a city of the name of Petra in this vicinity; although, with most interpreters, he looks for Pethor in Mesopotamia. pp. 15-18. Cellarius, Calmet †, and Bingham, may likewise be alleged for two Petras: but their testimony is by no means distinct. The two former make the second Petra, not a derivation from but a translation of . We cannot help thinking, however, that Mr. B. is in the right. We think likewise that the evidence is satisfactory which he produces, to prove, that the name n, which signifies to interpret or divine, was imposed to express a seat of oracular intelligence. pp. 13-15.

ome

And this brings us to one of the principal points contended for in the dissertation before us, namely, that in a temple in this oracular city the Onolatria, or worship of the ass, prevailed. The curious calumny concerning the worship of this animal, first advanced against the Jews, and afterwards against the Christians, originating, perhaps, from the Egyptians, and eagerly adopted by the heathens in general, may throw son light upon this extraordinary subjects. That the Egyptians were addicted to this insane worship, and therefore well qualified to cast the imputation of it upon others, is too clearly proved to admit a doubt ¶; and, from the known licentiousness of the Greeks with respect to the names of places, Mr. B. infers that a charge, which might justly, according to his interpretation of an expression in Epiphanius, be brought against the Idumeans, was transferred to the *Geog. Plen. tom. ii. p. 415-419. Dict. of the Bible, under Petra. Works, vol. i. pp. 257, 238.

We think Jos. cont. Ap. 1. ii. § 7, ought to have been quoted, as producing the most ancient voucher for this calumny. § Plutarch has followed Tacitus in adopting it. See Selden de Diis Syris, p. 368. It is noticed first by Tertullian among Christian writers: see Apol. c. xvi. especially the notes of Havercamp, in his edition of that work, p. 169-171.

See, in addition to the arguments of Mr. B. the testimony of Elian, in Huet. Dem. Ev. p. 112. 4to. edit. Sir Johu Marsham relates, from Plutarch, that the Coptites, on some festivals, throw an ass down a precipice, from a resemblance of its colour to that of Typhon. Can. Chron. p. 199. fol. ed. Sacred honours were paid to this animal at Rome. See, beside Min. Felix and Tertullin, Ovid. Fast. 1. vi, 1. 347.

That

Jews. pp. 19-22, and 31, 32. the ass was highly valued and religiou-ly reverenced in various parts of the world, and particularly in the East, even to their being exalted to a place in the sphere, Mr. B. has abundantly evinced, and his arguments might easily be corroborated. He reasonably conjectures that the chief cause of the honours which were paid to it, was its sagacity in discovering waters in deserts. pp. 23—26.

Our author endeavours to derive strength to his opinion by a criticism, and we are satisfied it is well-founded, on Gen. xxxvi. 24. For mules, which Anah is celebrated as having found in the wilderness, as he was feeding his father's asses, Mr. B. would, upon the authority of Jerom, translate waters. pp. 26, &c. This emendation is confirmed by a great number of MSS. which read for on, and by the observation of Diodorus Tarsensis, to be found in Bos's edition of the Septuagint, on the place-evidence, additional to that which our author has produced **. Mr. B. supposes the name of to have been imposed with relation to this discovery.

It is not improbable, as this author further conjectures, that the misrepresentation of Tacitus arose from a confusion of this story with that of Moses' producing water from the rock at Meribah ††.

Mr. B. then immediately proceeds to the particular account of Balaam, whom he considers as a prophet of Pethora; and, applying the cardinal principle which runs through the work, he observes, that the God of Jacob, in this as in other instances, forced the representatives and prophets of the heathen deities to be ministers of his commands, and to bear witness of his superior power. This point he illustrates at large by a particular consideration of the proceeding of the false prophet. Concerning the supposed contemptible nature of the instrument our author argues in a very satisfactory and judicious manner. pp. 37-51. At the two following pages there are some very remarkable ** See likewise Rosenmuller on the place.

+ What Reland says of the origin of this fiction is undoubtedly very plausible. Diss. de Num. Sam. pp. 31-42.

++

# See Wetstein, Nov. Test. on 2 Pet ii. 16. for numerous instances, recorded by heathen writers, of animals speaking with a human voice.

references, which confirm the history under discussion. The peculiar value of asses in the East is resumed, p. 56, &c. A curious tradition, concerning an ass, which was endued by Bacchus with a human voice in reward for having preserved him when in danger of being overwhelmed by a flood, and another of the same kind relating to Typhon, occur, p. 66. Some observations are then made upon the sublimity of the prophecy of Balaam.

