falhnP

<!**

Gninr OF Miss Sue Dunbar

University of California • Berkeley

APOLOGY

FOR THE

I B L E

IN A

SERIES OF LETTERS,

ADDRESSED TO

THOMAS PAINE,

Author of a book entitled

The Acs of REASON, PART the SECOND,

i

BEING AN INVESTIGATION OF

TRUE AND OF FABULOUS THEOLOGY. '

O JT\ ~\T _ — — -

Lord Bifhop of Landaff, and Regius Prbfcffor o P in the Univerfity of Cambridge,

PHILADELPHIA :

Second and Chelnut Streets, by

JAS5

8

LETTER L

S I R,

X HAVE lately met with a hook of your's, entitled— -THE AGE OF REASON, part the fe- cond, being an inveftigation of true and of fabu- lous theology ; — and I think it not inconfiftent with my ftation, and the duty I owe to fociety, to trouble you and the world withfome obfer- vat ions on fo extraordinary a performance. Extraordinary I efteem it ; not from any novelty in the objections which you have pro- duced againft revealed religion, (for I find little or no novelty in them,) but from the zeal with which you labour to diffeminate vpur OT->> nions, and from the confidence wi you efteem them true. You pcrcci , » that I give you credit for your fin much foever I may^«ieftign your wiiil-rii, ia writing in furh a manner, on fuch -ft;

and I have no reluclance in acknowledging, that you poflefs a confiderablc fhare cf energy of language, and acutenefs of invc . n;

though I muft be allowed to lament, that Itxefe talents have not been applied in a manner more

iifeful to human kind, and more creditable to ycurfelf.

I BEGIN with your preface. You therein ftate— that you had long had an intention of publishing your thoughts upon religion, but that you had originally refer ved it to a later period in life. — 1 hope there is no want of charity in faying, that it would have been for- tunate for the chriftian world, had your life been terminated before you had fulfilled your intention. In accomplifhing your purpofe, you will have unfettled the faith of thoufands ; rooted from the minds of the unhappy virtu- ous all their comfortable affurance of a future recompenfe; Jiave annihilated in the minds of the flagitious all their fears of future punifli- xnent ; yon will have given the reins to the do- mination of every pallion, and have thereby contributed to the introduction of the public infecurity, and of the private unhappinefs, ufually and almoft neceflarily accompanying a ftate of corrupted morals.

No one can think worfe of confeffion to a prieft and fubfequent abfolution, as praftiied in the church of Rome, than I do : but I cannot, with you, attribute the guillotine-maflTacres to that caufe. Men's minds were not pre- pared, as you fuppofe, for the commiffion of all manner of crimes, by any doftrines of the church of Rome, corrupted as I efteem it, but by their not thoroughly believing even that religion. What may not fociety expect from thofe, who (hall imbibe the principles of your book ?

A FEVER, which you and thofe about you cxpefted would prove mortal, made you re- member with renewed fatisfaftion, that you had written the former part of your Age of Reafon — and you know therefore, you fay, by experience, the confcientious trial of your -own principles. I admit this declaration to be a proof of the fincerity of your perfuafion, but I cannot admit it to be any proof of the truth of your principles. What is confcience ? Is it, as has been thought, an internal monitor implanted in us by the Supreme Being, and dictating to us, on all occafions, what is right, or wrong? Or is it merely our own judgment of the moral rectitude or turpitude of our own a&ions ? I take the word (with Mr. Locke) in the latter, as in the only intelligible ienfe. Now who fees not that our judgments of vir- tue and vice, right and wrong, are not always formed from an enlightened and difpaffionate ule of our reafon, in the inveftigation of truth ? They are more generally formed from the na- ture of the religion we profefs ? from the qua- lity of the civil government under which we live; from the general manners of the age, or the particular manners of the perfons with whom we affociate ; from the education we have had in our youth : from the books we have read at a more advanced period ; and from other accidental caufes. "Who fees not that, on this account, confcience may be conformable or repugnant to the law of nature ? — may be> certain, or doubtful ?-r— and that it can be n@ A 2

