called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.' Would it not be more reasonable and just to attribute the passage to some individual of aftertimes, who stated in a marginal note, what, in subsequent transcribings, found its way into the main body of the history? With respect to the second clause of this assertion, it will be sufficient to observe, that, we have already shown, a book may be authentic, and, therefore, deserving of our regard, although it may not have been written by the person whose name it bears, but by some one acquainted with the circumstances therein related. Again: the authenticity of the Mosaical history has been called in question, because certain passages, found therein, anticipate events, and record circumstances, which must have happened many years after the alleged time of writing the book in which the account of these circumstances is re recorded. One of the most remarkable instances of this kind is the account of the Kings of Edom, occurring in the xxxvi. c. Gen. In the 36 v. the writer says,And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.' Now, says the unbeliever, this passage was written at least four hundred years after the time of Moses: for that space of time had elapsed after the death of Moses, before the Israelites were governed by a king: and since this passage is found in a history ascribed to Moses, but which was, in fact, written so many years after his death, the book Genesis, which contains it, cannot be the work of Moses. The passage in question, again occurs in the 1st Chron. i. 43. The consideration then is, whether the difficulty here pointed out, is of such a nature as to affect the authenticity of the Mosaical books? I think not. Would it not be more ingenuous, more just, to suppose, that some subsequent writer did, in collecting and comparing the several scriptures, make such marginal remarks, and such additions, as might appear to him necessary for the illustration and completion of particular narrations; and that, in the course of time, these notes, like those we have already mentioned, found their way into the body of the history? Is not this a reasonable supposition? Would not such a mode of reconciling the difficulty be more becoming, than that too commonly resorted to, of irreverently calumniating a book, which has been deemed genuine, and holy, and true, by the brightest characters of both the ancient and modern world? I offer these as specimens of the objections against the alleged errors of the ancient scriptures. I shall not now stop to notice the objections against many of the scriptural narratives and commands, arising from their supposed immorality and evil tendency; because, these do not, so directly, affect, the authenticity of the history. Leaving these objections, therefore, unnoticed for the present, let us proceed to inquire, why we should ascribe the several Ꮐ books of the ancient scriptures to their reputed authors? f And here, it cannot but be acknowledged, that considerable difficulty attends any attempt at ascertaining the genuineness of books of such high antiquity. Not, indeed, that the difficulties are of -such a nature as to warrant the indecent attacks of the unbeliever; because, independently of any internal evidence of their truth, they stand upon -the same foundation as other ancient writings. The remote antiquity, however, into which they convey us back, is separated from the epochs whence common history takes its rise, by a border region, as it were, of mists and shadows, wherein we seem, at times, to lose all ordinary means of judgment and tests of truth. But this is an evil which, from the nature of the subject, it is impossible totally to escape; and it obliges us to attend to that strong probability which, in all similar 'cases, is reasonable ground for belief, where direct proof is, from the nature of the case, denied us. No man can justify his opposition to scripture testimony, when the evidence preponderates in its favour, when the denial of the circumstances which the scriptures relate, would involve him in -greater difficulties, than the admission of them as facts. And to this state, as it seems to me, will he be reduced, by denying the truth of the Jewish scriptures. In fact, if we refuse to receive them as true relations of past events, we strike at the lefoundation of all ancient history. What evidence have we that the writings of Homer, the most anto t 17 cient profane writings in existence, were written by the person whose name they bear, and, in the times to which they are referred? or what stamps genuineness upon the fragments of poetry and of history, which have escaped the ravages of time, and have descended to us from very remote ages? It is much easier to cavil, and to dispute the genuineness of an ancient work, than to prove it to be the production of the reputed author. These objections, however, have, I think, been satisfactorily set aside in a remark of one of the ancient fathers, quoted by Dr. Watson: St. Austin,' says he, reasoned well, when, in vindicating the genuineness of the Bible, he asked'- What proofs have we that the works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and other profane authors, were written by those whose names they bear; unless it be that this has been an opinions generally received at all times, and by all those who have lived since these authors? That Moses was the author of the books of the Jewish scriptures, commonly called the Pentateuch; and that he was the leader and lawgiver of the Jews, was the common belief of all antiquity. Of the heathen writers who have borne testimony to the books of Moses, we may mention Diodorus Siculus, and Juvenal, the Roman satirist. The former travelled into Egypt and Syria, and into all the countries of the Eastern world, in order to collect materials for history. The testimony of the heathen satirist is remarkable, inasinuch as it gives a characteristic description of -the Jew in his firm adherence to the commands and rites of the Mosaic law, and to the worship of " the one living and invisible God.* But more than all, and still more ancient, is a splendid proof of the veneration in which the Jewish scriptures were held, by Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, who caused the Old Testament to be translated into Greek, which translation is known by the name of the Septuagint version. This event, which proves to us in what high veneration the Jewish scriptures were held, even among the heathen, took place about two hundred and eighty years before Christ, or about one hundred and fifty years after the time of Malachi, the last of the prophets, who, according to the learned Dr. Kennicott, completed the canon of scripture. In fact, that the books of Moses are, beyond comparison, the most ancient writings in the world, coming down to us from the times set forth in the history, has been the uniform faith of the wisest and best men of every age. It was left for comparatively modern men to cavil at a history which has stood the test of upwards of three thousand years, and to tell us that this history is a forgery. * The passage alluded to, is thus rendered by our poet Dryden. The Jews, like their bigotted sires before, By gazing on the clouds, their God adore: So superstitious, that they'll sooner dine Upon the flesh of men than that of swine. Our Roman customs they contemn and jeer, D |