J5T 
 1160 
 
 Lemoine 
 
 A defence of the sacred history 
 of the Old Testament 
 
1 
 
 eiTc 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 Microsoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/defenceofsacredhOOIemoiala 
 
A Defence of 
 
 The Sacred History 
 
 OF THE 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 AGAINST 
 The Groundlefs Objections and Falfe Insinuations 
 
 Of the late 
 
 Lord BOLINGBROKE, 
 
 In his Letters on the Study and Ufe of Hiflory : 
 I N A 
 
 SERMON 
 
 Preached at the VISITATION of the 
 
 Reverend Dr. STEBBING, Archdeacon of Wilts, 
 
 Held at M AR LB ORO U G H June the 15th, 1752. 
 
 And now publiflicd, with few Anmtatlom^ at the Requeft of the 
 Archdeacon and the Clergy prefent. 
 
 By ABRAHAM L E M-0 I N E, 
 Redor of Ever ley , JVihs, and Chaplain to his Gr ac e the Duke 
 
 of P R T L A N D. 
 
 LONDON, 
 
 Printed for John Nourfe^ Bookfeller at the Lamb over-againft Catherine 
 Street in ih.z Strand, Mdccliii. 
 
[ I 3 
 
 ST 
 A Defence of the Sacred Hiftory, &c. i ^80 
 
 Deuter. xxxL 24, 25, 26. 
 
 ^;^r/ // came to pafs^ when Mofes had ?nade an 
 end of writing the words of this law in a booh un- 
 til they were finijhed^ That Mofes commanded the 
 Levites which bare the ark of the covenant of the. 
 Lordy fayingy Take this book of the law^ and put it 
 in the fide of the ark of the covenant of the Lord 
 your God^ that it may he therefor a witnefs againfl 
 thee, 
 
 IT is a matter of equal aflonifhment and grief to fee that tho* 
 the truth of our holy religion has been fo often, and fo 
 fully made out, and vindicated from the objections of de- 
 lfts and unbelievers, cfpccially in this laft age, and in books that 
 are fo eafily to be met with ; yet new attacks are daily made 
 upon it, and new devices daily contrired to undermine its pro- 
 per foundations. And what renders the cafe ftill more furprif- 
 ing, and more deplorable, is, that this is done, not only by open 
 enemies, and writers of low parts and low ftation in life, but 
 even by pretended friends, by men of abilities and a fuperior 
 rank in the world, bred up in the chriftian faith, and willing to 
 be thought Chriftians : Whereby the vulgar and ignorant, nay, 
 Ibmetimes too perfons of a liberal education, and not otherwifc 
 inclined to incredulity, but unguarded, are eafily impofed upon, 
 and infenftbly drawn into dangerous fufpicions and doubtings 
 concerning the grounds and reafons of revelation ; which may, 
 and I am afraid but too often do, end in utter unbelief. Thus a 
 late noble author has, in a pofthumous work of his, endeavour'd 
 to render the hiflory of the bible itfelf, which is the true foun- 
 
 B dation 
 
 870081 
 
[ o 
 
 datlon of chriAianity, precarious and uncertain, and that feem- 
 in<y|y without any bad dcfign, nay, with a lliew of religion and' 
 an affed:ation of orthodoxy, which mull: appear very ridiculous 
 to any thinking man. He tells us, for inftance, " that the bible 
 " isinfufficicnt to give us light into the originals of antient na- 
 " tions, and the hillory of thofe ages we call the firft ages ' ;" 
 that " the hiitories of the old teftament are nothing more than 
 *' compilations of old traditions, and abridgments of old records, 
 " made in later times, as they appear to every one that reads 
 ** them without prepofTeffion, and with attention'' :" He will 
 not even grant that we have thefe compilations entire and in 
 their genuine purity \ but maintains, " that they are come down 
 *' to us broken and confufed, full of additions, interpolations, 
 *' and tranfpofitions, made we neither know when, nor by 
 ** whom J in fhort, as never appeared on the face of any other 
 " book, on whofe authority men have agreed to rely^" And, 
 if we believe him, " the hiflory of the y^frw never obtained any 
 " credit in the world, till chriftianity was eftabhfhed ; the foun- 
 " dations of this fyftem being laid partly in thefe hiflories, and 
 " in the prophecies joined to them, orinferted in them, chrifti- 
 /' anity has refledtcd upon them an authority which they had 
 ** not before ; and this authority has prevailed wherever chrifti- 
 *' anity has fpread*^." By which he plainly infinuates that, be- 
 caufe the author and firfl miniflers of the gofpel found the old 
 tcflament favourable to their fcheme, therefore they appealed 
 to it, and frequently quoted it as an authentic, and even a di- 
 vinely infpired book ; whereby it gained infenfibly all the credit 
 and authority that it now has. And again he fays, " who were 
 " the authors of thefe fcriptures, when they were publifhed, 
 
 " how they were compofed and preferved j in fine, how 
 
 ** they were loft during the captivity, and how they were re- 
 " trieved after it, are all matters of controverfy to this 
 " day^•' 
 
