series of papers, will perhaps find the present inquiry an object of still deeper importance; as it embraces a variety of illustration, and a range of scriptural subjects, which could not belong to the religion of nature, considered in the light wherein Archbishop Tillotson viewed it, and which formed the text of my then observations. We shall begin with the existence, nature, and operations of deity, and proceed through the main events connected with our species and their terrestrial habitation, as detailed in the early part of the scriptures; vindicating each point from the cavils and aspersions of ungodly men, by the collateral, and, as some may think, the unnecessary evidence of paganism.

Far, however, be it from me, to view this chain of testimony, how clear and useful soever it may be, as an indispensable or even requisite argument in favour of the Mosaic narrative. We well know that the bible stands upon its own intrinsic truth and divine inspiration, neither aiming at, nor desiring the witness of man in any age; yet it may be useful, in its measure, to adduce even the meanest existing proof of its veracity; thus filling up any crevice which may have been left in the body of irrefragable evidence. Many have been the means to which unbelievers and heretics in every age have resorted, in their vain attempt to disprove all or part of God's holy word: and equally numerous have been the arms used against them by the faithful. They have rejected the whole bible, as a modern invention; its antiquity has been proved, from ancient records, by the archiologist. They have despised it as a pretended and interested oracle; its inspiration has been proved, from its internal evidence, by the philosopher.

They have impugned the veracity of its narrative; it has been justified, from other authors, by the historian. They have substituted their own false versions for the true one; the real meaning has been established by the scholar.

But there is another, and an invincible weapon, and one most easy to use, although it has seldom, if ever been turned against them. Pagan mythology is too old to be slighted, too clear to be contradicted, and too inimical to Christianity to be suspected of collusion.

As to its origin, I have perhaps said enough already; but it may not be amiss, in a few words, to restate the case, upon a different footing from that on which we have already seen it to rest: for its internal evidence is as good an argument for its traditionary origin as is the date of its commencement. There are but three sources whence mythology could spring: -history, imagination, and tradition; from one of these three it must inevitably have taken its rise.

If from history, there must have been real facts, whence men framed the story of their gods; but we have no evidence at all that any facts ever occurred in history which could give birth to the grand outlines of mythology; and we are not now contending about its lesser details. It could not therefore spring from history.

Neither could it spring from imagination, because if it had so sprung it must have been consonant to man's reason; but the leading feature of every Pagan theology is a SLAIN GOD, which to human reason is a contradiction in terms; for if a god be mortal, in his own nature, he is no more than a man, and consequently he is no God at all. If, therefore, neither

history nor imagination can have been the source of mythology, we must trace it to tradition, a result which is confirmed by the striking coincidences between them; for, however the drapery may be altered, the form is the same, as we have already seen in the five leading points formerly considered.

But it is not improbable that some one of my readers may here enquire, what can be the possible use of a false religion, as a supporter of the true? How can an impure theology give any aid in the vindication of a pure one?

The use of revelation to Paganism, it may be said, is sufficiently evident, if it supplied the materials of which it was made; but how can the reflex position hold good, that Paganism is in any way useful to the support of revelation?

Let us illustrate it by a familiar instance. Suppose that a father makes a will, in which he leaves to his children certain possessions and privileges, and enjoins upon them sundry duties. At his death, the will is found and read, but on account of its contents in general, and the mysterious nature of some among its provisions, certain wicked men endeavour to discredit its authenticity, and tempt the children to throw it aside as a useless piece of forgery. A copy of the document, however, is found, made by a rude and ignorant scribe, and of as early a date as the original; it is in a low provincial dialect, the style is corrupted, and many parts have been omitted or misplaced, by the carelessness and stupidity of the transcriber. Besides all this, it is torn, defaced, and dirty; many pages, and those very important ones, are missing, and the whole is so vile a thing, that the heirs are, with great difficulty, persuaded to be

lieve its connexion with the beautiful, perfect, illuminated manuscript of which they are possessed. A few among them, anxious to gather up every crumb of evidence in favour of their beloved parent's testament, examine the repulsive paper, and find, to their surprise and pleasure, that however misplaced are the items, and however misspelled may be the names, still it is a copy of the original document, and so far agrees with it as to substantiate all its most mysterious parts, and thus to refute the calumnies of those who had made use of these very mysteries to discredit its authority.

This pure and beautiful manuscript is the Bible itself; mythology is the base and disgusting copy, but still it is a copy; and when compared with the original, it will be found to verify, in its own barbarous manner, all the chief doctrines and facts of that divine system.

I will place these under the following heads: the existence and creative power of God; the Trinity in Unity; the fall of the angels; the garden of Eden; the promise of a divine Redeemer; the deluge; and the destruction of Babel.

These several points I hope to consider in their order, shewing, from undoubted mythological authority, how evidently they formed a part of the deteriorated system derived from Revelation, and therefore how distinctly they must have been known previously to the origin of that deteriorated system.

I cannot but think that this is a conclusive argument against those deluded or deluding writers who have endeavoured to discredit the scripture narrative, as being a Judaical or modern invention.

X. Q.

THE RETURN ALONE.

THOU did'st leave us, O stranger, that sunnier skies Might kindle up life in thy fair one's bright eyes; But thy pale drooping flower, Oh where is it gone? Why art thou come back to thy dwelling alone?

Ye are parted! thy fair one no longer is thine!
The skies that ye pined for were only to shine
O'er the grave where she, sleeps, in some far distant
ground,

And the sweet English flowers that are planted around.

She is gone, then, sad stranger, where never may come
The voice of her children, the light of her home!
Where the earth o'er her coffin is heavily spread,
In the depths of corruption she sleeps 'midst the dead.

She is gone, but not there! though my spirit must learn,

For the help of her fondness no longer to yearn;
Yet mine is the pain and the sorrow alone,

For she to the house of her Father hath gone!

And comest thou here, where her sweet smiling face Peeps in at the casement with feminine grace— Where the sound of her footstep haunts every floor, The same as thou heardst it in moments of yore?