However, as the general facts are thus practically certain, so the subordinate ones are, in many cases, liable to doubts. And it is evident, that, for the resolution of these doubts in natural history, we must borrow the assistance of all the other branches of science; and that some skill in philology must be attained, before we can hope to arrive at any tolerable perfection in natural or civil history. Natural history is the only sure basis of natural philosophy, and has some influence upon all the other sciences.
The general evidences upon which civil history is grounded, have been just hinted at. It is manifest, that the discoveries of natural historians, astronomers, linguists, antiquaries, and philosophers of all kinds, have brought great light and evidence upon this branch of knowledge within the last two centuries; and are likely to do so more and more.
The ancient history of the kingdoms of Asia Minor, Egypt, and Greece, will probably be much better understood, when the inhabitants of those countries become learned.
He that would search into the first ages of the world, must take the Scriptures for his guide, lay down the truth of these as unquestionable, and force all other evidences into that position. This seems to have been the method taken by Sir Isaac Newton in his Chronology, and which at last unfolded to him the proper method of detecting and correcting the mistakes in the ancient technical chronology of the Greeks by itself.
The concurrent independent evidences in the grand points of history are so much more numerous than the dependent ones, and most of them so strong, singly taken, that the deficiency from certainty in these grand points cannot be distinguished by the human mind. And therefore it is a practical error of great importance to suppose, that such kind of historical evidences are inferior to mathematical ones. They are equal, as far as we have any thing to do with them; i.e. can judge of them, or be influenced by them. All future facts depending on them have as good a basis, as those depending on mathematical evidences. I speak here of principal matters, such as the conquests of Alexander and Julius Caesar, and the main history, common and miraculous, of the Old and New Testaments. Till our knowledge be applied to the predicting or producing future facts, no sort of it is of use or importance to us; and the application of mathematical knowledge is just as much exposed to the several kinds and degrees of uncertainty, as that of any other. That the evidence for principal historical facts is not, in general, considered as equal to mathematical certainty, arises partly from the just mentioned ill-grounded affirmations of learned men; partly from the complexness of the historical proofs, which require time and consideration to digest them; and partly because the uncertainty