criterion of moral reftitude, even when it is certain, becaufe the certainty of an opinion is no proof of its being a right opinion ? A man may be certainly perfuaded of an error in rea- foning, or an untruth'in matters of faft. It is a maxim of every law, human and divine, that a man ought never to aft in opposition to his confcience: but it will not from thence follow, that he will, in obeying the dictates of his confcience, on all occafions aft right. An in- quifitor, who barns Jews and heretics ; a Ro- befpierre, who maffacres innocent and harmlefs women ; a robber, who thinks that all things ought to be in common, and that a (late of pro- priety is an unjuil infringement of natural li- berty ; — thefe, and a thoufand perpetrators of different crimes, may all follow the diftates of confcience ; and may, at the real or fuppofed approach of death, remember " with renew- ed fatisfaftion" the worft of their tranfaftions, and experience, without difiiaay, " a confcien- tious trial cf their principles." But this their confident ions compofure, can be no proof to others of the reftitncle of their principles, and ought to be no pledge to tbemfelves of their innocence, in adhering to them.

I HAVE thought fit to make this remark, with a view of fuggefting to you a confidera- tion of great importance — whether you have examined calmly, and according to the befl of your ability, the arguments by which the truth of revealed religion may, in the judgment of learned, and impartial men, be eftablifhed? —

7

You will allow, that thonfands of learned and impartial men, (I fpeak not of priefts, who, however, are, I truft, as learned and impartial as yourfelf, but of laymen of the mofl fplendid talents) — you will allow, that thoufands of thefe, in all ages, have embraced revealed re- ligion as true. Whether thefe men have all been in an error, enveloped in the darknefs of ignorance, (hackled by the chains of fuperfti- tion, whilft you and a few others have enjoy- ed light, and liberty, is a queflion I fubmit to the decifion of your readers.

IF you have made the beft examination you can, and yet rejeft revealed religion, as an hn- poflure, I pray that God 'may pardon what I efleem your error. And whether you have made this examination or not, does not become me or -any man to determine. That gofpel, which you defpife, has taught me this modera- tion ; it has faid to me,— " Who art thou that judgeft another man's fervant ? To his own mafter he ftandeth or falleth." — I think that you are in an error ; but whether that error be to you a vincible or an invincible er- ror, I prefume not to determine. I know in- deed where it is faid — " that the preaching of the crofs is to them that perifh fooliflmefs, — and that if the gofpel be hid, it is hid to them that are loft." The confequence of your unbe- lief mull be left to the juft and merciful judg- ment of him, who alone knoweth the median- ifin and the liberty of our underftandings ; the origin of our opinions ; -the ftrength of our

o

o

prejudices ; the excellencies and the defects of our reafoning faculties.

I SHALL, defignedly, write this and the fol- lowing letters in a popular manner; hoping that thereby they may Hand a chance of being pe- rufed by that clafs of readers, for whom your work feems to be particularly calculated, and who are the' molt likely to be injured by it. The really learned are in no danger of being infefted by the poifbn of infidelity: they will excufe me, therefore, for having entered as lit- tle as poifible into deep difquiiltions concerning the authenticity of the Bible. The fubject has been fo learnedly, and fo frequently, han- dled by other writer's, that it does not want (I had almoft laid, it does not admit) any farther proof." And it is the more neceflary to adopt this mode of anfwering your book, becaufe you dilclaim all learned appeals to other books, and undertake to prove, from the Bible itfelf, that it is unworthy of credit. I hope to fhevv, from the Bible itfelf, the clireft contrary. But in cafe any of your readers fhould think that you had not put forth all your ftrength, by not re- ferring for proof of your opinion to ancient au- thors ; left they fhould fufpeft that all ancient authors are in your favour ; I will venture to affirm, that had you made a learned appeal to all the ancient books in the world, facred or pro- fane, chriftian, jewifli, or pagan, inftead of lef- iening, they would have eftablifhed the credit and authority of the Bible as the word of God

