appears  to  contain  useful  matter:  and  1  shall 
 certainly  fcol  most  sincere  satisfaction,  if  it  be  allowed  to 
 continue  to  work  its  silent  way  without  the  noise  and  the  ex- 
 asperation of  controversy. 
 1 
 
APPENDIX.  493 
 
 dcred,  as  applied  to  the  cause,  and  to  the  manner 
 of  supporting  it,  rather  than  to  the  writer  him- 
 self. His  opinions,  as  undermining  the  best 
 interests  of  human  kind ;  and  liis  style,  like  that 
 of  all  the  writers  of  the  same  side  of  the  question, 
 as  tending  to  overbear  by  an  imposing  confidence 
 of  tone,  and  a  familiar  and  frontless  assumption 
 of  superiority,  can  scarcely  be  received  without 
 indignation,*  or  met  without  warmth.    I  do  not 
 
 *  I  cannot  allow  myself  to  employ  the  term,  ^vhich  Mr. 
 B.  does  not  scruple  to  combine  with  this,  on  much  slighteF 
 
 provocation, — "  contempt.'*'*    (Review,  p.  64.)    And  yet, 
 
 to  pass  from  Mr.  Belsham  to  the  entire  class  of  his  fellow- 
 labourers,  and  to  speak  not  of  the  individual  but  of  the  cause 
 at  large  and  of  its  champions, — what  can  be  more  fitly  cal- 
 culatt'd,  to  excite  even  the  feeling  which  that  term  expresses, 
 than  the  impotent  and  arrogant  attempts,  of  a  few  loquacious 
 sciolists,  directed  against  the  sublime  and  solid  truths  of  Re- 
 velation? Bishop  Watson,  whose  tolerant  moderation  is  the 
 subject  of  general  praise,  is  forced  to  exclaim,  that  "  it  can. 
 not  but  move  one's  indignation,  to  see  a  smattering  in  phi- 
 losophy, urged  as  an  argument,  against  the  veracity  of  an 
 Apostle."  (Tzco  Apologies,  &c.  p.  359.)— What  shall  be 
 said,  when  the  same  sort  of  smattering  is  employed,  to  over- 
 turn the  whole  edifice  of  Christianity,  to  subvert  the  sanc- 
 tioned wisdom  of  ages,  and  to  overwhelm  in  one  shapeless 
 ruin  the  joint  structure  of  learning  and  inspiration? — The 
 Dean  of  Winchester,  who  is  so  justly  distinguished  for  the 
 brilliancy  of  his  talents,  the  richness  of  his  acquirements, 
 and  the  eloquence  and  vigour  of  his  style,  has  d«  .scribed  the 
 modern  Socinianism,  as  "  consisting  of  a  train  of  whimsical 
 paradoxes,  the  mer«  abortions  of  the  mind!  strange  without 
 
491  APPENDIX. 
 
 pretend  to  have  been  free  from  the  impression  of 
 these  feehngs.     I  trust  however^  I  have  not  per- 
 
 originality,  dull  without  sobriety,  flippant  without  wit,  and 
 contagious  without  allurement."  (Discourses  on  various 
 Subjects,  p.  145.) —A  feature  equally  appropriate,  and  more 
 oflfensive  because  more  insulting  and  more  mischievous,  re- 
 mains to  be  added  to  the  picture ;  namely,  an  imposing  affec- 
 tation of  superior  knowledge  without  possessing  any  of  its 
 attainments.  That  grandest  of  all  mischiefs,  which  an  ad- 
 mired ancient  has  described  as,  AjaaGta  tk  /xa^a  -/jxi^iitn^ 
 loy.aa-a,  £n/«*  fxeyi^T)  OponxTt?,  eminently  belongs  to  the  race  of 
 modern  Socinians,  or  Unitarians  as  they  choose  to  call  them- 
 selves ;  and  requires  of  course  only  to  be  unmasked  in  order 
 to  be  put  down.  To  this,  I  confess,  my  efforts  (throughout 
 this  appendix  especially)  have  been  particularly  directed : 
 and  so  anxious  have  I  been  to  effect  this  point,  which  in 
 such  a  case  I  conceive  to  be  vital,  that  I  have  not  hesitated 
 to  expose  myself  to  those  imputations,  which  are  generally 
 cast  upon  the  liberality  and  the  politeness  of  the  writer,  who 
 scruples  not  to  press  home  truths  in  a  direct  manner,  with- 
 out fear,  and  without  compromise.  If  I  have  had  the  good 
 fortune  to  accomplish  this  object,  1  am  saiiblied  to  submit  to 
 whatever  consequences  may  follow. 
 
 I  am  not,  indeed,  without  the  appreljenslon,  that  I  may 
 appear  to  assume  somewhat  too  much  in  the  application  of 
 the  following  passage  from  Bishop  Warburton:  and  yet  it 
 approaches  so  nearly  to  the  state  of  n)y  own  feelings,  in 
 winding  up  this  appendix,  that  I  cannot  avoid  transcribing 
 it.  In  speaking  of  the  particular  manner,  in  which  he  had 
 thought  it  right  to  treat  the  pernicious  sophistries  which 
 were  opposed  to  the  fundamental  truths  of  Christianity,  that 
 glowing  and  powerful  writer  thus  expresses  himself. — "  He 
 knows  what  the  gentle  reader  thinks  of  it.  But  he  is  not  one 
 1 
 
APPENDIX.  4Q5 
 
 mitted  them  to  carry  me  beyond  the  due  limits. 
 My  object  has   been  truth:   and  my  wish,  not 
 unnecessarily  to  hurt  the  feelings  of  Mr.  B.  or 
 of  those,  who  with  him  assume  the  title  of  Uni- 
 tarians.    If,  to  the  body  of  that  denomination 
 at  large^  I  have  attributed   sentiments  and  opi- 
 nions,   which   they  do   not   recognise   as  justly 
 imputable,  it  is  to  Mr.  Belsham^  not  to  me,  they 
 are  to  ascribe  the  error.     My  representation  of 
 their  peculiar   tenets,    has  been  chiefly  derived 
 from  the  work,  which  he  has  given  to  the  public 
 with   the   express   purpose   of  promulging,    and 
 vindicating,  the  creed  of  the  Unitarians,  or  Ra- 
 
 of  those  opposers  of  Infidelity,  -who  can  reason  without  ear- 
 nestness, and  confute  without  warmth.  He  leaves  it  to 
 others,  to  the  soft  Divine,  and  courtly  Controversialist,  to 
 combat  the  most  flagitious  tenets  with  serenity;  or  maintain 
 the  most  awful  of  religious  truths  in  a  way,  that  misleads 
 the  unwary  reader  into  an  opinion  of  their  making  but  little 
 impression  on  the  writer's  own  heart.  For  himself,  he  freely 
 owns,  he  is  apt  to  kindle  as  he  writes;  and  would  even  blush 
 to  repel  an  insult  on  sense  and  virtue  with  less  vigour  than 
 every  honest  man  is  expected  to  shew  in  his  own  cause." — 
 Remarks  on  IIiime''s  Essay,  &;c.  p.  12. 
 
 Such  observations  as  have  been  added  to  the  Jppcndir, 
 since  the  appearance  oj  the  first  Edition  of  this  v^ork^  it  has 
 been  thought  right  to  introduce  in  the  junn  of  Notes^  so  as 
 to  leave  the  text  (as  it  originally  stood)  unaltered. 
 
^9^  APPENDIX. 
 
 tional  Christians,  If  he  has  not  been  a  faith- 
 ful interpreter  of  their  opinions,  it  is  theirs  to 
 correct  the  mistake.  Hitherto  that  pubhcation 
 has  been  circulated,  as  the  Unitarian  Manual; 
 and  whatever  reception  it  may  have  experienced 
 from  others,  has  certainly  seemed  to  obtain 
 among  that  description  of  Christians,  no  small 
 portion  of  applause. 
 
INDEX 
 
 OF   THE 
 
 TRINCIPAL  MATTERS. 
 
 A 
 
 Abralham'*s  intended  sacrifice  of  Isaac — a  singular  resem- 
 blance to  it  in  the  Mystical  sacrifice  oj  the  Phenicians^  i. 
 389—399. 
 
 AFNOHMATA,  or  sins  of  ignorance^   fully  explained,  i. 
 
 339 — 345 Opinion  of  the  Rabbis  concerning  sins  of  this 
 
 description,  i.  267 — 269. 
 
 Animal  food  not  granted  to  man  before  the  flood,  ii.  31 
 —45. 
 
 Apostolical  Fathers — their  references  io  various  passages 
 of  the  New  Testament,  ii.  476 — 481 the  nature  and  ob- 
 jects of  their  writings,    ii.  468,  476 — 483 their  silence 
 
 respecting  the  first  two  chapters  of  St.  Matthew  falsely  urged, 
 as  an  argument  agaiflst  the  authenticity  of  those  chapters, 
 ii.  467—483. 
 
 Articles  (Thirty.nine) — not  to  be  subscribed  unless  by 
 those  who  believe  the  doctrines  which  they  propound,  ii.  365, 
 
 366,  371,  372 the  bearing  of  the  Sixth  Article  on  the 
 
 interpretation  of  the  rest,  ii.  366 Mr.  Fellowes's  unjus- 
 tifiable notions  of  their  meaning  and  obligation,  ii.  364 — 374 
 
 Dr.  Paley,  Mr.  Gisborne,  Dr.  Powell,  and  the  Bishop 
 
 of  Lincoln  referred  to  upon  their  interpretation,  ii.  371,  37^ 
 -  reduced  in  number  from  thirty.ninc  to  tisentij-Ji^^e  by 
 VOL.  U.  K  K 
 
498  INDEX, 
 
 Mr.  JVesIejj  ;  and  those  which  are  retained  by  him,  materially- 
 altered,  i.  162. 
 
 Amatic  Researches — the  London  Edition  of  this  work  con. 
 tains  a  zoiclcecl  fabrication  intended  to  subvert  revelation,  ii. 
 285,  2S6. 
 
 Atonement  the  received  doctrine  of,  objected  to  on  the 
 ground  that   Christ's  death  was  not  a  propitiatory  sacrifice^ 
 
 i,  29 Objection  answered  by  texts  of  scripture  describing 
 
 it  as  such,  i.  1 9,  2"22 Objected,  that  the  language  in  these 
 
 texts  is  figurative,  i.  30,  223,  247,  255 Objection  an- 
 swered, i.  31,  32,216—259 Leading  arguments  against 
 
 the  doctrine,  urged  with  their  greatest  force  by  Ben.  Mor- 
 
 decai,  i.  256 -Levitical  atonement  said  by  B.   Mordecai 
 
 and  Dr.  Priestley  to  imply  only  ceremonial  purification,  i. 
 325,  332 the  contrary  shewn,  i.  325 — 332- more  mi- 
 nutely argued,  i.  333—352 Atonements  in  the  Old  Tes- 
 tament extended  to  the  violations  of  moral  law^,  and  pro- 
 cured a  real  forgiveness,  i.  33,  34,  345 — 351 Objections 
 
 against  tlie  doctrine,  unfairly/  drawn  from  the  expression, 
 vicarious  punishment,  i.  352—354— — Arguments  brought 
 by  Sykes  and  B.  Mordecai  against  the  doctrine,  on  the  sup- 
 position of  an  implied  vicarious  substitution,,  i.  354 shewn 
 
 to  have  no  weight  against  the  true  notion  of  atonement,  i. 
 
 355 — 305 Christian  atonement  described  by  the  terms, 
 
 hearing  sins,  &c.  in  such  manner,  as  to  convey  the  propiti. 
 atorif  and  vicarious  import  more  strongly  than  is  expressed  in 
 the  Mosaic,  i.  350,  357,  395,  396 inconsistency  in  the  ar- 
 guments urged  on  this  head  against  the  doctrine,  i.  396 lan- 
 guage of  the  New  Testament  more  circumstantial  and  precise 
 ilpoi»  the  nature  of  atonemeni,  than   that  of  the  Old,  i.  60, 
 
 61.  ii.  262 — 264 contended  by  Dr.  Priestley,   that  no 
 
 trace  whatever  of  the  doctrine  is  to  be  found  either  in  Old  or 
 New  Testament,  i.  471 refuted,  i.  471 — 475 the  doc- 
 trine, why  not  as  fully  explained  in  the  Gospels  as  in  (he 
 Kpistles,  i.  473 — 475.  ii.  3G2— Doctrine  of  atonement  does 
 
INDEX.  499 
 
 tiot  sink  our  ideas  of  the  divine  mercy^  i.  485 — 488- tip- 
 position  to  the  doctrine  arising  generally  from  what  cause, 
 i.  39— —see  Kedempiion. — 
 
 B 
 
 Bailli/ — maintains  an  extravagant  antiquity  of  the  Indian 
 
 Astronomy^  ii.  287,  288 followed  by  Professor  Play. 
 
 fair^  ibid. confuted  by  La  Place,  ii.  288 — 291 and 
 
 by  Mr.  Bentley^  ii.  291—293. 
 
 Balguy's  excellent  argument  to  prove  the  natural  insuf. 
 iiciency  of  repentance  to  procure  forgiveness  of  sinsj  i.  93 — 
 S5,  216. 
 
 Barbauld,  (Mrs.) — her  admirable  remarks  on  prayer, 
 i.  139,  140 defender  of  publick  worship  against  Wake- 
 field, i.  179— represents  good  works  as  giving  a  claim  of 
 
 right  to  divine  acceptance,  i.  179 a  highly  accomplished 
 
 writer,  i.  179.  ii.  405. 
 
 Beattie,  (TiT.) — his  excellent  confutation  and  exposure  of 
 
 Hiime^  it.  316 — 321,  326,  327"- pronounces  the  human 
 
 invention  of  language  to  be  impossible,  ii.  52. 
 
 Belsham^  (Mr.) — rejects  the  notion  of  Christ's  pre-exlst- 
 
 ence,  i.  70— refers  to  others  for  the  proof,  i.  70,  71 
 
 indulges  in  impious  raillery  on  the  subject  cf  atonement,  i. 
 172 has  no  fixed  creed,  i.  177,  178 explains  the  dif- 
 ference between  Unitarians  and  Soc-m'ans,  i.  153 argues 
 
 In  support  of  3i  purgatory y  it.  389,  396-398 denies  that 
 
 any  religious  addref^s  should  be  offered  to  Christ,  ii.  392 
 maintains,  in  opposition  to  the  received  notion  of  the  corrup- 
 tion of  human  nature,  the  preponderance  of  virtue  over  vice, 
 
 ii.  393,  394 makes  virtue,  mechanism,  ii.  394 — 396 
 
 overturns  his  own  scheme  of /wenY,  ii.  394 — 396 must  on, 
 
 his  own  principles  reject  the  notion  of  punishment  altogether, 
 
 ii.  395,   397 ndonts  the  princi[)le   of  predestination ,  ii. 
 
 596—400 and  the  fatalism  of  the  Stoic,  ii.  399 in- 
 consistently recommends  gratitude  to  (sodj  ii.  400,  401 
 
 K  k  2 
 
500  INDEX, 
 
 his  new  mode  of  reforming  a  sinner,  ii.  401— 405— obj6;'ts 
 specially  to  remorse  in  the  sinner,  as  a  thing  pernicious,  ii. 
 
 402,  403 inconsistently  calls  upon  the  sinner  to  reform, 
 
 whilst  the  principles  which  he  advances  go  to  prove  the  im- 
 
 possibilily  of  reformation,  ii.  403,  404 adopts  the  unin. 
 
 telligible  phraseology  of  the  liluminati,  ii.  404         rejects  the 
 
 idea  of  jrrayer^  and  necessarily,  ii.  406 objects  to  the 
 
 Sabbatical  observance,    as  forbidden  by  the  Gospel,  i.  89. 
 
 ii.  407 considers   it  injurious  to  the  cause  of  virtue,  ii, 
 
 407,  408 short  view  of  Mr.  B.'s  Christianity,  ii.  408— 
 
 412 differs  little  from  the  deism  of  Lepaux,  i.  175.  if. 
 
 411,  412 Mr.  B.  a  moral  teacher^  ii.  412,  413 but 
 
 not  a  teacher  of  Cliristianity,  ii.  412,  413-*— admits  himself 
 
 to  be  nearer  to  Infidelity  than  to   Orthodoxy,  ii.  414 
 
 guilty  of  a  total  v.ant  of  charity  in  his  judgment  of  the  Clergy 
 of  the  Established  Church,  ii.  414—418 arrogates  exclu- 
 sively the  profession  of  a.  pure  Christianity,  ii.  418— —com- 
 plains of  persecution,  ibid.— his  proof  of  this  persecution, 
 
 ii.  41 L) sufficiency  of  this  proof  considered,  ii.  419 — 424 
 
 ■  asserts  the  Unitarian  cause  to  be  progressive,  ii.  425—— 
 in  what  sense  this  can  be  allowed  to  be  true,  ii.  425,  426 
 — »-Mr.  B.  prevented  from  advancing  to  Deism  by  his  early 
 instruction  in  sounder  principles,  ii.  430,  431 his  asser- 
 tion of  the  increase  of  the  number  of  Unitarians  borrows  an 
 appearance  of  truth  from  one  circumstance,  ii.  431,  432— 
 One  most  extraordinary  aiid  irrefragable  proof  of  Mr.  B/s 
 
 assertion,  ii.  432 — 434 he  admits  Unitarianism  to  be  hard 
 
 to  be  understood,  ii.  435 called  on  to  account  for  the 
 
 dissolution  of  the  Academy  of  Hackney,  i.  90.  ii.  426,  435 
 
 admits  and  j^lories  in  the  lioentlousness  of  the  systen^  at 
 
 iiackney,  ii.  420,  427 explains  how  the  Unitarians  con- 
 trive to  retain  the  Bible,  ii.  436 — 438 interprets  like  Lord 
 
 Peter,  ii.  438 enjoy*  an  exclusive  monopoly  of  the  powers 
 
 of  reasouinjg,  ii.  439 — 442  — exhibits  singular  proofs  of  this 
 in  a  treatise  on  Logics,  Metaphysics,  s^nd  Morals,  by  a  re- 
 
INDEX.  501 
 
 fercnce  to  which  troalise  his  hi^li   claim«?  am  pstimatfd,  ii. 
 
 410 — 413 classes  tho  clergy  of  <lu' eslablisimicut  under  !hi' 
 
 heads  of  impostors  and  bigots,  ii.  414 charges  J)<)ddiidge 
 
 with  supporting  from  prejudice  an  erroneous  and  unscriptural 
 
 system,  ibid. refers  for  the  proof  of  the  truth  of  his  tenets 
 
 to  other  Commentators,    ii,  445,  487,  488 has  made  a 
 
 good  selection  for  his  purpose,  ii.  446 — 448 why  could 
 
 not  add  Paine,  if.  447— why  not  Geddes,  ii.  447,  448 
 
 exhibits  a  few  specimens  of  his  own  criticism,  ii.  449 — 486 
 
 — - — convicts  St.  Paul  of  ignorance,  ii.  4G2 — 472 sets  him 
 
 right,    ii.  472—483 commends    Dr.  Tay lot's  Scripture 
 
 Keij,  reason   why,  i.  188.   ii.  300 refers  to  Dr.  Taylor, 
 
 whose  observations  make  against  him.  ii.  484,  485 com- 
 pares Bonaparte  to  Jesus  Christ,  ii.  487 has  lately  given 
 
 a  nezo  digest  of  the  Unitarian  creed  as  touching  the  person  of 
 
 Christ,  ii.  488,  489 shews  that  the  teaching  of  our  Lord 
 
 and  his  Apostles  is  to  be  received  with  great  caution  and  dis- 
 trust, ii.  489,  490 expresses  doubts  as  to  the  moral  cluu 
 
 rffc/er  of  our  Saviour,  ii.  490,  491. 
 
 Beji  Mordecid^  (II.  Taylor,)  his  letters  written  with  acute. 
 
 ness,  i.  129,  130 his  just  views  of  the  principle  of  W7ec//a- 
 
 tlouy  i.   129 his  scheme  of  Atonement,  i.  19,20 not 
 
 free  from  a  tincture  of  Socinian  principles,  i.  20,  181 dif- 
 ferent from  that  of  Dr.  Taylor  of  Norwich,  i.  187 objects 
 
 to  the  received  doctrine  of  Atonement,  its  implication  of  the 
 
 divine  implacability^   i.  21 answered  on  his  own  prin. 
 
 ciples,  i.  22—25,   188  —  193 objects  without   reason  to 
 
 Grotius,   Stillingileet,  and  Clarke,  i.  191— objects  io  the 
 doctrine  of  atonement  on  the  ground  of  a  want  of  discoverable 
 
 connexion  between  the  means  and  the  end,  i.  24 answer. 
 
 cd,  i.  24,  25,  200,  201,  202 objects  on  tlie  ground  of 
 
 the  divine  immutability,    and  of  the  texts  which  speak  of 
 
 man's  reconciliation  to  God,  i.  25—27,  198 answered, 
 
 I.  26-^29,  202 — 207 denies  that  the  paschal  lamb  is  re- 
 ferred to  in  calling  Jesus  the  lamb  of  God,  i.  216 refuttd, 
 
 K  k3 
 
602  INDEX. 
 
 1.  210—^19 endeavours  to  prove  that  the  word  ihcta-^<i^ 
 
 does  not  support  the  idea  of  propiiiailon^  i.  220— -shewn  to 
 
 be  mistaken,  i.  220,  221,  244,245 his  argument  from  the 
 
 ivord  y.ctrocT^ayn  shewn  to  be  inconclusive,  i.  243 — 245 
 endeavours  to  prove  that  the  phrase  for  us^  cannot  mean  in 
 
 our  steady  i.  249 his  argument  shewn  to  be  erroneous, 
 
 i.  249 — 252.   ii.  479 attempts  to  deprive  the  Lcvitkal 
 
 atonement  of  all  propitiatorij  import,  and  to  represent  it  but 
 
 as  a  ceremonial  purification,  i.  332 this  notion  refuted, 
 
 i.  327 — 332 his  arguments  against  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
 ment on  the  supposition   of  its  implying  the  absurdity  of  a 
 Ticarious  substitution,  stated  and  answered,  i.  354 — 365 
 his  attempt  to  do  away  the  force  of  the  expression,  hearing 
 
 sinSy  examined  and   refuted,  i.  412 — 471 his  theory   of 
 
 Sacrifice^  ii.  20— —shewn  to  be  erroneous,  i.  44.  ii.  30^  31. 
 
 Benson^  (I^rO  admits  tliat  bearing  sins^  signifies  suffering 
 
 the  penalty  due  to  thcm^  i.  459,  460 his  criticism  on  the 
 
 word  uvoipB^cj  examined  and  refuted,  i.  465 — 468. 
 
 Blaney^  (Dr.)  not  consistent,  i.  454,  455. 
 
 Bvlingbroke  supplies,   without  intending  it,  a  good  argu- 
 ment against  certain  mistaken  views  of  the  Mosaic  institution, 
 
 ii.  278 — 280 a  short  review  of  his  character,  and  of  his 
 
 attempts  to  overturn  Revelation,  ii.  299 — 310. 
 
 Bryant^  (Jacob) — grounds  of  his  opinion  that  Phllo  Ju- 
 dajus  derived  his  knowledge  from   Christian   sources,  i.  282 
 
 . his  striking  observations  on  the  Mi/stical  Sacri/ice  of  the 
 
 Phenicians,  I  383—389. 
 
 Buchanan,  (Dr.  Claudius) — his  Memoir  on  the  cxpedicncTj 
 of  an  Ecclesiastical  Establishment  for  British  India,  a  work 
 
 deserving  most  serious  attention,  i.  Ill  — 114 it  presents 
 
 a  melancholy  view  of  the  neglect  of  religion  in  India  by  the 
 
 British,    i.    112,  113 exhibits  a  pleasing  picture  of  the 
 
 Church  o^  Malabar,  i.  114 represents  tliat  church  as  pos- 
 sessing tl:c  purity  of  the  Protestant  profession  of  Chmtianity, 
 transmitted  to  it  from  the  apostolic  age,  ibid. 
 
INDEX.  60S 
 
 C 
 
 Cehus—hc^TS  testimony  to  the  authenticity  of  the  first  two 
 chapters  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  ii.  463— 4G 5. 
 
 Chubb,^  exhibits  curious  specimens  of  deistical  arguments 
 against  Christianity,  i.  130 — 135. 
 
 Cloppe?ibin'g"s ]\idk\oiis  remarks  on  the  distinction  between 
 the  sacrifices  of  Cain  and  Abel,  ii.  212,  213. 
 
 Condillac^  (Abbe  de) — Iiis  attempt  to  explain  tJie  natural 
 
 rise  and  growth  of  language,  ii.  60—62 followed  by  Dr. 
 
 Adam  Smithy  and  Mr.  Dugald  Sien'arty  ii.  63 his  theory 
 
 untenable,  ii.  63 — 65. 
 
 Corruption  of  human  nature^  i.  14,  15, 154 — 158 fully 
 
 examined  by  Leland,  i.  154 eloquently  described  by  Mr. 
 
 Wilberforce,   i.  154  —  157 also  by  Mrs.  Hannah  More, 
 
 i.  157,  158 denied  in  a  certain  sense,  by  the  AVesleian 
 
 Methodists,  as  well  as  by  the  followers  of  Priestley,  i.  158— 
 160,  166—168. 
 
 CrelliuSy — his  criticism  on  Isaiah  liii.  and  particularly  on 
 the  phrase  bearing  sins^  fully  examined,  i.  412 — 471. 
 
 Cumberland^  (Bishop) — opposes  the  idea  of  the  Phenician 
 sacrifice  being  derived  from  the  intended  sacrifice  of  Isaac, 
 i,  392  the  particular  impressions  under  which  tiiis  writer 
 engaged  in  the  Review  of  Sanchoniatho^s  History  disqualified 
 him  for  the  due  discharge  of  the  task,  i.  393. 
 
