the present condition of that system will hardly prove, that it did not begin in an express revelation, any more, than the corruptions of Romanism will prove the same thing concerning Christianity. If that representation be well founded, then the most that can be positively declared, is, that the proofs of the rightful pretensions of the Hindoo system to a supernatural character, if such ever existed, are lost; and that the original truths have been so overlaid and superseded by later errors, as to be no longer profitable or discernible. At all events,

the most that I find myself able to assert, is, that I know no proof of any other religious system, except the Mosaic and Christian, having been ever supernaturally revealed. But this is a very different thing from asserting that no other religion ever was so revealed; and the latter is a ground, which he who would urge an argument, founded upon it, against the credibility of the Jewish system, assumes without any authority whatever.

So much for any supposed antecedent improbability in a revelation (if a revelation were made) being limited, as was the Jewish. By way of preparation for examining fairly the provisions of that system, I would next say a few words, in a general way, upon a subject, which, in its details, will frequently come before us in the investigation. A prejudice is apt to be excited against the Jewish system by a certain character of rudeness which it obviously bears, when compared with

plainly inculcated, and the mode of worshipping him particularly directed. The doctrine of a plurality of gods and goddesses is not only controverted, but reasons assigned for its introduction," &c. This publication gave rise to a controversy, in the course of which appeared his "Defence of Hindoo Theism," and "Second Defence of the Monotheistical System of the Veds," more fully maintaining the view, that "the theology of the Vedas is the doctrine of one self-existent, omnipotent God;" and these were followed by translations of other parts of the Brahminical books, professedly executed for the establishment of the same fact.

Christianity, or judged agreeably to the habits of thinking which prevail at the present day. I ask, whether it is just, or in any degree philosophical, to give way to such a prejudice. Would any one defend it on the ground, that whatever proceeds from God, must needs be perfect? Nothing can be more false. The Infinite Mind, incessantly active, studies (so to speak), and delights in, an infinite variety; and of course, where there is a variety of works and administrations, (which itself is a surpassing excellence of the whole system taken together,) there must, of necessity, be more excellence in some forms of these, and less in others. To say that all should be equally complete, would be to say that there ought to be the dulness and inoperativeness of uniformity, or rather of identity, instead of the beauty which characterizes, and the multiform relations and mutual influences arising out of, the variety which we find existing.

If our earth were the only dwelling-place of beings capable of religion, then it might perhaps be, that the divine attributes would insure its having a religious administration of the highest possible perfection. But making, as it appears to do, but a small part of an infinitely varied universe, I should feel authorized to insist, if my argument required it, that we had no more right, on the ground of the divine attributes, to demand, for our earth, in any period of its existence, an abstractly perfect religious administration, than we should have a right, on the same ground, to demand, that an earthly insect should be a perfect creation of almighty skill, endowed with all intellectual and moral attributes, or to refuse to believe in its existence, if it was less. than such a creation. That may clearly be the best. possible thing, as part of a great system, as fitly contributing to the endless variety,- which, judged only

by itself, would possess no such character. God looks at every thing as part of the universal system. We cannot do this. But we ought to be extremely backward to condemn that which may have become subject to our suspicions, only through our own narrowness of view; through our own partial supply of the needful facts for arriving at a just estimation.

But to go so far is by no means necessary for our argument. I suggest, again, that the perfection of any instrument is its complete adaptation to its use. To affect the mind of man, if God condescends to use those means which are consistent with the exercise of its free will, he will address himself to it in a manner adapted to its existing state of cultivation. He will address it, in other words, in the language, which, taking it as it is, will make it understand and feel. He will quicken it through the instrumentality of its accustomed associations. He will convey instruction to it through those channels, to which it has been used. We may think much of our refinement at the present day. But what great difference can we imagine there would be, between the degree of accommodation which it would be necessary for the Divine Mind to make to our poorly furnished and cultivated minds, if it should condescend directly to address them, and that, which, for the same purpose, was practised in the case of the ancient Israelites? If God is pleased to convey a message directly from himself, the form which it will take will be determined by nothing except regard to the manner in which it will best do its office; and what that manner is, will depend on the condition of that understanding for which the message is designed. To address the Jews in Moses' time in the same forms of communication which might now be suitable to be used with us, would be quite as unfit, as to reverse that

course, and address Christians, in a comparatively civilized age, in the manner which we find employed, in Moses' revelation, with the Jews.

We ought to consider more than we do, that the very supposition of communication on the part of the Divine Being, with any of his creatures, implies accommodation on his part to their state of preparation for the receiving of communications from him. Otherwise there is no effectual communication. The mind, addressed in a language which it does not understand, is not addressed. Doubtless God addresses superior intelligences in a different way from that, in which he will address his earthly creatures in any stage of their progress. Doubtless men, in a future improved state, may be addressed in a different manner from that which could now be used with us. So the contemporaries of Jesus Christ could bear to be addressed in a different manner from the debased and barbarous Jews of Moses' time. But, so far from suspicion properly attaching to the way, in which God is represented to have addressed these latter persons, on account of its not being the way most conformed to our own habits of taste and speculation, the very fact of its having a peculiar conformity to theirs, as far as we are able to detect that fact, ought to pass with us for a strong reason, corroborating the authenticity of the narrative.

I add another remark, preliminary to our entrance on the examination of the Pentateuch. It is, that students of Scripture are apt to fall into a great error, as to what they may reasonably expect from labors in interpretation, in consequence of the common, but entirely unfounded habit, of looking at all the books in the Biblical collection, whether of the Old or the New Testament, from the same point of view. They seem sometimes to expect to arrive as uniformly at complete and

satisfactory explanations of questions arising from the Jewish books, as from the Christian; and, when they fail to do so, they seem to think it a ground for objection against the former. I believe, that the admission of any prejudice arising from such a cause will be seen, on a moment's reflection, to be altogether indefensible. We must not expect to interpret the Jewish, as we interpret the Christian records. The latter have come down to us in a language, which we learn with accuracy from a variety of books, treating of a variety of subjects, and constituting perhaps the most copious literature which ever existed. They have come down to us from times, of which, considering their distance, we know extremely well the customs of society, and the habits of thought. We are acquainted, from ample sources, with the contemporaneous and preceding history, and we have almost contemporaneous expositions, which are not without their value. The Pentateuch, if we assign its date correctly, is much older than any monument of profane literature. It comes to us from the infancy of society. Language, always an imperfect instrument, especially when only written, was then in almost its earliest immaturity. The force of the whole mass of idiomatic expressions, on which grammars and lexicons, from their nature, give us little light, is lost to us, except so far as parallel passages may sometimes help us to recover them; nor only lost, but as often as, for want of knowing that an idiom was intended, we attempt to analyze a sentence by established analogies of the language, we are unavoidably led into a positive misconception of the sense. For want of contemporaneous history, we know very little, circumstantially, of the state of surrounding opinions; and when a law is prescribed, or a sentiment advanced, which had reference to these, we may be entirely at a loss for its import, or, if we