9

QUITTING your preface, let us proceed to the work itfelf ; in which there is much repe* tition, and a defeft of proper arrangement. I will follow your track, however, as nearly as I can. The firft queftion you propofe for confideration is — " Whether there is fufficient authority for believing the Bible to be the "Word of God, or whether there is not ?"— You determine this queftion in the negative, upon what you are pleafed to call moral evi- dence. You hold it impoffible that the Bible can be the word of God, becaufe it is therein faid, that the Ifraelites deflroyed the Canaan- ites by the exprefs command of God : and to believe the Bible to be trtie, we mult, you af- firm, ursbelieve all our belief of the moral juf- tice of God; for wherein, you afk, could cry- ing or imiling infants offend? — I am aftonifhed that fo acute a reafoner fhould attempt to clif- parage the Bible, by bringing forward this ex- ploded and frequently refuted objection of Mor- gan, Tindal, and Bolingbroke. You profefs yourfelf to be a deifl, and to believe that there is a God, who created the univerfe, and efta- blifhed the laws of nature, by which it is fiifV tained in exiftence. You profefs that from the contemplation of the works of God, you de- rive a knowledge of his attributes; and you re- jedt the Bible, becauie it afcribes to God things inconfiftent (as you fuppofe) with the: at: butes which you have difcovered to belong to him: in particular, you think it repugnant to his moral juftice, that he ffiould doom to de-

10

ftruftion the crying or fmiling infants of the Canaanites. — Why do you not maintain it to be repugnant to his moral juftice, that he fhould fuffer crying or fmiling infants to be fwallowed up by an earthquake, drowned by an inunda- tion, confumed by a fire, ftarved by a famine, or deftroyed by a peftilence ? The "Word of God is in perfect harmony with his work ; cry- ing or fmiling infants are fubje£ted to death in both. We believe that the earth, at the ex- prefs command of God, opened her mouth, and fwallowed up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, with their wives, their fons, and their little ones. This you efteem fo repugnant to God's moral juftice, that you fpurn, as fpurious, the book in which the circumftance is related. When Catania, Lima, and Liibon, were ievc- rally deftroyed by earthquakes, men with their wives, their fons, and their little ones, were fwallowed up alive : — why do you not fpurn, as fpurious, the book of nature in which this faft is certainly written, and from the perufal of which you infer the moral juftice of God ? You will, probably, reply, that the evils which the Canaanites differed from the exprefs com- mand of God, were different from thofe which are brought on mankind, by the operation of the laws of nature. — Different ! In what ? — - Not in the magnitude, of the evil — not in the fubjedls of fufferance — not in the author of it — for my philofophy, at lead, inftrufts me to be- lieve that God not only primarily formed, but that he hath through all ages executed the

II

laws of nature ; and that he will, through all eternity adminifter them, for the general hap- pinefs of his creatures, whether we can, on every occafion, difcern that end or not.

I AM far from being guilty of the impiety of queftioning the exiftence of the moral juf- tice of God, as proved cither by natural or re<- vealed religion ; what I contend for is fhortly this— that you have no right, in fairnefs of rea- foning, to urge any apparent deviation from moral juflice, as an argument againft revealed religion, becaufe you do not urge >an equally apparent deviation from it, argument

againft natural religion : yea a^ecf the for- mer, and admit the latter, i^ertii g that, as to your objection, u and or fall together.

As to the Ganaanites, it is needjefs to enter into any proof of the depraved (late of their morals ; they were a wicked people in the time of Abraham, and they, even then, were de- voted to deftru&ion by God ; but their iniquity was not then full. In the time of Mofes, tiiey were idolaters, facrificers of their own crying or fmiling intants ; devoujrers of human fie/h : addicted to unnatural luft; immerfcd in the fil- thinefs of all manner of vice. Now, I think, it will be impoffible to prove, that it was a proceeding contrary to God's moral juftice, to exterminate fo wicked a people. He made the Ifraelites the executors of his vengeance ; and, in doing this, he gave fuch an evident and ter- rible proof of his abomination of vice, as could

12

not fail to ftrike the furrounding nations with aflonifhment and terror, and to imprefs on the minds of the Ifraelites what they were to ex- pe£t, if they followed the example of the na- tions whom he commanded them to cut off. " Ye fliall not commit any of thefe abomina- tions— that the land fpue not you out alfo, as it fpued out the nations that were before you." How ftrong and defcriptive this language ! the vices of the inhabitants were fo abominable, that the very land was fick of them, and for- ced to vomit them forth, as the flomach dif- gorges a deadly poifon.

