Mr. B. This is another of those incredible hypotheses which are never wanting when the object is to invalidate the sacred volume. Neither Ezra nor any other man (unless by inspiration, which no Deist can suppose,) could write the various books in question, even if when written it had been possible to persuade the people of their genuineness. There is internal as well as external evidence for these books, which cannot be set aside by hypothesis. Exclusively of our Lord's attestation to the authority of the Old Testament, its genuineness and credibility may from itself be shown to be such as no labour now can overthrow, and still less the cavils of men ignorant of the language of the books they condemn. The positive external evidence in behalf of the Old Testament is in a great measure placed beyond our reach, for we have no contemporary authors to bear testimony to it; but that must not be imputed as a defect to these writings, which is only the defect of the age in which they were produced. Every other species of evidence however we have, in a stronger degree than can be brought forward for writings, the authenticity of which no one would dispute. In the Old Testament we perceive a gradation in the language, such as may be naturally accounted for, on the supposition of these books being produced in a long course of ages, but on no other; we perceive a difference in the style of the various authors, such as it is wholly incredible that any forger could produce. It is a very easy thing to make the supposition of forgery; but it would be found no easy task to imitate the writings of any one, either Moses, Ďavid, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel; and as to Ezra producing all these, and many more, it is mere mockery to entertain the idea for a moment.

Edward. But we may not assume the integrity of the Old Testament to prove its genuineness.

Mr. B. We may not, and all that has hitherto been

38 Could he, or any one else, have written these various books?-39 What is said of the want of positive external evidence in favour of the Old Testament?-40 What is said of the gradation of language in those books?-41 What is said of the supposition that certain of these books are forgeries?

said need only be regarded as illustrative of the care which the Jews took of their sacred writings. We know from external evidence the existence of these writings up to the time of Ezra. From the writers of the New Testament, Josephus, and indeed every Jewish author, we know the scrupulous regard they have ever paid to the uncorrupted preservation of these books: the books themselves, as now existing, are a sufficient proof of their honesty; for they contain passages which are destructive of Judaism itself in its present state, and from which the people whom they most have hated, draw their strongest arguments. We are secured by numerous manuscripts, by quotations, by versions, by commentaries, and by the disputes of contending parties, from imposition up to the time of our Lord; and even beyond his time, by the Greek version, known by the name of the Septuagint.

Maria. But our Lord's authority alone will be sufficient to the Christian. He accused the Jews of many things, but not of having corrupted the word of God.

Mr. B. And even to others, also, the testimony of our Lord and his apostles to the Scriptures of the Old Testament are important, as being that of those who were especially opposed to the prevailing follies and vices of that nation. If the miracles of our Lord had not been real, his testimony would still have been important, though not conclusive, on the subject; and all the difficulties connected with the rejection of the Old Testament press alike upon the Christian and the Deist. The Christian is bound by the fact of the integrity of the Old Testament, to defend it as far as it was connected with his religion by the founder of that religion. The infidel is bound by the same fact to account for the difficulties into which it brings him. The first is bound to believe these records genuine and authentic, on the authority of his Lord and Master: the second is bound to disprove the

42 What do we know of these writings, from different early authors?— 43 How are we secured against any deception in regard to their genuineness?-44 What does Maria say of our Lord's authority upon the subject? -45 What does Mr. B. say of his authority?-46 How is the Christian bound to defend it?-47 What is the infidel bound to do?-48 And what is it then said each one is bound to do?

evidence of their being genuine and authentic, both as attested by the divine mission of Christ, and by the evidence which is more exclusively their own, and which equally existed before the appearance of Christ. To those who deem the evidence already adduced in behalf of the miracles of our Lord conclusive, no further proof is indeed requisite; but as some may not, I will now show you how the argument may be conducted independently of this; and thereby through the means of these writings additional evidence be brought to prove

the miracles of our Lord real.

Edward. The Christian is not, however, bound to do this, since the evidence in favour of the miracles of our Lord ought to be sufficient.

