search out the land,' and the saying pleased me well." From this and a similar case, the author deduces the following "principle of interpretation."

**

"When we read, "The Lord said unto Moses, Establish and proclaim such or such a law,' if that law appears to us trivial, we are not debarred from supposing that it had its origin in the imperfect wisdom of Moses, and that he was but permitted to adopt it, in order that he might perceive its imperfections, and learn the political wisdom which his station demanded."-pp. 147, 148.

This is the most important principle in the book. It gives the reader liberty to measure the laws of Moses by his own mind. If the law is just, true, suitable, he will pronounce it divine; if absurd, he can refer it to "the imperfect wisdom of Moses."

a

The author departs from the common opinion in his views of the Sabbath. It is commonly fancied that the Sabbath was established by the Almighty at the creation; that it was observed by all the Patriarchs,though from Adam to Moses, no notice of such observance appears, and repeated to Moses, as "perpetual ordinance," which has been changed for the Christian Sabbath. But Dr. Palfrey thinks the Sabbath was first instituted after the departure from Egypt, was designed as "a commemoration of the national deliverance from Egyptian servitude," and was celebrated by a simple cessation from labor. It is true, he adds, there was a particular sacrifice on that day; but this fact neither distinguished it from many other days, nor did it affect the individual's solemnization of the day." There was an holy convocation, that is, an assembly of such as were near at hand, to witness the sacrifice. Perhaps there were festive meetings of friends. Following Michaelis, he says,

“A Jew, who should sit perfectly unemployed, or even who should sleep, through the day, would have kept the Sabbath with a punctilious observance. In it thou shalt do no work,' says the command in the Decalogue; and this is the length and breadth of all which it enjoins." - p. 186.

The destruction of the first-born of the Egyptians, has usually been regarded as a signal miracle; so dreadful indeed, that it forced the tyrant to grant the prayer of Moses. The author considers the declaration, "All the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die; from the first-born of Pharaoh, that sitteth on his throne, even unto the first-born of the maid-servant that is behind the mill, and all the first-born of beasts,' to be equivalent to this; There shall be a remarkable mortality among the first-born of men and beasts.'" pp. 133, 134. We are by no means informed, he adds, that the mortality was greater on this than on any other night, but "the intervention of a divinity was manifest in the extraordinary selection of the victims." "But there was not an house,' we are told, where there was not one dead.'" mains to be asked," he continues, "one' what was dead in every house?"

"It re

Again, he opposes the the common opinion respecting manna, which is, that this food fell down miraculously from the sky, on six days, in each week, for forty years; and in such abundance that the Hebrews used no other food, except on certain specified occasions; that none fell on the Sabbath, while twice the usual quantity was provided on the preceding day. On the contrary, Dr. Palfrey contends that manna is a well known natural substance; as much "fell" on the Sabbath, with one exception, as on any other day; that it did not continue to fall throughout the forty years, and that it was never the only food of the nation. - pp. 143-159. He however recedes a little from this point.

"But after all it may have been necessary for the poorer portion of the people to be permanently provided for; and if so there could be no more unexceptionable way [for God!] of affording the supply, than by a constant supernaturally increased production of a natural product of the wilderness." p. 157, note.

Finally, to conclude this portion of our remarks, he denies that there was any miraculous agency con

cerned in guiding the nation, by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.

"When masses of men were moving through the vast plains of the East, we know that it was anciently the practice for their movements to be regulated by a fire near the leader's person, whose flame would be visible in the night-time, and its wreath of smoke by day, marking the spot where his tent was pitched when encamped, and the road which he was taking when on the march. It at least deserves careful consideration, whether the verse which I have quoted was intended to declare that the Lord went before the people in a fame and smoke, in any other sense, than that he was always in communication with their leader; he was always present in the smoke and flame, which, according to convenient and prevailing custom, were the artificial signal of the leader's presAnd this view appears to derive confirmation from the fact, that Hobab was subsequently engaged by Moses to be his guide, as one acquainted with the intricacies of the wilderness. If he had already supernatural conduct, there seems no reason why he should have sought such offices from Hobab." p. 150.

ence.