I HAVE often wondered what could be the reafon that men, not deftitute of talents, fhould be defirous of undermining the authority of re- vealed religion, and ftudious in expofing, with a milignant and illiberal exultation every little difficulty attending the fcriptures, to popular animadverfion and contempt. I am not will- ing to attribute this ftrange propensity to what Plato attributed the Atheifm of his time — to profligacy of manners — to affectation off] ngu- larity — to grofs ignorance, afluming the fem- blance of deep refearch and fuperior fagacity ; — I had rather refer it to an impropriety of judgment refpefting the manners, and mental acquirements, of human kind in the firft ages of the world. Moft unbelievers 'argue as if they thought that man, in remote .and rude antiquity, in the very birth and infancy of our fpecies, had the fame diftinft conceptions of one ? eternal, invifible, incorporeal, infinite-

ly wife, powerful, and good God, which they themfelves have now. This I lock upon as a great miftake, and a pregnant fource of infidelity. Human kind, by long experience; by the inflitutions of civil foci- ety ; by the cultivation of arts and fcienccs; by, as I believe, divine inftrii&ipn actually given to fome, and traditionally communica- ted to all ; is in a far more diftmguifhed fitu- ation, as to the powers of the mind, than it was in the childhood of the world. The hiftory of man, is the hiftory of the pro- vidence of God; who, willing the fuprenie felicity of all his creatures, has adapted his government to the capacity of thofc, who in different ages were the fubjefts cf it. The hiftory of any one nation throughout all ages, and that of all nations in th? fame age, are but feparate parts of one great plan, which God is carrying on for the moral melioration of mankind. But who can com- prehend the whole of this immenfe delign? The fhortnefs of life, the weaknefs of our faculties, the inadequacy of our means of information, confpire to make it impoflible for us, worms of the earth ! infeds of an hour ! completely to underftand anyone of it's parts. No man, who well weighs the fubjcft, ought to be fbrpriied, that in the hiftories of an- cient times many things fhould occur foreign to -our manners, the propriety and neceffity of which we cannot clearly apprehend. B

IT appears incredible to many, that God Almighty fhould have had colloquial inter- courfe with our firft parents ; that he fhould have contraftecl a kind of friendship for the patriarchs, and entered into covenants with them ; that he fliould have fufpended the laws of nature in Egypt ; fhould have been fo apparently partial, as to become the God and governor of one particular nation ; and fliould' have fo far demeaned himfelf, as to give to that people a burdenfome ritual of worfhip, ftatutes and ordinances, many of which feem to be beneath the dignity of his attention, unimportant and impolitic. I have converfed with many deifts, and have 'always found that the ftrangenefs of thefe things was the only reafon for their dilbe- lief of them : nothing fimilar has happened in their time ; they will not, therefore, ad- mit, that thefe events have really taken place at any time. As well might a child, when arrived at a ft ate of manhood, contend that he had never either flood in need of, or ex- perienced the foftering care of a mother's kindncfs, the wearifome attention of his nurie, or the inftruftiori and clifcipline of his fchoolmafter. The Supreme Being felefted one family from an idolatrous world; nurfed it up, by various acts of his providence, in- to a great nation ; communicated to that na- tion a knowledge of his holinefs, juflice, mercy, power, and wifdom ; difleminated

thern, at various times, through every } of the earth, that they might be a t; leaven to leaven the whole lamp," that they might affure all other nations of the cxiitence of one Supreme God, the creator and preferver of the world, the only proper object of ado- ration. With what reafon can we expect, that what was done to one nation, not out of any partiality to them, but for the gene- ral good, fhould be clone to all? that the' mode of Snflrucftion, which was fuited to the infancy of the world, fhould be extended to the maturity of its manhood, or to the im- becility of it's old age; I own to you, that when I confider how nearly man, in a favage ftate, approaches to the brute creation, as to intellectual excellence; and when I contem- plate his miierable attainments, as to the knowledge of God, in a civilised ftate, when he has had no divine inftru&ion on the lub- jecl, or when that inftruetion has been for- gotten, (for all men have known fomething. of God from tradition,) I cannot but admire the wiiclom and goodncfs of the Supreme Being, in having let himfelf down to our apprehenfions; in having given to mankind, in the earlieft ages, fenfible and extraordina- ry proofs of his exiftence and attributes; in having made the jewifh and chriftian difpen- fations mediums to convey to all men, through ail ages, that knowledge concerning himfelf, which he had vouchfafed to give immediate-