 It would be tedious to quote all the pafTages in this perform- 
 ance, which tend to derogate from the truth and authority of 
 the hiftory of the bible, and to bring it into contempt ; thefe 
 may fuffice for a fpecimcn, and I fhall have an opportunity in 
 
 .{J V 
 
 •Lord Bolingbroke's Uttiri on the Jiudy andufe Qfhlfior\\ p. 8?» »" ?aee 06 
 
 the 
 
f 3 1. 
 
 the fequel of my dlfcourfe to take notice of feme others of the 
 fame ftamp. For tho' I have but too much reafon to be diffi- 
 dent of my ability for fuch a tafk, yet I thought it my duty 
 upon this occafion to undertake the defence of that facred hif- 
 tory agalnft thefe and fuch like dangerous attacks. The time 
 before me requires that I fhould be brief, and therefore I (hall 
 confine myfelf to a few general obfervations which naturally 
 arifc from the text : And if I can prove, that Mofes wrote the 
 hiftory contained in the books which go under his name, that he 
 had all the opportunities and qualifications requifite to write it 
 faithfully and impartially, and that it has been tranfmitted to us 
 entire and without any material alteration 3 the reft of the hif- 
 tory of the bible will of courfe appear to be genuine and authentic, 
 not only becaufe it has an immediate vifibleconned:ion with it, 
 and dependance upon it, and the fame arguments that eflablifh 
 the truth of the one may ferve to eftablifli the truth of the other ; 
 but becaufe the ftrongcft obje(5tions lie againft i\iQ former on ac- 
 count of its greater antiquity. 
 
 Firji then, the text fays exprefly, that Mofes wrote the words I. 
 oj the law in a book. The only queftion is, what we are here to wrote^thi^Hi?- 
 underftand by the law ; Is it only the legal 01 do^rinal pavtf tory contain'd 
 contained in the five books that bear the name of Mofes ? Or is '!J ^^^ ^^^^^ 
 it alfo the hijlorical part, in fhort, whatever we meet with in his name. 
 thofe books ? We cannot doubt but that the latter is the truth 
 of the cafe, if we confider, 
 
 i/?. That the vfhoXc pentateuch goes often under the parti- 
 cular name of the law ; which was given to it from the moft 
 confiderable part, the law properly fo called. It is ftiled the 
 book of the laiv, the law of God^ or of Mofes ^ or merely the law, 
 as in this place ; inftances of which may be feen throughout the 
 bible. And what plainly confirms this is, that particular paf- 
 fages or hiftories of thofe books are mentioned or referred to by 
 fubfcquent authors, and faid to be wrote in the law. See Jofh. yiii. 
 
 2^/)', There is fuch an immediate neceflary connecflion be- ^^:j ^^ '"^' 
 tween the legal or doBrinaJ, and the hijlorical parts of the pcfi- chron. xxxi. 
 tateuchy that we muft needs fuppofe Mofes to be equally the au- ?• 4- ^l^V^' 
 thor of both ; tho' we are told in that extraordinary perform- ixxvii.civ.cv, 
 ance juft now mentioned, that " it would not be hard to fliew, cxxxv, ^c 
 
 B 2 *' upon 
 
[ 4 ] 
 
 " upon great Inducements of probability, that the law and th» 
 '* hiftory were far from being blended together as they now 
 " Hand in the pentateuch^ even from the time of Mofei to that 
 " of Efdras *'." How this can be fl^eivn^ even with the leafl ap' 
 pearance of probability^ I cannot conceive, iince the contrary 
 feems to me very plain. Is not the hiftory, for inftance, of the 
 call of Mofes^ of his miflion to the children of Ifrael ^nd to Fha- 
 raohy and of the many wonders he wrought in Egypt, a neceflary 
 foundation of the whole law ? For, without the evidence of 
 thefe feveral fadts, would Pharaoh have hearkened unto him, 
 or the Ifraelites received his commands ? And how could wc, 
 at this diftance of time, be ^tisfied that he was truly fent from 
 God ? Indeed, the vjoral precepts of the law, which recom- 
 mend themfelves to our reafon, might have been delivered ab- 
 flradedly from any hiflory at all, and be equally worthy of 
 obedience 5 but how could the ceremonial and political laws be 
 ena<5ted and continue in force, without any reference to, or ac- 
 count of, the building of the tabernacle, the fettling of the 
 public worfliip, and the ftate of the IfraelifeSy both before and 
 after their conquering the land ofCaanaan ? Were not all their 
 feftivals and folemnities inftituted in memory of fome remark- 
 able wonderful event, of which it was therefore neceifary they 
 fhould be informed, even to the lateft pofterity ? And how 
 could this be done efFedually, but by a written hillorv ? 
 Was it not natural and expedient that he who laid do.wn 
 in a book particular rules and precepts for the obiervation of 
 thofe feftivals, fliould (if he would be obeyed) give in the fame 
 book an account of what had occafioned them ? And fo we fee 
 it done in fadt. The fabbath, for example, was inftituted in 
 memory of the creation of the world, which we find exprefty 
 
