sacred duty, to which the priests and rulers of the people were bound most religiously to attend. It shall be the object of this lecture to examine, how far it can be proved, that the Pentateuch which our Bible contains, is in all material points the same as the book of the Law thus uninterruptedly received by the Jewish nation, as having been written and published by their Lawgiver at the period of their first settlement in the land of Canaan; a point of the highest importance, to establish the truth of the facts which this portion of the Scripture history contains, and the divine original of that Law which it promulgates. That the Jews have acknowledged the authenticity of the Pentateuch, from the present time back to the æra of their return from the Babylonish Captivity, a period of more than 2,300 years, admits not a possibility of doubt. The five books of Moses have been during that period constantly placed at the head of the Jewish sacred volume, and divided into fixed portions, one of which was read and explained in their synagogues, not only every Sabbath with the other Scriptures, but in many places twice a-week, and not unfrequently every evening when they alone were read. They have been received as divinely inspired by every Jewish sect, even by the Sadducees, who questioned the divinity of the remaining works of the Old Testament. In truth the veneration of the Jews for their Scriptures, and above all for the Pentateuch, seems to have risen almost to a superstitious reverence.* Extracts from the Mosaic Law were written on pieces of parchment, and placed on the borders of their garments, or round their wrists and foreheads. Nay, they at a later period counted with the minutest exactness not only the chapters and paragraphs, but the words and letters, which each book of their Scripture contains. Thus also the translation, first of the Pentateuch, and afterwards of the remaining works of the Old Testament, into Greek, for the use of the Alexandrian Jews, disseminated this sacred volume over a great part of the civilized world, in the language most universally understood, and rendered it accessible to the learned and inquisitive in every country so as to preclude all suspicion that it could be mate : Compare Deut. xxii. 12. and Numbers, xv. 38 and 39, with Matt. xxiii. 5. They are in use at this day. Vid. Picart's Ceremonies Religieuses, for the forms and modes in which they are written and worn: Vol. I. p. 5. Part I. ch. xi. 2. rially altered by either Jews or Christians, to support their respective opinions as to the person and character of the Messiah; the substance of the text being by this translation fixed and authenticated at least 270 years before the appearance of our Lord. But how far have we reason to believe that the Pentateuch was not first compiled after the Babylonish Captivity, from the indistinct traditions of the history of the Jewish nation, which, in an absence of seventy years from their country, may perhaps have lost all clear records of former events? In answer to this suspicion I observe, that it is not supported by any semblance of probability, because the period of seventy years was not long enough to lose all clear public records of former events: nineteen years of the Captivity of the Jewish nation had elapsed before the burning of the Temple, and the carrying away the last of the people; it is therefore perfectly credible that many individuals then alive may have survived the close of the Captivity, and witnessed the rebuilding of the second Temple? and of this really having taken place we have direct testimony. Many," says Ezra,* "of the Priests and Le"vites, and chief of the Fathers, who were ancient men, that "had seen the first house; when the foundation of this house was "laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice;" Doubtless from the melancholy contrast between the magnificence of the old Temple, and the infancy and poverty of the new. Still further. Not only the individuals who remained, could compare the circumstances which had existed before the Captivity, and thus could not be deceived by so gross an imposition as any attempt to fabricate, as the public code of the national religion. and government, a new compilation never before heard of; but we know that writings of far less importance were preserved. For example; no priests were admitted to resume their offices, who could not trace back their genealogy to Aaron and the heads of the Levites contemporary with Moses. In the book of Ezra who presided over the Jews after their restoration from the Babylonish Captivity, the particular families are specified, "who sought their "register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found, therefore were they, as polluted, put * Ezra, iii. 12, and Nehem. vii. 64. † Ezra, ii. 62. 66 "from the priesthood." Nor was this exactness in tracing genealogies confined to the Priests; we are told of others,* who "could not show their father's house and their seed, whe"ther they were of Israel." And the reason of this exactness is plain from this; that such of the Jews as believed their prophets, expected a return into their native land after a period of seventy years, and preserved their genealogies,† as the titles on which they might resume their properties, with the same care which they had always employed from the very first commencement of the state. Thus Jeremiah the prophet, for the express purpose of impressing upon the Jews the expectation of their deliverance, is represented as "purchasing a field according to the right of redemption, subscribing the evi"dence, and sealing it before witnesses, and giving it to Baruch "the scribe," and charging him before all that were present, saying, "Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel,‡ Take "these evidences, this evidence of the purchase, both that which "is sealed and that which is open, and put them in an earthen "vessel, that they may continue many days; for thus saith the "Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, houses