ness the subsequent degeneracy of mankind: their destruction by a flood: and the preservation of one family in a vessel. Nay, which is still stronger, I might plead the vestiges of some such catastrophe as the deluge, which the shells and other marine bodies, that are daily dug out of the bowels of the earth, in places remote from the sea, do clearly exhibit to us: I might urge the traces, which still remain in ancient histories, of the migration of people and of science from Asia (which has not improperly been styled the cradle of the arts) into many parts both of Africa and Europe: I might plead the coincidence of those migrations, and of the origin of states and kingdoms, with the time of the dispersion of the posterity of Noah.

But to return: The author subjoins, resembling those fa'bulous accounts, which every nation gives of its origin.' It is unluckily the fate of holy writ with this author, that both its resemblance, and its want of resemblance, to the accounts. of other authors, are alike presumptions against it. He has not indeed told us, wherein it resembles fabulous accounts: and, for my part, though the charge were just, I should imagine, little or nothing to the disadvantage of the Pentateuch could be deduced from it. It is universally agreed among the learned, that even the most absurd fables of idolaters derive their origin from facts, which having been, in barbarous ages, transmitted only by oral tradition, have come at length to be grossly corrupted and disfigured. It is nevertheless probable, that such fictions would still retain some striking features of those truths, from which they sprang. And if the books of Moses resemble, in any thing, the fabulous accounts of other nations, it would not perhaps be difficult to prove, that they resemble only whatever is least fabulous in these accounts. That this will be found to be the case, we may reasonably presume, even from what has been observed already; and if so, the resemblance, so far from being an argument against those books, is evidently an argument in their favour. In order to remove any doubt that may remain on this head, it ought to be attend

and customs universally despised. Nor is there the shadow of reason to think, that the Greeks knew any thing of the sacred writings till a considerable time afterwards, when that version of them was made into their language, which is called The translation of the seventy.

ed to, that, in a number of concurrent testimonies, (where there could have been no previous concert) there is a probability independent of that which results from our faith in the witnesses; nay, should the witnesses be of such a character as to merit no faith at all. This probability arises from the concurrence itself. That such a concurrence should spring from chance, is as one to infinite, in other words, morally impossible; if therefore concert be excluded, there remains no other cause but the reality of the fact.

It is true, that upon reading this book, we find it full of prodigies and miracles:' but it is also true, that many of those miracles are such, as the subject it treats of must unavoidably make us expect. For a proof of this position, I need but refer the reader to the principles established in the preceding sec tion. No book in the world do we find written in a more simple style; nowhere does there appear in it, the least affectation of ornament; yet nowhere else is the Almighty represented, as either acting or speaking in a manner so becoming the eternal ruler of the world. Compare the account of the CREATION which is given by Moses, with the ravings of Sanchoniatho the Phenician philosopher, which he has dignified with the title of COSMOGONY; or compare it with the childish extravagancies of the Greek and the Latin poets, so justly likened by the author to a sick man's dreams * ; and then say, whether any person of candour and discernment will not be disposed to exclaim, in the words of the prophet, What is the CHAFF to the WHEAT! The account is what we should call, in reference to our experience, miraculous. But was it possible it should be otherwise? I believe the greatest infidel will not deny, that it is at least as plausible an opinion, that the world had a begining, as that it had not. If it had, can it be imagined by any man in his senses, that that particular quality should be an objection to the narrative, which he previously knows it must have? Must not the first production of things, the original formation of animals and vegetables, require exertions of power, which, in preservation and propagation, can never be exemplified?

It will perhaps be objected, That if the miracles continued Natural history of religion, XV. † Jer. xxiii. 28.