 See Exod. declared iniht fourth commandment^ and elfe where ; ihtpa/I- 
 x«*»- '7- ^er^ in memory of the deliverance from the Egyptian bond- 
 
 Exod xu.xjii, age J and this is likewife fet forth in the appointment of it. The 
 and x;uii. fg^ft of the tabemacksy in memory of the Ifraelites having dwelt 
 
 Levit. xxxiii. in tents for forty years in the wildernefs. In fhort, there is 
 fo^upon this ^^'^^^y ^^y °"^ material tranfaftion recorded in th^pentateuch, 
 and other but what has an immediate connexion with, or refped to, 
 
 great fcafts, 
 Deut. xvi, 
 aaid xxvi. I Ibid. p. 100. 
 
 fome 
 
. [ 5 ] 
 
 fome legal or JoSlrhial pointy which could not well be under- 
 flood, or maintained, without it. Nay, whoever reads with 
 any attention the book of Deuteronomy, which is but a rehear- 
 fal of the law given, and of the hiftory of the Ifraelites, in 
 the wildernefs, together with ftrong exhortations to obedience, 
 will there find, efpecially in the firfl eleven chapters, thefe 
 fubjeds fo intermixed and fo clofely conneded, and the hi/lo' 
 r'ical part fo far made the foundation of the legal or doBrinaly 
 that it is abfolutely impoflible to feparate them, and that the 
 fame hand which wrote ih^ former , muft of courfe have 
 writ the latter. And therefore I wonder how the before- 
 mentioned author can fay, as he does here, that the law and 
 the hijlory ivere not blended together from the firjl^ as they now 
 Jiand ; and elfewhere s, " I may deny that the old teftament 
 " is tranfmitted to us under all the conditions of an authen- 
 ** tic hiftory, and yet be at liberty to maintain that the paflages 
 ** in it, which eftablifh original fn, which feem favourable 
 ** to the dodrine of the Trinity ^ which foretell the coming of 
 *' the Mejjiah^ and all other of fimilar kind, are come down 
 ** to us, as they were originally dictated by the holy Ghoft.'* 
 For I would alk, how, unlefs the authenticity of the hiftory 
 of the old tejiament be fir ft admitted, it can appear that thefe 
 fajfages were originally diBated by the holy Ghoji f This is ^fa^y 
 which cannot be proved but as all othery^^j are, either by the 
 evidence of fenfe, or by eye-witnefles -, and where thefe cannot 
 be had, as is vifibly the cafe here, by a well attefted record 
 or hiftory. No doubt can remain therefore but Mofes wrote 
 the hiftorical as well as the legal part of the pentateuch. And 
 in full confirmation of it I obferve, 
 
 Thirdly, That it is exprefsly faid in fevcral places of this 
 book, that Mofes recorded by the command of God himfelf 
 fome particular fads, or accounts of things, which were of 
 no greater confequence than the reft ; fo that there is rcafon 
 to believe that he wrote them all alike. Thus we read that 
 after the defeat of the Amalekites, the Lord faid unto MofeSy 
 •ante this for a mejnorial in a book, or (as the Hebrew may 
 very well bear) ;/z the book, i. e. *' in that particular book, in 
 
 ^ P. 98. 
 
 •• which 
 
is ] 
 
 " which thou haft begun to write my laws, and the hiftory 
 Exod. xvii. " of my people. " Thus again, in this very chapter, Mojes 
 14. is commanded to write down that fo?tg which we read in the 
 
 following, and which contains a general recapitulation of 
 God's mercies and judgments towards the Ifraelites, and of 
 their continual rebellions againfl him, as a powerful motive 
 to their future obedience. And can we imagine that if he 
 wrote thefe things, he negleded to give particular accounts of 
 the mofl remarkable tranfa(5tions of his miffion and govern- 
 ment, fuch as the wonderful deliverance from Egypty and all 
 the fubfequent miracles in the wilderncfs? Nay, there were 
 fome particular things, which he could not but record, as no 
 memory of man, and therefore no oral tradition in the world 
 . could preferve them, and yet the good order and welfare of 
 his people depended upon it ; fuch as their genealogies, num- 
 bering^, journeyings, and the dividing of the land of Canaan 
 among their feveral tribes and families, which he fettfed but 
 a little while before his death. And indeed, we read in the 
 33^- c^^P- ^^'^^^^^''•^j vc^' 2, ^hsiX. Mofes wrots their goings 
 outy according to their journieSy by the commandment of the Lord. 
 From whence we may reafonably infer that he writ alfo all the 
 refl of their hiftory, fuch as we find it in the books that go 
 under his name. Let me only add, 
 
 Laftlyy That the manner in which the text is worded plain- 
 ly intimates that the whole pentateuch was penned by Mofes ; 
 for it is therein faid, not only that he made an end of writing 
 the words of the law in a hooky which viiibly implies that he 
 was a considerable time about it, and fuppofes a work of fome 
 length, but moreover, by way of emphafis and for a farther 
 explanation, until they (the words of the law) were finifhedy 
 i. c. till he had compleated the whole book, or put the finifti- 
 ing hand to all that goes before, for thus much the Hebrew 
 DDn 1V„ imports. 
 
