not have been thus or thus. In the absence of direct and positive, or strong presumptive evidence, there is no room for assertion one way or the other.

11th. No part of a book is genuine (ascribed to the real author,) that gives an account of circumstances or transactions that took place after the presumed author was dead. Who would credit a history of the reign of Queen Anne or George the first of England, that should allude to the battle of Brandywine and General Washington?

12th. If the book contains one or two passages only of this kind, it may amount to no more than suspicion of addition or interpolation after the death of the author, by some subsequent editor. This suspicion will be received or not, according as it is corroborated by presumptive facts or circumstances of a collateral description, and not otherwise: for it is undoubtedly prima facie evidence of forgery as to the book itself. Shall I be permitted to say that a falsehood in my answer to a bill in chancery, is an interpolation, unless I prove it to be so? If the passages to which this objection applies are numerous, and manifestly interwoven in the narrative from its earliest appearance, without any mark of distinction or any collateral facts to explain how they came there, they amount to full proof that the book was not written by the author to whom it is ascribed. writer who wrote in the time of Queen Anne or George 1st, could give us account of our General Washington, or the battle of Brandywine.

No

13th. So, if an author inserts manifest contradictions, or relates circumstances as true, which are clearly false or impossible, his veracity is tainted throughout the book. Just as in a Court of Law, no juryman will believe a fact on the testimony of a witness who has already sworn to a lie; or who swears positively to the truth of a fact which it is utterly impossible he should have any knowledge of; or who deliberately contradicts his own story: unless the falsehood be a mistake, or ascribable to the ignorance of the times; like the prodigies in Livy, or the ghosts and apparitions of three centuries ago.

14th. Nor can we ascribe a book to any author, if it contains sentiments directly hostile to, or irreconcileable with the author's known sentiments. Thus, the Jewish government recommended by Moses, was a Theocracy or government of the children of Israel, by the God of Israel himself through the agency of the prophet Moses, and his successors appointed by the command of God. If Moses therefore is described as recommending or speaking approvingly of a government by Kings chosen by the people, this is in contradiction to his acknowledged and known declarations. Deut. xvii. 14.

Moses also taught, as the peculiar and characteristic tenet of his religion, the Unity of the Deity. Know, O Israel, the Lord, thy God is one Lord. If we find passages manifestly contradicting this tenet, Moses could not have written them.

15th. Style, language, doctrines, facts, plainly inconsistent with what we have good reason to expect from the author under the circumstances in which he lived and wrote, taint the evidence in favor of the book, both as to its genuineness and authenticity.

16th. It requires strong and positive evidence to justify us in ascribing to an author, a work which he does not ascribe to himself.

17th. To prove that a book is Genuine, or really written at the time and by the author to whom it is ascribed, we require it to be shewn,

A. That it appeared in the literary world at or near the date when it is pretended to have been written.

B. That it is cited, quoted, referred to, alluded to, by authors of known character at or near the time when it is said to have

been published. It is not proof that A. B. wrote any work that C. D. says so, a thousand years afterwards. Archimedes is said to have destroyed the Roman fleet before Syracuse by burning glasses and machinery on shore, about 212 years before the Christian era. Plutarch and Zetzes mention this, Plutarch near three centuries and a half after the transaction, and Zetes much longer. Polybius and Livy do not notice it, who lived so much nearer to the time.

C. If the book in question, from the nature of its contents authorises us to conclude that if it had existed at all, it must of necessity have been cited and referred to from its very first appearance through succeeding times, over and over,-if such a book appears to have been utterly unknown to the very people most interested in its preservation and its contents for a thousand years, we cannot reasonably believe that it existed at all, or it would not have been thus unnoticed and unknown. This is the case with the Pentateuch, as we shall see by and by. One of the most learned and orthodox defenders of the Christian Canon, the Rev. Jeremiah Jones published, "A new and full method of settling the Canonical authority of the New Testament," in three vols. printed at Oxford, 1798, at the University press. In v. 1, p. 70-85, he set down the following rules of decision to which I willingly accede.

The authority of any book is to be established by the testimony of those who live nearest the times in which it is written, (p. 53).

That book is apocryphal, which contains any contradictions. Or,any histories contrary to those known to be true.

Or, any doctrines contrary to those known to be true.

Or, relations ludicrous, trifling, fabulous, or silly. (Genesis passim.)

Or, which mentions facts which occurred later than the time of the author to whom it is ascribed. (Anachronisms.)

Or, whose style is manifestly different from the known style of its supposed author.

Or, which is written in an idiom or dialect different from that of the author to whom it is ascribed; or different from the idiom of his country. (Moses spake and wrote Egyptian, not Hebrew; which was the language of Canaan and the Phenicians generally, long before that country was invaded by the Hebrews.)

Or, that manifests a disposition different from the known dispositions of the supposed author. (Deut. xvii. 14.)

Or, that advances doctrines and opinions contrary to the known doctrines and opinions of the author.

To all these criteria I fully assent on the present occasion, adding to these rules,

That, Evidence in support of a narration must be strong in proportion to the antecedent improbability of the facts related; a common occurrence is rendered probable by common testimony; an uncommon occurrence demands much stronger evidence to establish it.

