So much for the Books of Moses; not that I believe the subject exhausted, for I doubt not that many examples of coincidence without design in the writings of Moses have escaped me, which others may detect, as one eye will often see what another has overlooked. Still I cannot account for the number and nature of those which I have been able to produce, on any other principle than the veracity of the narrative which presents them;—accident could not have touched upon truth so often—design could not have touched upon it so artlessly; the less so, because these coincidences do not discover themselves in certain detached and isolated passages, but break out from time to time as the history proceeds, running witnesses (as it were) to the accuracy not of one solitary detail, but of a series of details, extending through the lives and actions of many different individuals, relating to many different events, and dating at many different points of time. For, I have travelled through the writings of Moses, beginning from the history of Abraham, when a sojourner in the land of Canaan, and ending with a transaction which happened on the borders of that land, when the descendants of Abraham, now numerous as the stars in heaven, were about to enter and take possession. I have found, in the progress of this chequered series of events, the marks of truth never deserting us—I have found (to recapitulate as briefly as possible) consistency without design in the many hints of a Patriarchal Church incidentally scattered through the Book of Genesis taken as a whole—I have found it in particular instances; in the impassioned terms wherein the Father of the Faithful intercedes for a devoted city, of which his brother’s son was an inhabitant—in the circumstance of his own son receiving in marriage the grand-daughter of his brother, a singular confirmation that he was the child of his parent’s old age, the miraculous offspring of a sterile bed—I have found it in the several oblique intimations of the imbecility and insignificance of Bethuel —in the concurrence of Isaac’s meditation in the field, with the fact of his mother’s recent death—and in the desire of that Patriarch on a subsequent occasion to impart the blessing, as compared with what seem to be symptoms of a present and serious sickness—I have found it in the singular command of Jacob to his followers, to put away their idols, as compared with the sacking of an idolatrous city, and the capture of its idolatrous inhabitants shortly before—I have found it in the identity of the character of Jacob, a character offered to us in many aspects and at many distant intervals, but still ever the same—I have found it in the lading of the camels of the Ishmaelitish merchants, as compared with the mode of sepulture amongst the Egyptians—in the allusions to the corn crop of Egypt, thrown out in such a variety of ways, and so inadvertently in all, as compared one with another—I have found it in the proportion of that crop permanently assigned to Pharaoh, as compared with that which was taken up by Joseph for the famine; and in the very natural manner in which a great revolution of the state is made to arise out of a temporary emergency—I have found it in the tenderness with which the property of the priests was treated, as compared with the honour in which they were held by the King, and the alliance which had been formed with one of their families by the minister of the King—I have found it in the character of Joseph, which, however and whenever we catch a glimpse of it, is still one: and whether it be gathered from his own words or his own deeds, from the language of his father or from the language of his brethren, is still uniform throughout—I have found it in the marriage of Amram, the grandson of Levi, with Jochebed his daughter—I have found it in the death of Nadab and Abihu, as compared with the remarkable law which follows touching the use of wine—and in the removal of their corpses by the sons of Uzziel, as compared with the defilement of certain in the camp about the same time by the dead body of a man—I have found it in the gushing of water from the rock at Rephidim, as compared with the attack of the Amalekites which followed—in the state of the crops in Judea at the Passover, as compared with that of the crops in Egypt at the plague of Hail—in the proportion of oxen and waggons assigned to the several families of the Levites, as compared with the different services they had respectively to discharge—I have found it in the order of march observed in one particular case, when the Israelites broke up from Mount Sinai, as compared with the general directions given in other places for pitching the tents and sounding the alarms—I have found it in the peculiar propriety of the grouping of the conspirators against Moses and Aaron, as compared with their relative situations in the camp—consisting, as they do, of such a family of the Levites and such a tribe of the Israelites as dwelt on the same side of the Tabernacle, and therefore had especial facilities for clandestine intercourse—I have found it in an inference from the direct narrative, that the families of the conspirators did not perish alike, as compared with a subsequent most casual assertion, that though the households of Dathan and Abiram were destroyed, the children of Korah died not—I have found it in the desire expressed conjointly by the Tribe of Reuben and the Tribe of Gad to have lands allotted them together on the east side of Jordan, as compared with their contiguous position in the camp during their long and trying march through the wilderness—I have found it in the uniformity with which Moses implies a free communication to have subsisted amongst the scattered inhabitants of the East—in the unexpected discovery of Balaam amongst the dead of the Midianites, though he had departed from Moab apparently to return to his own country, as compared with the united embassy that was sent to invite him—and, finally, I have found it in the extraordinary diminution of the Tribe of Simeon, as compared with the occasion of the death of Zimri, a chief of that tribe, the only individual whom Moses thinks it necessary to name, and the victim by which the Plague is appeased.

