1 Jerome on Jeremiah xxviii. 28.

a By much the greater part of this disquisition on the book of Tobit might have been well omitted. That book was never admitted into the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Jews; nor is it to be found in the earliest and most authentic canons of the Christian church. That there was such a man as Tobit, carried captive with the rest of the tribe of Naphtali by Salmaneser; that he was eminent for his piety and charity; that his wife, though a good woman, was not always obedient to her husband; that he became blind in the manner which is recorded, and had his sight restored by the means which are said to have been used for that purpose; and that his son married the daughter of Raguel of Ecbatana, after she had been betrothed to seven husbands, there is no reason to doubt; for not one of these events is contrary to the common course of nature. It is indeed very singular that seven young men should have successively perished on their attempting each to consummate his marriage; but such events were not, in themselves, impossible, and perhaps we may even conceive the cause by which they were effected. The whole story of Asmodeus and Raphael is certainly a piece of poetical machinery, invented for a similar purpose with that for which Homer introduces his gods and goddesses as taking opposite sides in the Trojan war, or for which the Persian poets introduce the agency of good and evil genii, in their beautiful moral allegories. It was to adapt the story to the taste of those for whose amusement and instruction it was written, who delighted in the marvellous, and on whose memory and imagination a philosophical account of a singular event would have made no deep or lasting impression. To understand the story of Raphael and Asmodeus literally, as Calmet seems to have done, would be to prefer the authority of this beautiful oriental tale to that of the whole Hebrew Scriptures, in which I heartily agree with Bishop Horsley, that no countenance whatever is given to the popular doctrine of guardian angels. "This interpretation says the bishop, "introduces a system, which is in truth nothing better than the pagan polytheism, somewhat disguised and qualified; for in the pagan system every nation had its tutelary deity, all subordinate to Jupiter, the sire of gods and men. Some of those prodigies of ignorance and folly, the rabbins of the Jews, who lived since the dispersion of the nation, thought all would be well if for tutelar deities, they substituted tutelar angels. From this substitution, the system of guardian angels, which I have described, arose; and from the Jews the Christians adopted it with other fooleries." But though the story of Raphael and Asmodeus must be considered as mere machinery, it does not by any means follow that the history itself the detail of facts, is not entitled to great credit. No man of real learning, Mr Bryant alone excepted, has ever called in question, I believe, the great outlines of the Trojan war as drawn by Homer; though surely no man in this age hath believed that the pestilence was sent among the Grecian troops by Apollo, for Agamemnon's cruelty to his injured priest, or that Diomede literally wounded the god of war, and sent him bellowing with pain to heaven! That there were such men, however, as Agamemnon and Diomede; that the former was the commander of the confederate Greeks, and the latter one of their most accomplished heroes; and that, in the tenth year of the war, great numbers of the army were cut off by some pestilential disease, which the medical knowledge of Machaon did not enable him to cure, it would be unreasonable to doubt. And would it not be equally unreasonable to doubt the historical facts related in the book of Tobit, though we do not interpret literally his oriental machinery? or on account of that machinery, to neglect the

Whether the book of the law, which Hilkiah the high priest found in the house of the Lord, in the time of Josiah king of Judah, consisted of the whole Pentateuch, or only of that part of it which is called Deuteronomy; and whether it was the authentic copy which Moses committed to the priest's custody, or only some ancient manuscript kept in the temple for the public use, namely, for the king to read to the people once every seven years, or for the priests to consult upon any emergent difficulty, is a matter of some debate among the learned. The testimony of the author of the book of Chronicles seems however to determine the matter, when he assures us, that the book of the law which Hilkiah found, was that 2 which was given by the hand of Moses,' and consequently the whole Pentateuch, which, by his command, was reposited in the side of the ark of the covenant.' It is presumed, indeed, that Josiah's three predecessor's, Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon, as not content to be impious themselves, and to instigate their subjects to idolatry, had made it their business to burn and destroy all the copies of the law that they could anywhere meet with, so that there was not so much as one left for the king's use; and that this was the reason of his discovering so great a surprise at his hearing the comminations read, because he had never perhaps seen any such volume before. It must be acknowledged, indeed, that disuse often cancels the most excellent laws; and from Josiah's surprise, we have room to suspect, that he had not as yet transcribed a copy of the law with his own hand, and had probably for some time neglected the

36

moral lessons with which it abounds, and affect to despise the beautiful simplicity of the tale? As a moral tale founded in fact, it ought undoubtedly to be received; as such, it appears to have been alluded to by Polycarp early in the second century; and there is not the smallest reason to believe that its author ever expected it to be received as a work of a higher order.—Bishop Gleig-ED.

