was depressed or afflicted more than any man (haadamah) of that land. And why was he so? Because of the great burden he had to bear in the care and government of this people, and because of their ingratitude and rebellion against God and himself."

It has been urged as a very important objection, that the name of Dan is found in Genesis, chapter xiv. 14; whereas the town formerly denominated Laish, was not called Dan till about the time of Sam

son.

Mr. Paine says, "In the 14th chapter of Genesis, the writer gives an account of Lot being taken prisoner in a battle between the four kings against five, and carried off; and that when the account of Lot being taken came to Abraham, he armed all his household and marched to rescue Lot from the captors; and he pursued them unto Dan.

To show in what manner the expression of pursuing them unto Dan applies to the case in question, (the historical and chronological evidence,) I will refer to two circumstances, the one in America, the other in France. The city now called New-York, in America, was originally New Amsterdam; and the town in France, lately called Havre Marat, was before called Havre de Grace. New Amsterdam was changed to New-York in the year 1664; Havre de Grace to Havre Marat in 1793. Should, therefore, any writing be found, though without date, in which the name of New-York should be mentioned, it would be certain evidence that such a writing could not have been written before, and must have been written after New Amsterdam was changed to New-York, and consequently not till after the year 1664, or at least during the course of that year. And in like manner, any dateless writing with the name of Havre Marat, would be certain evidence that such a writing must have been written after Havre de Grace became Havre Marat, and consequently not till after the year 1793, or at least during the cousse of that year.

I now come to the application of those cases, and to show that there was no such place as Dan, till many years after the death of Moses; and consequently, that Moses could not be the writer of the book of Genesis, where this account of pursuing them unto Dan is given.

The place that is called Dan in the Bible was originally a town of the Gentiles, called Laish; and when the tribe of Dan seized upon this town, they changed its name to Dan, in commemoration of Dan, who was the father of that tribe, and the great grandson of Abraham.

To establish this in proof, it is necessary to refer from Genesis to

the 18th chapter of the book called the book of Judges. It is there said that they (the Danites) came unto Laish, to a people that were quiet and secure, and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burned the city with fire; and they built a city, and dwelt therein, and they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first.

This account of the Danites taking possession of Laish and changing it to Dan, is placed in the book of Judges immediately after the death of Samson. The death of Samson is said to have happened eleven hundred and twenty years before Christ, and that of Moses fourteen hundred and fifty-one before Christ; and therefore, according to the historical arrangement, the place was not called Dan till three hundred and thirty-one years after the death of Moses.

According to the chronological arrangement, the taking of Laish, and giving it the name of Dan, is made to be twenty years after the death of Joshua, who was the successor of Moses, and by the historical order as it stands in the book, it is made to be three hundred and six years after the death of Joshua, and three hundred and thirtyone after that of Moses; but they both exclude Moses from being the writer of Genesis, because according to either of the statements, no such place as Dan existed in the time of Moses; and therefore, the writer of Genesis must have been some person who lived after the town of Laish had the name of Dan; and who that person was, nobody knows; and consequently the book of Genesis is anonymous and without authority."

The evidence that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, would not be in the least degree weakened by the supposition that the Dan mentioned in Genesis, had been originally Laish; for after Laish came to be little known, the word Dan might have been inserted in the margin, and afterwards by some transcriber, it might have been transferred to the text.

But there is no necessity for this supposition. The Infidel cannot prove that there was not a place or rivulet of the name of Dan, in the days of Abraham. We are told that the Jordan is formed by the union of two springs, the uppermost arises in Mount Lebanon, about twelve miles north of Cæsarea Philippi. One of these springs was "Jor," and the other "Dan," which name gave rise to the word JORDAN: on the latter of these the town of Dan was situated, which had been formerly called Laish. There can be no doubt that in the time of Moses, this river was called Jordan; and from the silence

more inferred that it did not exist, than that there was no such place as Hobah, mentioned in the next verse, because the name occurs no where else in the Scriptures.

Mr. Paine proceeds to urge another objection against the antiquity and genuineness of the Pentateuch, which has been considered the most formidable of all. He says, "In the 36th chapter of Genesis, there is given a genealogy of the sons and descendants of Esau, who are called Edomites; and also a list, by name, of the kings of Edom; in enumerating of which, it is said, verse 31, "And these are the kings that reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel."

Now were any dateless writings to be found, in which speaking of any past events, the writer should say, these things happened before there was any congress in America, or before there was any convention in France, it would be evidence that such writings could not have been written before, and could only be written after there was a congress in America or a convention in France, as the case might be; and consequently, that it could not be written by any person who died before there was a congress in the one country, or a convention in the other.

