of them as might excite ambiguous hope at the time, and which, when accomplished, should become entirely unequivocal; it cannot be denied, that some such work as the Old Testament would have been the production of that intellect. That design it exactly answers. But since, without a governing intelligence, no such design could by possibility have been entertained, the result actually existing is left without a cause, and can on no principles whatever be accounted for. Can ignorance be supposed to have for ages performed the work of knowledge? Of the existence of the Old Testament before the events recorded in the New, it is impossible to doubt: of its anticipation of those events, the appearances are too plain to be denied. Yet, whence could arise this anticipation? A seeming foresight of few and common events creates no difficulty; but when the circumstances are numerous, the events entirely singular, events which the human mind is slow to apprehend, slower still to credit, even though clearly announced and well attested; then, in this case, that the coincidences could be casual, cannot be admitted. With this difficulty, the infidel has never seriously attempted to grapple. The only effort towards it, displays at once its unmanageable nature. His method is, to try to defeat the forces of his adversary in detail. He insulates every reference, calls it an extravagant figure, divests it of its meaning, applies it to some common occurrence, and then presumes to treat its resemblance to a prophetic announcement with contempt. The difficulty is thus left unheeded, or rather, acknowledged to be insuperable. Of that difficulty, the very essence consists in the number and the peculiarity of the references, and in the exactitude of their agreement, when collected and combined, with subsequent

events most complicated and unexpected.

The writings of the New Testament display a similar feature, independently of prophecy. Those of them which are ascribed to authors who could be cognizant of the same facts, exhibit innumerable coincidences, where concerted design is impossible; of which coincidences, no reason can be given, but that the facts really occurred, and that the minds of the authors were alike imbued with their influence. Of this nature, examples are every where discernible, and, in those parts which have had a Paley to illustrate them, so established, that even scepticism itself, the most inveterate, has been compelled to grant the inference, that those events at least were real.

Independently, therefore, of the personal character of the writers, as fairly to be deduced from the style, and the sentiments and feelings manifested in their writings, independently too of such proofs as demand Christian knowledge and experience to comprehend them, nothing less can be inferred from the various considerations of internal evidence, than that imposition in this case were the greatest of anomalies.

The external proofs of the truth of Scripture have, in like manner, often been shown to be unassailable by any legitimate methods of reasoning. That a general change was effected in the opinions and practices of large masses of mankind, for which a growing belief of the facts stated in the New Testament will satisfactorily account, no one will venture to deny. Of such a change,-which, whether we regard the extent of its operations, its completeness as a revolution of thought, opinion, and sentiment, or the learning, habits, and secular influence over which it prevailed, is absolutely without a parallel in the history of the human race, no cause at all ade

quate to the effect, except the one abovementioned, has ever been as yet devised. And from what has been attempted, we may plainly infer, that to imagine such a cause surpasses the sagacity of man.

In addition to this fact, sufficient of itself to inspire confidence, no attempt has so far succeeded as to appear even plausible, which has been directed against the authenticity of the Sacred Books. It is supported by more historic document than on any other subject would be deemed at all needful; and there is no contradictory or conflicting testimony, except on questions of no importance, as applying merely to some insulated part. To evade the force of this testimony, nothing has yet been imagined, which in any other case would be allowed a moment's consideration. What is the refuge of the unbeliever? He is obliged to insinuate that some documents which might have opposed the present inferences, have possibly perished; or that some remaining works, in which there is no mention of them, would have adverted to the facts, if true. Thus, a conjecture respecting somethingwhich may possibly have existed,-not of what has any probability to support it, but of what by mere possibility may have been,-is alleged to disprove the verdict of direct and multifarious witnesses; and the silence of a few, is to counterbalance the declarations of many. This is not the course of inquiry, but of determined prejudice; not of argument, but of subterfuge. To make the inference from historical proof to be dependent upon what we may conceive it might have been, instead of resting it upon what we know actually to exist, is plainly want of sense. What less can it be than an abandonment of reason, for us to assume the possibility of something unknown, to contradict what is known? How little also can be

fairly deduced from the silence of authors, even respecting the most unusual and interesting events,events to the mention of which their subject directly lead them, and respecting which they were in possession of all the means of information,-may be seen by the silence of Pliny, Suetonius, and Tacitus, respecting the destruction of Herculaneum; the two former, not having alluded to the fact, and the latter stating only generally that cities were destroyed. For the New Testament, it may be therefore confidently asserted, that, in historic evidence, it is beyond the reach of assault.