 D 
 
 Deist,  rejects  totally  the  idea  of  a  Mediator,  i.  4. his 
 
 objections  apply  equally  to  Natural  as  to  Revealed  Religion, 
 
 i.  4 — 12 not  a  true  philosopher,  i.  4,  5 cannot  prove 
 
 from  reason  the   sufficiency  of  repentance,  i.  5 — 8 well 
 
 answered  by  Balguy,  i.  93 — 95 refuted  by  experience, 
 
 showing  the  necessity  of  a  revelation  on  this  head,  i.  6 — 9, 
 
 96 — 129 his  objections  against  a  Mediator  bear  with  equal 
 
 force  against  repetitance  ^nA  prayer,  i.  10— —The  error  iu 
 all  such  reasonings,  i.  11,  12,  136 — 139. 
 Kk  4 
 
504  INDEX. 
 
 Doilson,  (Mr.)— his  criticisms  on  Isaiah  liii,  and  his  endoa- 
 Tours  to  do  away  the  force  of  the  expression  bearing  slnsj 
 
 carefully  examined,  i,  403 — 471- commended,  yet  partial 
 
 in  his  translation  and  comment/iry,  i.  404,  405 refers  in 
 
 proof  of  the  justness  of  his  criticisms  to  writers  who  have 
 §iven  no  proof,  i.  418—420,  440—450. 
 
 E 
 Evanson,  (Mr.)  charges  the  Evangelists  with  gross  con- 
 tradictions, i.   174 retains  only  the   gospel  of  St.  Luke, 
 
 and  but  a  part  of  that,  i.  174,  175. 
 
 F 
 
 FelloTceSy  (Mr.)  attacks  most  unwarrantably  the  doctrines 
 and    articles   of  the    established    church,  ii.    347 — 379' 
 observations  upon  his  writings,  ibid. 
 
 Female  z:riters  of  modern  times,  who  have  contributed  by 
 their  publications  to  the  advancement  of  virtue  and  religion, 
 ii.  404, 405. 
 
 G 
 
 Geddesj  (Dr.) — Specimen  of  his  respect  for  the  writings, 
 and  of  his  qualifications  as  a  translator,  of  the  old  testament, 
 ii.  7 — 13,  447,  448 instance  of  his  grotesque  render- 
 ing of  certain  words,   i.    315,316 his  absurd  view  of  the 
 
 sacrifices  of  the  Hebrews  as  borrowed  from  the  Egyptians, 
 ii.  6 — 13  opposed  and  answered  by  Dr.   Priestley,    ii.  13 
 
 — 17 his  strange  distinction  between  those  whom  he  calls 
 
 the  vulgar  Papists,  and  the  vulgar  Prutcsfants,  ii.  247,  248. 
 
 Grotius, — his  erroneous  translation  of  llebr.  i.  2,  i.  72,  73 
 
 —charged  with  Socinianism,  i.  73,  74 his  extravagant 
 
 application  of  the  famous  prophecy  of  Isaiah  liii.  to  Jeremiah, 
 i.  411,  his  strange  notion  concerning  the  nature  of  Abel's 
 sacrifice,  examined,  and  confuted,  ii.  203 — 208 his  excel- 
 lent remarks  on  the  relation  subsisting  between  the  Mosaic 
 fiud  the  Christian  sacrifices,  ii.  251— 25G. 
 
INDEX.  505 
 
 II 
 
 Heathy  Qilv.) — The  objections  urged  by  him  and  others 
 against  the  antiquity  of  the  book  of  Job  fully  examined,  ii. 
 108—117. 
 
 IIeidegger''s  interpretatIon[of  the  passage  in  Gen.  i.  29,  30, 
 as  a  grant  of  animal  food  to  Adam,  shewn  to  be  erroneous, 
 ii.  38—42. 
 
 Ilcrdcr^s  Essay  to  explain  the  natural  acquisition  of  lan- 
 guage, admitted  to  be  the  best  in  support  of  that  notion,  and 
 yet  radically  defective,  ii.  67. 
 
 Hume^  (David) — a  short  view  of  his  character,  and  of  his 
 inveterate  and  impotent  hostility  against  Revelation,  ii.  310— 
 
 342 a  dangerous  guide  in  histoiy  a.s  well  as  \w  philosophy^ 
 
 ii.   ^3^ — 342 his  calumnies  against  Luther  fully  exposed, 
 
 ii.  335—339. 
 
 I 
 
 Ignatius  (Saint) — affords  strong  testimony  to  the  authenti. 
 city  of  the^/.y/  tii^o  chapters  of  St.  Matthew^  ii.  467,  468,  470, 
 
 480,  481 nature  of  his  allusions  to  scripture,  and  of  his 
 
 writings  generally,  ii.  480 — 483. 
 
 Indian  records^ — falsely  asserted  to  be  prior  to  the  Mosaic 
 
 u'ritirigs^  ii.  285 — 296 dishonest  attempt  in  the  Loudon 
 
 Editors  of  the  Asiatic  Researches  to  advance  their  extrava- 
 gant claims  to  antiquity,  ii.  286. 
 
 J 
 
 Jezcs — their  notions  concerning  the  state  of  the  dead,  un- 
 folded in  the  explication  of  their  terms  SiitoL  and  Repiiaim, 
 ii.  159 — 165"  their  extraordinary  admission  of  a  compact 
 with  the  Father  binding  the  Son  to  a  vicarious  sulTeringfor 
 the  sins  of  mon,  ii.  380,  381. 
 
 Joby — the    reality  of  the  history,  nnd  the  date  and  author 
 
 of  the   book,  carefully   considered,  ii.  91 — 202 Various 
 
 opinions  on  these  heads,  and  their  principal  supporters,  ii. 
 91,  92,  96—99,  102,  103,133,  134 the  book  an  in- 
 quired  work,  ii.   129-  131— —erroneous  objections  to  the 
 
506  INDEX. 
 
 antiquity  of  the  book  of  Job  by  Bishop  Stock,  and  their  con- 
 futation, ii.  132 — 199 the  history  of  him  handed  down 
 
 among  the  Arabians,  ii.  199 — 202. 
 
 Josephus, — his  testimony,  as  far  as  it  goes,  favourable  io 
 the  notion  of  the  propiiiaiorj/  virtue  of  sacrifice,  in  opposition 
 to  the  assertion  made  by  Dr.  Priestley  upon  that  subject,  i. 
 
 279 — 281 uses  expressions  which  clearly  mark  the  use  of 
 
 of  the  word  iXarn^iov  among  the  Jews  in  a  strict  propitiatory 
 sense,  i.  222. 
 
 Justin  Martyr — quotes  from  Ezra  an  extraordinary  pas* 
 
 sage  relating  to  the  Passover.,  i.  306,  307 affords  ample 
 
 testimony  to  the  authenticitij  of  the  Jirst  tzco  chapters  of  St* 
 Matthc-j^'s  Gospel^  ii.  465,  466,  468,  470,472—476. 
 
 K 
 
 Kennicot,  prefers  Coverdale's  to  our  present  version  of  the 
 Bible,  i.  430-— «^his  criticism  on  Hebr.  xi,  4.  not  admissible, 
 
 ii.  213— 223 mistakes  the  nature  of  the  i¥2«e/m,  ii.  216 
 
 —221. 
 
 Keschita^ — the  true  meaning  of  this  word  considered,  ii. 
 104—107. 
 
 h 
 
 Language^ — its  origin  from  divine  institution,  ii.  46— 70 
 
 of  the  New  Testament  peculiar,  i.  235 — 237 opinions  of 
 
 Capcllus^  Ernesti^  JMichaelis,  Middlcton^  Warbuj-fon^  Lcland, 
 and  Campbell  upon  this  subject,  ibid.-'^ Jlgiirative  distin- 
 guished from  analogical^  i.  253,  254. 
 
 Lelandy  (Dr.   Thomas,  of  Trinity    College,  Dublin,)    has 
 best  refuted  the  objections  against  the  inspiration  of  the  wri- 
 ters of  the   N.  T.  derived  from  their  unclassical  style,  i.  236 
 an  account  of  his  writings,  i.  236 — 241. 
 
 Lincoln^  (Bisliop  of) — on  Phili[).  ii.  6,  7,  deserves  parti- 
 cularly to  be  consulted,  i.  69 his  judicious  reflexions  on 
 
 the  endeavours  of  the  Christian  after  perfection,  i.  164. — his 
 excellent  observations  on  subscription  to  the  Articles  of  the 
 Churchy  ii.  367,  371. 
 
 Luther — the  calumnies  circulated  against  him  by  Hume 
 exposed  and  refuted,  ii.  335—310. 
 
INDEX.  507 
 
 M 
 
 Maimonidcs — his  notion  of  the  orii^In  of  sacrifice,  i.  <2G3 
 — his  opinion  of  the  book  of  Job  followed  by  Lc  Clerc  and 
 
 Michaelis,  ii.  93 — —the  origin   of  his  celebrated  work,  the 
 
 March  Ne'cochim^  ii.  *27G followed  by  S};e«ccr  and  IVur. 
 
 burton^  ii.  275,  276. 
 
 Matthew,   (St.)   reconciled   with  Isaiah,  i.  412—430 
 
 arguments  relating  to  the  authenticity  of  the  first  two  chapters 
 of  his  gospel,  ii.  451 — 483. 
 
 Mede — his  opinion  that  sacrifices  were   essentially  federal 
 
 feasts^  ii.  25,  26 shewn  to  be  ill  founded,  ii.  26 — 28—^ 
 
 his  excellent  observation  on  those  passages  of  Scripture  which 
 seem  to  depreciate  sacrifices,  ii.  87. 
 
 Michaelis — his  exposition  of  the  word  lAarr^tov,  i.  222 • 
 
 his  opinion  of  the  Apostolical  antiquity  of  the  old  Striae  ver- 
 sion of  the  N.  T.  i.   233,   234 his  objections  against  the 
 
 reality  of  the    history  of  Job  examined,  ii.    93 — 99 his 
 
 arguments  in    support  of  the  antiquity  of  the  book,  ii.  113 
 —115. 
 
 Monboddoy  (Lord) — his   strange   theory  of  the   origin  of 
 language,  ii.  59. 
 
 More,  (Mrs.  Hannah), — a  distinguished  and  powerful  ad- 
 vocate of  virtue  and  religion,  ii.  405 quoted  on  the  subject 
 
 of  human  corruption,  i.  157,   158 her  just  and  beautiful 
 
 observations  on  IIi(f?w''s  IJistorjj,  ii.  334 — 341. 
 
 Morgan^ — his  absurd  idea  of  the  origin  of  Sacrifice,  i.  43. 
 ii.  1,  2 of  some  use,  ii.  2. 
 
 N 
 Nares,  (Rev.E.) — his  Bampton  Lecture  a  most  valuable 
 
 workii.  293 — 295 hh  Remarks  on  the  Unitarian  Version 
 
 of  the  NezD  Testament  referred  to,  i.  478—480.  ii.  461,  486 
 —the  cause  of  Christianity  much  indebted  to  him,  i.  480, 
 481.  ii.  293,294. 
 
 O 
 
 Outram, — his  work  Dc  Sacrificiis  deserves  to  be  particu- 
 larly consulted  on  the  Sacrificial  doctrine  of  the  Rabbis, 
 i.  262,  357,  266. 
 
50S  INDEX. 
 
 Parr^  (Dr.)  unguardedly  commends  Mr.  FeUozces''s  writ, 
 
 iugSj  ii.  375 — 379 his  eloquent  eulogium  on  Dr.  Priest- 
 
 ley,  ii.  420 his  defence  of  Dr.  Thomas   Leland^  i.  238 
 
 —241. 
 
 Passoter, — an  accurate  discussion  of  the  meaning  of  the 
 original  word,    i.  309 — 321 — ^shewn  to  be  a  sacrifice,  i. 
 
 297—309 extraordinary  passage  relating  to  it  in  Justin 
 
 Martijr,  i.  306,  307. 
 
 Percival^    (Dr.) — a  distinguished   writer,  ii.   408 -his 
 
 excellent  remarks  on   Providence  and  Prayer^  ii.  408—410 
 
 valuable  observations  on  the  Origin  of  Evil^  the  Evi. 
 
 (lence  of  Christian  it  2/,  and  the  Clerical  character  and  conduct^ 
 
 ii.  410 Memoir  of  his  Life  and  Character  by  his  son  Dr. 
 
 Edward  Percival,  li.  410,  411. 
 
 Philo  Judauis^ — not  accurately  versed  in  Jewish  customs, 
 i.  281,  289,  302 holds  a  number  of  doctrines,  and  par- 
 ticularly those  of  a  Mediator  and  propitiation .^  that  closely 
 
 resemble  the  Christian  doctrines,  i.  281 — 289- supposed 
 
 by  Bryant  to  have  derived  his  knowledge  from  the  first  Chris- 
 tians, i.  282 this  notion  opposed  by  AUix,  i.  283. 
 
 Popish  writers  support  the  notion  of  the  human  invention 
 
 of  sacrifice,  and  why,  ii.  6 those  of  the  present  day  not 
 
 entitled  to  serious  consideration,  ii.  241—248. 
 
 Porteus  (Bishop) — his  Sermons  on  the  Christian  doctrine 
 of  Redemption^  excellent,  i.  129. 
 
 Pre-existence — Texts  supporting,  i.  71,  72 Arguments 
 
 against,  by  Grotius,  i.  72 by  modern  Socinians  in  gene- 
 ral, i.   74—84 by  Mr.   Lindsey,  i.  75,  70 by  Mr. 
 
 Tyrwhitt,  i.  77 by  Mr.  Wakefield,  i.  79,  SO,  83 by 
 
 Soclnus,    i.  82- defended  against  the  above  objectors,  i. 
 
 69—85. 
 
 PricCy  (Dr.) — his  strange  opinion  concerning  Univcrsals^ 
 ii.  55 — 57 — — ofiers  some  excellent  observations  on  the  com- 
 patibility of  the  efficacy  of  prayer  with  the  divine  immuta- 
 
INDEX.  509 
 
 blllty,  1.  135— 138— also  on  the  efTicacy  of  intercession 
 
 with  the  Deity,  i.  142 — 145 remarks  likewise  on  the  be. 
 
 Deficial  influence  of  intercessionary  prayer  on  the  mind  of 
 
 him  who  offers  it,  i.  145 — 147 to  be  lamented  tliat  such  a 
 
 man  should  in  some  points  have  departed  so  far  from  Scrip- 
 ture truth,  i.  147. 
 
 Priestleij^  (Dr.) — his  irreverent  language  concerning  the 
 
 sacred  writers,  i.  87,  88,  173,  175,  259,  410 pronounces 
 
 it  indispensalile  to  his  scheme  to  overturn  the  received  doc- 
 trine of  Atonement,  i.  90 — 92 -his  boldness  of  assertion 
 
 respecting  historical  facts,  i.  121 — 129 his  historical  in- 
 competency fully  established,  i.  96 — 129 his  incompe- 
 tency as  a  reporter  of  the  Rabbinical  opinions  and  writings, 
 
 i.  259 — 279 his  gross  raistatement  of  their  writings,  and 
 
 of  those  of  Philo  and  Josephus,  i.  259 — 290 his  extra- 
 ordinary power  of  modifying  and  applying  the  testimonies  of 
 ancient  writers*,  i.  263 — 290  seems  as  little  conversant 
 with  classical  as  with  historical  writers,  i.  291,  292 con- 
 siders the  death  of  Christ  in  the  same  light  with  that  of  any 
 
 other  good  man,  i.  152 misrepresents  the  arguments  in 
 
 support  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  i.  171,  476 charges 
 
 the  sacred  writers  as  ignorant  and  blundering,  i.   173,  175 
 
 boasts  of  having  no  fixed  creed,  i.  177— instances  of 
 
 his  mode  of  evading  the  force  of  scripture  authority,  i.  196, 
 
 197,  223,  247,  248 directly  mistates  the  book  of  Job, 
 
 i,  212,  213 his  unjustifiable  inaccuracy  in  Scripture  cri- 
 ticism shewn  in  his    remarks  on  two   important   passages, 
 
 Isaiah  liii.  10.  and  2  Cor.  v.  21.  i.  224—242 his  strange 
 
 explication  of  the  words /or  and  instead^  i.  247, 248 con- 
 fesses that  he  forces  the  language  of  scripture,  i.  255,  256 
 
 contradicts  himself,  i.  258,  259 his  rejection  of  the 
 
 attribute  of  Justice  for  the  purpose  of  proving  the  sufficiency 
 of  repentance  without  any   other  consideration,  i.  214,  215 
 
 ■ his  principles  go  to  exclude  all  punishment  whatever,  i. 
 
 ?14 denies  that  the  Passover  was  a  sacrifice^  i.  297,  29i> 
 
 1 
 
510  INDEX. 
 
 ■  ■  convicted  by  the  direct  words  of  scripture,  and  all  his 
 arguments  on  this  head  shewn  to  be  plainly  contradictory  to 
 
 truth,  ibid. Passover  on  the  contrary  proved  to  be  a  sa- 
 
 cririce,  i.  29S — 304 his  endeavours  to  prove  that  the  Lc~ 
 
 c/Z/cY// atonement  contained  no  idea  oi propitiation ^  but  merely 
 implied  ceremonial  purification,  i.  325  seems  not  to  have 
 attended  to  the  original  word  133,  signifying  atonement,  i. 
 325—327 fallacy  of  his  argument,  i.  327,  328 con- 
 futed, i.  328 — 332 — his  assertion  that  no  trace  of  the  doc- 
 trine of  atonement  is  to  be  found  in  cither  New  or  Old  Tes- 
 tament, shewn  to  be  totally  unfounded,  i.  471 — 473 his 
 
 assertion  that  no  trace  of  the  principle  of  atonement  is  to  be 
 
 found  in  scripture,  refuted,  i.  475,  476 his  assertion  that 
 
 the  doctrine  of  atonement  sinks  our  ideas  of  the  divine  mer- 
 cy, refuted,  i.  485 — 488 —maintains  in  opposition  to 
 Geddes,  that  the  Mosaic  sacrifices  were  not  borrowed  from 
 
 the  Heathens,  but  had  a  divine  origin,  ii.  13 — 16 in  this 
 
 he  contradicts  himself,  ii.  17,  19 his  theory  of    sacrifice^ 
 
 ii.  19 his  reason  for  denying,  in  opposition  to  accumulat- 
 ed facts,  that  the  notion  of  expiatory  sacrifice  had  ever  ob- 
 tained amongst  the  heathens,  ii.  75 his  private  character 
 
 and  talents,  ri.  419 — 422 his  public  conduct  censurable, 
 
 ii.  422,  423 does  not  fairly  follow  up  his  own  principles, 
 
 ii.  429 restrained  by  early  habits,  ii,  430 his  religious 
 
 opinions  less  exceptionable  as  he  advanced  in  life,  ii.  17,  211 
 ——his  uncharitable  animadversions  on  the  established  cler- 
 gy, ii.  433- — -afiirms  that  Unitarians  never  become  Deists, 
 
 ii,  434 is  directly  contradicted  by  fact,  ii.  434,  435 
 
 gives  such  ap  account  of  the  nature  of  Academies  of  the  Uni- 
 tarian description,  as  proves  the  progress  to  infidelity  to  ba 
 almost  unavoidable,  ii.  427,  428. 
 
 Q 
 
 Quarterly  Bmezc— an  excellent  article  contained  therein 
 on  the  subject  of  the  Missions  to  Inilia^  i.  115- its  just  ob- 
 servations on  the  nature  of  5oc//2/a/mvw,  ii.  431. 
 
INDEX.  511 
 
 R 
 
 Hahhls — full  account  of  theii*  opinions  on  the  siilvjcct  of 
 the  sacrijicial  Atonement^  proving  that  they  considered  sa- 
 crifices not  only  as  generally  expiatory^  but  as  strictly  vku' 
 
 rious,   i.   260—278' the  notion,  entertained   by  some  of 
 
 them  of  the  liumau  origin  of  sacrifice  accounted  for,  i.  274. 
 
 Rational  Christian — his  philosophic  lights,  ii.  4C0— -see 
 Umtaria72s, 
 
 Rational  Dissenters — Unitarians  so  distinguish  tliemselyes 
 from  the  other  classes  of  non-couformistSj  i.  148.  ii.  445 — 
 see  Unitarian, 
 
 Redemption^ — doctrine  of,  naturally  to  be  rejected  by  un- 
 assisted reason,  i.  1,  2 principle  of,  combated  by  Soci- 
 
 nians  with  peculiar  vehemence,  i.  90 — 92— in  the  highest 
 
 degree  necessary  to  defend  it,  i.  3,  90 Arguments  relating 
 
 to  it  misrepresented  by  Dr.  Priestley,  i.  22,  23,  171,  172, 
 
 476 misrepresented  by   H.  Taylor  and  others,  i.  1 88— 
 
 191,  195 scheme  of,  held  by  the  Unitarians,  i.  12,   13 
 
 . held  by  B.  Mordecai,  i.  19,  20- held  by  Dr.  J.  Tay- 
 lor, of  Norwich,  i.  181  — 186 — ^the  doctrine  ol)jected  to  as 
 
 implying  divine  implacability,"  i.  21 objection  answered, 
 
 i.  21 — 24 objected  to,    for  want  of  connexion  between 
 
 the  means  and  the  end,    i.  24,  25- objection  answered, 
 
 ibid.  i.  199 — 202 objected  to  on  the  ground  of  the  scrip- 
 ture phrase  of  our  being  reconciled  to  God,  i.  25 objec- 
 tion ansv^ered,  i.  26,  27,  202—207 objected  io  on  the 
 
 ground  of  the  divine  benevolence,  and  of  the  stress  laid  on 
 
 this  attribute  every  where  tlirough  scripture,  i.  28, '2 1 4 
 
 objection  answered,  i.  27,  28,  208 — 216 nature  of  the 
 
 Redemption  fully  opened  up  by  Isaiah,  i.  409 — 463 ad- 
 vantageous effects  of  the  scheme  of  Redemption  upon  the 
 
 mind,  i.  39 the  full  comprehension  of  the  })rinciple  on 
 
 which  it  is  founded,  impeded  by  the  same  difficulty  wliich 
 attaches  to  other  part     of  human  knowledge,   i.  202— see 
 
 Atonement. 
 
 1 
 
512  INDEX. 
 
 Richie,  (Dr.) — refutes  Dr.  Sykes's  theory  of  sacrifice,  ia 
 his  Criiicism  on  motl^rn  notions  of  sacrijice^  ii.  24— fur- 
 nishes au  excellent  refutation  of  Dr.  J,  Taijlor's  scheme  of 
 Atonement,  i.  186 particularly  recommended  on  the  sub- 
 ject of  the  origin  of  sacrifices,  ii.  89. 
 
 Sacrifice — human,  general  throughout  (he  antient  world, 
 
 i.  96 — 129 deemed  strictly  vicarious  by  the  Heathens, 
 
 i,  291,  292 Heathen  sacrificf'  a  corruption  of  the  rite  di- 
 vinely instituted,  i,  379 — 381 a  striking  instance  of  this 
 
 in  the  Mistical  sacrifice  of  the  Phenicians,  i.  381 — 391 
 
 Contended  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  not  a  propiliatorjj  sa^ 
 
 crifce,  i.  29 answered,  i.  29--32,  222 objected  that 
 
 under  the  Lazo  there  was  no  propitiatory  sacrifice  whatever, 
 
 i.  30,  32,  257 — 259 objection  answered,  i.  32—35,  322 
 
 .^378 the  sacrifice  of  Christ  though  spoken  of  in  language 
 
 seeminglij  figuraiive^  intended  as  a  real  and  ejjicacious  sacri- 
 fice,  i.  253 — 255 inconsistency  of  those  who  hold  the 
 
 death  of  Christ  to  have  been  but  figuratively  called  a  sacri- 
 fice, i.   35,  36,  483,  484 that  the  only  true  and  real 
 
 sacrifice,  the  sacrifices  of  the  Laic  being  all  but  figurative  of 
 it,  i.  46,  47,  ii.  262,  263 Passover  proved  to  be  a  sacri- 
 fice, and  the  nature  and  meaning  of  this  sacrifice  explained, 
 i^  297 — 309— sense  in  which  the  notion  of  vicarious  is  to 
 be  applie^l  to  sacrifices  in  general,  i.  3i,  352 — 354— vica- 
 rious import  of  the  sacrifices  of  the  Law,  expressed  by  the 
 
 ceremony  of  the  imposition  of  hands,  i.  366 — 368 more 
 
 strongly  marked  by  the  ceremony  of  the  Scape-Goal^  i.  369, 
 
 370. Sacrifice  for  Sin  defined,  i.  30 means  of  recon^ 
 
 ciliation  by  Sacrifice  explained,  i.  37 not  iuconsistentwith 
 
 the  divine  dignity  and  attributes,  i.  37,  38 Sacrifice  of 
 
 Christ  dilfers  from  all  other  -.sacrifices  in  one  important  par- 
 ticular, i.  38 nature  of  Christ's  sacrifice  usually  examined 
 
 in  an  erroneous  method,  i.  42 Supporters  of  the  human 
 
ti^DEX.  513 
 
 invention  of  sacrifice,  ii.  2,  3 Theories  of  it — by  Spen- 
 cer, i.  43,  44,  ii.  18 -by  Author  of  Scripture  account  of 
 
 Sacrijices^  ii.  18 by  Dr.  Priestley,  ii.  19 by  B.  Mor- 
 
 decai,  ii.  20 by  Sykes,  i.  43,  44.  ii.  21 by  Warbur- 
 
 ton,  i.  43,  44.  ii.  28 General  heads  of  argument  against 
 
 all  the  theories  of  the  human  invention  of  Sacrifices,  i.  44 
 
 only  true  mode  of  discovering  the  origin  and  nature  of  the 
 Rite,  i.  45 — —the  rite  unnatural  m  the  view  of  unassisted 
 
 reason,  ii.  70,  71 an  argument  hence  in  favour  of  divine 
 
 institution^  ii.  74,  75 the  rite  univcrsaUy  practised,  an 
 
 argument  in  favour  oi  divine  institution^  ii.  71 — 74 brief 
 
 view  of  the  Christian  sacrifice,  i.  45,  4G r-Objections  against 
 
 the  divine  origin  of  sacrifice  examined,  ii.  76 — 87 Divine 
 
 origin  inferred  from  Abel's  and  the  early  Patriarchal  sacri- 
 fices, i.  47,  48.  ii.  87 — 91 the  sacrifice  of  Abel  an  animal 
 
 sacrifice,  ii.  203 — 208 Divine  origin  and  true  design  of 
 
 sacrifice  inferred  from  the  sacrifice  of  Abel,  i.  49 — 58 
 
 sacrifice  of  Abel  why  accepted,  whilst  that  of  Cain  was  re- 
 jected, i.  49—55.  ii.  208—221 rite  Instituted  at  the  fall, 
 
 i.  50,  51.  ii.  229 — 234 the  animal  sacrifice  peculiarly  sig- 
 nificant, i.  51,  52 sacrifices  before  the  law,  animal  and 
 
 piacular,  i.  54—57,  380,  381.  ii.  250—254 true  import 
 
 of  the  early  animal  sacrifices  before  and  under  the  law,  i.  380, 
 
 381 history  of  scripture   sacrifice  shewn  to  be  consistent 
 
 throughout,  i.   58 — 60 the  sacrifice,  of  those  under  the 
 
 Law,    most  particularly  typical  and  illustrative  of  that  of 
 
 Christ,    i.  61—63,  ii.   342 — 344 sacrifice  of  Christ  in 
 
 what  sense,  and  how  far,  vicarious^  i,  63,  64. 
 
