In order to perceive with the utmost evidence,that the scope and design of the author or authors of the Pentateuch,and of the other books of the Old Testament,answer as little the purpose of antiquaries,in history,as in chronology,it will be sufficient briefly to call to mind the sum of what they relate,from the creation of the world to the establishment of the Persian empire.If the antediluvian world continued one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years,and if the vocation of Abraham is to be placed four hundred and twenty-six years below the deluge,these twenty centuries make almost two-thirds of the period mentioned:and the whole history of them is comprised in eleven short chapters of Genesis;which is certainly the most compendious extract that ever was made.If we examine the contents of these chapters,do we find anything like an universal history,or so much as an abridgment of it?Adam and Eve were created,they broke the commandment of God,they were driven out of the garden of Eden,one of their sons killed his brother,but their race soon multiplied and peopled the earth,What geography now have we,what history of this antediluvian world?Why,none.The sons of God,it is said,lay with the daughters of men,and begot giants,and God drowned all the inhabitants of the earth,except one family.After this we read that the earth was repeopled;but these children of one family were divided into several languages,even whilst they lived together,spoke the same language,and were employed in the same work.Out of one of the countries into which they dispersed themselves,Chaldea,God called Abraham sometime afterwards,with magnificent promises,and conducted him to a country called Canaan.Did this author,my lord,intend an universal history?Certainly not.The tenth chapter of Genesis names indeed some of the generations descending from the sons of Noah,some of the cities founded,and some of the countries planted by them.But what are bare names,naked of circumstances,without deions of countries,or relations of events?They furnish matter only for guess and dispute;and even the similitude of them,which is often used as a clue to lead us to the discovery of historical truth,has notoriously contributed to propagate error,and to increase the perplexity of ancient tradition.These imperfect and dark accounts have not furnished matter for guess and dispute alone;but a much worse use has been made of them by Jewish rabbies,Christian fathers,and Mahometan doctors,in their profane extensions of this part of the Mosaic history.The creation of the first man is described by some,as if,Preadamites,they had assisted at it.They talk of his beauty as if they had seen him,of his gigantic size as if they had measured him,and of his prodigious knowledge as if they had conversed with him.They point out the very spot where Eve laid her head the first time he enjoyed her.
They have minutes of the whole conversation between this mother of mankind,who damned her children before she bore them,and the serpent.Some are positive that Cain quarreled with Abel about a point of doctrine,and others affirm that the dispute rose about a girl.A great deal of such stuff may be easily collected about Enoch,about Noah,and about the sons of Noah;but I waive any farther mention of such impertinences as Bonzes or Talapoins would almost blush to relate.Upon the whole matter,if we may guess at the design of an author by the contents of his book,the design of Moses,or of the author of the history ascribed to him,in this part of it,was to inform the people of Israel of their descent from Noah by Sem,and of Noah's from Adam by Seth;to illustrate their original;to establish their claim to the land of Canaan,and to justify all the cruelties committed by Joshua in the conquest of the Canaanites,in whom,says Bochart,"the prophecy of Noah was completed,when they were subdued by the Israelites,who had been so long slaves to the Egyptians."Allow me to make,as I go along,a short reflection or two on this prophecy,and the completion of it,as they stand recorded in the Pentateuch,out of many that might be made.The terms of the prophecy then are hot very clear:and the curse pronounced in it contradicts all our notions of order and of justice.One is tempted to think,that the patriarch was still drunk;and that no man in his senses could hold such language,or pass such a sentence.
Certain it is,that no writer but a Jew could impute to the economy of Divine Providence the accomplishment of such a prediction,nor make the Supreme Being the executor of such a curse.
Ham alone offended;Canaan was innocent;for the Hebrew and other doctors who would make the son an accomplice with his father,affirm not only without,but against the express authority of the text.
