"of his sepulchre unto this day;" meaning the time in which this writer lived. How then should he know that Moses was "buried in a valley in the land of Moab?" For as the writer lived after the time of Moses, it is evident, from his using the expression " unto this day," meaning a great length of time after the death of Moses, he certainly was not at his burial. And on the other hand, it is im possible that Moses himself could say, "No man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day."

ANSWER.

This statement has been given to prove that Moses could not be the writer of the Pentateuch. On the bare reading, there appears to be some degree of plausibility attached to it, and I could admit the force of the reasoning, if it were said, that Moses wrote the last chapter of Deuteronomy. But as it is no where so said, and as certain things are assumed which are not true, all this reasoning will fall to the ground.

These writers think it unquestionable evidence, that because a book, according to the present division of the chapters, bears the name of a person, the whole of the book must have been written by him. This arises from ignorance. For example; the books of Samuel were not written by Samuel, for at the beginning of the xxv. chapter of the 1st book, it is said, And Samuel died; and consequently the latter part of the 1st book, and the whole of the 2nd book, could not be written by Samuel.

The last words that Moses wrote or spake are contained in the xxxiii. chapter of Deuteronomy, comprehending the blessings of the tribes, just before he went up to the mount to die there; and he took his final and affectionate farewell of all Israel, in the last verse, saying; Happy art thou, O Israel, who is like unto thee, O people, saved by the Lord, &c. These, I say, are the last words of Moses, consequently the scripture itself is sufficiently plain, that Moses could not be the writer of the last chapter of Deuteronomy. This chapter, giving an account of the death and burial of Moses, was, no doubt," written by a person who lived after the time of Moses," but this is no proof that "the

person who wrote this account was not at the burial of Moses," as objectors have ventured to assert. There is nothing objectionable in the narrative, even as it stands in the present translation; Joshua was appointed by Moses to be his iminediate successor, and as it was not possible for Moses to write the account of his own death and burial, the national records being then under the direction of Joshua, it is evident that this chapter was written by him; and that when the Bible was divided into chapters, the last chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, which ought to have been the first chapter of Joshua, has been injudiciously put as the last chapter of Deuteronomy. Now as Joshua gave the history of his own transactions, and wrote them in the book of the law of God, Jos. xxiv. 26, which law of God comprehends the whole Pentateuch, it is sufficiently evident that the above mentioned circumstances and things were written in the book of the law of God by Joshua. For as Joshua had seen so many proofs of that excellent spirit of meekness which was so evidently manifested in the life of Moses, it was a duty incumbent on him to inform posterity with what patience he had conducted himself before the rebellious Hebrews for forty years.

But that Moses was buried in the same manner as his brother Aaron was buried, is plain from the 50th verse of the xxxii. chapter: And die in the Mount wick thou goest up into, and thou shalt be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in Mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people. Now it is here positively declared, that Moses was to be buried, or gathered to his people, in the same manner that Aaron was; therefore in order to know in what manner Moses was buried, we only need turn to the account which is given of the death and burial of Aaron, Numb. ch. xx. which we find was in the most public manner, verse 29th: When all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, all the house of Israel wept for Aaron thirty days. Just as public was the death and burial of Moses, ch. xxxiv. 1. And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plain of Moab thirty days, the very place where he was buried.

But, no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day:

from which objectors conclude, that "this account could not be given by Moses:" a very just conclusion; but the Bible does not say that this account was given by Moses; therefore this objection is an absurd one. The last chapter where this account is given, was not written by Moses (as above ;) beside, the words, But no man knoweth of his Sepulchre unto this day, do neither say nor mean that there was a sepulchre erected for Moses, for if there had been one erected, the writer, (Joshua,) could not have said, no man knoweth, as he and the elders of Israel must have known it; but this is the Bible method of affirming that there was no such thing. That there was a necessity for Joshua's concealing the place of his burial from posterity, by not erecting a sepulchral monument, appears obvious ; as Moses had been so conspicuous among them, a man so highly approved of by God, there was a danger, as their fathers had been accustomed to idolatrous practices in Egypt, that they might have had such a veneration for the place, as to have relapsed again into idolatry. So that Joshua wisely remarks that Moses was buried in the land of Moab, but no sepulchre was erected to his memory. Nor does the expression, "unto this day, signify a great length of time after the death of Moses before this account was given," for it is no way improper to make use of such an expression respecting any circumstance that has taken place a few years back. Therefore it is a very unfair conclusion, and such a one as the subject will no way admit of, to say, that "the writer, by using this expression, viz. unto this day,' meant a great length of time after the death of Moses."