These indications of truth in the Mosaic writings (to which, as I have said, others of the same kind might doubtless be added) may be sometimes more, sometimes less strong; still they must be acknowledged, I think, on a general review, and when taken in the aggregate, to amount to evidence of great cumulative weight—evidence the more valuable in the present instance, because the extreme antiquity of the documents precludes any arising out of contemporary history. But though the argument of coincidence without design is the only one with which I proposed to deal, I may be allowed, in closing my remarks on the Books of Moses, to make brief mention of a few other points in favour of their veracity, which have naturally presented themselves to my mind whilst I have been engaged in investigating that argument—several of these also bespeaking undesignedness in the narrative more or less, and so far allied to my main proposition.—For example—

1. There is a minuteness in the details of the Mosaic writings, which argues their truth; for it often argues the eye-witness, as in the adventures of the wilderness; and often seems intended to supply directions to the artificer, as in the construction of the Tabernacle.

2. There are touches of nature in the narrative which argue its truth, for it is not easy to regard them otherwise than as strokes from the life—as where “the mixed multitude,” whether half-casts or Egyptians, are the first to sigh for the cucumbers and melons of Egypt, and to spread discontent through the camp [Num. 11:4.] —as, the miserable exculpation of himself, which Aaron attempts, with all the cowardice of conscious guilt—“I cast into the fire, and there came out this calf:” the fire, to be sure, being in the fault [Exod. 32:24.] .

3. There are certain little inconveniences represented as turning up unexpectedly, that argue truth in the story; for they are just such accidents as are characteristic of the working of a new system, an untried machinery. What is to be done with the man who is found gathering sticks on the sabbath-day [Num. 15:32.] ? (Could an impostor have devised such a trifle?) How the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad is to be disposed of, there being no heir-male [Num. 36:2.] . Either of them inconsiderable matters in themselves, but both giving occasion to very important laws; the one touching life, and the other property.

4. There is a simplicity in the manner of Moses, when telling his tale, which argues its truth—no parade of language, no pomp of circumstance even in his miracles—a modesty and dignity throughout all. Let us but compare him in any trying scene with Josephus; his description, for instance, of the passage through the Red Sea [Exod. 14: Joseph. Antiq. b. 2. c. xvi.] , of the murmuring of the Israelites and the supply of quails and manna, with the same as given by the Jewish historian, or rhetorician, we might rather say,—and the force of the observation will be felt [Exod. 16: Joseph. Antiq. b. 3. c. i.] .

5. There is a candour in the treatment of his subject by Moses, which argues his truth; as when he tells of his own want of elequence, which unfitted him for a leader [Exod. 4:10.] —his own want of faith, which prevented him from entering the promised land [Num. 20:12.] —the idolatry of Aaron his brother [Exod. 32:21.] —the profaneness of Nadab and Abihu, his nephews [Levit. 10:1.] —the disaffection and punishment of Miriam, his sister [Num. 12:1.] . The relationship which Amram his father bore to Jochebed his mother, which became afterwards one of the prohibited degrees in the marriage Tables of the Levitical Law [Exod. 6:20; Levit. 18:12.] .

6. There is a disinterestedness in his conduct, which argues him to be a man of truth; for though he had sons, he apparently takes no measures during his life to give them offices of trust or profit; and at his death he appoints as his successor one who had no claims upon him, either of alliance, of clan-ship, or of blood.

7. There are certain prophetical passages in the writings of Moses, which argue their truth; as several respecting the future Messiah; and the very sublime and literal one respecting the final fall of Jerusalem [Deut. 28.] .

8. There is a simple key supplied by these writings to the meaning of many ancient traditions current amongst the heathens, though greatly disguised, which is another circumstance that argues their truth—as, the golden age—the garden of the Hesperides—the fruit-tree in the midst of the garden which the dragon guarded—the destruction of mankind by a flood, all except two persons, and those righteous persons—

9. The concurrence which is found between the writings of Moses and those of the New Testament, argues their truth: the latter constantly appealing to them, being indeed but the completion of the system which the others are the first to put forth. Nor is this an illogical argument—for, though the credibility of the New Testament itself may certainly be reasoned out from the truth of the Pentateuch once established, it is still very far from depending on that circumstance exclusively, or even principally. The New Testament demands acceptance on its own merits, on merits distinct from those on which the Books of Moses rest—therefore (so far as it does so) it may fairly give its suffrage for their veracity—valeat quantum valet—and surely it is a very improbable thing, that two dispensations, separated by an interval of some fifteen hundred years, each exhibiting prophecies of its own, since fulfilled—each asserting miracles of its own, on strong evidence of its own—that two dispensations, with such individual claims to be believed, should also be found to stand in the closest relation to one another, and yet both turn out impostures after all.

