sary for explaining, correcting, or illustrating the text, or supplying what was wanting in it. But those already mentioned are sufficient to prove the thing; of which interpolations undoubtedly Ezra was the author, in all the books that passed his examination; and Simon the Just, and all the rest that were added afterward: for they all seem to refer to these latter times. But these additions do not detract any thing from the divine authority of the whole, because they were all inserted by the dictate of the same Holy Spirit which dictated all the rest. as to Ezra is without dispute." (No doubt.)

This

Prideaux goes on to show other changes made by Ezra, as Gen. xiv. 14, Abraham is said to have pursued the Kings who carried Lot away captive as far as Dan; whereas that name was not given to Lais till long after the death of Moses, when the Danites possessed themselves of it, and called Dan after the name of their father. And so in several places in Genesis and Numbers mention is made of Hebron; a name given to Kirjath Arba, after Caleb had obtained it in the time of Josh

ua.

Upon all this I have to observe: The rule of argumentation is, that whoever asserts any thing is bound to prove it: for if he had not sufficient proof when he made the assertion, he had no right to make it. Nor does mere assertion constitute valid proof of any thing.

It is asserted, that Ezra compiled or composed the Scriptures: from pre-existing fragments, or dispersed copies, collected for the purpose. I deny this, and demand the proof.

It is said, all these additions and interpolations were inserted by Ezra. I deny this, and demand the proof.

It is said, these Anachronisms are parenthetical insertions necessary for explanation, correction, and illustration. I can see no such necessity: I deny that there is any such in the passages alluded to. Show it.

It is said, that the canonical Ezra was divinely inspired. I deny this, and demand the proof. If the effect of his inspiration was to cast an air of forgery over the whole of his work, as the case is, he was inspired to very little purpose. But he does not pretend to be inspired.

He was assisted (it is said) by the Sanhedrim of 70 of his day; were all these inspired also?

Was Simon Justus and his Sanhedrim of 120, inspired also? For it seems, they added, altered, interpolated, connected, parenthesised, illustrated, and corrected, as well as Ezra.

How comes it these interpolators have so intermingled their own works with the originals, that there are no means of dis

tinguishing which is which? How are we to know the interpolation from the original? Admit them all to be inspired, still the difficulties as to the authorship of Moses remain in full force.

What authority can a book claim, the work of so many authors, compilers, explainers, interpolaters, when the text and the comment are undistinguishably blended?

Is it thus that inspiration works? are doubt, confusion, uncertainty and obscurity the results of it? If it were the work of some uninspired man, it would really be, as it really appears to be, a careless, inaccurate, unsatisfactory, and very bungling compilation.

All these remarks will apply to the following note of Dr. Adam Clarke, in Exod. xvi. 35. "From this verse (says he) it has been supposed that the book of Exodus was not written till after the miracle of the Manna had ceased. But these words might have been added by Ezra, who under the direction of the Divine Spirit, collected and digested the different inspired books; adding such supplementary, explanatory, and connecting sentences, as were deemed proper to complete and arrange the whole of the sacred Canon."

Really these clerical writers seem to think that they have nothing to do but to assert or surmise what is convenient to establish their opinions, and all such their assertions, and surmises are sure to be taken as so many truths! Where does he find the proof that Ezra had any thing to do with the work, unless in the traditions of the Jews, which ought to be taken as true throughout, or rejected throughout? Where does he find proof that there were any different books digested by Ezra? No where. Where does he find the proof that these unknown, unnamed, imaginary books, were inspired? No where. that Ezra was under the direction of the Divine Spirit? No where. The whole of this is bold, unproved, unauthorized, unproveable assertion, which none but a teacher, accustomed to draw largely on the credulity of his ignorant followers, would have the hardihood to advance so positively. Again, I demand of my clerical opponents, not their assertions or surmises, but their proofs: if indeed they have any to give.

It is on the authority of the Jewish traditions mainly, that Ezra is regarded as the author, reviver, and restorer of the Jewish Law. If that tradition be authority in part, it is so in the whole: it is one story; to be taken as it is delivered, together; not piece meal, to suit the particular views of those who apply it. If, as I have urged before, a letter be produced as evidence in a court of justice, the whole letter must be read.

If it be evidence at all, it is equally so throughout, applicable to the whole case for both parties. Under these circumstances, it appears,

That as to the Law of the Jews-the Law of Moses-the Pentateuch and the other books of Old Testament as we now have them we know nothing of their genuineness or authenticity but what depends on the traditions of the Jews themselves, viz: that at or about the return from captivity at Babylon, their scribe Ezra, produced a book and read it to the people as the law of the Lord delivered to their ancestors.

That, how he came by this book, whether he was the author in whole or in part-whether he composed it or compiled it from pre-existing materials diligently hunted up for the purpose what those materials were on what authority they rested-who furnished them-how they happened to survive the total destruction and conflagration under Zedekiah-what were their titles and contents-who wrote them-when were they written--what parts of them were adopted or rejected--are questions, that neither positive or traditionary information pretends to answer in whole or in part.

That, these documents, were arranged, connected, corrected, interpolated, parenthesised, by Ezra and various other learned men composing the Jewish Sanhedrim, from Ezra, to Simon the just; during a course of near 200 years from about 447 to 283 before Christ. What parts of the originals (if any originals there were) were omitted, how much was supplied, added, interpolated, in what parts of the present copies, by whom, and on what grounds and authority, no where appears. All now seems as one regular continuous text.