 Scripture  Account  of  Sacrifices^  Author  of— his  scheme  of 
 
 Iiedem.ptio?i^  i.  201,  202 his  singular  notion  concerning 
 
 the  pollution  of  the  Scape.Goat,  &c.  i.  373,  374 refuted, 
 
 i.  349 admits  that  bearing  Sin,  means  bearing  its  punish. 
 
 tnent,  in  the  case  of  one's  ozcn  sin,  but  not  in  that  of  ano. 
 iher's,  i.  45S answered,  i.  453—459 his  scheme  of 
 
 VOL.  II.  J^  L 
 
614  INDEX. 
 
 the  origin  and  meaning  of  sacrifice,  and  the  objection  to  it, 
 ii.  18,  19. 
 
 Septuagint  translation  of  Isaiah,  inferior  to  that  of  any 
 
 other  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  i.  231,  406 the  trans. 
 
 lation  of  Job  also  inaccurate,  and  takes  great  libprties  with 
 
 the  original,  ii.  142 collation  of  the  various  copies  of  th« 
 
 Septuagint  by  Dr.  Holmes,  i.  93,  94. 
 
 Sharp^  (Granville)  has,  mhh  letter  on  certain  paj'tkula. 
 rliles  of  the  IlebreiD  Sijntax^  made  some  excellent  remarks 
 on  the  converted  future  of  the  Hebrew^  ii.  125. 
 
 Smith,  (Dr.  Adam)  argues  from  the  natural  sentiments  of 
 mankind,  in  behalf  of  tlie  reasonableness  of  intercession  and 
 
 atonement,  u  209 — 211 infected  by  his  connexion  with 
 
 David  Hume,  i.  211,  212.  ii.  319,  320 his  opinion  of  the 
 
 process  whereby  the  use  of  general  signs  is  acquired,  ii. 
 63 this  opinion  coji  trover  ted,  ibid. 
 
 Smith,  (Elizabeth) — her  translation   of  the  book  of  Job, 
 
 an  extraordinary  work,  ii.   171,  172 extracts  from  and 
 
 observations  on  that  Translation,  ii.  172 — 175,  177,  178 . 
 
 praise  of  her  by  Mrs.  Hannah  More,  ii.  405. 
 
 Socinians  distinguished  from  Unitarians,  i.  149 — 152 — ■ — 
 their  mode  of  interpreting  scripture  described,  i.  175,  176, 
 
 189,  190 their  sophistical  reasonings  to  be  most  carefully 
 
 watched,  ii.  480. 
 
 Spencer — his  error  concerning  the  nature  and  origin  of 
 
 sacrifice,  ii.  4,  5,  18 his  wrong  interpretation  of  the  sGeP^o- 
 
 ^^vimna.  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  4,  5 his   argument  derived  from 
 
 the  use  of  the  word  ^u^a.  in  Heb.  xi.  4.  refuted,  ibid. his 
 
 work  built  upon  the  Moreh  Ncvochi/n  of  Maimonides,  ii. 
 275 a  dangerous  guide  in  theology,  ii.  275,  276 re- 
 futed by  several  writers,  ii.  274,  275,  279,  281,  282 his 
 
 rtflsxions  upon  revelation,  ii.  275,  276. 
 
 Stock,  (Bishop  of  Killalla)  objects  to  the  generally  re- 
 ceived idea  of  the  antiquity  of  the  book  of  Job,  ii.  132 — 1  34 
 
 —his  objections  shewn  to  be  unfouuded,  ii.  134 — 194 
 
 2 
 
INDEX.  5  I  5 
 
 his  translation  of  Job,  a  hasty,  iraporfoct  and  highly  objec- 
 tionable  performance,  ii.   132 — 199 indulges  too  freely 
 
 in  conjectural  emendations  of  the  sacred  text,  ii.  196 — 198. 
 
 S^kcs,  objects  to  the  doctrine  of  Atonement  on  the  ground 
 of  texts  stating  man's  reconciUaiion  to  Goily  not  that  of  God 
 
 to  man,  i.  203 states  the  texts  uncandidly,  i.  ^OG hi« 
 
 whole  objection  answered,  i.  26 — 29,  202 — 207 liis  er- 
 roneous criticism  on  the  phrase, /or  us,  i.  249 — 252 con- 
 tradicts himself  in  his  endeavours  to  prove,  that  Christ,  when 
 compared  to  the  Paschal  lamb,  was  not  said  to  be  sacrificed, 
 
 i.  308,  309 his  arguments  against  the  doctrino  of  aione- 
 
 racnt  on  the  ground  of  its   implying  vicarious  substitution, 
 
 Stated  and  answered,  i.  354 — 366 his  affirmation,  that  th« 
 
 imposition  of  hands  implied  nothing  vicarious,  considered,  i. 
 366 — 373 his  denial  that  the  scape  goat  was  a  Sin-offer- 
 ing, examined,  i.  370 — 373,  461,  462 refers  to  a  text, 
 
 as  proving  decisively  that  ^^i  signifies  rem&ving  or  taking 
 
 azvaij,  which  makes  directly  against  him,  i.  450,  451 his 
 
 theory  of  sacrifice,  i.  43,  44.  ii.  21 ^shewn  to  be  erro- 
 neous, i.  44.  ii.  21 — 28,  31- — 45 contends  for  the  per- 
 mission of  animal  food  before  the  flood,  ii.  ^3 this  notion 
 
 refuted,  ii.  31 — 45. 
 
 T 
 
 Taylor,  (Henry) — see  Ben  Mordecai. 
 
 Taylor,  (Dr.  John,  of  Norwich) — his  scheme  of  atonement, 
 
 i.  181 — 186 sum  of  his  scheme,  i.  185 falls  in  with 
 
 some  of  the  principles  of  the  Soclnlan,  i.  181,  186 — 188 
 
 his  whole  scheme  but  an  artful  accormnodation  of  scripture 
 
 phrases,  i.  181,  182,  186 his  key  a  false  one,  ii.  391 
 
 his  works  imprudently  recommended  by  Bishops,  i.  186- 
 
 the  errors  of  his  scheme  fully  refuted  by  the  author  of  th^ 
 Scripture  account  of  Sacr?Jices,  and  Dr,  Richie's  Criticisms 
 
 en  modern  notioiis  of  atonement,  i.  186 and  well  pointed 
 
 out  in  the  Christian  Observer,  il  391 -^-difference  between 
 t  1  2 
 
516  INDEX* 
 
 his  scheme  and  that  of  //.  Taylor,  i.  187 his  familiar  illus- 
 tration of  his  scheme,  i.  199 — 201 his  Unjustifiable  mode 
 
 of  investigating  the  nature  of  the  Leviiical  atonement,  i.  322 
 
 — 325 his  endeavour  to  do  away  the  force  of  the  phrase, 
 
 bearing  sins,  fully  examined,  i.  413 — 471 ^his  erroneous 
 
 criticism  on  the  word  t^u;j,  and  the  weakness  of  his  endeavour 
 to  shew  that  it  merely  signifies  removal,  and  not  sustaining 
 
 the  penal  consequences  of,  sin,  i,  436 — 451 is  referred  to 
 
 by  Mr.  Belsham,  but  turns  out  too  orthodox  for  him,  and  is 
 afterwards  relinquished  by  him,  ii.  480. 
 
 Texts  of  Scripture — supporting  the  doctrine  of  the  pre- 
 
 ^istence  of  Christ,  i.  71,  72 texts,  proving  the  plan  of 
 
 atonement  to  have  arisen  out  of  the  divine  mercy,  i.  23 
 
 texts  wrongly   urged  by   Priestley,    Sykes  and  Taylor,    in 
 
 proof  of  the  suiliciency  of  obedience  per  se,  i.  194, 195 
 
 texts  representing  man  as  forgiven  freely,  how  to  be  under. 
 
 slood,  i.  194 — 199 texts  representing  us  as  reconciled  to 
 
 God,  not  God  as  reconciled  to  us,  misunderstood  by  Crellius, 
 
 Sykes,  II.  and  J.  Taylor,  and  others,  i.  26, 27, 202 — 206 
 
 texts  proving  the  displeasure  of  God  against  the  sinner,  i. 
 
 27,  28,  208,  331 texts  proving  the  death  of  Christ  to 
 
 have  been  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  i.  29,  224,  397 texts 
 
 proving  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  to  resemble  the  paschal  sacri- 
 fice, i,  297 — 309 texts  proving  that  atonement,  in  the  Old 
 
 Testament,  included  the  idea  of  averting  the  divine  displea- 
 sure,  and  obtaining  forgiveness,    i.  331 two  important 
 
 ones  cleared  from  the  erroneous  criticisms  of  Dr.  Priestley, 
 
 i.  224 — ^243 celebrated  one  in  Isaiah  liii.  particularly  ex. 
 
 amined,  and  its  application  by  St.  Matthew  vindicated,  i.  397 
 — 463 texts  ascribing  the  bearing  of  sins  to  Christ's  sa- 
 crifice, an(J  explaining  the  manner  in  which  this  phrase  is 
 used  in  scripture,  i.  397—471— — texts  in  Isaiah  liii.  fully 
 explanatory  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  i.  397 — 410,  460 
 
 —465 text  in  1  Pet.  ii.  24.  erroneously  referred  to  Isai. 
 
 fiii,  4,  i.  414^  465^  4G6 texts  announcing  the  principle  of 
 
 1 
 
INDEX.  517 
 
 atonement^  i.  464,  465,  472 texts  proving  the  sacrificcis 
 
 of  the  Lazo  to  be  typical  of  Uiat  of  Christ,  i.  40,  47 texts 
 
 erroneously  supposed  to  support  the  idea  of  the  hun\an  in- 
 vention of  sacrifices,  ii.  82 — 87 text  proving  Abel's  sa- 
 crifice to  have  had  a  reference  to  that  of  Christ,  i.  49 text 
 
 in  Gen.  iv.  7.  explained,  i.  53.  ii.  235 — 250 texts  evinc- 
 ing the  piacular  virtue  of  the  animal  sacrifice,  i.  55,  56 
 
 texts  referred  to  by  Justin  Martyr  and  the  Apostolical  Fa^ 
 tkers,  ii.  472 — 481. 
 
 Tillotson^s  unjustifiable  idea  of  tb«  origin  of  the  plan  of 
 
 redemption  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  ii.  264 — 267 con. 
 
 futed,  ii.  ^67 — 280 his  mistaken  supposition  of  a  Rcli. 
 
 gion  of  Nature^  ii,  267 — 273 his  writings  recommended 
 
 by  Locke  as  supplying  a  model  oij)erspicuity^  ii.  264. 
 
 Tindal^ — his  absurd  objection,  i.  45,  46.  ii.  1 the  use 
 
 to  which  it  may  be  applied,  ii.  2. 
 
 Townson^  (Dr*)  gives  a  good  account  of  St.  Matthew's  pe- 
 culiar mode  of  citing  the  prophecies,  i.  435. 
 
 U 
 
 Unitarians — brief  view  of  fheir  scheme,  i.  12,  13 their 
 
 notion  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  promulgation  of  forgiveness 
 
 on  repentance,  erroneous,  i.  13 — 16 adopt  a  principle 
 
 of  reasoning  in  common  with  the  Deist,  i.  12 are  equally 
 
 unassailable,  on  the  ground  of  scripture,  with  the  Deist,  i. 
 
 16,  17 their  strange  explication  of  texts  of  scripture,  i.  73 
 
 — 85,  and  Appendix  ubique — mode  of  reasoning  subver- 
 sive of  every  possible  interpretation   of  scripture,  i.  86,  87, 
 
 176 called  by  Mr.  Hoyces  Humanists ;  and  by  Mr.  Ilob. 
 
 hou^e,  Humanitarians^  i.  148,  149 favourers  of  Maho- 
 
 metanism,  i.  133 — 135 pretend  to  be  exclusively  wor- 
 shippers of  one  God,  i.   148.  ii.  387 their  scheme  fully 
 
 explained  by  Dr.  Priestley,  and  Mr.  Belsham,  but  most 
 compendiously  by  the  latter,  i.  149.  ii.  387 — 412,  488—491 
 their  scheme  difficult  to  describe,  why,  ii.  387,  388 
 
518  INDEX. 
 
 they  disclaim  the  title  oi  Socimans^  i.  150,  151 go  far 
 
 beyond  Socinus,  i.  150 — 151 explain  away  the  meaning 
 
 of  scripture,  i.  17—19,  86 — 88,  173 — 178 represent  the 
 
 sacred  writers  as  erroneous  and  unphilosophical,  i.  173 — 175 
 
 differ  little  from  the  Theophilanthrope  Deists,  i.  175. 
 
 ii.  412 cannot  form  any  canon  of  scripture,  ysny^  i.  177, 
 
 178 have  lately  published  a  version  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment; nature  of  that  version,  ii.  448 — 462 in  that  version 
 
 admit  the  substitutive  force  of  the  word  vm^^  i.  252 re- 
 ject humiliti}^  i.  18,  158 agree  with  the  Sioics  in  their 
 
 proud  notions  of  virtue,  i.  179,  180 refer  to  each  other 
 
 boldly  for  proofs  which  have  not  been  given,  i.  419—423, 
 
 440,  449.  ii.  446 said  to  hold  a.  pure  Christianity,  ii.  41 S 
 
 said  to  be  persecuted,  ibid. — said  to  be  a  progressive 
 
 cause,  ii.  425- likely  to  decrease  in  number,  ii.  425,  426, 
 
 431 do  not  all  follow  up   their  principles,  ii.  429,  430 
 
 in  one  way  seem  to  encrease  in  number,  ii.  432 na- 
 turally pass   to   Deism,    ii.  426 — 436 how   contrive   to 
 
 retain  the  bible,  ii.  436,  437 they  alone  sound  critics, 
 
 and  why,  ii.  438 — 444 — —disingenuous  in  their  treatment  of 
 ancient  authorities,  ii.  469. 
 
 Unitarian  Version  of  the  New  Testament — of  a  latitude 
 ■which  embraces  opinions  subversive  of  Christian  doctrines, 
 ii.  448,  449 insidiously  professes  to  found  itself  on  Arch- 
 bishop Newrome's  translation,  ii.  449 effected  by  means 
 
 of  the  usual  apparatus  of  Unitarian  exposition,  ii.  449,  450 
 avows  the  design  of  clearing  away  all  the  leading  doc- 
 trines of  the  Compel,  ii.  450 is  enabled  to  take  the  widest 
 
 liberties  of  translation  by  its  systematic  rejection  of  verbal 
 
 criticism,    ii.  450,   451 gets  rid  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
 
 Incarnation  by  rejecting  the  opening  chapters  of  St.  Matthew 
 
 and  St.  Luke,  ii.  151 futiU;  and  contradictory  grounds  on 
 
 which  it  attempts  to  maintain  this  rejection,    ii.  451 — 456 
 
 quotes  Lardner's  authority  in  support  of  the  opposite  of 
 
 that  which  he  maintains,  ii.  457 does  this  from  a  grosfc 
 
INDEX.  519 
 
 bliincler  in  confounding  the  true  and  vulgar  eras  of  the  na. 
 
 tivitij^  ii.  456 — ^58 falls  into  another  blunder  concerning 
 
 the  age  and  character  of  Ephrem  Sjjrus,  ii.  45B,  459 — gWes 
 a  most  extraordinary  and  absurd  translation  of  the  first  chap- 
 ter of  St.  John's  Gospel,  ii.  459,  460 — giies  an  equally 
 extraordinary  and  absurd  explanation  of  St.  Stephen's  ad. 
 dress  to  Christ,  ii.  460,  461 — the  whole  of  this  neio  Version 
 judiciously  examined  and  exposed  by  Mr.  Narcs,  i.  480, 
 ii.  461. 
 
 Universah — the  various  opinions  concerning  their  nature^ 
 
 ii.  47 — 57 Aristotle's  views  on  this  subject,  just,  ii.  47 
 
 — 49 excellent  remark  upon  this  subject,  by  Mr.  Dugald 
 
 Stewart,  ii.  51,  52. 
 
 Veysie^  (Mr.) — ^his  judicious  remarks  on  the  sense  in  which 
 God  is  said  to  forgive  men  freely^  i.  199 — his  just  distinc- 
 tion, on  the  snbject  of  figurative  allusion,  i.  253,  254. 
 
 Villers — gives,  in  his  Essay  on  the  Reformation^  a  dismal 
 account  of  the  ignorance  of  scripture  enforced  by  the  Romish 
 
 Church,  ii.  242 — 244 contrasts  the  characters  of  the  Pro. 
 
 testant  and  Romish  Churches,  ii.  244,  245 — convicts  Hum» 
 of  falsehoods  in  his  charges  against  Luther,  ii.  335. 
 
 W 
 
 Walker,  (Mr.) — ^has  given,  in  his  Letter  to  Mr,  Belsham^ 
 an  excellent  refutation  of  his  reasoning,  ii.  390. 
 
 IVarburton, — his  strange  position  that  repentance  must 
 necessarily  entitle  to  forgiveness,  i.  95.  ii.  269 — his  singular 
 
 theory  on  the  subject  of  Natural  Religion,  ii.  267 — 270 
 
 his  well  founded  observations  on  Wesloy,  i.  169,  170 — liis 
 paradoxical  position  concerning  the  language  of  the  New  Tes- 
 tament, i.  236— this  well  refuted  by  Dr.  Leland,  i.  236—238 
 — —his  idea  of  the  scenical  nature  of  the  intended  sacrifice 
 of  Isaqcj  i.  394 — his  theory  of  5ac/7/?ce,  i.  44.  ii.  28 — ^his 
 
520  INDEX. 
 
 objections  against  the  divine  institution  of  sacrifice  consider. 
 
 ed,  ii.  76 — 82 his  extravagant  notion  concerning  the  book 
 
 of  Job,  ii.  99 — his  unjustifiable  adoption  of  the  opinions  of 
 
 Spencer  and   Maimnnides^  ii.  275 — 277 his  unmerciful 
 
 laceration  of  Bolingbroke,  ii.  301 — characters  given  of  hinj, 
 ii.  277—279. 
 
 Ward's  Errata — a  meagre  abstract  of  Gregory  Martinis 
 antient  refuted  work,  ii.  245^ — its  recent  re-publication  a  proof 
 of  the  low  state  of  scripture  criticism  in  the  Romish  Church, 
 ibid — specimen  of  its  miserable  cavils  against  the  Protestant 
 translations  of  the  Bible,  ii.  245,  246 — answered  by  Dr. 
 Ryan  and  Mr.  Grier,  ii.  246 — the  danger  to  which  these 
 gentlemen  are  exposed  hv  their  attempts  to  answer  it,  ib  d, 
 
 Watson^  (B.  of  Laridair) — his  judicious  observation  on 
 the  position  that  the  doctrine  oi  Atonement  is  incor.sistent  with 
 the  divine  attribute  of  mercy,  i.  489 — his  just  expression  of 
 indignation  against  the  presumpticn  of  opposing  a  fancied 
 philonphy  to  Apostolic  authority,  ii,  493. 
 
 Wesley — his  followers  hold  opinions  of  perfection,  incon- 
 sistent with  Christian  humility^  i.  158,  159— speak  con- 
 temptuously of  the  Clergy  of  the  Esiabli.shed  Church,  i.  169 
 — not  remarkable  for  the  justness  and  accuracy  of  their 
 reasonings,  i.  160 — their  numbers  rapidly  encreasing,  and 
 the  reason  why,  ibid.- — danger  to  the  establishment  from  the 
 injudicious  countenance  given  to  them  by  some  of  its  mem- 
 bers, i.  161,  162 — change  of  the  hiturgy  and  Articles,  and 
 rejection  of  the  Catechism^  two  of  the  Creeds,  and  many  of 
 the  Psalms,  by  Mr.  Wesley,  i.  162,  163 — the  Articles  re- 
 jected by  him  inconsistent  with  his  favourite  doctrine  of  perm 
 fection,  and  the  rejection  derogatory  to  the  dignity  o{  Christ, 
 
 i.  162,  166,  167 extravagant  dogmas  maintained  by  him 
 
 and  his  followers,  i.  163 proofs  of  this  in  the  writings  of 
 
 Mr.   Wesley,  i.    165 — 168 his  latitudinarian  principles 
 
 fespecting    doctrines,   i.    167 — 170 mischieTOUs   conse» 
 
 quences  to  true  religion,  i.  170. 
 
INDEX,  521 
 
 Wilberforce^  (Mr.) — ]ils  Practical  Vzezo^  a  book  of  high 
 Talue,  i.  89,  154 — <3efended  against  Dr.  Parr,  ii.  377 — his 
 eloquent  description  of  the  corruption  of  man's  natural  state 
 
 i.  154 — 157 describes  Unitarianism  as  a  half  way   house 
 
 to  Infidelity,  ii.  414. 
 
 Williams — in  his  Free  Enqiiiri/,  asserts  that  there  are  no 
 certain  references  to  the  first  two  chapters  of  St.  Matthew's 
 Gospel,  till  the  days  of  Celsus,  ii.  465 — this  assertion  refut- 
 ed,   ii.  465 — 468 his  strange  assertion   concerning  the 
 
 silence  of  the  Apostolical  fathers  on  those  chapters  fully  ex- 
 amined and  confuted,  ii.  468 — 483 this  writer  exhibits  a 
 
 striking  s,  (>cimea  of  the  disingenuousness  of  Unitarian  cri- 
 tics, ii.  469. 
 
INDEX  OF  TEXTS, 
 
 EXPLAINED  OR  REFERRED  TO. 
 
 Genesis* 
 
 r.  p. 
 
 Genesis, 
 
 V.    p. 
 
 i.     3 
 
 ii.  380 
 
 viii 
 
 20 
 
 ii.  44,  251 
 
 —  29 
 
 ii.  32,  36, 
 
 21 
 
 ii.  88 
 
 38,  40, 
 
 ix 
 
 3 
 
 ii.  32:  39 
 
 41,  68 
 
 .     4 
 
 ii.  37 
 
 —  30 
 
 ii.  32.  38, 
 
 xiv 
 
 5 
 
 ii.  161 
 
 40,  41 
 
 22 
 
 ii.   110 
 
 ii.     9 
 
 ii     68 
 
 XV. 
 
 2,7,8 
 
 ii.   110 
 
 —  16—18 
 
 ii.   6S 
 
 9 
 
 ii.  ^26,  44 
 
 —  '9 
 
 ii.  46,  68, 
 
 10,18 
 
 ii.  26 
 
 m 
 
 17 
 
 ii.  26,90 
 
 —  20 
 
 ii.  46 
 
 xvii. 
 
 27 
 
 i    390 
 
 —  22   23 
 
 ii    68 
 
 xviii. 
 
 20 
 
 ii.  237 
 
 iii.     s' 
 
 ii.  68,  134, 
 
 xix. 
 
 3 
 
 ii    35 
 
 176,  J  78 
 
 XX. 
 
 7 
 
 i.   141 
 
 —    9 
 
 ii.   (^8,  232 
 
 — 
 
 9 
 
 ii.  237 
 
 —   10 
 
 ii    68,  1/8 
 
 xxii. 
 
 2 
 
 i    388,  389 
 
 -—  1 1 
 
 ii    (,8 
 
 xxiii 
 
 6 
 
 i.  390 
 
 —   12 
 
 ii    68,   134, 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 3 
 
 ii.   110 
 
 176 
 
 XXV. 
 
 3i— 34 
 
 ii.  v;:3 
 
 —   14—20 
 
 ii.  08 
 
 XXV  i 
 
 24 
 
 i.   141 
 
 —  21 
 
 ii.  68,  23  I 
 ii.  68 
 
 XX  "lii 
 
 13,  16 
 
 32 
 
 ii.  i;o 
 i.   1   1 
 
 —  22 
 
 iv.     3 
 
 ii.  80,  209, 
 
 xxix. 
 
 1 
 
 i.  441 
 
 210,  229 
 
 xxxii. 
 
 9 
 
 ii.   110 
 
 —     4 
 
 ii.  5,90,203 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 ii.  220 
 
 213,214 
 
 xxxiii. 
 
 19 
 
 ii.    104,  16* 
 
 —     5 
 
 ii.  .') 
 
 xxxvii 
 
 36 
 
 ii.   160 
 
 ■ —     () 
 
 ii.  2.] 8 
 
 xliii. 
 
 11,  15 
 
 ii.  210 
 
 ^—     7 
 
 i.  .33.       ii. 
 
 33 
 
 ii.  2' 3 
 
 208,23.5, 
 233,239, 
 
 xlv. 
 
 18 
 
 ii.   149 
 
 — . 
 
 244,249, 
 
 Exodus. 
 
 r.  V, 
 
 260 
 
 I. 
 
 11 
 
 i.   428 
 
 —  20 
 
 ii    30 
 
 iii. 
 
 2,4 
 
 ii.   8 
 
 y\.     4.  7    n 
 
 ii.    133 
 
 V. 
 
 2 
 
 i.  344 
 
 —   14 
 
 i.  326 
 
 vi 
 
 3 
 
 ii.  8,  110 
 
 Tii.      2 
 
 ii.  43,4t,4'j 
 
 — 
 
 9 
 
 i.  404 
 
 —   1  1 
 
 ii.    160 
 
 X. 
 
 17 
 
 i.  460 
 
 —  21 
 
 ii.  36 
 
 — 
 
 25 
 
 ii.  2dJ,  253 
 
INDEX    OF    TEXTS. 
 
 523 
 
 Exodus. 
 