Mr. B. endeavours to identify Seth with Peor; and the children of Seth, spoken of in the prophecy, he infers, were the priests of that deity. In confirmation of this hypothesis, he appeals to the name of a region in the vicinity, called Shittim. But the difference of the letters in the two words weaken the supposition. The difficulty from Deut. xxiii. 4, which assigns the prophet to Mesopotamia, we think is sufficiently solved by supposing, that an error has taken place in the Hebrew text by the conversion of Tinto, and that the true reading is Edom. Every circumstance, likewise, of the history of Balaam, so il accords with the opinion, that he came from any considerable distance, especially over a barren desert of large extent, that we cannot deny our entire acquiescence in the reasonings and conclusion of this acute writer, pp. 81-102. We could have wished, however, to have found his emendation confirmed by some MSS.

The remainder of this dissertation is occupied in fixing the situation of the Eastern region, DP, and in establishing and explaining the amended reading of in Numb. xxii. 5.*

We have suffered ourselves to be detained the longer upon this dissertation, because the argument is certainly novel, and we think, in general, both just and important. We cannot, however, dissemble that we should have been better satisfied, if the Onolatria had been brought to the country of Balaam by direct evidence, and not merely by a deduction, however ingenious, from the sagacity of the ass in finding water; from the honour paid to it on that account; from the vicinity of Midian to an extensive desert; from the tradition concerning Anah, who lived in those parts; and

* The Vulgate and other Versions read py, many Heb. MSS. have the same reading.

from the obscure assertion of Epiphanius respecting the worship of the ass among some semi-pagan Christians.

The next treatise we shall dispatch in a shorter compass. It is concerning Sampson, and his victory at Lechi, (Judges xv. 14-19), which, contrary to the order of scripture, is introduced here, on account of its supposed relation to the transaction just examined. There was a place called Lechi, which tradition fixes near a city built in later times, called Eleutheropolis. The name Lechi signifies the jaw bone of an animal, in all probability that of an ass, and was given, Mr. B. supposes, with relation to the superstition of the place. flere he supposes was a sacred fountain, existing before the transaction recorded of Sampson, although some writers have imagined that it derived its origin from the miracle then wrought. That the ass was offered in sacrifice, and that it was even esteemed delicious food, Mr. B. has very satisfactorily proved; and he assumes as a probable supposition, when explaining the conduct of Samp son, that a sacrifice and feast of this animal had just been celebrated by the Philistines, and that the Israelitish hero was thence supplied with the instrument of their destruction. The throwing away of this instrument, after he had accomplished his purpose, and his giving the place the name of Ramah-Lechi, or the rejection of Lechi, he conjectures to have been a further indication of the abhorrence in which the idolatry there practised ought to be held. With the same marked aversion to the fountain of ' Lechi, which was likewise an object of superstitious veneration, a fountain was miraculously supplied, to allay the thirst of Samson, from the jaw bone of the ass; hence called the Fountain of Invocation, pp.

At pp. 133-147, the reader will find much curious information, particularly concerning places deriving their name from the animal here spoken of, especially its jaw bone. In fixing the position of Eleutheropolis Mr. B. again differs from Reland. The main question, however, is nothing affected by their difference,

The last article in this dissertation is a kind of appendix, and discusses the expedient of Sampson to fire the corn fields of the Philistines. Mr. B. here introduces the well known and very remarkable passage in Ovid,

Fast. I. iv. and contends that foxes, not jackals, were the animals employed. In this supposition, however, which is supported by no argument of any consideration, we feel ourselves compelled entirely to dissent from the respectable writer; and the grounds

of our dissent may be seen in an ingenious paper in the fragments subjoined by the editor to the last edition of Calmet's Dictionary of the Bible.* (To be continued.)

* No. ccix.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I AM an occasional writer in the Anti-jacobin Magazine, and have been for several reasons a constant reader of the Christian Observer. I certainly range myself with the Anti-calvinists, though perhaps I might, like many of my coadjutors in that very useful work, have been of the number of those you deem in page 698, Vol. II. to have carried on war against Calvinism with great ignorance; but that does not much affect me, as I deem one christian practical truth producing its genuine effects in the life worth more than great critical knowledge of doctrinal points, My reason for writing to you is to express how much your correspondent Dios has expressed my opinion of the Christian Observer, though I have often thought with G.S. O. P. M; but after hearing much that has been vehemently urged on both sides, I have now made up my mind respecting your work; and not only myself but our little coterie are all disposed to think, that from the concessions of both parties, and the occasional dissatisfaction of the viotent of both parties, it must have been conducted with a great portion of that spirit of conciliation, wisdom, and moderation, with which the framers of our never enough to be praised and admired liturgy were actuated. May you continue, Sir, to act in that spirit, and still go on making the scriptures your rule, our excellent Church, whose doctrines and discipline you have so ably defended, your guide, and you must have the hearty prayers of all her true sons for your success, as well as those of your sincerely obliged,

