that they were to be celebrated at that holy place. Then, and not before, does he enjoin the Jews to bring their offerings, their sacrifices, their tithes, and the firstlings of their flocks and of their herds, to the same holy place, and not to eat them in the gates of their own cities; and if that house of the Lord should be too far from them,* to turn their offerings into money, and employ that for the celebration of the religious festivals, at the place which the Lord should choose. Now also does the legislator add to the rules relating to the Levites, that which gave them a right of migrating from any other city, and joining with those who were employed in the service of God at the place which he should choose. Thus also in recapitulating the regulations of the civil Law the legislator now, for the first time, introduces the appointment of judges and officers in the different cities which they should inhabit: and fixes the right of appealing, in difficult cases, from these judges to the high Priest and his accessors at the place which the Lord should choose; and determines what the elders of each city may finally decide on, and the manner in which they should examine the cause, as in the instances of an uncertain murder § of the rebellious son, and in the ceremony of taking or refusing the widow of a brother who had died childless. The city, the gate of the city, the elders of the city, are now perpetually introduced, never before. We may also observe, that in this last address, when the people were going to attack the great body of their enemies, and as they conquered them, were to inhabit their land; different circumstances are mentioned, suited to this new situation. The causes which were to excuse men's going to war are now first stated, “Having built a new house, planted a new vineyard, or "betrothed himself to a wife;"|| all of which supposed a separation of the people from the common camp of the whole congregation, in consequence of their possessing the promised land. Now also the rules about ¶ besieging cities, about not destroying such trees around them as were good for food, are specified much more minutely than before, because now sieges would be frequent. Now also Moses enlarges more frequently and more fully than he ever did before, on the fertility and excellence of the promised * Deut. xiv. 23. § Ibid. xxi. Ibid. xviii. 6. Ibid. xvi. 13. xix. 11. xxi, 18. T Ibid. xx. 19. land.* This was natural; such a topic at an earlier period, would have increased the murmurings and the impatience of the people at being detained in the wilderness; whereas, now it encouraged them to encounter with more cheerfulness, the opposition they must meet with from the inhabitants of Canaan. These general and obvious features of difference, which distinguish the last book of Moses from the preceding ones, when compared with the evident artlessness and simplicity of the narrative, seem to result from truth and reality alone. Such differences were natural, nay unavoidable, if these books were really composed by Moses who was the witness of the facts, and the author of the Laws which these books contain. They would be much less likely to occur, if any other man were the author, even if he were an eye-witness; and they are totally unlike the general detail of a remote compiler, or the laboured artifice of fiction and forgery. This general suitableness of manner in the different books of the Jewish Lawgiver, to the peculiar circumstances in which he was placed, seems to supply a proof of authenticity at once natural and convincing. But there are coincidences of a less obvious nature, more circuitous and indirect, which occur in the statement of particular facts, and deserve to be accurately attended to, as supplying still more decisive characters of truth and authenticity. 66 In delivering rules about the leprosy, it is said, "When ye "be come into the land of Canaan, which I give you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land "of your possession," ye shall do thus and thus. I notice this instance, because that a house is spoken of, not at all with a design to mark the circumstance of their not yet being come into the land of their possession, but is of necessity introduced from the nature of the case. The subject here is the discovery and the purification of leprosy. As to this, particular directions are given with respect to a house, but nothing is said of a tent; whereas, with regard to the impurity contracted by the presence of a dead body, all the directions relate to a tent, and nothing is said of a house. Now, this difference is, by a little attention, *Deut. vi. 3, and 10. viii 7. xi. 10. xv. 4. Leviticus, xiv. 34. Numbers, xix. 14; also compare 11 and 21, which prove the rules as to a dead body, were of permanent obligation. easily accounted for; the writer applies the rules about the purification from a dead body, to the object then most familiar with him, a tent. And as its lying in a house would produce no effect different from its lying in a tent, and require no difference of purification, he says nothing about a house, but leaves the nature of the thing to suggest the regulation when it should become necessary. Whereas, in detailing the rules for discovering and purifying the leprosy, all the materials of which tents are made,* wool, and canvas, and leather, are particularized, as exhibiting each of them peculiar symptoms of the plague;† and this being done, it was unnecessary to say any thing of a tent itself; but as the materials of a house were quite different, and the appearances of infection in it peculiar, this required a particular specification. All this has the appearance of reality, and is exactly the way in which an eye-witness would have spoken: but it is such a difference as a writer of fiction would scarcely have thought of. A similar observation may be