 V.    p. 
 
 xii.     5 
 
 i.  372 
 
 —     8,  21 
 
 i.  300 
 
 —  11 
 
 i.  311,313 
 
 —   12 
 
 i.  311 
 
 —   13 
 
 i.  311,313, 
 
 317,  318 
 
 —  19 
 
 i.    134 
 
 —  23 
 
 i.  312,313, 
 
 S17,  3!8 
 
 —  27 
 
 i.  298,301, 
 
 302,312, 
 
 S13,  31 9 
 
 —  29 
 
 ii.   IGO 
 
 XV.  25,26 
 
 il.  86 
 
 xvi.     8 
 
 ii.  84 
 
 13 
 
 ii.    147 
 
 xviii.  10 
 
 i.  344 
 
 12 
 
 ii.  251,  253 
 
 XX.     7 
 
 i.  358 
 
 xxi.     2 — 6 
 
 ii.   lOS 
 
 14 
 
 i.  344 
 
 xxii.  26 
 
 ii.  232 
 
 xxiii.     7 
 
 i.  407 
 
 18 
 
 i.  298,  301 
 
 xxiv.     8 
 
 ii.  25 
 
 xxviii.  38 
 
 i.  437.440, 
 
 441 
 
 xxix.   14 
 
 i.  247.     ii. 
 
 235,  237 
 
 XXX.     9 
 
 ii.  220 
 
 10 
 
 ii.  235 
 
 12,14, 
 
 16    i.  218 
 
 xxxil.  21 
 
 ji.  £37 
 
 30 
 
 i.  331.     ii. 
 
 237 
 
 32 
 
 i.  331 
 
 xxxi\\     6 
 
 i.  439 
 
 7 
 
 i.  439,443, 
 
 / 
 
 449 
 
 n 
 
 i.  443 
 
 i.  298,  SOI 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 ii.  232 
 
 Leviticus. 
 
 I    3 
 
 i.  376 
 
 —     4 
 
 i.  34,  302, 
 
 303,374 
 
 —     4-9 
 
 i.  303 
 
 —     5 
 
 i.  302 
 
 ii.     1 
 
 ii.  214,219, 
 
 220 
 
 —    6 
 
 ii.  217,219, 
 
 eviiiais. 
 
 V.  p. 
 
 ii.   13 
 
 ii.  25,27 
 
 iii.     2—5 
 
 i.  303 
 
 iv.     2 
 
 i.  339,315 
 
 —     3 
 
 i.  S61.     ii. 
 
 235 
 
 —     3—12 
 
 i.  G6I 
 
 —     (j 
 
 ii.   103 
 
 —   13,  14 
 
 i.  33Q 
 
 —   J3— 22 
 
 i.  36l 
 
 —  21 
 
 ii.   235,  237 
 
 —  23 
 
 i.  339 
 
 —  24 
 
 i.  303.     ff. 
 
 22n,  237 
 
 —  £8 
 
 i.  339 
 
 ~  29 
 
 ii.  235 
 
 V.     2,  3 
 
 i.  339 
 
 —     4 
 
 i.  847,358 
 
 —     8 
 
 i.  247 
 
 —     9 
 
 i.  247.     H. 
 
 237 
 
 —   !0 
 
 i.  332 
 
 —   1  I 
 
 i.  2\1 
 
 —   13,  16 
 
 i.  332 
 
 —   17 
 
 1.  339 
 
 —   18 
 
 i.  332,  Z30 
 
 vi.      1,2 
 
 i.  346 
 
 —     2—7 
 
 ,i.  33 
 
 --     3 
 
 i.  358 
 
 —    7 
 
 i.  332 
 
 —  18 
 
 i.  374 
 
 —  23, 26 
 
 i.  446 
 
 —  25 
 
 ii.  235 
 
 ^ii.     2 
 
 i    246 
 
 —     8 
 
 ii.  2,  231 
 
 ix.  22 
 
 i.  441 
 
 •—  24 
 
 ii.  90 
 
 X.   17 
 
 i.  437,410, 
 
 411,415, 
 
 4:6,447, 
 
 xi.  44—46 
 
 ii.  Si} 
 
 xiv.  20,    26, 
 31,35 
 
 '.  i.  332 
 
 xvi.     5 
 
 i.  370.    ii. 
 
 344 
 
 6 
 
 i.  371 
 
 7.9 
 
 ii.  344 
 
 10 
 
 i.  370.    it. 
 
 344 
 
 11 
 
 i.  371 
 
 15—28 
 
 i.  361 
 
 16,20 
 
 i.  327 
 
 17 
 
 ii.  OH 
 
5U 
 
 INDEX   OF   TEXTS. 
 
 Leviticus, 
 
 V.    p. 
 
 VeuterotKMn 
 
 2/.    V.    p. 
 
 XV  i. 
 
 21 
 
 i.  366,369, 
 
 442 
 
 iii.   11 
 
 i.  34-i 
 ii.  161 
 
 22 
 
 i.  369>437, 
 
 vii.     7 
 
 i.  404. 
 
 440, 442 
 
 xi.     2 
 
 i.  401 
 
 26 
 
 i.  369 
 
 xii.      5, 6, 
 
 '»'p.  300 
 
 xvii* 
 
 11 
 
 i.  56,  357, 
 
 14 
 
 358,  445 
 
 xiv.     3 
 
 ii.  45 
 
 XIX. 
 
 20 
 
 i.  34 
 
 xvi.     2 
 
 i.  298,299, 
 301 
 
 22 
 
 i.  332 
 
 XX, 
 
 ;txii. 
 
 19 
 21 
 
 i.  468 
 i.  372 
 
 — -     4 
 5,6 
 
 i.  298,301, 
 j.  293,299, 
 301 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 14, 
 
 15 
 
 i.  375 
 
 l6 
 
 i.  358 
 
 xvii.  12,  13 
 
 i.  344 
 
 xxvi. 
 
 18, 
 39 
 
 23, 
 
 28  i.  401 
 i.  342 
 
 xviii.   10 
 
 22 
 
 xxi.     8 
 xxii.  18 
 xxiv.     1 
 
 i.  382 
 i.  344 
 i.  401 
 
 i    401 
 
 i.  482 
 
 "" 
 
 xxv.     I 
 
 i.  407 
 
 J^umhers. 
 
 xxvii.  21 
 26 
 
 i.  435 
 
 i.  347,358 
 
 ix. 
 
 e. 
 
 6.  7       i.  300 
 
 13 
 
 ^f  1 
 
 i.  300,301, 
 
 Joshua, 
 
 xi. 
 
 31 
 
 32 
 
 ii.  116,147, 
 ii.  147. 
 
 ii.  19 
 
 i.  375 
 
 — 
 
 33 
 
 ii.  133,144, 
 
 xxiv.  32 
 
 ii.   104 
 
 14d,147, 
 
 _ 
 
 34 
 
 ii.   133,144, 
 
 Judges. 
 
 146 
 
 vi.  18 
 
 ii.  219 
 
 !tiv. 
 
 18 
 
 i.  439,443, 
 
 —  21 
 
 ii.  90 
 
 419 
 
 XV.     4 
 
 ii.  180 
 
 19 
 
 33 
 
 i.  439 
 i.  452,454, 
 457,466, 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 1  Samue^, 
 
 XV. 
 
 22 
 
 467,  469 
 i.  341 
 
 ii.  17 
 
 XV.  22 
 
 xxiii.  26 
 
 ii.  219 
 ii.  84 
 i.  313 
 
 n 
 
 24 
 
 24- 
 
 25, 
 
 -28 
 26, 
 
 i.  339 
 i.  341 
 
 28  i.  332 
 
 xxix.     4     • 
 
 i.  205 
 
 _^,„ 
 
 . 
 
 27 
 
 1 
 
 i.  343 
 
 2  SamueL 
 
 . — 
 
 30 
 
 i.  341,343, 
 
 i.  16 
 
 i.  375 
 
 344 
 
 xviii.  33 
 
 i.  252 
 
 — 
 
 31 
 
 i.  344 
 
 xix.  22 
 
 ii.   113 
 
 xvi. 
 
 46,  47, 
 
 48   i.  331 
 
 xxiv.  16 
 
 ii.   134,  184 
 
 xviii. 
 
 1 
 8 
 
 i.  441 
 i.  414 
 
 rr . 
 
 — — . 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 ii.  207 
 
 1  Kings. 
 
 xix. 
 
 2 
 
 i.  372 
 
 v.     4 
 
 ii.  113 
 
 xxii. 
 
 22 
 
 ii.  112 
 
 viii.  29 
 
 i.  3Q0 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 2 
 
 i.  441 
 
 32 
 
 i.  407 
 
 XXV. 
 
 11, 
 
 13 
 
 i.  331 
 
 X.  23 
 
 ii.  230 
 
 xxxiii. 
 
 1 
 
 ii.  103 
 
 xi.   14,23, 
 
 25  ii.  113 
 
INDEX    OP    TEXTS. 
 
 525 
 
 1  Kings. 
 
 V. 
 
 P- 
 
 kii.  11,  14 
 
 i. 
 
 401 
 
 16 
 
 u. 
 
 235 
 
 xviii.  29,  86 
 
 ii. 
 
 218 
 
 38 
 
 11. 
 
 90 
 
 xxu.  19—23 
 
 11. 
 
 9^ 
 
 2  Kings. 
 
 iii.  2(X 
 
 ii. 
 
 218 
 
 V  ii.    9 
 
 1. 
 
 4j3 
 
 viii.     8, 9 
 
 11. 
 
 220 
 
 xxiv,   12 
 
 11. 
 
 134 
 
 XXV.  27 
 
 i». 
 
 134 
 
 1  Chronicles. 
 xxi.   15  ii.  J  34,  184 
 
 — -  26  ii.  90 
 
 2  Chronicles, 
 
 ii.     2,  18 
 
 i. 
 
 420 
 
 vi.  23 
 
 i. 
 
 407 
 
 vii.     1 
 
 ii. 
 
 90 
 
 —   16 
 
 i. 
 
 300 
 
 viii.     I 
 
 ii. 
 
 208 
 
 ix.  24 
 
 ii. 
 
 220 
 
 X.   n,  14 
 
 i. 
 
 401 
 
 xxix.  23 
 
 i. 
 
 371 
 
 XXX.   1.5,  16 
 
 i. 
 
 301,302 
 
 xxxii.  23 
 
 ii. 
 
 220 
 
 xxxiv.   13 
 
 i. 
 
 421 
 
 XXXV.     5,6,  10 
 
 i. 
 
 299 
 
 .11 
 
 i. 
 
 299,301, 
 
 302 
 
 Ezra. 
 ix.     4,  5 
 
 11.  218 
 
 Nehemiah, 
 iv.  45 
 
 1.  §26 
 
 Esther. 
 vii.     8 
 viii.     1,  7 
 
 ix.  25 
 
 Job. 
 
 i.     4 
 i.     ^ 
 
 11.  149 
 ii.  149 
 i.  375 
 
 1.  213 
 i.  55,  213 
 ii.  251 
 
 Job. 
 
 V.  p, 
 
 ii.  14i 
 
 ii.  108 
 
 ii.  117 
 
 ii.  153 
 
 ii.  117 
 
 ii.  233 
 
 ii.  179 
 
 ii.  \53 
 
 ii.  ys 
 
 ii.  134 
 
 ii.  153 
 
 ii.  97,  98 
 
 ii.  114 
 
 i.  418 
 
 i.  418 
 
 ii.  153 
 
 ii.  158 
 
 ii.  104 
 
 ii.  142 
 
 ii.  232 
 
 ii.  131 
 
 ii.  154 
 
 ii.  133.  144 
 
 ii.  158 
 
 ii.  153 
 
 ii.  153 
 
 ii.  133,149, 
 lOl,  164 
 
 ii-  179,  181 
 
 ii-  97 
 
 ii-  97 
 
 ii.  181 
 
 ii.  108 
 
 ii.  134,  176 
 
 ii.  179 
 
 n-  97,  98 
 
 i.  418 
 
 ii.  134,  184- 
 
 ii.  172 
 
 ii.  171 
 
 ii.  174 
 
 ii.  17  i,  175 
 
 ii.  13i,l6u, 
 
 173 
 
 ii.  173 
 
 ii.  174 
 
 ii.  157 
 
 ii.  153 
 
 ii.  134 
 
 li.  158 
 
 ii.  145 
 
 i.  401 
 
526 
 
 INDEX    OF    TEXTS. 
 
 Job. 
 
 r.   p. 
 
 Proverbs. 
 
 r.   p. 
 
 xxxviii 
 
 .     1 
 
 ii.    129 
 
 iii.  11 
 
 i.  401 
 
 xxxix 
 
 .  34 
 
 '•I.    i-iS 
 
 Cv.   18 
 
 ii.    163 
 
 xl 
 
 .     i~l4 
 
 ii.   i97 
 
 xiii.  24 
 
 i.  401 
 
 xU 
 
 .     6,7 
 
 ii-   JQV 
 
 XV.     8 
 
 ii.  83 
 
 
 
 -  14 
 
 ii.    108 
 
 xvii,   15 
 
 i.  407 
 
 xlii. 
 
 5 
 
 ii.  \:.o 
 
 xix.   18 
 
 i.  401 
 
 — - 
 
 -     7,8 
 
 i.  28,  213. 
 
 XX.     4 
 
 i.  404 
 
 ii,  ^5 1 
 
 xxl.   16 
 
 ii.  163 
 
 _. 
 
 10 
 
 i.  141 
 
 xxii.   15 
 
 i.  401 
 
 — . 
 
 11 
 
 ii.   105,  196 
 
 xxvi.    13 
 
 ii.   180 
 
 — — 
 
 .  12 
 
 ii.   \^Q 
 
 xxvii.  20 
 .\xx.    16 
 
 29 
 
 ii.   Iti4 
 ii.   l64 
 ii.  240 
 
 salms. 
 
 P 
 
 Ecclcsiasies. 
 
 vi. 
 
 1 
 
 i.  401 
 
 vii. 
 
 16 
 
 i.  375 
 
 i.   18 
 
 i.  417 
 
 xiv. 
 
 13 
 
 i.  417 
 
 ii.   18 
 
 i.  417 
 
 xvi. 
 
 10 
 
 ii.   160 
 
 XX. 
 
 3 
 
 ii.  90 
 
 Isaiah. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 7 
 
 i.  3J3 
 
 i.   11,  12 
 
 ii.   83 
 
 XXX. 
 
 4 
 
 ii.   160 
 
 ii.     9 
 
 ii.   177 
 
 7 
 
 i.   428 
 
 V.    14 
 
 ii.  153,  164 
 
 xxxii. 
 
 1 
 
 i.  3^6 
 
 —  23 
 
 i.  407 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 i.  443 
 
 vii,   14 
 
 i.  472 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 i.  417 
 
 ij:.     6 
 
 i.  75 
 
 xxxiii. 
 
 3 
 
 ii.  210 
 
 X.  27 
 
 i.  421 
 
 xxxviii. 
 
 1 
 
 i.  401 
 
 xiv.     9 
 
 ii.    152,15;?, 
 
 
 
 1/ 
 
 i.  417 
 
 137 
 
 xxxix. 
 
 11 
 
 i.  401 
 
 —  11,  15 
 
 ii.    163 
 
 xl. 
 
 G 
 
 ii.  82 
 
 xxiii.    16 
 
 ii.  240 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 i.  247 
 
 xxvi.    14 
 
 ii.    161 
 
 1. 
 
 5,  I6 
 
 ii.  25 
 
 16 
 
 i.  401 
 
 .. 
 
 8,  9,  13 
 
 ii.  82 
 
 xxvii       4 
 
 ii.  204 
 
 Ii. 
 
 16 
 
 ii.  82 
 
 7 
 
 i.  341 
 
 Ixix. 
 
 29 
 
 i.  417 
 
 15,  18 
 
 ii.   153 
 
 Ixxi. 
 
 13 
 
 ii.   113 
 
 xxxi.     5 
 
 i.  313,316, 
 
 Ixxii. 
 
 10 
 
 ii.  220 
 
 319,  320 
 
 Ixxxi. 
 
 16 
 
 ii.  207 
 
 xxxiii.  24 
 
 i.  435 
 
 Ixxxii. 
 
 3 
 
 i.  407 
 
 XXXV.     5 
 
 i.  432 
 
 Ixxxv. 
 
 2 
 
 i.  5.6 
 
 xxxviii.   10,  18 
 
 ii.    153 
 
 Jxxxvi. 
 
 15 
 
 i.  439 
 
 xl.     2 
 
 i.  453 
 
 Ixxxviii. 
 
 30 
 
 ii.   146 
 
 xlvi.     4 
 
 i.  420,422 
 
 ixxxix. 
 
 50 
 
 i.  467 
 
 xlix.  23 
 
 ii.    Ill 
 
 xci. 
 
 13 
 
 ii.   180 
 
 1.     8 
 
 i.  407 
 
 xciv. 
 
 17 
 
 ii.   160 
 
 Iii.     6 
 
 ii.    152 
 
 clii. 
 
 3 
 
 i.  424 
 
 liii.     3 
 
 i.  419 
 
 civ. 
 
 4 
 
 ii.  9 
 
 4 
 
 i.  362,398, 
 
 cv. 
 
 40 
 
 ii.   147 
 
 400,  412 
 
 cix. 
 
 20,  29 
 
 ii.    113 
 
 —  440, 
 
 cxviii. 
 
 18 
 
 i.  401 
 
 463,465, 
 
 cxlrii. 
 
 14 
 
 ii.  207 
 
 469 
 
Nnr.x  OF  texts. 
 
 oi7 
 
 Isaiah, 
 
 V,    p. 
 
 E 
 
 zcldel. 
 
 V.   p. 
 
 liii.     5 
 
 i.  398,400, 
 
 ..!• 
 
 19,  20,  2 
 
 1  i.  441 
 
 40.'> 
 
 iii. 
 
 11 
 
 i.  411 
 
 —    5- 
 
 -8 
 
 i.  222 
 
 IV. 
 
 4,5 
 
 i.  437 
 
 —     5- 
 
 -10 
 
 1.  ::.gi) 
 
 V. 
 
 15 
 
 i.  401 
 
 —    6 
 
 i.  3:7,402, 
 
 X. 
 
 'J() 
 
 i.  441 
 
 4jT 
 
 xiv. 
 
 14 
 
 ii.    120 
 
 —    7 
 
 i.  2lG,217, 
 403.    ii. 
 
 xviii. 
 
 2 
 
 i.  454,455, 
 
 457 
 
 381 
 
 13 
 
 i.  457 
 
 8 
 
 i.  404 
 
 19,  -o 
 
 i.  452     — 
 
 10 
 
 i.  29,  224, 
 
 157,  467 
 
 226—230 
 
 
 
 19— '-3 
 
 i.   358 
 
 £40,  S4(j, 
 
 XX. 
 
 15,  23 
 
 i.  411 
 
 398,  405 
 
 xxiii. 
 
 48 
 
 i.   ^iOl 
 
 11 
 
 i.  400,  406 
 
 xxxii. 
 
 GO 
 
 i.  468 
 
 —  408, 
 
 xxxili. 
 
 :}2 
 
 ii.  240 
 
 414,'^cO, 
 
 xllv. 
 
 29 
 
 i.  2  0 
 
 436,451, 
 
 xlv. 
 
 23 
 
 ii.  235 
 
 4:/2,463, 
 
 469. 
 
 Daniel. 
 
 —  12 
 
 i.  397,100, 
 
 409,414, 
 
 ii. 
 
 35 
 
 i.  411 
 
 436,452, 
 
 xii. 
 
 3 
 
 i.  409 
 
 4(^9 
 
 ■"■*" 
 
 Ivil.     9 
 
 ii.    154 
 
 Jlosca. 
 
 Ix.   l6 
 
 ii.    Ill 
 
 i.  246.  ii; 
 233 
 
 Ixv.   14 
 
 i.  417 
 
 iv. 
 
 8 
 
 Ixvi.     3 
 
 ii.  83 
 
 — 
 
 15 
 
 i.  343 
 
 V. 
 
 14 
 
 ii.   180 
 
 Jtreniiah. 
 
 VI. 
 
 6 
 
 ii.  84 
 
 B.   H)> 
 
 30 
 
 i.  401 
 
 vii. 
 
 12 
 
 i.  401 
 
 V.     3 
 
 i.  401 
 
 X. 
 
 13 
 
 i    453 
 
 vii.  22 
 2J 
 
 ii.  83—85 
 ii.  85 
 
 xlii. 
 
 7 
 
 ii.    18f 
 
 X.  £4 
 
 i.  401 
 
 Joel, 
 
 Xxiv.     2 
 XXX.    11, 
 
 14 
 
 ii.     04 
 i.  401 
 
 ii^ 
 
 13 
 
 ii.  84 
 
 15 
 
 i.  417 
 
 '~~^ 
 
 xxxi.    18 
 
 i.  401 
 
 Amos. 
 
 ■ 29 
 
 SO 
 
 i.  453,454 
 i.  454 
 i.  401 
 
 V. 
 
 21,22 
 
 ii.  83 
 
 x!vi.    :'8 
 
 li.    6 
 
 i.  453 
 
 Micah. 
 
 —    9 
 
 i.  441 
 
 V. 
 
 b 
 
 ii.  475,  476 
 
 Lamenta 
 
 'ZOWf. 
 
 Xahtim. 
 
 iii. 
 
 11 
 
 i.  404 
 
 iv.  21 
 
 ii.    101 
 i.  408,420, 
 452  — 
 
 n 
 
 V.    7 
 
 ^ahakkuk. 
 
 465,467 
 
 ii. 
 
 5 
 
 ii.   164 
 
52S 
 
 INDEX    OF    TEXTS, 
 
 Zechariah. 
 
 V.   p. 
 
 ii.  13 
 
 ii.  96 
 
 iii.     1 
 
 ii.  96 
 
 V.     7 
 
 i.  441 
 
 xii.     3 
 
 i.  428 
 
 xiv.  19 
 
 i.  453 
 
 Malachi. 
 
 i.  13 
 
 ii.  219 
 
 ^  14 
 
 i.  372. 
 
 219 
 
 ii.    7 
 
 ii.  245 
 
 iii.     1 
 
 ii.  245 
 
 Judith. 
 
 V.  19,20 
 
 i.  343 
 
 Wisdom, 
 
 i.  401 
 
 Ecclesiasticus, 
 
 xvu. 
 
 ii.  69 
 
 1  Maccabees, 
 
 xiii.  39  i.  342 
 
 Mattheic. 
 
 i.    19 
 —  21 
 
 i.  481 
 
 i.  472.     ii. 
 
 472 
 i.  467,  472 
 
 174 
 
 —  23  It 
 ii.     2,  11,  12  ii 
 
 —  6,  18,  475 
 
 iii.    15  ii    480 
 
 V.     3,7,10 
 44 
 
 —  23 
 
 —  24 
 
 —  28 
 
 —  42 
 
 vi-   12 — 15 
 
 —  25 
 vii.      1,  2 
 
 —  12 
 \iii.  J7 
 
 V'- 
 
 48  J 
 
 1.  26 
 
 i.  26",204— ' 
 
 206 
 ii.  479 
 ii.  478,  479 
 ii.  481 
 ii.  223 
 il.  478,  481 
 ii.  478 
 
 i.  410 
 
 416,423 
 
 i34, 
 
 403 
 
 MaUhezs, 
 ix.    2 
 
 ix.   13 
 
 —  42 
 X.   lO' 
 
 —  32,  33 
 xi.     4 
 
 —  10 
 xii.  33 
 41 
 
 xiii.     5—7,20 
 
 432,435, 
 436 
 478 
 
 478 
 480 
 479 
 432 
 245 
 480 
 223 
 
 -7,20; 
 31,  32) 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 31 
 
 15 
 
 XV.     9 
 xvi.  24 
 xviii.     3, 4 
 6 
 
 19.  2 
 
 —  35 
 xix.    12   ♦ 
 
 XX.    12 
 
 16 
 
 1'8 
 
 xxn.  43,  44 
 
 xxiii  6 
 
 xxlv.  22 
 
 XXV.  5,  6,  10 
 
 XXVI.  24 
 
 2(i 
 
 28 
 
 31 
 
 —__  41 
 
 xxviii.  13 
 
 Mark. 
 
 IV.  ]2 
 
 V.  26 
 vii.  7 
 ix.  49 
 
 —  50 
 X.  45 
 
 —  46 
 xii.  26 
 xiv.  13 
 
 22 
 
 435 
 
 4 
 
 478 
 
 479 
 478 
 480 
 343 
 480 
 425 
 478 
 
 222,238, 
 357,464 
 472 
 478 
 479 
 478 
 47s 
 478 
 
 308,  357 
 5S,  2£2, 
 465,472 
 478 
 481 
 479 
 
 i.  435 
 i.  421 
 ii.  88 
 ii.  25 
 ii.  479 
 i.  222 
 i.  357 
 ii.  II 
 i.  426 
 i.  3il 
 
INDEX    OP   TEXTS. 
 
 Luke. 
 I  31 
 
 V,    p. 
 ii.  473 
 
 —  77  i.  433 
 iii.  23  ii.  463 
 vi.  30               ii.  478 
 
 —  3(5,37,38  ii.  479 
 i.  42(i 
 
 ii.  245 
 
 vii.  14 
 
 —  27 
 xiii.  24,  25 
 xiv.  37 
 
 XVI.  18 
 
 xvii.     2 
 
 Xviii.  12 
 
 n.  479 
 i.  426. 
 480 
 ii.  479 
 ii.  479 
 ii.  212 
 
 John, 
 i.     1 
 
 —  1—14 
 
 —  10 
 
 —  2p 
 
 Ml.     8 
 
 —  13,31 
 
 —  1(5 
 v.   14 
 
 —  30 
 vi.  27 
 
 —  38 
 
 —  62 
 vii.  24 
 
 ^iii.  29 
 
 —  57,  58 
 
 X.   g 
 
 xi.  50 
 -;-  51,  52 
 ^tii.     6 
 
 —  49 
 Xiii.  3 
 xiv.     6 
 
 XV.  2(> 
 .*vi.     7,  8,  13 
 
 —  11 
 
 —  32 
 
 —  28 
 
 xvii.  5 
 xix.  36 
 r-K.    15 
 
 11. 
 
 V.   p, 
 
 ii.  355 
 
 i.  80. 
 356 
 
 i.  78 
 
 ,i.  29,  216, 
 218,219, 
 307,  472 
 i'l.  480 
 
 i.  71 
 
 i.  23 
 
 i.  435 
 
 i.  482 
 ii.  84 
 
 i.  71 
 
 i.  71,87 
 i.  482 
 ii.  480 
 L.  81—85 
 ii.  480 
 i.  251,  472 
 i.  472 
 i.  42G,  427 
 ii.  480 
 i-  71 
 ii.  479 
 ii.  S60 
 ii.  360 
 ii.  480 
 i.  4/6,429, 
 
 476 
 i.  71.       ii. 
 