16

ly to the firft. I own it is ftrangr, very ftrange, that he ftiould have made an imme- diate manifeftation of hi mil If in the firft ages of the world, but what is there that is not ilrange? It is (tiange that you and I are Lore — that there is water, and earth; and air, and lire — that there is a fun, an-d moon, and ftars — that there is generation, corruption, reproduction. I can account ultimately for none of theie things, without recurring to him who made every thing, I alfo am his •workmanfhip, and look up to him with hope of pidervation through all eternity; I adore him for his word as well as for his work: his work I cannot comprehend, but his word hath allured me of all that I am concerned to know — that he hath prepared cverlafiing happinefs for thofe who love and obey him. This you will call preachment, — I \vill have done with it ; but the fubject is fo vaft, and the plan of providence, in my opinion, fo obvioufly wife and good, that I can never think of it without having my mind filled with piety, admiration, and gratitude.

IN addition to the moral evidence (as you are pleafed to think it) againft the Bible, you threaten, in the progrefs of your work, to produce fuch other evidence as even a prieft cannot deny. A philofopher in fearch of truth, forfeits with me all claim to can- dour and impartiality, when he introduces

railing for reafoning, vulgar and illiberal farcafm in the room of argument. I will not imitate the example you fet me : but examine what you fhall produce with as much cool- nefs and refpeft, as if you had given the prieils no provocation •; as if you were a man of the mod unblemifhed character, fubjeft to no pre-. judices, actuated by no bad defigns, not liable' to have abufe retorted upon you with fucccfk.

LETTER II.

BEFORE you commence your grand attack upon the Bible, you wiih to eftabliih a difference between the evidence neceflary to prove the authenticity of the Bible, and that of any other ancient book. I am not furprifed at your anxiety on this head ; for all writers on the fubjeft -have agreed in thinking that St. Auftin reafoned well, whenr in vindicating the genuinenefs of the Bible, lie allied, — ij* what proofs have we that the works of Plato, Ariftotle, Cicero, Varro, and othej: profane authors, were written by thofe whole names they bear ; unlefs it be that this has been an opinion generally re- ceived at all times, and by all. thofe who have lived finee thtfe authors r" This writer was convinced, that the evidence which ef- tabliftied the gtrr.uinenefs of any profane book, would -efiabliih that of aiacred bock; and ! profefs rnyfelf to be of the fame ephrlorr. jso^ithftaridlng what you have advance:; tig.' contrary..

IN this part your ideas feem to me to be confufed; I do not fay, that you, defignedlyf jumble together mathematical fcience and hif- torical evidence ; the knowledge acquired by demonftration, and the probability derived from teftimony. — You know but of one an- cient book, that authoritatively challenges univerfal confent and belief, and that is Eu- clid's elements. — If I were difpofed to make frivolous obje&ions, I fliould fay, that even Eaclidrs Elements had not met with univer- fal confent ; that there had been menr both in ancient and modern times, who had quef- tioned the intuitive evidence of (ome of his axioms, and denied the jullnefs of fome of his demonstrations ; but, admitting the truth, I do not fee the pertinency of your ohfcrva- • tion. You are attempting to fubvert the authenticity of the Bible, and you tell us- that Euclid's Elements are certainly true. — - What then ? — Does it follow that the Bible is certainly talfe ? The rnoft illiterate fcri- vener in the kingdom does not want to bs informed, that the examples in his Wingate's Arithmetic, are proved by a different kind of reafoning from that by which he perfuades hioifelf to believe, that there was (uch a perfon as Henry VIII, or that there is-fucb a city as Paris..

IT may be of ufe, to remove this ronfufion. ia your argument, to f (late, diftindly, the

T

2O

difference between the genuinenefs, and the authenticity, of a book. A genuine book, is that which was written by the peirfon whole name it bears, as the author of it. An authentic book, is that which relates matters of faft, as they really happened. A book may be genuine without being authen- tic ; and a book may be authentic without being genuine. The books written by Ri- chardfon, and Fielding are genuine books though the hiftories of ClarifTa and Torn Jones are fables. The hlflory of the iiland of Formofa is a genuine book; it was writ- ten by Pfalmanazar; but it is not an authen- tic book, (though it was long eileemed as fuch, .and tranfiated into different languages,) for the author, in the latter part of his life, took fhatne to himfelf for having impofed on. the world, and confefled that it was a mere romance. Artfon's voyage may be confider- ed as an authentic book, it, probably, con- taining a true narration of the principal events recorded in it ; but it is not 'a genu- ine book, having not been written by Wal- ters, to whom it is afcribed, but by Robins,