 What fay you now? Will you fever the law from the hif- 
 torfy when the very book upon^whofe authority you receivethe 
 law, as Alofes's law, tells you that he was the author of both ? 
 If you fay that the hiftory which now ftands connected with 
 the law, is not that hiftory, fhew me another hiftory that has 
 better pretenfions, or the prefumption will lie that this is it. 
 
 Rather 
 
r '7 ■] 
 
 Rather (if you pleafe) fliew me how it was pofTible that what 
 Mofes fo clofely joined and blended together, fliould afterwards 
 have been put afunder, confidering the great care with which 
 his writings were preferved among the Jews, as I fhall make 
 it appear prefently. But the pentaieuch is not its own voucher 
 only : All the fubfequent writers of the old tefta'rhent are una- 
 nimous in this point. Mention is made, not only of the 
 written law of Mofes, in general, but of feveral hidorlcal paf- 
 fages of the pentateuch^ in the books of Jojlmay of Judges, of 
 Samuel, and fo on to Nehemi ah ihe laft hiflorian, and to Ma- 
 lachi the laft prophet ; likewife in the Apocrypha, and in the 
 writings of Philo and jfoj'ephus ; all of them afcribing it to 
 M?/?^, either exprefsly or tacitly, without any the leaft variation. 
 ( I ) And befides this concurrent teftimony of all Jeivijh writers, 
 both facred and prophane, from the death of Mofes down to 
 the deftru(5tion of Jerufalem and the republic, we may pro- 
 duce many of the oldeft heathen authors who have mentioned 
 him as an hiftorian, as well as a lawgiver, and taken notice 
 of feveral of the moft confiderable fads recorded in his hif- 
 tory, fuch as the chaos, the creation of the world in fix days, 
 the temptation of the ferpent, the lo7ig lives of the firft men, 
 xhQ Jiood, the tower of Babel, the difperfion of mankind, the 
 fettlcment and oppreffion of the Ifrealites in Eg\pt, their mi- 
 gration out of it, their paflage through the Red Sea, and many 
 others, a coUedion of which may be feen in Jofephus, Eufe- 
 
 i ■ ... ' ■ " . . I > .' : - 
 
 ( I). This is fucK a proof of the authenticity of the book of Mo/is, as 'the moft 
 fceptical iran cannot call into queftion, unlefs he fhquld, fuppofe that allthofe 
 y-nvij'h writers had combined without any rcafon or intereil, nay againll all reafon 
 and intereft, to put upon the world in this refpe<fl, which is a molt abfurd fuppofi- 
 tion ; or unlrfs.he were of the fame opinion with a celebrated Jefuit (Father //<7r- 
 dot.in) who, in order to raife the authority of i*ie popes, or of the church, above 
 tnat of the holy fcripture itfelf, has with equal impudence and folly aiTerted, that 
 almoftall the antient books we now have were forged in the thirteenth and fourteenth 
 centuries by a fet of atheifts and knaves, who together with the art of printing 
 brought about the rrfiarctior. of letters ; in which cafe, he would deferve to be 
 treated with the fame contempt as thisjefuit was. And yet, the noble author I 
 am confuting feems to'ibe fomewhat in that way of thinking, when he fays (p. 
 l8t, 185.) that the ycfiirre8ion cf letters nvas a fatal period, the chrijiian fyjl em hav- 
 ing been attaeieei, and lucunded too, I'ery fcnerely., and having been in decay ever Jinee 
 that time. For, except that by the chriflian fyftem he underllands popery, which 
 indeed has received a fatal blow hy the reftoration of letters, what he aflerts here 
 is moft certainly falfe, and cannot be advanced but in the extravagant fcherae of 
 father Hardouin. 
 
 bius^ 
 
[ 8 ] 
 
 hius, and Grotm ^, And thus far we may alledge the au- 
 thority of prophane writers without incurring the charge of 
 inconfijlency^ which the before mentioned noble author brings 
 againft us, for admitting this authority when it does agree 
 with the hiflory of the bible, and rejecfling it when it does 
 not * . For furely, if the oldeft heathen writers have taken 
 notice of the fame fa6ts we find recorded in the books of Mo^ 
 fcs, they muft have had them, either from thefe very books, 
 which therefore they look'd upon as authentic, or elfe from 
 oral tradition which had preferved in all nations the memory 
 of thofe fa(5ls ; and in both cafes the teftimony of antiquity is 
 a confirmation of the truth of the Mojaic hiflory. But as tra- 
 dition was in procefs of time obfcured, or blended with many 
 fables and fictions, which by the rules of true -criticifm may 
 eafily be difcovered and feparated from real fadls, are we not 
 at liberty, or rather in duty bound, to rejedt thefe fables, and 
 confequently to admit the authority of profane hiflory no 
 longer than as it agrees with the facred ? What tncon* 
 Jiftencyy or even 'impropriety there is in fuck a method as this, 
 I cannot fee. 
 
