inserting such minutiæ, or made them so circuitously cohere?

IV. There are differences in statements of facts observable, on comparing the direct narrative in Exodus with the recapitulation in Deuteronomy. To adduce but two, out of many. In the former, (Exodus xviii. 17.) Moses gives the credit of originating some salutary measures of government, (as to the appointment of subordinate officers, to assist him,) to Jethro his father-in-law: whilst in the latter, he says nothing of him, but states they were so elected in consequence of an appeal to the people. There is however no contradiction after all; for we find on investigation, that Jethro suggested the appointment, subject to God's approval, "if God shall command thee so" (Exodus xviii. 21); and therefore it is very probable, that Moses after so consulting God, did refer the matter to the people, as to the choice of the individuals. Not only therefore are the two statements consistent, but their difference is very natural; for in the direct record at the time, he would be likely to dwell upon the principal fact, which led to the appointment; whereas in the recapitulatory address to the people, 40 years afterwards, he would naturally notice the part they themselves had in the selection of the judges; in order to conciliate their regard and future obedience. A similar difference occurs with respect to the appoint

ment of spies, to search the Land of Canaan. In the Recapitulation, Moses mentions two circumstances, which are omitted in the direct narrative: one, that on their first approach to the promised land, he commanded them to go up at once, trusting in God, who was with them; the other, that their delay and the plan of sending of spies, originated with themselves; and that it was at their own request that God directed Moses to appoint the spies. This omission again is natural in recording the event, Moses was more intent upon the final event itself, than upon the subordinate causes that led to it; but when addressing the people it was expedient he should recal to them, that the prime origin of that fatal step was to be found in their own disobedience to his command; in order to impress more strongly the necessity of obedience for the future. No fabricator would have ventured upon such differences of statement; whereas the account being genuine whether the legislator adds to his original narrative, or omits from it, we clearly discern the feelings of nature and the coincidence of truth.

CHAPTER IV.

The same Argument, founded on undesigned Coincidences, applied to the narrative of miraculous events, in the Four last Books of the Pentateuch.

THE Book of Deuteronomy professes to be the language of an eye-witness to the miracles, recorded in the preceding history of he deliverance of the Israelites, from Egypt; and of an eye-witness, too, addressing a nation, who were also themselves eyewitnesses of them. Hence, we may expect the same undesigned coincidences between the Recapitulatory Address and the previous direct History of those miraculous events, as was noticed in the previous chapter, with respect to the ordinary ones; arising out of the different circumstances of Moses, at those two different periods.

In the direct narrative, the miracles are all minutely

and circumstantially related; the time, place, and occasion, of each are specified; and both common and miraculous events are combined in one orderly series. Had the recapitulation therefore been fabricated, to gain credit for doubtful supernatural facts, there would be an evident desire to magnify those miracles, and to obviate objections. But nothing of this kind occurs; no arguments are adduced to prove them; they are always adverted to as notoriously true, and unquestioned; and are only introduced as being decisive motives for obedience to the Laws. Nay, sometimes such circumstances, as, though not miraculous, would show the necessity of obedience, are dwelt upon as particularly as the miracles themselves.

Thus, in the first three chapters of Deuteronomy, Moses recounts God's dealings with them during the forty years previous; and alludes to the miracles in general terms only, as aggravations of their guilt, in not confiding entirely in God; merely introducing the miracles incidentally, and blending them with such other common facts, as naturally tend to impress them with a resolution of better obedience. And whenever this allusion is made, be it observed, it always arises out of the very topic, on which the legislator is treating; and that often in such a way, as could only be intelligible to those who had themselves witnessed the facts alluded to.

K

66

When, for instance, he cautions them against idolatry, he does not reason on the ground of its absurdity; but, -adverting to the awful appearances at the delivery of the Law on Mount Horeb, when "God spake unto them out of the fire," because they saw no similitude," on that occasion. How could this have been, had the account been a fabrication, or the people themselves had not witnessed it? Again, the Ten Commandments were the only precepts of the Law, which God Himself proclaimed to the assembled people; the rest of it was promulgated through Moses. Now in order to impress upon them the equal validity of what he announced, with what God proclaimed, Moses does not ostentatiously refer to the frequent displays of the miraculous power, wherewith he was invested; but he rests his argument upon a very different ground, viz., "that in their alarm at the awful events, they had declined hearing the rest of the Law directly from God Himself, and entreated it to be conveyed to them through him." Would any fabricator, or even longsubsequent compiler, have clogged his statements with such a circumstance as this? Further:-Exhorting the people to the love and obedience of God, Moses says, "if ye hearken to these judgments, the Lord will take away from thee all sickness; and will put none of the evil diseases (which thou knowest) upon thee." (Deut. vii. 15.) To confirm this, it is