And yet, with an alarming inconsistency, quite common in these pages, he attributes miraculous powers to this same fiery guide. For, on one occasion, he states it proved "to be a miraculous divine instrument;" again, "on the side turned towards the favored people, it was all guiding and cheering radiance, while it rolled over the devoted heads of their enemies its dense volumes of blinding and threatening smoke. Such was its peculiar miraculous agency, on the present occasion. But this," adds the author, "by no means proves it to have been, at other times, a supernatural phenomenon."- p. 151.

Sir Thomas Brown loved seven tests of his faith, even desiring a fourth person to be added to the Trinity, that he might believe the more; but we query whether even he, with his capacious faith, could believe there was no miracle in the general guidance of the fire-pillar, and yet affirm it wrought all these wonders on this occasion.

These instances show us very clearly the freedom

with which Dr. Palfrey explains the wonderful events recorded in the Pentateuch. Yet we can hardly believe that his explanations will be found satisfactory to the majority of readers. While he admits the abstract credibility of miracles, he seems desirous of restricting the miraculous agency to the smallest sphere possible. But when the Deus ex Machina is once fairly introduced, neither the frequency nor the marvellousness of his operations can produce any embarrassment. It is no relief to explain away ninety and nine miracles, while the hundredth is permitted to remain. If one camel may go through the needle's eye, all may.

Dr. Palfrey's explanations of the miracles, so far from being satisfactory, will in many minds create new doubts and embarrassments. If so much is mere natural occurrence, why call any portion a miracle? If so many of the events hitherto accounted miraculous can be explained away by the application of enlightened and searching criticism, why may not the few remaining ones be explained away by the application of the same criticism? Most readers, we are inclined to think, will wish the author had shown a broader and more obvious difference than he has, between the miracles he explains away, and those he retains, and also between those circumstances attending the same occurrences, which he ascribes to miraculous agency, and those which he concludes were but natural events. His decisions, in most cases, appear to us to be extremely arbitrary; at least he rarely adduces any solid reasons to justify them. He must expect then his readers in general either to stop this side of him, or to go beyond him.

We are free to confess that we do not find the difficulties, we have felt in regard to the wonderful events recorded in the Pentateuch, removed, or in the least diminished. The author does too much or not enough. He does not permit us to receive them as we have been taught to receive them from childhood, nor to find relief in regarding them as natural events,

VOL. I. NO. III.

35

which, through the long lapse of ages, men's ignorance, superstition, and natural love of the marvellous have greatly exaggerated. Does he not take quite too much liberty with the writings on which he comments, if they are to be regarded as the Holy Word of God; and quite too little if they are to be regarded merely as a collection of ancient traditions? quite too much if there be any ground for supposing Moses their author; and quite too little if we may receive them as anonymous productions? Is it not easier to believe all the miracles recorded in them, precisely as they stand, than the few he retains, and as he explains them? And will not the impression of most of his readers be, that, had the author not adopted a theory he was desirous of maintaining, he would have admitted miraculous agency in them all, or in none ? that his theory was to be sustained, and as it could not be by human aid, the introduction of supernatural agency became indispensable?

It will, however, be seen, from the instances we have adduced, that Theology is changing its ground among us; that it is abandoning some of its old positions, whether it be assuming new and tenable ground or not. It may not march as yet, but assuredly, we think, here is proof that it is preparing for a movement. The principles laid down in this volume, though the author may not always be faithful to them, are certainly far more consistent with reason than those of his English predecessors. None of them have ever dared advance such principles, or examine the Books of Moses with so free a spirit. Believing, as we do, that Theology, as a science, may in its nature be progressive, as well as the science of chemistry, or that of geology, we certainly rejoice at this, and without complaining of the author for what he has not done, we very cordially thank him for what he has done.

This volume comprises twenty Lectures or Chapters. The first sets forth the importance of the Inquiry. According to the common opinion of Christians, the