The rabbins say that Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon endeavoured to destroy all the copies of the law, and this only was sacred by having been buried under a paving-stone. It is scarcely reasonable to suppose that this was the only copy of the law that was found in Judea; for even if we grant that Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon had endeavoured to destroy all the books of the law, yet they could not have succeeded so as to destroy the whole. Besides, Manasseh endeavoured, after his conversion, to restore every part of the divine worship, and in this he could have done nothing without the Pentateuch; and the succeeding reign of Amon was too short to give him opportunity to undo every thing that his penitent father had reformed. Add to all the considerations, that in the time of Jehoshaphat, teaching from the law was universal in the land, for he set on foot an itinerant ministry, in order to instruct the people fully: for he sent his princes to teach in the cities of Judah; and with them he sent Levites and priests; and they went about through all the cities of Judah, and taught the people, having the book of the Lord with them.' (2 Chron. xvii. 7-9.) And if there be any thing wanting to show the improbability of the thing, it must be this, that the transactions mentioned here took place in the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah, who had, from the time he came to the throne, employed himself in the restoration of the pure worship of God; and it is not likely that, during these eighteen years, he was without a copy of the Pentateuch. The simple fact seems to be this, that this was the original covenant renewed by Moses with the people in the plains of Moab, and which he ordered to be laid up beside the ark; (Deut. xxxi. 26.) and being now unexpectedly found, its antiquity, the occasion of its being made, the present circumstances of the people, the imperfect state in which the reformation was as yet, after all that had been done, would all concur to produce the effect here mentioned on the mind of the pious Josiah.-Dr A. Clarke.-ED.

16

26

3

In the reigns of Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah, copies of the law were common enough, and in the reigns of their wicked successors, the sacred history makes no mention of their being burned or destroyed. The Jewish doctors indeed tell us, that Manasseh blotted the sacred name of Jehovah out of all the books that he could find; but they nowhere report, that he utterly abolished them: and therefore we may conclude, that the people, at this time, had several copies of the law among them, though some of them perhaps were imperfect and corrupt; and the high priest might rejoice, when he had found the original, because by it all the other copies might be corrected; and rejoice the more, that he had found it at a time when the king was going to make a reformation in religion, which he could not but look upon as a very remarkable providence.

The four Evangelists, who have recorded the substance of the christian religion, we have by us, and may read therein every day; and yet who can say, but that some remarkable passage may perchance escape his observation? But now, if, by some lucky accident, we should happen to find the original of St Matthew or St John, who can doubt, but that we should both read and listen to it with more seriousness and attention than we now do to the same books that are every day in our hands? And in like manner we may say, that it was the great reverence which Josiah bore to the original book of Moses, as well as the seasonable and remarkable finding it at this time, that awakened and quickened him to a more attentive consideration of all the passages contained in it, than ever he had known before, either in his reading, or hearing the ordinary copies of the law.

hence they were induced to forsake the God of their ancestors, and to worship the gods of the heathen.

It may be observed farther, that the difficulty of keeping the Mosaic law, especially in what related to its rites and ceremonies, was very great, and the profit which resulted from thence no ways comparable to the trouble which it occasioned; and from thence they might be tempted to shake off a yoke which neither they nor their forefathers were able to bear,' and betake themselves to the observance of other laws, more easy and commodious in themselves, and such as were productive of much more benefit and prosperity to the observers of them. Nor should it be forgotten, that as a great part of the revenues of Palestine, according to the custom of the Mosaic law, fell to the lot of the priests and Levites, the laity, upon every occasion, might grow weary paying so much; and thereupon be inclined to any innovation in religion that should offer itself, if it could but be supported at an easier expence. And accordingly we may observe, that in the wicked reigns of Ahaz and Manasseh, when the temple was either quite shut up, or converted to idolatrous purposes, the payment of tithes and oblations was suspended, which might be a great gratification to the people, until, in the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah, they were again restored to the ministers of God. These, and such reasons as these, might make the ancient Hebrews so unsettled in their obedience to the law of Moses, a until the time that a clearer and

