"mode of interpretation? Embrace any other that pleases "thee better. Be only pleafed to obferve that the authority of "Scripture is by no means weakened by this interpretation, as will be fully proved in its proper place." Here we see a difciple of Dr. Priestley, who, in his Theological Repofitory, had advanced fimilar opinions, had reprefented Mofes a faithful honeft hiftorian of what he faw and heard, but, like all other early hiftorians, giving way to fable as to primitive times. Dr. Price treated this opinion of his friend very roughly. Dr. Priestley faid in anfwer, "You did not know "that the paper upon the Creation was mine, otherwise you "would not have treated it so feverely. You know I do not "believe infpiration to the fame degree with yourself." Such was the fubftance of his reply.

We, who believe the doctrine of inspiration in a more plenary way than either Dr. P. or Dr. G. cannot either refolve this account into fable, or, with Philo, into an allegory. And if Bishop Sherlock's interpretation of the promise that the feed of the woman fhould bruife the Serpent's head, be not fatisfactory to our readers (fuch it was to Bilhop Newton), we have not the prefumption to think that any ftronger arguments can be urged by ourselves in confirmation of it. We feel ourselves fomewhat alarmed, however, if the origin of evil and the inftitution of the Sabbath must rest upon a fabulous hiftory."Once more," fays the Doctor, in a note, p. II. "I muft "requeft the reader to take notice, that throughout this pre"face, I conftantly set aside the idea of inspiration, and con"fider the hiftorical part of the Pentateuch as a mere human "compofition."

"In the several books of Holy Scripture, whether of the Old or New Testament, it was discovered that there were fome flight variations in rehearsing the fame facts, but are we therefore to conclude that because these very variations proved what Mr. Paley calls undefignedness, care was not taken in regard to important points? Does not every one fee that the whole doctrine of Redemption is connected with the fall of man? And does not the abject condition of the animal which was the inftrument of feduction, tend ftrongly to confirm the reality of the fact, and is not that fact frequently referred to in the New Testament ?

The Doctor goes on to tell us, "that the fpeculative part of "the Mofaic divinity is extremely concife, fummed up in the "belief of one God, and of fubordinate beings called his An"gels, or Meffengers." We must acknowledge that we ftill believe the divinity of Jefus Chrift to be declared in Ex

odus

odus 23.-21. Beware of him, obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your tranfgreffions; for my name is in him.

It is needlefs to remind our readers, that fignifies effence "His abfolute attributes," continues the Doctor, "are omnipotence and omniscience. He is also represented as juft, be"nevolent, long-fuffering, and merciful; but these qualities " are clothed in colours that infpire fear rather than love; the empire of this latter was long after to be established by a "greater lawgiver than Moses." We admit, with gratitude, the fuperior excellence of the Chriftian difpenfation, but we do not admit that at any period of time the difpenfations of Providence were more calculated to infpire fear than love.They that will not obey from love, must be taught obedience from fear. As wickednefs abounds, the terrors of the Lord must be described. Let us only remember the conference of Abraham with the Angels, and what more beautiful illustration can there be, that if obdurate fin were not too prevalent, mercy, at all periods of the world, hath rejoiced against judgment? Let any one peruse the conclufion of the fecond commandment. Are the pernicious effects of iniquity more diffufive than the salutary effects of piety? The truth is, that fanction was prior to the law of Mofes; it began with the creation, and in the ordinary difpenfations of Providence, in the distribution of temporal good and evil, remains to this hour, and will continue to the end of the world. The extraordinary difpenfation of good and evil to the Ifraelites was analogous to this ordinary difpenfation in all ages. Health, riches, honours, ficknels, poverty, difgrace, all defcend to distant generations, to increase the temporal fan&ions of Religion, that they who will not look forward to another world, may be alarmed by mifery which will befal them and their pofterity in this. Whether the Hebrews were Anthropomorphites or not, we cannot tell, but even Chriftians, after the fullest revelation of God's will, are allowed to fpeak of him after the manner of men; and to the Ifraelites every circumstance was prefented which could increase their love and veneration for the Almighty, and which might prevent them from comparing him with deified heroes, or with any created being.

In the praife which the Doctor beftows both on the moral and ritual part of the Mofaic Inftitution, we moft heartily concur. But we do not allow that he was making a compofition with the Ifraelites. We contend, that every part of their ceremonial law was emblematical of inward purity. The dif tinction of clean and unclean animals might have a fecondary referenceto health, but its most important ufe was to inculcate an innocent and fpotlefs life. Men in all ages and in all countries

countries have confidered particular animals as emblematical of particular virtues and vices. Nay, in procefs of time when the Ifraelites became thoroughly depraved, the Almighty declared, fpeaking humano more, that he abhorred his own inftitutions, when they were no longer obferved for the pious purpofes which he originally and indifputably intended.

We ftill think that the Government was a Theocracy, and not a Republic The appointment of fubordinate Magistrates does not invalidate this opinion, even though the choice of them were vefted in the people. In cafes of difficulty, the Almighty was ever at hand to give inftruction.

With refpect to the penal laws of Mofes, we fhould involve ourselves in a delicate and a difficult difputation, were we either relatively or abfolutely to difcufs their propriety Many are the circumstances which distance of time conceals from us, and great would be the danger, were any nation in modern times exactly to follow even thofe laws, which may be equally just and ufeful in all ages. We know, from fatal obfervation, that adultery is not punished in the prefent day with adequate feverity, and that idolatry was attended with fo many fatal confequences to the whole human race, that no punishment could be too heavy. Not to mention, that every crime must be punished not only according to its intrinfic turpitude, but in proportion as the temptations to commit it, are more violent and frequent.

