could have no inducement whatever to attempt an imposture, but every imaginable inducement to the contrary; nor could they possibly have succeeded, if they had made the attempt.

SECTION II.

TESTIMONIES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS FROM NATURAL AND CIVIL HISTORY.

THE evidences for the credibility of the Old and New Testaments, which have been stated in the preceding section, have been drawn principally from an examination of those books compared with facts that have existed, and many of which continue to exist to the present day. We might safely rest the credibility of the Scriptures upon those evidences; but there is an additional testimony to their credibility and truth as well as to their genuineness, which is afforded by their agreement with natural and civil history, and which is too valuable to be passed in a cursory manner.

1. TESTIMONIES FROM NATURAL AND CIVIL HISTORY TO THE CREDI

BILITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

I. Testimonies to the Mosaic account of the creation of the world. II. Particularly of man. -III. Of the fall of man.—IV. Of the translation of Enoch.-V. Of the longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs. - VI. Of the deluge.-1. Proofs of that event from the fossilised remains of the animals of a former world; -2. From civil history, particularly from the paucity of mankind, and vast tracts of uninhabited land, mentioned in the accounts of the first ages, the late invention and progress of arts and sciences, and from the universal tradition of the deluge; - Refutation of objections to the Mosaic history of that catastrophe, -VII. Testimonies of profane history to the building of the tower of Babel. VIII. To the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. IX. To the Mosaic account of the patriarchs. X. To the reality of the person and character of Moses, and to the departure of the Israelites from Egypt. - XI. Notice of various customs borrowed by antient nations from the Hebrews. XII. And of certain personal histories, which may be traced to the Old Testament history. -XIII. Testimonies of antient and modern writers to the truth of the Scripture account of the fertility of Palestine. Concluding observations.

THE Scripture history agrees, in a surprising manner, with the most authentic records that remain of the events, customs, and manners of the countries and ages to which it stands related. The rise and fall of empires, the revolutions that have taken place in the world, and the grand outlines of chronology, as mentioned or referred to in the Scriptures, are coincident with those stated by the most antient writers that are extant: while the palpable errors in these respects, which are detected in the apocryphal books, constitute one of the most decisive reasons for rejecting them as spurious. The history of the Bible is of far greater antiquity than any other records extant in

the world and it is remarkable that, in numerous instances, it shows the real origin of those absurd fables which disgrace and invalidate all other histories of those remote times: which is no feeble proof that it was derived from some surer source than human tradition. The facts recorded in the Old Testament cannot be disproved; but, on the contrary, they are confirmed by the traditionary accounts of almost all nations. Mr. Hume, indeed, affirmed that the Pentateuch was 66 wrote [written] in all probability long after the facts it relates." That this book was written long after some of the facts which it relates, is not denied but that it was written long after all or even most of those facts, there is (as we have already shown) no reason to believe. If, as Dr. Campbell forcibly remarked (and Mr. Hume neither did nor could refute the remark), this writer meant to signify by the expression quoted, that this was in all probability the case, why did he not produce the grounds on which such probability is founded? Shall a bold assertion pass for argument? or can it be expected that any one should consider reasons, which are only in general supposed, but not specified ?

Mr. Hume added that the Pentateuch was 66 corroborated by no concurring testimony." To which we may reply, that it is as little invalidated by any contradicting testimony; and both for this plain reason, because there is no human composition that can be compared with this in respect of antiquity. It were absurd to require that the truth of Moses's history should be attested by heathen writers of the same or nearly the same antiquity with himself: since we know that those, who affected to fix upon other nations the name of barbarians, were in his time, and for several centuries afterwards, themselves barbarians. But though the Pentateuch is not corroborated by the concurrent testimonies of any coeval histories, because if such histories were ever extant, they have long since perished, yet it is not on that account destitute of collateral evidence. On the contrary, its authority is legible in the few fragments that remain of the earliest writers: and subsequent historians have fully confirmed it by the accounts which they give, though evidently mixed with depravation, of the history of the Jews, and of his legislation; as will appear from the following instances, selected out of a greater number which have been pointed out, and treated at length by various learned men.

