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 tions, 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. particulars 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. If 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 difference, 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 themselves upon the mind from present experience, to creep into our language or sentiments, when we wish to describe or relate facts suitable only to past experience. Nay, admit that all this may possibly be done, it certainly can be done only by great care and art; and it is, I should conceive, next to impossible but that this care and art should somewhere or other betray itself in the turn of the narrative or the expression. Now, an attentive perusal of the Pentateuch will, I doubt not, prove that it is written without any the least appearance of art or caution; and it is certain beyond all doubt, that its facts, sentiments and language, are adapted to the peculiarities of the situation which have been noticed. The present tense is constantly used in speaking of the facts in the wilderness; "I am the Lord, who bring"eth you up, out of the land of Egypt :" the future, in speaking of any thing to be done in the land of Canaan :* "I drive out before "you, the Amorite and the Canaanite: take heed to thyself, lest "thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither "thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee. But ye "shall destroy their altars. Three times a year shall all your "male children appear before me. For I will cast out the nations "before thee, and enlarge thy borders." Thus also, it is perpetually supposed in every direction, as to public matters, that the whole congregation can be collected together at the shortest warning. We are told †of dead bodies "carried out of the camp;" of victims on particular occasions being burned without the camp. This peculiarity of situation mixes itself with every circumstance of the narrative, directly and indirectly, in express terms, and by incidental allusions, and always without any appearance of art or design. But to proceed to compare the direct narrative with the recapitulation. We may observe, that a variety of circumstances which it was natural and necessary to notice on the entrance of the Jews into the land of their inheritance, occur for the first time in the last address which Moses delivered to the people on the borders of Canaan. Then, and not before, does the legislator speak of the "place which the Lord should choose to put his name therein."§ Then, and not before, does he add to the precepts concerning the observance of the three great feasts, * Exod. xxxiv. 11-13, and 23, 24. + Vide Levit, nine first chaps, also x. 5. Levit. iv. 21, and viii. 17. Numb, xix, 9, § Deut. xii. 5. 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. 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. 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. |