OBJECTION.>

The objection next advanced by the DEIST, was made in the early ages of the Christian church. He says: "Suppose the book to be anonymous, or, which is worse, ushered into the world under the name of a person who, from the internal evidence of the thing, could not have written it; can it be imagined that such a book would find credit among people, who have the least pretensions to reason or common sense? The books of the Pentateuch

bear many strong marks of an author long posterior to Moses; the book of Numbers quotes the book of the wars of the Lord, that Moses could not possibly have written the account of his own death and burial."

ANSWER.

It has often been asserted by Deists, that the books ascribed to Moses" are anonymous, and consequently without authority." This is a specimen of bad reasoning, a book may be anonymous, or without a name, and yet it may contain an account of things authentic, and consequently not without authority; and a book may have the name of the author, and yet contain an account of things which are not true, like the works of the DEIST. The books ascribed to Moses are said by these objectors to bear internal evidence that they were not written by him, but by "an author long posterior to Moses." The internal evidence which has been brought to prove this, is Gen. xxxvi. 31. And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel. From this passage, these objectors say-"Should any dateless writing be found wherein the writer should say, These things happened before the time of Henry the Eighth, it would be sufficient evidence that such writing could not have been written before the time of Henry the Eighth. From which these writers conclude that the book of Genesis, so far from having been written by Moses, could not have been written till the time of Saul or David, who were the first kings of Israel, and which was 500 years after the time of Moses."

The whole of this objection is founded on the supposition that Saul or David was the first king of Israel: which, if it had been so, would prove that Moses could not have been the writer of the books ascribed to him. The DEIST should have known a little more of the Bible before he had attempted to publish his book. It will however appear, that the Bible is a book seldom read by him; for we have positive evidence that kings reigned over Israel before the time of Saul or David. In the book of Judges, ch. xvii. 6. it is said: In those days there was no king in Israel,

B

It is also said, ch. ix. 22. When Abimelech had reigned three years over Israel. Consequently the evidence, that the book of Genesis could not be written before the time of Saul or David, because it has been erroneously said that they were the first kings of Israel, falls to the ground.

The evidence that Moses was a king over the Hebrews, is equally as clear as that of the kings of Edom, or that Saul and David were kings of Israel.

We read, that the chiefs of the people having assembled, Moses, with the assistance of Jethro, prince of Midian, gave directions for forming a regular government. From this period he was acknowledged a KING; for it is said, Deut. xxxiii. 5. And he was KING in Jeshurun, (i. e. in Israel,) when the heads of the people, and the tribes were gathered together. Here we see that the word melek, a king, was applied to Moses as it was to the kings of Edom, or to Saul, or to David, and to all the kings of Israel. So that the DEIST has been altogether mistaken as to the time and person of the first king of the Hebrews: consequently, all the historical, chronological, and internal evidence which he advances to prove that Moses was not the writer of the books ascribed to him, only prove his profound ignorance of the history and chronology of the Bible.

Now as those objections are fairly answered agreably to the literal sense of the words, and proved to be no way objectionable; I have only to notice two things, in order to ascertain as clearly, that Moses was the writer, as that any book bearing the author's name, and not written more than 50 years before the present time, was written by the person whose name it bears.

The first is, when the person whose name is prefixed to the book, declares he is the author; the second, when a whole nation gives testimony to this declaration, by acknowledging him to be the author.

The writings ascribed to Homer, have been universally acknowledged to have been written by him; and the best proof of his being the author was, that he declared himself to be so, and that the nation in which he lived acknowledged him to have been the author. The same may be said respecting the productions of Euclid; and even of our countrymen, Milton and Newton. What stronger proof