In the early seventeenth century it was regarded as self-evident that the Bible provided the key to a proper understanding of history. So much was this taken for granted that it was rarely stated explicitly. While there was some reluctance to find in the pages of holy writ specific reference to contemporary historical events, there was through most of the seventeenth century an unspoken agreement that in the sphere of ancient history, Scripture was the pre-eminent source. At the close of the sixteenth century, Henry Smith could confidently declare that the antiquity and accuracy of Hebrew history was acknowledged even by the heathen, and therefore did not stand in need of proof. By the end of the next century, however, some apologists found it necessary to take that very step which Smith had considered superfluous. The beginnings of biblical criticism, the development of comparative chronology, and the revival of polygenetic theories of human origins had together challenged the privileged status of the Scriptures, which now required some defence. Thomas Hearne argued parochially that Christians ought to give deference to their own holy writings. ‘Nothing’, he said, ‘ought to weigh more with Christians than the authority of Holy Scripture.’ Moses, he insisted, was ‘without dispute’ a writer more ancient than the other contenders – Homer, Thales and Pythagoras – who had gained ‘so great a reputation in the world’. Timothy Nourse likewise found it necessary to specify why Scripture was to be preferred above all others as an historical source.