AN OCCASIONAL WRITER IN THE ANTI

JACOBIN.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. IN THE ANTI-JACOBIN REVIEW for November last, p. 296, the reviewer, after giving an extract from the bishop of Oxford's Charge* observes, "this is the genuine doctrine of the Church of England." "It savours not in the least," he adds, "of those 'points of doubtful disputation' which, for the first time, we have been lately told, from high authority, subsist in the Church of Christ. What those points are we are yet to learn; we are bigots enough to believe that the doctrine and discipline of the Established Church are derived from divine authority; and that though heretics and schismatics may make this a subject of doubt, there are, in fact, no more scriptural grounds for their doubts than there are for the doubts of those who deny the divinity of our blessed Redeemer. We are not in the least surprised, that many of our clergy should have omitted the strange passage in one of the prayers for the fast day to which we here allude; but we should be surprised that such a passage should have made its appearance, in such a place, if any thing could surprise us in these revolutionary times." I forbear to quote the remainder of this paragraph, because, though it may be very ingenious, I am unable to unravel its meaning, or to connect it in any way with the admirable prayer which has excited so powerfully the indignation of the reviewer.

In THE ANTI-JACOBIN REVIEW for December, p. 435, the subject is resumed, and a letter is inserted from Mr. Pearson, of Rempstone, in which the reviewers are temperately and judiciously urged to retract the above

* The greatest part of this extract will be found in your review of that work, vol. ii. p. 31.

observations. Their reply is, that "on the calmest and most deliberate reflection they are not disposed to retract the observations of which Mr. Pearson complains;" and with the professed view of refuting Mr. Pearson's arguments, they introduce a letter signed Orthodoxus, which is so futile in its reasoning, and so impotent in its conclusions, that I shall not delay its passage to oblivion by a single comnient.

Allow me, Sir, to subjoin to this statement a few remarks on the part which the ANTI-JACOBIN REVIEWERS, the champions of orthodoxy and established order, have taken on this occasion. It will be necessary, however, to premise, that I greatly doubt the accuracy of their assertion, that "many of our clergy have omitted the strange passage" in question. I have enquired very diligently into the fact, and the result of my enquiry has been, that two and only two clergymen were guilty of the omission, viz. Mr. DAUBENY, and his curate, Mr. SPRY: these two, I firmly believe, stand alone in this violation of order. It rests, therefore, with the Anti-jacobin Reviewers to substantiate, if they can, their assertion; for some persons will otherwise be so uncharitable as to suspect that the purpose of the reviewers, in endeavouring to implicate many in the charge, was merely to throw a shield over their friend, which might protect him from the odium of having dissented from the general voice of the Church.

But let us consider the attempted justification of this singular procedure. In the doctrines of the Church of England, say the reviewers, there are no points of doubtful disputation. I need not say that the fact is unquestionably against them; and that with no truth can the Anti-jacobin Reviewers or Mr. Daubeny, whose lives have been consumed in controversial discussions with members of the Church of England, maintain, that this is "the first time" they have been told of points of doubtful opinion subsisting in that Church. Mr. Daubeny, I believe, has too much good sense and consistency to advance such a plea, as it would imply, that he deemed his own interpretation of the doctrines of the Church to be infallible; and that none who differ or have disputed with him really belong to the Church. So great a change must have taken place in Mr.

Daubeny's sentiments, before he could have substituted such a mark of churchmanship, in place of those which it has been one object of his works to establish, as could only be referred to the influence of "these revolutionary times."

Taking it for granted, then, that Mr. Daubeny admits the churchmanship of, at least, some one of those with whom, at different times, he has been engaged in controversy-of Mr. Overton, for instance the next point of enquiry will be, whether he has any Scriptural ground for refusing to pray for him in the words prescribed by our ecclesiastical rulers*. Let us suppose, for a moment, that Mr. Daubeny, justly fearful lest the controversy in which he is unhappily engaged should sharpen his spirit, and impair those sentiments of christian love and kindness which he is bound to culti vate even towards his adversaries, should regularly use, before he wielded his pen, some such prayer as the following:-" Give us (viz. myself and Mr. Overton) grace to put away from us all rancour of religious dissension; that we who agree in the essentials of our most holy faith, and look for pardon through the merits and intercession of the Saviour, may, notwithstanding our differences upon points of doubtful opinion, still be united in the bonds of christian charity, and fulfil thy blessed Son's commandment of loving one another as he hath loved us."

