time prove my conjecture at all right, this bas-relief must be nearly two hundred years older than any which are ascribed to Cyrus at Persepolis or Pasargadæ."* As we advance to the Assyrian monarchy, the Scripture accounts agree with the profane ones rectified, and when we descend still lower to the period of Nabonasser and the kings of Babylon and Persia, who are posterior to this era, and are recorded in Ptolemy's canon or series of them, we find the agreement of sacred and profane history much more exact, there being certain criteria in profane history for fixing the facts related in it. And it is remarkable, that not only the direct relations of the historical books, but also the indirect mention of things in the prophecies, correspond with the true chronology, which is an unquestionable evidence of their genuineness and truth. The history contained in the Old Testament is throughout distinct, methodical and consistent; while profane history is utterly deficient in the first ages, and full of fictions in the succeeding ages; and becomes clear and precise in the principal facts, only about the period when the Old Testament history ends: so that the latter corrects and regulates the former, and renders it intelligible in many instances which must otherwise be given up as utterly inexplicable. "How then," says Mr. Horne," can we suppose the Old Testament history not to be genuine and true, or a wicked imposture to be made, and not only to continue undiscovered, but even to increase to a most audacious height in a nation, that of all others, kept the most exact accounts of time!" Infidels object to the credibility of the Old Testament writings on account of the statements contained in them concerning the great fertility of the land of Palestine. But these statements are confirmed by the unanimous testimony of ancient writers, as well as of most, if not all, the travelers who have visited the country. And as Mr. Keith remarks: "As the fruit of the land was of old shown unto the Israelites, a similar evidence may be adduced from the gleanings of the grapes,' though the vintage is done." "Galilee," says Malte Brun, "would be a paradise, were its inhabitants an industrious people under an enlightened government. Vine stocks are to be found here a foot and a half in diameter, forming, by their twining branches, vast arches and extensive ceilings of verdure. A cluster of grapes, two or three feet in length, will give an abundant supper to a whole family." And from Sir Robert Kerr Porter's Travels in Georgia, &c., vol. ii. pp. 154-162. the opposite side of Palestine, Laborde gives us the following exhibition of a few of the grapes of an enormous cluster. Finally, the Jews themselves bear a forcible testimony to this day, in all countries of the world, to the truth of their ancient history. If that history be spurious, or in any considerable degree altered, upon what principle can their present state be accounted for? How is it that, notwithstanding the many persecutions and oppressions, to which, for long ages, and on account of their religion, they have been subjected, they still persist in their attachment to that religion, and to those laws and predictions which condemn them? What could produce among them universally that sense of guilt and conviction that they are under the malediction of the offended Deity, which is exhibited in the following note, handed to the writer by a Jew, during the discussion which led to the publication of this work, and which was called forth by an assertion of Mr. Olmsted, that the Israelites who left Egypt could not have believed in the performance of the miracles stated in the Mosaic writings, otherwise they would not have rebelled against the government of God, as they are represented to have done : "In an age of reason, with all the experience of the past before our eyes, are we not now continually rebelling, and the subjects of divine wrath?" Admit the truth of their history, and their condition, their attachment to their religion, their laws and their prophecies, are easily explained. Deny it, and they present, in every aspect in which they can be viewed, an inexplicable mystery. CHAPTER IV. Ir must be evident to every candid reader who has carefully perused the preceding pages of this work, that the truth of the sacred history, so far as the great leading facts are concerned, is established by proofs the most satisfactory and convincing. But the most strenuous efforts of the adversaries of the Christian faith have been exerted to show that the books of the Old Testament, especially those ascribed to Moses, were written at a period far later than that to which they are commonly assigned, although they cannot agree among themselves as to the period. Some assert that they were written by Ezra, after the return from the Babylonish captivity; and, according to them, Ezra was the inventor of the ceremonial law, which, Mr. O. has asserted, he forced upon them " at the point of the bayonet." But nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that the Israelites could have been induced, at any period of their history, to submit to the requisitions of that law, unless they had been fully assured of the truth of those things which are recorded by Moses. We are not ignorant of the fact, that to this it is replied by the Infidel, In that history such a high antiquity is ascribed to the Israelites as a nation, that their vanity induced them to receive it, although they were convinced it was false, even as heathen nations received the fables of their poets, on account of their pride being flattered by the tracing up of their origin to the gods. Those who urge this, forget that the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, and the Canaanites were the bitter enemies of the Israelites, and the objects of their aversion, and at the period when Ezra is said to have palmed the Old Testament upon them. Now this history gives to these nations a much higher antiquity than it does to the Israelites, which, instead of flattering their vanity, was calculated to wound it, and so to prejudice their minds as to render its reception by them impossible, unless they were convinced of its truth. There are also certain facts stated in that history, so mortifying to their pride, that they could have received it only from a conviction of their truth, and which never would have been stated by an author writing a fable, and for the purpose of flattering their vanity. Their progenitor, Jacob, is stated by deception to have supplanted Esau, the progenitor of their enemies, the Edomites. While yet but a single family, in their cruelty to the Shechemites, and to one of their own brethren, they are represented as a nest of traitors and murderers. While in Egypt, they are represented as a nation of abject slaves; and every astonishing deliverance effected for them, seems to rise up in a striking light, only to throw a darker shade upon the national character and conduct. Is it reasonable to suppose that a writer of fiction would give such a narrative as this? that in this way he would attempt to touch the strings of the heart? that he would try to excite national pride by giving it a mortal wound in almost every fact he related? If such an one could succeed in palming a fiction upon the Israelites, they must have been differently constituted from all the other human beings that have ever lived upon the earth; and the necessary conclusion must be, either the Israelites were convinced of the truth of their history as contained in the Scriptures, or when they adopted them as true, at the same time knowing them to be false, they must have been a nation of idiots. The books of the Old Testament bear such marks upon them as clearly prove that one man could not have written them, nor any set of men living at the same period of time. It is true, that the Hebrew language, in which the Old Testament was written, was the language of an ancient people, who had little intercourse with their neighbors; and the language of these neighbors had great affinity with theirs, for this reason; it would not change so rapidly as those of the moderns do, owing to the fact that different nations are variously intermingled. Yet as no language continues altogether stationary, it is evident that between the time Moses is represented to have lived, and that of Malachi, some changes must have taken place in the Hebrew language, and critical Hebrew scholars have proved that the character and style of the language of the different books of the Old Testament differ; which shows that the different parts of it were composed at different and distant periods, and by different persons. Therefore if the Old Testament be a fiction, it is the production not of one, but of many impostors, who lived in different ages of the world, and who by means incomprehensible by man, entered into a conspiracy to impose upon posterity. Whether true or false, the books of the Old Testament bear marks of great antiquity. The Hebrew language, in which they are written, ceased to be spoken as a living language, soon after the Babylonish captivity. Now to suppose that the Old Testament was written after it had become a dead language, is to suppose, if not an impossibility, at least that which would be exceedingly difficult to ac near y as ancient as the Babylonish captivity, and, as has been shown, since they could not all have been written in the same age, some must be considerably more ancient; which, upon the supposition that the history contained in them is false, brings us back to a succession of impostors. That the book of Genesis is of great antiquity, and can by no possibility be the production of an impostor who lived subsequent to, or even at the time of the Babylonish captivity, every candid reader must see from the following illustration, which is presented because it can be appreciated by all. In Genesis xii. 10-15, there is the following narrative: "And there was a famine in the land, (of Canaan) and Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was grievous in the land. And it came to pass, when he came near to en |