I. Thus, the heathens had a tradition among them concerning the primeval chaos whence the world arose, and the production of all things by the efficiency of a supreme mind, which bears so close a resemblance to the Mosaic account of the creation, as proves that they all originated from one common source; while the striking contrast between the unadorned simplicity of the one, and the allegorical turgidity of the others, accurately distinguishes the inspired narrative from the distorted tradition. This remark applies particularly to the Chaldæan, Egyptian, Phoenician, Hindoo, Chinese, Etruscan, Gothic, Greek, and American Cosmogonies.1

1 See an account of these various Cosmogonies in Mr. Faber's Horæ Mosaicæ,

One of the most striking collateral confirmations of the Mosaic history of the creation, is the general adoption of the division of time into weeks, which extends from the Christian states of Europe to the remote shores of Hindostan, and has equally prevailed among the Hebrews, the Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, and northern barbarians;-nations, some of whom had little or no intercourse with others, and were not even known by name to the Hebrews. It is to be observed, that there is a great difference between the concurrence of nations in the division of time into weeks, and their concurrence in the other periodical divisions into years, months, and days. These divisions arise from such natural causes as are every where obvious, viz. the annual and diurnal revolutions of the sun, and the revolution of the moon. The division into weeks, on the contrary, seems perfectly arbitrary consequently its prevailing in distant countries, and among nations which had no communication with one another, affords a strong presumption that it must have been derived from some remote tradition (as that of the creation), which was never totally obliterated from the memory of the Gentiles, and which tradition has been older than the dispersion of mankind into different regions. It is easy to conceive, that the practice, in rude and barbarous ages, might remain through habit, when the tradition on which it was founded was entirely lost it is easy to conceive, that, afterwards, people addicted to idolatry, or who, like the Egyptians, had become proficients in astronomy, should assign to the different days of the week the names of their deities or of their planets.1

:

Even the Mosaic method of reckoning by nights instead of days has prevailed in more than one nation. Thus, the polished Athenians computed the space of a day from sun-set to sun-set:2 and from a similar custom of our Gothic ancestors, during their abode in the forests of Germany, words expressive of such a mode of computing time have been derived into our own language.3 The same custom also prevailed among the Celtic nations.4

II. Of the formation of man in the moral image of God, and his being vested with dominion over other animals, similar traditionary vestiges remain in the widely diffused notion, that mankind formerly lived in complete happiness and unstained innocence; that spring reigned perpetually, and that the earth spontaneously gave her increase. This was the origin of the fabled golden age, so exquisitely described by the classic poets, and which may also be distinctly traced

vol. i. pp. 17-40. The Greek and Latin Cosmogonies are particularly considered in Edwards on the Truth and Authority of the Scriptures, vol. i. pp. 88-102. The testimonies of profane writers to the truth of the principal facts related in the Scriptures, are adduced and considered, with great ability, by Dr. Collyer, in his Lectures on Scripture Facts.' 8vo. 2d edit. London, 1809. The subjects, noticed in this section, particularly the Creation and the Deluge, are likewise copiously treated of in the notes to Grotius, de Veritate Rel. Christ. lib. i. c. 16.

1 Dr. Campbell's Dissertation on Miracles, p. 219, note.

2 Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticæ, lib. iii. c. 2.

3 Tacitus, de Mor. Ger. c. 11. The expressions of fortnight, and se'night, for fourteen nights and seven nights, are still in use among us in England.

4 Cæsar, de Bell. Gall. lib. vi. c. 18.

in the legends of our Scythian forefathers, and in the age of perfection of the Hindoos: and in the classical story of the garden of the Hesperides, we may equally discover an evident tradition of the Mosaical paradise and of the promised Saviour, who should bruise the head of the infernal Dragon. Nor is it improbable that from the holiness of the garden of Eden, the pagans borrowed their antient custom of consecrating groves to the worship of their various deities.1

III. The fall of man and the introduction of sin into the world are related in the third chapter of the book of Genesis. It has been the fashion with minute philosophers and philosophising divines to endeavour to explain away the reality of the fall, and to resolve it all into allegory, apologue, or moral fable; but the whole scheme of redemption by Christ is founded upon it, and must stand or fall with it; a figurative fall requiring only a figurative redemption. Even Lord Bolingbroke, (than whom revelation never had a more subtle opposer) justly rejects the allegorical interpretation. "It CANNOT," says he, "be admitted by Christians; for, if it was, what would become of that famous text [that the seed of the woman should crush the serpent's head, Gen. iii. 15.], whereon the doctrine of our redemption is founded ?"2