THIS cliftinftion between the genuinenefs and authenticity of a book, will affifc us in detecting the fallacy of an argument, which you jftate with great confidence in the part of your work now under confederation, and which you frequently allude to, hi ether

21

parts, as conclnfive evidence againfl the truth of the Bible. Your argument (lands thus — if it be found that the books afcribed to Moles, Jofhua, and Samuel, were not written by Mofes, Jofiuia, and Samuel, eve- ry part of the authority and authenticity of thefe books is gone at once. — I prefume to think otherwife. The genuinenefs of thefe books (in the judgment of thole who fay that they were written by thefe authors) will certainly begone; but their authentici- ty may remain; they may ft ill contain a true account of real tranfa£tions, though the names of the writers of them fhould be found to be different from what they are generally efteemed to be,

HAD, indeed, Mofes faid that he wrote the firft five books of the Bible; and had Jo- fliua and Samuel faid that they wrote the books which are refpe&tvely attributed to them; and had it been found, that Mofes, Joflhua, and Samuel, did not write thefe books; then, I grant, the authority'of the whole would have been gone at once; thefe men would have been found liars, as to the genuinenefs of the books; and this proof of their want of veracity, in one point, would have invalidated their teftimony in every other ; thefe books would have been juftly fligmatized, as neither genuine nor authen- tic,

22

AN hiftory may be true, though it ftuuild not only be afcribed to a wrong author, but though the author of it fhould not be known ; anonymous teftimony does not deftroy the reality of facts, whether natural or miracu- lous. Had Lord Clarendon published his Hiftory of the Rebellion, without prefixing bis name to it ; or had the hiftory of Titus Livius come down to us, under the name of Valerius Flaccus,or Valerius Maximus ; the facts mentioned in thefe hiftories would have been equally certain.

As to your aflTertion, that the miracles re- corded in Tacitus, and in other profane hif- tofians, are quite as well authenticated as thofe of the Bible — it, being a mere afTertion, destitute of proof, may be properly anfwer- ed by a contrary affertion. I take the liber- ty then to fay, that the evidence for the mi- Vacles recorded in the Bible is, both in kind and degree, fo greatly fbperior to that for the prodigies mentioned by Livy, or the mi- racles related by Tacitus, as to juftify us in giving credit to the one as the work of God, and in with holding it from the other as the effect of fuperftition and impofture. This method of derogating from the credibility of Christianity, by oppoiing to the miracles of our Saviour, the tricks of ancient impof- tors, feems to have originated with Hiero- cles in the fourth century ; and it has been

adopted by unbelievers from, that time to this ; with this difference, indeed, that the heathens of the third and fourth century ad- mitted that Jefus wrought miracles; but left that admiffion fhould have compelled them to abandon their gods and become Chriftians, they faid, that their slpol/onius, their Apu- leius ^ their Arifteas, did as great : whilfl modern cleifts deny the fa<£t of Jefus having ever wrought a miracle. And they have fome reafon for this proceeding ; they a^e fenfible that the gofpel miracles are fo differ- ent, in all their circumflances, from thofe related in pagan ftory, that, if they admit them to have been performed, they muft ad- mit chriftianity to be true ; hence they have fabricated a kind of deiftical axiom — that no human tcftimony can eftablifli the credibility of a miracle.— -This, though it has been an hundred times refuted, is ftill infifted upon, as if its truth had never been queftioned, and could not be difproved.

You " proceed to examine the authenti- city of the Bible ; and you begin, you fay, with what are called the five books of Mofes, Genefis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Your intent ion, youprofefs, is to (hew that thefe books are fpurious, and . that Mofes is not the author of them ; and ftill farther, that they were not written in the time of Mofes, nor till feveral hundred

