shown that by the expressions, the law, &c. the Jews do not, and never did, understand the Pentateuch." Surely no clerical logic can be worse than this, nor can the patrons of orthodoxy furnish any rarer specimen of "impudent hardihood of assertion." Every honorable and candid man must admit, that whatever may be the true state of the case, such a mode of managing the controversy is utterly discreditable to him who uses it.

66

We have seen then what contemporary documents assert, respecting the agency of Ezra in relation to the sacred books of his nation; what is the tradition on this subject, be its value more or less; we have only briefly to inquire, what is dictated by probability or analogy. On this topic I shall merely cite a passage from Knapp's Theology, Vol. i. 82. He observes that at particular periods in a nation's history, learned men appear who interest themselves in its literary productions. They take pains to preserve their text or to restore it when it has become corrupt: they show the distinction between genuine and spurious writing; and they make collections or lists, comprising only those which are genuine. Such persons anciently appeared among the Israelites, and afterwards among the Christians. And such among the Greeks, were the grammarians of Alexandria, under the Ptolemies. They distinguished between the genuine and spurious works of Grecian literature. The books admitted into the

εκκρινόμενοι.

εγκρινόμενοι,

canon they called εyzovouero, and the books excluded The excluded books were of course less used, and have since mostly perished, vide Ruhnken, Historia Oratorum Græcorum Critica, page 96. These remarks illustrate the origin of the collection of the Holy Scriptures."

We may reasonably conclude, therefore, that Ezra with other learned men, his coadjutors, did bestow that care in collecting and editing the literary monuments of their nation, which we know to have been exercised in other instances.

It appears then-I. That we have the fullest evidence of the existence of the Pentateuch, immediately after the return from the captivity.

II. There is nothing in contemporary or trustworthy documents, or tradition, asserting that it then first existed-that Ezra fabricated it.

III. It is national tradition that he collected and edited the sacred books of the Jews.

We have now to inquire-What reasons sustain the belief that the Pentateuch was not written in any intermediate age, but must be referred to Moses as its author?

59

SECTION V.

Various theories respecting the origin of the Pentateuch-Positive evidence that it is the production of Moses.

THE author of the "Connexion between Geology and the Pentateuch," observes, p. 18, "that this book is by universal acknowledgment, so garbled and interpolated, as well as so utterly uncertain as to its author or compiler, that it carries with it no historical credibility." He also remarks, p. 53, "that the fact of these supposed writings of Moses having been compiled at some unknown time, subsequently to the captivity, is on all hands admitted."

This writer assuredly uses terms of universality in a very extraordinary acceptation. If there be this entire agreement, why does he so zealously and perseveringly exert himself in sustaining his proposition? Are there no ignorant or interested supporters of orthodoxy who maintain a different opinion? Surely there are. Otherwise our antag

onists, with their rare benevolence and unquestionable disinterestedness-who, in the very spirit of martyrdom, are resolved to emancipate their fellow men from the thraldom of priestly domination-would have a light task to accomplish. But perhaps it is meant to affirm this universal consent, respecting the spuriousness and worthlessness of this

66

Le

production, of those only, who having the same critical acumen and the same honesty of purpose which are possessed by our author himself, deserve to have something conceded to their opinion. But here again the assertion is, unfortunately, utterly opposed to the true state of the case. Neither among avowed infidels, nor among the free thinking theologians of Germany, may we find this harmonious acquiescence in the theory above suggested. Rosenmueler, in his Prolegomena in Pentateuchum," has given a full enumeration of the conjectures of those who dissent from the received hypothesis respecting the origin of this book. Some of these may be here briefly stated. Clerc, at one period of his life, ascribed the Pentateuch to the Israelitish priests, sent by the king of Assyria to instruct the inhabitants whom he had transported into the conquered kingdom of the ten tribes. This was two hundred years before the return of the Jews from their captivity. Frid. Carl. Fulda thought that the Pentateuch was not older than the time of David. Nachtigal supposed that previously to the time of Samuel, there were existing nothing but genealogical tables, with few or no literary remains; that the achievements of ancient times were only commemorated in songs and on monuments; that at this period these historic odes, which had been in a great measure drawn from inscriptions on stone or brass, were in the

schools of the prophets committed to writing; that in succeeding times many books were written by wise and erudite men, which contained these odes, narrations concerning ancient affairs, and a collection of laws; and that from books of this sort, brought together by the care of the learned of that age, under the direction perhaps of Jeremiah, the Pentateuch was compiled at the time of the exile. To Bertholdt it seemed probable that this book was reduced to its present form by Samuel, and deposited in the ark of the covenant; and that a copy of it, written upon Egytian linen, was that volume of the law found by Hilkiah in the temple. Even Volney supposes it to have been written by Hilkiah-of course not after the captivity. What then are we to think of the agreement on all hands that it was not more ancient than the latter period! Spinoza, Vater, De Wette, and Hasse, maintain this, but a large majority even of the opposers of the Mosaic origin. of the Pentateuch affirm the contrary; while the great body of theologians and biblical critics, trace it to the age of the Jewish lawgiver, and to himself as the writer. It may be well also to observe, that of the authors above cited, Le Clerc and Hasse subsequently changed their opinion and wrote in favor of the genuineness of the Pentateuch. Rosenmueler likewise, a most distinguished German commentator, having originally denied, afterwards sustained this view. As to any deference which