!

the Israelites concerning the sacrificial 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 arri ved here, three days after they had left the Red Sea, murmured at the bitterness of the waters; a miracle was wrought to sweeten them, and then God made a statute and ordinance for them, and proposed to them in exact agreement with what is here said in Jeremiah, to obey him, to give ear to his commandments, and keep his statutes, and that he would in turn be their protector. (Ex. xv. 25, 26.) 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 their code of sacrificial observances, but commanded them concerning moral obedience; and thus understand the form of expression in Jeremiah, as we do that of St. Paul, Adam was NOT deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression; (1 Tim. ii. 16.) 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 minutiæ, a superiority over moral obedience, but the contrary, the latter having been first commanded.* This explanation agrees in substance with the 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 argument 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 aught accrued to God thereby; God would no longer own then for any ordinance of his; nor indeed in that disguise put upon them were they." Mede's Works, pp. 352,

353.

See Maim. Moreh. Nev. pars. iii. cap. 32. ap. fin.-Kennicot's Two Diss. pp. 153. 209.—and Jenn. Jew. Ant. vol. i. p. 312.

No. LVIII. ON THE SACRIFICE OF ABEL, AS EVINCING THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE.

PAGE 42. (m)-Hallet considers this single fact as supplying so strong an argument on the present question, that he does not hesitate to pronounce it, a demonstration of a divine institution. For, he says, Abel's sacrifice could not have been acceptable, if it had not been of divine appointment, according to that obvious maxim of all true religion. In vain do they worship God, teaching for doctrines the commandments 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 make 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 will-worship, and so conclude that we should herein worship God in vain. As Abel then did not sacrifice in vain, it was not willworship, but a divine appointment. 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 Hebr. xi. 4.

Dr. Richie remarks, that the divine acceptance is not confined to the sacrifice of Abel, but that we find it extended also to others offered under the patriarchal dispensation. Thus, God is said to have smelled a sweet savour, (a strong expression of his acceptance,) when Noah offered his burnt-offering. Job's care, likewise, to offer burnt-offerings for his children, is mentioned as an eminent effect of piety, and with particular marks of approbation. (Job, 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 having been likewise graciously 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-offering of Abraham, (Gen. xxii.) and those which were offered by the three friends of Job. (Job xlii.) Now that it is more natural to think, that God would order and accept of, 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. Indeed, whoever wishes to see the subject of the divine institution of sacrifices satisfac

torily treated, may consult the last named work, p. 136-151. to great advantage. See also Barrington's Misc. Sac. vol. iii. p. 67-71. and Heideg. Hist. Patr. Exercit. iii. § 32, 53.

tom. i.

This last writer considers the μgious, or the burning of the sacrifice by fire from heaven, 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 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 Esra and Jarchi on Gen. iv. 4. Theodotion translates the verb in this verse, eveжugiσy: a trauslation, 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. supplies a striking instance of it. And if Shuckford's reading of a (to kindle), instead of ay (to pass), be admitted, this passage becomes in itself decisive of the point. (Connexion, &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 burntsacrifice, is called in the Hebrew, Ps. xx. 3. to turn it into ashes. The reliques of this are to be found even in the heathen traditions. Thus Servius on Æn. xii. 200. says, "Amongst the ancients fire was not lighted upon the altar, but by prayer they called down fire from heaven which consumed the offering." From these, and other arguments not less forcible, every Commentator of note had been led to pronounce in favour of the 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 Shechinah, or glorious visible presence of God, is the opinion of Lord Barrington; see Miscell. Sacr. vol. iii. Dissert. ii: "On God's visible presence." But be this as it may, the fact of this divine fire consuming the sacrifice seems to be established: and the inference from this fact in favour of the divine institution of sacrifice cannot easily be overturned.

See Lev. ix. 24. Judg. vi. 21. 1 Kings xviii. 58. 1 Chr. xxi. 26. 2 Chr. vii. 1, &c. + See Fagius, Grotius, Le Clerc, Ainsw. Patrick, Jameson, Dathe, Rosenmuller, &c. on Gen. iv. 4.

NO. LIXON THE HISTORY AND THE BOOK OF JOE.

PAGE 42. (n)-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 enumerate all, and to weigh their several merits, would far exceed the compass of the present work. But to take a brief review of the opinions of the most distinguished critics, and to elicit from contending arguments the probable result, whilst necessary to the subject of our present inquiry, cannot fail to furnish matter of interesting investigation.

I. On the first of the questions above stated, there have been three opinions: one, pronouncing the poem to be a real narrative: a second, holding it to be a mere fictitious relation, intended to instruct through the medium of parable: and the third, adopting an intermediate idea, and maintaining the work itself to be dramatic and allegorical, but founded upon the his tory 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, Schultens, 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 de fence of this opinion, the work is considered as supplying strong intrinsic evidence: the general style and manner of the writer betraying nothing allegorical, but every where bespeaking a literal relation of actual events; entering into circumstantial details of habitation, kindred, and names; and adhering with undeviating exactness to those manners and usages, which belong to the age and country, of which it seems to treat. The reality 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 imita tion. Concurrent traces of profane history too, supply additional confirmation, as may be seen in Mr. Gray's account of the book of Job; so that, as this judicious writer properly observes, it has every external sanction of authority, and is stamped with every intrinsic mark, that can characterize 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 Michaelis. The arguments of the first of these writers have been fully replied to by Codurcus; those of the second by Peters; and those of the last have received some judicious animadversions from the pens of Mr. Gray and Dr. Gregory. The arguments commonly urged in support of this hypothesis, are derived from certain 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 7000 sheep at once struck dead by lightning; the seven days silence of the friends of Job; the highly 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 history; and might some of them deserve attention, were we neither to admit a supernatural agency in the transactions, nor a poetic rapidity in the narrative rejecting the consideration of unimportant particulars.

An objection, however, of greater moment, is derived from the conversation of Satan with the Almighty: and to this Michaelis adds others which he claims as his peculiar invention, deduced 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 derivation of the name of Job from a word which signifies repentance, being at best but conjectural; 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 period of life, of which numerous instances appear in holy writ: 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, being all told in round numbers, and all exactly doubled in the years of his 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 first, as to the incredibility of the conversa

The poem, perhaps, strictly 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.

PP