 I have dwelt the longer upon t\\isjirji head, becaufe it is 
 the foundation of all, and that againfl which the objedlions 
 of deifls are chiefly levelled ; the refl fliall be difcuffed in 
 few words. 
 
 That this hif- That Moses wrote his hiflory faithfully and impartially, 
 tory is a faith- is plain both from the perfedl knowledge he had of mofl of 
 ful and impar- ^^^ £^^3 recorded in it, and from his whole conduct and 
 charafter. All that part of it which relates to the deliver- 
 ance of the children of Ifrael from Egypt ^ and their long a- 
 bode in the wildernefs, he mufl have been fully acquainted 
 with, fmce he was the chief agent in it, as their great leader 
 and prophet, without whofe direction or knowledge nothing 
 of moment was ever tranfad:ed among them. And as to that 
 which is contained in the book of Genefis, two objedicns arc 
 raifed againfl it by the noble author fo often quoted, which 
 
 * Jof. Ant. L. I. c. 3. &. contra Apion. Eufeb.de Prajp. Evang L. IV. c. 12, Sc 
 L. XII. c. 4. Grot. Annot. ad Lib. I. de ver. Rcl. ' p. 104, 105. 
 
 3 defervc 
 
[ 9 ] 
 
 deferve a particular notice. Firjly if we believe him, we have 
 no hiftory at all of the antediluvian world in this bcoky no not 
 fb much as an abridgment of it •'. And why ? It feems, only 
 becaufe it \^fo very fkort and comprized in few chapters. But 
 is not this to talk at a very ftrange rate ? Are then fix or fe- 
 ven chapters, wholly taken up in giving an account of the 
 creation of the world, of the origin and fall of man- 
 kind, of the firft invention of arts and fciences, of the begin- 
 nings of focieties, and of the ftate of religion before the flood, 
 no hiftory at all f If Mofes has not told us every particular 
 that might gratify our curiofity in thefe feveral refpedls, has 
 he not faid enough to give us an infight into the great tranf- 
 adtions of this firft period, and to inform us of what it concerns 
 us moft to know, the introducftion of evil, both moral and 
 natural, the promife of a Redeemer, the gradual degeneracy 
 and extreme wickednefs of mankind, which brought on the 
 deluge, the glorious rewards of piety, and in particular the 
 virtuous life and wonderful prefervation of ISIoah and his fa- 
 mily ? Is not this fufficient to fatisfy a fober reafonable man ? 
 But it is farther faid, or at leaft intimated, how could Mofes ^ 
 who lived two thoufand five hundred years after the creation, 
 and about nine hundred after the flood, know any thing of 
 thefe memorable events, and of the others related in the book 
 of Genejis ? And how can we depend upon the truth of a 
 hiftory wrote at fo great a diftance from the fads recorded? 
 To which I anfwer, that if we confider Mofes, only as a 
 common and not an infpired writer, it is highly probable 
 that he had all thefe fads, either from tradition, or from 
 particular memoirs and monuments, or from both together. 
 For we cannot fuppofe that the firft men entirely negledted 
 to preferve and tranfmit to their defcendants the memory of 
 fuch remarkable interefting events; and tradition was then the 
 furer as it went through fewer hands. Adam liv'd a confider- 
 able time with Methujelah, Methufelah with Shemy Shem with 
 Ifaac, and Ijaac with Levi, the grandfather of Mofes-, fo 
 that the knowledge of thofe fads might eafily be preferved 
 in the world, even without the help of writing, and come 
 
 ^ P. io6, 107. 
 
 C down 
 
4own to Mofes uncorrupted. When letters Were iirft in- 
 vented we cannot tell precifely, but it is highly probable 
 that they were in ufe before the flood \ in which cafe one 
 can hardly doubt that the patriarchs left in writing fome ac- 
 counts of the moft conliderable tranfa(ftions of this long pe- 
 riod, from whence Mofes might take the materials of his hif- 
 tory. But if the miracles faid to have been wrought by him 
 are true, then we have an unqueftionable proof of his being 
 affifted by God in what he wrote, as well as in what he did : 
 And if fo, we may eafily account how he came by the know- 
 ledge of the fads recorded in Geftefis-, they were revealed to 
 him, as all the kgalj do^ri?ial and prophetical parts of his books 
 ' were. So that, upon the whole, whether we confider him 
 as a mere hiftorian, or an infpircd writer, we are fure that 
 he had fufficient information of the fads he relates, tho' they 
 happened fo long before his own time. 
 
