as the basis of his argument, in which philology, history and astronomy, are engaged at once. On the one hand, an Arabian author expresses himself thus:- During the reign of the Calif Almamoun, there was found engraven upon the great pyramid an inscription which showed at what time it was erected; that time was when Lyra was found under the sign of Cancer. On calculating, we find twice thirty-six thousand years.' Changing this twice thirty-six thousand years into as many synodical revolutions of the moon, and interpreting the astronomical indications accordingly, the commentator finds that the erection of the great pyramid is carried back as far as 4,500 years before the Christian era. On the other hand a hieroglyphic legend recently discovered in one of the chambers of the great pyramid, and which M. Thilorier has deciphered, says, that under the reign of Cheops, Lyra rose at noon on the day of the summer solstice.' Starting from this new text, the author has ascertained by means of a procession sphere, that under the latitude of Memphis, the astronomical phenomenon indicated by the legend must have happened about the year 4,500 before the Christian era.'

"Here then are the different texts, yet agreeing together in a most remarkable manner; and both of them place the construction of the great pyramid at an epoch more remote, according to common chronology, than the creation of the world; which proves in a manner the most conclusive, that the Mosaic account in Genesis is not to be literally understood, or as an account of the creation of this natural world. And the writer in the French Review states that the Academy of Science at Paris has undertaken to verify the calculation of Thilorier.

"But independent both of this historical fact and of geological science, there are reasons for believing that this account of the creation in Genesis cannot refer to this material world, or be literally true. For whoever reads the account attentively will see that the light is said to have been created on the first day, and divided from the darkness, whereas the sun, moon, and stars, were not made until the fourth day. Now, it certainly is not in accordance with the laws of Divine order, nor can we conceive it possible, that light should first be created and exist without any lu

minous body from which it emanated; and the difficulty of so conceiving, becomes still greater, when we find it said. there was such a division between the light and the darkness on the first day of creation as to form day and night. Moreover, it is said (vs. 14, 16-18,) that the light, viz., the sun, moon, and stars, which were produced on the fourth day of creation, were placed in the firmament, among other purposes, to divide the day from the night.

"It is related that the vegetable kingdom was created on the third day, which was before the formation of the sun, whose influence we know is now essential to the creation and growth of vegetables. And if, according to the opinion of those who endeavor to reconcile geological facts with this account of the creation, day be understood to signify an indefinite period of time-perhaps of many thousand years duration then it is necessary to admit that the earth was clothed with vegetable life during all this long period before the sun, moon or stars were created.— And then the literal signification of morning and evening must also be departed from, for if day be not understood to signify a period of twenty-four hours, it is manifest that morning and evening cannot be understood according to their common acceptation. And what idea is there to be attached to the night, which, on account of darkness, was divided from the day?

"We see therefore, that there are difficulties in this history of an internal kind, which are absolutely insurmountable, if it be understood as containing an account of the creation of this natural world.

"We turn now to another class of sacred texts, which appear to be of an immoral character, and which would certainly not have been in a book emanating from infinite Wisdom and Love, if they mean precisely what they appear to affirm, and do affirm according to the sense of the letter, and nothing more; i. e., if they contain no internal

sense.

"In Judges (iii. 15,) it is recorded that the Lord raised up Chud, the son of Gera, to deliver the children of Israel from Eglon, the king of Moab. And in verse 21, we are informed that he (Chud) sheathed a dagger in the bowels of the Moabitish king, at the very moment when pretend

ing to offer him a gift. And this brutal and treacherous deed, as appears from the literal sense of the history, was committed with the Divine sanction.

"An act of a similar character is recorded in the next chapter, where it is related that Sisera, the general of the army of Jabin, king of Hazor, being defeated by Barak, € fled away on his feet to Jael, the wife of Hazor, and the house of Heber the Kenite. And Jael (who was the wife of Heber the Kenite,) went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me, fear not.' Accordingly Sisera accepted her proffered protection and hospitality; and when through much weariness, he had fallen asleep in her tent, we are told, 'Then Jael, Heber's wife, took a nail of the tent, and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground; (for he was fast asleep and weary) so he died.' (iv. 21.) And was any condemnatory sentence pronounced upon Jael for this barbarous and most treacherous deed? So far from it, that we find written in the next chapter, (v. 24,) Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be blessed shall she be above women in the tent.' Thus, according to the letter of the text, this infamous deed receives the Divine approbation.