Nothing is more frequent, as well in history as in conversation, than to refer to a fact in the room of a date; it is most natural so to do, because a fact fixes itself in the memory better than a date; secondly, because the fact includes the date, and serves to excite two ideas at once; and this manner of speaking by circumstances implies as positively that the fact alluded to is past, as if it was expressed. When a person speaking upon any matter says, it was before I was married, or before my son was born, or before I went to America, or before I went to France, it is absolutely understood, and intended to be understood, that he has been married, that he has had a son, that he has been in America, or been in France. Language does not admit of using this mode of expression in any other sense; and whenever such an expression is found any where, it can only be understood in the sense in which only it could have been used.

The passage therefore that I have quoted, "that these are the kings that reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel," could only have been written after the first king began to reign over them; and consequently, that the book of Genesis, so far from having been written by Moses, could not have been written till the time of Saul at least. This is the positive sense of the passage; but the expression, any king, implies more kings than one, at least it

implies two, and this will carry it to the time of David; and if taken in a general sense, it carries itself through all the time of a Jewish monarchy.

Had we met with this verse in any part of the Bible that professed to have been written after kings began to reign in Israel, it would have been impossible not to have seen the application of it. It happens then that this is the case; the two books of Chronicles, which gave a history of all the kings of Israel, are professedly, as well as in fact, written after the Jewish monarchy began; and this verse that I have quoted, and all the remaining verses of the 36th chapter of Genesis, are, word for word, in the first chapter of Chronicles, beginning at the 43rd verse.

It was with consistency that the writer of the Chronicles could say, as he has said, 1 Chronicles, i. xliii. These are the kings that reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel, because he was going to give, and has given a list of the kings that reigned in Israel; but as it is impossible that the same expression could have been used before that period, it is as certain as any thing can be proved from historical language, that this part of Genesis is taken from Chronicles, and that Genesis is not so old as Chronicles, and probably not so old as the book of Homer, or as Æsop's fables, admitting Homer to have been, as the tables of chronology state, contemporary with David, or Solomon, and Esop to have lived about the end of the Jewish monarchy."

Because in Genesis it is said, "These are the kings that reigned in Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel,” and the same passage is found in 1 Chronicles, it has been inferred by Mr. Paine, that this part of Genesis has been taken from Chronicles, and therefore Genesis is not so old as Chronicles. But if the two passages are compared, it will appear far more natural to conclude that the genealogy in Genesis was first written, and that the other is an abridgment of it; for the former is more than double the size of the latter. Dr. Clarke supposes, that the words in Genesis, chap. xxxvi. 31, might have been at a very early period, written in the margin of an authentic copy to make out the regal succession of Edom, prior to the consecration of Saul; which words being afterwards found in the margin of a valuable copy, from which others were translated, were supposed by the copyist to be a part of the text, which having been omitted by the mistake of the original writer, had been since added. Mr. Horne is also of the same opinion, and the supposition can affect neither the genuineness, authenticity or

inspiration of the book. But this supposition is unnecessary, for it was in the highest degree consistent with the design of Moses to give a particular account of the Edomites. He had already recorded the prophecy delivered to Rebekah, that "the one people should be stronger than the other, and that the elder should serve the younger." In the passage he shows that the Edomites formed a considerable nation, under a regal government, while the Israelites, so far from having any rulers of their own race, were in a state of slavery in Egypt; thereby the completion of the prophecy was made to appear the more remarkable. The term before there reigned any king over the chil dren of Israel, may merely signify, before they had any regular government of their own. For, says Mr. Richardson, to whom this article is deeply indebted, "the word rendered king is sometimes used to denote a judge or governor." Thus in the history of Judges it is said, "In these days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

It is evident that the term is here used to denote a judge; for there had never been a king in Israel in any other sense. The reason added shows incontestably that nothing more is intended than that they had no chief ruler of any kind. That the meaning of the passage objected against, viz: "And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel," evidently is, that the persons mentioned had governed Edom before Israel had any judge or chief ruler; and that this is the true meaning of the passage is confirmed by the language of Moses himself; for in Duteronomy, chap. xxxiii. 5, he calls himself "king in Jeshurun."

Mr. Jamieson very satisfactorily accounts for the language in another way. He says, "The writer has already said that God had declared to Jacob, as he had already done to Abraham, "Kings shall come out of thy loins." But by giving a particular account of the priority of the descendants of Esau as to temporal dignity, he in effect shows the Israelites how God was pleased to try their faith in his promise.

From the number of governors mentioned in this chapter, it cannot justly be inferred that their succession extended to a much later period than that in which Moses is said to have wrote; for according to the judgment of some learned writers, a considerable number of their rulers preceded Esau. The Horites, whose dukes are here named, existed as a nation in the time of Abraham. There is no evidence that the kings mentioned after them had any affinity to Esau.