no longer, and extended no further, than the necessity of creation required, this reasoning would be just; but that in fact they both continued much longer, and extended much farther. The answer is obvious: It is impossible for us to judge, how far the necessity of the case required. Immediately after the creation, things must have been in a state very different from that which they are in at present. How long that state might continue, we have not the means of discovering: but as, in human infancy, it is necessary that the feeble creature should, for some time, be carried in the nurse's arms, and afterwards, by the help of leading-strings, be kept from falling, before he acquire strength to walk; it is not unlikely, that, in the infancy of the world, such interpositions should be more frequent and requisite, till nature attaining a certain maturity, those laws and that constitution should be established, which we now experience. It will greatly strengthen this conclusion, to reflect, that in every species of natural productions with which we are acquainted, we invariably observe a similar feebleness in the individuals on their appearance, and a similar gradation towards a state of greater perfection and stability. Besides, if we acknowledge the necessity of the exertion of a power, which in reference only to our experience is called miraculous; the question, as is well observed by the judicious prelate formerly quoted *, whether this power stopped immediately, after it had 'made man, or went on and exerted itself farther, is a question ‘of the same kind, as whether an ordinary power exerted itself in such a particular degree and manner, or not.' It cannot therefore, if we think reasonably on this subject, greatly astonish us, that such a book should give an account of a state of 'the world, and of human nature, entirely different from the 'present; of our fall from that state; of the age of man extended to near a thousand years; and of the destruction of the ' world by a deluge.'

6

FINALLY, if, in such a book, mingled with the excellencies I have remarked, there should appear some difficulties, some things for which we are not able to account; for instance, the 'arbitrary choice of one people, as the favourites of heaven; * Analogy of religion, &c, part 2. chap. 2. sect. 2.

' and their deliverance from bondage by prodigies the most as'tonishing imaginable;' is there any thing more extraordinary here, than, in a composition of this nature, we might have previously expected to find? We must be immoderately conceited of our own understandings, if we imagine otherwise. Those favourites of Heaven, it must be likewise owned, are the countrymen of the writer; but of such a writer, as of all historians or annalists, ancient or modern, shows the least disposition to flatter his countrymen. Where, I pray, do we find him either celebrating their virtues, or palliating their vices; either extolling their genius, or magnifying their exploits? Add to all these, that, in every thing which is not expressly ascribed to the interposal of Heaven, the relation is in itself plausible, the incidents are natural, the characters and manners such as are admirably adapted to those early ages of the world. In these particulars, there is no affectation of the marvellous; there are no descriptions of the sea and land monsters; no relations of ⚫ wonderful adventures, strange men, and uncouth manners*.

WHEN all these things are seriously attended to, I persuade myself, that no unprejudiced person will think, that the Pentateuch bears falsehood on the face of it, and deserves to be rejected without examination. On the contrary, every unprejudiced person will find (I say not, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than all the miracles it relates; this is a language which I do not understand, and which only serves to darken a plain question; but I say, he will find) very many and very strong indications of authenticity and truth; and will conclude, that all the evidences, both intrinsic and extrinsic, by which it is supported, ought to be impartially canvassed. Abundant evidence there are of both kinds; some hints of them have been given in this section; but to consider them fully, falls not within the limits of my present purpose.

* Page 185.

CONCLUSION.

WHAT is the sum of all that hath been now discussed? It is briefly this: That the author's favourite argument, of which he boasts the discovery, is founded in error*, is managed with sophistry †, and is at last abandoned by its inventor‡, as fit only for show', not for use; that he is not more successful in the collateral arguments he employs; particularly, that there is no peculiar presumption against religious miracles ||; that, on the contrary, there is a peculiar presumption in their favour §; that the general maxim, whereby he would enable us to decide betwixt opposite miracles, when it is stript of the pompous diction, that serves it at once for decoration, and for disguise, is discovered to be no other than an identical proposition, which, as it conveys no knowledge, can be of no service to the cause of truth¶; that there is no presumption, arising either from human nature **, or from the history of mankind ++, against the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of Christianity; that the evidence of these is not subverted by those miracles, which historians of other religions have recorded ‡‡; that neither the Pagan || ||, nor the Popish §§ miracles, on which he hath expatiated, will bear to be compared with those of holy writ; that, abstracting from the evidence of particular facts, we have irrefragable evidence, that there have been miracles in former times ¶¶; and, lastly, that his examination of the Pentateuch is both partial and imperfect, and consequently stands in need of a revisal ***.

OUR most holy religion,' says the author in the conclusion of his essay, is founded on faith, not on reason; and it is a 'sure method of exposing it, to put it to such a trial, as it is by ' no means fitted to endure.' If, by our most holy religion, we are to understand the fundamental articles of the Christian

sys