Le Clerc's Commentary on 2 Kings xxi. 11. 7 Acts xv. 10.

of

for the proneness of the Israelites to fall into idolatry, and to apostatize from the worship and service of Jehovah, is very unsatisfactory. He even seems to frame excuses for their conduct in this respect, or at least to diminish the magnitude of the guilt with which Scripture itself plainly charges them for their ideawere without excuse because they did not worship the true God trous practices. If, as the apostle Paul represents, the Gentiles in accordance with the natural dictates of their own consciences, and the knowledge of his character and attributes, manifested to them in the works of creation and providence; how much more the creature more than the Creator; when to them pertained the guilty must the Israelites have been, in worshipping and serving adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises? In vain shall we endeavour to account for the idolatrous propensities of the chosen people of God, if we leave out of view the natural depravity and corruption of the human heart. This principle, as the word of God declares in language too plain to be misunderstood, is the

a The manner in which the author here endeavours to account

main source and spring of idolatry and apostasy from the worship and service of God; and it has, in all ages, tended powerfully to cause men to forsake the Fountain of living waters, and to hew out to themselves broken cisterns that can hold no water. We do not deny that, in the case of the Jews, there were other subordinate causes which operated in drawing them away from their allegiance to their God and King; but we maintain that the primary cause was an evil and bitter heart, and that this is the plain and often repeated declaration of Scripture. The author seems to take for granted, that the Israelites had no certain hope of a future life, and assigns this as one cause why they were so ready to fall into idolatrous practices; but if we examine carefully the Old Testament Scriptures, along with several passages in the New, we shall find, that, even on the subject of a future state, the Israelites had communicated to them a degree of knowledge sufficient to render unavailing the plea which the author urges in their behalf. The patriarchs cherished a hope of the pardoning mercy of God towards penitent sinners, (Gen. iv. 7.) and confided in him, as the judge of all the earth, (xviii. 25.) and the great rewarder of them that diligently seek him; which reward they expected, not merely in the present evil world, but in a future state: for we are told that they sought a better country, that is, an heavenly.' (Gen. v. 22, 24, compared with Heb. xi. 5, Gen. xxviii. 13; compared with Mat. xxii. 31, 32, and Gen. xxv. 8; compared with Heb. xi. 10, 14-16.) To this we may add, that a hope was cherished from the beginning, originally founded on a divine promise of a great Saviour, who was to deliver mankind from the miseries and ruin to which they were exposed, and through whom God was to make the fullest discoveries of his grace and mercy towards the human race, and to raise them to a high degree of glory and felicity. (Gen. iii. 15. xii. 3; xvii. 19; xxii. 18; xxvi. 4; xlix. 10.) These were the chief principles of the religion of the patriarchs who were animated by a strong sense of their obligation to the practice of piety, virtue, and universal righteousness. The belief of a future state, which we thus see was held by the patriarchs, (though not expressly taught by Moses, whose writings presuppose it as a generally adopted article of religion,) was transmitted from them to the Israelites, and appears in various parts of the Old Testament. From the circumstance of the promise of temporal blessings being principally, if not entirely, annexed to the laws of Moses, Bishop Warburton attempted to deduce an argument in support of his divine mission. It is impossible here to enter into an examination of this argument: but we may observe, in the first place," that the omission of a future state as a sanction to the laws of Moses, can be satisfactorily accounted for; and, secondly, that the Old Testament shows that he himself believed a future state, and contains a gradual development of it. These two propositions, the former of which is in unison with the opinion of Warburton, the latter at variance with him, appear to be very satisfactorily established by the luminous reasoning of Dr Graves. Instead of employing the omission of the doctrine as a medium, by which to prove that a divine interposition was necessary for the erection and maintenance of Judaism, he first shows the reality of a divine interposition, and then that the omission in question, so far from being inconsistent with the divine origin of the system, does, in fact, necessarily result from the peculiar nature of the dispensation, and from the character of the people to whom it was given.-The polytheistic principle of tutelary deities maintained that their worship was attended with a national prosperity. The futility of this it was the intention of God to display by open and unequivocal demonstrations of his own omnipotence. The moral government of Jehovah was to be exhibited on the earth by the theocracy which he established. Its very nature required temporal sanctions, and their immediate enforcement; its object could not be attained by waiting till the invisible realities of a future state should be