made, on the manner in which the service of the Levites, in taking care of the tabernacle, is described. We find the families of the Levites enumerated, the numbers of each, and the heads of them, and which were to be entrusted with the most holy things. If it should be conceived that all this may have been inserted in a fictitious narrative, like the catalogues of Homer and Virgil, to preserve the semblance of probability, and to compliment existing families, by representing their supposed ancestors in situations of peculiar dignity; yet, how can we on such a principle, account for the exact detail which is given, not only of the arrangement of these families round the tabernacle, but the particular parts § of that structure, and the particular sacred vessels which each family was to carry on the march; and still more, the minuter directions given, as to the mode of taking these different parts asunder, protecting them from the injuries of the weather during the march, carrying and setting them up? How unnatural and irrational would all this appear in the remote compiler of a general history, who lived long after these marches had ceased, when all such directions were utterly superfluous, Ibid. 48. 59. Numbers, iii. and iv. *Lev. xiii. 47 to 58. Surely we cannot suppose that such particulars as these should proceed from any writer but an eye-witness of the events; nor even from an eye-witness, except he had been engaged as Moses was, in originally directing and constantly superintending these operations. Different circumstances occur in the detail of these directions, which seem to supply more decisive characters of truth and authenticity; because they display coincidences more minute, or more circuitous and indirect. Thus it is mentioned, that Aaron as High Priest, and his family, had charge of the Ark of the Lord, and the furniture of the Holy of Holies; but they were to be carried, during the progress of each march, by an inferior family; and the writer remarks, these were not to approach them, until "Aaron and his sons had made an end of "covering them, at the commencement of the journey."* What forger or mere compiler would have thought of such a circumstance? A coincidence still more remarkable on this subject, is the following. In the third and fourth chapters of Numbers, the parts of the tabernacle to be carried by each family of the Levites, on the march, are minutely specified. The fifth and sixth are taken up with a detail of Laws entirely unconnected with this subject; the seventh begins with relating, that the different princes of Israel made an offering of six covered waggons and twelve oxen, which Moses employed to carry the tabernacle, and distributed to two families of the Levites, "according to their service;"+ (for the third were to carry the part assigned to them, the furniture of the Holy of Holies upon their shoulders;) to one are assigned two, to another four waggons. The reason of this inequality is not specified; but on turning back, we find that the family to which the four waggons are assigned, had been appointed to carry the solid, and therefore heavy parts of the tabernacle, its boards, and bars, and pillars; while that family to which the two § waggons are assigned, was appointed to carry the lighter, its curtains and coverings, its hangings and cords. Such a coincidence as this is extremely natural, if Moses, who directed this matter, recorded * Numbers, iv. 15. Compare Numb. vii. 8, with iv. 31. Ibid. vii. 5 to 9. Compare Numb. vii. 7, with iv. 25. it; but is it not wholly improbable, that a forger or compiler should think of detailing such minute particulars at all, or if he did, should detail them in such a manner as this? The more minute and apparently unimportant such coincidences as these are, the more unlikely is it they should arise from any thing but reality. Another coincidence of somewhat a similar nature is the following. In the second chapter of the book of Numbers, the writer describes the division of the twelve tribes into four camps, the number of each tribe, and the total number in each camp. He fixes the position each was to take round the tabernacle, and the order of their march; and he directs that the tabernacle, with the camp of the Levites, should set forward between the second and third camps.* But in the tenth chapter occurs what seems at first a direct contradiction to this; for it is said,+ that after the first camp had set forward, then "the tabernacle was taken "down; and the sons of Gershon, and the sons of Merari, set "forward, bearing the tabernacle; and afterwards the second camp, or standard of the children of Reuben." But this apparent contradiction is reconciled a few verses after, when we find that though the less sacred parts of the tabernacle, the outside tent and its apparatus, set out between the first and second camp; yet the sanctuary, or Holy of Holies, with its furniture, the ark and the altar, did not set out till after the second camp; as the direction required. And the reason of the separation is assigned, that those who bore the outside tabernacle might set it up, and thus prepare for the reception of the sanctuary against it came. Would a forger or compiler who lived when these marches had wholly ceased, and the Israelites had fixed in the land of their inheritance, have thought of such a circumstance as this? In comparing the direct narrative with the recapitulation in the last book of the Pentateuch, some differences occur well worth noticing. In the eighteenth chapter of Exodus, Moses, with singular impartiality gives the credit of originating one of the most salutary and important parts of the Jewish civil government to his father-in-law, Jethro; who, observing the variety and weight of business which oppressed the legislator, from his acting * Numbers, ii. 17. VOL. II. Numbers, x. 17. D Ibid. x. 21. |