were much more distinguished as intercessors with God, expounders of his will, and teachers of true religion, than as foreseers of future events. At that period, or afterwards, two distinct words may have been used to denote these two ideas: in process of time, as the teachers sent from God became more distinguished for prophecy, the word originally applied to them generally, became more confined to the predictors of future events, and superseded the use of the second word, which had been more recently introduced, and was always of inferior dignity.

But be this as it may, the word is most frequently used to denote a prophet, in the other books of Scripture, and even in Samuel. Le Clerc on mature consideration, (and it should seem very rationally,) thought that instead of calling into question the authenticity of the entire Pentateuch, in consequence of this parenthesis, we should rather question the authority of the parenthesis in 1 Sam. ix. 9. which is entirely unconnected with the context, perplexes the sense, and seems evidently to have been a marginal note which crept into the text, and at a wrong place too. Vide Clerici Notas in 1 Sam. ix. 9.

No. VIII.

TEXT: Gen. xxii. 14.-" And Abraham called the name of "that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the "mount of the Lord it shall be seen."

OBJECTION.-Some persons affirm this to be the mountain Moriah, on which the temple was built; and that it did not get this name, , which, say they, is the same as that taken from this event, , until the temple had been built. Besides, the phrase, as it is "said to this day, in the mount of the Lord it shall be seen," does not seem adapted to the period when Moses lived.

66

ANSWER.-There is nothing but mere conjecture for the mount Moriah deriving its name from this event, and still less for its not being so called until after the temple was built. The name Jireh, though similar in sense to Morijeh or Moriah, is not the same, and may have been in use from the time of Abraham: and the interval between Abraham and Moses was long enough (above four hundred years) to justify the expression, as it is said to this day. Le Clerc brings many instances to confirm such a use of the words to this day, I think unnecessarily. In truth I do not clearly understand either the objection or the answer. If the reader is curious, he may find them in Clerici Dissertatio, No. vii. p. 32. Witsius takes no notice of this objection, nor do I think it was necessary to notice it; but I am unwilling to suppress any appearance of objection.

Dr. Geddes is of opinion that there is no necessity to say with Eben Ezra that there is here any interpolation; it may be a part of the original narrative, whether written by Moses or any other person; an expression may become proverbial, during the lifetime even of him who

first uttered it. All that we can lawfully infer from the text is, that these words, "in the mountain the Lord will provide," had become a proverbial saying when the author wrote.

No. IX.

TEXT: Gen. xxxv. 21.-" And Israel journeyed, and spread "his tent beyond the tower of Edar."

OBJECTION. The writer of this could not be Moses, for Edar was the name of a tower over one of the gates of Jerusalem; beyond the present site of which, says the writer, Israel spread his tent.

ANSWER. The tower of Edar means the tower of the Flocks, and there might have been different towers so called in the time of Jacob; and if the gate of Jerusalem stood in the spot meant by Moses, it may have gained its name from this old name, now revived and applied to a new object.

The learned Mr. Marsh observes, that this objection implies a manifest absurdity: "for if the writer of this passage had meant the tower "of Edar in Jerusalem, he would have made Jacob spread his tent beyond a tower, that probably did not exist till many hundred years "after his death." * But Dr. Geddes builds much upon this text; vide infra.

66

No. X.

TEXT: 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."

OBJECTION.-There are then reckoned up eight kings in succession, that is, as many as there were generations from Jacob to Obed, grandfather of David, and cotemporary with Saul the first king of Israel; whereas, from Jacob to Moses were only four generations, as Moses himself counts them.

Witsius ANSWERS-There was here nothing Moses might not have said, for in Gen. xxxv. 11. it was promised to Jacob that "kings "should come out of his loins ;" and Moses might mark it as a singular fact, that so many kings had reigned over Esau before his own time, and consequently before this promise to Jacob had been fulfilled : and it appears from Deut. xvii. 14, Moses foretold the Jews would elect kings. As to the number of kings, 236 years elapsed from the death of Isaac, when Esau took possession of Edom, to the time when Moses became leader of the Jews, and this might well allow eight successions of kings. Le Clerc, however, from an idea that this passage, if retained, would imply a prophetic declaration of Moses, on a subject which did not require it, supposes that from verse 31 to 40, is an interpolation of a later hand; and I confess I think it carries

* Vide Marsh on the Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses, Cambridge, 1792, p. 14.

internal evidence of its being so; it is written in a different manner from the parts before and after it, being much more particular than the rest of the chapter, mentioning not only the king's names, but the names of the cities they built, and of the wives of some, and of memorable actions they performed; whereas, in verse 40, we find the enumeration of dukes or chiefs descended from Esau, resumed and carried on with the simplicity of the preceding part of the chapter; and ending with this expression, "these be the dukes of Edom, according to "their habitations in the land of their possession; he is Esau, the father "of the Edomites." Now this looks as if only dukes had been mentioned before, otherwise it would probably have been said, "these are "the dukes and kings of Edom," &c. Such an insertion might naturally enough have been made by Samuel, to complete the historical sketch of Edom in this chapter. But either way the general authenticity of the Pentateuch cannot be affected by it. After having formed the above opinion, I was much gratified at finding that it coincides with that of the learned Kennicott, who insists that these verses were evidently taken from 1 Chr. i. 43. 54. from whence having been inserted in the margin of some very ancient MS. here in Genesis, they were afterwards taken into the text. Vide Kennicott's Remarks on select Passages of the Old Testament, p. 35.

No. XI.

TEXT: Gen. xl. 15.-Joseph says, "For indeed I was taken "away out of the land of the Hebrews."

OBJECTION.-It could not be called the land of the Hebrews, until they had invaded and taken possession of it.