10. Above all, there is a comparative purity in the theology and morality of the Pentateuch, which argues not only its truth, but its high original; for how else are we to account for a system like that of Moses, in such an age and amongst such a people; that the doctrine of the unity, the self-existence, the providence, the perfections of the great God of heaven and earth, should thus have blazed forth (how far more brightly than even in the vaunted schools of Athens at its most refined æra!) from the midst of a nation, of themselves ever plunging into gross and grovelling idolatry; and that principles of social duty, of benevolence, and of self-restraint, extending even to the thoughts of the heart [Exod. 20:3; Deut. 6:4; Exod. 3:14; Deut 11:14; Levit. 19:2,18; Deut. 30:6; Exod. 20:17.] should have been the produce of an age, which the very provisions of the Levitical Law itself show to have been full of savage and licentious abominations?

Such are some of the internal evidences for the veracity of the Books of Moses.

11. Then the situation in which the Jews actually found themselves placed, as a matter of fact, is no slight argument for the truth of the Mosaic accounts; reminded, as they were, by certain memorials observed from year to year, of the great events of their early history, just as they are recorded in the writings of Moses—memorials, universally recognised both in their object and in their authority. The Passover, for instance, celebrated by all—no man doubting its meaning, no man in all Israel assigning to it any other origin than one, viz. that of being a contemporary monument of a miracle displayed in favour of the people of Israel; by right of which credentials, and no other, it summoned from all quarters of the world, at great cost, and inconvenience, and danger, the dispersed Jews—none disputing the obligation to obey the summons.

12. Then the heroic devotion with which the Israelites continued to regard the Law, even long after they had ceased to cultivate the better part of it, even when that very Law only served to condemn its worshippers, so that they would offer themselves up by thousands, with their children and wives, as martyrs to the honour of their temple, in which no image, even of an emperor, who could scourge them with scorpions for their disobedience, should be suffered to stand, and they live [Joseph. Bell. Jud. b. 2. c. x.§ 4.] —so that rather than violate the sanctity of the Sabbath Day, the bravest men in arms would lay down their lives as tamely as sheep, and allow themselves to be burnt in the holes where they had taken refuge from their cruel and cowardly pursuers [Antiq. Jud. b. 12. c. 6. § 2.] . All this points to their Law, as having been at first promulgated under circumstances too awful to be forgotten even after the lapse of ages.

13. Then, again, the extraordinary degree of national pride with which the Jews boasted themselves to be God’s peculiar people, as if no nation ever was or ever could be so nigh to Him; a feeling which the early teachers of Christianity found an insuperable obstacle to the progress of the Gospel amongst them, and which actually did effect its ultimate rejection—this may well seem to be founded upon a strong traditional sense of uncommon tokens of the Almighty’s regard for them above all other nations of the earth, which they had heard with their ears, or their fathers had declared unto them, even the noble works that He had done in the old time before them.

14. Then again, the constant craving after “a sign,” which beset them in the latter days of their history, as a lively certificate of the prophet; and not after a sign only, but after such an one as they would themselves prescribe: “What sign shewest thou that we may see and believe?… our fathers did eat manna in the desert;” [John 6:13.] this desire, so frequently expressed, and with which they are so frequently reproached, looks like the relic of an appetite engendered in other times, when they had enjoyed the privilege of more intimate communion with God—it seems the wake, as it were, of miracles departed.

15. Lastly, the very onerous nature of the Law—so studiously meddling with all the occupations of life, great and small—this yoke would scarcely have been endured, without the strongest assurance on the part of those who were galled by it, of the authority by which it was imposed. For it met them with some restraint or other at every turn. Would they plough?—Then it must not be with an ox and an ass [Deut. 22:10.] . Would they sow?—Then must not the seed be mixed [Deut. 22:9.] . Would they reap?—Then must they not reap clean [Lev. 19:9.] . Would they make bread?—Then must they set apart dough enough for the consecrated loaf [Num. 15:20.] . Did they find a bird’s nest?—Then must they let the old bird fly away [Deut. 22:6.] . Did they hunt?—Then they must shed the blood of their game, and cover it with dust [Lev. 17:13.] . Did they plant a fruit tree?—For three years was the fruit to be uncircumcised [Lev. 19:23.] . Did they shave their beards?—They were not to cut the corners [Lev. 19:27.] . Did they weave a garment?—Then must it be only with threads prescribed [Lev. 19:19.] . Did they build a house?—They must put rails and battlements on the roof [Deut. 22:8.] . Did they buy an estate?—At the year of Jubilee back it must go to its owner [Lev. 25:13.] . This last was in itself and alone a provision which must have made itself felt in the whole structure of the Jewish commonwealth, and have sensibly affected the character of the people; every transfer of land throughout the country having to be regulated in its price according to the remoteness or proximity of the year of release; and the desire of accumulating a species of property usually considered the most inviting of any, counteracted and thwarted at every turn. All these (and how many more of the same kind might be named!) are enactments which it must have required extraordinary influence in the Lawgiver to enjoin, and extraordinary reverence for his powers to perpetuate.