Page images


be by the imposition of a command which there might be temptation to transgress the act forbidden, in itself innocent, and faulty only as a breach of the command of a benefactor, on whom they were wholly dependant. It appears indicated that they were created, not necessarily subject to death of the body, but dependant on food for its support. That food was wholly vegetable; and to obviate decay of the body, the fruit of a particular tree was necessary. But whether they were to hold immortality on earth, or rather, as requisite toward making room for millions, their posterity, the dutiful were to be translated, without death, to another world, is not said. For the purpose of their trial, another fruit was before them, tempting otherwise than by smell or flavor, being called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This they were forbidden to taste, under pain of becoming immediately subject to death. They were tempted; and, yielding to the temptation, they disobeyed the command.

So much, observes the historian, is distinctly stated, and more unnecessary with the same view he proceeds to discuss the circumstances subsequent to the Fall.

Here, then, to revert to the important consideration, that mankind has been placed in this world for trial, it cannot but be obvious that, by being subjected to the death of the body, a wide field is opened to the mind of man for the exercise of virtue. ... But while man was not absolutely mortal, yet, for the maintenance of life, food was necessary, and for prevention of decay the occasional use of the fruit of the tree, called, for its particular virtue, the Tree of Life: no violence on his original constitution was required to make the body subject to death: the simple denial of the food which had power to prevent decay sufficed; and that denial ensued.

The institution of sacrifice Mr. Mitford considers as tending to remind man of his degradation and final lot in this world, and here offers some curious observations on the death of Abel. Cain, he supposes, ruminating on his degraded state, the result of his father's crime, and presuming that he was entitled to live on the produce of the soil (the sacrifice being always a meal, of which some faint vestiges remain in our GRACES), refused to offer animals. He objects to the term murder in recording this event, that word not corresponding in his opinion to the crime of Cain. It was an important lesson to new mankind, he continues, that Abel, approved of God, was allowed to perish by violence at an early age, while the sinner was not only permitted to live, but received into divine protection; but he was banished from all existing society, his own family excepted, "to wear out a length of days, little probably in happiness, but with opportunity for the repentance to which the admonition he had received was so strong."

Considering together these circumstances, the failure of Almighty Providence to interfere for prevention of death, by human violence, to

the approved worshipper, and the assurance of protection, in this life, to the guilty homicide, they could not fail to mark strikingly to Adam, and his rising progeny, how little, in the new state of mankind, the death of the body was, in the Creator's estimation, to the dying man an evil; and afford ground for hope, though throughout the Old Testament it is not found fully declared, that the body alone was, for Adam's crime, made perishable, and that, from God's almighty justice, amends for the worthy, suffering here, were to be assuredly expected hereafter.

Previous to the deluge human life was extended far beyond what it has since, been permitted to attain; the TRIAL of humanity was therefore proportionably severe, as the opportunity for indulgence was enlarged, and the expected judgment delayed. In Enoch we find an instance of proportionate reward, and in later times a most remarkable test:

How much then, or how wholly, probation was the purpose for which mankind has been placed in this world, is strongly marked in the various trials recorded of one singularly favored, the destined patriarch of the favored nation, Abraham. Among those trials the command to sacrifice his only son is eminent. It could be, to human understanding, only through faith in God's goodness, and clear confidence that something better than any precarious enjoyment in this world was reserved for both himself and his son, that Abraham was prepared to obey the severe injunction. But the time for the perfect sacrifice was not yet come; and Abraham's faith having been proved enough to be recorded for example to his posterity, other trials moreover being in reserve for his riper years in this world, his son's life was, for the occasion, saved.

Instances of trial for the selected nation are numerous. After the delivery of the Decalogue, Moses was again summoned to the mountain, and detained till the people became outrageous. On another occasion, intimidated by reports, they refused to march for the promised land, a disobedience which appears to have been more heavily visited than any other, not only by pestilence, but by protracted wanderings in the desert. The greatest test seems to have been removed:

To stop the extravagant corruption of morals, which might lead to excessive trial, both for the Jews, who were to possess the forfeited country of the Canaanites, and for the surrounding Gentiles, to whom the Jews were to afford improving example, extirpation was decreed against that whole people, while charity was commanded to all others.

After briefly noticing the fluctuating state of the Hebrews. under their early governments, he devotes a long discussion to the apostasy of Solomon, of which a passage may be extracted:

It seems evident that the authors [of the Old Testament] had no satisfactory assurance of a future life. To me then it appears an allowable conjecture, that anxious meditation on this failure, working on Solomon's powerful mind, while temptation abounded around, was of principal efficacy to produce, after a youth of piety and glory, that disregard which VOL. XXIX. NO. LVIII.


[ocr errors]


he showed, in advanced years, for the admonitions of the prophets, and the sacred history of his nation; and then it would be no extraordinary course of human conduct to allow others to seek, if not even himself to hope for, protection in temporal enjoyments from those imaginary divinities which surrounding nations adored, and, neglecting the God of Israel, yet were florishing. Solomon having so given himself up to doubt that, at length, having yielded to temptation, proceeded to concur with the profligate nations around him in idolatry, the similar errors of princes of inferior mental powers, his successors, and the influence of their example on the multitude under them, will less appear surprising. It seems to me then becoming Christians, who are favored with views not open to them, to mix some generous pity with our just reprobation of the errors of the ancient Jews. Warrant for us to vie in bitterness of reproach against them with their own prophets, surely is wholly wanting.