2

in the kingdom of Israel, where he had neither any regal or judicial authority: but it should be remembered, that his authority in this regard was founded upon an ancient prediction, where he is particularly named, and appointed to this work of reformation by God himself, and that consequently, he could not be guilty of an infringement upon another's right, even though he had

* 1 Kings xiii. 2.

unveiled. The previous exhibition of such a moral government was the best preparation for the full revelation of man's future destiny, and of the means provided for his welfare in it, by a merciful and redeeming God. Life and immortality were thus to be fully brought to light by the gospel.' As yet the bulk of mankind were unprepared for it, and were better fitted to comprehend, and be influenced by sensible manifestations of the divine judgments, than by the remoter doctrine of a future state of retribution. The Old Testament, however, and even the writings of Moses, contained intelligible intimations of immortality. The four last books of the Pentateuch, indeed, were principally occupied in the detail of the legal regulations, and the sanctions necessary to enforce them: yet even from them Jesus Christ deduced an argument to the confusion of the Sadducees. And in the book of Genesis are several occurrences, which must have led the pious Jews to the doctrine of a future existence, even had they possessed no remains of patriarchal tradition. The account of the state of man before the fall, of the penalty first annexed to his transgression, and of the sentence pronounced upon our first parents, considered in connexion with the promise of a deliverance, would necessarily suggest such a doctrine. Could the believing Jews conclude that death would have followed the acceptance of Abel's sacrifice, unless he was translated to some better state of existence and felicity? How also did God show his approbation of Enoch's piety, unless he took him to himself, and to immortality and bliss? Doubtless the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was not the first who discovered that the fathers did not look for transitory promises;' that they sought a better country, even a heavenly; and that God hath prepared for them a city;' and that Moses himself rejected the ' enjoyment of the pleasures of sin for a season,' because he had respect to the recompence of the reward.' This important and consolatory truth of a future state of being, was, in process of time, displayed to the Jews more and more clearly. The book of Job is very explicit upon the subject. The royal psalmist has spoken of it with great confidence: and Solomon, besides several passages in his proverbs, which seem to allude to it, is supposed to have written the book of Ecclesiastes, which concludes with a clear declaration of it, for the express purpose of proving and enforcing it. The translation of Elijah, and the restoration to life of three several persons by him and his successors, must have given demonstration of the probability of the same doctrine; which also Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, and especially Daniel, very frequently inculcate, and even presuppose as a matter of notoriety and popular belief." To these considerations we may add the fact, that in the books of Leviticus (xix. 26, 31; xx. 27.) and Deuteronomy (xviii. 10, 11.) there are various enactments against diviners, enchanters, and those who profess to know the future, by consulting either familiar spirits, or the spirits of the departed. All these superstitions suppose the belief of spirits, and the doctrine of the existence of souls after death: and Moses would not have prohibited the consulting of them by express laws, if he had not been apprehensive that the Hebrews, after the example of the neighbouring heathen nations, would have abused the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, which was universally received among them. Severe, however, as these laws were, they did not entirely repress this abuse: for the Psalmist (cvi. 28.) reproaches the Israelites with having eaten 'the sacrifices of the dead,' that is, sacrifices offered to the manes of the dead. We have also, in Saul, a signal instance of this superstition. After he had cut off those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land,' (1 Sam. xxviii. 3, 9.) having in vain consulted the Lord respecting the issue of his approaching conflict with the Philistines, he went in quest of a woman that had a familiar spirit, and commanded her to evoke the soul of the prophet Samuel. (ver. 7-12.) This circumstance evidently proves that Saul and the Israelites believed in the immor. tality of the soul.- Horne's Introduction.- Es.