We conclude, then, that the tacit and indirect abolition of the ceremonial Law by Christianity, without any claim on the part of Jesus, that, though this Law was of divine origin, he was commissioned to repeal it; the opposition between the spirit and character of our religion, and other portions of the Levitical Law; and such words and acts of our Saviour as have been mentioned, bearing directly against that Law, all prove, that the popular notions of the Jews respecting its divine origin and authority, and, consequently, their notions respecting the authorship of the Pentateuch, were not sanctioned by him, but were opposed by him, as far as a wise regard to the accom plishment of the essential purposes of his ministry would permit.

We will now pass from a consideration of the Pentateuch to some general remarks on the other books of the Old Testament.

SECTION VIII.

On the other Books of the Old Testament beside those of the Pentateuch.

IN considering the other books of the Old Testamen we must divest ourselves of the Jewish notion of the divine authority; or, in other words, we must divest our selves of the belief, that the truth of all the facts whic they relate, and of all the sentiments which their writer express, rests on the authority of God. When viewe under this aspect, they excite constant objections, and pr sent constant occasions of scandal. But, when they a removed from the false light in which they have bee

placed, so that their true character may be discerned, we perceive them to be works of the greatest curiosity and interest, coming down to us from a remote antiquity; marking the history of our race with a long track of light, though broken and clouded, where all would be darkness without them; bearing, in their habitual reference to God, which gives them so peculiar a character, the impress of the divine dispensation in which they had their origin; and uttering, with the voice of far distant ages, sentiments of piety to which the heart of man still responds.

In regard to the miscellaneous books of the Old Testament, as they may be called, to distinguish them from the historical and prophetical, no further remarks seem necessary with reference to our present purpose. But, respecting the other historical books beside the Pentateuch, the inquiry arises; In what manner should we regard the many accounts of miracles contained in them, and the language which, to a modern reader, at first view, implies the frequent immediate interposition of the Deity in acting upon the minds of men and directing the order of events?

In considering this question, a distinction is to be made among those books. In the Books of Joshua and of Judges, which relate to the period of several centuries, ast is commonly supposed, immediately following the settlement of the Jews in Palestine, there is evidently, I conceive, a great mixture of fabulous traditions, such as are found in the early history of all other nations. With the Book of Samuel, the history, to all appearance, assumes a more authentic character; - far more authentic than that of the contemporary history of any other ancient nation; and it continues to preserve a similar character through the Book of Kings. It is these Books of Samuel and of the

Kings, that particularly demand attention in further considering the inquiry just presented.

We will first take notice of those forms of expression to be found in them, which refer so much to the immediate agency of the Deity, though without supposing any thing properly miraculous, that is, any event not accordant with the ordinary course of nature, that may be recognised as such an event by man. In the occurrences of this world much, we believe, is left to the free agency of the moral beings who inhabit it; while, on the other hand, religion and philosophy teach us, that much is determined by the unseen operation of the controlling will of God. But to settle the limits of human and divine agency is a problem which no philosophy can solve. However convinced we may be, that man possesses, as essential to all that is excellent in his nature, the power of doing good as his proper act, and consequently the power of doing evil, we are wholly ignorant how far this power is limited and overruled by God's omnipotence. We believe, as the necessary groundwork of religion and morals, that God, though the ultimate, is not the immediate cause of all events; and that a wide distinction is to be made between what he directly ordains, and what he permits. But this distinction was overlooked by the Jewish historians. Accustomed to the habitual contemplation of God as the author of all things, deeply penetrated by a sense of the marvellous circumstances under which their nation existed, and regarding it as the object of his special providence, they naturally referred directly to him whatever affected its condition, and whatever seemed to them a manifestation of his pleasure or displeasure. This state of mind they, of course, shared with their countrymen. We have scarcely entered on the Book of Samuel, before we find it related, that "the elders

of Israel said, Wherefore hath the Lord smitten us to-day before the Philistines? "* The same mode of conception and style of narration appear throughout the history. To remark on one of the passages, by which the early fathers were embarrassed, it is said, that "an evil spirit, from the Lord, troubled Saul." A modern historian might express the same event by saying, that Saul became subject to temporary insanity. A religious man, if he wished to present the fact under a religious aspect, would now say, that in the providence of God Saul was thus afflicted. The last mode of expression would differ from that used by the Jewish historian, not only in putting aside the agency of an evil spirit; but also in not directly referring the effect to God. It is to be kept in mind, that in all such language throughout the Jewish history, we have only an expression of the conceptions of the writer. Of the counsels of God he could know nothing.

The next branch of the inquiry is; In what manner we are to regard the accounts of miracles contained in the Books of Samuel and of the Kings. The Book of the Kings, as has been formerly remarked, was written, or compiled, after the commencement of the Babylonish Captivity. It begins with an account of the last days of David. Between the composition of the history and the first events related in it, was an interval, therefore, of more than four centuries and a half. It has been supposed by many, that the Book of Samuel was originally united with that of the Kings, as forming one work by the same author. But it seems to me most probable, that they are different works by different authors, and I shall continue to speak of them as such. The Book of Samuel has been thought, from

internal evidence, to have been written a considerable time after the conclusion of the series of historical events which it records, and these events extend through a period of about a hundred and fifty years.

In the Books of Samuel and of the Kings, we find many accounts of supposed miracles, in the proper sense of the word. In regard to such accounts, we must recollect, that we are wholly ignorant of the writer of either work; that, consequently, we know nothing concerning either writer to justify any peculiar confidence in his habits of investigation, his judgment, or his trustworthiness; that neither of them gave his testimony under personal circumstances that might tend to confirm it; that each of them wrote so long after many or most of the events which he narrates, that tradition might have done her common work in introducing fables, and changing natural events into marvels; and that both of them lived in that stage of civilization in which men are prone to the belief of the supernatural, and among a people in whom this tendency had been especially strengthened. The miracles by which the dispensation of Moses was confirmed, whatever they were, must have been such as deeply to affect the imaginations of the Israelites. It is the necessary consequence of a miraculous dispensation, to render men's minds familiar with the idea of the special manifestation of divine power, and to dispose them for a long time to acquiesce in the belief of supposed instances of such a manifestation. The case may naturally have been the same with the miracles of Moses, as it was with those of Christ and his Apostles. The former, as well as the latter, may have given occasion to many accounts of false miracles, such as we find in the works of the Christian fathers, particularly of the later fathers. There is nothing to render it probable, that the writers of the Jewish nation