and legislator of the Jews, is granted to the prayers of his father, and announced to him also in a prophetic vision. Even his brother Aaron's fame, and his dignity as high priest, is also prophesied.

The original narrative, with a beautiful simplicity, notices the very natural circumstance, "that when the mother of Moses "saw he was a goodly child, she hid him three months." On this single expression, Josephus raises the most extravagant description of the distinguished and captivating stature and beauty of his hero, and ascribes to this, some of the most remarkable events. with which he embellishes his life. His understanding too, is represented as greater than his age; the sports of his childhood are ominous of his future exploits. When arrived to maturity, he is said to have been appointed general in a war with the Æthiopians who had reduced Egypt to the extremest distress. His good conduct and success are represented as unparalleled, and such as to excite the most violent jealousy amongst the Egyptians, and especially to raise the envy and hatred of Pharaoh; and to this Josephus ascribes his flight into the land of Midian; after which he is compelled to adopt the narrative of the Pentateuch, which here becomes too particular, and on a subject too sacred, to allow any material deviation. Yet, even here, we find him in various minute circumstances, suppressing and softening different particulars which appeared uncreditable to Moses, but which the Pentateuch puts forward with the most faithful exactness.

When the divine glory appeared to Moses in the burning bush, and commanded him to undertake the deliverance of his countrymen, the Jewish Lawgiver displays a degree of reluctance and distrust which surprises us ;* after God had wrought three dif ferent miracles, and enabled him to repeat them, Moses replies, "O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since "thou hast spoken to thy servant: I am slow of speech, and of a "slow tongue. And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made "man's mouth? have not I the Lord? Now therefore go, and I "will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say. Yet even to this gracious assurance, Moses returns almost an absolute refusal to undertake the mission on any terms: for he said, "O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom

* Vide Exodus, iv.

"thou wilt send." We cannot be surprised to be told, that on this, "the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and "he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he "can speak well: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his "mouth; and he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he "shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him "instead of God:" (that is, you shall direct and authorize him to act in the name of God.) Accordingly, when the people and elders of Israel were assembled, it was Aaron* who "spake all "the words which the Lord had spoken unto Moses, and did the "signs in the sight of the people." And in every subsequent conference with Pharaoh, and the whole deliverance from Egypt, Aaron is the inseparable companion of Moses, and always acts the same subordinate, indeed, but yet necessary and important part. Now Josephust softens all this into a modest apology on the part of Moses, stating his natural incompetency: "Lord, "I am still in doubt, how I, a private man, and of no abilities, "should persuade my countrymen or Pharaoh." Even this is represented as antecedent to the miracles which Moses saw, and was enabled to perform; and not one word is said of God's anger being kindled against him, or of Aaron's being deputed to assist him; nor in the whole history is any notice taken of the important part which Aaron bore in every subsequent transaction; it is barely said, that by the command of God he met his brother, but Moses appears the sole ambassador of God to Pharaoh.

66

Thus again we find, on the refusal of Pharaoh to comply with the first demand of Moses to let the Hebrews go, and on his increasing their burthens, the Pentateuch represents the people as angrily reproaching Moses and Aaron. "The Lord look upon you, and judge you for you have made us to be abhorred in "the eyes of Pharaoh and his servants, to put a sword into their "hands to slay us ;" and immediately Moses as impatiently expostulates with God, "Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil-entreated "this people? why is it that thou hast sent me? For since I came "to Pharaoh to speak in thy name, he hath done evil to this "people: neither hast thou delivered thy people at all."Of all this, we find not one word in Josephus,

Josephus also suppresses the signal crime of the Jews in set

*Exod. iv. 30.

+ Joseph. Antiq. Book II. ch. xii. § 2. Exod. v. from 21 to 23.

66

ting up the golden calf. And, above all, he omits altogether the offence which both Moses and Aaron were guilty of at Meribah, where the Pentateuch relates their being directed to bring water out of the rock. Instead of doing this in the name and for the glory of God, they spoke unadvisedly, not manifesting a firm faith, or giving to God the glory of the miracle; for they gathered the congregation together before the rock, and Moses said unto them, *Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of "this rock? And Moses lifted up his hand, and smote the rock "twice; and the water gushed out abundantly. And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to "sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel; therefore ye “shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have "given them." This offence, so frequently alluded to in the Pentateuch, and the punishment, of which Moses is represented as repeatedly deprecating, entreating to be permitted to enter the promised land, though in vain, is totally omitted by Josephus. While in the original, nothing can be more affecting than the manner in which it is alluded to. It is expressed as if the heart was weighed down with sorrow for the disappointment of its fondest hope; and as if occasions of venting this sorrow were industriously sought, even a remote allusion or reference is enough; yet it concerned only himself; it was not to his credit, but it was that which he felt most deeply, and which he only could feel so truly.

Thus we clearly perceive the difference between the genuine narration of Moses himself, and the cautious compilation of a remote historian. In short, we find Josephus doing what it is natural every compiler of history should do, when describing the character of a legislator whom he looked up to with reverence, and detailing the conduct of his countrymen whom he wished to place in the best light: we find him magnifying the talents and virtues of the one, and palliating or excusing the murmurs and idolatries, the obstinacy and crimes, of the other. Now, what I contend for is this, that if the Pentateuch had been compiled by any historian guided by the mere uncontrolled feelings and partialities of the human mind, we should discover them in his describing the character of the man who is represented as the

* Numb. xx. 10-12.

legislator and head of the nation who were the chosen people of God. I could show by a minute induction, that nothing of this kind occurs in the Pentateuch, and that multiplied instances of it are found in Josephus, who is yet admitted to be an historian of general veracity and integrity. But I forbear; I trust I have said enough to prove that the Pentateuch is written with such strict impartiality as enables us to rely on the truth of its relation, even in the most minute particulars.

I have but one further remark to make, and that is, that we find, although the subject-matter of Josephus is essentially the same with that of the Pentateuch, yet, in the selection and order of their circumstances they differ, exactly as we should expect the works of a compiler anxious to interest and keep up his reader's attention, would, whenever composed, differ from the original narrative of an eye-witness, detailing (as Moses did) every circumstance as it occurred, and totally careless of every thing but minute precision and strict fidelity.

Josephus chooses to separate the Laws from the narrative; he says, he will "describe the form of government which was "agreeable to the dignity and virtue of Moses; these settlements, "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.

Joseph. Antiq. Lib. IV. viii. §. 4.

Ib. ix. x, & xi.

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

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 eye-witness whose business and anxious care it was to superintend and direct every circumstance of what he was 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 estabe lish. But there is another mode of argument which seems to establish it still more decisively, which I shall adduce in the next lecture.