the art and power of man in what they did, when, upon their failing to produce lice, they acknowledged that the finger of God, or, as it might be rendered, the finger of a Gal, or fomething supernatural, was in it.

It has been faid that, in feveral refpects, the prefent ftate of the world, and of mankind, does not correspond to what is faid of the hiftory of them in the books of Mofes. But the more we understand of natural and civil history, the less weight there appears to be in all objections of this kind.

It has been faid, that the peopling of America is inconsistent with the fuppofition of the derivation of the whole race of mankind from one pair. But it is now almost certain, that America was, in fact, peopled from the continent of Europe and Afia, and especially from the North Eaftern parts of the latter, which is found to be very near, and may perhaps have been joined to it. This is argued from a fimilarity in features, customs, vegetable, and animal productions, &c.

Objections have been made to the Mofaic account of the creation, and the general deluge. But even in these cafes the hiftory of Mofes is found to fupply a more probable hypothefis, to account for the present state of things, than any other that has yet been propofed; and improvements in philofo

phy do, upon the whole, rather strengthen than weaken this conclufion.

If na

It is alledged, that the origin of the Blacks cannot be accounted for on the principles of the Mofaic hiftory. But there are feveral ways by which this fact may be reconciled with what Mofes has advanced concerning Adam and Noah. tural means be not thought fufficient to produce this effect, on a few individuals, in fome early age, that change may have been produced fupernaturally, though not mentioned by Mofes; and the propagation of Blacks from Blacks, whenever that variety in the fpecies took place, is allowed to be according to the common courfe of nature. The copper colour of the Americans, and the low ftature of the Laplanders and Efquimaux, have alfo been alledged by unbelievers, but to as little purpose.

The objection to the Mofaic history of the Lng lives of the Antediluvians, and the gigantic ftature of fome of the inhabitants of Paleftine, may be eafily paffed without any answer; because there is no contradiction in supposing it to be true, nor is it fo very improbable that the ftate of mankind. may have been very different in former times from what it is at present.

The hiftory of the fall of man is faid to have much the appearance of a fable. But it is fuffi

cient for the purpose of revelation, if it be true in general, that the evils of the prefent ftate were not introduced till the fins of mankind made this state of labour and death appear to be the fittest for them. The fabulous circumftances may poffibly have been introduced by the hieroglyphical manner in which that early history might be firft written. But even the literal account may, in most particulars, have been true.

As to the hiftory of tranfactions so much older than Mofes, fo general an account as he has givenof them might very well have been tranfinitted through the few generations which preceded him, or it might have been communicated to him by revelation. This, however, is not very probable, fince Mofes no where afferts it; and he feems to be exceedingly exact in diftinguishing all that he received from God, from what he relates of his own knowledge, or the information of others.

SECTION II.

Of the Objection to revelation from the fuppofed Infpiration of the Scriptures, and others of a fimilar

nature.

SOME objections to the Jewish and chriftianz

revelations are founded on fmall inconfiftencies, and mistakes in the canonical books of fcripture. But fuch objections as thefe do not by any means affect the divinity of the fyftem of religion which they contain; because the contents of those books may be true in the main, notwithstanding fuch inconfiftencies and mistakes. All historians, even those of the most approved credit, have been fubject to fmall inadvertencies and errors. No history of Rome or England was ever written without them; but, do we therefore fay, that there is no truth in them. Nay, the difcovery of fuch fmall mistakes is never imagined to affect the credit of the important facts.

Allowing, therefore, that, in the books of Kings, a prince is faid to have reigned one number of years, and in the books of Chronicles another ; that one of the Evangelists speaks of both the thieves reviling Chrift, whereas another fays, that only one of them did it; that in one of the Gospels

Chrift is reprefented as purging the temple on the day that he arrived at Jerufalem, and that in another he is not faid to have done it till the day fcllowing (and unbelievers do not pretend to have: found any mistakes of more confequence than thefe). how do they invalidate the truth of the general hiftory? In reality, all fuch inconfiftencies as thefe are fo far from making it probable that the whole ftory is a fiction, that, according to the most eftablished methods of eftimating the value of teftimony, they give the greater. air of truth to every particular of importance, in which they all agree. We fee, in fact, that true history has always been: written in the fame manner, and without particular contrivance and combination, and confequently without a very ftrong fufpicion of falfehood, hiftories of the fame period, and the fame tranfac-tions, could not be written otherwife..

Admitting, therefore, that the Evangelifts were mifinformed with refpect to a variety of incidental circumstances, or even that they overlooked, or did not fufficiently attend to, fome of fuch parti-culars above-mentioned as might have fallen under their own obfervation, are these things of fuch a nature, as to difpofe any perfon to call in question the reality of the principal miracles, or their hiftory of the death and refurre&tion of Chrift? And without this, the proper evidence of christianity is not in the leaft affected; becaufe, if thefe important C 5

facts