surely it was such a circumstance as no dealer in fiction, no compiler of traditions, can be supposed to have thought of. We may further remark, that this circumstance is never again alluded to, either in the direct narrative or the racapitulation in Deuteronomy; though every other fact connected with it is repeatedly noticed. Now supposing the fact true, and Moses the writer of the Pentateuch, this silence is perfectly natural; it suited not the modesty of his character, who was the meekest of men, to dwell on such a circumstance. But if any one else had been the author of the narrative, supposing so singular a fiction to have suggested itself at all, it is likely he would notice it but once?

One miracle, and only one, occurs in the last exhortation of Moses, to the assembled nations of the Jews, of which no mention is made in the direct narrative. "Thou shalt remember," says he, "all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these "forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove "thee. He suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, “(which thou knewest not) that thou mightest know that man "doth not live by bread only, but by every word that pro"ceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live." He adds, "Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy "foot swell these forty years;" or (as it is expressed in another subsequent passage) "I have led you forty years in the wilder66 ness; your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe "is not waxen old upon thy foot. Ye have not eaten bread, "neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink that ye might "know that I am the Lord your God."* If Moses was really the author of the Pentateuch, he could not have noticed this miracle one day before he is said to have first mentioned it, even on the border of the land of Canaan, when the Jews were just preparing to enter it, and when natural means of procuring food and raiment being afforded them, all supernatural aid in these points was to cease. Their being fed with manna, is indeed frequently mentioned, because this was a miracle which, though constantly repeated, was in each particular instance plain and distinct. But the circumstance, of the raiment of the whole nation not waxing old for forty years, was a continued supernatural operation, which at no one period could

* Deut. viii. 2--4; and xxix. 5 and 6.

have had its commencement distinctly marked: and therefore never could be noticed with such clear certainty and full effect as when it was no longer to continue, and its cessation would arrest the attention of the most careless. Let me ask, what imaginer of fiction, what compiler of vague tales, would have thought of such a miracle at all; or, if he did, would have thought of the propriety of not mentioning it till the very close of his narration? Is not this coincidence of the matter and order of the narrative with that which would be natural if the facts were exactly true, and Moses himself the historian, and unnatural on any other supposition? Is not such coincidence a strong character of genuineness and truth?

Some of the most distinguished miracles were wrought to curb and to punish the opposition of the Jews to the commands or authority of their legislator, which some individuals occasionally raised. It is well worth remarking, that we can in every instance of this opposition discover some circumstance in the rank and situation of the individuals exciting it, which naturally accounts for their admitting more readily than others that spirit of pride and jealousy in which this opposition originated. We find Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Æthiopian woman whom he had married; and they said, "Hath the Lord spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?"* Aaron was elder brother to Moses, and when on receiving the divine command to go to Pharaoh, he had complained of his slowness of speech, Aaron was appointed by God to supply this defect, and to be his spokesman to the people. "He spake all the words which the Lord had spoken unto "Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people." Through the whole history Aaron acts a part second only to Moses, and he was invested with the High Priesthood, a sacred dignity permanent and hereditary in his family; while the family of Moses had not been honoured with any hereditary dignity, but remained undistinguished from the rest of the Levitical tribe, subordinate to the High Priest. Hence it was not unnatural that Aaron should be ready to avail himself of a circumstance in the conduct of Moses, which seemed to render him unworthy of any superiority over a person so much honoured of God as the High Priest conceived himself to be. But why should

* Compare Numbers, xii. 2, with Exod. xv. 20.

E

Miriam, a woman, join in such a contest? Turn back to the first and only occasion in which the historian mentions her, and it seems to me to explain the reason. She was the only sister of Moses and Aaron, and on the signal deliverance of Israel from the host of Pharaoh at the Red Sea, when Moses pronounced his celebrated triumphal hymn in gratitude to God, accompanied by the thousands of Israel, Miriam was the person who headed the women in the triumphal procession. "Miriam "the Prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her "hand and all the women went out after her, with timbrels "and with dances. And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to "the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his "rider hath he thrown into the sea.'

Miriam, then, here appears to occupy the first rank amongst the women of Israel, and even seems to have joined in this triumphal hymn, actuated by a divine inspiration, which explains that remarkable phrase, uniting her with Aaron "Hath not God spoken by us?" It is very remarkable, the punishment was confined to her; for God struck her with a sudden leprosy, which obliged her to be shut out from the camp, as unclean, seven days, thus effectually humbling her in the sight of all the women of Israel. Is it too great a refinement to suppose that this opposition may have originated in her jealousy at the respect † which, perhaps, the women of Israel paid to the wife of their revered legislator, and that hence she may have been peculiarly prompt to remark and to bring forward the objection, of Moses being married to an Æthiopian woman; thus designing to degrade her rival, even, though, in order to do so, she must attack the character of the divine legislator? Does not the whole transaction, which, at first, seems very singular and unaccountable, when thus explained, assume the appearance of nature and reality?