 And that his hiflory, in general, is a faithful and impartial 
 narrative, we are no lefs certain from his own condudt and cha- 
 radter j which were fuch, that he never did or faid, during the 
 whole courfe of his miffion and government, (which lafted 
 forty years) any thing worthy of reproach, except his fhewing 
 Numb. XX. fome diftrufl of God's power by ftriking twice the rock, ne- 
 ver betrayed any ambitious felfifli views, any covetoufnefs, 
 pride, cruelty or oppreffion, never confulted any thing but the 
 glory of the God that fent him, and the welfare of his people ; 
 and was fo far from any diflimulation or partiality, that he 
 daily upbraided them with their ingratitude to their great Cre- 
 ator and Deliverer, with their unaccountable ftubbornnefs and 
 propenfion to idolatry, and their conjftant murmurings and re- 
 bellions ; nay, that he did not conceal or diffcmble his own 
 failings, nor the jcaloufies and difputes, and other mifcarriagcs 
 of his family, but has recorded them as impartially as if he 
 had not been at all concerned in them. Thefe things are fo 
 well known, and fo evidently prove the hiftory of Mofes ta 
 have been moft faithfully wrote, that I think it needlefs to ia- 
 fiil any longer upon it. 
 
 \ See Dr. SbuckJorcTs Coanrft. Vol. I. p. 234, l^c. 
 
 But 
 
[ tr ] 
 
 But how do we know thaf his books are come down to us 
 in their primitive purity, and without any material alteration ? 
 This is the lajl thing to be inquired into, which will not detain 
 us long, as moft of the obfervations I have made to prove their 
 authenticity^ fhew at the fame time their integrity. 
 
 The text fufnifhes us with a very material one, for we are ni. 
 therein told, that Mofei commanded the Levites which bare tloe . '^^^^ 'f-*"" 
 
 1 r J ' - er' 1 t • J 1 n t 1 been tranlmit- 
 
 ark of the co'uenant, Jayttig^ ^ake this book of the law^ and put it cd to us cn- 
 
 in the fide ^of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it """^ ^^^ '''"^' 
 
 may be therefor a witnejs againft thee. As the ark of the cove?2ant rialaheraiLn! 
 
 was the moft facred veflel in the tabernacle, and the particular 
 
 fymbol of God's prefence among the fews 3 to order the book 
 
 of the law, or xht pe?itateuch, to be kept by it, and with the 
 
 fame care, as Mofei does here, was certainly the beft method 
 
 that could be contrived for its prefervation and integrity. And 
 
 as none but the Levites were permitted to meddle with the 
 
 ark, fo none but they could have accefs to this facred depofituin, 
 
 of which they had, befides, all the reafon in the world to take 
 
 the greateft care imaginable, both in point of religion, and in 
 
 point of temporal intereft, (ince it contained, as it were, their 
 
 charter, or the grant of all their privileges : And there is no 
 
 doubt that they did fo, and that this book continued in being, 
 
 and in its original integrity, as long as the ark of the covenant^ 
 
 or the temple itfelf, nay, much longer, as we (hall fee pre- 
 
 fently. 
 
 But I obferve farther, that this order of Mofes to have the 
 pcntateuch depofited and kept near the ark of the covenant, 
 ought to be confidered as a precedent, and a rule for all fubfe- 
 quent prophets who left any writings. Befides that, prudence 
 ^nd zeal naturally led them to uf& the fame precaution j and 
 the great v'eneration . that was all along preferved among the 
 yews for the memory oi Mofes leaves no room to doubt but that 
 this was conftantly done, and that their canonical books were 
 pnt together with his code, or volume in a chef, by the 
 lide of the ark. Nay, we have an undeniable proof of it 
 itt what is remarked in the clofe of the book of Jofiua, that he 
 
 C 2 ivrote 
 
Jofh. xxiv. 
 z6. 
 
 2 Chron. 
 xxxiv. 14. 
 
 [ ^2 ] . 
 
 uroie it in the book of the law^ or added it to the original copy 
 of the pentateuch, and therefore put it in the fame place, to be 
 prefer vcd with the fame care , for in no other fenfe could he be 
 faid to have wrote it in the book of the law. Let me here obferve 
 by the way, that this paffage plainly fhews that Jojhua is the 
 author of the book which goes under his name, and that it was 
 he that added the account of the death of Mofes in the laft chap- 
 ter of Deuteronomy ; which account has been fo often alledged 
 againft the opinion that afcribes to Mofes this particular book. 
 For, as a learned writer very juftly remarks, " "" This fentence, 
 " fojhua wrote- thefe words in the book of the law of God ^ fairly 
 " implies, unlefs we had good reafon to think the fad: was 
 *' otherwife, that all that was found written in the book of the 
 *' law, from the end of what was penned by the hand of A/o- 
 *^ fes^ unto the clofe of the period, of which thefe words are a 
 " part, was wrote hyJof)ua: And this was the opinion of the 
 " 'TalmudiJisJ''* 
 
