saw, because 2384 years, according to the common chronology of the Bible, have already passed; and I believe no one will say that the sanctuary is yet cleansed. From finding the impossibility of making out a period of 2300 years that will be satisfactory, I am the more disposed to conclude that that part of the vision, the duration of which is marked out, is the great consummation of the whole which shall take place toward the end. And as I am induced to suppose that the little horn of the seventh chapter, means an individual that shall arise toward the end, and do some great work within 1260 literal days, so I am induced to think that probably the little horn of the eight chapter, the "king of fierce countenance," may be an individual, that in the latter time of this kingdom, shall stand up and do his work during 2300 days. It was said to Daniel, "the vision of the evening and morning (that is, I should suppose, the vision of the treading down and cleansing of the sanctuary, which was told,) is true, wherefore shut thou up the vision, for it is for many days." It will be many days before this vision, the duration of which is marked out by 2300 evenings and mornings, shall take place.

In reply to the paper by Mr. Faber, I begin by saying, that I would by no means rest the whole of the argument, as to the 1260 days being intended to represent years, upon the question, whether "shabua" can bear the grammatical sense of a week of years. Were it proved or admitted that "shabua" would only bear the grammatical sense of a week of days, and that therefore there is in Daniel ix. 24, &c. an example of a prophecy announced in days which has been fulfilled in years, it would only prove the abstract admissibility of days being interpreted as years.But whilst there are many instances of prophecies announced in days, and fulfilled in days, it would still remain to be considered whether the particular prophecies of 1260 days are to be interpreted by days, as in many instances, or by years, as in this one instance.

As to the particular case, Mr. Faber seems to think that he has made use of an argument which settles the question, which is this-that the word "shabua," when expressed absolutely without any limiting adjunct, never, throughout the whole Jewish Scriptures, occurs in any grammatical sense than that of a week of days, and, therefore, cannot, in Daniel ix. 24, &c., bear any other meaning; and, he says, he begs leave to pin me down to this simple requisition, to produce a single solitary instance of a contrary use; and says, that if I cannot, "your readers will probably think with him that the discussion is finished." Now this sounds very triumphant, and has all the appearance of victory. This put forward in all due logical form, was very likely to carry in its current those who are in the habit of taking assertion instead of argument. But, surely, all this could have had no appearance of argument with Mr. Faber himself. If he read my paper, he must have known that I admitted the fact, but did not admit the conclusion. I admitted that in the other places in which shabua occurs absolutely, the context leads me to suppose that a week of days is intended. And, yet, in spite of the full acknowledgment of that fact, was perverse enough to think that there was nothing in the essential meaning of the word, which should lead me to doubt that it might mean a week of years in Daniel, where the context tends to show that it has that meaning. I am not singular in this opinion. Parkhurst states that the word in the other places in which it occurs, means a week, a period of seven days," but in Daniel ix. 24, 25, 26, 27, it means a week of years, a period of seven years. Robertson, in his "Thesaurus," is of the same opinion. Mr. Faber might "pin them down to his one distinct

requisition." They would concede his requisition just as I do, and yet, like myself, be perverse enough to maintain that, in the place in question, the word may mean a week of years. This, I think, might suffice as an answer, but I would show your readers that I can apply the mode of argument adopted by Mr. Faber, with regard to the grammatical import of the word, to the point of prophetical interpretation, and, by as legiti mate an use of logic, lead them to the very opposite conclusion. Logic, with its syllogisms, &c. is a very powerful weapon, and is very ingeniously and skilfully used by Mr. Faber. But he knows that it is just as capable of being employed to cloud, as to discover, truth. In explaining Daniel ix. 24, &c. we must suppose one of these two things-either that "shabua" is capable of the grammatical import of a period of seven years, or that meaning only a period of seven days, those days are capable of a prophetic interpretation, by which the grammatical days represent prophetical years. Against the first supposition, Mr. Faber thinks it an unanswerable argument, that we cannot produce in the Jewish Scriptures a single instance of that word bearing any other grammatical sense than that of a week of days. Surely it is an argument equally unanswerable against the prophetical interpretation, that there is not a single instance in the Jewish Scriptures, of a word bearing the grammatical sense of days, having a prophetical interpretation of years. I would put my requisition in the very words of Mr. Faber, (mutatis mutandis,) "Let your correspondent, recollecting that 'interpretation' is at present our exclusive concern, produce, if he is able, from, the whole volume of the Hebrew Scriptures, a single solitary instance in which a word which, when expressed absolutely, or without any limiting or explanatory adjunct, bears only the grammatical sense of days, has been in Scripture shown to bear the prophetical interpretation of years."

To this one distinct requisition, I beg leave to pin him down.

Is he able, or is he unable, to produce such an instance?

If he be able, let him by all means bring forward this necessary desideratum, and I faithfully promise to acknowledge his victory.