That, the Jewish doctors, herein followed by the Christian divines, agree without any proof of the fact, that Ezra and these holy men were all divinely inspired and supernaturally aided by the holy spirit in the performance of this enduring work. But I no where find that Ezra and Simon Justus or their assistants ever claimed or pretended to any such divine aid or preternatural inspiration, save the claim in 4th Esdras. A pretence, resting therefore on hypothesis, on unproved, and unauthorised supposition; and in fact, the work itself needed on their part no requisites but accuracy, diligence, faithfulness and honesty; such as men meaning to do their duty could exert if they pleased without inspiration.--Whether they did so or not, we can only judge from the internal evidence furnished by the books themselves.

And finally it appears, that the Law of Moses, as delivered in the books called the Pentateuch, is by common consent of

the Jewish people and their learned men, a part only of the commands given by that national Lawgiver: consisting of such part of what Moses himself wrote, as remained at the time of Ezra, and such part of the verbal commands, or oral law, as the composer or compiler of the Pentateuch, probably Ezra, thought fit to put into a written form; but that the great body of oral interpretative Law, binding upon the Jews equally with what is written, rests even at present in tradition only, and is preserved among the divines, priests and scribes of the Jewish people. The Law of Moses, therefore, is an expression that the Pentateuch cannot explain; for that expression includes much more than appears in the Bible in a written form, viz: all that part of the law which the Levites had in charge to deliver orally to the people. So far as it applies to what is written, it must be confined of course to what remained of the writing of Moses himself at the time of Ezra or Esdras: and it will be seen beyond all doubt, that nothing could have remained in Ezra's time, but the two tablets of stone, and probably not even these: All this fully coincides with the passage in the Apocryphal book of 4th Esdras.

The North American Reviewer of " Horne's Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (1821)" in the 137th page of that review for July 1823, observes in v. 4, p. 4, "Mr. Horne assures us, that nothing is more certain than that Genesis was written; not compiled, or abridged, or altered, or sanctioned, but written by Moses. But can he have forgotten the reference which he himself has made in the first volume to the theories of Astruc and Eichorn? or have been ignorant of the fact, that the origin and authorship of Genesis, are points that for many years have called into exercise the controversial abilities of many eminent men on the continent of Europe? And of course, that a mere assertion on a point of that kind, without argument and proof, ought to go for nothing?"

I would have taken up Horne specifically; but I cannot condescend to argue with an opponent so positive, so reckless, and so orthodox as Mr. Horne. I have no assent to bestow but for laborious accuracy, evidence, and argument; none for assertion even though boldly hazarded by a divine of the church establishment of England. The reviewer above cited, remarks, p. 138, that Mr. Horne makes Adam, Abel, Enoch, Melchisedech, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, the paschal Lamb, the Manna, the Rock in Horeb, the Mercy-seat, the Tabernacle, the Ordinance of the red heifer, the water that issued from the rock, the brazen Serpent, the cities of Refuge,

Joshua, Jonah in the whale's belly, &c. types of the Messiah! I hope I may be excused from entering the lists against such a thorough allegorising Origenist, such a wholesale professor of credulities. I leave him and the Rev. Mr. Grey, the pious commentator on Solomon's Song, and his worthy widow who published them, and the commentators, Henry, Scott, Clarke, et id genus omne, to advance their reveries without hazard of refutation.

In the North American Review, for April, 1826, p. 274, is a learned and able examination of the work of Wm. Gesenius, one of the highest names among the learned of Europe, on the Samaritan Pentateuch (1815) and some other treatises by the same author on subjects connected therewith (1824.) I know of no Hebraist of equal eminence with Gesenius, though as a general linguist, Professor Vater may rank above him.

The Reviewer agrees with Gesenius that the Samaritan Codex was not digested and arranged until the Babylonish captivity, or rather when Manasseh the son of Sanballat went over to Samaria. Gesenius assigns a date not much earlier to the Hebrew Pentateuch; which the more orthodox reviewer attributes to Moses himself,

1. Because the Pentateuch itself ascribes it to Moses.

Answer: I deny that any passage assigns the Pentateuch generally, or any book of it specifically to Moses. The passages referred to, make out no such position. I deny that the Law, the book of the Law, or any such expression applies to any thing more than some few portions of the Pentateuch in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Before the Pentateuch can be cited in proof, the genuineness and authenticity of the Pentateuch itself, must be proved. This is not done yet.

2. Because, the remaining books of Scripture ascribe the Pentateuch or the Jewish Law to Moses.

Answer: The Pentateuch and the Jewish Law are not synonimes. The Law, the Law of Moses, the book of the Law, no where means the Pentateuch. What has Genesis to do

with the Law of Moses?

3. Because, there is indirect testimony to the same point. Answer: That testimony, such as it is, is detailed in p. 286 of the Review: and I object to the reality of his facts in most cases cited, and to his conclusions in all. They are suppositions, and assertions, not proofs, but requiring themselves to be proved. I have no room to write a detailed volume in reply, but to those who have studied the controversy, they will carry no weight. Much of the oral law is probably written in the Pentateuch, but not by Moses; as from Deut. v. to Deut. xxvii. for instance.