ANSWER. Joseph might well call that particular part of the land of Canaan near Hebron, where Isaac and Jacob had resided for so many years, the land of the Hebrews. They, it is true, were not originally natives of the country, but they possessed such wealth, such numerous families, herds, and flocks, that they were looked up to as mighty princes. (Vide the language of the children of Heth to Abraham, Gen. xxiii. 6.) We find them joining the neighbouring kings in making war, (vide Gen. xiv.) making compacts and leagues even with kings, (vide Gen. xxi. 23. and xxvi. 14.) and even conquering entire cities (as Gen. xxxiv.) living according to their own customs, and exercising their own religion. It is therefore perfectly credible, the place of their residence may have been termed the land of the Hebrews, as they had been there for such a length of time, independent and in alliance with the natives, (vide Gen. xiv. 13.) These are the observations of the learned Altingius, adopted by Witsius, and confirmed by Le Clerc.

No. XII.

TEXT: Exod. vi. 26, 27.-At the end of the genealogy of the tribe of Levi is added, "These are that Aaron and Moses, to

"whom the Lord said, Bring the children of Israel from the "land of Egypt according to their armies. These are they "which spake to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to bring out the chil"dren of Israel: these are that Moses and Aaron."

OBJECTION. This could not have been written by Moses; he would not thus ostentatiously and unnecessarily particularize himself and his brother: it is the language of a person writing long after his death.

ANSWER. It was neither ostentatious nor unnecessary to point out to future generations, that the Aaron from whom the High Priests descended, was the same employed by God to act such a distinguished part in the deliverance of his chosen people; and thus mentioning of Aaron, who acted but a secondary part, it would have been unnatural to omit Moses, who was the chief. And that this was the real reason of this particular notice, appears from the sons of Aaron, from whom the High Priests were to be taken, being distinctly enumerated, while no notice is taken of the sons of Moses, who were to remain in a private station undistinguished among the Levites. Had the learned critics noticed this last circumstance, they would probably have seen that this passage, instead of affording any reason to suspect that Moses did not write it, supplies a strong presumptive proof that he did; for any other writer would have been disposed to treat the great legislator of the Jews with more distinction than his brother. May I then be permitted to say, that this circumstance supplies another instance of the coincidence of the narrative with the peculiar character and situation of the supposed author, to be added to those enumerated Part I, Lect. III. and confirming the internal proofs there adduced, to establish the genuineness and truth of the Pentateuch.

It is scarcely necessary to notice here the futile and ignorant objection of Paine, that Moses speaks of himself in the third person; an objection which would disprove the genuineness of the works of Thucydides, Xenophon, and Cesar, as well as of Moses. In truth, this

writer, whose ignorance can be only equalled by his temerity, his presumption, and his virulence, has been already so fully exposed and confuted, especially by the venerable Bishop WATSON, that I think it unnecessary to go out of my way particularly to notice his cavils. I may, however, I believe, venture to say, that such of them as relate to that part of Scripture which it is the object of this work to vindicate, have been considered and confuted in it.

66

No. XIII.

TEXT: Exod. xvi. 35.—“ And the children of Israel did eat manna forty years, until they came into a land inhabited: they did eat manna, until they came into the borders of the "land of Canaan."- "Now an omer is the tenth part of an "ephah."

OBJECTION. This could not have been written by Moses, as the Jews did not reach the borders of Canaan, or cease to eat manna till after his death; nor would Moses speak thus of an omer, the measure by which all the people gathered the manna, "an omer for every man." It is the language of one speaking when this measure was out of use, and an ephah more generally known.

ANSWER. This is plainly a passage inserted by a later hand; it forms a complete parenthesis, entirely unconnected with the narrative, which having given a full account of the miraculous provision of manna, closes it with the order to Aaron, "to lay up an omer full of manna "in the ark, as a memorial to be kept for their generations." This was evidently the last circumstance relating to this matter, which it was necessary for Moses to mention; and he accordingly then resumes the regular account of the journeyings of the people. Some later writer was very naturally led to insert the additional circumstance, of the time during which this miraculous provision was continued, and probably added an explanatory note, to ascertain the capacity of an omer, which was the quantity of food provided for each individual by God; to ascertain it therefore must have been a matter of curiosity. Possibly the manna laid up in the ark might have been lost when it was taken by the Philistines, and this note added by Samuel.

*

Here again I contend, that the insertion of such notes rather confirms than impeaches the antiquity and genuineness of the original narrative. If this were a compilation long subsequent to the events it records, such additions would not have been plainly distinguishable, as they now are, from the main substance of the original; since the entire history would have been composed with the same ideas and views as these additions were; and such explanatory insertions would not have been made, if length of time had not rendered them necessary.

No. XIV.

TEXT: Deut. i. 1.-" These be the words which Moses "spake unto all Israel beyond Jordan in the Wilderness, in “the plain over against the Red Sea, between Paran and To"phel, and Laban, and Hazeroth and Dizahab.”

OBJECTION.-No objection at all to our translation (on this side Jordan,) with which the Syriac agrees, and the Targum of Onkelos retaining the same word as in the original Hebrew, leaves it undeter

* I say only probably, because the words, "an omer is the tenth part of an ephah," might very naturally be used by Moses, who might mark the relation between an omer and an ephah, to transmit it to posterity. Thus, Numbers, iii. 46. in the account of the redemption-money of the first-born, "over and above them that were redeemed by the Levites," Moses says, "Thou shalt take five she. "kels apiece by the poll, after the shekel of the sanctuary shalt thou take them. The shekel is "twenty gerahs." Now that this passage was written by Moses, I have endeavoured to prove from its very nature, Vide supra. In truth, in a history descending to such minuteness as the Mosaic history does, such notices as these are perfectly natural; and such particularity is the strongest proof of genuineness and truth. Vide supra, Part I. Lect. II. III. and IV.