practice of devoting human victims. In honour of the mystical number three, a number deemed particularly dear in heaven, every ninth month witnessed the groans and dying struggles of nine unfortunate victims. The fatal blow being struck, the lifeless bodies were consumed in the sacred fire which was kept perpetually burning; while the blood, in singular conformity with the Levitical ordinances, was sprinkled, partly upon the surrounding multitude, partly upon the trees of the hallowed grove, and partly upon the images of their idols. (North. Ant. vol. i. c. 7.) Even the remote inhabitants of America, retained similar customs, and for similar reasons. It is observed by Acosta, that in cases of sickness, it was usual for the Peruvian to sacrifice his son to Virachoca, beseeching him to spare his life, and to be satisfied with the blood of his child.

Whence, then, could originate this universal practice of devoting the first-born, either of man or beast, and of offering it up as a burnt-offering? Whence, but from a deep and ancient consciousness of moral depravation? Whence, but from some perverted tradition, respecting the true sacrifice to be once offered for sinners. In the oblation of the first-born animal, originally instituted by God himself, and faithfully adhered to, both by Jew and Gentile, we behold the death of Him, who was the firstborn of his virgin mother, accurately, though obscurely exhibited. And in the constant use of fire, the invariable Scriptural emblem of wrath and jealousy, we view the indignation of that God, who is a consuming fire, averted from our guilty race, and poured out upon the immaculate head of our great Intercessor. Had a consciousness of purity reigned in the bosoms of the ancient idolaters, it does not appear, why they should have had more reason to dread the vengeance of the Deity, than to

expect and claim his favour; yet that such a dread did universally prevail, is too well known to require the formality of a laboured demonstration. Faber's Hor. Mos. vol. i. pp. 64, 65.

ATTRIBUTES, of Jehovah, may be reduced to three great heads, viz: infinite power, infinite wisdom, and infinite holiness: corrèsponding exactly to His Triune nature. They may be considered so the essential or integral components of Jehovah, that, of any system of religion, which does not maintain each and every one of them entire, we may safely say it is not from the God of the Bible, it is human; Jehovah is not the god therein worshipped!

An

AUTHENTIC, is a term applied to a record or book, which relates what are facts, and truths: but is designedly confounded by Infidels, with the term genuine; than which no two words more completely differ. (See Genuine.) What consequence is it who wrote a book, provided that book tells the truth? This will be admitted by all: yet Sceptics bluster about the genuineness of the books composing the bible, as if their genuineness added or detracted one atom from their being faithful records of facts. Now for a few examples. edition of a book called "Æsop's Fables" is now before me: it was written by one Æsop of Phrygia Major; it is therefore a genuine book; but does it therefore relate facts? No, it is composed and made up of a tissue of fables or lies! What use therefore, as to its being true or false, is knowing the author's name, or its being a genuine book? None at all. If we knew the author of Gulliver's Travels, or of Robinson Crusoe, so that they would be genuine books, would they therefore be authen

tic; or be thereby converted into faithful records of facts? Certainly not. Although therefore the distinction between the terms genuine and authentic must be manifest, yet Infidels are constantly deceiving the ignorant and inexperienced part of the community, by using them as synonymous terms. Infidelity needs such sophistry and dishonesty to support it; only for such weapons it could not have existed a day; it would have died at its birth. See Anonymous.-Genuine.

AXE. In the second book of Kings, vi. 5, 6, 7, it is recorded that as one of the sons of the Prophets was felling a beam, the axe head, that is, the iron part of it, fell into the water; and the man of God cut down a stick and cast it in thither, and the iron did swim, &c. I admit the present translation gives this circumstance the appearance of a miracle, which the original by no means warrants. Moreover, if our own translation be critically examined, we will find no authority for the belief that it was a miracle. God never exercised his power, nor allowed his servants so to do, without some manifest object: what object, in a company of men already believers, could God have had in view, to make a piece of iron swim? The very idea is preposterous. Now for the examination of the passage. One of the company loses his axe by its falling into the water, (v. 5,) Elisha cuts down a stick! (v. 6.) If he were going to perform a miracle what did he want with a stick? Evidently for the purpose of reaching the bottom of the water where the iron lay; for he asks where it fell! (v. 6.) Why did he want to know where it fell, or where it lay, if he were going to perform a miracle? He then casts in the stick, or as the original would warrant, precipitates the stick, that is depresses one end of it; (a part put for the

whole, which is repeatedly done, in the Bible and in all ancient writings,) and brings up the iron, that is, hooks it up to the surface of the water, upon which it swims, that is, according to the original, upon which it navigates: Elisha's stick holding it up, till he called out to the person who had lost it, "take it up to thee;" "and he put out his hand, and took it." (v. 7.)

B.

BABEL. A great tower built by the posterity of Noah, after the flood, in order to protect them against a second flood, which they so much dreaded: and thus, as they said, "to get them a name!" &c. It was built in the plain of Shinar, and the undertaking is ascribed to Nimrod, after whose name it was subsequently called, and around which he and his subjects did afterwards build Babylon, the capital of the Assyrian empire. Berosus, the Chaldee historian, mentions it; and, according to Josephus, its building is also mentioned by Hestiæus, and by one of the ancient Sibyls; also by Abydenus and Eupolemus. That it was made of brick and bitumen, (Gen. xi. 3.) is attested by Justin, Quintus Curtius, Vitruvius, and other heathen writers: Its remains have been seen so lately as 1779, only fifty-eight years ago, by some travellers, who describe it in these words:

"Four gentlemen of our party, and myself, went to view the tower of Nimrod. After travelling through exceedingly high reeds and rushes, and a very dangerous road, in about two hours we came to the tower, which is built on an eminence, and a base of about one hundred cubits diameter. It appears almost like a mass of earth, being erected of bricks, dried by the sun, amazingly thick, and

betwixt every three or four feet there is a layer of reeds; its height is at least sixty feet, but we found no remains either of a door or stairs. The only curiosity which struck us was the astonishing freshness of the reeds, which seemed as if put in but a few years ago, though by the best accounts we could find it has been built upwards of four thousand years."-Journey from Bassora to Bagdad in 1779, p. 59. Numerous descriptions of the condition of this famous tower, in later times, may be seen in the Anc. Univers. Hist. Vol. I. p. 334.

BABYLON. The capital of the ancient kingdom of Babylonia is supposed to have been situated in N. lat. 32° 34', and in E. long. 44° 12′ 30′′. It was founded by the first descendants of Noah, 2234 years before Christ, enlarged by Nimrod, the great grandson of Noah, 2000 years B. C., and in a manner completely rebuilt, about 1200 years B. C., by the Assyrian queen, Semiramis. It was greatly strengthened and beautified by various succeeding sovereigns; but it was by Nebuchadnezzar and his daughter, Nitocris, that it was brought to such a degree of magnificence and splendour, as rendered it one of the wonders of the world.

Babylon stood in the midst of a large plain, in a very deep and fruitful soil. It was divided into two parts, by the river Euphrates, which flowed through the city from north to south. The old city was on the east, and the new city, built by Nebuchadnezzar, on the west side of the river. Both these divisions were enclosed by one wall, and the whole formed a complete square, four hundred and eighty furlongs in compass. Each of the four sides of this square had twenty-five gates of solid brass, at equal distances; and at every corner was a strong tower, ten feet higher than the wall. In those quarters, where