Indeed the Mosaic account, from its simplicity and consonance with the whole tenor of the Scriptures, was evidently designed to represent a real transaction; and it has been received as such by the writers of the Old and New Testaments, who certainly were more competent to decide than men who have lived several thousands of years after the transaction, and whose bold contradictions of the best attested matters of fact render their unsupported assertions of no effect. Modern opposers of revelation have ridiculed the account of the fall as a fable. But nothing is easier than ridicule, to men who pay no regard to piety, equity, and common decency. Whatever they may assert, (and let it be remembered that assertions without proof are not facts), and however they may attempt to explain away the Mosaic account of the fall, or attempt to prove it false, yet the evidently ruined condition of the human race would still remain as an And the narrative of the fall is confirmed both

UNDENIABLE FACT.

by natural and civil history. Thus, it agrees in an eminent manner both with the obvious facts of labour, sorrow, pain, and death, and also with what we see and feel every day, and with all our philosophical inquiries into the frame of the human mind, the nature of social life, and the origin of evil. The several powers of the little world within a man's own breast are at variance with one another, as well as those of the great world; and we are utterly unable to give a complete solution of the origin of the evils which flow from these discords and from the jarring elements of the natural world. But the Mosaic narrative accounts for all these otherwise unaccount

1 Faber's Hor. Mos. vol. i. pp. 41-50. Edwards on Scripture, vol. i. pp. 103-106. 2 Bolingbroke's Works, vol. v. p. 372, 8vo. edit.

3 Dr. Hales's Chronolgy, vol. ii. book i. p. 10.

able phenomena, and is corroborated by various traditions, more or less agreeable to it.

1. "The commencement of this moral taint is ascribed by the author of the Pentateuch to the disobedience of our first parents. An evil spirit, the origination of whose malignity itself is a mystery which can never be fathomed, speaking through the organs of a serpent, tempted them to transgress the command of God by tasting the forbidden fruit of a distinctly specified tree. The penalty of their rebellion was death." Though Moses gives no account of Satan or the tempter, yet we learn from other passages of Scripture, that he was first made like other celestial spirits, perfect in his kind and happy in his condition; but that, through pride or ambition, falling into a crime (the circumstances of which are unknown to us), he thence fell into misery, and, together with his accomplices, was banished from the regions of bliss. Of this fall of wicked angels, the antients had some notion, as is manifest from their tradition of the Titans and Giants invading heaven, fighting against Jupiter, and attempting to depose him from his throne, for which reason he cast them headlong into hell, where they are tormented with incessant fire. And therefore Empedocles, in some verses cited by Plutarch, makes mention of the fate of some demons, who for their rebellion were, from the summit of heaven, plunged into the bottom of the great abyss, there to be punished as they deserved.1

The fictions of Indian mythology, with regard to contending powers and their subordinate ministers, both benevolent and malignant, are erected on the same basis of truth.

2. The introduction of physical evil into the world by the disobedience of our first mother Eve, is plainly alluded to by the wellknown heathen legend of Pandora; who being led by a fatal curiosity to open a casket that had been given her by Jupiter, out of it flew all the evil into the world, and she became the original cause of all the miserable occurrences that befal mankind. Hope alone, the hope in a promised and long-remembered deliverer — remaining at the bottom of the casket.

3. Original sin, the early corruption and depravation of man's nature, in consequence of our first parents' transgression, is a subject of complaint among the antient heathen moralists, philosophers, and poets. Thus, Pythagoras termed it the fatal companion, the noxious strife that lurks within us, and which was born along with us; Sopater called it, the sin that is born with mankind; Plato, natural wickedness; Aristotle, the natural repugnancy of man's temper to reason and all the Greek and Roman philosophers, especially the Stoics and Platonists, complain of the depraved and degenerate condition of mankind, of their propensity to every thing that is evil, and of their aversion from every thing that is good. Thus, Cicero lamented that men are brought into life by nature as a step-mother, with a naked, frail, and infirm body, and with a soul prone to divers

1 Huet, Quæstiones Alnetanæ, lib. 2. Edwards on Scripture, vol. i. pp. 106, 107.