ones especially, are so far back in the past, that we are wholly uncertain in regard to their truth, here meets with a reply that cannot fail to be appreciated. Its most important announcements become more obviously true with the lapse of ages.

42. There are many less important events that are local and circumscribed, of which we cannot be so certain, when viewed by themselves; but connected as they are with more important events, and resting on the same original basis, our belief of one, so well sustained, makes us yield assent to the others.

43. The mode by which divine communications were originally made, is a proper subject of inquiry in this connection, for there seems to be considerable confusion in the minds of men in regard to this matter. Divine communications were obviously made to our first parents, as this was a necessity of their condition; but in what manner they were made, is not defined. Several communications were made to Noah; but how made, we are not informed. So revelations were made to Abraham; but in general, the method of making them is left to inference. In regard to these, and all other instances, (unless special reasons oppose,) we feel safe in saying, that the mode was the same as in other instances, where it is definitely and explicitly stated.

When it is said, that the word of the Lord came to Abraham in a vision; and that Jacob saw the Lord in a dream; and that God spake to Israel in the visions of the night; we feel safe in concluding that the same mode was adopted in other cases. xv. 1; xxviii. 12; xlvi. 2.

-

44. This is rendered the more evident from several considerations. One is, that no other mode is specified. Another, that the same language and phraseology are found in those passages where the mode is not stated, as in those where it is. Add to these cir

cumstances, that the language following some of these revelations, shows them to have been in the night, and the inference is, that they occurred in a dream or a vision. As examples; immediately after the communication to Abraham, recorded in xxi. 12, 13, it is added, "and Abraham rose up early in the morning," &c. When Abraham was instructed to take his son Isaac, and offer him upon a certain mountain, it is not said that this instruction was given him in a dream or vision; but when it is added, that "Abraham rose up early in the morning," and proceeded to execute the divine mandate, the conclusion seems plain, that the revelation had been made in the night, and by natural inference, that it was made in a dream. xxii. 3.

When, therefore, God spake to Adam, to Cain, or to Noah, we suppose he spake in the manner here indicated, no other mode being obvious; and this view we deem the more reliable, and worthy of acceptation, from the fact that it removes much of the mist in which this matter seems involved in many minds, and so far as it has this effect, it adds beauty and consistency to the record, and brings it more immediately within the reach of human credibility.

SECTION VI.

TRUTH OF THE BOOK.

45. The truth of the recorded statements, found in the book of Genesis, is quite a different thing from its inspiration. An inspired book would be, no doubt, a true book; but a book, not inspired, may be true. I do not suppose that any special inspiration guided the hand of the writer of the book under consideration, and I trust the reasons already given for this opinion may be deemed satisfactory, founded as they are upon facts. Even the divine messages, that were then given to man, had to be entrusted to human hands, and were written down

with other records by the same fallible agency. That the book is substantially true, however, we have no doubt; and we come to this conclusion, from considerations, affecting its veracity, as we would in any other case. We cannot assume its truth on the previous assumption of its inspiration.

46. That the book is true, as to its pretensions of embracing sundry divine communications, is proved by the necessity before shown to have existed at that time, for such special aid.

Its truth is farther indicated by the views it gives us, in some passages, elsewhere noticed, that seem plainly the product of an early age, and the infant condition of our race. We may mention another circumstance, nearly allied to this, that goes to sustain the same thing. Many events that we are accustomed to refer to secondary causes, the Patriarchs refer directly to God. There are two reasons for this. One is, that divine communications, wherein God appeared to them and spake to them, would make them feel a nearness to him that others would not feel who were not thus distinguished. Another is, that the investigations of science and philosophy had not yet disclosed the existence of secondary causes, as they were understood afterwards.

47. That its historical records may be relied upon, may be made out from various considerations. There is no opposing record. The Jews, who had the best means of judging on this subject, all agree in receiving the book as a true account of ancient and primitive times. Another circumstance, which we may regard as providential, if we will, and an illustration that temporary evils are overruled for good, helps to sustain this argument. The children of Israel, at a very early period, were separated into two parts, and have ever since been hostile to each other; and yet, both portions of the people receive the record we now have, and about which we are

prosecuting our inquiries, though they are not agreed in regard to some of the later writings. The book existed, therefore, before the separation; and if we make a reasonable allowance for the time requisite to bring it into general repute, upon the claims it sets up, we shall be compelled to refer it to the age of Moses, and concede that there must have been good reasons, at that time, for receiving its statements as substantially correct.

48. The truth of a book is to be judged of in two ways. One is, by means of external evidences in its favor, and the other is by the indications of truth in the book itself. Most books, with which we are acquainted, may be proved or disproved by other cotemporary documents. Other external marks of the truth of a book (if it be true,) may exist in cotemporary monuments and institutions. As to the record now under consideration, it so occurs, that this kind of evidence is mostly denied us. There is no other book so ancient. There is no cotemporary writing that can corroborate its declarations. Uncertain tradition is all that can be urged, as coming the nearest to evidence of this kind. And few monuments can be found, that can be referred back to so early a period. So far as these traditions and monuments bear upon the subject, they favor the record; and in respect to a few things, they are exceedingly important and convincing. It is hardly to be doubted, for example, that the book gives us a true account of the creation of the world; for all the discoveries of modern science, confirm its truth by monuments found in the depths of the earth, that are every year becoming more convincing. The fact of a deluge, is in harmony with all the phenomena of the past and present, that can affect this question; and the traditions of all nations furnish most extraordinary confirmation.

49. The intrinsic probabilities of the truth of the record, and the harmony of its several statements, furnish the best evidence, perhaps, that can be urged in its favor; and indeed, this kind of evidence is generally most convincing, with regard to any book, whether ancient or modern; nor does the distance of time destroy or materially weaken it.

50. Several particulars may be designated as affording internal evidence of the truth of the Mosaic records, in the book now under consideration. One is, that the degree of intelligence, the book shows to have existed at that time, is precisely what might be expected, under the circumstances. The world, like the individual, has its childhood and youth, its maturity and old age. We know from the past, what is the rate of its progress or growth. When we look at its youth, we know what must have been its childhood or infancy. And though this is a subject about which we may not claim to be above mistakes; yet, in our judgment, the record we have in Genesis, of the infancy and childhood of the race, is a very exact statement of what we should suppose it ought to be, in view of what we know of its subsequent condition and progress. The language of social life, the customs that prevailed, the views of God and his operations there set forth, all indicate a primitive condition of the race. And when we look at its condition at a subsequent period, when seen through the light of authentic history, its advancement is only, and precisely, what it ought to be, from such a beginning, and during the space of time that had preceded.

51. Again, many of the objections to the book, drawn from its internal character, are really arguments in its favor. It is said to contain unworthy conceptions of God and his operations. We admit it does, so far as the author's language may be understood as expressing his own views, or employed in accommodation to the prevailing views of the peo