not from phraseology* alone, (for as to the variations in the phraseology of a language spoken above 3,300 years ago, by a nation of whose compositions so few have reached us, I conceive they cannot be clearly ascertained so as to form any very clearly conclusive ground of argument,) but from the internal structure of the works; from the nature of the facts they dwell on, the circumstances they select, the feelings they display; in a word, from the difference as well as the coincidences observable between them, which appear to me to be exactly such as nature and truth must have produced, had all these works really been written by the Jewish lawgiver himself; and which exhibit a harmony so exact, so natural, and evidently undesigned, that it cannot be accounted for on any other hypothesis. It affords me some gratification to find that this topic of argument appears to repel by anticipation the objections of Mons. De. Wette on this part of the subject, and in this instance vindicate the authority of Scripture: I refer my readers to the preceding work, Part I. Lect. III. and IV.

Another assertion imputed to this author, relates to the tribe of Levi :-" Moses (says he) may have introduced a priesthood; but "who can define what portion of the laws relating to it was his pro"duction? If the tribe of Levi had been distinguished in the times "of Moses in the sense and in the manner in which it is represented "in the Pentateuch, and had been sanctioned as a cast of priests, a hierarchy would have directed every thing; which history does "not shew."

To this I answer, that the constitution of the tribe of Levi must to a certainty have been fixed before, or at the original settlement of the Jews in Canaan, because we cannot otherwise account for one entire tribe being excluded from the possession of landed property, living, not in one body, as each of the remaining tribes did, but in cities dispersed through the entire land of Canaan, even on both sides of the river Jordan, and possessing amongst these cities all those which were appropriated as cities of refuge to fugitives in consequence of homicide. We cannot, I affirm, account for this, but on the supposition that the tribe of Levi had been set apart before the settlement of the Jews in Canaan, to be supported by tithes and offerings instead of land, and that they had consented to the arrangement. Here then is a full proof that the entire system concerning the tribe of Levi, their distribution, the tithes and offerings by which they were to be maintained, must have been promulgated and admitted before the settlement of the Jews in Canaan; it follows therefore that every part of the Law of Moses respecting these points, was coeval with Moses himself. Can we, then, doubt whether it was written and published by Moses? What inferior authority would have been competent to establish so singular an arrangement, unfavourable to the temporal interests of the Levites, whom

* I would not be understood to say that the phraseology of the Pentateuch affords no presump. tive proof of its authenticity; much less do I in any degree admit that it supplies any presumption against its genuineness--but purely that this ground of argument is not so clear or convincing as that derived from the general structure of the history, and the prevailing sentiments and feelings pervading it, and the harmony and connexion of the various parts of the narrative. In proof that the phraseology of the Pentateuch supplies a strong presumption in favour of its genuineness, I beg leave to refer to the learned Mr. Marsh's tract on the Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses, pp. 5, 6, 7, and 13. I have briefly adduced his chief arguments in Part I. Lect. I.

it excluded from landed property, and to those of the remaining tribes whom it loaded with the payment of tithes and offerings?

Observe now the inferences which clearly follow from this fact. If the the arrangements concerning the distinction, the distribution, and support of the tribe of Levi, were necessarily coeval with Moses himself, can we believe that the purposes for which they were so distinguished, distributed, and supported, were not thought of until long after? Can we believe that the Levites were set apart from the rest of the nation by Moses, and that no business was provided for them to attend to, until some ages after?-that, in short, the Levites existed from the beginning, but that the Levitical law was, as Mons. de Wette is represented to have stated it, "the invention and badge of later priests." This is incredible; we cannot but see that both are inseparable parts of one system, the entire of which must have been formed and established by the same authority, and at the same period; and as the arrangements as to the distinction, the distribution, and support of the Levites, must have been coeval with Moses, so must that Levitical law of ceremonials, sacrifices, and religious duties, for attending to which the Levites were set apart.

But Mr. De Wette asserts, the Levites could not have existed as a separate cast of priests, "otherwise a hierarchy would have been esta"blished, which would have directed every thing; which the history "does not shew."-Assuredly this is a mistake: wonderful indeed would it have been, if the Levites, possessing no landed property, and no political rank, dispersed through the country, and dependent for their very existence on the degree of reverence and obedience paid to the Mosaic law, by a people prone to neglect and disobey it, though they never totally rejected it; wonderful it would have been, if such a hierarchy had "directed every thing." But the author was doubtless thinking of Rome, where at one period the Emperors were Pontiffs, and at another the Popes controlled Emperors. Indeed to some, the very sound of the word hierarchy carries with it the idea of boundless wealth, and resistless influence; but the Jewish Levite, often poor dependent, and wandering, did not and could not possess any such wealth or influence.