 480 
 j.  72 
 i.  308 
 i.  426-429 
 
 Acts, 
 ii.  24 
 iii.  17 
 iv.  12 
 V.  41 
 vii.     5,  16 
 
 —  56 
 
 —  60 
 viii.  32 
 
 33 
 
 r    35 
 
 X.  41 
 
 —  42 
 
 —  43 
 xlii.  22 
 
 32,  33 
 
 XV.  10 
 XX.  28 
 
 —  35 
 XXV.  24 
 
 Romans. 
 I  29—32 
 
 ii,     5 
 
 —  20 
 iii.  24 
 
 —  25 
 
 —  26 
 
 529 
 
 V.  p, 
 
 ii.  481 
 i.  340 
 
 ii.  47s 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 ii.  105 
 
 ii.  46l 
 
 ii.  460,  461 
 
 i.  217,222 
 
 i.  222 
 
 i.  410 
 ri.  480 
 ij.  478 
 ii.  473 
 ii.  479 
 ii.  225 
 
 i,  426 
 ii.  462 
 ii.  479 
 ii.  486 
 
 i.   14,  15  ii. 
 
 479 
 i.  482 
 ii.  479 
 i.  222 
 i.  221,222, 
 477,478 
 i.  215,477, 
 478,  482 
 ii.  478 
 i.  222A65, 
 
 ii.  345 
 i.  464 
 i.  222 
 i.  251 
 i.  208 
 i.  204,20^, 
 
 208 
 i.  29,  243 
 i.  343.     ii. 
 
 478 
 i.  73 
 i.  242 
 ii.  480 
 ii.  484.485. 
 i.  29,  172 
 i.  407 
 ii.  454,486 
 ii.  480 
 ii.  479,  4«« 
 il  479 
 
 VOL.  II. 
 
 M  M 
 
530 
 
 INDEX    OF    TEXTS. 
 
 Romans. 
 
 V.    p. 
 
 2  Cori 
 
 nthians. 
 
 V.    p. 
 
 ix.  10,11,12 
 
 ii.  478 
 
 V. 
 
 19 
 
 i.  205,206, 
 
 X.     3 
 
 i.  340 
 
 243 
 
 —  17 
 
 ii.  224 
 
 .^ 
 
 20 
 
 i.  204,  206 
 
 xi.     2 
 
 ii.  484 
 
 __ 
 
 21 
 
 i.  222,224, 
 
 —   15 
 
 i.  206, 
 
 243 
 
 234,235, 
 
 —  29 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 242,246, 
 
 —  36 
 
 ii.  473 
 
 464 
 
 xii.   17 
 
 ii.  481 
 
 ri. 
 
 7 
 
 ii.  481 
 
 xiii.     Q,  10 
 
 ii.  481 
 
 vii. 
 
 10 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 xiv.     1,  3 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 viii. 
 
 5 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 —  10,  12 
 
 ii.  481 
 
 ___ 
 
 21 
 
 ii.  481 
 
 XV.     1 
 
 i.  426 
 
 ii. 
 
 X. 
 
 17, 
 
 18 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 479 
 
 ..  xi. 
 
 24, 
 
 25 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 —    7 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 xii. 
 
 2, 
 
 4 
 
 ii.  95 
 
 —     8 
 
 ii.  478 
 
 xiii. 
 
 4 
 
 ii.  345 
 
 1  Corinthians, 
 
 "" 
 
 ""* 
 
 i.  10 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 Galatians. 
 
 —  12 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 i. 
 
 1 
 
 ii.  480,481 
 
 —  18,19,20 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 — 
 
 4 
 
 i.  2b2.     ii. 
 
 —  23,  24 
 
 i.  1 
 
 479 
 
 iii.  l6 
 
 ii.  478, 
 
 480 
 
 iii. 
 
 10 
 
 i.  347,  358 
 
 —  17 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 .  — 
 
 \3 
 
 i.  464 
 
 -  19 
 
 ii.   129 
 
 — 
 
 24 
 
 i.  61 
 
 iv.     4 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 — 
 
 27 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 V.    7 
 
 i.  222, 
 
 297, 
 
 iv. 
 
 26 
 
 ii.  481 
 
 307, 
 
 308, 
 
 V. 
 
 4 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 — 
 
 10 
 
 i.  426 
 
 —  11 
 
 ii.  481 
 
 vi. 
 
 2 
 
 i.  4i6 
 
 Ti.     2 
 
 ii.  481 
 ii.  480, 
 
 481 
 
 —  9,  10 
 
 *~ 
 
 vii.  11 
 
 i.  204, 
 
 206, 
 
 Ephesians: 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 i. 
 
 7 
 
 I.  222 
 
 —  15 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 ii. 
 
 2 
 
 ii.  478 
 
 X.  24 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 — 
 
 8, 
 
 9 
 
 ii.  481 
 
 xi.  20 
 
 ii.  478 
 
 — 
 
 16 
 
 i.  206 
 
 —  26 
 
 i.  57 
 
 — 
 
 22 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 ^■^■'■Vkll' 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 iii. 
 
 9 
 
 i.  75,  77. 
 ii.  487 
 
 xiii.    4 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 iv. 
 
 3 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 7 
 
 i.  421 
 
 — 
 
 4, 
 
 i 
 
 ii.  479,480 
 
 XV.     3 
 
 i.  222, 
 
 465 
 
 — 
 
 6 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 —     8 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 — 
 
 18 
 
 i.  340 
 
 —  20 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 — 
 
 20 
 
 ii.  481  • 
 
 —  47 
 
 i.  71 
 
 V. 
 
 2 
 
 i.  29,  46. 
 ii    480 
 
 2  Corinthians. 
 
 _ 
 
 10 
 
 i.  465 
 
 iii.  18 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 — 
 
 16, 
 
 17 
 
 ii.  478 
 
 iv.  14 
 
 ii    481 
 
 — 
 
 25, 
 
 29 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 T.  14,  15 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 vi. 
 
 7 
 
 ii.  481 
 
 —  17 
 
 ii.  478 
 
 — 
 
 13 
 
 ,    14, 
 
 I  u.  480 
 
 —  18 
 
 i.  206, 
 
 243 
 
 10,17 
 
INDEX    OF    TEXTS. 
 
 631 
 
 Philippians.  v. 
 
 i.   10  ii. 
 
 —  21  ii. 
 ii.     3  ii. 
 
 —  5  ii. 
 
 —  6,7  i. 
 
 —  8  i. 
 
 —  10,11,16  ii. 
 iv.     5  ii. 
 
 —  18  ii. 
 
 Colossians, 
 
 i.     7 
 
 —  10 
 
 —  14 
 
 ^  15,  16 
 
 •—  16 
 
 —  17  i 
 
 —  20,  21  i. 
 
 —  28  ii. 
 ii.  22,  23  ii. 
 
 1   Thessalonians. 
 V.  13  ii. 
 
 —  17      ii. 
 
 —  18,  23    ii. 
 
 —  22  ii. 
 
 P 
 
 479 
 
 480 
 
 480 
 
 47y,  480 
 
 71.   ii. 
 
 479 
 
 71 
 
 481 
 
 478 
 
 480 
 
 480 
 479 
 222 
 72. 
 487 
 74, 
 78 
 74 
 206 
 481 
 4 
 
 480 
 480,481 
 
 479 
 481 
 
 Th  essalonians, 
 \.     5  i. 
 
 iii.  15      ii. 
 
 1  Timothy, 
 
 1.  13  i. 
 
 ii.  1,  12.   ii. 
 
 —  6  i. 
 
 —  8  ii. 
 
 —  16  ii. 
 iii.  13  ii. 
 V.  4  ii. 
 n.  4  i. 
 
 —  7,  10   ii. 
 
 2  Timothy. 
 
 1.  g  11. 
 
 -.  10      ii. 
 —  14      ii. 
 
 482 
 481 
 
 340 
 
 481 
 
 222,238, 
 
 357,  464 
 
 479 
 
 86 
 
 479 
 479 
 424 
 481 
 
 479 
 
 478 
 480 
 
 Timothy. 
 
 V. 
 
 P- 
 
 i.   l6. 
 
 18 
 
 ii. 
 
 480 
 
 ii.     4 
 
 11. 
 
 480 
 
 —    9 
 
 421 
 
 --  11, 
 
 12 
 
 ii. 
 
 4S1 
 
 iv.     8 
 
 482 
 
 —   10 
 
 11. 
 
 481 
 
 — .    18 
 
 u. 
 
 480 
 
 Tkus. 
 
 ii.     3 
 
 ii. 
 
 4R0 
 
 —  14 
 
 1. 
 
 465 
 
 111.     1 
 
 11. 
 
 479 
 
 Philemon. 
 XX.  20 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 Ilehrex^s. 
 
 i.    2 
 
 ' 
 
 71,     72 
 ii.  487 
 
 —    3 
 
 I. 
 
 71,  222. 
 
 ii. 
 
 479 
 
 ^     4,5 
 
 ii 
 
 479 
 
 —    7 
 
 ii. 
 
 9,  U 
 
 —  13 
 
 ii. 
 
 4'9 
 
 ii.   17 
 
 i. 
 
 L^22,  244 
 
 iii.     2 
 
 ii. 
 
 479 
 
 5 
 
 ii. 
 
 478.  479 
 
 iv.   13 
 
 ii. 
 
 479>4Sl 
 
 —  13 
 
 ii. 
 
 481 
 
 vi.     8 
 
 ii 
 
 479 
 
 vii.   13,  14,  17 
 
 i. 
 
 295 
 
 —  25 
 
 ii. 
 
 456 
 
 —  26 
 
 ii. 
 
 4S6 
 
 —  27 
 
 i. 
 
 '^9 
 
 ix.     1 
 
 ii. 
 
 255 
 
 —    7 
 
 i. 
 
 341,342, 
 343, 844 
 
 —    9 
 
 i. 
 
 350,351, 
 ii.  256 
 
 —    9—14 
 
 i. 
 
 47 
 
 —  12,13,14^ 
 
 22,23,>- 
 
 ii. 
 
 256 
 
 24,  26  ) 
 
 —   12—28 
 
 22« 
 
 —   14 
 
 351 
 
 —  22 
 
 41,  56. 
 ii.    212, 
 
 2i5 
 
 —  26,  28 
 
 I. 
 
 246 
 
 —  28 
 
 i. 
 
 464,471 
 
 M  m  2 
 
532 
 
 INDEX    OF   TEXTS, 
 
 Jlebrezcs, 
 
 ».   ;?. 
 
 1  Peter. 
 
 v,  p. 
 
 X.      1 
 
 i.  32, 
 
 46, 
 
 i.     8,  13 
 
 ii.  481 
 
 350 
 
 ii. 
 
 —  14 
 
 i.  340 
 
 255 
 
 —  ^7 
 
 ii.  478 
 
 —  10,  14, 
 
 18   i.  222 
 
 —  18,  19 
 
 i.  23,218, 
 
 —  12 
 
 i.  46 
 
 219,222 
 
 —  25 
 
 ii.  478' 
 
 —  20 
 
 i.  23 
 
 —  26 
 
 i.  208, 
 
 345 
 
 —  21 
 
 ii.  481 
 
 —  27,  30, 
 
 31   i.  208 
 
 ii.     5 
 
 ii.  478 
 
 —  28 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 —  11,     12 
 
 if  XX       Aat 
 
 —  29 
 
 ii.  256, 
 
 480 
 
 i7,22r"  ""^ 
 
 xi.     3 
 
 i.  74 
 
 —  24 
 
 i.  410,414, 
 
 —    4 
 
 i.  49.  ii.4, 
 
 430,434, 
 
 88,  ^ 
 
 ^09, 
 
 460,465, 
 
 213, 
 
 220 
 
 466,470. 
 
 223 
 
 ii.  481 
 
 —     5,  7,  S 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 iii.     9,  i4 
 
 ii.  481 
 
 —  13 
 
 ii.  224,225, 
 
 —  15 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 227 
 
 —  17 
 
 i.  421 
 
 —  16 
 
 ii.  228 
 
 —  18 
 
 i.  464 
 
 —  21 
 
 ii.  245 
 
 iv.     5,  7 
 
 ii.  481 
 
 —  31—39 
 
 ii.   479 
 
 —     8 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 xii.     1,2,6, 
 
 ) 
 
 V.     5 
 
 ii.  479,480, 
 
 9,   10, 
 
 i  ii.  479 
 
 481 
 
 11 
 
 ]y 
 
 —    7 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 -*-  17 
 
 ii.  480 
 i,  54, 
 305. 
 
 56, 
 ii. 
 
 24 
 
 2  Peter. 
 
 25(> 
 
 i.    3 
 
 i.  73 
 
 j^rii.    9 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 —  21 
 
 i.   174 
 
 - —  11 
 
 i.  244 
 
 "•     4>  5>  7, 
 
 8  ii.  78 
 
 -—  20,21 
 
 i>  Qo 
 
 —    5,6,7, 
 
 9ii.  479 
 
 * 
 
 ~     15,  20 
 iii.     4 
 —  10 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 James. 
 
 ii.  479 
 ii.  478 
 
 i.    5 
 
 ii.  47g,  480  ] 
 
 —    ^,7,8 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 1  John, 
 
 ii.    7 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 —  10 
 
 i.  S58 
 
 i.     2 
 
 ii.  48O 
 
 .•t^  21,  23 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 ii.     2 
 
 i.  29,  220, 
 
 4ii.  13 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 221,245 
 
 *-  15,  17 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 —    7 
 
 ii.  48 1 
 
 ir.     2 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 —  27 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 —    3,4 
 
 ii.  479,  480  1 
 
 iv.     3 
 
 ii.   48 1 
 
 —    6 
 
 ii.  479 
 
 .—    6 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 —    7,12 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 ^  10 
 
 i.  2S,     29, 
 
 V.     1,  2,  4 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 .220,221, 
 
 —  11 
 
 ii.   129 
 
 y.    6 
 
 222,  245 
 
 —  15 
 
 i.  435 
 
 ii.  -480 
 
 1  Peter, 
 
 2  John, 
 
 t.    6,7, 
 
 ii.  480 
 
 •4 
 
 ii.  >4dO 
 
INDEX   OF   TEXTS. 
 
 53S 
 
 John, 
 3,4 
 
 V.    p. 
 ii.  480 
 ii.  480 
 
 Revelations, 
 
 iv.     1,2 
 
 V.    9 
 
 -    9-!2 
 
 xiii.     8 
 
 xix.     2 
 
 V,  p. 
 
 ii-  95 
 i.  2!9 
 i,  222 
 i.  23, 
 
 OOf> 
 
 I  482 
 
 Jude. 
 
 3 
 
 6,14, 
 21,24, 
 
 ii.  481 
 15  ii.  78 
 iL  480 
 
 61, 
 
 M  m  3 
 
534 
 
 The  editions  of  such  books  as  have  been  quoted  by  a  reference 
 to  pages,  or  other  appropriate  marks ,  throughout  the  precede 
 ing  work,  are  here  subjoined. 
 
 Abarban.  Exord.  Coram,  in  Levit.  De  Viel.         Lond.  1683 
 
 r 
 
 Acosta.  History  of  East  and  West  Indies.         -       Do.  1604 
 Albert!  Observatioues  PhiloIogiciE.  Lugd.  1725 
 
 Allix's  Judgment  of  the  Ancient  Jewish  Church. 
 
 Lond.   1690 
 ArchcEologia  -  ;  -  Do.  1770,  &c. 
 
 Asiatic  Researches  -         -  -         Do.  1806— 1811 
 
 Augustinus.  De  Civitate  Dei.  -  Francof.  1661 
 
 Balguy's  Essay  on  Redemption.  -  Winch.  1785 
 
 Bacier's  Mythology,  &c.ofthe  Ancients.  Lond.  1739 
 
 Barbauld's  (Mrs.)  Remarks  on  Mr.  Wakefield's  Enquiry. 
 
 Lond.  1792 
 Barret's  Enquiry  into  the  origin  of  the  Constellations. 
 
 Dublin.  1800 
 Barrington's  Miscellanea  Sacra.  -  Lond.  1770 
 
 Batt  on  the  Message  from  J.  the  Bapt  -  Do.  1789 
 
 Bayle's  Didlionary  -  -  -  Do.  1734 
 
 Beattie's  £s.<^ay  on  the  Nature  of  Truth.  Dublin.  1773 
 
 Beausob.  and  L'Enf.  New  Version  of  St.  Matth. 
 
 Camb.  1790 
 Belsham's  Calm  Inquiry  -  -  Lond.  18H 
 
 '  Elements  of  the  Philosophy  of  the   Mind. 
 
 Do.   1801 
 
 Letters  upon  Arianism,  &c.  -  Do.  1808 
 
 •—— Review  of  Wilbcrforce's  Treatise.  Do.  1798 
 
 Ben  iVIordccai's  Apology  by  H.  Taylor.  -  Do.  1784 
 Berkeley's  Works.  -  -  Dub.  1784 
 Blair's  Lectures  on  Rhetoric.  -  Do.  1789 
 'Bocharti  Opera  Omnia.  -  Lugd.  Batav.  1712 
 Bolingbrokc's  Philosophical  Works.  -  Lond.  1754 
 Works.                 -                -  Do.  1754 
 
535 
 
 Boyle  Lectures.  -  -  .  Do.  1739 
 
 Hrissonius  de  Regio  Pcrs.  I'liiicipalu.  Argent.  1710 
 
 Broughtoii's  Dictionary  of  all  Religions,  Lond.  1742 
 
 Bruckeri  Hist.  Crit.  l^hilos.  -  Lips.  1766 
 
 Bryant's  Observations  relating  to  antient  hist.     Camb.   17C7      f-f^ 
 
 Philo  Judeus.  -  -  Do.   1797 
 
 Buchanan's  Memoir  on  an  Ecclesiastical  Establish- 
 ment in  Lulia 
 
 ■ Christian  Researches  in  Asia, 
 
 Burnet's  Life  of  Bedel. 
 Butler's  Analogy  of  Religion  &:c, 
 Buxtorfii  Dissertationes  Philol.  Theolog. 
 
 — Synagoga  Judaica. 
 
 Caesar.  Opera.  -  -  - 
 
 Calixti  Scholse  Propheticae,  ab  Ernesto. 
 
 Campbell's  Four  Gospels  &c,  - 
 
 Capelli  Critira  Sacra» 
 
 Chapellow's  Commentary  on  Job. 
 
 Cicero  -  - 
 
 Clarke's  Works. 
 
 Clavigcro's  History  of  Mexico. 
 
 Clemens  Romanus  (Wotton)  - 
 
 Cloppenburg.  Sacrif.  Patriarch.  Schola. 
 
 Costard's  Two  Dissert,  on  Kesitah  and  Hermes.     Oxf.   1750 
 
 Coventry's  Philemon  to  Hydaspes.  -  Lond.  1753 
 
 Crellius — Bibliotheca  Fratrum  Polouorum.       Irenop.  1656 
 
 Cudworth's  Intellectual  System.  -  Lond.   1743 
 
 ..  Treatise  concerning    eternal    and 
 
 Immutable  Morality  -  -         Do.  1731 
 
 Cumberland's   Sanchoniatho.  ••  Do.  1720 
 
 Cyrill.  Alexand.  contra  Julian  -  -     Lips.   1696 
 
 Dathii  Opuscnia.  -  -  Do.  1796 
 
 Dawson's  Doctrine  of  Phil.  Necessity  invalidated  Loud.  1803 
 De  Dieu  (Ludov.J  Animadversiones  in  Vet.  Test. 
 
 Lugd.  Bat.  1648 
 Delaney's  Re?,  examined  with  candour.  Dublin.  173^ 
 
 M  m  4 
 
 Lond. 
 
 1805 
 
 Camb. 
 
 1811 
 
 Lond. 
 
 1685 
 
 Do. 
 
 1798 
 
 Basil. 
 
 1662 
 
 Do. 
 
 1680 
 
 Lond. 
 
 1712 
 
 Quedlinb. 
 
 1713 
 
 Aberd. 
 
 1803 
 
 Paris. 
 
 1650 
 
 Camb. 
 
 1752 
 
 ParisiiSj 
 
 1684 
 
 Lond. 
 
 1738 
 
 Do. 
 
 1737 
 
 -     Cant. 
 
 I7I8 
 
 Lugd. 
 
 1637 
 
536 
 
 De  Rossi  Varlae  Lea.  Vet.  Test.            -           Parmse.  1784 
 
 D'llerbclot,  Bibliotheque  Orientale.         -        Maestr.  1776 
 
 Dodson's  Dew  translation  of  Isaiah.             -        Lond.  1790 
 
 ■                  Letter  to  Dr.  Sturges.             -                Do.  1791 
 
 Edwards's  Survey  of  the  methods  of  Religion.         Do.  1699 
 
 Ellis's  Knowledge  of  diviae  things,  &c.           -         Do.  1743 
 
 Elrington's  Donnellan  Lecture  Sermons.               Duh.  1796 
 
 Eisner.  ObserYatiunes  Sacrae.                 Traj.  ad  Rhon.  1720 
 
 Eunius.               -                .              -                edHess.  1/07 
 
 Episcopii  Opera  Theologica.                  -               Lond.  1678 
 
 Ernest!  Inst.tutio  Interp..  N.  T.              -             Lips.  1792 
 Erskine's  Sketches  and  Hints  of  Church  History. 
 
 Edinb.  1790 
 
 Eusebii  Demonstratio  Evangelica.         ^         -     Colon.  1688 
 
 I              Praeparatio  Evangelica.                  -               Do.  1688 
 
 Evanson's  Dissonance  of  the  Evangelists.         Ipswich.  1792 
 
 Farmer's  Enquiry  into  the  Temptation,               Lond.  1761 
 
 Fellowes's  Guide  to  Immortality,             m            Do.  1804 
 
 • Picture  of  Christian  Philosophy,             Do.  1803 
 
 Religion  without  Cant»              -              Do.  1808 
 
 Fortuita  Sacra            -            ^            ,         Rotterod.  1726 
 
 Geddes's  Critical  Remarks.           -           «             Lond.  1800 
 
 Gillies's  Aristotle's  Ethics  and  Politics.          -          Do.  1804 
 
 Gisborne's  Principles  of  Moral  Philosophy.            Do.  1790 
 
 Glassii  Philologia  Sa^ra.            -            a  Dathio.  Lips.  1776 
 
 Goguet's  Origin  of  Laws,  &;c.                  ..             Edinb.  1775 
 Graves's  Lectures  on  the  four  last  books  of  the 
 
 Pentateuch.           -             -             -              Dublin.  1807 
 
 Gray's  Key  to  the  Old  Testament.           -        Dublin.  1792 
 
 Gregory's  Lowth's  Lectures.                 .               Lond.  1787 
 
 Grey.  Liber  Jobi  a  Schult,              •            -             Do.  1742 
 
 Grotii  Opera.          -                 .                -             Basil.  1732 
 
 Gussetii  Comment.  Linguae  Ebraicac.                 Amstel.  1702 
 
 Hales's  Methodism  Inspected.             Dublin.  1803  and  1805 
 
 Halhed's  Code  of  Gentoo  Laws.              -            Lond.  1776 
 
 Hallet's  ^'otcs  and  Discourses.              •                  Do.  1729 
 
* 
 
 637 
 
 Harris's  Comment,  on  the  53d  ch.  of  fsaiah.         Lend.  1735 
 
 Harris's  Hermes.                  -                 -  Dubliu.   1773 
 
 Heath's  Essay  towards  a  Version  of  Job.  Lond.  1756 
 
 Heidegger.  Hist.  Patriarch.  Sacr.          -  Amstcl.  1667 
 
 Heliodori  iEthiopica.             -              -  Francof.  1631 
 
 Key's  Lectures  in  Divinity.               -  Cambr.   1796 
 
 Hobbes's  Leviathan.                   -             -  Lond.  1651 
 
 Hodge's  Elihu.             -                 -             -  Dublin.   1757 
 
 Hodii  de  Versionibus  Graecis,  &c.           -  Oxon.  1705 
 
 Holmes's  Four  Tracts.                -          -  Oxford.  1788 
 
 Horslcy's  Hosea.                 -                 -  Lond.  1804 
 
 Hottingeri  Smegma  Orientale.             -  Heidclb.  1658 
 Howes's  Critical  Observations— .(Number  1.)     Lond.  1776 
 
 N.  B.     The  remaining  numbers  of  the  4  Volumes   published 
 at  intervals  through  a  period  of  about  14  years. 
 
 Huetii  Demonstratio  Evangelica—  Francof.  1722 
 
 Hume*s  Dialogues  concerning  Natural  Religion.  Lond.  1779 
 
 Essays  and  Treatises.  -  Dub.  1779 
 
 History  of  England.  -  Montrose.  1796 
 
 Hyde.  Historia  Relig.  Veterum  Persarum.  Oxon.  1760 
 
 Jablonski  Pantheon  Egypt.  -  Francof.   1750 
 
 Jennings's  Jewish  Antiquities.  -  Lond.  1266 
 
 Jones,  (Jerem.)  on  the  Canon  of  the  N.  T.  Do.  1726 
 
 Jornandes  De  Rcb.  Getic.  Cassiodori  Opera.      Aurel.  1622 
 Jortin's  Remarks  on  Eccles.  History.  Lond.  1773 
 
 Josephu?.  Opera.  -  ed.  Hudson.  Oxon.  1720 
 
 . .  Translated  by  L'Estrange.  -         Lond.  1702 
 
 Juliani  Opera,  Cyrill.  -  -  Lips.  1696 
 
 Justini  Martyiis  Apolog,  dua?.  -  Lond.   1722 
 
 Kennicot's  Remarks  on  Select  Passages.  Oxf.  1737 
 
 S'atc  of  the  Hebrew  Text.         -  Do.   1753 
 
 Two  Dissertations.  -  Do.  17-47 
 
 Kidder's  Commentary  on  the  5  books  oT  Moses.  Lond.   1694 
 KrebsiiObservationeseFJav.Josepho.  -         Lips.   1575 
 
 Laplace.  Exposition  du  Systemcdu  Monde.         Paris.  1798 
 
 ►^ Traite  deMecaaique  Celeste.         -        Do.  1798 
 
 1 
 
538 
 
 ^1    Lardner's  Works,  by  Kippis. 
 
 Lavoisier's  Elements  of  Chemistry, 
 
 Laurence  on  the  Logos, 
 
 Law's  Theory  of  Religion. 
 