That, in cases of miraculous events which imply a suspension of the known and usual course of the laws of nature, it is to be considered, whether the relater is not as likely to be deceived himself, or that he may have some temptation to deceive others, as that the miraculous fact related, should be true.

That no writer is free from suspicion, who has any personal interests to promote, or who writes in defence or support of any party or profession, or caste to which he belongs, and whose interest is involved with his own. No stronger bias exists, than that created by the esprit du corps.

That, nothing is to be deemed miraculous or supernatural, which may be taught and learnt as an art. Thus, the imitations of Moses's miracles by Pharaoh's magicians, destroy the pernatural character of the performance. Moreover, every

narration relied on, must be taken altogether as it stands. . For it rests throughout on one and the same authority. If it be credible in one part, it is equally so in another; for the evidence on which it is based, is the same throughout. It is not to be picked and culled to serve a party purpose, or some of it reject

ed and some of it adopted, where one and the same narrator, narrates the whole. If it contain absurdities, contradictions, anachronisms or falsehoods, they must be admitted, however they may impeach the good sense or the veracity of the historian. Suppose a letter produced in evidence in a Court of Justice, and the party producing it, reads those extracts only that will serve his own purpose-will not the Court say, "Sir, if that letter be evidence in one part, it is so in every part; if it be evidence for you, it is so for your opponent; but when produced, it is neither your evidence exclusively, or his; it is evidence in the cause before the Court. Let the whole of it be read out before the jury."

All these rules of decision are here stated as the undeniable dictates of common sense, which no man who is really in search of truth, can object to.

18th. Many of the early reformers decided on the genuineness of the scriptural Canon on a supposed immediate revelation or inspiration that they received on the subject. But although immediate inspiration is sufficient evidence to the person inspired, it is no more than human testimony when that person relates it to another. Mr. Jones, above quoted, speaking of inspiration v. 1, p. 51, says, "If any one is made happy by this argument, (of inspiration) it can only be an argument to himself and cannot be made use of to convince another; because that other may justly except either to the judgment or veracity of him who pretends to it. This is only an argument, says Bishop Burnett, (On the Articles, Art. 6, p. 79.) to him that feels it; if it be one at all. Nor can Divine inspiration or supernatural aid, be admitted at any time or on any occasion, for the purpose of enabling a man to do or say, what can be done or said by the natural exertion of the human faculties. Nec Deus intersit nisi lignus vindice nodus. Do not introduce supernatural interposition where it is not needed.

19th. We know not exactly when or by whom the translation called the Septuagint was made. The fictions of Aristeas and Aristobus copied by Philo and Josephus, are universally renounced. The reasons may be seen in Hody and in Dupin in Ecclesiastical History v. 1, sec. 3, and the notes to it.

That such a translation as we now possess did appear, partly in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and partly at some early subsequent time, is certain. But from what manuscripts, on what authority, by what compilers, or translators, or when exactly, no modern author pretends to determine. Nor is there any evidence extant that the Jews as a nation, or any of their books now called the Bible, were known to, or acknowl

edged by any other nation, or monarchy; or were ever known to be cited by, referred to, alluded to, or in any manner authenticated, previous to their appearance in the literary world under the form of the Greek translation now called the Septuagint, all that precedes, is covered by clouds and thick darkness. The dissertation of that very inaccurate writer Josephus against Appion, wherein he attempts to prove that the Jews were known as a separate nation anterior to Herod, has been so fully examined and so unanswerably refuted by Wyttenbach in his Opuscula v. 2, p. 416, Amsterdam 1821, (De unitate Dei.) that no learned man of this day, can venture to support the sentiments of Josephus.

20th. The Canon of the Jewish scriptures was adopted by Melito, Bishop of Sardis, by Origen, Eusebius, Jerom and Rufinus, with slight differences from the opinions of the Jews in their day on the subject; and is nearly conformable to that of Philo Judæus and Josephus. It was settled by church authority at the Council of Carthage, A. D. 397. There is no Jewish writer on the subject of the Jewish Canon, now known, anterior to the Talmudists, a few centuries after the Christian era; and their extravagances have nearly deprived them of all credit. See Examen de quelques theologiens sur l'histoire critique de Pere Simon, (that is, Le Clerc.) Lettre 10.

There is absolutely not one particle of evidence to be found, either among Jewish or profane authors, of the existence of the books translated into Greek about the time of Ptolemy Phila. (the Septuagint) except what that translation made at various uncertain times (from 285-260 ante N. C.) affords. That these books existed at the time of the Septuagint translation, is highly probable; how much earlier, no one can tell. Every thing relating to them is involved in utter darkness, and is mere conjecture.

21st. Writers among the ancient fathers of the Christian church, among ancient and recent Jews, Catholics and Protestants, too many to enumerate, have been driven by the difficulty of determining the author of the Pentateuch, to various hypotheses on that subject, viz.

1st. That Moses wrote it by divine inspiration, saving some additions and interpolations by later hands. The arguments on this side, may be found well stated in the Eccles. Hist. of Du Pin. v. 1. p. 6. of the English translation, and in Dr. Horne's Introduction to the critical study of the Scriptures, v. 1. p. 50, et seq.

2d. That Moses compiled it from pre-existing documents. Great differences of opinion exist as to the author of the book