We find Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not; and there went out fire from the Lord and devoured them, and

Exod. xv. 20.

+ It appears from Exod. xviii. that the wife of the Jewish legislator had not been brought to rejoin him by her father, until after the part Miriam hath borne in the triumphal procession above recited. Perhaps on her arrival, Miriam found that respect which she had exclusively enjoyed, transferred to, or divided with this stranger; and hence her jealousy.

Compare Exod. xxiv. 9, with Levit. ix. 24; also Lev. x. and Numb. iii.

they died before the Lord. We are to remark that this event took place immediately after Aaron and they had been consecrated to the service of God, and when God had miraculously sent down a fire from heaven which had consumed the sacrifice, and from which the fire that was to be employed in future sacrifices was to be taken. The offence, therefore, of Nadab and Abihu, seems to have been their despising this miracle, and employing, instead of the sacred fire, common elementary fire; as if they countenanced the reverence paid to that element, in opposition to the reverence due only to God. It would seem also, that they had been betrayed into this act of presumption, by intemperance at the feast upon the peace-offerings; for immediately after, and apparently in consequence of their fate, Moses delivers the injunctions against the priests drinking wine and strong drink when they approached the sanctuary. Perhaps also, their presumption may have been increased, by the high honor which they alone, of Aaron's sons, had enjoyed, when they, with Moses and Aaron, and seventy of the elders of Israel, were called up to Mount Sinai, to behold the glory of the God of Israel. This distinguished honor, may have puffed them up with the imagination, that they were not to be controlled by the restraints which the other priests were subject to, but that they might approach the altar without observing the strict regula tions of the divine command; a presumption which, if suffered to pass with impunity amongst a people so prone to disobedience as the Jews, and just after the observance of the ritual Law had commenced with a public miracle, to attest its divine original, might have introduced a contempt of the system, and apostasy from God.

But the most bold and open rebellion against the inspired Lawgiver, was that of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Now the narrative no where notices the circumstances which led them in particular to unite in this rebellion; but when minutely examined we discover from it, that they had such pretensions from their rank, as may have encouraged them to resist the authority of Moses and Aaron. Korah was one of the chiefs of the family of Kohath, which it appears was specially em ployed to carry the ark, and the Holy of Holies, though not permitted to look into them. They were therefore, amongst

Numb. iii. 31.

*

the Levites, the next in sacredness of function, to Aaron and his sons, and may therefore the more readily have formed a scheme to contest with Aaron his exclusive right to the High Priesthood. Dathan, Abiram and On, were chiefs of the tribe of Reuben, the first-born of the sons of Jacob, and may, therefore, have conceived themselves better entitled than Moses to pre-eminence in temporal power. If these reasons for the conduct of both parties are natural, the silence of the narrative about them, serves only to render it the more probable, that the coincidence arises from truth, not from artifice.

A coincidence of a still more remarkable nature seems to me to occur, in comparing the narrative of the signal punishment inflicted on these rebels, with subsequent passages; which I will state in the very manner in which it struck my own mind, that it may more truly appear, whether it be overstrained and fanciful, or natural and just. On reading the direct narrative of this punishment, I conceived that Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and all their families, were destroyed. It relates,* that "Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, took men, and rose up before "Moses, with certain of the Children of Israel. And they "gathered themselves together against Moses, and against Aaron, "and said unto them: Ye take too much upon you, seeing all "the congregation are holy, and the Lord is among them; "wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation "of the Lord?" Here they all seemed equally implicated in one common crime. In relating their punishment, it is said: "The Lord spake unto Moses, saying Speak unto the congregation, saying: Get ye up from about the tabernacle of Korah, "Dathan, and Abiram; and Moses rose up, and went unto "Dathan and Abiram; and he spake unto the congregation,

66

saying: Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked "men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be consumed in "all their sins. So they gat up from the tabernacle of Korah, "Dathan, and Abiram, on every side." Afterwards we are told, that the "ground clave asunder that was under them; "and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and "their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, "and all their goods; they, and all that appertained to them, "went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them.

• Vide Numbers, the entire chapter xvi.; and compare xxvi. 9, 11.