SECT. VII. Revisal of Mr. Hume's examination of the Pentateuch. ALLOWING to the conclusion deduced in the foregoing section its proper weight, I shall also take into consideration the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses; or rather, I shall endeavour impartially to revise the examination which those books have already undergone by the essayist.* It is, in this case, of the greatest importance to know, whether the evidence on both sides hath been fairly stated. "HERE then we are at first to consider "a book," which is acknowledged, on all hands, to be the most ancient record in the world," presented to us," we admit, we admit, "by a "barbarous and ignorant people," at the same time exhibiting a system of Theism, or *P. 205. The author adds, "wrote in an age when they "were still more barbarous." These words I have omitted in the revisal, because they appear to me unintelligible. The age in which the Pentateuch was written, is indirectly compared to another age, he says not what and all we can make of it is, that this people were more barbarous at that time than at some other time, nobody knows when. natural religion, which is both rational and sublime; with which nothing that was ever compiled or produced, on this subject, in the most enlightened ages, by the most learned and polished nations, who were unacquainted with that book, will bear to be compared. Mr. Hume himself must allow, that this remark deserves attention, since his reasoning in another performance, which he calls The Natural History of Religion, would lead us to expect the contrary. He there maintains, that Polytheism and Idolatry are, and must be, the religion of rude and barbarous, and consequently of ancient ages; that the true principles of Theism, or the belief of one Almighty and Wise Being, the Creator, the Preserver, and the Ruler of heaven and earth, results from the greatest improvements of the understanding in philosophy and science. To suppose the contrary, says he, is supposing, that "while men were ignorant and barbarous, they discovered truth; but fell into error, as soon as they acquired learning and po"liteness."* This reasoning is just, whereever religion is to be considered as the result of human reflections. What account then will the author give of this wonderful exception? That the reverse is here the case, it is impossible for him to dissemble. The people he himself calls ignorant and barbarous; yet they are not idolaters or polytheists. At the time when the book, which he examines, was composed, he seems to think, they even exceeded themselves in barbarity; yet the sentiments of these barbarians, on the subject of religion, the sentiments which that very book presents to us, may well put to silence the wisdom of the politest nations on the earth. Need I remind Mr. Hume of his express declaration, that if a traveller were transported into any unknown region, and found the inhabitants "ignorant and barbarous, he might before. "hand declare them idolaters, and there is "scarce a POSSIBILITY of his being mistak "en?""* I know no satisfactory account that can be given of this exception, on the principles of the essayist. Nevertheless, nothing is more easy, than to give a satisfactory account of it, on the Christian principles. This account is that which is given by the book itself. It is, that the religious tenets of that nation were not the result of *Natural History of Religion, I. their reasonings, but proceeded from divine revelation. The contrast we discern betwixt the ISRAELITES, and the ancient GREEKS and ROMANS is remarkable. The GREEKS and ROMANS, on all the subjects of human erudition, on all the liberal and the useful arts, reasoned like men; on the subject of religion, they pratted like children. The ISRAELITES, on the contrary, in all the sciences and arts, were children; but, in their notions of religion, they were men; in the doctrines, for example, of the unity, the eternity, the omnipotence, the omniscience, the omnipresence, the wisdom, and the goodness of God; in their opinions concerning providence, and the creation, preservation, and government of the world; opinions so exalted and comprehensive, as even by the author's acknowledgment, could never enter into the thoughts of barbarians. But to proceed in the revisal: We have here a book, says the essayist," wrote in all "probability long after the facts it relates." That this book was written long after some of the facts it relates, is not indeed denied; that it was written long after all, or even most of those facts, I see no reason to believe. If Mr. Hume meant to signify, by the ex pression quoted, that this was in all probability the case, why did he not produce the grounds on which the probability is founded? Shall a bold assertion pass for argument? or can it be expected, that any one should consider reasons, which are only in general supposed, but not specified? He adds, "corroborated by no concurring "testimony;" as little, say I, invalidated by any contradicting testimony; and both, for this plain reason, because there is no human composition, that can be compared with this, in respect of antiquity. But though this book is not corroborated by the concurrent testimony of any coeval histories, because, if there ever were such histories, they are not now extant; it is not therefore destitute of all collateral evidence. The following examples of this kind of evidence deserve some notice. The division of time into weeks, which hath obtained in many countries, for instance, among the Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, and northern barbarians; nations whereof some had little or no intercourse with others, and were not even known by name to the Hebrews:* the tradition which *The judicious reader will observe, that there is a great difference between the concurrence of nations in the |