 It is true, we do not find in the following books of the old 
 teflament, that this pradlice, or ufage, of joining the original 
 copies of them to the fame volume, and keeping them in the 
 fame place, was conftantly obferved to the laft. But this par- 
 ticular circumftance might have been omitted, upon a pre- 
 emption that the readers feeing that pradice eftablifhed by 
 Mofes, and followed by Jo/huay his immediate fucceflbr, they 
 would take it for granted, that it continued of courfe, without 
 any interruption. And indeed, this is fo natural, that unlefs 
 the contrary ftiould plainly appear from fcripture, which it 
 does not, we muft admit it as a fadt. What happened in the 
 reign of Jofah, when the high prieft found the book of the law 
 in the temple, is a clear proof that this book, at leaft, had been 
 there kept to that time : For the expreffion of the facred hif- 
 torian, Hilkiahjound the book of the law of God by the hand of 
 Mofes, i. e. wrote by Mofes, fhews that this was the autograph, 
 or original copy (2) j which is fo much the more remarkable, 
 
 as 
 
 ■» Dr. Shuckford's ConncS. vol. III. p. 430. ' Bava Bathra, cap. i. 
 (2) From the king's expreffing fuch a grief as he did upon the reading of it, fome 
 hsk\e imagined that he had never feen before the l>oei of the law, and that this was 
 
 the 
 
[ X3 ] 
 
 as It happened but few years before the burning of the temple 
 by Nebuchadnezzar. And at the return from the Babylonifi 
 captivity, Ezra is faid to have brought with him the book cj the 
 law : But whether it was the fame original, which had been 
 faved from the combuftion by fome of the priefls, or only a 
 copy of his own, I {liall not determine -, tho' the people beg- 
 ing earnertly, that he would bring it and (hew it to them, Nehem.viiL 
 fcems to intimate that it was the former, becaufe we can- 
 not well fuppofe that there was no copy of it left among 
 them i nay, the contrary is evident from the book of Da- 
 tiielt and from hence, that feveral prophets lived in the time 
 of the captivity, and at the rebuilding of Jerufalem and the i- 
 temple (3), who cannot be thought guilty of fuch a negled, 
 
 the only copy extant at that time. But that does not follow; for might not Joftah 
 liave been alarmed at hearing the threatenings and curfes contained in the laft chap- 
 ters of Deuteronomy, and elfewhere, which Shaphan pitched upon, or providence direft- 
 ed him to, on purpofe to quicken and inflame his zeal? And might not his alarm, 
 or if you will, bis attention and ferioufnefs, have been much increafed upon feeing 
 the very original of Mofes, which was thought to be loft, and out of which thofe 
 threatenings and curfes were read to him ; fo that he could fo much the lefs doubt 
 of their truth and certainty ? This fufficiently accounts for his furprize and fear, 
 without fuppofing that he had never feen before the book of the laix:, and that there 
 was not one copy of it left in his whole kingdom, which is very improbable. For, 
 how could that prince have applied himfelf from his youth to the fervice of the true 
 God, or (as the expreffion of the facred hiftorian is) to/eek after the God ef his father 
 David, i. e. manifeftly, to enquire into the revealed nxi II of the Lord, without the afllft- 
 ance of this book ? How could he fet about the reformation of religion, as he did tert 
 years before the original copy was found in the temple, purge the land from the oion- 
 ilrous idolatry, impurities, and other abominations which had fo long dehled it, and 
 in particular, put a ftop to the fuperftitious worfliip of the high places and groves, 
 which was an imitation of the antient patriarchal wQrHiip ; how could he, I fay, have 
 efFefted all this, if he had never feen any tranicript of that book ? Befides, in his 
 reign lived the prophets Jeremiah and Zephania, the prophetefs Huldah, and many 
 other good religious perfons, who can never be fuppofed to have had no copy of the 
 law : And if they had any, undoubtedly they would have communicated it to Jojiahf 
 in cafe he had none of his own. 
 
 (3'. Daniel was carried very young to Babylon, at the beginning of the captivity, 
 and outlived it three or four years ; and it appears, both by his conduft and what he 
 fays with refpect to the laiu of Mofes, (chap, ix.) th^t he had a/«// knowledge, and 
 therefore muft have had a true copy, of it. Ezekiel began to prophsfy in the fifth year 
 of the captivity, and continued twenty years ; Jeremiah a confiderable time during the 
 fame period, cither at Jerufalem, or in E^pt where he died ; and Haggai and Zecha- 
 riah were, at the return of the captivity, encouraging and afilfting in the rebuilding 
 of the temple at Jerufalem (Ezra v. 1 , 2.). Now, is it natural to fuppofe that all thefe 
 prophets, who fo greatly diftinguiihed themfelves by their zeal, had not the bock of tie 
 lanv, and that the copy which Ezra, who was no prophet, brought with him, was the 
 only one left among the Jews at that time, as delfts would have it ? 
 
 I as 
 
C 14 } 
 
 as to be without a copy of the book of the law. Howcvet 
 it be, that which Ezra brought from Babylon^ was undoubt- 
 edly received by the Jews as authentic ; for they were 
 Nehcm. viii. taught out of it and conformed to it, and B,z7'a was not 
 only- a priefl of the firft rank, defcended from Aaron in 
 diredt line, but moreover a ready fcribe in the law of Mo- 
 Stc'Ey.ra.vW. fes^ as he is ftiled, i. e. a man that perfectly underftood 
 1, is'c. jf^ Q^^^ made his conftant ftudy of it, and therefore was 
 the moil likely to have it uncorrupted, and the beil able to 
 teach it : So that we may very well fuppofe that all the 
 *^ . copfes that were afterwards made, were tranfcribed from it, 
 ^^^ and that it was alfo depofited in the fecond temple, and 
 there carefully kept, fince this cuftom continued among the 
 Jews till the lad deftrudion of Jerufalem by the Konians. 
 For Jofephus defcribing the triumph of Titus, of which he 
 was eye-witnefs, exprefsly tells us^ " that the law of Mofes^ 
 " for which the Jews have the greateft veneration, clofcd 
 *' this magnificent Ihew of the fpoils taken out of the 
 *' temple®." 
 