"Again: when the entrance of the children of Israel into the promised land is spoken of, it appears that they were commanded by Jehovah, not only to make no covenant with the Canaanites, but to smite them, and utterly destroy them, and show no mercy unto them.' (Deut. vii. 2.)

"We are told also, (1 Sam. xiii. 14,) that David was a man after God's own heart;' yet we learn from another passage, (2. Sam. xi. 2, 5,) that he was guilty of both adultery and murder.

"Likewise concerning Jacob, we find it written, (Gen. c. xxviii.) that the Lord would be with him, and would keep him in all places whither he should go and that in him and in his seed, all the families of the earth should be blessed. Yet we learn from the history of this patriarch that he had two wives and two concubines. And from his examples, taken in connection with that of the most of the Jewish worthies and kings, Dr. Madden, a clergyman of

the Church of England, has endeavored to prove that polygamy and concubinage are allowed to Christians; and has published a book on the subject!

"Now is it strange, while professing Christians adhere to the literal sense, and are unwilling to admit the existence of any other sense in the sacred Scriptures, that they should be charged with blasphemy, as they have been by the infidel, for receiving the record of these and other similar transactions as the Word of God?

"There are many things in the Word which, understood according to the sense of the letter, appear trivial, unimportant, and wholly unworthy the Divine Mind. For example, we read in Deuteronomy, ' If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, (whether they be) young ones or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.' Again:'Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts of woollen and linen together. Thou shalt make the fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture wherewith thou coverest thyself.' (xxii. 6, 7, 11, 12.) Then the whole book of Leviticus, and much of Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, are filled with directions for the performance of ceremonies, which, in themselves considered, seem very unimportant. Sometimes whole chapters contain nothing but precepts concerning what kind of food the servants should eat, and what kind of clothing they should wear, as in Leviti cus, xi.; Exodus, xxviii."

"Likewise in the Prophets we find things which appear exceedingly trivial and unmeaning. In Ezekiel, for example, the Lord commands the prophet to shave his head and beard with a sharp knife or barber's razor, to weigh the hair in balances and divide it; then to burn a third part with fire in the midst of the city, when the days of the besieged were fulfilled; to take a third part and smite about it with a knife, and to scatter a third part in the wind. And afterwards it is added, 'Thou shalt also take a few in number and bind them in thy skirts: i. e., a few of the hairs, after three thirds have already been disposed of! for this is

6

what is said in the literal sense. Here, if only what appears in the letter be meant, why, there must be some mistake, but, once admit that the inspired penmen were mistaken in regard to some things which they record professedly by divine dictation, and you virtually deny to them any inspiration which is worthy of the name, for what assurance can we then have, that they may not have been mistaken in regard to many other things also?'

"The sacred Scriptures claim to be THE WORD OF GOD. In the books of Moses it is repeatedly said, that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,' &c.; and likewise, that 6 Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.' Also in the Prophets we find this expression very often made use of, 'The Word of the Lord came unto me, saying.'

"Moreover the Lord himself, when on earth, frequently called the Scriptures The Word of God.

"At the time of the Lord's first advent, in what manner did He treat the Jewish Old Testament Scriptures? Whenever He spoke of them or quoted passages from them, as He often did, do we anywhere find Him saying, as some modern commentators have said, that Moses and the prophets were mistaken in regard to some things? That some things were hastily written, and some things negligently'? Or that the writers were not inspired in respect to everything which they professed to utter by divine dictation? On the contrary, does He not tell the Jews that they erred, not knowing the Scriptures? Matt. xxii: 29. Does He not say that Moses and all the prophets (by which is denoted the Scriptures) wrote concerning himself? Luke xxiv: 27. John v: 46. Does he not declare that they, the Jews, taught for doctrines the commandments of men, and thus had rendered the word of God of none effect through their tradition? Matt. xv: 6, 9; Mark vii: 13. And does He not assert the plenary divine inspiration of every part of the Old Testament scriptures when He says, 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfil,-i. e., to fill out, by revealing somewhat of its genuine sense-its fulness. of meaning which they did not understand.'

*The teachers of Unitarian doctrines particularly are amenable to this charge.