books all along, from the days of Moses to that day in which they were first invented; that is, that they had owned them before they had ever so much as heard of them. Nay, more, the whole nation must, in an instant, forget their former laws and government, if they could receive these books as being their former laws. And they could not otherwise receive them, because they vouched themselves so to be. Let me ask the deist but this one short question, Was there ever a book of sham laws, which were not the laws of the nation, palmed upon any people, since the world began? If not, with what face can they say this of the book of laws of the Jews? Why will they say that of them, which they confess impossible in any nation, or among any people?

But they must be yet more unreasonable. For the books of Moses have a further demonstration of their truth, than even other law books have; for they not only contain the laws, but give an historical account of their institution, and the practice of them from that time; as of the passover, Numbers viii. 17, 18, in memory of the death of the first-born in Egypt; and that the same day, all the first-born of Israel, both of man and beast, were, by a perpetual law dedicated to God, and the Levites taken for all the first-born of the children of Israel. That Aaron's rod which budded was kept in the ark, in memory of the rebellion and wonderful destruction of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and for the confirmation of the priesthood to the tribe of Levi. As likewise the pot of manna, in memory of their having been fed with it forty years in the wilderness. That the brazen serpent was kept (which remained to the days of Hezekiah, 2 Kings xviii. 4) in memory of that wonderful deliverance, by only looking upon it, from the biting of the fiery serpents, Numb. xxi. 9. The feast of Pentecost, in memory of the dreadful appearance of God upon mount Horeb, &c.

And, besides these remembrances of particular actions and occurrences, there were other solemn institu

tions in memory of their deliverance out of Egypt, in the general, which included all the particulars, as of the sabbath, Deut. v. 15; their daily sacrifices, and yearly expiation, their new moons, and several feasts and fasts. So that there were yearly, monthly, weekly, daily remembrances and recognitions of these things.

and

And not only so, but the books of the same Moses tell us, that a particular tribe [of Levi] was appointed and consecrated by God as his priests; by whose hands, and none other, the sacrifices of the people were to be offered, and these solemn institutions to be celebrated. That it was death for any other to approach the altar. That their high-priest wore a glorious mitre and magnificent robes of God's own contrivance, with the miraculous Urim and Thummim in his breastplate, whence the divine responses were given. That, at his word, the king and all the people were to go out and to come in, Numb. xxvii. 21. That these Levites were likewise the chief judges, even in all civil causes, that it was death to resist their sentence, Deut. xvii. 8-13; 1 Chron. xxiii. 4. Now, whenever it can be supposed, that these books of Moses were forged, in some ages after Moses, it is impossible they could have. been received as true, unless the forgers could have made the whole nation believe, that they had received these books from their fathers, had been instructed in them when they were children, and had taught them to their children; moreover, that they had all been circumcised, and did circumcise their children, in pursuance to what was commanded in these books; that they had observed the yearly passover, the weekly sabbath, the new moons, and all these several feasts, fasts, and ceremonies, commanded in these books; that they had never eaten any swine's flesh, or other meats prohibited in these books; that they had a magnificent tabernacle, with a visible priesthood to administer in it, which was confined to the tribe of Levi; over whom was placed a glorious high-priest, clothed with great and mighty prerogative, whose death only could deliver those that

were fled to the cities of refuge; and that these priests were their ordinary judges, even in civil matters, Numb. xxxv. 25, 28. I say, was it possible to have persuaded a whole nation of men, that they had known and practised all these things, if they had not done it? or, secondly, to have received a book for truth, which said they had practised them, and appealed to that practice; so that here are the third and fourth of the marks above mentioned.

But now let us descend to the utmost degree of supposition, viz. that these things were practised before these books of Moses were forged; and that these books did only impose upon the nation, in making them believe, that they had kept these observances in memory of such and such things, as were inserted in these books.