 Layman's  Letters  to  Mr.  Wilberforce 
 
 Le  Clerc,  Nor.  Test. 
 
 Lcland's  Christian  Revelation. 
 ■4-Y'  Leslie's  Theological  Works. 
 
 Letters  from  a  late  Eminent  Prelate. 
 
 Lightfoot's  Works. 
 
 Lindscy's  Apology. 
 
 Lloyd's  Chxistian  Theology. 
 
 Loccenii  Anliq.  Sueo.  Goth. 
 
 -  HistoriaRerum  Succic. 
 
 Locke's  Works. 
 
 Lowth.  De  Sacra  Poesi  Hebr. 
 
 . Letter  to  Warburion. 
 
 Translation  of  Isaiah. 
 
 Maimonides  De  Cultu  Divino.  -    . 
 
 Moreh  Ncvochim,  Buxtorf 
 
 '  De  Poenitentia.  Clavering. — 
 
 De  Sacrificiis.  De  Viel. 
 
 Mallet's  Northern  Antiquities 
 
 Maitby's  Illustrations  of  the  Christ.  Religion 
 
 Marsh's  Course  of  Le<5lurcs,  part  ii. 
 
 Marshami  Canon  Chronicus. 
 
 Martinii  Sinic.  Hist. 
 
 Mason's  Works  of  Gray. 
 
 Maurice's  Indian  Antiquities. 
 
 M lode's  Works.  -  - 
 
 Memoirs  of  Lord  Rolingbroke. 
 
 Mcuschcn.  Nov.  Testam.  ex  Talmudc. 
 
 Michaclis  {J.  D.)  GraminaticaSyriaca. 
 
 — Introduction  to  the  N.  T.  (Marsh 
 
 No(a?  et  Epinictra. 
 
 Lond. 
 
 Edinb. 
 
 Oxf. 
 
 Camb. 
 
 Lond. 
 
 Fra'icof. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Dublin. 
 
 Lond. 
 
 Holm. 
 
 Francof. 
 
 Lond. 
 
 Oxon. 
 
 Lond, 
 
 Perth. 
 
 Parisiis. 
 
 Basil. 
 
 Oxon. 
 
 Lond. 
 
 Do. 
 
 .  Cambr. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Franeq. 
 
 Amstel. 
 
 Lond, 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Lips. 
 
 Halai. 
 
 .Ed.) 
 
 Camb. 
 
 Oxon. 
 
 178S 
 1793 
 1803 
 1774 
 1799 
 1714 
 1764 
 1721 
 1809 
 168t 
 1775 
 1804 
 1647 
 1676 
 1768 
 1763 
 1766 
 1793 
 1671 
 1629 
 1705 
 1683 
 1770 
 1803 
 1810 
 1696 
 1659 
 1807 
 1794 
 1672 
 1752 
 1736 
 1784 
 
 1703 
 1763 
 
539 
 
 Mickle's  (Camoens)  Lusiuil.                 -  Dublin.  1791 
 
 Middleton's  Doctrine  of  the  Greek  Article.  l.ond.   180S 
 
 Mirabaud.  Systeme  dc  la  Nature.              -  Do.   1781 
 
 Moutucla.  Ilistoire  des  Mathemaliqucs.  Paris.   1758 
 
 Morc's  (Hannah)  Ccelebs.                    .  l^ond.   1809 
 
 Hints  for  a  young  Princess.              -  Do.   1805 
 
 Works                  ,                  -  Dublin.   1803 
 
 Morgan's  Moral  Philosopher.               -  Lond.   1737 
 Morini  Exercit.  De  Lingua  Primaiva.             Ultrajcct.    1G94 
 
 Mosheim's  Eccles.  History.                   -  Lond.   17G5 
 
 Nares's  B^mp^on  Lectme  Sermons.             -  Oxf.   1793 
 ■                 Remarks  on  the  Version  of  the  N.  T. 
 
 by  the  Unitarians  -  -  Lond.  1810 
 Newcome's  (A.  Bish. ^Historical  View  of  the  Eng- 
 lish Biblical  Translations  -  Dublin.  1792 
 Newton's  Chronology.  -  Lond.  1728 
 Nichols's  Conference  with  a  Thcist.  -  Do.  1723 
 Noldii  Concordantiae  Partic.  Ebr.  -  lenaj.  1734 
 Nott's  Bampton  Lcaure  -  Oxf.  1803 
 Orford's  (Lord)  Works  -  -  Lond.  1798 
 Origen  against  Cohus  (by  Bellamy)  -  Do. 
 Orme's  History  ofludostan  -  -  Do.  1803 
 Outram  De  Sacrificiis.  -  -  Amstel.  1(588 
 Owen's  Modes  of  Quotation.  -  Lond.  1789 
 Palairet.  Observat.  Philologico-Criticae.  Lugd.  17il 
 Paley's  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy.  Dublin.  17^)3 
 Parr's  Spital  Sermon.  -  -  Loud.  1801 
 Patrum  Apostolic.  Opera,  cura  Ric.  Russell  Lond.  174G 
 Panw  Recherch.  Philos.  sur  les  Aracric.  Berl.  1/68 
 Pearce's  (Bishop)  Comm.  and  other  Writings.  Lond.  1777 
 Pearson  on  the  Creed.  -  -  Do.  1715  -f-p 
 Pearson's  Critical  Essay  on  the  ixth  book  of  the 
 
 Div.  Leg.             -                 -             -  Camb.   1808 
 
 Peirce's  Paraphrase              -                  -  Lond.   1733 
 
 Percival's  Father's  Instructions,  Part  3d.  Do.   1800 
 
 Pelers's  Critical  Dissert,  on  Job.             -  Do.  1754 
 
 2 
 
541 
 
 I'll ayorini  Lexicon.  •  -  Basil.  1538 
 
 Philonis  Opera.  -  -  Parisiis.  1640 
 
 Photii  Bibliotheca.  -  .         Rothom.  1653 
 
 Pilkington's  Remarks,  &e.  -  Camb.  1759 
 
 Platonis  Opera.  -  -  Francof.  1602 
 
 Plauti  Opera,  (Lambini)  -  -  Paris.  1577 
 
 Plularchi  Opera.  -  -  Francof.  1620 
 
 Pocock's  Theological  Works.  -  JLond.  1740 
 
 Porphyrins  De  Abstinenti^.  -  Lugd.  1623 
 
 Powell's  Discourses  on  various  su  bjects.  Lond.  1775^ 
 
 Pretyman's  Elements  of  Christ.  Theology.  Do.  1800 
 
 Price's  Four  Dissertations.  -  -  Do.  1T68 
 
 -^ Review  of  Morals.        -  -*  Do.  1769 
 
 Priestley's  History  of  Corruptions,  &c.  Birming.   1782 
 
 Notes  on  Scripture.         -  Northumb.  1803 
 
 Protestant  Apology  for  theR.  C.  Church.         Dublin.  1809 
 Randolph's  Sermons  in  Advent.  -  Lond.  1801 
 
 . Book  of  Job  translated  by  Miss  Smith.  Bath  1810 
 
 Reid's  Essays  on  the  Intellect.  Powers  Dublin.  1786 
 
 Remarks  on  Humors  Essay  on  the  Nat.  Hist,  of 
 
 Religion.  -  -  -  Do.  1777 
 
 Kennel's  Discourses  on  various  subjects.  Do.  1801 
 
 Richardson's  Dissert,  on  the  Language  of  Eastern  Nations 
 
 Oxf.  1770 
 Richie's  Criticism  on  modern  notions  of  Sacrifice.  Lond.  1761 
 
 Peculiar  Doct.  of  Revelation;  Warringt.   1766 
 
 Sale's  Koran.  -  -  -  Bath.  1795 
 
 Schnurrer.  Dissert.  Philolog.  Critical.  Gothae.  1790 
 
 Scholar  Armed.  -  -  Lond.  1795 
 
 Schultens.  Liber  Jobi.        -  -        Lugd.  Batav.  1737 
 
 , Origine^  Hebraeae.  -  Francof.  1724 
 
 Scripture  Account  ot  Sacrifices  (Portal.)  Lond.  1755 
 
 Seneca;  Opera.  -  -  Amstel.  1672 
 
 Shaw's  Travels  in  Barbary  and  the  Levant.  Oxf.  1738 
 
 Sherlock's  Use  of  Prophecy.  -  Lond.  1749 
 
542 
 
 Shuckford's  Connexion  of  Sacr.  and  Prof.  History, 
 
 Lond.  174S 
 Simon.  Critique  De  la  Biblioth.  et  Des  Pioleg.  de  Dupiu. 
 
 Paris.  1730 
 Smith's  Theory  of  Moral  Sentiments.  Lond.  1759 
 
 Socini  Opera.  (Biblioth.  Fratr.  Polon.)  Ircnop.   1656 
 
 Spanhemii  Historia  Jobi.  .  -  Lugd.  1672 
 
 Speerman's  Letters  on  the  Septuagint.  Edinb.  1759 
 
 Spencer  De  Legibus  Hebr.  .  Cantab.  1727 
 
 '  Discourse  on  Prodigies.  .  Lond.  1665 
 
 Stebbiug's  Examination  of  Warburton.  Do.  1774 
 
 Stewart's  (Dugald)  Elem.  of  the  Philos.  of  the  Hu- 
 man Mind  -  r  -  Do.  1792 
 Stillingfleet's,  Origines  Sacrs.  -  -  Do.  1724 
 Sermons  on  Several  Occasions.  -  Do.  1673 
 Stock's  Isaiah.  -  -  -  Bath.  1803 
 Job.  -  -  -  -  Do.  1805 
 Strabo.  -  -  -  -  Amstel.  1707 
 Stuart's  View  of  Society  in  Europe.  -  Lond.  1782 
 Suidae  Historica.  -  -  Basil.  1564 
 Sykes's  Essay  on  Sacrifices.          -            -           Lond.  1748 
 
 Essay  on  the  Truth  of  the  Christ.  Relig.     Do.  1725 
 
 . Scripture  Doctrine  of  Redemption.  Do.  1756 
 
 Taciti  Opera,  ed.  Brotier.  -  Paris.  1771 
 
 Theological  Repository — vol.  1,2,  3.         -         Lond.  1795 
 —       vols.    4,  6,  6,  Birm.  1784,  1786,   1788 
 Thesaurus  Temp.  Jos.  Scalig.  Animadv.  Amstel.  1658 
 
 Tindal's  Christ,  as  Old  as  the  Creation,  Load.  1732 
 
 Tillotson's  Works.  -  -  Do.  I728 
 
 Townson's  Discourses  on  the  Gospels.  Oxf.  1788 
 
 VanMildert's  Boyle  Le6ture  Sermons  Lond.   1S05 
 
 [Unitarian]  Version  of  the  New  Testament.  Do.   1808 
 
 Universal  History  (Antient)  -  Dublin.  1745 
 
 Velthusen,  &c.  Comment,  Theologic*.      Lips.  1794—1798 
 Veysie's  Bampt.  Lecture.  -  Oxf.  1795 
 
 Villers's  EiS^y  on  the  Reformation  (Mills)         Loud.  1805 
 
543 
 
 Vitringae  Comment,  in  Jesaiam.  -  Leov.  1714 
 
 Volney's  Ruins.  -  -  Lond.  1795 
 
 VoKius  (Ger.  J.)  De  Theolog.  Gentil.  et  Idololat. 
 
 Fran  CO  f.  1668 
 
 Warburton's  Divine  Legation.  -  Lond.  1738 
 
 Principles  of  Natural  and  Rev,  Relig.  Do.  1753 
 
 VValker's  Letter  to  Belsham.  -  Dublin.  1799 
 Ward's  Errata  of  the  Prot.  Bible.  -  Do.  1807 
 Watson's  (B.  of  Landaff)  Two  Apologies,  &c.  Lond.  1806 
 Wesley.  Dissertationes  in  Librum  Jobi.  Do.  1736 
 Wesley's  (John)  Sunday  Service  of  the  Methodists  Do,  1790 
 Whitaker's  Origin  of  Arianism.  -  Do.  1791 
 White's  Commentary  on  Isaiah.  -  Do.  I7O9 
 Wilberforce's  Practical  View.  -  Do.  1797 
 VMlliams's  Free  Enquiry  into  the  1st  and  2d  chap- 
 ters of  St.  Matthew.  -  Do.  1789 
 Wilson's  Illustration  of  the  Method  of  explaining 
 
 the  New  Testament  -  Camb.  1797 
 
 AVinder's  History  of  Knowledge.  -         Lond.  1745 
 
 W'indet  De  vita  functorum  statu.  -  Do.  1677 
 
 Witsii  Egyptiaca  -  -  Herb.  Nassav.  1717 
 
 —  Miscellanea  Sacra.  .  Do.  1712 
 
 Woliaston's  Religion  of  Nature.  -  Lond.  1725 
 
 Young's  Centaur  not  Fabulous.  -  Dublin.  174|6 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 •T.  &  E.  Hodson.  Printers, 
 (:ross  Siieet,  HattoB  UarUun. 
 
CORRECTIONS  in  Vol.  II. 
 
 Page       7  line  31 
 . 48 6 
 
 144 23 
 
 146 15 
 
 154 17 
 
 229 1 
 
 _  244 5 
 
 249  7 
 
 281  14 
 
 291  26 
 
 314 34 
 
 316 26 
 
 ._  376 20 
 
 . 460 4 
 
 480 28 
 
 for  the 
 
 —  906 
 
 —  ii. 
 
 —  Ixxxvii. 
 
 —  the 
 
 —  Ham 
 • —  character 
 
 —  rm 
 
 —  Daubery 
 — .  the 
 
 —  gracolusly 
 
 —  viewed 
 
 —  ludricous 
 after  tells,  add  us 
 for  i    is 
 
 read  theu 
 
 Q07 
 
 Ixxviii, 
 
 be 
 
 illani 
 
 •  characters 
 
 V^i 
 
 Daubeny 
 
 tliat 
 
 graciously 
 
 received 
 
 — —  ludicrous 
 
 li  IS 
 
 31  to  the  running  title  prefix  the  word  gifts. 
 
^pril,  1811. 
 NEW  WORKS, 
 
 AND  ' 
 
 NEW  EDITIONS  OF  WORKS, 
 
 LATELY  PUBLISHED  BY 
 
 T.  CADELL  AND  W.  I)  A  VIES,  STRAND, 
 
 —TRAVELS  in  various  parts  of  EUROPE,   ASL\,  and  AFRICA. 
 
 Edwaud  Daniel  Clark-I':,  LL.  D.  Professor  of  Mineralogy  ia 
 the  University  of  Cambridge.  Part  the  First,  RUSSIA,  TARTARY, 
 and  TURKEY.  In  one  large  volume,  quavio,  illustrated  with  near  an 
 hundred  Engravings,  price  5l.  5s.  in  boards.  A  few  Copies  on  Royal 
 paper,  with  proof  impressions  of  the  plates,  price  8l.  8s,  in  boards, 
 
 ■*^*  A  New  Edition  of  this  first  Part,  with  very  considerable  additions, 
 will  be  published  \ery  shortly, — And  the  Second  Part,  containing  Tra- 
 vels in  Greece,  Syria,  and  Egypt,  is  now  in  the  Press. 
 
 2.— REMARKS  on  several  Parts  of  TURKEY.  Parti.  iEGYPTJ- 
 ACA,  or  some  account  of  the  Ancient  and  Modern  state  of  EGYPT,  as 
 obtained  in  the  years  1801  and  1802.  By  Wili^iam  Hamilton,  Esq. 
 F.  A.  S.  accompanied  wiih  a  folio  volume  of  Etchings,  from  origiiiai 
 Drawings  taken  on  the  spot,  by  the  lat'i  Chaklf.s  Hayrs,  cf  the  Renal 
 Engineers.     In  one  volume,  quarto,  price  4l.  4s.  in  boards^. 
 
 3.— HERCULANENSIA  ;  or,  Archeological  and  Philological  Dis- 
 sertations :  containing  a  Manuscript  found  among  the  ruinsof  Hercula- 
 NEUM.  *  Dedicated,  by  permission,  to  his  Royal  Highness  the  Prince  of 
 Wales.  Elegantly  printed  in  quarto,  and  illustrated  by  Engravings,  price 
 ll.  lis.  6d.  in  boards. 
 
 4.--TA  TSING  LEU  LEEj  being  the  Fundamental  Laws,  and 
 a  Selection  from  the  Supplementary  Statutes,  of  the  Penal  Code  of 
 China.)  originally  printed  and  published  in  Pekin,  in  various  successive 
 editions,  under  the  sanction,  and  by  the  authority,  of  the  seveial  Emperors 
 of  theTa  Tsing,  ©r  present  dynasty.  Translated  from  the  Chinese  ;  and 
 accompanied  with  an  Appendix,  consisting  cf  authentic  documents,  and 
 a  few  occasional  notes,  illustrative  of  the  subject  of  the  work.  By  Sic 
 George  Thomas  Staunton,  Bart.  F.  R.  S.  elegantly  printed  io 
 joyal  quarto,  in  an  uniform  size  with  the  late  Sir  George  Staunton  s 
 Account  of  the  British  Embassy  to  China,  pirice  3l,  3s.  in  boards. 
 
! 
 
 2  NciV  and  Valuable  PiihUcations 
 
 5.— THE  HISTORY  OF  GREECE,  from  the  earliest  accounts,  to 
 the  death  of  Philip,  King  of  Macedonia.  By  William  Mitford,  Esq. 
 Elegantly  printed  in  4  vols.  4to.  (being  ^  new  Edition,  revised  and 
 considerably  augmented,  of  the  three  vols,  already  published,  and  a 
 fourth  volume  entirely  new,)  price  /I.  4s.  in  boards. 
 
 *^'*  For  a  comprehensive  view  of  this  important  Work,  see  Edin- 
 burgh Review,  No.  24. 
 
 6— THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  WORLD,  from  the  Reign  of 
 Alexander  to  that  of  Augustus  ;  comprehending  the  latter  ages  of 
 European  Greece,  and  the  History  of  the  Greek  Kingdoms  in  Asia  and 
 Africa,  from  their  foundation  to  their  destruction  ;  with  a  preliminary 
 Survey  of  Alexander's  Conquests  ;  and  an  Estimate  of  his  plans  for  their 
 Consolidation  and  Improvement.  By  John  Gillies,  LL.  D.  F.  R.  S. 
 and  S.  A.  Historiographer  to  His  JVlajesty  for  Scotland.  Handsomely 
 printed   in  two  large  volumes,  4to.  price  4l.  4s.  in  boards. 
 
 /.  —  ATHENIAN  LETTERS  :  or,  The  Epistolary  Correspon- 
 dence  of  an  Agent  of  the  King  of  Persia,  residing  at  7\thens,  during 
 the  Peloponnesjsn  war.  By  the  late  Earl  of  Hakdwicke,  Hon. 
 Charles  Yorke,  &c,  A  New  Edition,  elegantly  printed  in  two  vo- 
 lumes, 4to.  and  illustrated  by  numerous  Engravings  of  Porlrails,  Antique 
 Busts,  and  a    Map  of  Ancient  Greece,  price  31.  3s.  in  boards. 
 
 8.— MODERN  GEOGRAPHY  ;  a  description  of  the  Empires, 
 Kingdoms,  Slates,  and  Colonies  ;  with  the  Oceans,.  Seas,  and  Is-les  j  in 
 all  parts  of  the  World  :  including  the  most  recent  discoveries,  and 
 political  alteiations  ;  digested  on  a  new  plan.  By  John  Pinkerton. 
 The  Astronomical  introduction  by  the  Rev  S.  Vince,  A.  M.  F.  R.S. 
 and  Plumian  professor  of  Astronomy,  and  Experimental  Philosophy,  in 
 the  University  of  Cambridge,  with  numerous  Maps  revised  by  the 
 Author.  To  the  whole  are  added,  a  catalogue  of  the  best  Maps,  and 
 books  of  Travels  and  Voyages,  in  all  languages  :  and  an  ample  Index. 
 New  Edition  greatly  enlarged,  in  2  vols.  4 to.  now  in  the  press. 
 
 9.— A  NEW  modern"  atlas.  By  John  Pinkerton.  The 
 Maps  engraved  in  the  size  called  Colombier,  so  as  to  correspond 
 with  the  works  of  D'Anvi'.le.  from  drawings  executed  under  Mr. 
 Pinkerton's  eye  ;  with  all  the  advantages  afforded  by  the  atest  improve- 
 ments in  geographical  precision.  Six  numbers  are  already  publi.shed* 
 «nd  it  is  calculated  that  the  work  will  be  completed  in  twenty  numbers; 
 ench  containing  three  Maps,  price  one  guinea.  As  the  style  of  engrav- 
 ing renders  first  imj^ressions  desirable,  they  will  be  carefully  delivered, 
 in  the  order  of  names,  and  copies  are  ne.itly  put  t(>gether,  with  the 
 Maps  carefully  folded  upon  guard'^,  (as  they  will  be  bound  when  the 
 work  is  completed)  tor  more  safe  conveyance  to  the  country  ;  whilst 
 other  copies  will  be  delivered,  without  any  fold,  to  those  who  may 
 prater  them  in  that  slate.  In  the  last  Number  will  be  given  a  Geo- 
 graphical Menioir,  r-^citing  the  character  rivl  merits  of  the  chief 
 authorities  upon  which  each  Map  is  constn;cted,  with  directions  for  a 
 general  arrangennyii.  The  Sevciuh  Number  will  be  published  in  MaVi 
 -and  a  Nu!ni)er  will  be  regularly  [)ublished  every  two  niunihs. 
 
by  T.  Cnddl  and  IF.  Davics,  SlrmuL  8 
 
 lO.-^MAGNA  BCITANNIA  ;  being  a  ronci<;el\)pographira!  Account 
 of"  the  several  Counties  of  Great  Britain.  Hy  the  Rt-v  Daniel  Lysons, 
 A.  M.  F.  R.  S.  F.  A.,S.  and  L.  S.  ReciorofRochnarKni,  Gloucestershire. 
 And  Samurl  Lysons,  Esq.  F.  R.  5.  and  F.  A.  S.  Keeper  of  his  Majesty's 
 Records  in  the  lower  of  London.  Volumes  I  and  2,  containing 
 Bedfordshire,  Berkshire,  Buckinghamshire,  Cambridgeshire,  and  Clie- 
 shire.  Handsomely  printed  in  two  Volumes,  4to.  with  numerous  plates 
 t)f  Maps,  Antiquities,  &c.  price  81.  8s.  in  boards. 
 
 A  tew  Copies  on  super-royal  paper,  with  first  impressions  of  the  plates, 
 price  1 41.  in  boards. 
 
 *^.*  The  third  Volume,  containing  Cornwall,  is  in  a  state  of  consider- 
 able forwardness. 
 
 11.— BRITANMA  DEPICTA  ;  a  Series  of  Views  of  the  most 
 interesting  and  picturesque  o*>jects  in  Great  Britain,  engraved  from  Draw- 
 ing'^  by  Messrs.  Heaknk,  Farington,  SMnH,TuKNEK,  Alexander, 
 ^c.  by  William  Byrne,  F.  A.  S.  price  5l.  9s.  in  boards.  A  few  Copies 
 on  large  paper,  wiih  proof  impressions  of  the  plates,  5\.  IQs.  Part  1  to 
 3,  containing  Vie^vs  in  Bedfordshire,  Berkshire,  Buckingliamshire,  Cam- 
 bridgeshire, and  Cheshire. 
 
 **'^  The  above  Works,  which  illustrate  each  other,  may  be  had, 
 done  up  together,  and  the  continuation  of  each  will  be  published  rer^n- 
 larly  at  the  same  periods',  arranged  in  thp  same  manner,  and  printed  on 
 papers  of  corresponding  size  and  quality. 
 
 12.  — THR  ENVIRONS  OF  LONDON:  being  an  Historical 
 Account  of  the  Towns,  Villages,  and  Hamlets,  within  twelve  miles  of 
 that  Capital  :  interspersed  with  Biographical  Anecdotes.  By  the  Rev. 
 Daniel  Lysons,  M.  A.  F.  R.  S.  F.  S.  A.  and  L.  S.  Rector  of  Rodnw- 
 ton,  in  Gloucestershire.  A  new  edition.  Handsomely  printed  in  two 
 large  vols,  quarto,  each  volume  divided  into  two  Parts,  and  illustrated  by 
 numerou^s  Engravings  of  Views,  Antiquities,  Portraits,  Monuuients,  &c. 
 price  81.  8s.  in  extra  boards.  A  few  copies  on  Imperial  paper,  price 
 121.  I2s. 
 
 13.— A  SUPPLEMENT  to  the  First  Edition  of  the  above  Work, 
 containing  all  the  corrections  which  have  occurred,  and  the  supplemen- 
 tary matter  which  has  been  collected,  in  preparing,  after  '  lapse  of  ^teen 
 years,  the  new  edition  for  the  press.  One  volume  quarto,  with  .several 
 Engravings,  price  21.  2s.  in  boards  )  or  on  Imperial  paper,  price  31.  3s. 
 
 14.— An  HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  of  those  PARISHES  in  the 
 COUNTY  of  MIDDLESEX,  which  are  not  described  in  the  Environs  of 
 London.  One  volume  quarto,  with  several  Engravings,  price  2l  2s.  in 
 boards  ;  or  on  Imperial  paper,  price  3l.  3s. 
 
 15.-CALEDONIA;  OR  AN  HISTORICAL  AN^D  TOPOGRA- 
 PHICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  NOR'l  H  BRITAIN,  from  the  most  ancient 
 to  the  present  times  ;  with  a  Dictionary  of  Places,  chorographical  and 
 philological.  By  George  Chalmers,  F.  R.  S.  and  S.A.  Handsomely 
 printed'^in  4to.  ai^d  illustrated  by  Engravings  of  M.  ps.  Plans,  &c.  Vuis. 
 J  and  2,  price  61.  Qs.  in  boards.  A  lew  copies  on  imperial  paper,  pnv« 
 ()1.  9s.  in  boards. 
 
