That the thing for which they blamed him was for going to men uncircumcised, rather than for eating with them, feems likely from this confideration, that Peter did not take any notice of this latter circumftance in his apology, but vindicated himself against the general charge of going to them.-Had the ftrefs of their accufation refted on this particular circumftance, he would of course, one would think, have taken particular notice of it in his defence, and have given a direct anfwer to it. Whereas he apologizes only for prefuming to vifit Cornelius and entering into a familiar conversation with him on a religious topic, which he says he did in obedience to the vifion, for the purpose of accomplishing the object of it. He informed them that the purpose for which Cornelius was commanded by the Spirit to fend for him, was that "he might tell Cornelius certain words whereby he and all his houfe might be faved."-He proceeded in his narration no farther than the out-pouring of the Holy Ghoft-and— faid nothing about tarrying with him certain days.

In fhort-that we have no evidence of Peter's having preached the gospel to any Gentile before he preached it to Cornelius cannot be denied :—that he would not have vifited him even for that purpose, if he had not been admonished to do it by the Almighty, is plain-that both he and the other Apoftles thought his going to an uncircumcifed Gentile for that very purpose, a most extraordinary undertaking, is equally plain,-and-that neither he nor they recollected the conduct of their Lord on fimilar occafions, the declarations of the Prophets, or the laft exprefs command which their Lord gave them (and which, confidering their preju dices, muft have made a very deep impreffion on their minds) is not less so,

If

and easily satisfied, and were very willing to testify their approbation of l'eter's conduct, p. 51,

The next step was preaching to Gentiles, which was solemnly allotted to Peter. "And the Apostles and brethren that were in Judæa heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God." Ch. xi. 1. Upon Peter's rehearsing to them the whole affair, and what had happened at the house of Cornelius, ALL WERE SATISFIED. p. 54. St, Luke gives a distinct account of St. Peter's going to the house of Cornelius, and of the DEFENCE which he made of his conduct to the APOSTLES and brethren at Jerusalem, and their ACQUIESCENCE therein, upon which I do not now enlarge, p. 204. WATSON'S TRACTS, vol, 2,

66

If Peter had recollected thofe circumstances before the fervants of Cornelius arrived at Joppa, the vifion would have been unneceffary to induce him to go, and he would hardly have made such a reply to that command of God, "Arife, Peter, kill and eat," as we read he did.—If he had recollected them on his way to Cefarea, or after he had arrived there, he would have fuppreffed that unpleasant remark to Cornelius, or rather (as Cornelius knew" the custom of the country) would have made it only for the purpose of telling him that Chrift had commanded him to break through it seven years before:-If he had recollected them before he went up to Jerufalem, or while he was there, he would inftantly have reminded the Apoftles of them as the most direct and fatisfactory answer to their objection. But though he could at last remember the word of the Lord, how that he faid, " John indeed baptized with water, but ye fhall be baptized with the Holy Ghoft," perfectly well (though these words by the bye cannot be fo well understood to relate to the event to which Peter on this occafion applied them, as the descent of the Holy Ghoft on himself and his Apoftolic brethren on the day of Pentecoft, fince we read that they were exprefsly promised to be fulfilled "not many days" after they were fpoken, inftead of nearly as many years) yet he could not, it seems, recollect the command concerning the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles, which was given at the felf fame time-and laftly,- If the other Apostles had recollected any of the foregoing circumstances, they would have hardly prefumed to cenfure St. Peter for what he had done.

But though they clearly appear to have difapproved of St. Peter's conduct in this affair, before they had heard from him what had induced him to take fuch a step, yet no fooner had they been affured by him that he had acted under the immediate direction of the Moft High, and that the whole, of his proceeding therein, had been fanctioned by the fame teftimony of divine approbation as they themselves had experienced on the ever-memorable day of Pentecoft, then they all defifted forthwith from making any further objection to what had been done, and expressed their fatisfaction on the occafion. When Peter, we are told, had recounted all the particulars of this unexpected transaction, he concluded with this very pertinent reflection; " For as much then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jefus Chrift, what was I that I could withstand God?"-In which, it is immediately fubjoined, the reft in

stantly

ftantly acquiefced and "glorified God, faying-Then hath God to the Gentiles alfo granted repentance unto life."

Widecombe on the Moor, Jan. 1808.

(To be continued.)

J. R.

ON THE LEVIATHAN IN JOB.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S

MAGAZINE,

SIR,

O

To the researches and acumen of feveral modern divines

we are greatly indebted for the elucidation of the Old Teftament Scriptures; but it is at the fame time to be lamented, that in fome inftances, the rage for conjectural criticism and hypothefis, has led the commentators to take very unwarrantable liberties with the text of the facred originals.

The Book of Job has been particularly unfortunate in ttanflators and expofitors, but it has never experienced, I believe, fo unjust an attack upon its antiquity and integrity, as in the late metrical verfion published by the bishop of Killalla.