If he be unable, your readers will probably think with me that the discussion is "not" finished.

R. D.

ON THE SANCTIFICATION OF THE SABBATH.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-1 am not aware that the question of the sanctification of the Sab. bath has ever been placed exactly upon the footing upon which I am going to place it in this letter.

When the Pharisees came to our Lord, and proposed the question about the lawfulness of divorce, he appealed at once to the law of marriage, according to its primitive institution; and, when his opponents inquired the reason why Moses permitted a disruption of the matrimonial bond, the Lord accounted for it on grounds that left the original law untouched. He goes even farther; he recognises the obligation of that law as of permanent authority, when he says, "From the beginning it was not so.' Matt. xix. 8.

The sanctification of the seventh day was proclaimed at the same time with the institution of marriage, and on the same authority. What I wish to know then is this:-Does our Lord's appeal to the law of marriage in its primitive promulgation, justify an appeal to the law respecting the Sab

VOL. XI.

3 H

bath, published at the same time, and on the same authority? If it does not, we should be distinctly informed in what it is, that the essential difference between the two cases consists; and if it does, it must be acknowledged, that the law respecting the sanctification of the Sabbath day, unless repealed, is of universal and perpetual obligation. Two inquiries will, on this latter supposition, naturally spring out of the subject. First, Has this law been repealed? Secondly, If not repealed, how is it to be obeyed? I feel a good deal interested on this subject, as one of much practical importance, and hope to read something in your pages, from which we may be led to sound conclusions respecting it. I shall explain myself further on the subject of this letter, when I read the objections, if any such there be, to the postulate implied in the question above proposed. I am, Sir, very truly yours,

T. K.

MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS.

ON THE BOOK OF JASHER.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-I do confess, that like one of your correspondents I did suppose, from the solemnity with which you communicated the story concerning the book of Jasher, that you gave credence to the truth of all that is related of it; and my confidence in you, added to a certain tendency in my disposition to take delight in that which is ancient, did raise in my mind a more than common desire to see that work. I have since, however, read your observation made in your number for April; and, having also perused the Apocryphal book alluded to, I agree with you in thinking it to be a" clumsy imposture!"

The "book of Jasher" is indeed a clumsy imposture, without any flavour of talent or learning in its composition. It may soon be felo de se ; but, as it is most manifestly calculated to give credence to the German system, by which great miracles are attempted to be accounted for in a natu ral way, and which has lately been put forth from high authority in Great Britain, it may also possibly be raised to an importance which it by no means deserves. It will not, therefore, be amiss to point out some of its self-destructive qualities; and, in doing so, I shall merely bestow a short time in considering a few only of its more important and manifest errors.

First then, it is impossible that this can be the genuine book of Jasher; for, in one of those texts of Scripture upon which it rests its claim to notice, (2 Sam. i. 18.) it is declared--" Also he," David, "bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold! it is written in the book of Jasher."

But this is not written in this modern book of Jasher.

Ergo, it is not the book alluded to by the inspired writer.

The fact concerning the use of the bow, as told in the work before us, is thus stated:" and it came to pass, after Moses had fled from the face of Pharaoh, and had left his brethren in the land of Goshen, that Caleb, the son of Hezron, invented the bow- he taught the children of Jacob to shoot with the bow." &c. (Chap. vi. 11, 12, 13.)

Secondly-It is a false book; and we are not to suppose that, relating as it does, absolute falsehoods, it can be that book whose authority, as an historical record, is set up in the two places by Scripture. It is spurious if Scripture be true-I prove the assertion thus :-none of the Hebrew male adults, who had quitted Egypt, but Caleb and Joshua, were permitted to pass into Canaan; but Jasher is here made to relate of himself, (ch. vii. 3,) that he bore the rod before Moses and Aaron when they came before Pharaoh, and also that he succeeded Caleb his father in Canaan as judge of Israel. His identity is put beyond a doubt in the following passage, which states the latter fact:-" And they named Jasher, the son of Caleb by Azuba, seeing he is an upright man; and moreover, this we know, that he hath seen all the wonders wrought in Egypt." &c. (chap. xxxv. 3.) Now the Bible tells us a tale incompatible with the truth of this, therefore this book of Jasher is a spurious book.

But can this be the case ?-the reader will probably say, can an oversight so gross have been committed?-surely it is the critic that must be in error; and, when Jasher accompanied Moses and Aaron into the presence of Pharaoh, he must have been a stripling, and so under the age of twenty at the time of the sentence passed upon the Israelites-that none of their men save Joshua and Caleb, should enter the promised land. But this supposition is irreconcilable with the dates afforded by the book itself. Jasher says, (chap. xxxvii. 27.) "The days of my life are 112 years;" this was A. M. 2600, and at the end of his administration as judge of Israel, in which office he is related to have succeeded Joshua: while the appearance before Pharaoh was A. M. 2513, just 87 years previous, and of course when Jasher was 25 years old.