4  New  and  Paliiahlc  Publications 
 
 IQ— A\nEW  OF  THE  NATURAL,  POLITICAL,  AND  COM- 
 MERCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES  OF  IRELAND  j  with  a  valuable 
 MAP,  and  copious  APPENDIX  :  the  former  exhibiting,  accurately,  the 
 numerous  Harbours  of  Ireland,  with  their  respective  soundings,  &c.  the 
 actual  and  projected  lines  of  interne.!  Navigation  j  the  number  of  acres  and 
 houses  in  each  county  ;  the  sums  lately  levied  by  the  Grand  Juries  in 
 each  ;  together  with  various  other  interesting  matters  :  the  latter  contain- 
 ing a  variety  of  Tables  illnstrativ^e  of  the  principal  Branches  of  the  Com- 
 merce of  Ireland  for  upwards  of  one  Hundred  Years  ;  the  Public  Revenue, 
 Expenditure,  and  Debt  thereof,  since  the  establishment  of  Irish  National 
 Independence  j  the  Statistical  circumstances  of  the  several  Counties  ;  the 
 present  condition  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Clergy  j  the  endowed  and  unen- 
 dowed Schools,  &c.  The  whole  deduced  from  Public  Documents  and 
 Authentic  Information.  By  Thomas  Newenham,  Esq.  Author  of  an 
 Inquiry  into  the  Progress  and  Magnitude  of  the  Population  of  Ireland  ; 
 and  many  other  tracts  relative  to  that  Country.  In  one  volume  quarto, 
 price  ll.  7s.  in  boards. 
 
 17.— A  TOPOGRAPHICAL  ACCOUNT  of  the  PARISH  of 
 SCAMPTON,  in  the  county  of  Lincoln,  and  of  the  ROMAN 
 ANTIQUITIES,  lately  discovered  there  5  together  with  anecdotes  of 
 the  family  of  Bolle.  By  the  Rev.  Cayley  Illing worth,  A.  M. 
 F.  A.  S.  Archdeacon  of  Stow,  and  Rector  of  Scarapton  and  Epworth,  in 
 the  county  of  Lincoln,  Elegantly  printed  in  4to.  with  numerous  plates, 
 price  ll.  lis.  6d.  boards. 
 
 IS.— THE  LIFE  of  ADMIRAL  LORD  NELSON,  K.  B.  from 
 h'.i  Lordship's  Manuscripts.  By  the  Rev.  James  ^Stanier  Clarke, 
 F.  R.  S-  Librarian  to  the  Prince,  and  Chaplain  to  his  Royal  High- 
 ness's  household  ;  and  John  M'Akthur,  Esa.  LL.  D.  late  Secre- 
 tary to  Admiral  Lord  Viscount  Hood.  Elegantly  printed  by  Bensley,  in 
 2  large  volumes,  imperial  4to.  and  illustrated  by  numerous  engravings, 
 by  the  most  eminent  artists,  from  pictures  painted  expressly  for  the 
 Work,  by  Messrs.  West,  Westall,  Pccock,  &c.  price  9I.  gs.  in  extra 
 boards;  dedicated,  by  permission,  to  his  Royal  Highness  the  Prince  of 
 Wa|gs. 
 
 *^*  An  Abridgment  of  the  above  Work,  in  1  large  vol.  octavo,  with 
 a  Portrait  of  Lord  Nelson,  may  also  be  had,  price  lOs.  in  boards.  , 
 
 19— A  HISTORY  of  the  POLITICAL  LIFE  of  the  RIGHT 
 HON,  WILLIAM  PITT;  including  some  account  of  the  times  in 
 which  he  lived.  By  John  GinoRD,  Esa.  in  6 large  vols,  octavo,  with 
 tv.o  Portraits  of  Mr.  Pitt,  one  trom  an  original  picture,  by  Mr,  Hopp- 
 '  ner,  the  other  from  the  bust,  executed  by  Mr.  Flaxman,  price  4l.  4s.  i-ii 
 boards, 
 
 *x.''- A  few  cop-les,  elegantly  printed  in  6  vols,  royal  4to.  may  still  be 
 iuid,  prici  Si.  8j.  in -boards. 
 
hy  T'  Caclcll  and  IF,  Davies,  SirancL  5 
 
 20.— MEMOIRS  of  the  POLITICAL  and  PRIVATE  LIFE  of 
 JAMES  CAULFIELD,  EARL  of  CHARLFMONT.  Knight  of  St. 
 Patrick,  kc.  &c.  &c.  By  Fuancis  Haudy,  Esa.  .Member  of  the 
 House  of  Commons,  in  the  three  hist  Purlinmonts  uf  Ireland.  Hand- 
 somely printed  in  1  volume,  -Ito.  with  a  Portrait  of  Lord  Charlcmont, 
 from  an  original  picture,  price  ll.  lls.tid.  in  boards  (a  fev\'  copies  ou 
 royal  paper,  price  2l.  1 2s.  6d.  in  boards). 
 
 21.— THE  HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND,  from  the  Accession  of 
 'King  George  the  Third,  to  the  conclusion  of  Peace  in 'the  year  1/83. 
 By  John  yYdolpijus,  Esq,  F.  S.  A.  A  New  Edition,  being  the  Third,  wi 
 three  large  volumes  octavo,  illustrated  by  Portraits,  price  ll.  lis.  (id. 
 in  boards;  a  few  copies  on   royal   paper^  price  2l.  2s. 
 
 ■'^.y.^  This  work,  with  Mr.  Hume's  and  Dr.  Smollett's  Histories,  forms 
 n  complete  History  of  England,  from  the  earliest  accounts  to  the  year 
 1783  J  "printed  in  an  uniform  size  and  manner. 
 
 22.~-AN  ESSAY  ON  THE  STUDY  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF 
 ENGLAND.  By  Major  Samuel  Dales,  F.  S.  A.  in  octavo,  price 
 7s.  O'd.  in  boards. 
 
 23.— THE  ASIATIC  ANNUAL  REGISTER;  or,  A  VIEW 
 OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  HINDUSTAN,  and  of  the  Politics,  Com- 
 merce, and  Literature  of  Asia,  for  the  year  1803.  In  one  large  volume, 
 octavo,  price  ll.  Is.  in  boards ;  or,  half'b9und  in  red,  ll.  2s. 
 
 •^j.*  The  Eleventh  Volume,  for  the  year  I8O9,  is  already  in  a  state  of 
 forsvardness,  and  will  be  published  in  the  course  of  a  very  few  months  j 
 the  Twelfih  Volume  for  ISIO,  will  be  published  at  the  close  of  1811  ,- 
 and  thenceforward  a  Volume  w  ill  be  published  at  the  comtiiencement  of 
 every  year. 
 
 24.— PHILOSOPHICAL  ESSAYS.  By  Dugald  'Stewart,  E<!q. 
 F  R  S.  Edinburgh.  Emeritus  Professor  of  Moral  PhUosophy  m  the 
 University  of  Edinburgh  ;  Honorary  Member  of  the  Imperial  Academy  of 
 Sciences  at  St.Petersburgh  ;  and  .\iember  of  the  American  Philosophical 
 Society  held  at  Philadelphia.  Elegantly  printed  in  one  large  volume, 
 quarto,  price  2l.  2s.  in  boards. 
 
 25.— THE  WORKS  of  James  Barry,  Esq.  Historical  Painter  j 
 late  Profi^ssor  of  Painting  in  the  Roya!  Academy;  Member  ot  the 
 Clementine  Academy,  in  Bologna,  &c.  Containing  his  Discourses  at  the 
 Royal  Academy;  Observations  on  different  works  ot  art  m  n^'y  and 
 France;  Re.uarks  on  the  principal  Paintings  in  the  Orlean-  G-iuery, 
 exhibited  in  179S,  kc.  &c.  together  with  his  Correspondence  with  Mr. 
 Burke,  and  other  distinguished  persons;  and  some  accotint  "^  h'*/;'/^ 
 i^nd  Works.  Elegantly  printed  in  2  vols.  ^to.  with  a  Portrait  ot  the 
 Author,  and  numerous  other  Engravings,  price  5l.  5s.  in  boarub. 
 
6  New  and  Valuahlc  Publications 
 
 20.--A  CLASSICAL  DICTIONARY  ;  containing  a  copious  ac^ 
 count  of  all  t!ie proper  names  mentioned  in  ancient  authors;  with  the 
 value  of  coins,  weights,  and  measures^  used  among  the  Gretks  and 
 Romans,  and  a  Chronological  Table.  By  J.  Lempkieke,  D.  D.  Sixth 
 Edition,  in  One  Large  Volume,  octavo,  price  lOs.  in  boards. 
 
 *.)t*  The  same  Work,  upon  a  very  enlarged  Scale,  for  the  higher 
 Classes  in  School*  and  Universities,  and  for  Libraries  3  handsomely 
 prinijed  in  quarto,  price  2l.  5s.  in  boards. 
 
 27.— UNIVERSAL  BIOGRAPHY  ;  containing  a  copioi^s  Account, 
 Critical  and  Historical,  of  the  Life  and  Character,  Labours  and  Actions, 
 of  eminent  Per--ons  m  all  Ages  and  Countries,  Conditions  and  Profes- 
 sions, arranged  in  Alphabetical  Order.  By  the  san^e  Author.  In  one 
 large  Volume  Octavo,  price  \6i.  in  boards. 
 
 ***  This  second  Work  is  also  upon  a  very  enlarged  scale,  handsomely 
 printed  in  quarto,  price  3l.  3s.  in  boards. 
 
 28. —A    CRITICAL   PRONOUNCING  DICTIONARY,    and 
 
 Expositor  of  the  English  Language.     By  John    Walker,   Author  of 
 Eldincnts  of  Elocution,  Rhyming  Dictionary,  &c. 
 
 *^*  In  this  volume,  the  meaning  of  every  word  is  clearly  explained^ 
 and  the  sound  of  every  syllable  distinctly  shewn  ;  and,  where  words  are 
 subject  to  different  pronunciations,  the  authornies  of  our  best  Pro- 
 nouncing Dictionaries  are  fully  exhibited,  the  reasons  for  each  at  large 
 displayed,  and  the  preferable  pronunciation  pointed  out,  being  the 
 eighih  of  anew  edition,  in  1  large  vol.  8vo.  without  the  smallest  abridg- 
 fnent,  price  14s.  in  boards, 
 
 29.  —  COMMENTARIES  on  the  LAWS  of  ENGLAND.  By 
 Sir  William  Blackstone,  Knt,  One  of  the  Justices  of  His 
 Majesty's  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  With  Notes  and  Additions,  bj 
 Edvvakd  Christian,  Esa.  Barrister  at  Law,  the  Downing  Professor 
 of  the  Laws  of  England,  and  Chief  Justice  of  ihe  Isle  of  Ely.  A 
 New  Edition,  being  the  fifteenth,  in  4  large  yols.  octavo,  price  2i,  8s.  ii) 
 boards. 
 
 30.  —  An  ANALYSIS  of  BLACKSTONE'S  COMMENTA- 
 RIES on  the  LAWS  of  ENGLAND,  in'  a  Series  of  Questions,  tq 
 which  the  Student  is  to  frame  his  own  answers  by  reading  ihnt  Work. 
 By  Baron  Field,  of  the  Honourable  Society  of  the  Inner  Temple, 
 ,  Student  at  Law.  Dedicated,  by  permission,  to  Lord  EUenborough,  in 
 8\ro.  price  8s,  in  boards. 
 
 31,— -A  CONCISE  ACCOUNT  of  the  ORIGIN  of  the  TWO 
 HOUSES  of  PARLIAMENT:  with  an  impartial  Statement  of  the 
 Privileges  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Sub- 
 ject. By  Edwako  CiiRisTiAN,  of  Gray's  Inn,  Esg.  Barrister  at  Law, 
 Chief  Justice  of  tite  Isle  of  Ely,  and  Downing  Professor  of  the  Laws  of 
 England.  h\  8vo.  price  3s. 
 
hy  T,  Cadell  and  JV.  Davics,  Strand.  7 
 
 32.— THE  JUSTICE  of  the  PEACE,  nnd  PARISH  OFFICER, 
 By  Richard  Burn,  LL.  D.  Late  Chanccll.r  of  ihc  Dioa-se  (jf 
 Carlisle,  The  21st  Edition,  wall  m;my  Corrections,  Additions,  and  Im- 
 provements, by  the  late  Charles  Durnford,  Esa.  B;urir,ter  at  Law  ; 
 and  continued  by  John  King,  Esa.  of  the  Inner  Tem])le,  Barrister  ai 
 Law,  with  the  cases  brought  down  to  the  end  of  last  Easier  Term,  and 
 the  Statutes,  to  the  end  of  th2  last  Session  of  Pailiament,  50  Geo.  111. 
 (1810),  in  5  large  vols.  8vo.  price  31.  3s.  in  boards. 
 
 33.~OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  CRIMINAL  LAW  OF 
 ENGLAND,  as  it  relates  to  Capital  Punishments,  and  on  the  mode  of 
 which  it  is  administered.  By  Sir  Samuel  Romilly.  Second  Edition.  In 
 8vo.  price  2s.  6"d. 
 
 34. —  THE  WORKS  of  WILLIAM  WARBURTOX,  D.  D. 
 Lord  Bishop  of  Gloucester.  To  which  is  prefixed  a  Discourse,  by  way 
 of  general  Preface,  tontaining  some  account  of  his  Life,  Writings, 
 and  Character,  By  Bishop  Huko.  A  New  Edition,  handsomely  printed 
 in  12  vols.  8vo.  witha  PcMtrait  of  Bishop  Warburton,  price  6l.  0"s.  ia 
 boards. 
 
 S.^.— THE  WORKS  of  RICHARD  HURD.  D.  D.  Lord  Bishop  of 
 Worcester  J  t\ow  first  collected.  With  a  Narrative  of  the  principal 
 Occurrences  in  the  Author's  Life,  wTitten  by  himbclf.  Handsomely 
 printed  in  8  vols.  8vo.  with  a  Portrait  of  his  Loid.ship,  price  3J.  J  2s.  in 
 boards. 
 
 35._CORRESPONDENCE  between  BISHOPS  WARBURTON 
 and  HURD,  intitled  '' Letters  from  a  late  eminent  Prelate  to  one  of  his 
 Friends,"  left  for  Publication,  by  Bishop  Hurd,  with  directions,  that 
 the  profits  arising  from  the  sale,  should  be  applied  to  the  benefit  of  the 
 Worcester  Infirmary.  Second  Edition,  in  1  large  vol.  8vo.  with  two 
 Portraits,  price  12s.  in  boards. 
 
 37.^THE  WORKS,  complete,  of  the  late  Right  Rev.  Beilby 
 PoRTEUS,  D.  D.  Lord  Bishop  of  London,  With  an  account  of  his 
 Life  and  Writings.  By  the  Rev.  Robert  Hodgson,  A.  M.  Rector 
 of  St.  George's,  Hanover-jjquare.  Handsomely  primed  in  6  vols.  Svo. 
 with  a  Portrait  of  his  Lordship,  from  an  original  picture. 
 
 *^*  The  Life  of  Bishop  Porteus,  which  forms  one  of  the  volumes, 
 is  sold  separately,  for  the  accommodation  of  those  who  are  already  in 
 possession  of  the  several  works. 
 
 38.— THE  ELEMENTS  of  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY  ;  con- 
 taining  Proofs  of  the  Authenticity  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  a  Summary 
 of  the  History  of  the  Jews;  a  brief  Statement  of  the  Contents  ot  the 
 several  Books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  ;  a  short  Acount  of  the 
 Enu;!ish  Translations  of  the  Bible,  and  of  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of 
 Eir.'land  ;  and  a  Scriptural  Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  bl 
 ReiigK.u.  By  George  Tomline,  D.D.  F.  R.  S.  Lord  Bishop  ..t  lancoln. 
 Designed  principally  for  the  Use  of  Young  Students  in  Divimty.  Sixth 
 Edition.     2  vols.  8vo.  18s.  in  boards. 
 
 *^*  The  first  Volume  of  this  W^ork,  being  an  Introduction  to  the 
 itudy  of  the  Bible,  is  printed  separate,  in  12mo.  3i.  Od.  iia  boar«ls. 
 
8  Xeiu  and  Valuahle  Puhlications 
 
 3). -A  REFUTATION  of  CALVINISM;  in  which  the  Doc- 
 trines of  Original  Sin,  Grace,  R  -generation,  Justification ,  and  Universal 
 Redemption,  are  expl;ii  eel,  and  the  peculiar  tenets  maintained  by 
 Calvin  upon  those  points  are  proved  to  be  contrary  to  Scripture,  to  the 
 wriiings  of  the  Ancient  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  to  the 
 public  Formularies  of  the  Churcb  of  Enc^Lmd  Bv  George  Tomline, 
 D.  D.  F  R.  S  Lord  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  and  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  London. 
 The  third  Edition  j  in  one  volume  8vo.  price  12s.  in  boards. 
 
 40— THE  PETITION  of  the   ENGLISH  ROMAN  CATHOLICS 
 CONSIDERED  ;•  in  a  c-har?e  delivered  to  the  Clergy  ot  the  Diocese  of 
 Gloucester,  at  the  Trienni.il  Visitation  in  June,  1810.  By  Geopge  Isaac  » 
 HuNTiNGFOKD,  D  D   F.  R.  S.   Bisbop  of  Gloucester,  and  Warden  of 
 Wincliester  College,  price  2s. 
 
 4l.~A  SERMON  preached  before  the  LORDS  SPIRITUAL 
 and  TEMPORAL  in  the  Abbey  Church,  Westminster,  on  Tuesday, 
 January  30th,  1810  ;  being  the  Day  of  Kii^g  Chades's  Martyrdom.  By 
 William  Lokt,  Lord  Bishop  of  Bristol,  and  Master  of  Trinity  College, 
 in  ihe  University  of  Cambridge  ;    in  quarto,  price   23. 
 
 42.— HELPS  TO  COMPOSITION;  or,  Six  Hundred  Skeletons  of 
 8="  mons — several  being  t!ie  ^^nbst^ncc  of  Sermons  preached  betore 'the 
 LI  -rsitv.  By  the  Rev,  Charles  Simeon",  M.  A.  Fellow  of  King's 
 Ctyii^ge,  Cambridge.     A  new  Rdiiio»,iri  five  vols.  8vo,  price  21.  5s.    in 
 
 bo;iris 
 
 43— CHRISl"  CRUCIFIED:  a  Sermon,  preached  before  the 
 U:iiversi'v  i\  Cambiitlge,  on  Sunday,  March  3  7,  iSll..  By  the  same, 
 Svo.  Price  Is 
 
 44.— SERMONS,    by    Hugh     Blair,    D.  D.  F.^R.  S.    Edinburgh, 
 '■  c)i      ic     .in.sters  of  the  High  Church,  and  Profe.ssor  of  Rhetoric  and 
 
 on 
 
 Bf  Ics  Lei  ri.-)  in  the  Uifiversity  of  Edinburgh.  To  which  is  added,  a 
 shui.  A^K-  Huit  of  his  Life  and  Character,  by  Jame=  Finlayson,  D.  D. 
 Elegantly   printed    in    five   siuall  volumes,  price  ll.  2s,  6d.  in  boards. 
 
 ANOTHER  EDITION,  in  5  vols,  octavo  (the  volumes  sold  sepa- 
 rately), price   ll.    15s.   in    boards. 
 
 'ANOTHER  EDITION,  very  elegantly  printed,  in  a  large  type,  on 
 royal  paper,  with  a  new  Portrait  of  Dr   Blair,  price 3l. 
 
 45— DISCOURSES  AND  DISSERTATIONS  ON  THE 
 SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINES  OF  A10NEMENT  AND  SACRI- 
 FICE ;  and  on  the  pvin .ipai  Aig'.mients  advanced,  and  the  mode  of 
 Rea  oning  employed,  by  lh«  0[);)('nents  of  those  Doctrines,  as  held  by  the 
 l-.siablished  Church.  With  an  Appendix,  containing  .some  Strict'  res  on 
 Mr.  BeUham's  AccouiU  (4' the  Unitarian  Scheme,  in  his  Review  of  Mr. 
 Will.erf  MTe's  Tre-iti^e  By  \Villiam  Magee,D.  D.  Senior  Fellow  ot" 
 Trinity  College,  and  Professor  of  Mathein-itics  in  the  University  ot  Dub- 
 lin.     Anew  Edition,  being  the  third,  ii]  two  large  Volumes,  octavo. 
 
hij  T.  Caclcll  and  JK  Davies,  Sfravd.  9 
 
 •  46. — ^THE  WORKS  complete,  of  the  Inte  Rev.  JostPH  Mjlner, 
 A.  M  Master  ot'the  Granini  ir  School,  and  atieru aids  Vicar  of  ihe  Holy 
 I'rinity  Church,  in  K'ng>^toii-up<in-l{uil  ;  now  firs'  Collated  and  Edited. 
 Bv  the  llev.  Isaac  Milner,  D.  D  V.  \\  S.  Dean  ol  CMlii.le.  and  Pre- 
 sidcnt  ot  Queen'*  College.  In  iia[ht  large  volniues,  octa\o,  price  41.  Ids. 
 in  boards  ;  a  new  and  unifonn  Edi'ior, 
 
 *^.*  1  his  Edition  comprehends  the  fcllowing  Works,  each  of  which 
 may  also  h'^  l-'nd  separately,  viz. 
 
 I.— rHEHISTORY  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST  (contrnuW, 
 on  the?  same  plan,  by  (he  Dean  or  Carlisle)  ;  five  volumes. 
 
 II.— PUACTIC4L  SERMC^NS  ;  to  which  is  perfixed,  an  Account  of 
 the  Life  ind  Character  of  the  Author,  by  the  Dean  of  Carlisle  ;  two 
 volumes. 
 
 III.— TRACTS  AND  ESSAYS,  Theological  and  Historical;  one 
 volume. 
 
 N  B.  Some  Copies  of  the  Second  Volume  of  The  HISTORY  of  tha 
 CHURCH  of  CHRIST  have  also  been  printed,  for  separate  Sale,  to 
 CO  .'.plete  -ets  of  the  former  Edition. 
 
 4,  -A  PRACTICAL  VIP:W  of  the  prevailing  Religious  System 
 of  professed  Cbristi^m  in  the  higher  and  middle C'Lis^es  in  this  Country, 
 con(rasie<l  with  re;il  Christianity.  Bv  William  Wilberforce,  Esa. 
 Member  of  Parliament  for  the  County  of  York,  Ninth  edition,  bvo.  9s.  in 
 boards.     Another  Edition,  12rno,  price  4s.  6d.  boards. 
 
 48— A  VIEW  OF  THE  BRAHMINICAL  RELIGION,  io  its 
 Confirmation  t>f  the  Truth  1  i  the  Sacred  History,  aiid  in  its  intluence  en 
 the  Moial  Ciiaracter  :  In  ;i  Series  of  Discourses  preached  before  the 
 University  of  0.\ford,  in  uie  year  ISO9,  ^^  ^^^^  Lecture  founded  by  the 
 late  Rev.  John  Bampton,  M.  A.  Canon  of  Salisbury.  By  the  Rev.  J.  B. 
 S.  Carwithen,  M.  a.     In  one  vol.  8vo.  price Qs.  in  boards. 
 
 49— CHRISTIAN  RESEARCHES  in  ASIA;  with  rvotices  of 
 the  translation  of  the  Scripture  into  the  oriental  languages.  By  the 
 Rev.  Claudius  Buchanan,  D.  D.  late  Vice  Provost  of  the  College  of 
 Fort  William  in  Bengal.  In  I  vol.  demy,  Svo.  price  /S.  in  boards,  or 
 on  royal  paper,  lOs.  in  boards. 
 
 50.— TWO  DISCOURSES,  preached  before  the  University  of 
 Cambridge,  on  Commencement  Sunday,  July  1,  1810;  and  a  SER- 
 MON preached  before  the  Society  for  Missions  to  Africa  and  the  East, 
 at  their  Tenth  Anniversary,  June  12,  1810.  To  which  are  added. 
 Christian  Researches  in  Asia.  By  the  Rev.  Claudius  Buchanan, 
 D.  D.  In  one  volume  demy  Svo.  price  ()s.  in  boards  ;  and  a  few  copies, 
 on  royal  paper,    1 2s.  in  boards. 
 
 51._THREE  SERMONS  on  the  JUBILEE,  pleached  at  Wel- 
 beck  Chapel,  London.   By  the  Rev.  Claudius  Buchanan,  D.  D.  viz.— 
 
 The  Mosaic  Judilee  ;  The  British  Jubilee;  and  The  True, 
 or  Heavenly  Jubilee.  Also!  HE  STAR  IN  THE  EAST;  cor.- 
 taining  an  Account  of  the  Jubilee  celebrated  by  the  Natives  of  In- 
 dia, in  commemoration  of  ihe  event  of  their  receiving  the  gift  of  tlie 
 Bible.     The  2d  edition,  handsomely  printed  in  6vo.  price  9s.  in  boards. 
 
10  New  and  Faluahle  Publications 
 
 52.— MEMOIR  of  the  EXPEDIENCY  of  an  ECCLESIAS- 
 TICAL ESTABLISHMENT  for  BRITISH  INDIA,  by  the  same, 
 in  one  volume  royal  4to.  price  in  boards  15s.  A  second  edition  of  this, 
 Work  is  published  in  8vo.  price  5s. 
 
 53.— THE  FIRST  FOUR  YEARS  of  the  COLLEGE  of  FORT 
 WILLIAM,  in  BENGAL,  in  one  volume  4to.  printed  by  Bulmer, 
 price  in  boards  15s. 
 
 54.— CHRIST  DIVIDED  :  a  !^ermon,  preached  at  the  trien- 
 nial visitation  of  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  at  Grantham,  in  June, 
 3809.  Ey  T.  F.  Middlkton,  D.  D.  Rector  of  Tansor,  in  North- 
 amptonshire,  and  of  Bytham,  in  Lincolnshire,  and  Prebendary  of 
 Lincoln.     In  4to.  price  2s. 
 
 55.— A  FAMILIAR  SURVEY  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  RELI- 
 GION,  AND  OF  HISTORY,  as  connected  with  the  introduction  of 
 Christianity,  and  with  its  progress  to  the  present  time.  Iptended  ])rima- 
 rily  for  the  use  of  young  persons  of  cither  sex,  during  the  course  of  public 
 or  private  education.  By  Thomas  Gisbokne,  A.  M.  A  new  Edition, 
 being  thetifth,  8vo.  price  9s.  in  boards. 
 
 56— PRACTICAL  AND  FAMILIAR  SERMONS  j  designed 
 for  Parochial  and  Domestic  Instruction.  By  the  Reverend  Edwakd 
 Cooper,  Rector  of  Hamstall — Ridware,  and  of  Yoxall,  in  the  county  of 
 Stafford,  Chaplain  to  the  Earl  of  Courlown,  and  late  Fellow  of  All-Souls* 
 College,  Oxford.  Third  Edition,  in  two  Vols.  12mo.  price  10s.  in  boards. 
 
