66

What deserves to be kept particularly in view, is the important fact, that in the Hebrew Scriptures there is no drawback of inconsistency, no passages which militate against the general impression of the rest. It would be quite disgusting, on the contrary, to quote at length the absurdities of the heathen hymns. That of Callimachus to Jupiter, which concludes with an air of grandeur, Hail, O supreme Jupiter, the giver of blessings, the author of safety who can sing thy works!" has this unworthy introduction: "What can we better sing at the festival of Jove, than the god himself, always great, and perpetually governor, the conqueror of the earth-born Titans, who gives laws to the inhabitants of heaven? How shall I celebrate him, as Cretan or Arcadian? I am doubtful, since his origin is disputed. They say, O Jupiter, that thou wast born on Ida's mountain: they say also, in Arcadia: which, O father, has been false? The Cretans are always false, for they, O king, have raised a tomb to thee: but thou diedst not, for thou

livest always." This is followed by a long account of the birth of Jupiter from Rhea.

It may be observed, that nothing has been quoted from any Roman poet. Rome, in fact, has left us nothing applicable to the purpose. The Carmina Sæcularia, or occasional hymns of Horace and Catullus, contain nothing superior to the gross superstitions of the vulgar. Of these, indeed, ancient poetry was the general repository; and instead of being devoted, as among the Hebrews, to the noble purpose of addressing or celebrating the Creator, is justly prohibited from his Utopia, by Plato, as inculcating ideas unworthy of the gods, and pernicious to mankind: and is condemned by Varro to the purposes of dramatic representation.*

The difference, therefore, which existed between the Jews and other nations in their civil institutions, continues farther, it has appeared, so as to impart a peculiar complexion to their Apud Augustin. de Civ. Dei, l. vi. c. 5, 6.

**

literature. Their writings treat of the Creator in the same sublime tone and language as that which is inculcated in the law. And this without exception. From the earliest to the latest of the Hebrew authors, there is an interval of at least 1200 years. Yet from the first to the last there is no contradiction. All their writers seem to have imbibed from the same fountain the same idea. Some parts may labour more than others under the disadvantage of translation scrupulously literal from a language imperfectly understood: but all agree in describing the unity, superintending power, and goodness of the Creator. To this spirit so universally diffused, the few gleams of genius which I have exhibited from heathen authors, and which occasionally break out from the heaviest clouds of error and obscurity, will no more bear comparison, than the blaze of a meteor to the steady light of the sun.

This too, as far as it goes, is surely important. It proves, that the impression made upon the people, in the infancy of their state, was

both vivid and permanent. It proves that there was nothing contradictory between the state of religion, and the popular sentiments. There was not one system of theology for the poet, and another for the philosopher. And this is all uniform, and consistent with what was observed in the opening of this Section as a legitimate demand. It might be expected, that as the leading object of the Hebrew polity was different from any other known institution, similar traces of peculiarity might be found in the general sentiments and even habits of the nation. And there is this peculiarity. It was to be desired also that there should exist throughout the Hebrew writers, the same clearness of views, the same superior intelligence as to the creation and the unity of God, which it was so remarkably the purpose of the legislator to establish.

cided superiority.

And there is this de

M

VOL. I.

SECTION VI.

On the national Worship of the Hebrews.

THE Consideration of the devotional worship of the Israelites is of similar nature and importance to that pursued in the preceding Section. If we were to make a comprehensive survey, we should find the public worship of the various nations of mankind to be no inaccurate transcript of their abstract conceptions of the divine nature. Theoretical errors as to the character of the Deity, have uniformly led to corresponding errors in the popular religion. The worship of the ancient heathens was not only gross and licentious in general, as might be expected from the adorers of deified men; but was more or less licentious in pretty exact proportion to the supposed nature of the individual deity, in whose honour the particular festival might be held. The national worship, therefore, may be considered as the practical