We agree with Dr. Geddes, that the Municipal laws of Mofes are excellent on the whole, and, as the Bishop of London has proved in one of his Sermons, full of liberality, benignity, and love.

The Doctor thinks, "That the Pentateuch was not written by "Mofes; that it was written in the land of Chanaan (when we quote

his words we ufe his fpelling too) and most probably at Jerufalem; "not before the reign of David. nor after that of Hezekiah, but in "the pacific reign of Solomon, yet confeffes there are fome marks of "a pofterior date, or pofterior interpolation,"

He believes it to be compiled from ancient documents, fome coeval with Mofes, fome anterior to him. He believes that the Hebrews had no writtten documents before the days of Mofes, that fome remarkable tree, under which a Patriarch had refided, fome pillar which he had erected, fome heap which he had raised, fome ford which he had croffed, fome spot where he had encamped, fome field which he had purchased,

• Vol. II. S. 5.

the

the tomb in which he had been laid; all these ferved as fo many links to hand his name down to pofterity; and then we are told "that the marvellous will fometimes creep in." We cannot perfectly comprehend why the general belief of ancient and modern times thould be thus rafhly fet afide; but this, it feems, is liberal belief and rational Christianity!.

The Doctor tells us, that he has endeavoured to form a genuine copy of the Pentateuch. He fays," that his labour "has been great and long, and his expectations are not small." We fhall, in fome measure, use the liberty which he invites everyone to take, and, perhaps, our animadverfions may be liable to many objections; but we can juftly hope, that as they will not be given with petulance, with acrimony, or in a dictatorial manner; fo they will be received with patience and with candour, as a fomething, at least, contributed towards the improvement of Biblical knowledge.

Of the translation itself, the Doctor says, "I could have "made my version more clear, and, I believe, more elegant, "if I had not, with fome reluctance, adhered too strictly to "the rules of verbal translation; for which, however, many "of my readers will, probably, be more thankful, than if I "had, like my fellow renderers on the Continent, taken a "freer range. The fetters of long ufage are not easily bro"ken, even when that ufage is tyrannical. But the day may "come, when the tranflator of the Bible will be as little "fhackled as the translator of any other ancient book."

When the translators in James the Firft's time began their work, they prescribed to themselves fome rules, which it may not be amifs for all tranflators to follow.-Their reverence for the facred Scriptures induced them to be as literal as they could, to avoid obfcurity, and it must be acknowledged, that they were extremely happy in the fimplicity and dignity of their expreffions. Their adherence to the Hebrew idiom is fuppofed at once to have enriched and adorned our language; and as they laboured for the general benefit of the learned and the unlearned, they avoided all words of Latin original, when they could find words in our own language, even with the aid of adverbs and prepofitions which would exprefs their meaning. This mode of proceeding we cannot but recommend in every other verfion intended for general ufe. Therefore, make is better than conftitute; and look into is better than infpect; and fo we may fay of the reft. Another rule they adopted was, to exclude technical expreffions. Instead of cavalry, they put horsemen; instead of mufter, they put number. In this there was a dignity, a fuperior reverence to the word of God.

The revival of learning introduced a practice of transposing words from their grammatical order into an order fomewhat resembling the Greek and Roman. In this refpect too they confulted the genius of our own language, which rarely admits of fuch a tranfpofition. Several of our modern tranflations have imitated the transposition of the Hebrew language, and the Doctor, in the profe as well as verfe of Holy Writ, has done the fame. We cannot but think this unneceffary; the learned do not stand in need of such affistance, in which there is a distant imitation of Montanus's interlineary version, and all readers, whether learned or unlearned, find a degree of harfhnefs in it. That there have been great authorities for fo doing, is not denied, but we shall be glad to see the practice abolished, which yet is more allowable in the poetry than in the profe of Scripture.

The obvious question is, would the writers have used this inverted order if they had written in our language?

If these general obfervations shall appear to be well founded, we need not, in the course of our examination, repeat them; and we must beg leave to obferve also, that the Doctor feems to have made many changes in expreffion, where there were none in fignification, much for the worse. For inftance, the Paflover is called the Skipover. This is certainly very ludicrous. A burnt offering is a holocauft; the Tabernacle of the Congregation is the Convention Tent; a meat offering is a donative. Examples might be multiplied, but these are fufficient. Jehovah jirch is Jeve jire; but what use is there in changing the name of Jehovah, even admitting that the afpirate He was ever used as an e, which yet is quite difputable?

To put the interpretation of the Nomina ex rebus indita, or fignificant names, within brackets, seems to be very useful. We fhall now present our readers with fome of the material alterations in each Book, often leaving them to decide upon their merit.

GENESIS.

2. A vehement wind overfweeping the waters.

N." Literally a wind of God. An ordinary mode of phrafing

66

The com

among the Hebrews, fignifying great. "mon rendering, the Spirit of God is hardly confo"nant either with the apparent fcope of the author, or "the obvious conftru&ion of the text," This interpretation may, however, with good reafon be controverted.

16. The greater luminary for the regulation of the day, and the leffer luminary for the regulation of the "night.""

"The evening had come and the morning had come."

31.