important matter, not only disfigures the writing of heathen poets, but awfully predominates in the speculations of their jarring sects of philosophers.

The moral law, the sum of which is, "Thou shalt love "the Lord thy God with all thine heart and thou shalt "love thy neighbour as thyself," is perfectly "holy, just, " and good-;" and only needs to be reduced to practice, to render men happy beyond our present conception. But what Gentile ever gave such a delineation of man's duty? The judicial laws will be discovered to be wise, equitable, and beneficial, in proportion as they are well understood and may boldly challenge a comparison, with every other code of laws, either of ancient or modern legislators. The ceremonial laws, were barriers against idolatry, ordinances of divine worship, and shadows of good things to come; for which purposes they, for the time allotted, were admirably suited; and they constitute a kind of prophecy, which is accomplished in Christ and Christianity.

4. The miracles wrought by Moses were such as could not be counterfeited. Millions of enemies as well as friends were appealed to as eye-witnesses; and if they had not been actually performed by him who recorded them, and at the time assigned; when and how could it have been possible to persuade the whole nation, that they and their forefathers had always believed them, and had in all preceding ages observed stated memorials of them? And if really performed by Moses, the authenticity and divine inspiration of the books which record them, is put beyond all doubt.

5. The prophecies contained in these books, which have been already fulfilled, and are fulfilling at this day, demonstrate the same. Not to dwell on the first promise of "the seed of the woman;" has not the prophecy of Noah concerning Ham and Canaan been fulfilling in every age to the present time? (Gen. ix, 20-27.) Has not God made the name of Abraham great, almost above every other name of antiquity? (Gen. xii, 1--3.) not the condition of Ishmael, Edom, and Israel, in every age, fulfilled the words of Moses respecting them? Have not the descendants of Jacob's sons been illustrious or obscure, according to the dying predictions of Jacob?

B $

Has

Especially, has not Judah been the most illustrious, from whom the Jews take their name? Have not the descendants of Joseph, of Ephraim in particular, been next in eminence, as was expressly foretold? (Gen. xlviii, 17 --20; xlix, 8--10, 22--26.) ́ Have not even Balaam's prophecies, recorded in these books, been surprisingly fulfilled; especially in the dominion of the Greeks and Romans over the countries possessed by the Assyrians and Hebrews? (Numb. xxiv, 24.) And can any thing be more completely fulfilled, than the prediction, that Israel shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the "nations?" (Numb. xxiii, 9.). Indeed the state of the Jews for almost 1800 years, since the destruction of Jerusalem, is predicted in the most explicit and circumstantial manner. (Deut. iv, 25--28; xxviii, 49--67.) "Thus it was written, and thus it must be;" for "the "scripture cannot be broken."

Finally. The testimony of our Lord and his Apostles; and every evidence, brought in proof of the divine original and authority of Christianity, confirms also that of the Old Testament in general, and the books of Moses in particular.

We will now proceed to notice a few of Mr. P.'s objections, by which he purposed to demonstrate, that the books of Moses were not written by him.

'Moses could not be the author; because the writer 'speaks in the third person.' Suppose I should argue thus, and say, Cæsar's commentaries, or Xenophon's 'Anabasis, could not be written by Cæsar, or Xenophon; 'for the writers speak in the third person:' if learned men supposed me to be in earnest, what would they think of my intellect, or competency on such subjects?

In Deuteronony, however, Moses speaks principally in the first person, which Mr. P. says is confused, or dramatical. But it is obvious, that as the historian records facts in the third person; so the same writer delivers exhortatious in the first person; far more in the way of a modern preacher, than in that of a dramatical writer.

The city Laish did not receive the name of Dan, till long after the death of Moses, yet Dan is mentioned in Genesis. (Gen. xiv, 14.) By the way, where did Mr. P. learn this, but from one of the books, which he explodes

as of no authority? (Judg. xviii, 29.) If the word Dan were substituted for Laish, by Ezra, or some other person, as more intelligible to his readers than the ancient name; it can prove nothing against the substance of the history being written by Moses, in opposition to the proofs already adduced that it was so. But I desire it may be proved that Dan mentioned in Genesis, was the name of a town, and not of a river.---A river was full as likely as a town to stop a pursuit:-Jordan, we know, was composed of two rivers, called Jor and Dan.' Bp. Watson. Arguments must be very scarce, when a single word is adduced, with much parade, as a full demonstration, that the books of Moses were anonymous impostures.

·

Without all doubt some parts of the 36th of Genesis* were inserted long after the death of Moses; probably, by some transcriber making additions, from the genealogies contained in the first chapter of the first of Chronicles. Studious men have always been aware of this; and The Age of Reason' has not shewn that any new solution is requisite.

