in the older Jewish books, such as Kings and Chronicles, the name of Moses is mentoned, yet no word answering to the five Looks of the Pentateuch is to be found; and that the code of the laws of Moses seems to have been forgotten." These assertions are false; for, besides the circumstance, obvious to the most inattentive, that the existence of the law of Moses is generally taken for granted in those books, it is particularly mentioned more than once. In 2. Chron. xvii. 9. are these words: "And they (the priests and Levites) taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the Lord with them.” In the same book, Chap. xxxiii. ver. 8. we read, "Neither will I remove the foot of Israel out of the land which I have appointed for your fathers, so that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them according to the law, and the satutes, and the ordinances by the hand of Moses." The mention made 2. Chron. xxxiv. 14. &c. and 2. Kings xxii. 8. &c., of the book of the law given by Moses being found by Hilkiah, and sent to Shaphan, by no means proves, as Dr F. asserts, that it was the law strictlyspeaking. The two tables of stone had been deposited in the ark by Moses, as we are informed, 1 Kings viii. 9. and 2 Chron. v. 1o., and the finding them would be nothing remarkable. During the impious reign of Manasseh, the law of Moses had. indeed been neglected, and its statutes

and ordinances had been broken, but there is not the smallest reason to suspect that it was either lost or forgot. The probability, therefore, is, that this copy was either the original, or an authentic public transcript. For though, when it was read to Josiah, he rent his cloaths, probably on account of the neglect it had fallen under during his father's reign; that he was not ignorant of it, is certain, from his attention previous to this, in reforming the abuses which his father had introduced contrary toit. It might, however, happen, from the circumstances in which he had been edu-, cated, that he was not so well acquainted. with all its sanctions and provisions, as he should have been. But, besides the books of Kings and Chronicles, we find the law of Moses, very particularly mentioned in Joshua. See chap. viii. 30. to the end, xi. 15% and xxiv. 25..26.

66

Though there were no synagogues publicly established in Judea before they captivity, which, however, is by no means so evident as the Doctor thinks; * there were certain provisions respecting the law of Moses, which rendered it impossi ble that it should be lost. It was preserved with the most watchful attention each expression was deemed sacred, and the very letters were numbered. Each

See Psalm 74. v. Bon.

prince was obliged to take a copy of it,. from that which was before, the priests, the Levites, Deut. xvii. 18. 19. xxvii. 3. xxxi. 10. 11 and the people were particularly enjoined to teach it to their children, and to wear it as signs on their heads and frontlets, between their eyes; a precept bold and figurative, but extremely expressive of its importance. See Exod. xiii. 9. Levit. x. II. and Deut. vi. 6. g. 21. and x 18. 19. Though, therefore, during the idolatrousreigns, it was sometimes neglected, it could neither be lost nor forgotten. The schools of the prophets, each tribe, and particularly the Levites, whose business it was to read the law in all its parts, would of course be furnished with copies. But, besides these circumstances, forming the strongest and most natural evidence which can be brought for the authenticity of any book,there is another which must appear to our opponents at least, to be still less equivocal; I mean the agreement between the Hebrew and Samaritan Pentateuch. The revolt of the ten tribes was followed by an irreconcileable hatred between them and the remaining two. These tribes carried the Pentateuch along with them, and acknowledged none of the subsequent books as divine, and yet, except an alteration evidertly intended to give credit to the opinion that Mount Gerizim was the place chosen for the temple, and a few other trifling variations, the agreement between:

1

it and the Hebrew original is so exact, as evidently to prove that the former has not been interpolated since the time of the revolt under Rehoboam, which happened upwards of 2000 years ago. Having thus such unquestionable evidence, the evidence of keen opponents, that it existed, and was considered as the work of Moses in that period, a child may carry the evidence up to Moses, by steps which cannot be controverted. See Joseph. Ant. Lib. 11. and Prideaux's Con. Part 1. book VI.

"But, waving this, the Doctor's strongest argument, viz. that the Jewish books were lost during the captivity, is not quite so certain as he supposes. For, besides that it must have been both easy and natural for a people so attached to their law, to carry it along with them; or, if they could not do so publicly, to secret it, there is direct mention made of the Pentateuch in Daniel ix. 11. 13. during that period; and there can be no rea son to suppose, that 70 years captivity would lead them to neglect or forget what from their bondage they would naturally be inclined the more to respect; see also Tobit, ch. vii. 12. viii. 13. Ezra, therefore, did no more than collect the scattered books into one volume, probably interspersing a few remarks in the Pentateuch, for its elucidation or connection with the other books. That they were publicly read after the return from the captivity, appears from Ezra

the sanctions by which they were originally enforced.

"When a man sits down to examine opinions or facts which have much attracted the notice of the learned, and have undergone much serious investigation, if he has any regard to character or candour, he will pay some attention to what has been thus produced on the subject, and he will cautiously avoid renewing those assertions and objections which have been previously obviated; at least, he will take care to examine the grounds of the arguments which have been brought to answer them. But Dr Francis proceeds, as if no such answers ever had been made, and concludes, without af fording any other reason than his ipfe dixit, that Zoroaster, Sanchoniatho, &c. were the originals from whence Genesis was compiled. If he had looked at Dr Hyde's Relig. Vet. Persarum, (cap. 1o. p. 176, and cap. 24. p. 314, &c.) a book which was thought by the infidels of the early part of this century to be peculiarly favourable to their cause, he would have found some reason to believe that Zoroaster was himself of Jewish extraction, educated among the Jews, and well versed in the books of the Old Testament, and in the ancient traditions. According to the most accurate accounts, he lived a little previous to the Trojan war, at least 200 years after the Jews had received their law, and were settled in