This is the third prelate, two of the Irish, and one of the English church, by whom the oldeft compofition in the world has been arbitrarily brought down to a period pofterior to the Babylonian captivity. Bishop Warburton had a very bold hypothefis to fupport, and as this antient book happened to ftand as a moft formidable impediment in his way, he contrived to get rid of the obftruction by afferting that Job is merely an allegorical and dramatic reprefentation of the Jewish people, after their return from captivity; that by his three friends are to be understood Sanballat, Tobiah, and Gefhem, who endeavoured to prevent the rebuilding of the city and temple of Jerufalem; while in the wife of Job, are figured the idolatrous partners of the Ifraelites.

Extravagant as this fcheme of interpreting fcripture evidently is, it was adopted with fome improvement by bithop

Garnett,

Garnett, who, however, more confiftently defcribed the fuffering Job as a perfonification of the Jews in the state of captivity. As far as relates to the fall of a great and favoured nation into the loweft ftate of mifery, fome degree of fitness and resemblance may be found between the perfe cuted patriarch and the afflicted people of God; but that man must have a strong love for the marvellous who can admit a mode of explaining antient writings which fets every rule of legitimate criticifm at defiance, and which makes imagination to be the guide of judgment.

I had, however, long entertained the pleafing hope that this extravagant method of treating the holy fcriptures was gone out of fashion; and that notwithstanding the influence of fome great names, the book of Job would be still suffered to ftand as the plain hiftory of a real patriarch and as the oldeft compofition in the facred canon.

In this hope I have been disappointed; for a new commentator has arisen who not only maintains the modern date of the poem, but attacks its integrity and even feems to queftion its divine origin.

Warburton, it is well known, was not particularly nice in his ideas; nor very fcrupulous as to his manner of expreffing them; but even Warburton, I think, would hardly have ap proved of the language made ufe of by the bifhop of Killala in his notes on the conclufion of the forty-firft chapter of Job.

"I am strongly of opinion" fays the last learned prelate, "that in the original of this fine poem, the fpeech attributed to God ended here; [i. e. at the 11th verfe.] not only because it forms a fuller and more dignified conclufion than that which now clofes the chapter, but because it affigns a fatisfactory anfwer to the queftion. With what view was this laboured ⚫ description introduced of the two formidable works of the Creator, the river-horfe and the crocodile ?

"But to whom then shall we afcribe the appendix contained in the last two and twenty verfes of the forty-first chapter? Either to the author himself of the poem, who, in his fecond but not better thoughts, conceived he might add something valuable to his picture of the crocodile; or, which is more likely, to fome fucceeding genius, impatient to lengthen out by his inventive powers, what had juftly obtained poffeffion of the public efteem.

"After inclofing, therefore, in brackets a fuperfetation that might well have been spared, we will go on, however, to give light to it.

"Obferve

"Obferve how the appendix is ufhered in [12. I will not be filent, &c.] Is this language for the Omnipotent? Is it at all fuitable to the grandeur of conception manifested in the rest of the poem? The thread is too vifible by which the purple patch, of more fhew than utility, is fastened on."

Now, is this, I would afk, the language of true criticism; but above all is it becoming language for a Chriftian commentator to use on any paffage of the holy fcriptures, however difficult or obfcure the paffage may be in itself, or even though it fhould be apparently irreconcileable with other parts of the facred book?

It feems, according to the bifhop of Killalla, that the author of the poem on the ftory of Job, was under no other direction than the power of his own genius; and that the "fpeech attributed to God" is only a bold and vigorous exercife of the imagination.

What are we to understand by this, but that the narrative is an Oriental tale, that the characters are the creatures of fancy, and that the reafonings, defcriptions, and declarations made use of by them, originated folely in the vivid mind of the writer.

If fuch be the light in which this antient book is to be confidered, what will become of the reft of the Canonical Scriptures? If a capricious tafte is thus to decide on the authority of any part of the received word of God, who will fay what is and what is not apocryphal?

But the minute and extended defcription of the Leviathan, is that which gives offence to the right reverend commentator, and why? because he thinks it is "laboured," and expreffed in language not fuitable either to the "character of the fpeaker or the grandeur of conception manifested in the rest of the poem.

This is an arbitrary judgment pronounced without examination or the adduction of evidence; contrary to every rule of equity, and particularly objectionable in biblical criticism.

I have certainly no right to difpute with the bifhop of Killalla, on a matter of literary tafte. He may think little of that which excites my highest admiration; and in his opinion a defcription may lofe its effect by the accumulation of its images, and the exactness of its detail, while to my mind this redundance and accuracy only ferves to enlarge my ideas of the object and to clothe it with additional terrour.

But let us enter upon an examination of the chapter, and particularly