I am now arguing; but with those, who,-believing, that, as often as it may concern the divine goodness to make a special revelation to men, a revelation will be made, and that it will then be ratified, in the only way, which, as far as we can see, is possible, that is, by miracles, and believing that such a revelation was actually made through Jesus to the world, - are prepared to admit also the antecedent credibility of a miraculous revelation through Moses to the Jews.

Again; if it is urged, that immoralities are commanded, and erroneous and unworthy views of the Deity presented, as they have been thought to be, in the Pentateuch, the conclusion against its supernatural origin will, I admit, be made out, provided the fact can be sustained. It must, therefore, be the course of an advocate of its authenticity, and it will be mine in what follows, to show that the alleged facts are not proved, and do not exist. But this is an argument, which is only to be presented in the examination of single passages, as they successively occur.

When it is said, further, that there are parts of the Pentateuch, which Moses could not have written, the truth of the remark must be admitted. The inference attempted to be founded on it, is met by the general observation, that later interpolations might well be expected to occur in a composition so ancient; in addition to which, I expect to show, in respect to them

τῶν γραφῶν τοὺς προγεγονότων προφητῶν πάντας ἀνατάξασθαι λόγους, καὶ ἀποκαταστῆσαι τῷ λαῷ τὴν διὰ Μωϋσέως νομοθεσίαν.

The representation of Clement of Alexandria, appears to me to be of the same character. Εσδρα, . . . . . δι ̓ ὃν γίνεται ἡ ἀπολύτρωσις τοῦ λαοῦ, καὶ ὁ τῶν θεοπνεύστων ἀναγνωρισμὸς καὶ ἀνακαινισμὸς λογίων. (Stromata, lib. 1, p. 241; Leyden edition of 1616.) "Ezra, through whom was the redemption of the people, and the recension and renewal of the divinely inspired oracles." It is revision, recension, and republication which are spoken of; and not, that I can find, reproduction, in any case.

individually, that they are mostly, if not all, of a clearly parenthetical character, and precisely such as it might be supposed they would be found, if they did not make part of the original texture of the piece, but were glosses brought into it by later hands.*

When it is urged, that the style of the Pentateuch very closely resembles that of the compositions of the age of David and Solomon, leading to a suspicion of a contemporaneous origin, I reply, what I believe no competent Hebrew scholar will dispute, that, (when a proper allowance has been made for the Chaldaisms, introduced by foreign intercourse in the more recent times,) the difference of style between the Psalms of David and the book of Deuteronomy, for example, which, on our supposition, were but four hundred years apart, is very nearly as great, as that between the Psalms of David and the writings of Malachi, though between these two writers was an interval of six hundred years, embracing a period of the most momentous political revolutions. The simple solution of both facts is, that, in the East, the fashions of language do not rapidly change,†

* See Numbers xxxii. 38, for an instance of such an alteration being expressly alleged.

6

"It is worthy of remark, that the style and manner of Confucius and his immediate followers were found to differ very little from those of the best writers of the present day. One of the commentaries consulted by Mr. Marshman was published one thousand five hundred years after the death of Confucius, and the other much later; yet the only difference he could discover between them and the original consisted in the former being rather less concise. Indeed,' he adds, whatever I have heard or read of the language, tends to convince me, that it is radically the same, whether exhibited in the conciseness and sublimity of the ancient sages, the easy and copious style of the modern writers, or the familiarity of conversation.' This is, perhaps, the most extraordinary instance that the world has exhibited of a living language proved, by direct and positive testimony, to have been written and spoken by nearly one third part of the human race, for more than two thousand years, without undergoing any material change. How true, and at the same time how strictly applicable to the Chinese, is the observation of Dr. Johnson, that the lan

any more than other fashions; and, further, that a standard work, taking the lead of the literature of a nation, or doing more, as the Law of Moses did for a long time, and almost constituting the literature of a nation, fixes its forms of speech for ages.

Turning from the supposed adverse, to the favorable internal evidence, I ask a Christian, who believes, that whatever professes to proceed directly from a benevolent God, is recommended to his reception, in that character, by its apparent strong efficacy to subserve the purposes of God in the religious improvement of his children, to observe the fitness of the Law of Moses, to exert, and the fact of its having actually exerted, such an influence. This, again, opens a view, which must be pursued in its details, as we advance in the reading of the Pentateuch.

