and at the frequent depression of the good: on the contrary, we behold it, without the least surprize, and without the least consequent temptation to doubt of God's moral government. It seems probable, that, so far as individuals were concerned, an extraordinary Providence was beginning to be withdrawn in the time of David; but, so far as the public was concerned, the history of Israel testifies it to have existed in full force down to the Babylonian captivity. However this may be, the seventy third psalm is a standing proof that it once operated for no man could have written that psalm, except a person who was perplexed with a nascent infidelity on account of a once familar circumstance having begun to cease. The author evidently speaks, as grievously disturbed with a matter which seemed to shake the foundations of the Law because, in opposition to its threats and its promises, he had been reluctantly compelled to observe the prosperity of the wicked and the troubles of the righteous.

VII. When a political impostor writes a narrative of events, we may be sure that he will suppress every thing disgraceful either to himself or to his people to himself, because it would detract from his influence; to his people, because he would be unwilling to run the risque of irritating them superfluously. Nay, even if a subsequent historian have occasion to exhibit his countrymen in the best point of view; without precisely adducing a direct falsehood, he will be strongly

tempted either to soften or to pass over any less reputable circumstances. This temper is inherent in human nature: for, neither from policy nor from inclination, does any man much affect to be the herald either of his own shame or of his country's dishonour.

The present argument in favour of the sincerity of Moses will be most forcibly exhibited, by contrasting his mode of writing history with that adopted by the sagacious courtier Josephus.

Respecting the private life of Moses until he appears as the prophet of God, nothing is mentioned in the book of Exodus save what was absolutely required by the narrative: and the whole account of him during his first eighty years is so brief, that it is comprized in a single chapter. Josephus, on the contrary, works up the supposed events of this period into a complete romance, of which Moses is throughout exhibited as the regular hero.'

In the scriptural account, Moses, when supernaturally called from the bush, shews so strong a reluctance to take upon him the office of God's ambassador, that the anger of the Lord is said to have been at length kindled against him. Josephus softens the whole into a modest apology for his natural incapacity: and even this is represented as having been made prior to the miracles, which he saw and which he was enabled to perform;

while not a word is said of God's anger having been kindled against him or of Aaron's being deputed to assist him.'

In the Pentateuch, the Israelites are described as being so enraged at Moses and his brother, on account of their burdens being increased, when Pharaoh refused to comply with his first demand, that they break forth into violent reproaches and invectives. The whole of this, as alike discreditable to the hero and to the people, is entirely suppressed by Josephus.

In the Pentateuch, the faults both of the one and of the other are unreservedly detailed, without any attempt either at disguise or at palliation. Josephus, writing as an encomiast, is silent upon such topics, wherever he can venture to be so. Thus he suppresses the signal crime of the people in worshipping the golden calf: and thus he quite omits the offence, which both Moses and Aaron were guilty of at Meribah. Yet the particulars of this offence are not only told at large in the Pentateuch, but there are likewise perpetual references to it. Moses repeatedly deprecates its punishment, entreating for permission to enter into the promised land, which permission however is constantly refused him. He dwells upon it and alludes to it, as a person weighed down by sorrow for the disappointment of his fondest hope : though, so far as his own legislative credit was

concerned, he must have been aware, that neither the punishment nor the ample recording of it were likely to elevate him in the eyes of the people. This was perceived by the wary Josephus: and the whole affair, in all its parts, was accordingly suppressed, as tending only to lower the specious dignity of his hero.

In short, to adopt the words of an excellent writer who has extended the comparison to a considerable length, we clearly perceive the difference between the genuine narration of Moses himself and the cautious compilation of a remote historian. We find Josephus doing what it is natural every compiler of a history should do, when describing the character of a legislator whom he looked up to with reverence, and when detailing the conduct of his countrymen whom he wished to place in the best light we find him magnifying the talents and virtues of the one, and palliating or excusing the murmurs and idolatries, the obstinacy and crimes, of the other. Now what I contend for is this: that, if the Pentateuch had been compiled by any historian guided by the mere uncontrouled feelings and partialities of the human mind, we should discover them in his describing the character of the man who is represented as the legislator and head of the nation who were the chosen people of God. I could shew by a minute induction, that nothing of this kind occurs in the Pentateuch, and that multiplied instances of it are found in Josephus, who is yet admitted to be an historian of

general veracity and integrity. But I forbear: I trust I have said enough to prove, that the Pentateuch is written with such strict impartiality, as enables us to rely on the truth of its relation even in the most minute particulars.1

VIII. An impostor, as the very term implies, will always have his own interest at heart in the scheme which he seeks to advance: and, since the selfishness of man usually comprizes his own family within its circle, a person of this description will extend his views to the aggrandizement of his children and through them of his remote posterity. Had Moses then been a mere political speculator; we may be sure, from the never varying operations of human nature, that, under the cloak of religion, he would have aimed at a permanent sovereignty.

His conduct however was the very reverse: and, if we may judge from the principles by which every impostor, as an impostor, must be actuated, it is impossible that Moses, acting as he did, could have been a man of that character. Though, in his capacity of God's prophet, and in his quality of an inspired legislator, he was invested with supreme authority: yet he sought not to perpetuate it in his family by that most effectual and most natural of all methods, the proclaiming himself king. As Diodorus observes, while he discharged all the functions of sovereignty, he never assumed the

Graves's Lect. on the four last books of the Pent. vol. i. p. 63, 64.