Mr. De Wette is further represented as asserting, that "it is asto"nishing and incredible in itself, that Moses should have published "ceremonial rites so accurately defined and so artificially contrived. "The feasts appear to have been the work of time and of successive "contrivances, rather than of a deliberate legal institution: amid the "deserts of Arabia, surrounded by dangers, inquietude and want, "Moses had no time to think of feasts."-What! in forty years, during which the people were miraculously sustained with manna, and during above thirty years of which the Jews never saw the face of an enemy, and were confined within a space they might have traversed in three months-was it impossible to contrive and write down regulations for observing three annual feasts, and conducting the daily worship and offerings of the sanctuary? But, says this author (according to these reviewers)" Moses must have instituted the passover and the feast of "tabernacles in the midst of the events which occasioned them, and even before the events, as would appear from Exod. xii. 3. but with

66

66

"which verse 39 is at variance, for in verse 39 they appear to be taken "by surprise, while according to verse 3 they must have been prepared. "The whole relation proves itself untrue by its ambiguity and equivo"cation." This is strong language, whether used by the German philosopher or the English critic. Strange, that the inventor of this story could not avoid so clumsy an equivocation within twenty lines. But let us reconsider it: in Exodus, xii. 3. the people get notice to prepare the passover, 66 a lamb for each family," to be eaten with unleavened bread at a single meal, and "to be eaten that night in haste; it is the "Lord's passover." We are then told that at midnight all the first born of the Egyptians were slain," and there was a great cry through"out all the land of Egypt; and Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people: and the Egyptians were urgent that they might send them out "of the land in haste, for they said, We be all dead men. And the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading"troughs being bound in their clothes upon their shoulders." And now comes verse 39, which states, " and the people baked unleavened "cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt; and "could not tarry; neither had they prepared for themselves any victuals." Here, says our critic, is a direct contradiction; for they had notice to prepare the passover the very night before. True, but they had also. been commanded to eat it as soon as it was prepared, and leave nothing of it until the morning; this therefore did not supply victuals for their journey. "But they had notice of their departure, and ought to "have been prepared with victuals" The narrative does not say they had been told they should depart that night; Providence seems to have concealed this, that the sudden effect of the divine interposition should be more powerful and impressive. But if they had received twelve or twenty-four hours, or even four days, (the utmost possible length of notice the history will allow) notice of their departure, this was rather too short a time for 600,000 men, with a suitable proportion of women and children, and a mixed multitude besides, to collect into one body, and prepare for quitting for ever the place of their residence for 400 years with flocks and herds, and much cattle. They might have been satisfied with carrying their bread away, without waiting to prepare it with all the nicety of confectioners. They had been commanded, in the beginning of the chapter, to eat the passover with unleavened bread; and in the end of it we are told, that they had no dough, except unleavened. And is this a contradiction? Or thus a whole nation had received notice to quit their country for ever within twenty four hours or even four days; and yet they are represented as going away in a hurry and unprepared-here is another contradiction; and thus the truth of a fact is overturned, which for 3,300 years has been believed and annually commemorated by a whole nation, from the very period it took place, and the very beginning of their year changed to preserve a perpetual record of it. Really all this would be very ridiculous, if the subject did not so deeply concern the best interests of mankind, and exhibit the inventors of such arguments and their retailers, somewhat in the character of the madman, who, as Solomon

represents, "casteth firebrands, arrows, and death; so is the man who "deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?"*

I will at present conclude my remarks on this article, by advising the admirers of such theological critics as Mr. De Wette, to read over Leslie's Short Method with the Deists, in the original work. The reasoning of this old Englishman is certainly not like that of the modern German school of Eichorn, Vaters, and De Wette. But I think these reasoners might read it with some improvement.