Should we not, in such a case, applaud the spirit which had dictated the prayer; and would not the use of it, instead of injuring Mr. Daubeny's spiritual interests, be likely, with the blessing of God, greatly to advance them? Or suppose a third person should pray, in similar terms, in behalf of the two controvertists, would he not be acting a very Christian part?

Let us apply this reasoning to the case in hand. Our bishops, perceiv ing how much the peace of the Church is injured by the uncharitable raucour and acrimony arising from theological debate, direct its members to unite in prayer to God for the prevention and cure of these evils. Does not their

* I mention Mr. Overton, because his controversy with Mr. Daubeny still subsists. I might, with equal propriety, have mentioned Dr. Paley, some of whose notions Mr. Daubeny has controverted.

conduct, in this instance, approve itself to the conscience of every unprejudiced man, as being in perfect unison with the whole tenor of scripture, and with the spirit which breathes throughout our admirable liturgy? That this prayer is unscriptural, even Mr. Daubeny, acute as he is in argument, will scarcely think it adviseable to maintain; yet on no other ground, according to his own principles, can his rejection of its use, when prescribed by his superiors, be justified. If, however, the prayer, though not unscriptural, was omitted in consequence of its discordance with the state of his own mind towards those who differ from him, I would put him upon enquiring whether he does right in taking credit to himself for a due measure of christian love?

The Anti-jacobin Reviewers seem to have acquired a suspicion, that the grounds on which they chose at first to rest their vindication of Mr. Daubeny's conduct, was not very tenable; for in the month of December we find them endeavouring to shift their ground. They observe, in replying to Mr. Pearson, that the part in the prayer most open to objection, and the omission of which would have rendered the other parts almost unobjectionable, had not been adverted to by him. On examination, I find the part to which they allude, to be "and in the forms of external worship." The ground, therefore, on which, it seems, that the reviewers now wish chiefly to rest Mr. Daubeny's vindication, is the unlawfulness* of praying for grace to live in christian charity with those, who, though agreeing with us in the essentials of our most holy faith, and looking for pardon through the merits and intercession of our Saviour, differ from us in the form of external worship. But, in consequence of the very omission in question, the form of external worship in the Free Church at Bath on the fast day, differed, I will be bold to say, from that in every other Church and Chapel in the kingdom. Agreeably to the principle of the Anti-jacobin Reviewers, therefore, it became unlawful for any of us to pray for Mr. Daubeny or his congregation. But

*I say unlawfulness, because in no other plea, according to Mr. Daubeny's own principles, can his deviation from episcopal order be justified.

I would not insist on so singular a case. A society, of which Mr. Daubeny is a member, employs missionaries of the Lutheran communion. Are these missionaries, or are the members of the Church to which they belong, to be excluded from the exercise of our christian charity, because they differ from us in the forms of their external worship? The Church of Scotland is acknowledged by the law of the land to be Christian. Is it then unlawful to pray, that christian charity may subsist between her members and those of our own communion, merely because the Presbyterian form of external worship is less primitive than our own?

The Anti-jacobin Reviewers, it is true, put the discipline of the Church of England, including, I presume, its various external ceremonies, on a footing, as to its authority, with the divinity of our Blessed Lord. In this, I trust, Mr. Daubeny will not follow them; for there is a boldness of impiety in the assertion which made me hesitate to transcribe it. That in this extravagant opinion the reviewers wholly dissent from the framers of these ceremonies, who must have best known whether their origin were actually divine, may be ascertained by the most cursory perusal of the preface to the book of Common Prayer, particularly that part of it which treats

66

OF CEREMONIES.' I know, Sir, that you have suspected these reviewers of covering, under their loud profes sions of attachment, a real enmity to the Church. I have been slow in yielding to this sentiment, though you have supported it with no small shew of argument. I must, however, acknowledge, that such extravagant assertions as that which I am now considering are perfectly consistent with your supposition; for they furnish the readiest means of discrediting the just and well-founded pretensions of the Church of England to universal veneration and attachment.

But another view of the subject remains to be taken. We find Mr. Daubeny at variance with his superiors, and venturing to omit a form of prayer which they have prescribed. For this he will, doubtless, plead conscience. I respect the plea too much not to allow that it has great weight; and it would be uncharitable to question its truth, or to assign any other motive, such as "rancour of reli