 But MofeSy not content to introduce this practice of keep- 
 ing in a cheft, near the ark of the covejianty the original co- 
 py of the books of the law and the prophets, exprefsly charges 
 the priefts and Levites, to whom he delivered his own vohime, 
 to read it and explain it in a moft folemn manner, before 
 all the people, at all their great feflivals p j and moreover, he 
 frequently enjoins the Ifraelites daily to read and write out of 
 Deut. vi. 7, it, and teach it to their children ; he ftridlly forbids that no one 
 8, 9. xi. {hould prefumc to add ta it, or to diminifh the leaft thing 
 i^^ig, 20, £^^^ .^^ ^ ^^^ j^^ declares it to be the particular duty of all 
 • Ibid. iv. 2. future kings in Ifrael, ts write, for their own ufe, a copy of 
 the law in a book, out of that which is before the priejis the 
 LeviteSj or intrufted with them, and depofited in the taberna- 
 Ibld. xvii. 1 8, ^Ic, and to read therein all the days oj their lives. It is next to 
 19. impoffible that with all thefe precautions, and in thefe circum- 
 ftances, any material alteration fhould ever have been made, or, 
 
 • Jud. bell. lib. vii. cap. 17, 19. p See ver. 9, ^c. of this chap. 
 
 I any 
 
r 15 J 
 
 any confiderable error crept in thofe books. And according to 
 this hypothefis, which, as you have now feen, is plainly founded 
 in Icripture, there is no manner of occafion to fuppofe with 
 a very learned author "^j that at the return from the captivi- 
 ty, Ezra cone<fted and rcvift-d the books of the old teftament, 
 and added thofe particular paflages, which do not fcem to 
 come from their refpedive authors, and have given a handle 
 to deifts to deny their genuinenefs. Befides, this is but a 
 mere conjedure that has no other foundation than the fabu- 
 lous ftory we meet with in the fecond book oiEfdras relating 
 to this pretended colledion, or rather recovery of the fcripturcs, 
 which are there fuppofed to have been burnt in the conflagra- 
 tion of the temple (4). 
 
 There is one obfervation more, which I muft by no 
 means leave behind. The Samaritans^ who were inveterate 
 enemies to the Jews^ and had a different worfliip, have 
 conftantly received the five books of Mofes as genuine. 
 Had they known, or fo much as fufpeded, that they were 
 fuppofititious, or had been at anytime corrupted, they would un- 
 doubtedly have rcjedted them > and in order tojuftify their fchifm, 
 have laid open the impofture, and publicly charged their adver- 
 faries with it. But tho' this fchifm begun fo foon as Rehoboarri's 
 reign, upon the death oi Solomon y and continued to the end of the 
 Jewifi ftate and polity, they never did fay, write, or do any 
 thing that (hewed the leaft fufpicion of fraud. On the contrary, 
 they have all along afcribed thefe books to Mofes as to their genu- 
 ine author, and founded their whole religion on them, and them 
 
 ^ Dr. Prideauxt in his Conneft. 
 
 (4) If the above hypotbefis is (as I hope it is) fufficiently eftablifhed, it will natural- 
 ly follow that the canon of the fcriptures of the old teftament was then only com- 
 pleatcd and fettled when Malachi the laft prophet joined his prophecy to the reft of 
 the facred books, and depofited it in the cheft where they were kept in the temple. 
 And as to the additions that appear in them, it is as natural to think that they were 
 made at different times by fubfequent prophets, as they faw fit, either to conneft the 
 hiftory and give a farther account of things, or to explain and illuftrate particular 
 paffages, in the fame manner as I have before (hewn Jcjhua did with refped to the 
 books of Mofa ; fo that thefe additions are as much given by infpiration, as all the 
 reft of the fcriptures are, and do not in the Icaft derogate from their authenticity. 
 
 only* 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 SEP 2 5 1985 
 
 Form L9-50m-7,'54(59i> 
 
 :opy of the 
 :s, fuch as 
 which the 
 ters. This 
 as no pfo- 
 
 wer to the 
 
 books of 
 
 "eh, and in 
 
 nted myfelf 
 
 upon your 
 
 r authority than 
 that of our Sa- 
 IV the name of 
 : immortality of 
 e expediency of 
 •r whom I have 
 't refts upon the 
 weaknefs and 
 j For it is plain, 
 r Tejlament may 
 roved to be ge- 
 fpond, or per- 
 
 F / iV 7 5, 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSaTY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
DC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FAi 
 
 A 000 539 438 J 
 
^€