1.

fail of exciting the attention of every fe- CHAP, rious inquirer. Unlike the gaudy fables of Paganism, the narrative, which it comprehends, is short, fimple, and unadorned. Supernatural interpofitions indeed frequently occur; but they are invariably afcribed to one fupreme and exalted Being, the Lord of heaven and earth. No mention is made of the real existence of any inferior deities, nor is there even a hint given of that canonization of mortals, which prevailed fo universally in the mythology of the heathens. On the contrary, the religious worship of the Gentile world, though repeatedly mentioned by the author of the Pentateuch, is mentioned only in terms of the feverest reprobation, and the most indignant contempt. The accommodating fpirit of Paganism readily permitted an univerfal toleration, and encouraged the frequency of religious communion; but in the Jewish records, every fpecies of worfhip, except that of the one true God, is pronounced to be vain and abominable. Like fome detached and prominent mountain, in the neighbourhood of a vast and uniform plain, the code of the Hebrew legiflator forms, in this refpect, a striking contrast to the mythological fables of every

other

SECT. other nation, and with a folitary majesty 1. ftands totally apart from the various fyftems of ancient idolatry. The grand characteristic of heathen devotion, however diverfified by caprice, or modified by imposture, is uniformly Polytheifm. The objects of adoration may indeed occafionally differ in number, titles, and attributes; but a multiplicity of deities ftill constitutes the general creed of paganism; and a .dereliction of the pure worship of the Unity is equally chargeable upon the refinements of Europe and Afia, the degraded worship of the western hemifphere, and the base fuperftition of Africa. The wisdom of Egypt, the learning of Greece, the masculine energy of Rome, and the diverfified knowledge of Hindoftan, were alike unable to preferve them from the univerfal contagion. Ifrael alone was exempt, though far inferior to the literary part of the ancients in mere human philofophy, and the exclusive characteristic of the Pentateuch is the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead.

7

Such is the wonderful volume, to which the Jews pay implicit obedience, and upon which the whole fabric of Chriftianity is erected. It has long enjoyed a kind of

pre

I.

prefcriptive veneration, and its claim to di- CHAP. vine authority has been rarely questioned by the unfufpicious piety of our ancestors. Penetrating into the most remote ages, it gives us a circumftantial detail of the earlieft tranfactions, and removes at once the veil of obfcurity from the primeval history of man. Here however an important question naturally arifes from fo interesting a subject, and a dispaffionate inquirer after truth is led almost involuntarily to ask, whether this ancient narrative can ftand the test of that fcrutiny, which is usually deemed fufficient to establish a claim to hiftorical authenticity.

The degree of credit due to the author of the Pentateuch depends upon the coincidence of his narrative with the records and traditions preferved by other nations, and upon the internal evidence of truth, which may be discovered in his writings." With regard to the second of these particulars, it fhall be confidered in a fubfequent portion of this Work. It only remains therefore at prefent to examine, whether the transactions, detailed by Mofes, rest upon his unfupported teftimony alone, or whether they are not corroborated

by

SECT. by the concurrent voice of all nations, in 1. all quarters of the globe.

Various are the Pagan traditions, which minutely coincide with the Mofaical account of the early ages of the world: but let it be observed, that this fimilarity affords no juft ground of concluding that they were derived from the Pentateuch. Such a circumftance is, in most cases, rendered utterly impoffible by the remoteness of the nations, in which those traditions were prevalent, and by their total want of connexion with the pofterity of Ifrael. The Arabs, or the Egyptians indeed, might poffibly have borrowed from the Jews; but the Chinese and the Hindoos, the Goths and the Americans were effectually precluded by local circumftances from having had any knowledge of the favoured people of God. We must therefore conclude, that, whatever their popular belief might be, it defcended to them, not through the medium of Jewish antiquities, but down the Stream of an univerfal and uninterrupted tradition. The fingular phenomenon of a general agreement among a vast variety of nations widely feparated from each other, and effectually prevented by their mutual distance

To Noah

distance from having had any recent inter- CHAP. courfe, can only be accounted for upon the I. supposition, that they all sprung originally from one common ancestor. alone we must look as the primordial fource, to which all pagan nations were indebted for their knowledge of antediluvian events and as for those, which took place immediately after the deluge, they can only have been diffufed over the face of the whole earth by the posterity of the firft defcendants of that Patriarch. Hence, although the Mofaical documents are the grand and genuine repofitory of all those ancient facts; yet, profane traditions muft, for the most part, have been derived, not from the records of the Jews, but from certain mutilated accounts of the facts themJelves. Upon this statement depends the whole of the ensuing argument in favour of the authenticity of the books of Mofes. If Pagan traditions are borrowed from the Pentateuch, instead of being derived, through the different Gentile lines of Shem, Ham, and Japhet, from the circumstances themselves, however they may tend to shew the antiquity of the facred volume, they undoubtedly ceafe to be undefigned coincidences.

The