were highly civilized and enlightened, have been sunk for ages in barbarism and ignorance; while others, and especially the people of Europe, after a long night of intellectual darkness, are among the most enlightened nations that ever existed.

Whence have these changes arisen, or how is it conceivable that such changes could have arisen at all upon the principle that human nature is endowed with an innate tendency which leads continually towards perfection? The whole theory is founded in error; and the opinion, which depends upon it for support, that revelation is not necessary, because reason is competent to the purpose of instructing man in his religious duties, must be resigned. Besides, we have the testimony of persons in our favour, not inferior in sagacity, in penetration, or in vigour of mind to any modern whatever, when we assert that, to discover many, and these the most important truths in religion, human reason is totally incompetent. Socrates, Plato, and Cicero have each confessed that there was need for some Divine teacher to appease their longings after truth; and what Socrates, Plato, and Cicero avowed, he must be a bold speculator who presumes to contradict.

The conclusion, therefore, to which our reasoning leads is this-that a knowledge of Himself, and of His will, was originally conveyed by revelation from God to the parents of the human race, and that all the superstitions that have ever prevailed in the world must be traced back to that revelation as to their source.

But if it was nowise unworthy of the majesty and goodness of God to supply the first generations of men with a perfect knowledge of his will, still less derogatory to these attributes is the notion, that God, in compassion to the infirmities of his fallen creatures, should condescend once more to renew his revelation, after they, in the grossness of their hearts, had corrupted it. The question accordingly

arises-how, supposing this to be the case, is it conceivable that God would proceed? Would he do for the second time towards mankind at large what he did towards the first pair, that is, directly and immediately reveal himself to each individual, leaving the individuals thus instructed to convey, by tradition, his laws to their descendants? A moment's reflection may suffice to show that such a course could have been productive of no benefit. They who had corrupted one tradition would soon corrupt another, and hence, such revelations must be repeated to every successive generation, or they would be followed by no beneficial results. But to expect that God would thus reveal himself, year by year, as it were, to mankind, is to entertain notions of the Deity quite at variance with those which reason dictates; while it is very obvious that the revelations, if granted, would soon cease to be regarded as supernatural, by degenerating into regular and periodical occurrences. The only imaginable method, therefore, for the Deity to adopt was to select one tribe out of the multitude; to reveal himself particularly to the heads or leaders of that tribe, as well as generally to the whole of its members, and to cause so many of the circumstances attending these revelations, as appeared necessary for his own wise purposes, to be recorded in a book, for the instruction of all future generations. The tribe thus selected would, during the ages of the world's darkness, serve as a repository for the truth, from which, as from a centre, knowledge would be gradually diffused, till, all things being prepared for the change, their particular election would cease, and the whole human race be admitted to a participation in the blessings of revelation.

It is the belief of the Christian, that such, in every particular, was the conduct of the Almighty.

He contends that God did, in the universal spread of corruption, reveal himself, first, to the patriarchs,

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and afterward to their descendants; that he constituted of the latter a commonwealth expressly selected to preserve alive a knowledge of true religion; and that he caused the several revelations in question, with the most important circumstances attending them, to be recorded in a book, which has been preserved, uncorrupted and entire, down to the present times. That book is the Bible; and that it is what it professes to be, the Word of God, it remains for us, within as narrow a space as it is at all consistent with the subject, to demonstrate.

In conducting this argument, the chief difficulty lies, not in finding proofs-for these are numerous and overwhelming-but in selecting such as shall serve our purpose, without compelling us to exceed the limits within which we are necessarily confined. Of these, one of the most obvious lies in the character of the Jews, from whom we confessedly derive the Old Testament, which affords strong presumptive evidence that they have neither forged nor corrupted that volume, to which they, as well as we, appeal as the foundation of their creed. If a person were brought before a court of justice under an indictment for forgery, without any positive or presumptive evidence being produced against him, he would, as a matter of course, be immediately acquitted:-again, if a person were thus accused, the forgery alleged being totally inconsistent with his general character and habits; if it tended to expose to disgrace and reproach his general principles and conduct, or if we were assured, upon undeniable testimony, that he considered the particular kind of forgery as an impious and abominable crime, it would require very circumstantial and explicit evidence to convince us of his guilt. The case of the Jews, as connected with the authenticity or corruption of the Old Testament, is one precisely in point.

If a Jew had forged any book in that volume, he must have been impelled to so bold and dangerous an enterprise by some very powerful and influential motive. It could not be national pride-for there is scarcely one of these books that does not severely censure the national manners; it could not be the love of fame-for that passion would have taught him to flatter and extol the national character, and the punishment, if detected, would have been ignominy and death; it could not be the love of wealth -for no wealth was to be gained by such an undertaking.

Again: from all that we know of the career of the Jews, there are two distinct periods in their history, during which they may be said to have possessed an absolute contrariety of national character The first of these extends from the exode out of Egypt, down to the Babylonish captivity, throughout which their tendency undeniably was to idolatry the second commences with their return to their own country, and ends with the coming of the Messiah: when idolatry was, from first to last, the object of their abhorrence. Let us see how far it is possible to believe that the books of the Old Testament could have been forged, either in the former or in the latter of these eras.

Had any books of the Old Testament been forged before the Babylonish captivity, is it conceivable that the impostor would have inveighed so strongly against idolatry, and imputed to it the calamities of the state, knowing, as he must have known, that by such conduct he would render himself obnoxious to the utmost wrath of the rulers as well as of the people whom he reproved? No man perpetrates a forgery without the prospect of some benefit to be derived from it; a madman only would indite falsehoods, knowing that they must draw down upon his own head condign pnnishment. We are therefore justified in concluding that the forgery, if

effected at all, could not be effected previous to the Babylonish captivity.

That the forgery could not have been effected posterior to the Babylonish captivity, we possess strong reasons for believing, independently of our acquaintance with the excessive national vanity of the Jews; which, however it might prompt them to devise fictions for the purpose of advancing the reputation of their ancestors, would never lead them to adopt a similar course for the sake of blasting it. It is a fact undeniable, that Hebrew ceased to be the living language of the Jewish people during the Babylonish captivity, and that all Jewish productions, after that period, were written either in Chaldee or in Greek. The unlearned Jews of Palestine, indeed, for some ages before the coming of our Saviour, were unable, without the assistance of a Chaldee paraphrase, to understand the Hebrew original; every book, therefore, which is written in pure Hebrew must have been composed either before or at the time of the Babylonish captivity. But that these books were not all written at the period of the Babylonish captivity, we have the same ground for asserting, which authorizes us to declare that the author of the Iliad was not contemporary with the author of the orations of Demosthenes, because the orations of Demosthenes differ not more widely in style and idiom from the Iliad of Homer, than the Psalms of David differ from the Pentateuch, the writings of Isaiah from the Psalms, or the Book of Malachi from the Prophecies of Isaiah.

Strong, however, as these arguments may be, they are by no means the most conclusive which we are enabled to adduce, that no forgery ever was, or ever could have been effected, in the books of the Old Testament. Let it be borne in mind that these books profess to have been composed by different authors, at different periods, and for purposes widely different.