that fome people have been alarmed: yet I think the argument quite innocent. It cannot poffibly do any good: and I trust it will as certainly do no harm.

It is remarkable, that in the paffage above about the deluge the author fpeaks of people's not believing the important era. Now there are perfons in the world, who may think, that there is fomething artful in this manner of expreffion. They may imagine, that it is used by way of fubterfuge, that if he should be hard preffed about this hiftory, there might be some room to efcape. For many people doubt about the time of an occurrence; and yet believe the event. But this is an idle furmife: and we may fairly acquit the author of any fuch mean purpose. It is plain at first fight, that he takes the fact, and the era of the fact, for one and the fame thing: and time and circumstance are esteemed fynonymous. It is certain (I know not how truly) that we are apt in general to make a material diftinction" between them. We are taught to think, that an event, and the date of the event, convey two diftinct ideas. Whichever fide may be in the right, the inquiry is certainly curious: and deferves to be profecuted. To be therefore certain of the truth, I applied to an honest countryman, one Sam Joel, in my neighbourhood, that I might have, not a learned, but a plain and rational folution of the queftion. Pray, fays I, honest Sam, do not you believe, that there is fome difference between a man and a month between theepfhearing and the tenth of June? Why really, fir, fays he, I do not quite fee, what you drive at. Why then, fays I, take it in another light. Do not you think my lord mayor is different from my lord mayor's day? Ay mafter, fays he, to be fure; as different as a town-bull from a turnip. I mention this, because I think arguments taken from unfophifticated reafon are far more forcible, than those which are framed by art and logic: and even than those, which are founded upon non-experience.'

Candour obliges us to obferve that Mr. Bryant has mistaken the meaning of the paffages which he criticifes. He even mifquotes Mr. Richardfon's words. The latter very properly, we think, obferves, that teftimonies in favour of the deluge from fuch regions as Hindoftan (if any fuch teftimonies could be obtained) would be far more conclufive than hundreds of volumes from Egypt and Chaldea. Inftead of this plain meaning of the paffage, which no man of ordinary underftanding, unbiaffed by prejudice, can poffibly mistake, Mr., Bryant by fubftituting fach teftimonies,' inftead of teftimonies from fuch regions', makes his opponent speak nonsense. The nonfenfe, however, is his own. We are far from fuggefting that he has fallen into it through defign. Instead of afcribing to fo learned a gentleman, motives which would

dif

difgrace the meaneft of the human fpecies, we are perfuaded that an attachment to fyftem, and the heat of disputation, rather than the defire of throwing unmerited disgrace on an adverfary, have obfcured his faculties.

Nor do we imagine that his farcafm against Mr. Hume is better founded than his ftri&tures on Mr. Richardfon. That ingenious and profound writer, whofe fcepticism in religious matters difgraces the penetrating force of his otherwise clear, comprehenfive, and manly understanding, no where afferts • That in refpect to past facts upon record, our not experiencing any thing analogous, either one way or the other, is the fame as our experiencing the direct contrary.' His argument against miracles refts on a very different foundation. He defines them to be events contrary to the ordinary courfe of nature; fo that every man who experiences the ordinary course of nature, muft daily experience what is contrary to miracles. How far his argument is conclufive, it is not our present bufinefs to enquire; we believe that, like every other argument which in the least affects the authenticity of the Chriftian religion, it may be refuted; but in order to refute, it is neceffary to understand it.

Mr. Richardfon has employed the era of the deluge to denote ⚫ the event of the deluge;' upon which his opponent observes that It is plain at first fight that he takes the fact, and the time of the fact, for one and the fame thing; and time and circumftance are efteemed fynonymous." The witty ftory which follows this obfervation, we think, is exceedingly ill placed. It is intended as a ridicule against Mr. Richardson for thinking that an event, and the date of an event are really the fame thing; but it ought firft to be proved that he really thinks fo. He employs the era of the deluge to express the deluge itfelf; and in the fame manner altar is employed to denote facrifice; field, the battle fought upon it; taeda, a marriage; the Eaft, a country fituated in that direction; and innumerable other words by all writers in all languages.-This figurative ufe of words is founded on the affociation of ideas, by which thofe connected by time, place, refemblance, caufe or effect, naturally fuggeft each other. The figure, condemned by Mr. Bryant, is founded on the first of thefe principles of affociation, and is juftified by the example of the beft writers, ancient and modern.

