without bringing forward a single proof to establish it, that to deny it simply should be sufficient for its refutation, until he who first related it makes it certain by evidence; but when any one advances good reasons for the truth of what he says, then it is very far from sufficient barely to deny it indeed, it would be quite ridiculous to attempt to do so, and expect to succeed in contradicting his allegations to the satisfaction of others. It becomes necessary, then, to produce reasons strong enough to overbalance those of the relator; or at least, by argument, to shake his testimony, and make his story doubtful. Let us see what success the infidel has had in this way, with regard to the sacred penman.

We say, that there was a lawgiver of the Jews named Moses: unbelievers deny this. Let them shew wherefore they deny it; and we will discover to them, how weak and ignorant are their arguments, be they what they may: for I assert, that the proofs of the fact are of such a nature, that they cannot be contradicted; they are sufficient to convince any reasonable unprejudiced mind, that such a person as Moses did really exist, and that he was both the lawgiver and historian of the Jews. The Jews are to this day, we know, in being, but dispersed in all countries over the whole of the . habitable globe, although they remain a distinct and separate people. This fact is beyond all denial;

yet I feel assured, that, if the infidel dared venture on such a glaring absurdity, he would contradict it: he would like to assert, that there never had been a nation called Jews. But I ask, can any one reasonably entertain a doubt, that this people formerly composed a separate state, a republic, having its own laws, both for its government and its religion? All histories, profane as well as sacred, agree in this. Their wars with the Romans, and the siege of Jerusalem by that nation, are such evident demonstrations of the truth, that one almost fears being thought absurd in giving proofs for the establishment of so well-authenticated a fact, as that of the existence of the Jews, collectively, as a nation: one might as well bring forward proofs of the existence of the Greeks or Romans.

Since, then, it must be admitted, that there was a separate nation called Jews, having laws and maxims of their own, these people must necessarily have had a beginning. Ask any individual Jew, or the whole people collectively, they will with one voice present us with a book, which contains their history and their laws; but, at present, we will lay aside this history, and content ourselves with an examination of their laws only. Now, it is impossible, without absurdity, to dispute their having had their peculiar laws, as well as the Athenians, the Romans, or any other na

tion;

and consequently, their laws must have also had an author or authors.

What will the infidel answer to this? Will he maintain, that these laws had a plurality of authors? For argument's sake, let it be for one moment admitted does the number of authors alter the purity, or the celestial origin of those laws? On the contrary, according to the usual mode of reasoning, a plurality of authors would serve to strengthen their weight. It is the nature of these laws, not the number of the authors engaged in compiling them, which stamps on them their Divine origin. It would be a contradiction of reason to doubt a fact, because many witnesses shared in the recital. But we ask the sceptic, why he supposes, that these laws of the Jews were composed by many authors? For though it does not in the slightest sense alter their nature, we see neither proof nor probability for such an assertion. We believe with the Jews, that one man, by the command of God, wrote those laws on which their religion and their government was founded; because this fact is admitted and received by them all, and all histories concur therein: besides, it is against all probability, that so many should have assisted in this work, and that one individual should have had all the honour of it. If we only argue upon a name, it is a matter of indifference. The name of an

author has no influence on his works, as to their truth or authenticity; and in writings of antiquity, the author is known only by his works. Thus, since the Jews called their legislator and historian Moses, wherefore should we cavil upon a name, which is in itself so indifferent, and which has in fact nothing to do with the real question? The Athenians had their Draco, their Solon; the Lacedemonians, their Lycurgus; the Romans, their Numa. Why are these names peaceably to enjoy their reputation, and that of Moses alone to be annihilated? Is this reasonable or just? But, far from this being the case, there never has been a name so renowned and so celebrated as that of Moses. There have been scarcely any historians, of early ages, who have not spoken of this extraordinary person; and many fabulous circumstances are to be found in some of the ancient authors related of him, as well as some of the real wonders which he performed. Thus it is not from mere prejudice and credulity, that we are fully persuaded that Moses has been the lawgiver of the Jews, and the greatest of all lawgivers. To deny a fact so well established, is to put a supposition in opposition to a reality.

In our inquiries after truth, we naturally seek to discover at what period this legislator published his laws. This interrogation appears to me unquestionably decided, from the determination of the former one; for since the republic of Judea

must have had a beginning, and since the laws of Moses formed that republic; its religion, its policy, the direction of its laws, and its internal government; it is evident, that the Books written by Moses were composed before the foundation of that republic, and that, consequently, they are of an earlier date than its establishment. And let us here observe, that there is a vast difference between a book cast indiscriminately among the people for their amusement, or even in some measure for their instruction, and one published, for the express purpose of giving a nation a fixed form of government, or of regulating their notions as to their morals, and their religion. The first will be soon thrown aside and abandoned, as a common and unimportant occurrence, or forgotten like the passing breeze; whereas, the other will be continually read, consulted, and referred to, and will become a record of public utility, to which the reputation and the welfare of the nation will be much indebted.

It would be truly most extraordinary, if a man of judgment and sense were to attempt so absurd a thing as to make a whole nation believe, that he had composed and published a book for the express purpose of giving them both laws and religion, unless the fact of his having done so were well known and clearly ascertained: but it would be more surprising still, if all the people