24

years afterwards ; that they are no other than an attempted hiftory of the life of Mo- fes, and of the times in which he is faid to have lived, and alfo of the times prior there- to, written by fome very ignorant and fhi- pid pretender to authorftiip, leveral hundred years after the death of Mofes." — In thispaf- fage the utmoft force of your attack on the authority of the five books of Mofes is clear- ly dated. You are not the fir ft who has ftarted this difficulty ; it is a difficulty, in- deed, of modern date ; having not been heard of, either in the fyragogue, or cut of it, till the twelfth century. About that time Aben Ezra, a Jew of great erudition, noticed fome paffages (the fame which you have brought forward) in the five firft books of the Bible, which he thought had not been written by Mofes, but inferted by fome per- fon after the death of Mofes. But he was far from maintaining, as you do, that thefe books were written by fome ignorant and ftnpid pretenderto authorftiip, many hundred years after the death of Mofes. I'f\ t-les con- tends that the books of Mofes r-e fo called, not from their having been written by Mo- fes, but from their containing an actount of Mofes. Spinoza fupportcd the fame opini- on ; and Le Glerc, a very able theological critic of the laft and prefent century, once entertained the lame notion. You fee that this fancy has had fome patrons before you ;

25

the merit or the demerit, the fagacity or the temerity of having afferted, that Moles is not the author of the Pentateuch, is not ex- chT.fi vely your's. Le C/erc, indeed, you muft not boaftof. When his judgment was matur- ed by age, he was afhamed of what he had written on the fubjcft in his younger* yearsi He made a public recantation of his error, by annexing to his commentary on Genefis, a Latin differtation — concerning Mofcs, the author of the Pentateuch, and his defign in .compofing it. If in your future life you fhould chance to change your opinion on the fubjeft, it will bean honor to your character to emulate the integrity, and tu imitate the example of Le Clerc. The Bible is not the .only book which has undergone the fate of being reprobated as fpurions, after it had been received as genuine and authentic for many ages. It has been maintained that the hiftory of Herodotus was written in the time of Conftantine ; and that the claffics are for- geries of the thirteenth or fourteenth centu- ry. Thefe extravagant reveries amufed the world at the time of their publication, and have long flnce funk into oblivion. You ef- teem all -prophets to be fuch lying rafcals, that I dare ftot venture to predict the fate of your book,

BEFORE you produce your main objecti- ons to the genuineuefs of the books of Mo-

C

26

fes, you affert — that " there is no affirmative evidence that Mofes is the author of them." • — What ! no affirmative evidence ! In the eleventh century Malmonides drew up a con- feffion of faith for the Jews, which all of them at this clay admit ; it confifts of only thirteen articles ; and two of them have re- fpedt to Moles ; one affirming the authenti- city, the other the gcnuinenefs of his books. — The doctrine and prophecy of Mofes is true-r-The law that we have was given by Mofes,-^— This is the faith of the Jews at pr^fent,, and has been their faith ever fince

: the'.deflruftion of their city and temple : it was their faith in the time when the authors

•toof the New-Teftament wrote ; it was their faith during their captivity in Babylon: in the time of their kings and judges ; and no period can be fhown, from the age of Mofes to the prefent hour, in which it was not their faith — Is this no affirmative evidence .? I can- not defire a ftronger. Jojephus^ in his book againft dppion, writes thus — 4k We have on- ly two and twenty books which are to be be- lieved as of divine authority, and which com- prehend the hiftory of all ages ; five belong to Mofes, which contain the original of man, and the tradition of the fucceffion of genera- tions, down to his death, which takes in a .compafs of about three thoufand years." Do you confider this as no affirmative evidence ? Why (hould I mention Juvenal fpeaking of

27

the volume which Mofes had written ? Why enumerate a long lift of profane authors, all bearing teftimony to the fact of Mofes being the leader, and the law-giver of the Jewifh nation ? and if a law giver, furely, a writer of the laws. But what fays the Bible ? 'In Exodus it fays — " Mofes wrote all the words of the Lord, and took the book of the cove- nant, and read in the audience of the peo- ple/'— In Deuteronomy it fays— " And it came to pafs, when Mofes had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, un- til they were finifhed, (this furely imports the the fin idling, a laborious work,) that Mofes commanded the^Levites which bare the ark of the covenant" of the Loi;d, faying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the fide of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witnefs againft thee." This is faid in Deuteronomy, which is akind of repetition, or abridgment of the four prc- reding books ; and it is well known that the evvs gave the name of the Law to the firft five books of the Old Teftament. What poiiible doubt can there be that Mofes wrote he books in quellion ? I could accumulate nany other paflages from the fcriptures to his purpofe ; but if what I have advanced ill not convince you that there is affirma- ivc evidence, and of the ftrongeft kind, for lofes being the author of thefe books, no* ling that I can advance will convince you,