historic

But, besides direct proof, the external evidences of Scripture diffuse themselves over almost every tract of literature and science. It is true, that no science whatever is taught, as a science, in the sacred books; not even that of theology or of morals; much less, then, are we to expect from them any other kinds of systematic knowledge. Nevertheless, the Sacred Writers have interwoven very much of fact relating both to history and to the subsequent discoveries of science; much of events, which, though not the primary things intended to be taught, must still be either true or false; that is, must either have really occurred, or have been invented for a specific purpose. The shrewd discovery of the Westminster Reviewer, that the flood was only a moral event, is above the comprehension of ordinary people. Whether the inhabitants of the old world were punished by dreaming of a flood, or whether they imagined it in broad daylight, does not exactly appear from the Reviewer's remarks; but, whether a dream, or a waking imagination, it seems to have been most deeply impressed on the minds of succeeding generations, if, at least, we may at all judge from the traditions of the various

tribes, which constituted the ancestry of all the nations now inhabiting the different regions of the earth. It is pretended by writers of this insidious class, that since the Scriptures have for their object, the instruction of mankind in moral and spiritual truth, it ought to be conceded that there is no reality in their history, nor truth in their statement of physical fact. On this hypothesis, the rank assigned to the word of divine truth, is the same as that of the fabulous and enigmatical instruction of Indian, Egyptian, and Grecian Mythology; saving, perhaps, some superiority in its own department, in its exhibiting a better code of morals, and a purer theology. Thus the bible is reduced to a level with the Shasters, as detailing to us no physical facts, or none on which we can place the least re-, liance, having merely interwoven its instructions with mystical legends! Because it does not deliver systems of astronomy, geology, mechanics; because it speaks the universal language of men, and employs such phrases as the sun rose and the sun set, therefore the creation was no creation, the flood no flood, the Tower of Babel no such thing as a Tower, nor the march of the Israelites through the desert, and the expulsion of the Canaanites, any thing else but mere figures, intending to describe some moral change, or to inculcate some abstract truth!

On the faith of this assumption, all who attempt to elucidate and confirm Scriptural fidelity, by subsequent discoveries, are to be lectured as introducing the "Philosophia Phantastica," and the "Religio hæretica," against which Bacon has remonstrated. Themselves constantly violating sundry maxims of Bacon, these writers try to persude the ignorant of their own most philosophic consistency, and when confronted with a sturdy accuser, like an arraigned felon

to throw the guilt of some other crime at least upon the witness. Thus have they treated De Luc, Granville, Penn, Ure, and every man of science who has dared to cherish reverence for the Scriptures, or to hint discrepancy be tween a darling theory and authenticated fact. These gentlemen may have committed errors; but the scorn with which their honourable names have been loaded, has not on that account been cast on them, since blunders, far more gross, in writers more congenial with the taste of these revilers, are treated gently. But the sin is, that they have thought to corroborate and to confirm the sacred records, by connecting facts of compara tively recent proof, with state ments made some thousands of years ago. These gentlemen may have theorized without sufficient data; but neither is it on this account that they have incurred such ireful censure; for their critics have their unsupported theories also. The offence, no doubt a grave one, is, that the theory takes the interdicted course. The wildest extravagancies of Indian fables may meet with friendly entertainment, and it may even be hinted that modern science singularly favours them; but Moses must be held to be without the pale, and ridicule must needs alight on those who dare assert his claim to modern confidence. So sensible of this fact is the author of the work before us, that, as a member of the Geological Society, he shrinks from encountering the obloquy, and chooses to withhold his name.

It is manifest, however, that the notion which assigns myriads of ages as the past duration of the world, is not less hypothetical than that which limits its duration to a few thousand years;-that he who pleads for a succession of innumerable partial revolutions, to account for that class of phenomena now generally called diluvial, is

a

not less a theorist, than he who attributes them to one of unlimited extent. Neither party confines himself to mere facts: each has his inferences; nor can either claim for his opinion the unyielding force of demonstration. To describe multitude of disturbing causes now at work, in the manner of Mr. Lyell, and then to imagine myriads of ages for them to revel in, if it may illustrate the possibility, can scarcely be said to establish the probability, that all the changes which the crust of the earth has manifestly undergone, were thus produced in fact. Marble rocks have been worn by the kisses and genuflexions of devotees; and the supposition would therefore involve no absolute impossibility, that, in a period of incalculable duration, but which would still be as nothing compared with eternity, a valley might have been scooped out of the hardest rock by the mere kisses of successive generations; but there would be some difficulty in bring ing our minds to acquiesce in such an explanation of the phenomenon, even if it could be shown that such rocks had been the objects of superstitious veneration. Little is proved, when it is shown that certain physical agents would be adequate, at a given rate of energy, and in the course of indefinite periods of time, to the performance of certain assignable effects: in order to convince us that the work was actually thus accomplished, there needs some direct evidence that they really had the time allowed them to effect the results. It was not by showing the mere fact of gravitation, but by ascertaining the limitations of its influence, and by proving that the effects exactly correspond to a cause so ruled, defined and limited in operation, that Newton placed his system on the adamantine base of proof. Let, then, the geologist define the rate of power in his