...

Thirdly-The book of Jasher bears upon its face a character, the mention of which will enable us to trace the fabrication to the family from which it has sprung; it reduces the great miracles to the effects of natural causes. It commences the relation of the passage of the Red Sea, by making Moses observe-" It is now midnight; and, by the time of cockcrow, the Red Sea will be dried up, and peradventure we may cross over dryshod into the wilderness."-(chap. xi. 25.) The water from the "rock that followed them" is a "spring which oozeth under the shadow of a tree-And Miriam said, Dig; and lo, the oozing became as a rivulet. .Then Miriam said, Follow the stream."-(chap. xii. 8, &c.) In the same chapter, verse 28, &c. this provident prophetess tells them :-" I saw trees bearing fruit, and an herb of the field, of which I took and did eat....And they brought of the fruit thereof, and the people did eat daily and were satisfied." We have here the manna tree of the Neologists; and lastly, of the celebrated passage of the Jordan we are told, that "the wood whereon the children of Israel passed over Jordan stayed upon the face of the waters six days and six nights." Let this specimen suffice; and, although I allow that these words of Moses do not necessarily imply a natural cause for the drying up of the Red Sea; and that there is no mention of either the rock or the manna in the passages which I suppose to allude to the events connected with them; I do assert that no person of candour, reading the entire context, can doubt, that the plain intention of the fabricator of Jasher was, to suggest some natural events to the reader, in the place of these four great miracles which the Bible records.

It is very remarkable, that the editor of this book has, in a note, most admirably exposed the weakness of Michaelis, in attempting to establish, that the passage of the Red Sea was a thing naturally practicable, without the interference of a miracle; and yet he is blind to the manifest inconsis

tency and artifice of this work-I might add, its stupidity and uselessness also; for it scarcely relates a circumstance, in addition to what the Bible tells us, that is not already mentioned by the Rabbies in their traditions, and these of the most unimportant description.

Fourthly-The great miracle which is recorded in the book of Joshua, and for which also the authority of the book of Jasher is there referred to, (see Joshua x. 13,) is of course not omitted; but observe the jesuitical mode in which Jasher records it, chap. xxxi. 11.-" And Joshua said, sun, be thou silent; and thou, moon, shine not in the valley of Ajalon." I must dwell on this awful diminution of the word, and remark, that no one to whom the real story was previously unknown, could trace in this account the grand command of Almighty suspension, as given in Joshua x. 12, 13:"Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon and the sun stood still, and the moou stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.—Is it not written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." Now the latter explanatory verse, the 13th, is totally omitted from this modern work; and with satanic subtlety, the matter of the 12th alone is copied artfully and accurately, for the word that is translated "stand thou still," is rendered also," be silent," in the margins of our Bible. Had the book of Joshua stopped at the 12th verse, the choice of this reading by Jasher's translator might have been justified: but his omission of the explanation of the story exhibits to us now the reason of that choice; and makes us justly to suspect the whole to be a fabrication, and as awful a diminution of the Word of God, as the Prince of Delusion has ever attempted.

Fifthly-Another of its blasphemous liberties, taken with the revealed record, consists in bold additions to its narratives. It will shock the Christian reader to be informed, that Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, is made to be the giver of the law from Mount Sinai; the entire of the

17th chapter is a tissue of this blasphemy. "Now it came to pass on the

morrow, that Jethro met Moses, Joshua, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders on the mount; and the trumpet sounded," &c....." Then Jethro instructed Moses in what manner, and in what form, and with what materials he should build the Tabernacle of the Lord of Hosts:" and, in v. 13, -" and it came to pass, when the 40 days were fulfilled, wherein Jethro communed with Moses, Joshua, and the seventy elders, that all the statutes and ordinances to be observed were written in a book of remembrance," &c. There is indeed an ultimate reference in the transaction to the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, for whom it is declared that this tabernacle was to be erected; and from whom it is insinuated that these statutes have emanated; but this makes not the interpolations less awful; while, in the way of omission, not a word is said of the presence of the Lord, and of his burning mountain, and the other great circumstances attendant on the giving of the Law. We are even led, by the mode of expression which is adopted, to suspect Moses and all his company of a pious fraud, when he attempts to pass it with its highest sanctions upon the people; for, after all this communion with Jethro, exclusive of Jehovah, when messengers came from Aaron to tell them of the impatience and rebellion of the people, Moses thus advises with his companions :-" Behold, thus it behoveth us to say unto the people, we have seen the Lord in the mount-we have eat and drank in his presence, and the records which he hath spoken unto us, they are those which we now deliver unto you.” Observe that Jethro, not Jehovah, had spoken these words, according to