tt

WHAT if I (hould grant all you under- take to prove (the ftupiclity and ignorance of the writer excepted) ? — What if I {hould admit, that Samuel, 6r Ezra, or fonie other learned Jew, com poled thefe books, from public records, many years after the death of Mofes? Will it follow, that there was no truth in them ? According to my logic, it will only follow, that they are riot genuine books ; every fa£l recorded in them may be true, whenever, or by whomsoever they \V-ere written. It cannot be faid that the Jews had no public records ; the Bible fur- infhes abundance of proof to the contrary. I by no means admit, that thefe books, as to the main part of them, were not written by Mofes; but I do contend, that a book may contain a true hiflory, though we know not the author of it ; or though we may be. miftaken in afcribing it to a wrong author.

THE firft argument you produce againft Mofes being the author of thefe books is fo old, that I do not know its original author; and it is fo miferable an one, that I wonder you {hould adopt it — " Thefe books cannot be written by Mofes, becaufe they are wrote in the third perfon — it is always, The Lord faid unto Mofes, or Mofes laid unto the Lord. This, you fey, is the ftyle and man- ner that hiftorians ufe In fpeaking of the per- fon whofe lives and actions they are writing.'1

This obfervation is true, but it does riot ex- tend far enough ; for this is the ftyle and manner not only of hiftorians writing of other perfons, but of eminent men, fuch as Xenophon and Jojefhus^ writing of them- felves. If General t7ajhington fhonld write the hiftory of the American war, and fhould, from his great modefty, ipeak of himfelf in. the third perion, would you think it reafon- able that, two or three tho.ufand years hence, any peribn (hould, on that account, contend, that the hiftory was not true ? Gfffar writes of himfelf in the third perfon — it is always, Csfar made a fpeech, or a fpeech was made to Caefar, Csefar eroded the Rhine, Caefar invaded Britain ; but every fchool-boy knows, that this circumftance cannot be adduced as a fcTious argument againft Caefar's being the; author of his own commentaries.,

BUT Mofes, you urge, cannot be the au- thor of the book of Numbers, — becaufe he fays of himfelf — " that Mofes was a very meek .man, above all the men that were on. the face of the earth." If he had faid this of himfelf, he was, you fay, " a vain and arrogant coxcomb, (fuch is your phrafe!) and unworthy of credit — and if he did not fay it, the books are without authority. " This your dilemma is perfectly harmleis; it has not an horn to hurt the weakeft logi- cian, If Mofes did not write this little vcrfc

C 2

3°

if it was infertcdlDy Samuel, or any of his . countrymen, who knew his character, and revered his memory, will it follow that he did not write any other part of the book of Numbers ? Or if he did not write any part of the book of Numbers, will it follow that he did not write any of the other books of which he is ufually reputed the author ? And if he did write this of himfelf, he was jufdfied by the occafion which extorted from, him this commendation. Had this expreffion been written in a modern flyle and manner, it would probably have given you no offence. For who would be ib faftidious as to find fault with an illuftrious man, who, being calum- niated by his neareft relations, a:, guilty of pride, and fond of power, fhould vindicate his character by faying, My temper was natu- rally as meek and unaffuming as that. of any man upon earth? There are occafions, m which a modeft man, who fpeaks truly, may fpeak proudly of himfelf, without forfeiting his general character; and there is no occa- fion, which either more requires, or more excufes this conduft, than when he is repel- ling the foul and envious afperfions of thofe who both knew his character and had expe- rienced his kindnels : and in that* predicament flood Aaron and Miriam, the accufers of JMofes. You yourfelf have, probably, felt the ft ing of calumny, and have been anxious ta remove the iinprcljion. I do not call you

a vain and arrogant coxcomb for vindicating your character, when in the latter part of this very work you boaft, and I hope truly, " that the man does not exift that can fay I have perfecuted him, or any man, or any fet of men, in the American revolution, or in the French revolution; or that I have in any cafe returned evil for evil." I know not what kings and priefts may fay to this ; you may not have returned to them evil for evil, becaufe they never, I believe, did you any