physical causes, and show their correspondency, working at that rate according to fixed times and distances, with the results ascribed to them, and it will be confessed that he has built an edifice of sound philosophy. Till then, his theories claim to be regarded only as mere opinions, and as such, liable to be warped by every previous bias which the unestimated force of circumstances may have impressed upon his mind.

Aware of this truth, the Author of this work distrusts such theories. He assumes, that, except they can be proved to be false, the facts recorded in Scripture are to be regarded as having actually occurred; and that, if true, we may rationally expect from their very nature, that traces of them may remain to this present time; and be discovered in the obscure traditions of nations, in their written histories and monuments, or in the lasting results of them impressed upon the material framework of the globe. He assumes, besides, that such facts stated in Scripture, as, antecedently to such corroboration, might seem to be highly improbable, almost impos sible; when afterwards proved, not only to have been possible, but to be actually supported by unexpected, concurring phenomena, for which they satisfactorily account; become not only worthy of credit, but nearly demonstrated to have certainly occurred. Nor can we doubt that this kind of proof, if not demonstration, is, nevertheless, in the view of reason, fully as convincing. We are not less certain of multitudes of truths which are unsusceptible of demonstration, than we are of those which are demonstrated. If the most questionable and astounding announcements of a book, professing to have been given by Divine authority, and otherwise established to be worthy of credit by internal and external media of evidence,

founding statements. He that— unless it can be rigorously proved that no other causes can account for them-refuses to admit such causes as the Scriptures assign for amazing effects, which effects he is nevertheless obliged to acknowledge, manifests that he has determined beforehand to reject their verdict. He distrusts it as if already convicted of fraud, while yet, before he can justify his scepticism, he must be held bound on other grounds to show its unworthiness of credit. Till he do this, he must be considered as under a determined but unreasonable bias, and not to be regarded by any candid investigator of truth. If, in a court, an event is proved, and witnesses are adduced, who state how that event occurred; is their testimony to be treated as undecisive, till it is further shown that in no other way could the event have taken place? Except the credit of the witnesses had been already impeached, would not this be trifling intolerably? And would not the trifler who should plead for that course, meet with deserved contempt from reasonable men? Of similar contempt are the learned triflers worthy, who so treat the Scriptures, and those advocates of them who endeavour to show, that admitted phenomena would be the result of facts which those Scriptures state. For it is to be remembered that these advocates of Scripture are assailed, not for having failed in their elucidations, but for having made the attempt to elucidate Scripture facts by known and acknowledged pheno

mena.

But in this case, who are the persons who with propriety may be held to rigorous proof? Are they the advocates, or the repudiators of Scripture? The case, be it recollected, is literally this. The Scriptures, by other and many independent media of evidence, are proved to be true; but they declare certain facts, which their oppugners have held to be impossible, or at least highly incredible. On further research, it is found in the progress of discovery, however, that events wholly before unsuspected, and denied to be possible, have actually occurred; events, for which, if true, such facts would satisfactorily account. Now, the advocates of religion treat these admitted events as proofs of the facts before asserted in Scripture; but, says the sceptic, "No, I will not concede that inference, I will not allow that these undoubted events are proofs of those contested facts, until you advance another step; until you show, not only that those facts will sufficiently explain them, but that no other possible supposition can be devised, to which their causation might be adequately ascribed."

Irrational men,-thus the Christian advocate might justly retort upon his sceptical opponents,-determined foes of truth and piety, it is you that must show, and by all reasonable men will be held most strictly bound to show, the exclusion of those facts. You must prove, not only the possibility, but the certainty of some other cause. You must not amuse the world with fantasies subversive of Scripture, grounded only on possibility, but either demonstrate your positions to be conformable with fact, or submit to be considered as invidious enemies of the faith of the Christian world; as cowardly seeking to destroy by craft, what you feel yourselves incompetent openly to encounter. Men who, under the guise of science, endea