Well, then, let us proceed upon this supposition (however groundless), and now, will not the same impossibilities occur, as in the former case? For, first, this must suppose, that the Jews kept all these observances in memory of nothing, or without knowing any thing of their original, or the reason why they kept them. Whereas, these very observances did express the ground and reason of their being kept, as the passover, in memory of God's passing over the children of the Israelites, in that night wherein he slew all the first-born of Egypt, and so of the rest.

But secondly, let us suppose, contrary both to reason and matter of fact, that the Jews did not know any reason at all why they kept these observances; yet was it possible to put it upon them, that they had kept these observances in memory of what they had never heard of before that day, whensoever you will suppose that these books of Moses were first forged? For example, suppose I should now forge some romantic story of strange things done a thousand years ago, and, in confirmation of this, should endeavour to persuade the Christian world, that they had all along, from that day to this, kept the first day of the week in memory of

such a hero, an Apollonius, a Barcosbas, or a Mahomet; and had all been baptized in his name; and swore by his name, and upon that very book (which I had then forged, and which they never saw before), intheir public judicatures; that this book was their gospel and law, which they had ever since that time, these thousand years past, universally received and owned, and none other. I would ask any deist, whether he thinks it possible, that such a cheat could pass, or such a legend be received as the gospel of Christians; and that they could be made to believe, that they never had any other gospel? The same reason is as to the books of Moses, and must be as to every matter of fact, which has all the four marks before mentioned; and these marks secure any such matter of fact as much from being invented and imposed in any after ages, as at the time when such matters of fact were said to be done.

Let me give one very familiar example more in this case. There is the Stonehenge in Salisbury Plain; everybody knows it, and yet none knows the reason why those great stones were set there, or by whom, or in memory of what.

Now suppose I should write a book to-morrow, and tell there, that these stones were set up by Hercules, Polyphemus, or Garagantua, in memory of such and such of their actions. And for a further confirmation of this, should say in this book, that it was wrote at the time when such actions were done, and by the very actors themselves, or eyewitnesses. And that this book had been received as truth, and quoted by authors of the greatest reputation in all ages since. Moreover, that this book was well known in England, and enjoined by act of parliament to be taught our children, and that we did teach it to our children, and had been taught it ourselves when we were children. I ask any deist, whether he thinks this could pass upon England? And whether, if I or any other should insist upon it, we should not, instead of being believed, be sent to Bedlam?

Now let us compare this with the Stonehenge, as I may call it, or twelve great stones set up at Gilgal, which is told in the fourth chapter of Joshua. It is there said, verse 6, that the reason why they were set up was, that when their children, in after ages, should ask the meaning of it, it should be told them.

And the thing in memory of which they were set up, was such as could not possibly be imposed upon that nation, at that time when it was said to be done; it was as wonderful and miraculous as their passage through the Red Sea.

And withal, free from a very poor objection, which the deists have advanced against that miracle of the Red Sea; thinking to solve it by a spring tide, with the concurrence of a strong wind, happening at the same time, which left the sand so dry, as that the Israelites, being all foot, might pass through the oozy places and holes, which it must be supposed the sea left behind it; but that the Egyptians, being all horse and chariots, stuck in those holes, and were entangled, so as that they could not march so fast as the Israelites; and that this was all the meaning of its being said, that God took off their [the Egyptians] chariot wheels, that they drove them heavily. So that they would make nothing extraordinary, at least not miraculous, in all this action.

This is advanced in Le Clerc's Dissertations upon Genesis, lately printed in Holland; and that part, with others of the like tendency, endeavouring to resolve other miracles, as that of Sodom and Gomorrah, &c., into the mere natural causes, are put into English by the well known T. Brown, for the edification of the deists in England.

But these gentlemen have forgotten, that the Israelites had great herds of many thousand cattle with them, which would be apter to stray, and fall into those holes and oozy places in the sand, than horses with riders, who might direct them.

But such precarious and silly supposes are not worth the answering. If there had been no more in this