Among the internal evidences, I ought not perhaps to omit, though I would not confidently urge, the evidence adduced from several texts, to show that Moses is represented in the Pentateuch itself as its writer. It is true, that, understood as they have been, they after all prove no more than this; that the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, if honestly written by any one; that it was produced either by him, or by an impostor; and that thus they would make all the evidence of its having been written with good design, go to corroborate the opinion of its Mosaic origin. And I think it must be owned, that there is great uncertainty in an argument, which interprets the declaration that Moses was the author of certain specified passages, into a claim for him of the

guage most likely to continue long without alteration would be that of a nation raised a little, and but a little, above barbarity, secluded from strangers, and totally employed in procuring the conveniences of life."". Review of "Marshman's Dissertation on the Chinese Language." Quarterly Review, Vol. v. p. 401.

authorship of the whole composition, of which now they make a part.

The style of the Pentateuch agrees with the supposition of a remote age. The idioms of language* and the rhetorical representations are of a simple character,†

* The pronoun, e. g. and the noun are used as feminines in the Pentateuch, the former no less than about two hundred times. Gesenius (Geschichte der Hebraischer Sprache und Schrift, § 31) admits both to be archaisms. Jahn has pursued this subject very diligently. Some of the results of his examination are exhibited in his "Introductio," &c. § 3. The subject is said to have been treated by him more at large in two posthumous essays, published in the second and third volumes of "Bengel's Archiv für die Theologie," a work which is not within my reach. Jahn affirms (ibid.), that "there are no foreign words to be found in the Pentateuch, except some of old Egyptian origin," and of these he instances several.

The following argument, extracted by Horne (Introduction, Vol. ii. p. 18,) from Bishop Marsh's "Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses Vindicated," loses something of its force, through the too confident tone in which it is urged. It is besides of that nature, that some familiarity with the original writings is requisite, before one can admit or deny its cogency. I can only say, that, after much time passed in the study of these writings, it has to my mind very great weight.

"It is an undeniable fact, that Hebrew ceased to be the living language of the Jews during the Babylonish captivity, and that the Jewish productions after that period were in general either Chaldee or Greek. . . . It necessarily follows, therefore, that every book, which is written in pure Hebrew, was composed either before or about the time of the Babylonish captivity. This being admitted, we may advance a step further, and contend, that the period which elapsed between the composition of the most ancient and the most modern book of the Old Testament was very considerable; or, in other words, that the most ancient books of the Old Testament were written a length of ages prior to the Babylonish captivity. No language continues during many centuries in the same state of cultivation, and the Hebrew, like other tongues, passed through the several stages of infancy, youth, manhood, and old age. If, therefore, on comparison, the several parts of the Hebrew Bible are found to differ, not only in regard to style, but also in regard to character and cultivation of language; if the one discovers the golden, another the silver, a third the brazen, a fourth the iron age, we have strong internal marks of their having been composed at different and distant periods. No classical scholar, independently of the Grecian history, would believe that the poems ascribed to Homer were written in the age of Demosthenes, the orations of Demosthenes in the time of Origen, or the commentaries of Origen in the days of Lascaris and Chrysoloras. For the very same rea

while the tone and structure of the composition, throughout, are such as we might expect from a man engaged in an enterprise like that which it describes.*

An argument, which strikes me as of great weight, but which is only to be set forth in an examination of the details, as we proceed, is that furnished by the arrangement of the materials. The work is written, for the most part, in the manner of a journal, as Moses would be extremely likely to write, but as an author composing in a later age would not be. Such an author would record the laws in one form, as he found them existing in the shape, which, after any modifications, they had taken, or as he would have them to exist. The Pentateuch not only, in connexion with laws, records the occasions which respectively gave rise to them; but, in later passages, it repeals laws prescribed in earlier, or changes, or abrogates them, a course in which it is not easily conceivable that any one should proceed, who did not live at the time of their enactment, repeal, or change. Of the same class is an argument, which may be drawn from such passages as that, for instance, near the end of Exodus, relating to the construction of the tabernacle. In what manner should we expect a writer to speak of that edifice, who lived

son it is certain that the five books, which are ascribed to Moses, were not written in the time of David, the Psalms of David in the age of Isaiah, nor the prophecies of Isaiah in the time of Malachi. But it appears from what has been said above, in regard to the extinction of the Hebrew language, that the book of Malachi could not have been written much later than the Babylonish captivity; before that period, therefore, were written the prophecies of Isaiah, still earlier the psalms of David, and much earlier than these the books which are ascribed to Moses."

One characteristic is thus described by Jahn; "The order of discourse is not everywhere the most convenient; it frequently runs on in broken and unconnected fragments, many of which are wound up with distinct conclusions. All this shows a writer distracted by a multiplicity of business; writing not continuously, but with frequent interruptions, and in the constant anticipation of interruption." Introductio, Pars 2, § 3.