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

66

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 ;t 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 splendour, their connexion and use. Thus also the account which Josephus givest 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. Lib. III. vi. & vii.

fb. ix, x, & xi,

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 establish. But there is another mode of argument which seems to establish it still more decisively, which I shall adduce in the next lecture.

LECTURE III.

The Authenticity and Truth of the four last books of the Pentateuch confirmed, by a comparison of the book of Deuteronomy with those of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Statement of the general argument deduced from this comparison-How far similar, how far dissimilar to that used by Archdeacon Paley, in his Hora Pauline-Its application to the history, so far as it relates events not Miraculous—Instanced in general coincidence between the recapitulation in Deuteronomy, and the direct narration in the preceding books—In particular facts and circumstances—As to rules of purificationDirections for carrying the tabernacle—Disposition of the tribes in camp, &c.—An apparent contradiction—How reconciled—As to the appointment of inferior judges—And of the twelve spies.

DEUTERONOMY i. 1, 3.

"These were the words which Moses spake unto all Israel, on this side Jordan in the wilderness: "In the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, Moses spake unto the children of Israel according “unto all that the Lord had given him in commandinent unto them."

THIS exordium to the book of Deuteronomy is exceedingly remarkable. It states, that it is not, like the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, a direct narration or journal of the various events which occurred to the Jewish legislator and nation, from the commencement of their deliverance from Egypt; but that it was a recapitulation of every thing which Moses thought it necessary to notice, in addressing the people shortly before his death, at the close of the forty years, during which he had acted as their lawgiver and judge. I beg leave to direct my reader's attention, to this peculiar character of the last book of the Pentateuch, because it seems to me, to supply the ground-work of an argument for the genuineness and truth of the entire, somewhat different from those which I have seen generally and distinctly noticed.

In my two last Lectures, I endeavoured to collect the topics in proof of the authenticity and truth of the works ascribed to Moses;

from their general reception among the Jews; from the important and public nature of the facts they relate; from the simplicity of their style and structure; from the particularity of their narrative, natural to an eye-witness, and to an eye-witness alone; and especially from the admirable impartiality they every where display. But if the distinct nature and purpose, ascribed to the book of Deuteronomy, really belongs to it, a comparison of this, with the preceding books of the Pentateuch, ought to afford a distinct proof of the truth and authenticity of all, from the UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES between them.

Arguments of somewhat a similar kind, have been lately applied by Archdeacon Paley,* with a force which seems unanswerable, to confirm the authenticity and truth of the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St Paul, by comparing them together, and pointing out the undesigned coincidence between the direct narration in the Acts, and the indirect allusions to the same facts in the Epistles; and thus establishing the truth of both, on the same principle as that by which we yield entire credit to two unsuspected witnesses, who deliver accounts of the same transactions, if it appears that neither was acquainted with the testimony of the other, and yet that their evidence exactly

agrees.

An argument of precisely the same nature as this cannot be applied to confirm the truth of the Pentateuch, because we have not any cotemporary writings to compare with it; all the works of the Old Testament (the book of Job perhaps excepted) being plainly subsequent to it, all presupposing its truth, deriving from it almost every account of the facts which it details; and in almost every allusion to these facts, adapted to the narrative which the Pentateuch delivers. This circumstance proves undoubtedly that the history of the Pentateuch was received by all subsequent Jewish writers, as the only authentic account of their nation; and thus establishes its truth exactly in proportion as it is improbable the whole Hebrew people should be mistaken in receiving such a narrative as true, if it were really fictitious; an improbability which can scarcely be stated too high, if we consider the public nature and great importance of the facts which the Pentateuch details, the high authority of the person to whom it is ascribed,

* Vide Paley's Hora Paulina.