and fields and vine"yards shall be possessed again in this land." Now is it possible that the whole nation should lose all public records of their public Law, when they preserved public records of the descent of private families? Is it possible that the genealogies of the priests and their distinct offices should be preserved, while the Law that described these offices, and assigned them to different families, was forgotten? Is it probable the§ identical vessels and furniture of the Temple which had been carried away at the beginning of the Captivity, should be restored as they are recorded to have been, and that no one copy of whatever code existed to regulate the laws and religion of the whole nation, as well as the Temple worship, should be preserved? The only thing which gives the least plausibility to this suspicion is, that we are told that the Jews had during the Captivity Ezra, ii. 59 and 60. To show the constant accuracy of the Jews in preserving their genealogies, and the necessity of their doing so, vid, Numb, i. compared with ch. xxxiii. 54, and Josh. xiv. Vid. also I Chronicles, the nine first chapters, particularly ch. v. 7 and 17, and ch. ix. 1 and 22. Vide Jeremiah xxxii. 14. Vide the entire chapter from ver. 6 to the end. (as these objectors say) lost their language; hence it is rashly inferred, that they also lost all records in the language. Now the real fact is this, that the original language of the Jews had indeed degenerated among the great mass of the people, by the corruption of foreign dialects; but the learned part of the nation still perfectly understood it, and were able to interpret it with ease; and the records contained in it lost nothing of their clearness or their use. Further, this very circumstance supplies no weak presumptive argument, that as the Pentateuch which now exists is written in pure Hebrew, it was composed before the Captivity. This probable conclusion acquires almost resistless force, when we consider the direct testimony, first of the Jews, and next of the Samaritans. The tenor of their history after the Captivity represents the Jews, not as regulating their religion and policy by any new Law, but as reviving the observance of the old Law given by Moses, interpreting it with humble veneration, and submitting to it with the most prompt obedience. 66 Ezra is distinguished as the scribe, because he was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given; and very many others also are mentioned, "who caused "the people to understand the Law." The manner in which, by the assistance of those learned interpreters, it was read and explained to the people, is so decisive of the present point as to deserve our whole attention. We are told that + "all the people were gathered together as one man; and they spake unto "Ezra the Scribe, to bring the book of the law of Moses, which "the Lord had commanded, to Israel; and Ezra brought the Law "before the congregation both of men and women, and all that “could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh "month—and he read therein from the morning until the mid"day, and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book "of the Law. And all the people went their way, to eat and to “drink, and to make great mirth, because they had understood "the words which were declared unto them; and on the second 'day were gathered together the chief of the fathers of all the 'people, the Priests and the Levites, to Ezra the scribe, to under"stand the words of the Law; and they found written in the Law 66 * Vid. Ezra, passim ; particularly ch. ii. 2. vi. 18. Vid. Nehemiah, the entire chapters, viii. ix. and x. "which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of “Israel should dwell in booths, in the feast of the seventh month; "and all the congregation of them that were come again out of "the Captivity made booths, and sat under the booths; for since "the days of Joshua the son of Nun unto that day, had not the "children of Israel done so, and there was very great gladness. "Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read "in the book of the Law of God; and they kept the feast seven 'days, and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly according "to the manner which the law prescribed." Undoubtedly it is probable that Ezra prepared for use new copies of the Mosaic Law, that a sufficient number might be ready to supply the demands of the people. In doing this he may have inserted some notes, to explain or complete passages obscure or defective. But what symptoms are there in this history of a new compilation, a code of doubtful authority, a collection of uncertain traditions? How idle is it to talk of these things, when the fact is so plainly the 66 reverse. We have yet a stronger proof that the Law thus offered to the people was not a selection and revival of such former laws alone as suited their present temper and situation; such laws as were agreeable to the general wishes of the people, and therefore might be supposed to obtain general submission without any minute inquiry into their authority. No, the case was otherwise; the code thus received enjoined in some instances sacrifices the most severe and distressing to individuals, sacrifices which no politic governor would have ventured to propose, and which no people would have submitted to, if any doubt could have been raised as to the authority of the Law requiring them. For, as the Scribes read the book of Moses "in the audience of the people, therein was found "written,* that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come "into the congregation of the Lord for ever; now it came to pass, that when they had heard the law, that they separated "from Israel all the mixed multitude." Even this must have created great discontent, and excited much opposition, if the authority of the law requiring it had not been clear and unquestioned. But there was yet a more trying proof of obedience required. The Mosaic code commanded that Jews should not intermarry *Nehemiah, xiii. 1 and 3. |