Zedekiah is spoken of in the 2d of Chronicles, and Mr. P. taking it for granted, that the book of Genesis was written after the books of Chronicles, concludes that 'Genesis was not extant till after the captivity: and that 'the first book in the Bible was written 300 years after Homer's Iliad.' But who can, believe, that the whole religious system of Israel, and their whole civil polity, had existed for above a thousand years before the captivity; when the books prescribing them were unknown till after that event? And when those books, which Mr. P. allows were written before that crisis, as the Psalms especially,' are very full of references to them?

In fact the history in Chronicles is brought down some generations lower than the time of Zerubbabel; (1 Chr. iii, 17--24.) and if this too were written before the books of Moses; the Jews had no written law, till within about 400 years before Christ! But at that time, the whole nation, by some strange infatuation, was led with one consent to receive the work of an anonymous impostor as sacred books, which they had always possessed, read, and obeyed; or been severely punished for disobeying! He

who can believe this has no right to declaim against either ignorant priests, or their credulous dupes.

5. The size of Og's Bed-stead, and the place where Moses said it was kept, furnish Mr. P. with another demonstration. He seems to think all accounts of giants must be fabulous; and consequently that the Bible is a fable. But men of very large size are now and then seen, even in our days. Somewhat also may be allowed for royal ostentation; "as Alexander the great ordered his soldiers to enlarge the size of their beds, that they might give to the Indians in succeeding ages an idea of his soldiers, as men of enormous stature. My philosophy teaches me to doubt of many things; but it does not teach me to reject every "testimony which is opposite to my experience: had I been born in Shetland, I could, on proper testimony, have 'believed in the existence of the Lincolnshire ox, or of the largest dray-horse in London; though the oxen and horses in Shetland had not been bigger than mastiffs.' Bp. Watson. I suppose Moses knew as well at that time, as Mr. Paine can now know, where the bed-stead of Og had been deposited, having probably been seized, or perhaps purchased, by the Ammouites, and preserved as a curiosity.

Mr. P.'s ingenious scheme for subsisting about two millions of people for forty years, on a kind of mushroom, will doubtless amuse some readers, and with them invalidate the divine authority of the books of Moses. But as Moses lived till Israel was possessed of the countries before governed by Sihon and Og; and as he died in the plains of Moab, over against Canaan; why might be not write "The children of Israel did eat manna till they came to a 'land inhabited:—they did eat manna till they came to the "borders of Canaan ?" (Ex. xvi, 35.) And what cause is here given for Mr. P. to exclaim against the lies and contradictions of the Bible?

The historian remarks, that the man Moses was meek, ' above all men, which were upon the face of the earth,' (Numb. xii, 3.) Therefore,' says Mr. P. Moses could not be the writer, for to boast of meekness is the averse of humility, and a lie in the sentiment.' "Meekness," in this connexion, is opposed to an irascible temper: and the conduct of Moses, on that and other occasions, proves

him to have been very meek. But to speak truth of ourselves is not always vain-glorious boasting. And I know no reason why other men as well as infidels, may not on some occasions, speak in their own commendation, and appeal to others for the truth of it. But Moses without any extenuation, records his own faults likewise.

The fourth commandment in Deuteronomy, varies from the original law written in the 20th of Exodus. This furnishes Mr. P. with an argument against the books of Moses. In fact, Moses, delivering a most impressive exhortation, did not confine himself to the exact words, which he had recorded as an historian. The people well knew the original ground and reason for hallowing the sabbath: and he felt himself at liberty to remind them, in that connexion, of their obligations to JEHOVAH their Redeemer from Egyptian bondage, and of the humanity due to their bond servants; for this constituted another important reason for hallowing the sabbath.-Certainly, Moses did not write the history of his own death and burial; and what Christian ever believed that he did? Perhaps Joshua or Eleazar added the last chapter; or it was taken from authentick records of a later date, when the words "No man know"eth of his sepulchre to this day," were evidently fulfilled -"Moses died there in the land of Moab, according to "the word of the LORD, and he buried him." Deut. xxxiv, 5, 6. Mr. P. cannot find the antecedent in this pasaage, "The Lord--buried him ;-lest Israel should idolize his "relicks, as they did the brazen serpent," (2 Kings xviii, 4;) or as Papists do the bones of the saints; and he made it known to his prophets by revelation.

We now proceed to objections, intended to prove the books of Moses in all respects unworthy of God.

Mr. P. says, concerning the history of the creation, 'It 'begins abruptly: it is nobody that speaks; it is addressed to nobody; it has neither the first, nor the second, nor the third person.'-Is there either argument or even common sense in this? The sacred historian begins his narrative much as other historians do, only without any introduction: and he introduces the Creator, addressing, with majestick authority, the unformed chaos, "commanding light out of "darkness." The grand peculiarity in the narration con