he says, he will "describe the form of government which was "agreeable to the dignity and virtue of Moses: these settle

66

ments, says he, are all still in writing as Moses left them; "and we shall add nothing by way of ornament, nor any thing "besides what Moses left us; only we shall so far innovate, as "to digest the several kinds of laws into a regular system; for "they were left behind him in writing as they were accidentally "scattered in their delivery, and as he, upon enquiry, learned "them from God."

Thus also we find Josephus describes minutely and elaborately the tabernacle and its furniture, and the dress of the priests; † but not like the detail of them in the Pentateuch, which is calculated to instruct the artists how to make them; while that of Josephus is calculated (as undoubtedly any man but Moses himself would have calculated it) to describe the effect of what had been made, their beauty and splendor, their connexion and use. Thus also the account which Josephus gives of the rites of purification and sacrifice, is formed to be read with ease, free from the repetitions, and from the minute, and though necessary yet sometimes unpleasant, particulars of the original detail.

All these differences, I contend, strongly illustrate and confirm the originality and the truth of the Pentateuch; and tend to prove it was the work of an eye-witness and even of an eyewitness whose business and anxious care it was to superintend and direct every circumstance of what he has described: such an eyewitness was Moses, and Moses alone. If then he was the author, can we doubt the truth of the narrative? Were not the leading facts too recent, too important, to admit of the least falsification? Is not the detail formed with such artlessness and simplicity, such particularity and minuteness, such candour and impartiality, that we cannot doubt of its truth, even in the most minute particulars? This is the conclusion I wished, in this lecture, to establish. But there is another mode of argument which seems to establish it still more decisively, which I shall adduce in the next lecture.

Joseph. Antiq. Lib. IV. viii. § 4.

Ib. ix. x. & xi.

+Ib. Lib. III. vi. & vii.

LECTURE III.

The Authenticity and Truth of the four last books of the Pentateuch confirmed, by a comparison of the book of Deuteronomy with those of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers—Statement of the general argument deduced from this comparison-How far similar, how far dissimilar to that used by Archdeacon Paley, in his Hora Paulina-Its application to the history, so far as it relates events not miraculous—Instanced in general coincidences between the recapitulation in Deuteronomy, and the direct narration in the preceding books-In particular facts and circumstances-As to rules of purification-Directions for carrying the tabernacle-Disposition of the tribes in camp, &c.—An apparent contradiction-How reconciled-As to the appointment of inferior judges-And of the twelve spies.

DEUTERONOMY i. 1, 3.

"These were the words which Moses spake unto all Israel, on this side Jordan in the wilderness: In the "fortieth year, in the eleventh month, Moses spake unto the Children of Israel according unto all "that the Lord had given him in commandment unto them.”

THIS exordium to the book of Deuteronomy is exceedingly remarkable: it states that it is not, like the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, a direct narration or journal of the various events which occurred to the Jewish legislator and nation, from the commencement of their deliverance from Egypt; but that it was a recapitulation of every thing which Moses thought it necessary to notice, in addressing the people shortly before his death, at the close of the forty years, during which he had acted as their lawgiver and judge. I beg leave to direct my reader's attention, to this peculiar character of the last book of the Pentateuch, because it seems to me, to supply the groundwork of an argument for the genuineness and truth of the entire, somewhat different from those which I have seen generally and distinctly noticed.

In my two last Lectures, I endeavoured to collect the topics in proof of the authenticity and truth of the works ascribed to

Moses; from their general reception among the Jews; from the important and public nature of the facts they relate; from the simplicity of their style and structure; from the particularity of their narrative, natural to an eye-witness, and to an eyewitness alone; and especially from the admirable impartiality they every where display. But if the distinct nature and purpose, ascribed to the book of Deuteronomy, really belongs to it, a comparison of this, with the preceding books of the Pentateuch, ought to afford a distinct proof of the truth and authenticity of all, from the UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES between them.

Arguments of somewhat a similar kind, have been lately applied by Archdeacon Paley,* with a force which seems unanswerable, to confirm the authenticity and truth of the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul, by comparing them together, and pointing out the undesigned coincidence between the direct narration in the Acts, and the indirect allusions to the same facts in the Epistles; and thus establishing the truth of both, on the same principle as that by which we yield entire credit to two unsuspected witnesses, who deliver accounts of the same transactions, if it appears that neither were acquainted with the testimony of the other, and yet that their evidence exactly agrees.