We thought it neceffary to preface thefe obfervations, which fufficiently explain Mr. Richardfon's motives for criticifing the Analyfis, before we proceed to mention some of the principal of his remarks upon this learned and ingenious performance.

He affirms that Mr. Bryant's theory of the dispersion has no fourdation in history or reason; that it is in opposition to scripture; and deftructive even of the fyftem which he propofes to fupport. The Analyfis fets forth that the descendants of Ham, the Cuthites, were diffatisfied with the portion of the earth allotted to them; while the other branches of Noah's family migrated peaceably to the different parts of Europe and Afia that fell to their lot. The Cuthites, therefore, wandered about, for fome time, not in the route to their appointed country; and made at length a violent trefpafs upon the fons of Shem. But where is the smalleft evidence, facred or profane, of this difobedience, or from what motive could it proceed? It may be faid that Africa, the portion allotted to the fons of Ham, is inferior to Afia and to Europe. Not to mention that Egypt and the Mediterranean coafts of Africa are among the most delightful regions of the univerfe, how could the fons of Ham become acquainted with, the inferiority of Africa, before it had been vifited by any of the human species? The paffes towards the fouth through the Gordyean mountains, fays Mr. Bryant, might poffibly have been more difficult than thofe to the eaft or to the west. But allowing them to have been fo, how could the Cutlites have learned thofe difficulties? How could they know whether there were mountains or plains woods or deferts, rivers or feas, between them and their destined habitation, till they had attempted a paffage, or at least had fet out on their journey.

"In the times of which we are treating, Mr. Bryant obferves, thefe paffes muft have been fill more difficult to be furmounted for, after the deluge, the hollows and vallies between thefe hills, and all other mountainous places, must have been full of flime and mud; and, for a great while, have abounded with flagnant waters *." But had this fingular furmife the leaft foundation, would it not have operated equally against all the emigrants of the other branches? For, to what quarter of the heavens, from Ararat, are there not lofty mountains, divided by lower grounds? But again; how long was it after the Flood before the migra tion took place? for the learned gentleman's chronology leaves us too much at large to form any precife idea. Was it 1265 years, or 1016 (by the Hebrew); or 659 or 410 (by the Septuagint) for we are left to our conjecture for each of thefe numbers. Let us take then the lowest. The waters of the Deluge, which rofe fifteen cubits above the highest mountains, fubfided, we are informed, in a few months. Could fo many years be neeeffary for confolidating the mud? Such mud, and fuch waters, as were not dried up in much much less than 400 years, I am

Anal, vol. iii. p. 24.

much

much afraid, were never intended to be naturally dried up till the end of time.'

The author proceeds to fhow that the route through which Mr. Bryant conducts his Cuthites is still more inacceffible than that which they were careful to avoid. For after croffing the pontem indignans Araxes, they must have furmounted the almoft impaffible mountains which environ Ghilan, Mazonderan, or Tabristan, and fo proceed through Perfian Irak, Kuhistan, or Gebel; the very names of which are expreffive of mountainous regions which, from the concurring teftimony of every his torian, geographer, and traveller, are in many places rugged, horrible, and dangerous, even to a proverb.