Mr. B. He is not, nor do I consider, even in the course now to be pursued, myself bound to prove every thing which a Jew might justly urge in behalf of the Old Testament. All that it appears to me necessary to show is, that the books which involve most closely the truth of the Mosaic revelation, and that of our Lord, are certainly genuine, and that the rest cannot be proved spurious, and that both are credible. But if in any respects length of time may have weakened the proof, you must still bear in mind that the proof is rather that which might have been required to be produced previously to the coming of Christ, when its weight must have been greater.

Maria. But is it not necessary to this, that we be assured that we have the sacred text as near as possible to that published by Ezra?

Mr. B. It is, and for that purpose the most careful investigations have been made at great expense, and the most laborious examination of manuscripts has taken place.

Edward. The Jews, also, have taken great pains, I believe, to ascertain the true text.

Mr. B. They have long ago, and their superstitious

49 For whose benefit does Mr. B. propose to adduce other evidence on the subject?-50 With this view, what does he propose to do?-51 If the proof to be offered is apparently weakened by length of time, what is to be considered?-52 What does Mr. B. say of the assurance we possess, that the sacred text, now in existence, is the same as that published by Ezra?

reverence of it has been of the greatest use in this respect. They have numbered the sentences, words, and letters, in such a variety of ways, and have so noted down every minute circumstance connected with it, that we are certain, that no very material omission or addition has been made. In the very copying of it they are also so scrupulous, that we are enabled to rely on them to a great degree. The Septuagint, from its having been made not long after the time of Ezra, is also of great importance, and has in like manner been critically revised. In short, no means of ascertaining the truth have been left untried, and from the labours of Kennicott in England, and De Rossi in Italy, we are enabled to rely upon a Hebrew text sufficiently accurate for all the purposes of an inquiry into its genuineness and credibility; as similarly from the labours of the Masorites, we ascertain the opinion of the Jews on the sacred text, and from those of Holmes we can argue from the testimony of a critically correct copy of the Septuagint.

Edward. We then argue from the text thus ascertained, believing it to be sufficiently near that of Ezra for the purposes of inquiry; and to that we are limited, having no external testimony to it beyond that period.

Mr. B. These books, then, profess to be by various authors, the names of some being well known in the East, whilst with others we are only acquainted through the medium of this volume, Now that Moses and Solomon, the son of David, lived and wrote is certain, from the concurrent testimony of all the nations near Palestine; that the people of Israel were led out of Egypt by the former, and that the latter raised that nation to their greatest height of prosperity, cannot be disputed on any reasonable grounds. The question is, are the writings ascribed to Moses and Solomon theirs or not? That it is highly probable they are, appears from the following considerations:

53 What is said of the care with which the Jews have preserved it?— 54 What is said of the value of the Septuagint?-55 What authors are named as having rendered valuable services in this investigation?-56 What is said to be known of Moses and Solomon?-57 What is here the important question respecting them?

The language, style, and tenour of them, are such as might have been expected.

The most minute examination cannot prove any thing inconsistent with such a supposition.

The nature of these writings is such as excludes, in a great measure, the possibility of imposition.

The obedience of a nation to them, and the tacit concurrence of neighbouring nations in the fact, give us all the external proof that the nature of the case will admit. And every other hypothesis is attended with insuperable difficulties.

Edward. The testimony of the learned, with regard to the language and style, must be allowed, since no contrary evidence can be produced; but does not the mention of the death of Moses, and the occurrence in the Pentateuch of names not used in his time, militate against the second position?

Mr. B. There can be no doubt that the last chapter of Deuteronomy is a conclusion which the subject required, and as such was added by Joshua, Samuel, or Ezra. If language was used in general such as could not have been used in the time of Moses, it would strongly have militated against the genuineness of his writings; but the mere alteration of a name, which had been forgotten, to the one which afterwards became common, and manifestly done by a later writer to make the narrative intelligible, cannot affect the authority of the work at large.

Maria. But does not historical fact invalidate these writings?

Mr. B. If the writings assigned to Solomon be admitted, and how they can be denied I cannot see, those ascribed to Moses must be long anterior to any other history extant; and both on this account, and from reference to the country in which it was produced, far more likely to be true than any other record which has

58 What are the probable reasons for the affirmative of it?-59 What does Edward say of the testimony of the learned respecting them?-60 Of what does Mr. B. say there is no doubt?-61 What does he say would; and what would not affect the authority of those ancient books?-62 Does the historical fact invalidate these writings?