66

not as the Rabinical and Arabian writers pretend, by creating on the spot innumerable swarms of gnats and flies, more than sufficient to suffice their craving appetites; but by exciting their instinctive sagacity, to greater and more skilful exertions to procure the necessary supplies. The young lions have often to encounter the same difficulties; they "lack and suffer hunger," in consequence of which, they roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God." Nor do they cry in vain; the almighty Benefactor opens his hand, "they are filled with good," every want is supplied, every desire satisfied. But the care of providence is not confined to the young; it extends also to the parents, that like their brood, "neither sow nor reap, have neither storehouse nor barn ;" and supplies them with food from his inexhaustible stores. Whatever may

be their character and habits, they are the work of infinite wisdom and power; and if it be not unbecoming the almighty Creator to make such creatures, it cannot be un becoming to provide for their support. They too have their sphere of action, and their qualities and instincts are usefully employed both for themselves and the other parts of the terrestrial creation; even the meanness of their character is of no small advantage to the considerate mind, in allaying his fears, and in exciting and establishing his confidence in the wise and bountiful arrangements of providence. The argument of our Lord, is exceedingly strong and pointed. If the Almighty hear not in vain the croaking of a young raven, he surely will not turn a deaf ear to the supplications of his own people.

The raven was the first messenger which Noah sent out, to see if the waters of the flood were abated. The Jewish

1 Psa. xxxiv, 11, and civ, 21.

writers say, that he did not venture far from the ark, but kept flying about it, and soon sought a resting place either within it among his former associates, or upon the covering. But the Greek writers uniformly maintain, that he left the ark and never returned; and the most eminent Latin fathers adopt the same opinion. Some have endeavoured to reconcile these contradictory assertions, by say ing, that the raven returned to the ark, but did not resume his former place in the division allotted to the feathered tribes. But the attempt is vain; for the Hebrew writers expressly say, the raven returned to the ark; and the Greek writers, in terms equally precise, that he returned no more. The sentiment of the Hebrew writers is undoubtedly countenanced by the text, which does not indeed say, that the raven returned to the ark, although it is plainly understood: He "went forth, going and returning until the waters were dried up from the earth;" that is, he often went and returned. Now, if the raven often went out of the ark, he must have often returned to it, as the sacred writer seems to intimate. The Chaldee paraphrasts, Jonathan and Onkelos, and the Samaritan interpreter, all view the text in the same light, and render it, He "went forth going and returning." The Arabic version, edited at Paris, gives the same sense; He went forth and returned.

Bochart inclines to the opinion of the Grecian writers, that the raven returned no more; and he supposes they read the text with a negative, which has been omitted by the carelessness of some transcriber, 21, and he returned not again. The future is used for the preterite, which is quite common in the Scriptures; and of which twenty examples at least may be found in the hundred

seventh Psalm. Nor do the phrases

w

and w

* differ much in the writing; for the letters vau and yod, in ancient manuscripts are so similar, as to be very often exchanged; and the lamed differs very little from the tsade, except in the horn, which in the latter descends from the right side; while in the former it rises above the line on the left side; and this Bochart is inclined to believe is the real origin of the different reading and interpretation of these words.m

But this solution evidently proceeds upon a mere gratuitous assumption, that some transcriber has made not fewer than three blunders in writing two words in the same clause, which is not very probable; and still less probable that the corrupted text should escape the notice of the Chaldee paraphrasts, and other learned writers. We ought so to venerate the Hebrew.text as never to depart from it without the most obvious necessity; for if it may be altered for the sake of an ingenious conjecture, (as Bochart candidly admits his emendation to be,) or a more perspicuous reading, the authority of the sacred Scriptures, as the supreme rule of faith and manners, will soon be destroyed. It is better, therefore, to abide by the text in its present state, till the existence of corruption be established by satisfactory proof. Bochart objects to the obscurity of the received text: "Which went forth to and fro;" or going and returning; but the sense which is commonly given by many critics and expositors, is sufficiently clear and precise. It embraces two things; the departure of the raven from the ark, expressed by the verb in the future tense; and his conduct afterwards, expressed by the infinitive absolute, going and returning, sometimes

m Bochart. Hieroz. lib. ii, cap. 13, p. 212.

making an excursion to the tops of the mountains, which began to rise above the surface of the waters, and at other times returning to rest upon the ark, or to resume his place within. We may not be able to assign the reason why Noah suffered the raven to go and return, and to wander about fifty days without success, after he had learned from the dove all he wanted to know; yet the fact may be certain. Many events have actually taken place, for which, owing to the remoteness of the age in which they happened, and our ignorance of circumstances, no satisfactory reason can be assigned. But the true reason seems to be this, the raven did not return into the ark, but only rested upon it. This solution, which, after all Bochart has said to the contrary, seems neither inconsistent with the words of Moses, nor the nature of things, entirely removes the difficulty.

The natural habits of this bird, and the state of the world, are both favourable to the idea that he did not return into the ark. It is well known that he delights to wade in the mire, and to feed on carrion; and by consequence, he could be at no loss for a resting place, and for subsistence, after the waters began to subside. The dove which Noah sent out perhaps at the same time, or a few days afterwards, on the same errand, found herself in very different circumstances. She could not rest on the slimy tops of the mountains, nor feed on the carcases of men and animals, which were floating on the surface of the deep. To avoid being drowned in the waters, or dying of hunger on the covering of the ark, she was compelled to return, and take shelter under the protection of Noah. This is stated in the clearest terms by the sacred historian: "But the dove found no rest for the sole of her

foot, and she returned unto him into the ark; for the waters were on the face of the whole earth; then he put forth his hand and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark." But the raven not being under the same necessity, declined the services of the benevolent patriarch, roving on the summits of Ararat, or perching on the roof of his former abode, till the waters retired from the face of the ground, and the imprisoned animals were dismissed, to resume, upon the earth or in the air, their former habits.

It is a singular circumstance, that the raven, an unclean bird, and one too of very gross and impure dispositions, was chosen by Jehovah to provide for his servant Elijah, when he concealed himself, by the divine command, from the fury of Ahab. So improbable is the story in the ear of reason, that morose and voracious ravens should become caterers for the prophet, that some interpreters have maintained that the original word denotes merchants or Arabians, or the inhabitants of the city Arbo: according to this interpretation, the promise would run; I have commanded the Arabs or the Orebim to nourish thee." it is easy to shew that these opinions have no foundation in Scripture and reason. The prophet Ezekiel indeed de

But

(ערבי מערבך) scribes the merchants of Tyre by the phrase

arbi mearobeha, "thy merchants who transact thy business;" but the word orebim (r) by itself, never signifies merchants. Nor had God said in general, I have commanded the merchants, but I have commanded the merchants of this or that place, to nourish thee. The situation of the place in which the miracle happened, refutes the other opinions; for in the neighbourhood of Jordan, where

n 1 Kings i, 17.