 57 . — SERMONS,  chiefly  designed  to  elucidate  some  of  the  lead- 
 ing Doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  By  the  satne  Author.  Fourth  Edition, 
 8vo.  price  10s.  in  boards. 
 
 58.— TWO  VOLUMES  OF  SERMONS.— By  the  Rev.  Sydney 
 Smith,  A.  M.late  Fellow  of  New  College,  Oxford  ;  Rector  of  Foston, 
 in  Yorkshire  3  Preacher  at  the  Foundling,  and  at  Berkeley  and  Fitzioy 
 Chapels. 
 
 *.i!^  Of  these  femons  ten  are  re-published,  with  considerable  aftera- 
 tions  from  the  last  Edition  of  Mr.  Smith's  Sermons  ;  tlie  other  Forty  are 
 entirely  new,  price  18s.  in  boards. 
 
 59.— REMARKS  ON  THE  VERSION  OF  THE  NEW  TES- 
 TAMENT,  lately  edited  by  the  Unitarians,  with  the  title  of  '*  An 
 Improved  Version,  upon  the  Rasis  of  Archbishop  Newcome's  New 
 Translation,  with  a  corrected  Text,  and  Notes  critical  and  explanatory, 
 London,  ToOS  "  Being  a  dispassionate  appeal  to  Christians,  of  various 
 denominations,  on  some  of  the  first  and  most  generally  received  doctrines 
 of  the  Bible,  8vo.  By  the  Rev.  Edward  Naues,  M.  A.  Rector  of 
 Biddcnden,  Kent,  Author  of  the  Bampion  Lecture  Sermons,  for  1805, 
 &c.  5:c.      Price  9s.  in  boards. 
 
 (JO.  —  SERMONS  on  the  PERSON  and  OFFICE  of  the  RE- 
 DEEMER, and  on  the  FAITH  and  PRACTICE  of  the  REDEEMED. 
 By  William  Jesse,  A.  M.  8vo.  price  8s.  in  boards. 
 
by  7\  Cadcll  and  IF,  Davics,  Strand.         1 1 
 
 v)l.->-THE  EXPOSITION  of  the  CRKKI).  Hy  John  Peah- 
 SOX,  D.  D.  Bishop  of  Chester;  abridged  for  the  use  of  Young  Persons 
 of  both  Sexes.  By  the  Rp.v.  C.  Bukney,  of  Greenwich,  LE.  1). 
 F.  R,  S.  Inscribed,  by  Permission,  to  ihe  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 
 In  one  volume,  price  8s.  in  bo.iids. 
 
 02. —  SERMONS.  By  John  M.NcKF.NziF,  D.I).  Minister  of 
 Portpatrick,  nnd  one  of  His  Mnjesty^.s  (^hiiplains  in  Ordinary  in  Scotland. 
 Second  Ediiion,  with  large  Additions  and  Corrections,  bvo.  price  *7s.  in 
 boards. 
 
 03.— AN  EXPOSITION  of  the  NEW  TESTAMENT;  intended  as 
 an  introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Scriptures,  by  pointing  out  the  lead- 
 ing sense  and  connection  of  the  Sacred  Writers.  By  William  Gili'in, 
 A.  M.  Prebendary  of  Salisbury,  and  Vicar  of  Boldre,  in  New  Eorest, 
 iiear  Lymington.  A  New  Edition,  being  the  Eourth,  in  two  volumes, 
 8vo.  price  lOs.  in  boards. 
 
 04.— AN  INQUIRY  INTO   THE    DUTIES    OF    MEN    in  the 
 
 high(^r  and  middle  Classes  of  Society  in  Great  Britain,  resuhing  from 
 their  respective  Stations,  Professions,  and  Employments.  By  Thomas 
 GisBOKNE,  M.  A.   2  vols.    8vo.  Sixth  Edition.   lO"s.  in  boards. 
 
 65.  — AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE  DUTIES  OFTHE  FEMALE 
 
 SEX.  By  the  same.  8vo.  eighth  Edition,  /s.  in  boards.  In  Timo.  3s. 
 6"d. ;  or  elegantly  printed  in  a  pocket  volume,  price  O's.  in  boards. 
 
 66. —  AN  INQUIRY  into  the  BEST  SYSTEM  of  FEMALE 
 EDUCATION  ;  or.  Boarding  School  and  Home  Education  attentively 
 considered.  By  J.  L,  Chirol,  one  of  His  Majesty's  Chaplains  at  the 
 French  Royal  Chapel,  St.  James's  Palace.  In  one  volun:e,  Svo.  price 
 tjs.  in  boards. 
 
 6;.— PRACTICAL  PIETY;  or,  The  Influence  of  the  Reli|;ion 
 pi'  the  Heart  on  the  Conduct  of  the  Life.  By  Hannah  Moue.  Tliird 
 Edition,  in  two  volumes,  price  10s.  6d.  in  boards. 
 
 68.— STRICTURES  on  the  MODERN  SYSTEM  of  FEMALE 
 EDUCATION  :  witii  a  View  of  the  Principles  and  Conduct  prevalent 
 among  W^omen  of  Rank  and  Fortune.  By  the  same.  I  wo  volumes, 
 ]Oth    Ediiion,  price  ]2s.  in  boards. 
 
 69.— CCELEBS  IN  SEARCH  OR  A  WIFE:  comprehending  Obser- 
 vations otr  Dom  ^stic  Habits  and  Manners,  Religion  and  Morals.  Ihir- 
 teenth  Edition,    in  two  volumes,  price  12s.  in  boards. 
 
 70. —  LECTURES  on  RHETORIC  and  BELLES  LEITRES. 
 By  Hugh  I^i.aiu.  D.  D.  F.  R  S.  Edinburgh.  One  of  the  Ministers  of 
 the  High  Church,  and  Professor  of  Rhetoric  and  Belle  Lettres,  in  the 
 Univerv,ity  of  Edinburgh.  The  Tenth  Edition,  in  3  vols,  octavo; 
 adorned  with  a  Head  of  the  Author.     Price  ll.  Is.  in  boards. 
 
12  New  and  ValuahJe  P ublicatio7is 
 
 ri.— THE  WORKS  of  the  RIGHT  HONOURABLE  JOSEPH 
 ADDISON".  A  new  Edition-  with  Notes,  by  the  late  Richari> 
 HuKD,  D.  D.  Lord  Bishop  of  Worcester.  Elegantly  printed  in  six 
 volumes,  Svo.  with  a  Portrait  of  Mr,  Addison,  from  an  original  Picture 
 by  Dahi,  price  3l.  J  2s.  in  Lroards  (some  copies  on  royal  paper,  price  5\.  6s. 
 in  boards). 
 
 ;2.--THE  LETTERS  of  MRS.  ELIZABETH  MONTAGU  ;  with 
 some  of  the  LETTERS  of  iier  CORRESPONDENTS.— Part  the  First- 
 Containing  her  Letters  from  an  early  age  to  the  age  of  23.  Published 
 by  Matthew  Montagu,  Esq.  M.  P.  Her  Nephew  and  Executor. 
 A  new  Edition,  being  the  Third,  in  two  volumes,  with  a  Portrait, 
 after  a  Miniature  by  Zinck,  price  14s.  in  boards^  a  very  few  copies  on 
 larger  paper,  price  ll.  Is. 
 
 ;3.— THE  W^ORKS  of  WILLIAM  MASON,  M.  A.  Precentor 
 of  York,  and  Rector  of  Aston  :  consisting  of  the  English  Garden,  a 
 Poem;  the  dramatic  Poems  of  Elfrida  and  Caractacus j  Miscellaneous 
 Poems,-  Trnnslation  of  Du  Fresnoy's  Art  of  Painting  (with  notes  by 
 Sir  Joshua  Reynolds)  j  Sermons,  ik:c.  Published  under  the  direction  of 
 bis  Executors. 
 
 EiegantV  printed  in  four  volumes,  Svo.  with  Portraits  of  Mr.  Mason, 
 Lonl  Holdernesse,  and  Dr.  Burgh,  from  original  pictures,  price  21.  2s. 
 in  boards. 
 
 74.  —  CONSTANCE  DE  CASTILE;  a  Po^m,  by  William 
 SoTHEBY,  Esq.     Elegantly  printed  in  quarto.     Price  ll.  5s.  in  boards. 
 
 75.— OBERON,     a    Poem    from     the    German    of   Wieland,    by 
 the  same.     Elegantly  printed  in    2  vols,  with  Plates,  15s.  in  boards. 
 *^*  A  few  copies  on  large  paper  ll.  4s.  in  boards. 
 
 ^  75--THE  PLEASURES  of  MEMORY;   with  other   Poems.    By 
 
 S.\.MUEL    ROGEKS,   Esq. 
 
 A  new  Edition,  corrected  and  enlarged,  with  new  embellishments, 
 elegantly  printed  in  one  volume,  price  lOs.  6d.  in  boards. 
 
 *.x.'''  A  few  copies  have  been  taken  off  on  large  paper,  and  a.  few  on 
 India  paper. 
 
 77-— SPECIMENS  OF  ARABIAN  POETRY,  from  the  earliest 
 time  to  the  extinction  of  the  Khaliphat;  with  some  account  of 
 the  Authors.  By  J.  D.  Carlyle.  B.  D.  F.  R.  S.  E.  Chancellor  ot 
 C^lisle,  and  Professor  of  Arabic  in  the  University  of  Cambridge. 
 TIh^  second  edition,  elegantly  printed  in- royal  octavo,  price  Jl.  Is.  in 
 boards. 
 
 7S.— REMAINS  of  NITH5DALE  and  GALLOWAY  SONG  ; 
 with  Historical  and  Traditional  Notices  relative  to  the  Manners  and 
 Cijstoms  of  the  Peasantry;  now  first  published,  By  R.  H.  Cromek, 
 F.  A.  S.  Ed.  Editor  ol"  the  Reliques  of  Robert  Burns.  Elegantly 
 prmted  in  cue  vol.  Svo,  price  12s.  in  boards. 
 
by  r.  Caddl  ami  W.  Davies,  Strand,       ^  13 
 
 79-  —  SELECT  SCOTTISH  SONGS,  Ancient  nnd  Modern  ; 
 with  Critical  Observations,  and  Biographical  Notice!*.  By  Robekt 
 Burns.  Edited  by  II.  H.  Cromek,  F.  A.  S.  Edinburgh.  Elegantly 
 printed  in  I'wo  Volumes,  with  some  beautiful  Engravings  iu  Wood, 
 price  l6s.  in  boards. 
 
 SO.  —  A  MONODY  to  the  MEMORY  of  the  Right  Honourable 
 Uie  LORD  COLLINGWOOD.  By  Lady  CllA^a'ION  de  Ckespio- 
 NY.     In  4to,  price  3s.  (jd. 
 
 81.— THE  PROGRESS  of  LOVE:  A  Pcxjm.  By  Martim 
 Kedgwin  Mastrrs.  The  Seccmd  Edition,  ekgaivUy  printed  in  a  P(jckel 
 Volume,  price  6s.  in  boards. 
 
 82.  —  FOWLING  :      A   Poem  ;    in   Five   Books  ;     descriptive   of 
 
 Grouse,  Partridge,   Pheasant,   Woodcock,   Duck  and  Snipe  Shooting. — 
 Elegantly  printed  in  a  Pocket  Volume,  price  O's.  in  boards 
 
 ^'^.*  For  an  Account  of  this  Poem,  see  Edinburgh  Review,  No.  XXV. 
 
 83.  —  THE  ITALIAN  j  or  the  CONFESSIONAL  of  the  BLACK 
 PENITENTS.  A  Romance.  By  Ann  Radcliffe,  Author  of  the 
 Mysteries  of  Udolpho,  &c.  Second  Edition.  Iiv  three  volumes,  ISmo. 
 Price  1 3s.  (5d.  in  boards. 
 
 84.  —  SIX  LECTURES  on  the  ELEMENTS  of  PLANE  TRI- 
 GONOMETRY ;  with  the  Method  of  constructing  Tables  of  Natural 
 and  Logarithmic  Sines,  Cosines,  Tangents,  i<cc.  B^y  the  Rev.  B.  Buidgp, 
 A.  M.  Fellow  of  St.  Peter's  Colk^ge,  Cambridge,  and  Professor  of 
 Mathematics  in  the  East  India  College.  In  Svo.  Price  4s. 
 
 85.  •— LECTURES  on  the  ELEMENTS  OF  ALGEBRA.  By  ihp 
 same  Author.  In  royal  Svo.  Price  10s.  6d.  boards. 
 
 86.  —  A  TREATISE  on  ALGEBRA  ;  in  which  the  iv.o-.t 
 essential  principles  of  the  science  are  clearly  demonstrated,  nnd  ap- 
 plied in  the  resolution  of  a  great  variety  of  Problems  of  different  kind.s  ; 
 including  new  improvements  in  the  solution  of  Cubic  and  Biquadradic 
 Equations.  Designed  for  the  use  of  Schools,  and  places  of  Public 
 Education.  By  John  Mole,  Author  of  the  Elements  of  Algebra. 
 In  12mo.  7s.  in  boards. 
 
 87. —THE  RETURN  to  NATURE,  or  A  DEFENCE  of  the 
 VEGETABLE  REGIMEN  ;  with  somp  account  of  an  exiKviment 
 i-nade  daring  the  last  three  or  four  years  in  the  Author's  Family.  By 
 John  Frank  Newton,  Esq.  Part  the  First.  In  one  Volume,  6vo. 
 6s.  in  boards. 
 
 88. —  MEDICAL  HISTORIES  and  REFLl'.Ci  IU.\S.  Bv 
 John  Ferr,iar,  M.  D.  Physician  to  the  Manchester  Infirmary  and 
 Lunatic  HospitaL     3  Vols.  Svo.     Price  ll.  4s.  in  boards. 
 
14  Neiv  and  Valuable  Publications 
 
 8().  —  A  TREATISE  ON  SEA  BATHIXG,  wifh  remarks  on 
 fheU.se  of  the  XYarm  Bath.  By  A.  P.  Buchan,  M.  D.  of  the  Royal 
 College  of  Physicians,  London.  Second  Edition,  in  one  V^olume,  small 
 6vo.  price  /s.  in  boards. 
 
 00.  —  AN  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  DISEASE  most  incident  to 
 CHILDREN.  To  which  is  added,  an  Essay  on  Nursing,  with  a  parti- 
 cular view  to  Infants  brought  up  by  hand.  By  t!ie  late  George  Arm- 
 STi'iONG,    M.  D.  a  new  edition,  with  many  additional   Notes,  by   Dr. 
 
 A.  P.  BucHAV.     In  one  volume,  price  /s.  in  boards. 
 t 
 
 —  PRACTICAL  OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  FORMA- 
 TION OF  AN  ARTIFICIAL  PUPIL,  in  several  deranged  Mates  of  the 
 Eye,  to  which  are  annexed  Remarks  on  the  extraction  of  sofr  Cataracts, 
 and  those  of  the  membraneous  kind,  through  a  puncture  in  the  Cornea. 
 Illustrated  by  plates.  By  Benjamin  Gibson,  Vice-President  of  t!ie 
 Literary  and  Philosopliical  Society  of  Manchester,  and  Surgeon  to  the 
 Manchester  IntirmHry.     In  one  volume,  8vo,  price  5s.  in  boards. 
 
 92. —  PRACTICAL  OBSERVATIONS  IN  SURGERY,  illus^ 
 trafed  by  cases.  By  William  Hey.  F.  R.  S.  Member  of  the  Royal 
 College  of  Surgeons  in  London  ;  Honorary  Member  of  the  Royal 
 Medical  Society  of  Edinburgh  ;  and  of  the  Literary  and  Philosophical 
 Society  of  Manchester  ;  and  Senior  Surgeon  of  the  General  Intirmar}'  at 
 Leeds.  A  new  edition,  corrected  and  enlarged,  with  additional  Plates,  in 
 one  large  volume  octavo,  price  13s.  in  boards. 
 
 93.— A  SUMMARY  VIEW  OF  OBSERVATIONS  on  the 
 principal  DISEASES  incident  to  SEAMEN  or  SOLDI.-.RS,  whether 
 engaged  in  actual  service  or  retired  from  it  ;  carefully  abridged  and 
 digested  from  the  latest  edition  of.  the  Author's  Works,  in  4  vols. 
 Designed  chiefly  for  the  use  of  young  professional  practitioners  in  the 
 Navy  and  Army.  By  Robrut  Robertson,  M.  D.  F.  R.  S.  F.  A.  S. 
 Member  of  the  Royal  College  of  Physicians,  and  Physician  to  the 
 Royal  Hospital  for  Seamen,  at  Greenwich;  the  first  volume  (to  be 
 completed  in  2  vols.)  in  octavo,  price  9s.  in  boards. 
 
 94.— PRACTICAL  OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  PRINCIPAL 
 DISEASES  ON  THE  EYES:  illustrated  with  Cases.  Translated 
 from  the  Italian  of  Antonio  Scarpa.  With  Notes  by  James  Briggs, 
 Member  of  t<he  Royal  College  of  Surgeons  in  London,  and  Assistant- 
 burgeon  to  the  Public  Dispensary,  Svo.  Price  10s.  (jd.  in  boards. 
 
 95. —OCCASIONAL  TRACTS  relative  to  the  WAR  between 
 GREAT  BRITAIN  and  FRANCE  ;  wriuen  and  published  at  different 
 periods  from  the  year"  1/93  :  including  brief  observations  on  the  address 
 (o  his  Majesty,  proposed  by  Earl  Grey,  in  the  House  of  Lords,  June  13, 
 1810.  By  William  RoscoE,  Esq.  In  one  volume,  octavo,  price  Ss. 
 in  boards. 
 
by  T.  Cadell  and  IF.  Davies,  Strajid.         15 
 
 96.  —  BRIEF  ORSERVATIOxXS  on  the  Acklre<!3  to  his  Ma- 
 jesty propofsed  by  Earl  Grey  in  the  House  of  Lords,  i:]ih  June,  18J0. 
 By  the  same.    In  Svo.  price  2s. 
 
 97.  —  THE  TRINXirLES  OP  CURRENCY  AND  EX- 
 CHANGES,  applied  to  t lie  Repoit  from  the  select  committee  of  the 
 House  of  Commons,  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  high  Price  of  Gold 
 Bullion,  &:c.  &c.     By  Coutts  Tuotter,  Esq.  Second  Edilion,  price  3s. 
 
 QS.  —  OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  REPORT  OF  THE  BUL- 
 LION COMMIITEE.  By  the  Right  Honourable  Sir  John  Sin- 
 clair, Bart,  M.  P.  x\uthor  of  the  History  of  the  Public  Revenue  of  the 
 British  Empire.  The  third  P^dition,  price  2s.  (id. 
 
 99. —  Remarks  on  a  Pamphlet  entitled,  ''  THE  QUESTION 
 CONCERNING  THE  DEPRECIATION  OF  THE  CURRENCY 
 STATED  AND  EXAMINED."  By  William  Huskisson,  Esq.  M.  P. 
 together  with  several  Political  Maxims  regarding  Coin  and  Paper  Cur- 
 rency, intended  to  explain  the  real  nature  and  advantages  of  the  prefect 
 system.  By  the  Right  Honourable  Sir  John  Sinclair,  Bart.  M.  P. 
 The  Second  Edition,  corrected,  price  2s.  Od. 
 
 100. — A  LETTER,  containing  Observations  on  some  of  the  P^fled* 
 •four  Paper  Currency,  aiid  on  the  means  of  remedying  its  present,  and 
 preventing  its  fcfture,  Excess,  Svo.  price  2s.  O'd. 
 
 101  .—AN  EXAMINATION  of  Sir  John  Sinclair's  Obser\-ations  mi 
 *he  Report  of  the  Bullion  Committee,  and  on  the  general  nature  of  Coin 
 •r  Money,  and  the  advantages  of  Paper  circulation.  By.  P.  R.  Ho.\re, 
 Esq.  Svo.  price  4s. 
 
 102.— THE  LAW  AND  PRINCIPLE  OF  MONEY  CONSI- 
 DERED, in  a  letterto  W.  Huskisson,  Esq.M.P.  By  John  Raithby, 
 Esq.  of  Lincoln's-Inn,  Barrister  at  Law,  price  4s.  6d. 
 
 103.— A  SHORT  STATEMENT  OF  THE  TRADE  IN  GOLD 
 BULLION,  -shewing  the  true  causes  of  the  General  Scarcity  and 
 consequent  high  price  of  that  precious  metal  ;  also  demonstrating  that  the 
 Notes  of  the  Bank  of  Iingland  arr  not  depreciated  ;  a  second  Edition  en- 
 Jarged.  By  John  Theodore  Koster,  Esq.  Member  of  the  Royal 
 Academy  of  Sciences  at  Lisbon,  price  3s.  6d. 
 
 104.— .\  LETTER  to  th^  RIGHT  HONOURABLE  LORD  VIS- 
 COUNT   MELVILLE,    on     the   subject   of   his  Lordship's  Letter  fo 
 the  Right  Hon.  Spencer  Perceval,  respecting  a  Naval  Arsenal  at  Nor.h- 
 fleet.     Ey  the   Right  Hon.  George  Rosa.     The  second  edition.     Svo 
 price  Is.  dd. 
 
 105  —OBSPRVATIONS  respecting  the  PUBLIC  EXPENDI- 
 TURE, arid  the  INFLUENCE  oi  the  CROWN.  By  tne  waie. 
 The  third  edition.  8vo.  2s.    \ 
 
16         New  and  Valuahle  Puhlications,  &c. 
 
 100.— BRITISH  GALLERY  of  PORTRAITS.  This  Work 
 will  form  a  series  of  Portraits  f  tlie  must  eminent  persons  now 
 living,  or  lately  deceased,  in  Great  Bkit.ain  cind  Ireland  j  includ- 
 ing the  most  distinguished  ch;iracters  in  the  Senate,  the  Church, 
 the  Navy  and  Army,  the  Learned  Proiessions,  and  the  various 
 Departments  of  Literature,  Science,  and  Art  j  those  who  have 
 most  zealously  exerted  themselves  in  promoting  che  Arts,  Agricul- 
 ture, and  Commerce  of  the  Country  ;  or,  by  their  example  or  patro- 
 nage^ have  most  consi)icuously  contributed  to  its  general  Prosperity 
 and  Happiness  j  the  Portraits  elegantly  and  accurately  drawn,  in  an 
 uniform  manner,  from  Life,  or  from  the  most  approved  Original  Pic- 
 tures;  and  the  Engnnings  perfect  fac-similes  of  the  Drawings. 
 
 Seven  Numbers"  are  already  published,  elegantly  printed  in  Atlas 
 Quarto,  price  ll.  5s.  each,  and  in  Imperial  Folio,  with  Proof  Ittipi;es- 
 sions  of  the  Plates,  price  Jl.  l6s. — 
 
 And  contain  Portraits  of 
 
 The  King. 
 
 The  Queen. 
 
 Earl  Spencer. 
 
 Admiral  Lord  Viscount  Hood. 
 
 The  late  Dr.  Lowth,  Bishop  of  London. 
 
 Sir  Lucas  Pcpys,  Bart.  President  of  the 
 Royal  College  of  Physicians. 
 
 Tiie  lateDr.Porteus,  Bishop  of  London 
 
 The  late  Mrs.  Montagu 
 
 A.lmiral  t'p.c  Earl  of  St.  Vincent. 
 
 The  late  Lord  Thun'ow. 
 
 Lieutenant-Gcncral  Lord  Hutchinson. 
 
 The  late  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds,  President 
 of  the  Royal  Academy. 
 
 The  Right  Hon.  Sir  Joseph  Banks,  Bart, 
 K.  B.  President  of  the  Royal  Society 
 
 ?vlrs.  Hannah  More. 
 
 William,  Lord  Auckland 
 
 Richard  Watson,  D.D.  Lord  Bishop  of 
 Landaff. 
 
 Charles,  Lord  Barb  am. 
 
 The  Right  Hon.  Charles  J^ong. 
 
 Lord  Viscount  Cathcart,  K  '1\ 
 
 William  Vincent,  D.  D.  Dean  of  West- 
 minster. 
 
 1    Hi*  Royal   Highness    tlie    Prince 
 
 [        Wales. 
 
 j    Admiral  Lord  Gambler. 
 
 [    William  Wilheffwc^,E?q  M.  P. 
 
 '    The  late  Paul^^x',  Esq.  R.  A. 
 
 George.   Earl  (?r^^¥^ont. 
 I     Henry,  Lord  Viscount  Melville, 
 
 The  late  Hugh  Blair,  D    D. 
 I    The  Hon.  and  Right  Rev.  Shute,  Lord 
 !         Bishop  ot  Durliam. 
 !    Admiral  Lord  Radstock. 
 !    T'-c  late  Richard  Warren,  ^L  D. 
 
 Henry,  Eirl  B.ithurst. 
 
 The  Right  Hon.  Henry  Grattan,  M.  P. 
 
 The  late  T.  Gainsborough,  Esq.  R.  A. 
 
 The  Right  Hon    William  Pittjit 
 
 John  Fisher, D.  D.  Lord  Bisppof  Sails- 
 bury 
 
 Aylmer  JBourke  Lambert, Esq.  F.  L.  S, 
 
 Robert,  Earl  Grosvenor. 
 
 The  late  John  Douglas,  Lord  Bi&Iiop  of 
 Salisbury. 
 
 The  Right  Hoij.  George  Ponsonby,M.P. 
 
 The  Hon. Lieut. -General  John  Hope,K.B. 
 
 William  Mltford,  Esq. 
 
 The  late  jLmee  Barry,  Esq.  R.  A. 
 
 '^:i,-  A  few  of  each  Portrait  are  taken  off  for  separate  sale,  price  5s. — 
 Proof  Impressions,  7s.  Od. 
 An  extensive  Preface  is  also  contained  in  the  First  Number  ;  and  Titles, 
 together  with  general  Lists  of  the  Portraits  contained  in  the  Work,  will 
 lie  given  hereafter  ;  but  both  tlie  Portraits  and  the  Biographical  Notices 
 will  be  left  unnumbered,  in  order  that  each  Subscriber  may  form  his 
 •own  arrangement  of  them.  A  List  of  the  Subscribers  will  also  -be 
 printed. 
 
 Printed  by  G.  Sidney,  Norihumbcriiiud  Suect,  Strand.