May I now be permitted, with all that humility which befits an author addressing the judges who are to decide his fate, to say a word or two to the Critical Reviewers; and that is, to entreat them not to appear quite so sure that every objection advanced against the truth of Scripture history, even of the Old Testament, is unanswerable, until the public, as well as themselves, have had an opportunity of considering it. They tell us indeed, that "in the remarks they have "given, they have not been declaring their own opinions, but those of "the author of the work, or of a German critic by whom it has been "highly commended;"-" they merely propose the subject for calm "investigation;”—“ they only want to know of Revelation WHETHER "IT BE TRUE," (having I presume, formed no clear decision as yet on that subject;)" and if it be true, it is of infinite moment, and every "thing good and fair and lovely must follow the firm, the rational and "unprejudiced conviction of the truth." They do, however, communicate to us some of their own, which I humbly hope they may reconsider; "Here are parts of the old Jewish fabric which appear to us,” say they," as they evidently did to Paul, to have nothing whatever to "do with the pure and polished structure of the Christian church "they are a sort of clumsy and superfluous out-buildings, which as soon as they are demolished will let more of the solidity and beauty of "the Christian edifice appear." Now I would seriously, and in perfect good faith, beg of these gentlemen to consider again, whether it is quite so certain that St. Paul thought thus of the connexion of Judaism with Christianity. He undoubtedly did teach that the ceremonial part of the Jewish Law was superseded by the Gospel; but assuredly he every where represents Judaism as the original foundation, the heaven-appointed introduction, the essential perparative for the Gospel

66

*Proverbs, xxvi. 18, 19.—Another species of argument which appears to be imputed to Mr. De Wette is, that if a practice prevailed among the Jews, such for instance as that of "offering on heights," and not going to the "sanctuary where God choose to place his name," the law against this practice which now stands in the Mosaic code could not then have existed there, and therefore so far that code is of modern origin. Now this is pretty much such an argument as if a Chinese one thousand years hence, reading of the frequent duels which are allowed in Chris tian countries, should infer that the command, "Thou shalt do no murder," did not then exist in the Decalogue, but that it was introduced in consequence of that practice. But I am not sure this mode of reasoning was used. I only note it by way of precaution; it may easily be paral. leled in the ingenious reasonings of minute philosophers.

66

66

of Christ. "To the Jews," he declares, "were committed the oracles "of God."* "The law" he pronounces "holy; and the command"ment holy, and just, and good."+ "To the Israelites," he declares, pertain the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are "the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who "is over all, God blessed for ever." But these critics dismiss the ceremonial part of the scheme, "as a mere fugitive contrivance, which, "if it were not the work of human artifice, it was at all events little more than what human artifice might be expected to produce." St. Paul, on the contrary, thought that "Moses was admonished of God, "when he was about to make the tabernacle; for see, saith he, that "thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the "Mount."§ These critics conceive the moral part of the law was entrusted to the care of the prophets; and they exemplify the estimation in which they hold what is generally deemed prophecy, by telling us "the prophets prepared for the coming of Christ, not, as is vulgarly supposed, by the delivery of ambiguous oracles or equivocal predic"tions, but by turning the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of "the just; by proclaiming mercy to be better than sacrifice; and by shewing the utter nullity of all ceremonial observances, without the "practice of humanity, of justice, and of truth." Now I humbly presume that it has been shewn || these principles were taught in the Mosaic law, though they were certainly inculcated with additional force by the prophets. But when these critics thus undervalue the Jewish Lawgiver and his institutions, I fear they forget the declarations of One, whose authority they still acknowledge-even the Son of God— who refers the Jews to Moses as bearing witness to himself; "Had "ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me."¶

66

Notwithstanding, however, the flippancy with which these critics have decided and declaimed against the Jewish Law, they seem to have felt that they had plunged a little beyond their depth, and talked contemptuously of a system which they did not understand; and I give them much credit for the candour with which they state their own surprise at this discovery of the inconsistency of many undeniable facts, with their crude and hasty decisions: "What strikes us with "wonder" say they, "in the history of the Jews, and what may well 'impress general astonishment, is, that even in the rudest ages, when "the manners of the people were barbarous and uncivilized, and when "all the surrounding countries were immersed in the lowest depths of "idolatrous superstitions, we do behold among the Jews, and for a "succession, not of years, but of centuries, a portion of intellect, "irradiated no doubt by the Supreme Intelligence, continually at work "to prove the being, and to preserve the awful consciousness of ONE "ONLY FIRST CAUSE: this seems to prove, that the Jews were to be "instrumental in promoting some beneficent plans of the moral Governor of the world, in a way which no other people were." This is

66

Rom. iii. 2.
Heb. viii. 5.

+ Ibid. vii. 12.

Rom. ix. 4, 5.

Vide supra, Part II. Lect. II.

¶ John v. 64