The latter part of this extract is above all praise: but it seems strange that Solomon should be ignorant of the motives of the faith of Abraham, nor can we concur in the ingenious explanation of his apostasy: a more plausible cause is assigned in Scripture, where his dereliction is obviously attributed to the allurements of the haram, composed of the beauties of surrounding nations, principally, we may suppose, of Egypt and Phoenicia, the attendants on his queen, and the presents of Hiram.

He does not profess to pursue Jewish History throughout, but some passages at the close of this portion of his work amply illustrate its spirit. Among various observations on the Law, the question of slavery naturally engages attention, and his remarks on this subject are superior to any thing we have met with:

It is unquestionably a Christian duty to improve the condition of man as extensively as possible. The Jewish dispensation did not require this, but, on the contrary, by its limitation of intercourse, was considerably adverse to it. Rules for the Jews, therefore, concerning slavery, as concerning numerous other matters, will not be rules for Christians, and yet may deserve the consideration of Christians. The very first article in the Jewish code relates to slaves; and it sanctions the slavery, not only of Gentiles to Jews, but of Jews to Jews; giving different rules for their treatment. If indeed dispassionate consideration be given to the subject, it will be obvious, that, in the state of mankind in the early ages, slavery was an institution, not only of convenience, and almost of necessity, toward the wanted cultivation of the soil for the production of food for increasing mankind, but really of mercy. Among barbarians, from earliest history to this day, it has been little common to spare the lives of those overcome in battle. The conquerors had not means to maintain prisoners in idleness, and could not safely set them free. In that state of the world, therefore, wars being continual, it was obviously a humane policy to provide that, prisoners being made valuable property, it should be the conqueror's interest to preserve them... But the neces

sity for slavery is an evil peculiar to the infancy of nations. Wherever the state of population and of civil society is such that slavery is no longer necessary, or of important expediency, it must be the interest, not less than the moral and religious duty, of the governing among mankind to abolish it.

Policy, however, though to be controled by religion and morality, should not be confounded with them. That slavery, authorised by the Old Testament, is forbidden by the New, cannot be shown; and, if trial is the purpose for which man has his existence in this world, the allowance of slavery, far from being adverse, is an additional mode for both slave and master.

The succeeding observations on the Gospels are not sufficiently connected to animadvert on: they are valuable principally to the learned, and, we think, should not incautiously be entrusted to others. The chapter on Demoniacs exemplifies a saying of Lord Halifax, that nothing is so apt to crack in stretching, as an inference.

The portion which treats of Heathenism, as far as it goes, is a manual of mythology. Here we think the historian appears to most advantage, as he has certainly acquitted himself with most success. Candidly acknowleging his ignorance of Hebrew and Theology, he seems to exult in having reached that part of his work which does not require an acquaintance with either, although the subject is extensive and perplexed. In treating of the mysteries he is clear, but not copious, and as this topic is fully discussed elsewhere, we hasten to the conclusion:

Trial, we are assured in the gospel, was not to be ended by its delivery, but rather the contrary; and, in all accounts of the early persecutions, this appears to have been fully understood by the converts of the early ages, whence came their fortitude in bearing the severest trials. Nevertheless contests among themselves, mostly on matters of faith, foretold in the gospels, and reproved by the apostles John and Paul, were, among such strange doctrine, maintained with violence through centuries; and thus was afforded the opportunity, which the able impostor Mahomet used, for claiming in his outset to be divinely warranted (as the able author of the History of the Middle Ages has well observed) not to be the opponent but the successor of Christ; not to abolish but to correct corrupted and degraded Christianity.

With regard to the sections on Creeds and Prayer, they must be read with caution, for to the sciolist they contain dangerous matter. Such, perhaps, is the character of the whole work with candor and research, anxious that what is received for truth should be so established, he has stated doubts and proposed alterations, which may stagger the uninformed, while those, who have seriously considered the subject, will possibly

be informed and certainly pleased. He appears to have given up his solitary orthography, retaining his peculiarities of style in many expressions and sentences, of which the last is an excellent test for clear heads:

Excess in abuse of these extravagant advantages, by the chiefs and, in natural consequence, by their armies of monks, their ingeniously provided instruments, at length provoked the reformation; begun, in the early dawn of literature, by our Wickliffe, prosecuted, in a more advantageous age, with larger success, by Luther, and, though in its progress disturbed by political contests, unfailingly attending the ecclesiastical, brought to the best perfection yet attained among national establishments (I venture to declare my opinion) however, as a human work, still imperfect, in the established church of England.

The typographical faults of this volume are numerous, and only partially noticed in the tables of Errata.

[ocr errors]

Introduction to the second edition of the translation of the MYSTICAL HYMNS of ORPHEUS, by THOMAS TAYLOR. 12mo. 1824.

In this Introduction, the translator professes to have demonstrated that the Orphic Hymns were the Invocations employed in the Eleusinian Mysteries; that they are perfectly conformable to all that is transmitted to us by the ancients concerning the Orphic dogmas; that these dogmas are perfectly conformable to those of Pythagoras and Plato; and that the Hymns were not, as was the opinion of Tyrwhitt, written during the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.



The Grecian theology, which originated from Orpheus, was not only promulgated by him, but also by Pythagoras and Plato; who, for their transcendent genius, will always be ranked by the intelligent among the prodigies of the human race. By the first of these illustrious men, however, it was promulgated mystically and symbolically; by the second, enigmatically, and through images; and scientifically by the third. That this theology,

« PreviousContinue »