The Cuthites after this laborious march (the reality of which Mr. Bryant fupports by a quotation of four words from Berofus; who fays, that, after the deluge, his countrymen πορευθήναι εις Βαβυλωνιαν, took a circuit, and fo defcended to the plains of Babylon) arrived at Shinar, under the conduct of their leader Nimrod, ftyled in the Analyfis the arch-rebel and apoftate, who expelled the fons of Shem, the original inhabitants of Chaldea, built the tower of Babel, and was with his rebellious fubjects the only object of the difperfion. It would be tranfcribing a whole fection to give Mr. Richardson's numerous objections to every one of these fuppofitions. He concludes this part of the discourse by observing, that Mr. Bryant's reafoning, if well founded, would destroy the arguments for the univerfality of the deluge, the confirming of which is held forth as the chief object of the Analyfis.

If the interpretation which (vol. iii. p. 27.) he has been pleased to give us of the 11th chapter of Genefis, is admitted, it muft ruin his fyftem: as it is precisely adopting the very line of evidence, which many learned men have urged, in fupport of the locality of the Flood. And if the expreffion the whole earth, which is fo often and fo emphatically repeated in this chapter, is to be confidered as a mere figurative mode of writing, and to imply only a particular diftrict; the learned author gives up, with one dafh of his pen, the most important point in his whole book: and furnishes his antagonists with the very weapons they wish. For, if he is permitted to make fuch ufe of one chapter, to adapt it to his purpose; they will, and with juftice, claim from him an equal right to the fame freedom of tranflation, in the chapters which precede: and confider the words All flesh, every living fubftance; all the high hills, under the whole heaven: and fuch fimilar expreffions: as having merely a partial fenfe; and to be fimply understood as metaphorical figures of fpeech. This indeed is a line of argument, which was leaft of all to be expected from our learned author; but it shows, that

2

that all things, however confequential, muft give way to his Cutbite fyftem: and that the univerfality of the deluge, though profeffedly his chief object of inveftigation, proves, in fact, a fecondary confideration to his favourite people. But one of thefe points he must give up, or he betrays both. And here indeed he has no choice. The Cuthites muft fall: for this part of his own evidence becomes decifive of their fate. It is a twoedged weapon unfkilfully handled; for, if the whole earth, in one line, means only a particular province, it must clearly have the fame limited fenfe in that which follows: "Therefore is the name of it called Babel, because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth and from thence did the Lord fcatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." Now, if the confufion of speech was confined to the Cuthites, and to the region about Babel; the difperfion must have also been confined to the fame diftrict. This judgement, he muft allow, was either general or limited. If general, all mankind must have been interested in the building of the tower: and all mankind muft, of confequence, have been difperfed. If limited, and the Cuthites were the only objects of divine vengeance, their flight must have been limited alfo to the district of Chaldea: and their whole fanciful wanderings prove, of course, a baseless fabric: a mere castle of cards, pompously reared upon a ftratum of chaff.'

:

In Section IV. Mr. Richardfon examines the hiftorical character of Sanconiathon, Manetho, and Berofus. His obfervations on the two first are but short, as Mr. Bryant has not built much upon that authority; but Berofus being a cornerftone of the Analyfis, he confiders him at greater length. Berofus was a priest of the Babylonish deity Belus, and contemporary with Alexander the Great; though his fuppofed Annals of Chaldea were not published till fifty-five years after the death of that prince. His materials, we are told, were compofed partly from hieroglyphics, and partly from written records, preferved in the temple of his god for a period of 150,000 years. His Hiftory, like that of Sanconiathon and of Manetho, relates to antedeluvian times, and contains fables fo wild, fo impoffible, and fo little refembling any circumftance of our world, that, like dreams, they may be interpreted even as we lift.' Among other prodigies he mentions a man-fish Oannes, and ten antediluvian kings, whose reigns extended to 432,000 years. Mr. Bryant difcovers that this man-fish was Noah. Alexander Polyhiftor, from Berofus, fixes the time of his appearance to a year which can be reconciled with no terreftrial chronology. Abydenus, from Berofus, places this important perfonage 93,000, and Apollodorus, alfo from Berofus,

144,300