The

foregoing, will not fail to attract attention. author who records his own doings, and those of others associated with him, will use language that shows his interest in what he relates. He will express himself in stronger terms, and show more feeling than one who writes of others, and is placed at a distance from the transactions he records. All can see the force of this reasoning, and, applying it to the Pentateuch, he will not fail to see that it was written by one who was an actor in the scenes of which he treats and was deeply interested in what he relates. We may add to the illustrations already presented, the difference between Genesis and the four succeeding books. We think we can see a marked difference between these two parts of the Pentateuch. The reason of the difference, we conceive to be, mainly, that, in the one case, Moses is writing of things long since past-things in which personally he took no part; in the other he was, himself, personally concerned, and he enters deeply into the spirit of the narrative. True, in Genesis, there are not so many exciting scenes recorded, but this does not make the difference; for those that are exciting are spoken of in nearly the same cold and formal manner as the rest, while, in the subsequent books, such events are spoken of with becoming spirit and emphasis. Let any one read with attention the book of Deuteronomy, and say whether any man but Moses, or some one associated with him and moved by the same spirit, could have written that book. The author not only gives evidence of feeling what he says, but he makes the reader enter into his feelings, as we venture to say no impostor or mere historian could have done.

18. There is another argument tending in the same direction, that we deem important. All who read the four books, of which we now speak, will observe a style of narrative not unlike a diary. Hence the same things are often repeated, and the laws given to the people are interspersed throughout the record, and are

given with sundry variations, as if to suit the varying circumstances of the people. If all these things were written down at the time, and were not afterwards altered, they are now, precisely as we should expect to find them. Had they been revised by some later writer, it is incredible that he should not have changed the form of the narrative, and brought it into a more orderly and systematic shape.

Let any one who is disposed to find illustrations of the foregoing argument compare below the left hand column with the right, and he will see that the latter repeats the former, sometimes with variations and sometimes without.*

19. We may close this section with the following pertinent paragraph from Bishop Marsh :

"The Athenians believed that the system of laws by which they were governed was composed by Solon, and the Spartans attributed their code to Lycurgus, without ever being suspected of being mistaken in their belief. Why then should it be doubted that the rules prescribed in the Pentateuch, were given by Moses? To deny it, is to assert that an effect may exist without a cause, or that a great and important revolution may take place without an agent. have, therefore, an argument little short of mathematical demonstration, that the substance of the Pentateuch proceeded from Moses; and that the very words were written by him, though not so mathematically demonstrable, as the former, is at least a moral certainty."

We

20. It may be added that we have some pagan testimony to the same fact. "Manetho, Eupolemus,

Artopanus, Tacitus, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Justin the abbreviator of Trogus, and Juvenal, besides many other ancient writers, all testify that Moses was the leader of the Jews and the founder of their laws "*

SECTION IV.—COMPOSITION OF THE PENTATEUCH.

21. In treating of Genesis we devoted a section to the composition of that book, because we wished to notice the theory of the "Documents"; but this theory does not apply to the rest of the Pentateuch. At least very few so apply it, while most of those who advocate the theory consider it as applicable only to a few chapters even of Genesis. The Pentateuch, as a whole, then, (not being positive as to those few chapters,) was composed, as is any other book. Moses wrote down what he did and saw, and what he was assured of by others, as would any other man under similar circumstances. Some few names of places have been changed, and some few expressions have been added by later writers, of which, the passages thus added generally contain sufficiently clear indications.

SECTION V.-INSPIRATION.

22. That Moses was inspired to know some things which others did not, and to do, under this inspiration, what others could not have done, may be argued from various considerations. How he came to be so much above all the rest of the nation to which he belonged, and we may add, so much above all the Egyptians in whose wisdom he had been reared, will be a difficult problem without the supposition of special divine enlightenment. How he discharged his duty under circumstances the most appalling-how he met and overcame difficulties, the most formidable, and persevered in the arduous undertaking, till he had brought the

*Horne.

people up from the lowest degradation to a position of comparative enlightenment, will be hardly less difficult of solution, except on the supposition of special divine aid.

23. That the system of religion and morality which he gave to the world, is incomparably above any other that then existed, will be conceded by all who investigate the subject. That the system is not adapted to us must not be urged against it. Our system is not adapted to them. The divinity of the system is seen in the wise fitness which it exhibits, in view of the people to whom it was given, and for whose elevation and happiness it was intended. Had it been more unlike the laws and institutions of other nations than it is-had it been lifted higher above them-they would not have been reached by it, and of course they would have failed to realize the benefits it was fitted, as it is, to confer upon them. It is, therefore, as much a proof of its divine origin, that it is no higher than it is, as that it is as high.

24. Moses is said to have had many divine visions, wherein he held converse with the Almighty and received instructions to guide him in his important mission. We speak of these scenes as visions, because we think they obviously were such. And though, in one passage, they appear to be distinguished from dreams and visions, as given to others, we think that all that is there intended, is, that the visions of Moses were unlike ordinary visions or dreams, as being much more distinct, and his communion with Deity much more intimate. That they were the same in kind, with those of the patriarchs, which are expressly called visions, is evident from their similarity. It was revealed to Abraham, in a vision, that his descendants should become bondmen in a foreign land. Moses was instructed, in the same way, by what means these same people should be delivered from their bondage. The angel of the Lord wrestled with Jacob on his return

from Mesopotamia, and the angel of the Lord sought to kill Moses at the inn on his way back from Midian to Egypt; and both scenes were enacted evidently in the same manner. Jacob saw the ladder let down from heaven, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon it. Moses saw the burning bush from which the voice of the Lord was heard, giving him a divine commission to deliver his countrymen from bondage. The likeness of these things shows the mode of communication in both cases, to have been the same.

25. This view does away with many difficulties which men have discovered in these books, but which they have not been able to remove. That God should seek to kill Moses, and no cause be assigned for the deed, and especially after he had just given him his commission to go to Egypt and deliver his people from bondage, is a transaction for which we can find no excuse; and men will hold the record responsible for this absurdity. With our view there is no difficulty at all. The scene presented is that of a dream or vision, and had one single object, which was, to rebuke Moses for having so long neglected a rite by which he and his people were to be distinguished from the rest of the

nations.

That God appeared exceedingly angry with the people-that it was difficult to appease him - that he swore in his wrath that they should not enter Canaan; but afterwards repented and became more placable, and did at last promise his divine aid—all this is easily explained with the views we have put forth. These things are all to be understood as mere appearances, valuable, not on account of their meaning literally understood, but simply by their significance as showing the divine displeasure at the wickedness of the people, and indicating the line of duty to Moses as their leader. This view is not adopted because it is a convenient mode of getting rid of a difficulty, but because we believe it is the true interpretation, and that it accords