An argument of precisely the same nature as this cannot be applied to confirm the truth of the Pentateuch, because we have not any cotemporary writings to compare with it; all the works of the Old Testament (the book of Job perhaps excepted) being plainly subsequent to it, all presupposing its truth, deriving from it almost every account of the facts which it details: and in almost every allusion to these facts, adapted to the narrative which the Pentateuch delivers. This circumstance proves undoubtedly that the history of the Pentateuch was received by all subsequent Jewish writers, as the only authentic account of their nation; and thus establishes its truth exactly in proportion as it is improbable the whole Hebrew people should be mistaken in receiving such a narrative as true, if it were really fictitious; an improbability which can scarcely be stated too high, if we consider the public nature and great importance of the facts which the Pentateuch details, the high authority of the person to whom

* Vide Paley's Hora Paulina

it is ascribed, and the early period at which it was received. But having touched upon these topics, I now dismiss them, and proceed to enquire, whether we may not even from the internal structure of the Pentateuch, derive some arguments for its genuineness and truth; which, though not exactly the same with those of the distinguished writer to whom I have alluded, are yet somewhat of a similar nature. We cannot indeed compare the entire with cotemporary writers, and thus confirm it by the agreement of different and independent testimonies; but we can compare the different parts of it together, and weigh the coincidence between the different parts of the same testimony. We may examine whether there exists a natural and exact agreement between the direct narrative and the various references to the same facts in the recapitulation, as well with each other as with the different situations in which the supposed author is related to have been placed, and the various views and feelings which these situations would naturally suggest.

The direct narrative was written at the time of the transac actions, as they were passing; the recapitulation was delivered at a period long subsequent to many. The former was intended to record all the particulars of the events, most necessary to be known; in the latter it was intended to notice only such parti culars as the immediate object of the speaker, in addressing the people, rendered it expedient to impress upon their minds. In each, the laws are intermixed with the facts, and both laws and facts are referred to for different purposes and on different occasions. This gives room for comparing these statements and allusions, and judging whether they agree in such a manner as appears to result, not from the artifice which forgery or falsehood might adopt, but from the consistency of nature and truth. We may thus weigh the different testimonies of the same witness, delivered at different times and on different occasions, and judge, as it were by a cross examination, of their truth. And we may remark, that if a coincidence appears in minute and unimportant circumstances, it is therefore the more improbable it should have been designed; also, the more indirect and circuitous it is, the less obvious it would have been to a forger or compiler. the situations in which the writer is placed, and the views with which at different times he alludes to the same facts, are different, and the terms which he employs are adapted to this differ

If

ence, in an artless and natural manner, this is a strong presumption of truth. Finally, if the direct narrative, and the subsequent references and allusions appear in any instance to approach to a contradiction, and yet on closer inspection are found to agree, this very strongly confirms the absence of art, and the influence of truth and reality.

Having thus expounded the general meaning of my argument, I proceed to exemplify it by some instances, which seem sufficient for establishing the conclusion contended for.

Some presumption that the four last books of the Pentateuch were really composed by an eye-witness at the time of the transactions, arises from their describing the nation and the Lawgiver in circumstances totally different from any which ever existed before or after that peculiar period; from their adapting every incident, however unimportant, every turn of expression, however minute, to these peculiar circumstances.

The Jews are supposed to have left the land of Egypt, and not yet possessed themselves of the land of Canaan: in this interval the nation was all collected together, never before or after; it then dwelt in tents, never before or after; no one possessed any landed property or houses; no local distinctions, no local tribunal, could then exist: these and a variety of other circumstances of the same nature, necessarily attended this peculiar situation. Now such is the nature of the human mind, that though it may be easy to imagine a peculiar situation of fictitious characters, and describe their conduct in this situation with sufficient consistency, as in a poem or a fiction entirely unconnected with reality; yet, when characters that have really existed are described in circumstances entirely or even partly fictitious; when it is necessary to combine a considerable degree of truth with a certain portion of fiction; when it is necessary to describe this unprecedented and fictitious situation, not merely in general terms, but in a very minute detail of facts and regulations; to connect it with particular times and places and persons, to combine it with subsequent events which were real, and with the laws and customs which the writer himself lives under, and which prevail through an extensive nation; then, indeed, it requires no ordinary ingenuity, and no common caution, to preserve a perfect consistency; never once to suffer the constant and familiar associations which perpetually obtrude